Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 58

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

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Comicbookmovie.com

With this edit, I saw that TriiipleThreat removed comicbookmovie.com as a source, citing it as non-WP:Reliable. And with this edit, I saw that Favre1fan93 removed the source as well, for the same reason. Looking at their latest contributions shows that they've been removing this source from a lot of articles. And as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 32#comicbookmovie.com and the use of citizen journalism as reliable sources, whether or not this source is WP:Reliable was discussed here in 2010. I don't see where it yet has been discussed at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, but I've also wondered about its reliability. Seeing it used in so many Wikipedia articles, though, I figured that WP:Film and WP:TV must be okay with its use. TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93 have clearly recently discussed this source, although I haven't yet looked to see where that discussion took place. Maybe this is the time to have an updated, wider discussion about this source? For example, as seen with this edit, Drovethrughosts disagrees with TriiipleThreat's removal of the source because it's an exclusive interview. I happen to agree with Drovethrughosts on that matter; there have been cases at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, where an exclusive interview from a source that is otherwise generally considered unreliable is deemed fine because the interview is exclusive from that website. For such an example, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). I'm going to WP:Ping Viriditas since he was the main opposer to removing the exclusive interview in that case and is a film editor. I'll alert WP:TV to this discussion. And for the record, I don't object to TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93's comicbookmovie.com removals where it's not an exclusive interview. But this type of edit (exclusive interview material) seems questionable. It has also been requested that the source is blacklisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'll also leave a note there about this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As I told Drovethrughosts, if the source is not credible, then we cannot assume that the content is credible. Even if they say it is. Who is to know that the exclusive interview is not fully or partially fabricated or misquoted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I again refer editors to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS), which is a discussion about a source (the Daily Mail) that has been deemed unreliable times over at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and the WP:BLP noticeboard, and yet is deemed okay for certain cases, such as exclusive interviews. And unlike the wide WP:Consensus against the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia, there is no wide WP:Consensus against using comicbookmovie.com as a source on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Its unfair to compare the Daily Mail to comicbookmovie.com (CBM) because unlike CBM, Daily Mail has editorial oversight, even if it is tabloid. It's funny looking back at that discussion you linked, I was originally on the other side of this argument. @Erik, RobertMfromLI, Tenebrae, and Cameron Scott:, who all participated in that discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering that its editorial oversight has been repeatedly considered unreliable and/or dubious by experienced Wikipedians, I think it's very fair to compare this matter to that one, including per what I stated in my "00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)" post below. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I have also alerted Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this would help, but per WP:USEBYOTHERS, we can evaluate how the website is referenced in books here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In order to give newcomers some understanding, CBM has long been considered unreliable by the Comic book films task force because it relies solely on user-generated content. This same principle has been applied to IMDb as a source and self-referencing Wikipedia. While there may or may not have been a community wide discussion (I seem to recall a few) about CBM specifically, it has certainly been discussed locally on numerous occasions on article talk pages and in edit summaries.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding if the article is apparently "exclusive" to Comic Book Movie, but as Triiiple pointed out, the site has not editorial oversight. Per their home page: "We are the #1 comic book movie fansite on the web, and completely user-generated by the FANS! Join our 6 million PLUS community and start contributing!" That right there makes it unreliable. So Flyer22, it is not quite the same as the situation with Daily Mail. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And additionally, I'd say about 98% of the time, CBM "reports" on material that can be sourced from reliable sources. It just happens that users tend to want to use the CBM url instead of the "horse's mouth" source as it were. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to see what other experienced WP:Film and WP:TV editors, and/or editors watching the WP:Reliable sources talk page, have to state about this. I can't agree that we should not use the source for exclusive interviews. This is per the site not having had any issues with its reliability noted in WP:Reliable sources, and per there being a lot of cases on Wikipedia, including the aforementioned one, where a source that is considered unreliable (or generally unreliable) by Wikipedia may used for an exclusive interview. I never stated that this is the same thing as the Daily Mail case, but it's similar. That source has been cited as fabricating whole stories; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Daily Mail. AndyTheGrump, who is currently retired, stated in that discussion, "Exactly - the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' clause is in WP:RS for a reason. No source is always accurate, and no source is never accurate - and accordingly, we have to make a judgement call when looking at a source being cited for something we can't verify elsewhere, based on how generally trustworthy they are. Which is to say a judgement call based on reputation." And yet, even with that source's horrible reputation, that source is still commonly accepted on Wikipedia. And as we can see with the Google Books link Erik pointed to above, comicbookmovie.com is seemingly considered reliable by some WP:Reliable sources. If there were actors and/or actresses stating that comicbookmovie.com fabricated their interviews, I would disregard the source for exclusive interviews. There is none of that for comicbookmovie.com, however; instead, WP:Reliable sources commonly report these comicbookmovie.com interviews as fact or seemingly as fact. Similar goes for other things reported at that site. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The books in Erik's link do not look scholarly or authoritative. And actors/actresses are less likely to go after a self-described fan site like CBM than a major publication like the Daily Mail. Also the sources that re-print information from CBM avoid liability by attributing it to them. Besides the argument against CBM is not based on accuracy but on authorship. Wikipedia has strict guidelines against user-generated content. IMDb can be accurate but we're still not allowed to use it a source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your issue regarding the fact that unreliable sources with exclusives can sometimes be used does not fit here. Yes, that is the case, but as I and Triiiple have pointed out, all articles on CBM, regardless of exclusivity or not, are user generated, which is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. This should be a non-issue questioning this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, there are various books in Erik's link that show WP:Reliable sources citing comicbookmovie.com and treating it as a WP:Reliable source; I checked the publishing company for some of them. So Erik was smart to link to those sources and cite WP:USEBYOTHERS as a basis for linking to them. Those sources do not have to look or be authoritative; they only need to be WP:Reliable as far as this case goes. Given some of those sources, I also gather that we define "scholarly" differently. Furthermore, as made very clear by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts, and by the aforementioned archived discussions, our sourcing guidelines (guidelines, not policies) are not as strict as you two are making them out to be. And since it's only you two so far stating that we can't use comicbookmovie.com for exclusive interviews, I will likely take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or start a WP:RfC on it for wider input. For now, as I've stated before, I await other opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm notifying the following users who work within the Comic book films task force and may wish to comment and/or be aware of this discussion: @Richiekim, Sock, and Adamstom.97: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

On that note, and given what TriiipleThreat stated above about that WikiProject, I definitely think that this discussion needs a wider audience. So after waiting for others to comment, I will be taking this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or starting a WP:RfC on it, making sure to word things neutrally; that is, if no one beats to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You already posted a notice at WT:IRS, please don't exhaust our efforts by WP:FORUMSHOPping.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't already "post a notice there" (good that you corrected your comment). I posted a notice at the WP:Reliable sources talk page, which is different, and clearly no one there is yet willing to weigh in on this dispute. In fact, the many editors watching this dispute via their WP:Watchlists are leaving it to three editors so far. I've been explicitly clear why this discussion needs a wider audience. Two or a few editors stating that we should not use a source for exclusive interviews because it's unreliable or user-generated, despite the fact that the source is treated as reliable by WP:Reliable sources and doesn't appear to have fabricated any of its interviews, does not cut it. If you consider me taking this matter to the WP:Reliable source noticeboard, where discussions like this should be had, a WP:FORUMSHOPing violation, you are more than free to report me on that. In addition to the WP:Reliable book sources that seemingly trust comicbookmovie.com, comicbookmovie.com interviews are cited by online sources that pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline for certain content, such as this and this slashfilm.com source, and this Mstars News source. These facts, and that celebrities, writers and directors seem to trust this source, and that this source does not have any sort of bad reputation, should factor into any decision regarding its use on Wikipedia. To throw away these interviews, which most certainly seem to be the real deal, is silly to me. So, in a few minutes, I will be taking this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. This particular matter has only been discussed in one place so far: This WikiProject. Now it will be discussed in the wider forum. Of course, discussing it there won't help if those weighing in are mainly a bunch of film editors who are against the source being used at all without truly considering the points I or others bring up on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't even been 24 hours, give it sometime. Re-arguing the same points is exhausting. You can easily turn this discussion into a RfC, or post a link at the noticeboard. I'm not against a wider audience but don't try to wear us down.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?. A WP:Permalink is here. And I'm not trying to wear you down. I'm a WP:Film editor as well, and commonly participate in discussions here and at MOS:FILM. Obviously, we aren't always on the same side, except for the fact that we all want to improve Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Only commenting here on technical terms - Blacklisting does not mean that a site cannot be used at all anymore - there is always the whitelist (MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist), where specific links that pass a bar can be whitelisted. We do that with examiner.com, for example - Most of the content of that site is unreliable, scraped, posted there to make money for the poster, etc. etc., and replaceable with better sources. However, there is unique content available, and edits sometimes do make a case for having a specific document on examiner.com whitelisted as there is no alternative. If there is consensus here that blacklisting is the best option (in principle the blacklist is not meant for unreliable sources, it is meant for abused links - this seems more a case of misused links. But a community consensus by knowledgeable editors, like here 'film people' about a 'film site', could override that), then blacklisting could be performed followed by selective whitelisting of the unique material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: would you be open to this? Whitelist specific links based on its individual merit since the exclusive interviews that you mention are only a fraction of the website's content and like the examiner.com the vast majority of the content can be replaced by more reputable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would be okay with that. And good on Beetstra (Dirk Beetstra) for pointing out that option. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Beetstra raises some important points here - specifically that this does not appear to be a case of abusive spamming of links; rather that it is misused links - consequently, I do not concur that this is an appropriate use of the spam blacklist. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: The area between misuse and abuse is grey .. a significant (good faith) misuse is an 'abuse' of Wikimedia servers. Moreover, significant misuse can cause disruption (significant work for other editors to check and verify whether something is worthy of inclusion, cleanup sloppy or untrue stuff, having unreliable and untrue information on Wikipedia), and these administrative measures would be a solution to that disruption. I would invoke WP:IAR here, if blacklisting to avoid the misuse is resulting in a better Wikipedia, then that would fall in the scope. However, I do think that blacklisting such a link should have community backup, and that does seem to be the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For any editors joining the conversation, I'd like to point out that the site was used close to 600 times on Wikipedia (including User, File, Talk and Wikipedia article spaces), and part of Triiiple's request to blacklist it, was to remove all uses in (at least) the mainspace. The number is around 200 now, and you can see all current uses here. So based on those original numbers, I'd definitely say it was 'abuse' of adding the site, which was (I believe) one of the reasons TriiipleThreat approached the blacklisting in the first place. And I also agree, that if blacklisted, we could whitelist certain URLs if deemed necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 and others, I just stated the following at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: "JzG, as you may have seen, this matter is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. So far, the discussion is leaning toward support for using this source for exclusive interviews. My concern is that if it's blacklisted, it will make it more difficult for this source to be used for exclusive interviews. A lot of Wikipedia editors, especially less experienced ones, don't even know about Wikipedia blacklisting and whitelisting. And once a source is blacklisted here, a good case has to be made for getting it whitelisted or an aspect of it whitelisted. An administrator here might feel that an exclusive interview is not enough. At the same time, I understand TriiipleThreat's concern about use of this source, and I don't think it should be used for anything other than exclusive interviews on Wikipedia. Maybe there is a way that you can blacklist the general URLs for this site, but not the type that would pertain to exclusive interviews?" Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm replying to you at the Blacklist talk for conversation consistency. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pan (2015 film)

Thoughts re: this edit? Seems like another loophole in the 'starring roles are determined by the poster billing block' guideline at Template:Infobox film. Levi Miller appears at the top of the theatrical poster. He plays Pan. Amanda Seyfried does not appear at the top of the poster, but she does get a credit in the billing block where Levi Miller does not. Should we exclude Levi Miller because he does not appear in the billing block? Or should we go by the top-of-poster billing, and then tack on Amanda Seyfried who is the only significant difference between the top of the poster and the bottom? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Common sense should prevail: the actor playing the title character should be included. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

JasonAQuest, grateful for your response, thank you. In a situation where billing blocks determine starring order, would you put Miller at the beginning or the end of the list? My instinct would be at the end, because although he is the title character, the studio had to negotiate for the billing block credits, and superseding that seems counter-intuitive, even if we're using common sense. Like, once we employ our own billing order, we're into WP:OR territory. For precedent, we have Template:Infobox television, which lists starring cast by original credit order (the billing block?) and then adds additional "starring" to the end of the list. Not a perfect system, but close to what might make sense: Billing block + the lead kid. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't find common sense to be counter-intuitive; that's why it's called "common sense". Frankly, slavishly following Hollywood's laughably idiosyncratic approach billing is worse than OR: it's letting the subject dictate the content of the article. For example, if someone's agent somehow gets him top billing for a cameo, are we going to list him as the star of the movie, even though everyone knows he isn't? I should hope not. If there's a precedent that says to do that, it's a bad precedent, and the sooner it's dismissed as a bad idea, the better. I haven't seen this movie, so I can't answer this, but: Who is the lead actor? List that person first. If it isn't intuitively obvious (it usually is) and a disagreement among editors breaks out, then look to independent reliable sources to settle it... not the producers of the film. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what precisely is being asked, but Hugh Jackman gets top billing [1], followed by Hedlund, Mara, and Miller. Since Seyfried does appear on the poster, she should be listed in the cast list and infobox. But Jackman should be the first listed in the infobox and cast list. Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please address my above concerns about the fundamental COI problem with this "rule" before making further edits to WP articles. Letting the production studios dictate the contents of articles is a really bad precedent. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Resident Evil"

FYI, there's a proposal to rename the category "Resident Evil films" to "Resident Evil (film series)", see WP:CFDS.

This category currently contains the Paul WS Anderson films, and the unrelated animated films. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been resolved as a split -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Grouping films in Albert Pyun's navbox

Recently I separated films in Template:Albert Pyun into groups by decade. User Robsinden reverted my edit, explaining on Template talk:Albert Pyun that grouping by decade was against consensus. But in this particular case, I think that grouping by decade greatly helps legibility, and there are unfortunately no better criteria by which to group Pyun's films (even his article groups his work by decades). Daß Wölf (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have commented at the template's talk page and encourage other editors to comment there as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet Movie Firearms Database?!

I've never heard of this site before, until this edit on an article on my watchlist (template IMFDb title added in ex. links). Then I looked at the actual link in the template. This is obviously another wiki project. Any thoughts/guidance on if this is an acceptable template to have on here? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Same as IMDB. There are also film locations databases around.

It's a highly valuable source for researching articles. However it has the problem of user generated content. If you read it and then either follow a good source there, or can separately confirm the claim, then it's great. On its own, it's a self-published source from Randy in Boise. Whether you'd add that depends on the claim, the lack of anything else, or the depth of coverage there. Sometimes there will be things where it explains in great detail that the anachronistic shortness of the rifle barrels in some epic are because the studio armourer bought a load of cheap carbines from the Khasi of Kalabar's defunct cavalry. That sort of thing, which is not an exceptional claim, can stay IMHO.

Mostly I'd say "Use judgement", but this is WP and bureaucracy is so much simpler for the mall cops to exercise. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over Cowboy Bebop: The Movie inclusion in Category:TriStar Pictures animated films

There is an ongoing dispute over whether Cowboy Bebop: The Movie should be included in Category:TriStar Pictures animated films. FilmandTVFan28 has stated that multiple reliable sources are wrong that Columbia TriStar acquired the English distribution rights for the film. The proof he offers is its absence from List of TriStar Pictures films, its IMDb database entry, and a film poster (which incidentally has the TriStar logo on it). The discussion is at Talk:Cowboy Bebop: The Movie#TriStar Pictures. —Farix (t | c) 14:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity articles with no image

I'm looking for celebrity articles with no image. The more famous the better. I am trying to find artists to create portraits of notable individuals where a photo has thus far been unavailable. If you know of such articles that get big page hits, please let me know.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts#Resident sketch artist

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Producer with few credits as occupation

Some here may want to comment at Talk:Cate Blanchett#Occupation, particularly those with an opinion of listing uncredited or executive producers in an infobox or lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, more input is needed for a consensus on this. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

AFD: Andria D'Souza

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andria D'Souza - Indian cinema actor. May have 2 lead roles in her filmography. Does that qualify for WP:NACTOR? Discuss! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleared the entire GA Review backlog for Films

Thank you all to all our editors who help to contribute to Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia related to WP:FILM.
I've helped to clear the entire GA Review backlog for Films, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
I'd like to make a suggestion, here, which is optional, for you to please consider:
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Biohazard film series

FYI, I have a draft article up for submission, see Draft:Biohazard (film series) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Set index article for Steve Jobs films

There is a discussion about Steve Jobs (film), a set index article listing films named after Steve Jobs. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Madiha Shah

Madiha Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some recent edits broke the above article. I tried to investigate but I can't tell whether the sources I found are reliable or are merely copied from Wikipedia. A complication is that the the broken edit hid "Madiha Shah, was born as Rubina Butt" which first glance suggests would be a good idea ... but sources appear to support "Butt". Would someone familiar with the genre please fix. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, I'm not at all familiar with the subject or the genre, but I took a big stab at fixing the article. Still lots of problems for lack of sourcing. It's got a lot of CN tags, and needs a much TLC, but it's certainly better than the version that described her as "Iconic,persona, diva, legendary star and roll model". Many of the sources out there, as you noted, look like they were just mirroring Wikipedia. Yet another complication. Oh wells! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth (2015 film)

The article for this controversial film needs more editors watching, particularly for POV edits. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see dispute with Gothicfilm over possibly giving undue weight to one person's view in the CBS response section of article: discussion here. Lapadite (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography

I have nominated Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember I promised to delist you last? I lied. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet Horror Movie Database at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

spam articles created. Are these notable?

All created by single purpose accounts. Dream Focus 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I added Lost on Mars and Empire of Danger to List of films set on Mars due to this mentioning both, but looking at each topic individually, I am not finding significant coverage for either. We could propose deletion for these? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus and others reading, Empire of Danger was deleted in the past (AfD), so I speedied it. I had proposed it for deletion after finding that I could not establish notability, and the template notified me of the AfD that was not identified on the talk page. I am finding the same lack of notability for Lost on Mars, so I've proposed it for deletion (no prior AfD). I have not looked at the organizations' articles, being more familiar with films, but if no one else follows up, I can see what I can find. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I prodded Westfield Entertainment for being obvious spam, no reliable sources proving it was notable. Not sure what sources might be reliable in those listed at Pro-Active Entertainment Group though. Dream Focus 23:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus, Scantunl removed the proposed deletion template as seen here, stating, "Object to the deletion. Ref jg-tc, several other articles are substantial. Feel this is a deletion request based on Erilk favoring the Martian movie article he contributed too. Noticed this page has been up for three years with no backlash." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominated the article for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on Mars. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Awards section at Serenity (film)

I've been doing a (very slow) clean-up of Serenity (film) and the single most frustrating thing is the awards section. Since the list isn't long, I've been thinking of converting it to prose, rather than a list or a table, but conversion isn't the problem. I'm not overly concerned about references; I did a quick sweep and finding references or archives for the dead links is simple. The problem is, I know that non-notable awards should be pruned out, but when I look at that list to do the pruning I kind of scream internally and click out of the article. Obviously, the Nebula Award for Best Script and Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation are notable, very much so. If I were to make a guess, I'd guess the Prometheus Award is notable, and the Film 2005 accolade merits inclusion. And I am vaguely thinking the SFX accolade is notable, but my feeling on it is mostly doubt. The Box Office Prophets and User Tomato are going out, I am 95% positive. The rest--FilmFocus, IGN, Spacey Awards, and SyFy Genre Awards--I'm unsure about; I have doubts, lots of them, but I feel I don't know enough to convince myself to make a decision I'm confident in. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, not WP:N, is the policy/guideline you should care about. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Easy solution = convert it to paragraph form instead of list, and it's small enough amount of info to do that. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood filmography

I have nominated Clint Eastwood filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Wyndham Paul Wise and film critic Wyndham Wise

Wyndham Paul Wise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These are the same person in my mind. I've dropped a couple of notes on their talkpage about writting summaries for films, etc, but he choses to ignore them. For example, this was added to an article. Clearly written by the film critic (not a problem as such), but full of crap like "This marvellously observed, slow-paced film" added straight into the article. Has anyone come across something similar to this before? Are there any specific noticeboards for this type of issue, apart from WP:ANI? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for offering the user some guidance. But please, please take it easy a bit. Describing someone's writing as "crap" is unnecessary, and getting their cooperation become less likely after seeing comments like that. You left a message yesterday - is it possible that the user has simply yet to reply, rather "choosing to ignore it"? The Interior (Talk) 17:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Check the diffs again. I posted on the 16th after reverting one of his edits. The follow up post on their talkpage was triggered by more rubbish being added to articles after my initial post. I'll leave it to you then to trawl through his edit history and cleanup all the mess. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go to ANI or COIN. He's clearly helping out; he just needs a bit of friendly guidance to adjust his writing to be more in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I think we could really use his expertise in Canadian films. Worst case is that we go through and copy-edit some of his prose to fit our standards better. It's not the end of the world. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Northpole

I deleted the reception section as the tone was horribly biased. Im not sure if it was a case of an actual bias by the editor, or if the intent was to cite verbatim a critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.168.94 (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it, it was in need of a brief re-write to state that these were critics' opinions and paraphrase them better, but the material itself was cited to a few good sources. In future I'd suggest using an orange tag like {{copy edit-section}} or {{cleanup-film}} with a note here or on the article's talk page; that raises the concern without "hiding" material that someone else may have fixed had they seen it. GRAPPLE ^X 08:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Film is not prominent enough for RT to list reviews, but here are a few I found: New York Daily News, Variety, and Los Angeles Times (last one was referenced in the article before removal but lacked a URL). Referencing all of these would probably be balance enough. No need to claim a group consensus; just present each review individually and convey the appropriate tone for each. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From The Doctor to my son Thomas - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.

The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl at FAC

Tank Girl (film), which is under the scope of this project, is at FAC. All comments on the nomination are welcome – see here. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Genre changes by Taeyebaar

After laying off for a while, Taeyebaar, the genre warrior of 2013 is back, relentlessly changing multiple film article leads. He often deprives readers of any link to the science fiction film article, which is in pretty good shape, and instead sends them to various subgenre articles that he prefers. He has also twice hit The Martian (film) in the last three days, returning after being reverted. He is now edit warring at Honey I Shrunk the Kids in an attempt to replace science fiction film and comedy film with comedy science fiction, which is basically just a list with a brief introduction. Nowhere near as useful as the science fiction film article. He has also removed the science fiction category from some articles. In the last several months before returning to film genre changing, Taeyebaar was the subject of discussions on his disruption at other articles, one of which was given the heading Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar. He'll have days, sometimes weeks, go by with no editing. But then he's back. I spent a lot of time reverting this guy two years ago, trying to protect the primary genre of the films involved. Note that Taeyebaar has admitted socking in the past, and has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him (myself included), and he has been warned about that in the past. I would appreciate some help, and ask others to keep an eye on his activity. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm is a POV pushing editor who frequently violates WP:OWN primarily on Planet of the Apes films and other articles on his personal liking (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and has just received a warning after being reported for edit warring after during an article discussion [2] and is suspected of using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. His (or her) accusations are without merit as I did NOT change the link to science fiction film, but shortened it to science fiction because it would repeat the word film in the lead twice. Gothicfilm also tries to dissuade other editors he does not agree with by baiting and harassing them.

The outdated ANI report GF is referring to is deliberately misleading because it was started by a suspected employee of a company which disagreed with my edits. The suspected editor also edit warred and was later banned. Among the accusations in that outdated ANI report accused me of "banning" editors I didn't agree with which was nothing but a lie and pointed out by several uninvolved editors--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There were multiple editors at that ANI who complained about Taeyebaar. It turned out one he warred with was a sock, but that did not excuse his behavior, especially since he admitted to socking himself. And once again Taeyebaar now jumps forward making accusations of socking against me, claiming suspected of using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Absolutely no one expressed such a suspicion except Taeyebaar, and the fact he tries to make it sound like there was anyone else involved shows how his account of things is not to be taken as truth. The IPs at Honey I Shrunk the Kids were not me. I have never used a sock. There was an edit against what I had done at Truth (2015 film) by an IP that had almost no editing history. I could have easily accused it of being a sock, as it was in line with another editor, but I withheld making any charges because I did not know. Here Taeyebaar went to the trouble to delete my posting from a Talk page discussion he wasn't even involved with. Apparently he thought better of it because he then reverted himself. He claims he doesn't remove the primary sci-fi link. This is just one of many, many edits where Taeyebaar removed the link to science fiction film and replaced it with one of his preferred subgenres. Here he changes The Matrix (franchise) to soft science fiction, which is more a category of scientific accuracy than a genre. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the above accusations I am currently working/studying so for me to be on and off Wikipedia as I soon will be normal. I don't see what policy I violate.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar, WP:FILMLEAD says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". This is to prevent mash-ups where it is too easy to add one genre after another in the opening sentence when it needs to be verifiable (and thus straightforward). We have the rest of the lead section to illustrate the film's premise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK but I have seen a number of articles use that. However whenever a film is more than one genre, I have seen people use for example science fiction, XXX. And yes I did that as per mashup to avoid repeating the word film twice.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are many more film articles than there are editors. :) We cannot curate all of these articles, but in my experience, the ones that become Good or Featured Articles have a simpler presentation of genres. I also find multiple genre-linking a little confusing per WP:EGG, where a "science fiction" link like yours could be linking to science fiction or science fiction film. If there is an article about a specific sub-genre, great, but otherwise I find mash-ups to be a poor practice. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Easy fix. Follow Erik and his advice for the WP:FILMLEAD sect. Then, create a well-sourced sect for the article, called Genre and/or Themes, with scholarly academic commentary from peer-reviewed sources, and you can use those sub-links in that sect. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant MOS guidelines would be WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE, both of which would seem to favor "comic science fiction film" over "science fiction comedy film". But I think we should generally avoid edit warring over genre. I don't think it's terribly important whether we describe something as a thriller film or heist film, as long as we avoid listing more than two main genres ("drama action thriller heist film" is genre salad). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like SPECIFICLINK is referring to hard facts, like geographical locations, etc. Not debatable subjects like subgenres. It was not intended to take readers to the substandard comic science fiction article-list over the science fiction film article. As the top of the MOS says, we should "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". The same applies to SEAOFBLUE, though I agree there should not be several genres in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Production designer removed from film article

Vmars22 removed the production designer and the cinematographer from the Production section of Truth (2015 film) with this edit, saying Removal of the cinematographer already listed in filmography box, production designer is irrelevant to production box. Perhaps we need to re-establish consensus that the opposite is true. Production designers are not in the infobox, but we encourage giving them credit in the article, along with other primary personnel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ohh! I didn't know, I apologize. I will re-add. Vmars22 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Independence Day sequels section

The sequels section to the page Independence Day (1996 film) is unwieldy, bloated and sloppy. Would somebody like to condense and clean it up? Otherwise, I fear the article will be at risk of losing its Good Article status. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Independence Day: Resurgence exists, there does not need to be a substantial "Sequel" section. What I usually do when I fork content is update the new article's lead section, then copy that lead section to the original article and tweak it somewhat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I was about to comment a similar thing. I just went through and cut out most of the news report-sounding updates of the sequel development as it's covered in the Resurgence article. Though as my edit summary indicated, a more elegant clean-up is needed. I made a conservative pruning as I'm not well versed in how sequel sections when a sequel actually exists should be handled exactly. But I do know it should be shorter than it was. Really, I see some other portions that are cause for concern in the article, and I'm concerned about the by the minute reporting in the sequel's article. It should be rewritten because the constant 'on this date, X' isn't appropriate, really. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As much as I adore Independence Day, there are certainly other elements of the article that put it at risk of losing its Good Article status. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Dark Fields

RM discussion is still ongoing; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

List of box office bombs

I was wondering if we could get some third-party input at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs#The_problem_with_original_research. Basically, the problem with the article is that it is shit. It has been deleted once, reincarnated and survived its second AfD, and pretty much everybody accepts it cannot be allowed to remain in its current form, but discussions about improving it always fall apart. Anyway I have put together a potential prototype at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs#Prototype but once again the discussion to move forward does not seem to be going anywhere. It doesn't have to be the solution I have proposed but we need a permanent solution in place. I am literally open to anything at this stage. I could AfD it again but I think it would be a waste of time because there is no escaping the fact it satisfies notability. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested

Resolved

– Editor has been blocked; permanent link to ANI thread. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

at Talk:Greaser's Palace#"Cult film". BMK (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is more extensive than that one film, as the editor is removing "cult film" from every film article in which it appears. See this on AN/I. Help would be appreciated in reverting his reverts of my reverts of his removals. BMK (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Straight off the block and goes right back to removing the same content. Now blocked for 2 weeks... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Buddy Rogers (actor)#Requested move 21 October 2015

The above link is to a proposal for renaming the main title header Buddy Rogers (actor) so that it would show Charles "Buddy" Rogers. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

lawn Movie

My question is about this Wonderful Movie: Why is it not whoeing in every Theater in USA, I know a little bit, (why) is simple, becasue is part of FReligion's movie it is very very sad here in California the norhter part, that has became very empty place, when it comes to believing in something, I am not a fanatic in every matter of the life, but I lost my Country to a comunims do to we stop believing in GOD, and however, thye show movies in theaters, that don't have contents, I went to see gthis Movie Woodlawn, and I love it, as soon as it comes on DV's, I will buy it will show it to my grand kds, one this that I love on this movie, if the new generation in this Country, sees this movie, will bring out on them, the sentimental part in their soul, I am very upset, that this movie it is not showin every where.

I want to contratulate Mr. Sean Astin, I wish coult get in touch with him, to sent him some lines, I saw him in a movie Rudy and is I still remember jus like I saw it yesterday, I bought teh Video and I will the DV's of Woodlwan too, I also want to congfratulate Mr Nic Bishop, very good performing, also the young actor, excelent performing too, Caleb as Tony Nathan, I hope I will get some lines back for this comemet, and also hope I will excuse for my writting in English, I am from Cuba, unidos@aol.com

Thank you very much.

Jose Ricabal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C801:40F1:C869:94B3:3252:81EC (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jose! I assume you are referring to Woodlawn (film). Doing some research, this says Woodlawn was released in 1,533 theaters, which is a wide release. Blockbuster films used to be over 2,000 theaters in the United States and now go over 3,000. Not sure if you have had the chance, but you can access the film's official website here, and it appears to have a lot of good resources for fans of the movie. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You could also comment about the movie on its Facebook page here; it looks like some people are getting replies from those operating the Facebook page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight article about online movie ratings

FiveThirtyEight's article Be Suspicious Of Online Movie Ratings, Especially Fandango’s is a good read. While it focuses on Fandango, it mentions Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (especially in the footnotes). This is not directly applicable to film articles, but I think this illustrates the importance of explaining RT and MC's methodologies each and every time their scores are referenced per WP:BALANCE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like, from the article, that Rotten Tomatoes is the single most accurate. — Cirt (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should come up with some boilerplate text that could be generally applied when utilizing such scores in articles? DonIago (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There already was a boilerplate somewhere once, Template:Rotten Tomatoes score, but it now appears to be broken and not in use anymore. :( — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen WP:RTMC referenced in a long time, but it has (very outdated) language under "Critical response" that I originally intended to do just that. The most recent language I've personally used is at The Martian (film)#Critical response, but there has been some push-back about such language being too detailed. I think the detail is necessary, but I'm not sure if the consensus exists to accept that and standardize the language. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the language you used at The_Martian_(film)#Critical_response is perfect, actually. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Some credit to Betty Logan for that; she shaved off some redundancy to tighten up the language. Related discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the MOS could be bulked up with a "suggestion" for appropriate language. Revisiting the template to see whether it could be salvaged might also be worthwhile. I think asking general editors to read an essay regarding how to handle the language may be more than they'd be willing to commit to (actually, I suspect we'll regularly need to clean up the language in any case, but I'm trying to retain some optimism...). I'm happy to help with any concerns regarding the specific language incorporated into any such suggestion. DonIago (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think an example or two, or perhaps an exaplanation also of how RT and MC aggregate scores, would be a good addition to the MOS. I also do agree that the wording in The Martian is great. (I may go through the film articles I'm working on and implement something extremelt similar.) I'm wondering: does anyone know of similar aggregate sites for other media? I think RT does shows now? Is this something that would be relevant for other projects to consider? (Or is that meddlesome?) ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we have a consensus to support specific wording for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, we could put it in MOS:FILM#Critical response. (I also think that we should retire the "Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics" subsection since I do not believe anyone makes this distinction anymore. Maybe it could just be something more summarized to go in the "Notes" section at the end.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the second infographic, Metacritic looks the most "honest" in what you expect from an unbiased statistical distribution. I bet most films don't get the bottom rating and most don't get the top, so on a five star rating system you would expect most films to get 2–4 stars. Metacritic is the only one which conforms to this distribution (the bulk of its reviews in the 1.5–4.0 range). All the user ratings seem to skew high as you would expect from a system that facilitates vote stacking, but the distribution for the RT critics score is anomalous: are we really to believe there are more 5-star films than 3-star films? The RT critics score is very flat, more or less evenly distributed across the whole range, which I think is due to its binary grading system. This highlights the inherent flaw in RT's system: in any fair rating system you would expect the weight of the distribution to be centered around the mean, but only the Metacritic critics score conforms to that expectation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should consider an RfC (I don't think a basic consensus here would necessarily be sufficient) on discouraging the inclusion of RT scores? It kind of sounds like that's what you're suggesting. Obviously there's no point in coming up with suggested text for the Critical Reception section until we're sure what aggregators we consider appropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt we could do without RT scores. It is a pretty common reference in Wikipedia articles, much like having IMDb as an external link. RT is constantly reported in periodicals, so it would be difficult to leave it out. I do think we have the opportunity to report it well (and better than most sources do). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is more to do with how the study interprets the RT score, and it is something we see time and time again on film articles. Whereas you can equate an MC score (which is a weighted averaged of critic scores) of 70 with 7/10, a 70% RT score does not equate that way i.e. it is not a representation of a film's quality. The RT score basically counts the percentage of "recommends", so there is no real reason why you would have more films that split critics (i.e. 50%) than films than unite critics (i.e. 0% or 100%). That is why the distribution is uniform. If you take Mad Max Fury Road for instance, a 97% RT score equates to 5/5 on a rounded 5-star scale; however, we can see that the average critics rating is only 8.7/10, or 4 stars on a rounded scale. Basically if most critics give a film 4 stars then that's why it gets an almost perfect RT score, because most critics have recommended it. The study would have been better plotting the alternative RT average rating since that is the metric that grades the film. I don't think we should drop the RT score but this study does help highlight our misuse of the score: the RT score is not indicative of quality, it is indicative of approval. We need to make sure that this is clear when we give the RT score, so that a 100% score is not necessarily interpreted as the majority of critics giving it top marks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no desire to strike a deceased equine, but I'm not sure whether I should take the lack of further comments here as a lack of desire to move forward on the matter or read it in another manner. I still think boilerplate text would be a good idea, but especially based on Betty's concerns I'm uncertain how to proceed and unlikely to do so solo. DonIago (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, again with the dead horse thing, but despite there not being any more moves on this, I did make the suggestion at the currently running Tank Girl FAC that an edit of this sort be considered for addition into the article (wow, that phrasing is awkward), linking to this discussion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Everyone, please check out Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library! This is a great resource where Wikipedia editors can request access to databases to use for building this encyclopedia. I received access to EBSCO a little while ago and just got access to Project MUSE today. I encourage others to get access too. Otherwise, feel free to ask me to look up certain topics or keywords in either database! Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Excellent, wonderful, amazing resource. Invaluable. — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. I struggled to find access to enough academic sources to complete my first GA. The Wikipedia Library made all that easy. The Wikipedia Library offers access to Cineaste through JSTOR, which is a hugely useful resource for anyone that wants to take a film-related article to GA or FA. You should also request access to Highbeam Research if you intend to work in AfD, as it has many archived film reviews. If you work in niche areas, you should look at what McFarland & Company can offer. When I joined their program, they graciously offered three e-books for free per year. I was able to improve coverage of countless films, and using their film criticism books allowed me to create many more articles. It is very rewarding to expand an article that had previously languished as a stub for years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A little help

I've helped to clear the backlogs at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
It previously looked something like this ----> and now looks something like this.
But there's still two (2) nominations there at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama -- that I cannot review myself. :)

Any help would be appreciated. :)

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nollywood

There is currently a discussion at the Nollywood talk page about whether the contents of Nollywood should be merged into Cinema of Nigeria on the basis that the term 'Nollywood' is registered as a trademark in the United States. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Another "genre in the lead" discussion

This has probably been beat to death over the years, but there's another discussion about the use of genres in the lead at Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. Originally, the discussion is debating whether or not to include Star Wars films in the epic genre, but it has evolved into the larger concern of whether or not we should be using vague terms or listing multiple genres in the lead. Personally, I feel that the primary genre associated with a film should be the lead's focus, and if any further discussion on its genre is warranted, then it should be tackled in a section or sub-section within the article's body. If you feel inclined to weigh in, please do, as additional feedback would be appreciated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Considering this and recent discussions, it may be worth expanding the wording of the guidelines for better clarification on best practices. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just kill genres in a fire and be done? GRAPPLE ^X 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be nice! LOL --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I think the ongoing problem with "verifiably classified" is that it is usually possible to find one, two, or a small handful of sources that have classified a film in a particular genre. However, when an overwhelming majority don't use that classification, it becomes a difficult scenario to either justify or oppose its inclusion in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to recall what "verifiably classified" was originally intended to mean. In a way, anything said by a secondary source is better than a mashup of genres that is done by one editor or is genre-creep by multiple editors over time. Of course, different sources will describe films in different ways. The guidelines, IMO, try to say to pick the most common genre or sub-genre among the sources. We could go further and also require that the genre/sub-genre be notable on Wikipedia. I created gothic romance film for Crimson Peak to basically try to overcome the genre issue for that film (and learned plenty in the process). Might be good incentive to evaluate film genre articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Principally agree with Erik here. Also, with so much discussion and debate, I'm surprised no single editor or editor(s) has attempted to write a well-sourced Genres subsection of the article, to present scholarly and academic discussion of such. I'm sure there's plenty of coverage of this particular topic in peer-reviewed academic journals. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Which article are you referring to? Crimson Peak or a more general topic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film, but great work you've done at Gothic romance film !!! — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a good point that a lot of material obviously exists out there, so it is somewhat surprising. However, I think the main point here is that unless such a section exists in the article's body, the lead should opt to use a high-level genre as opposed to a sub-genre to help avoid disagreements. In this situation, space opera may technically be OK, but it is a sub-genre nevertheless. Wouldn't it just be easier to decide which high-level genres are acceptable for the lead (making a list similar to the one here), and then recommending in the style guidelines to choose from this list when editors disagree on the use of a sub-genre? Having something to fall back on would certainly cut down on the constant rehashing of this topic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think choosing genre or sub-genre depends on the film. Sub-genres can be obvious branches of main genres, like black comedy or screwball comedy, or it can be a non-obvious sub-genre, like disaster film being under action film (per your filmsite.org link). As for your proposed list, why not have list of film genres (currently a redirect)? We only have list of genres and film genre (the latter which has a small list). A stand-alone list would be good for readers and editors alike. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Joy (film)

TheRedPenOfDoom still insists days later, possibly weeks, that the release date is requiring "Scheduled for [date]." Could please close this discussion already? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is clear - we do not present a future event as if it has actually happened. What can be verified is that there is a scheduled release date. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This approach is pedantic. We already use this language in prose, and I find that sufficient. Not to mention that it is a long-time practice. Please discuss if you want to see about a revised consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Tenebrae actually pretty much closed the deal when I initially opened the discussion here. Guess that was not enough. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikiproject film feels that many of the Wikipedia policies and practices dont apply to them, but that doesnt mean that the project gets to opt out. The inclusion of "scheduled" for events that have not happened is more accurate, more encyclopedic and more in line with policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe that about WikiProject Film? It would help to cite infobox precedent elsewhere. Do album articles do this? Do book articles? Etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Erik that adding 'scheduled' to the infobox is pedantic. 2020 Summer Olympics and Dystopia (Megadeth album), to pick two examples I could immediately think of, have in their infobox an unaccompanied date, and in the lead of the article itself say "are planned" and "due for release". In that way, the articles, and similarly the Joy article with its chosen "is scheduled for" fall in line with crystal. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It goes without saying that a date in the future is a scheduled date. That's why nobody says it. "Wikiproject film feels that many of the Wikipedia policies and practices dont apply to them, but that doesnt mean that the project gets to opt out" Maybe you would like to read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The prose takes care of that. The infobox on the other hand doesn't use "scheduled for". Most content in articles on unreleased things can change, including the talent involved dropping out; we don't state "set to direct" or "set to star" next to the director or an actor listed in the infobox because they could in the future drop out of the project. The infobox highlights key content, it's not meant to be pedantic. It's also common sense to readers that a scheduled release date can change, and editors will update the article if it happens. Lapadite (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with the consensus on this, and since I had inadvertently put my contribution to the discussion at the Joy talk page, I wanted to add it here since I thought it was important to support the basis for, though not the execution of, RedPen's point. Basically it's what Lapadite explains. Here's what I wrote:

I wanted to say I agree with Erk's edit and Callmemirela's stance, although I understand the essence of TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's point, and I think all these veteran editors of good faith are actually of one mind. Let me explain.

Yes, per WP:CRYSTAL, the announced release date of a movie could change for many reasons, with some films having been postponed even at the last minute due to a news event that might make the film's release problematic, like a school shooting occurring the same week a film about a similar topic was to be released. So saying "scheduled release date" in prose is exactly right.

But with infoboxes and filmography lists, it's redundant to say "scheduled" since we're giving a future date: Of course it's scheduled ... how could it be anything else, since it hasn't happened yet? In an infobox or a filmography list, a verifiably, officially announced future event is, by definition, scheduled. So saying "scheduled" isn't necessary. (And secondarily, verified and cited prose confirms "scheduled".)

From what I can see, both Call and RedPen are correct in the essence of WP:CRYSTAL. The only difference between them is grammatical. Yes, the infobox date is a scheduled one. But for the reasoning above, in this non-prose seeing, it's redundant to say "scheduled." My two cents. --Tenebrae (talk)

I don't see how there is anything "less predictive" or "more implied" about placing and discussing a future event in the infobox than placing and discussing a future event in the text. If anything, the infobox which is supposed to provide necessary information at a glance would be the place where we would want to be more careful about giving readers inaccurate and presumptive information without appropriate caveats.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless the person reading it doesn't understand that things in the future aren't definitive, then they should be able to tell that it is scheduled. Also, especially in the article in question, the lead (where scheduled is mentioned) is actually the first place that the release date is mentioned, with the release date in the infobox not actually becoming apparent until you get to the production part of the page. The lead is right there at the top of the page, and since it is almost always the first mention of the date, that is when people are likely to see it. Other than films rescheduled last minute because of news stories, who checks a release date far ahead of time before turning up to the cinema to watch the film? Most people will check it a few days before and are likely to check their local theater's website to find the date more than Wikipedia.

And to add to that, having scheduled in the infobox just looks untidy.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The film has not yet been distributed yet. Should we also adjust 20th Century Fox to 20th Century Fox (scheduled)? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No need for the snark... the consensus is clearly in favor of not using these terms in the infobox. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no one has pointed out this inconsistency yet, and I don't particularly view the Socratic method as snark. I only saw this discussion today but am satisfied if there's a consensus against such a broad reading of CRYSTAL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! "Socratic Method"... I like that. Anyway, I agree there is no need to add "scheduled for" in the infobox. It's needless and results in crowding. - ^theWOLFchild 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Should filmographies include works disowned by the filmmaker?

Moved from my talkpage. There was a discussion on whether we should include works disowned by the filmmaker e.g. credited as "Alan Smithee" or "Stephen Greene" in the filmography section of their bios. Wondered if others would like to pitch in? Pinging some WikiProject film regulars. Erik, Sock, Lugnuts, Betty Logan, Cyphoidbomb. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Hi Cowlibob, I noticed that you recently updated the David O. Russell filmogrpahy section to better reflect the guidelines of Wikipedia (thanks for that!), and when you did so reverted a change made by AndrewOne that suggested that the film Accidental Love could not be considered an O. Russell film and was removed. I actually agree with AndrewOne, but before making the change wanted to check and see what you thought on the matter! Morganglick (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am "AndrewOne," Morganglick. Thank you for tagging me; I would have wanted to participate in this discussion. In any event, my argument for Cowlibob is that I removed Accidental Love from Russell's filmography because its appearance among movies he was involved with all the way through is awkward. I fully understand the fact that most directors do not have final cut privilege - but to cut off one's own ties with a film as much as half a decade before its commercial release is far different from simply lacking final cut privilege.
I believe this would be a good time to mention the film Dune (1984). David Lynch certainly distanced himself from this movie, but mostly around the time it hit theaters. His artistic vision was restrained by the studios, as has happened many times, but all in all it was not actually a case of him quitting altogether years before completion. For this reason, I could understand Dune's being listed on Wikipedia as a David Lynch work. (Even though I do not personally like its listing as such, that is acceptable). Russell's situation was not the same. He left the whole project before even having filmed Silver Linings Playbook (2012) or American Hustle (2014). Direction for Accidental Love should instead be attributed to whomever directed the remainder. One might suggest to follow the example of Spartacus (1960): Anthony Mann was removed after a week of shooting, and Stanley Kubrick eventually took over. To whom is the direction of Spartacus ultimately attributed? Kubrick.

What if Russell were to do what he did about Accidental Love four more times over? Would WP policy mandate that they all be counted in his filmography, along with those he had directed fully? If so, WP:FILMOGRAPHY could be quite fallible, and in need of stronger specificity. AndrewOne (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)"

Yes, Wikipedia is about verifiability, and it is verifiable that the director directed Accidental Love. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so a director's filmography should be based on these sources. Wikipedia should not present a director's filmography like a resume. If needed, we can add a note indicating some background for that film, such as his pseudonym and his act of disowning. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What Erik said. Speaking of Kubrick, he'd pretty much disowned Fear and Desire, but it would be wrong to exclude it from his filmography. He still directed it, even if he wasn't happy with it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I like Erik's explanation, but I also like Lugnuts' pep, so I'm going with both. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an easy one; if there are reliable sources identifying a filmmaker and their film, then yes... we include it. - ^theWOLFchild 23:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Informal mini-RFC

Should Metacritic's and Rotten Tomatoes' aggregator data be included in a film article if the film is still out in theaters?
Should Rotten Tomatoes scores be included if there is no critical consensus, for instance here?

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes to both. For the first question, it is commonplace to include the data during a film's theatrical run. Wikipedia is dynamic enough to update the numbers (with some editors being very diligent in this). For the second question, I think considering that Metacritic has a small sample set that it would be okay to include Rotten Tomatoes even if the staff has not written a "critics' consensus" yet. Not to mention that we shouldn't just be putting the RT score right upfront on Wikipedia. As we discussed earlier this month, it would be appreciate to use the right wording to explain each website's methodology. If that is being done, then I do not think a brief lack of "critics' consensus" should prohibit mentioning numbers useful to readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Independent films, especially those that premiere at high profile film festivals, will frequently have a RT score (and maybe even critics' consensus) prior to their theatrical release. Something to consider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it depends. I don't think it/they should be used if it is overly damning, because all the critical assessment isn't in yet, and WP needs to avoid potentially negatively influencing potential viewers (also per WP:NOTNEWS). Likewise, if the RT result is stratospheric, it should be noted as "As of [exact date] ..." if the score is going to be included, because, again, all of the critical analysis may not be in yet. I think it's important not to stress RT scores too much. It's much better to use actual review quotes, preferably from major notable RS venues, and to summarize the aggregate as "mixed", "mixed to negative", "mixed to positive", "positive", "very positive", etc. (can also omit summarizing the aggregate or using the numbers entirely). I generally like to err on the side of positive or neutral-to-positive when quoting or summarizing reviews, and try to add in whatever positive I can if the reviews are pretty damning overall. In other words, it's important to remain neutral per NPOV. I think RT and MC numbers are kind of like AllMusic ratings -- to be used judiciously, when necessary or advisable. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I think that would be fair. A film with 2 reviews and a 100% score could easily hurtle downward to 18% after all is said and done. Not sure what to assume on the readers' part about sample size. On Metacritic, there are some films that only get like 5-10 reviews, and there is still a metascore provided. (However, in some of their lists of films, they exclude these items and provide a checkbox to put them back in. See this, which has a footnote that says, "Only movies with seven or more reviews are eligible.") Maybe we can think of some keywords to make clear that the low number of reviews is "limited" or "early" or something of the like? Interestingly, Cyphoidbomb's RT link shows no "critics' consensus" for a film that came out in 2010. In that particular case, with 20 reviews, I would just report it with the right wording but without the "critics' consensus" part of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything stated, above, by Erik, having read his most sensible and logical rationale. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. A small sample size is definitely problematic, but it's not the end of the world, especially if we avoid our own original analysis of the rating ("it received mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes"). First, RT doesn't even provide a score until enough "Tomatometer approved" critics have commented. I forget the number, and I'm too lazy to check; I think it's five. So, you won't even see a percentage listed unless five "Tomatometer approved" critics have are listed. This doesn't include reviews that are uncatalogued (linked reviews that have no analysis as to whether they're positive or negative yet). Many "Tomatometer approved" critics are just self-published bloggers; these include prolific users who post their reviews on Netflix and the IMDb. After it gets an official Tomatometer score, it needs a certain number of "top critics" to give a consensus. It doesn't always do this, especially for independent films. I'm not necessarily saying that RT is biased against independent films, but they sure aren't going out of their way to update their site's coverage of independent films. As far as films that are currently in theaters, I don't see why we should change any of our behavior. It's not our place to decide when the critical consensus is in or if it's too positive/negative. So, no, I think I rather vehemently disagree with some of the suggestions in this thread (pretty much everything that Softlavender wrote), and somewhat disagree with the rest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For #1, you seem in agreement with the rest of us about it being acceptable to use such data while the film is in theaters. But for #2, are you essentially saying that the data should be reported regardless of how limited it is? What I suggested to Softlavender was meant as a temporary fix. If the number of reviews is very small (maybe even just below five) for a short time, it may not be worth reporting if we do expect more. However, if we do not expect more reviews to come in, I am fine with reporting the data, however limited it may be. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If an aggregator decides there are enough reviews for an official score, and we consider them a reliable source, why not list the score? I wrote a few articles about films that have a 100% Tomatometer score based on five reviews. So what? It doesn't mean anything, and that's why I used the standardized language that I do ("100% of five surveyed critics gave it a positive review"). It's not a summary of the film's overall reception, it's just a snapshot of what RT has currently indexed. I'm strongly opposed to the interpretation the RT score. Stuff like, "The film received critical acclaim on RT and has a 90% score." I think this is a totally inappropriate use of RT, as each of those reviews could have been a 3/5 rating. I think this is related to what you've been talking about lately. I especially think we need to avoid unsourced lead-in statements. If Entertainment Weekly says the reviews were mixed, alright. But no unsourced personal analysis. Just state the aggregator scores when they're posted, let the aggregators themselves worry about when there are enough reviews to post a rating, and avoid any kind of unsourced analysis. That's what I'm saying. No special rules for theatrical releases, no special rules for low numbers of reviews, no special rules at all. Just enforce WP:V and WP:NOR ruthlessly. As far as WP:NPOV goes, I don't see how a high score on RT is non-neutral. It's a simple fact. To report it as "critical acclaim", however, is a violation of NPOV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is about emphasis in writing about the reception. To me, it would be the wrong emphasis to mention 100% first and then state that it was based on five reviews. I'd rather see the opposite, to outline the methodology and the reviews surveyed and lastly report the determined score. I do prefer this approach in general anyway, and like you said, with summaries from sources like Entertainment Weekly in front. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember where I picked up this wording from, but it struck me as one of the better ways to describe RT. I had been struggling with how to describe RT for a while, and the phrasing that many other people were using seemed too close to "it received critical acclaim on Rotten Tomatoes". I originally did like you said (methodology first and rating last), but then I rearranged the sentence to make it a little more natural-sounding. Either way seems fine, really. As long as the RT summary doesn't indicate that it is an authoritative or statistically rigorous examination of the film's reception, I'm pretty much OK with it. This is similar, I think, to how Box Office Mojo is sometimes used to say that a film was a "success" or "disappointment", neither of which BOM ever says. A certain subset of critics that RT polled may like/dislike a film, but we can't extrapolate from that anything else, such as "mixed reviews" or "critical acclaim". Cyphoidbomb and a few other regulars here are probably familiar with the situation at Mad Max: Fury Road. During the film's theatrical release, we got all kinds of independent reliable sources for over-the-top praise like "critical acclaim", "rave reviews", "best EVAR!", etc. Now that we've got some distance from the film's theatrical release and can hopefully judge it more dispassionately, I think we can start to let in some of that commentary. This is one aspect of the "during a theatrical run" that I agree with, though it's not really related to aggregators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

1: yes, 2: yes. per Erik. - ^theWOLFchild 23:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Regarding Steve Jobs (2015 film), there is an ongoing discussion about what genre to label the film in the opening sentence of the lead section. Editors are invited to comment here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Loreak

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Loreak, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tiggerjay (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Film cover fair use rationale appropriate for a Documentary ?

Is a Film cover fair use rationale appropriate for a Documentary ?

Specifically, one used by Gobonobo of {{Film cover fur}} ?

I happen to think so, as I happen to think that the redirect of documentary to documentary film is appropriate, and that all documentaries are indeed "films".

Please see discussion, at Talk:The_Truth_According_to_Wikipedia#Infobox_image.

A user is disputing whether a "documentary" which aired first at a film screening, and only the 2nd time on television, should be considered a "film".

Their repeated complaints seem quite particular and like splitting hairs at this point in time.

Further attention from WP:FILM experts, would be most appreciated.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The upload wizard reads "This is the official cover art of a work. This is the title page of a book, the cover of a CD or video, the official release poster of a movie, or a comparable item. It will be included as that work's primary means of visual identification, at the top of the article about the book, movie, etc. in question." Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

EDITED TO ADD: However, since the article in question is only an episode of a TV series, this does not apply and the episode in question does not have a poster or cover or cover art. Softlavender (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity and Word-of-God in "The Lobster".

Should the synopsis for the film explicitly state that people who fail to find a partner are killed and reincarnated as animals? While we are certainly told this, by characters who seem to believe it, we never see the process ourselves. This might suggest that it is purposely left ambiguous. Is the audience supposed to know the truth? Should the synopsis be adjusted to match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.3 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll get my claws into this one a bit later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Genre changes by Taeyebaar

After laying off for a while, Taeyebaar, the genre warrior of 2013 is back, relentlessly changing multiple film article leads. He often deprives readers of any link to the science fiction film article, which is in pretty good shape, and instead sends them to various subgenre articles that he prefers. He has also twice hit The Martian (film) in the last three days, returning after being reverted. He is now edit warring at Honey I Shrunk the Kids in an attempt to replace science fiction film and comedy film with comedy science fiction, which is basically just a list with a brief introduction. Nowhere near as useful as the science fiction film article. He has also removed the science fiction category from some articles. In the last several months before returning to film genre changing, Taeyebaar was the subject of discussions on his disruption at other articles, one of which was given the heading Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar. He'll have days, sometimes weeks, go by with no editing. But then he's back. I spent a lot of time reverting this guy two years ago, trying to protect the primary genre of the films involved. Note that Taeyebaar has admitted socking in the past, and has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him (myself included), and he has been warned about that in the past. I would appreciate some help, and ask others to keep an eye on his activity. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm is a POV pushing editor who frequently violates WP:OWN primarily on Planet of the Apes films and other articles on his personal liking (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and has just received a warning after being reported for edit warring after during an article discussion [3] and is suspected of using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. His (or her) accusations are without merit as I did NOT change the link to science fiction film, but shortened it to science fiction because it would repeat the word film in the lead twice. Gothicfilm also tries to dissuade other editors he does not agree with by baiting and harassing them.