Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 74

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76→Archive 80

RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films

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 debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Should the distributor of a film released—according to poster billings, press releases and official sites—by 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight Pictures after they were acquired by Disney (such as Dark Phoenix, Ad Astra, Terminator: Dark Fate, Ford v Ferrari, Tolkien, Ready or Not, Lucy in the Sky, Jojo Rabbit, A Hidden Life) be stated as "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" in the infobox and the body of the article (where preceded by "distributed by")? Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Context: A group of IPs has been repeatedly inserting "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" in infoboxes and prose without an explanation or citation. I haven't checked all the articles, but on Lucy in the Sky alone, we've got [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Given the breadth of the affected articles, given they are IPs, and given the tepid response I got last time I brought this up (h/t MarnetteD), I want to ascertain the consensus of this project on this rather than potentially bring on a futile edit war. Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • No, credit "20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures". By that logic any subsidiary like Focus Features, New Line, Picturehouse, Columbia, Screen Gems, TriStar, DreamWorks, Miramax, Dimension, Paramount Vantage, Summit, etc. etc. cannot ever be stated as the distributor of a film released when it was part of a big studio. And we weren't (and aren't) even crediting Fox as the distributor of pre-merger Searchlight films. AFAIK no report has come out saying Fox's distribution arm has been fully merged with Disney's (see Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney and e.g. this THR article on Aug. 29, which says "the Disney and Fox film studios continue to consolidate their operations" [emphasis mine]), and what is credited as the distributor (presenter) in billing blocks and press releases and on official sites must take precedence. Crediting Disney as the distributor is not helpful to readers either, because the production and marketing of the films were developed under Fox months if not years before the merger, giving the false impression that Disney was solely responsible for releasing them. Mention Disney only when the context calls for it, e.g. each studio's first post-merger release. Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO the field should be limited to the original distributor of the film at the time the film was released. Other fields in the infobox use that criteria. Studio changes/mergers/buyouts etc happen all the time and they aren't relevant to the making of release of the film to theaters. I'm not sure if that is a support or oppose to your RFC Nardog so my apologies for that. MarnetteD|Talk 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    @MarnetteD: If reports and promotional material are any indication, 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight Pictures still exist (and the latter is likely to continue to exist[7][8]), and the billing blocks on the posters explicitly say "Twentieth Century Fox presents"[9] or "Fox Searchlight Pictures presents"[10]. Sure, they are now part of the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures group, just like Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm and Pixar are (which only produce films) and Touchstone and Miramax used to be (which both produced and distributed), but crediting the group as the distributor is no different from crediting Universal as the distributor of a Focus film or Sony of a Columbia film, or (for films from certain periods) Paramount of a DreamWorks film, Disney of a Miramax film, or Fox of a Searchlight film. Nardog (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for being thorough Nardog. This just confirms my belief that the filed should be limited to the distributor at the time of the films original release. The constant changes based on business mergers etc create a WP:INDISCRIMINATE situation. If the consensus is to limit the field to this the documentation at the infobox film will need updating. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    So even films released after the merger, like Dark Phoenix and Ad Astra, should have 20th Century Fox as the distributor? El Millo (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    MarnetteD, as Facu-el Millo has pointed out, the RfC is specifically about the films produced by (and credited as released by) 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight and released after the merger with Disney. We're not talking about Fox films that came out before that, and their distributor credits have not been retroactively modified to Disney. Nardog (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    So I did miss the gist of the RFC. Again my apologies Nardog. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Crediting Disney as the distributor is also dangerous in the long run because the rights to films often get moved around in batches. For instance, Disney no longer owns the rights to the Miramax titles. If we had stated Disney as the distributor of the Miramax films which were released during the period it was owned by Disney, that information would have been lost and readers wouldn't have been able to immediately tell which films still belonged to Disney and which ones didn't (especially the acquisition titles, for which Miramax's name wouldn't be on the production companies list). The same thing could happen to Fox or Searchlight (though one is much more likely than the other!). And, like Miramax, Searchlight doesn't produce all of its films. Nardog (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Should we just change it back to 20th Century Fox then? El Millo (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's what I've been arguing the entire time. Nardog (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain the credited distributor A change in ownership does not constitute a change in publisher. If Fox's distribution arm is still operational then Fox is distributing its own films, not Disney. Also, this would also seem to violate WP:V if sources are crediting Fox as the distributor and we are writing Disney. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain the credited distributor. Incidentally, having been involved in the recent, controversial CS1-style RfC, and one of the major points that reached consensus is that we are not required to include the field "website=" in "cite web." We can choose to use only the "publisher=" field. So we're not required to give Walt Disney Studios as parent of distributor 20th Century Fox ... we can just put 20th Century Fox in the publisher field.--Tenebrae (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Credit "20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures" - not Disney. Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • But do we know for sure that 20th Century Fox is still the distributor? El Millo (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    We don't need to know "for sure", we just need to know what reliable primary and secondary sources say (see WP:TRUTH) and stick to it—to say Disney is the distributor despite it would be WP:CRYSTAL, if not flat-out WP:OR. FWIW I happen to know someone who works indirectly for an international arm of Fox, and it's still up and running. Note that Fox is a multinational corporation that traces its history to more than a hundred years ago. It is one thing to lay off workers in Hollywood; it is another to close down or merge all the branches across the globe. So it can take quite a while. Nardog (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Credits: We should look to poster billings and film credits to see who is officially releasing the film. If Disney adds their distributed-by credit to the end of these films like they do with Marvel then we should update the article to reflect that, but if not we should not be adding Disney's name simply because they own Fox now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In distribution, 20th Century Fox is a banner, not a company/unit. Their employees report to Disney distribution chiefs just like all the other Disney distribution employees. The Fox distribution chiefs (including global) were the first to go after the merger - including these. So, it's not like there's a unit for 20CF distribution under Disney. Release schedule and distribution deals and box office reports are now handled by Disney. For infobox, we can still follow the end-credits and keep it as 20th Century Fox until Disney starts adding "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" like they do with Marvel, Lucasfilm. Until then, on the article body, it is worth mentioning that the film was distributed/released by "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures under the 20th Century Fox banner." Starforce13 23:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain the credited distributor – As others have argued above, we should go by verifiability in sources. Unless they are convincingly updating the distributor credit to Disney, we should not be updating/changing that on Wikipedia. The default action should be to retain, and any outliers that deserve special attention in this regard can hash it out on the article's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 20CF in infobox, with extra note of WDSMP serving as an unseen distributor (across both theatrical and home media releases) - I say this as most people are going to think that Disney didn’t acquire them, when they did, so with this I have two proposals:
    1. 20CF listed in infobox, while WDSMP is noted elsewhere on the page with "This film officially came out after the Disney’s purchase, but due to the fact the film production and writing of the credits occurred before the purchase, 20CF (not full name, but example) is still listed as the distributor on this film".
    2. 20CF in infobox, with mention of Disney’s purchase of them (with “20CF (initialism) is now owned by Disney, but has credit on films produced before the purchase took place regardless of Disney’s purchase”)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
most people are going to think that Disney didn’t acquire them Really? Disney is a multinational conglomerate. So was Fox. I'm sure anybody who pays even a modicum of attention to news knows about the acquisition. And even if the readers didn't, is it really our job to to inform them about the purchase in articles about individual films? We don't normally note in an article about a film whose distributor is a subsidiary what its parent company is. So what makes this case so special?
due to the fact the film production and writing of the credits occurred before the purchase That's a kind of claim that needs to be backed up by a reliable source. Without a source we can't put such a statement in articles. You also seem to be implying that Disney as a whole, not what Fox remains as part of Disney, was responsible for the distribution of the Fox films that came out after the acquisition, but that's also a claim that we can't put in an article without citing a reliable source.
@Betty Logan, Tenebrae, Netherzone, Adamstom.97, Starforce13, and GoneIn60: What do you think of the IP's proposals? I remain unconvinced. Nardog (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP's proposals constitute WP:Original research. Just because Disney bought out Fox does not mean Fox ceases to function as a company. Disney bought out Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar and they are still fully functioning companies, albeit as subsidiaries of Disney. According to the BBFC (which must deal with the distributor directly to obtain a print of the film) both Dark Phoenix and Ad Astra are distributed by Fox. They are both showing up under Fox entry at Box Office Mojo too. Put another way, are there any reliable secondary sources claiming that Disney distributed these films? Betty Logan (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo is not a reliable source when it comes to studios. They still say Fox is owned by "News Corporation" and they still refer to Disney as Buena Vista despite a name change years ago. BOM uses a software that doesn't allow them to rename studios or move them to the correct parent. When it comes to studios and media company structures, the best reliable sources are Deadline, Hollywood Reporter... and they usually say Disney/Fox, the same way they say "Disney/Marvel". So, I wouldn't use Box Office Mojo to make a studio structure argument. Also, Fox distribution employees are now reporting to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. They don't have their own distribution unit anymore. There's no question that Disney is in charge of the Fox distribution/releases. However, for the sake of WP:VERIFIABILITY, we should follow the credits. Starforce13 11:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starforce13: While I concur with your view on BOM, I don't think journalists' use of "Disney/Fox" says much—if anything, it implies that Fox is still a distinct operation much like Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. It would be fantastic if you could find reliable sources for your claims, that they are now reporting to WDSMP and no longer have their own distribution unit. Also, your reply doesn't really address the IP's proposals. Do you think adding such notes would be a good idea? Nardog (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nardog:, if you read my last sentence that's in bold, it says, "However, for the sake of WP:VERIFIABILITY, we should follow the credits." That means, I'm agreeing the credit should go Fox since Fox is the only one included in the end credits until Disney starts adding "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" like they do with Marvel. The rest was just me saying that Box Office Mojo isn't the reliable source for company structures. Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter are always reliable sources and are probably the most cited sources in Wikipedia with regards to media companies. That has never been questionable. Box Office Mojo is only used for Box Office numbers because there's no other sites that provides as much comprehensive information. And even for box office numbers, they're not always accurate; and sometimes their errors are so obvious like in the case of Frozen. Box Office Mojo still has 5 upcoming Fox/Marvel movies listed despite them all being cancelled and Fox-Marvel properties moving to Disney. They had "Inhumans" movie listed as upcoming up until a few weeks ago despite the movie being cancelled 4 years ago. As for whether Fox Distribution unit exists, the top chiefs were laid off after the merger. And it's Disney that announced new release dates for Fox films through 2027. And if you read articles like this detailing how The Art of Racing in the Rain was distributed/marketed, you'll see it's all Disney. And this says "Disney releases the 20th Century Fox and Fox 2000 film on Friday." Just to be clear, 20th Century Fox still exists as a movie studio/production company, just like Marvel and Lucasfilm. And also like Marvel and Lucasfilm, they no longer distribute their movies independently. "Disney/Fox" or "Disney/Marvel" doesn't erase the latter. It means it's a Fox or Marvel movie distributed by Disney. Starforce13 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starforce13: if you read my last sentence... I understand that, and that's really beyond dispute at this point. Everybody who has expressed their opinion so far has agreed Fox should be the one mentioned. The only thing up to debate now is whether to add a note next to it saying Disney has acquired Fox before the film's release, which the IP has proposed above, on which I don't think you have made your position clear yet. (BTW I'm curious why you're omitting Variety in the list of sources you consider reliable. You don't think it's as reliable as Deadline and THR?) Nardog (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nardog:, I'm glad we're on the same page on using credits (Fox) for infobox, my bad. With regards to the IP's comment, we don't need to go into deep details like the IP suggested explaining why Fox instead of Disney. But could/should do something like "was distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Picturesref under the 20th Century Fox banner" - where the ref would be an independent article from reliable sources mentioning Disney. And yes, the Variety is one of the top 3 reliable sources along with THR and Deadline.Starforce13 14:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
State what is in the reliable sources, otherwise it constitutes WP:OR. Just because Disney bought out Fox and others, it does not erase them, esp. since they are still operating. The encyclopedia does not need to function as a public relations arm for Disney. It is not our job to advertise the buy-out on individual film pages; that info could go in Disney & Fox's articles. Netherzone (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Netherzone:, while I understand that noting it into an important section of the page is not required, it’s only to be included in the notes section, therefore it’s out of the way of the more important information, while I know that you’ll disagree with this, I could come up with a secondary proposal where we could do (Notes: ((The acquisition page|Disney acquired them) this year, but is not listed as the distributor)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
How about instead of notes, we try my proposal above where the infobox says "20th Century Fox" but the article body says "...distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Picturescitation under the 20th Century Fox banner"? The citation would be an article from a reliable source that calls it a Disney release; and the 20th Century Fox banner can be verified from the end credits. This way we can provide complete information, without WP:OR. Starforce13 15:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I like this idea, on the condition that the reference must be one to a source that specifically states Disney is responsible for releasing the film each article is about (this one Starforce mentioned should be hailed as an ideal source as Disney releasing the Fox film is what the article is all about, not a passing mention). If we can't find such a source for a film released by Fox according to the credits, don't state Disney released it. Nardog (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Here are some quick sources that I think are good enough to cite when saying the film was released/distributed by Disney:
  • Credit the credited distributor (20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight, etc.) per above. In addition to reliable sources presented by users above, 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight websites present their films without mentioning Disney at all. Disney is just the corporate parent. It would be like replacing any Warner Bros. film as "AT&T" or Focus Features with "Comcast." -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wikipedical:, we're not talking about the corporate parent (Walt Disney Company) headed by Bob Iger. We're talking about the film distribution unit called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures headed by Cathleen Taff where all the Disney and Fox marketing/distribution employees report. So, for AT&T, the equivalent to WDSMP is Warner Bros distribution arm which distributes movies from all the studios within WarnerMedia including New Line Cinema. As for individual studios sites listing their movies, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm have their own websites too that don't usually mention Disney. That doesn't mean the movie isn't distributed by Disney. waltdisneystudios.com lists movies it distributes from all the sub-studios including Fox. Starforce13 21:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That's fair. But the point was that we currently list films distributed by Focus Features distinctly from Universal Pictures, just as we mention when TV series are distributed by 20th Television or ABC Studios as opposed to Walt Disney Television. Even though the Disney Studios is the parent operation, the other distribution (and production) subsidiaries are more relevant and accurate. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Focus Features is different because its distribution units are still intact and operate independently from Universal. Sometimes Focus even distributes or partners with studios outside NBCUniversal. Focus controls their own release calendar and announces its own Box office numbers unlike Fox which are controlled by Disney Studios. With Fox, Disney laid off the Fox distribution execs and merged the team, reporting under Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. (For TV, we don't say they're distributed by ABC Studios. ABC Studios is a production company, the distributor has usually been Disney–ABC Domestic Television. ABC Studios as a distributor is just a banner. And so is 20th Century Fox.) So, to ensure WP:VERIFIABILITY, that's why we're proposing the above format where we say 20th Century Fox in the infobox but say "...distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Picturescitation under the 20th Century Fox banner" in the article body, citing a reliable source that confirms it's a Disney release of a Fox film. Do you see any problem with that approach? Starforce13 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless a movie is explicitly distributed by Disney, I don't think it is necessary to state the parent label by default, the same way I was trying to say we don't/shouldn't state that Game of Thrones was released by AT&T by way of its network HBO. 20th Century Fox is the credited division distributing Ford v Ferrari, and it makes most sense to me to stick to what's credited. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, you're confusing between Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The first is the corporate like AT&T and the latter is the distributor like Warner Bros or Universal Pictures. AT&T is not a distributor just like Walt Disney Company isn't one. So, it would be stupid to say Game of Thrones is released/distributed by AT&T. Here we're talking about the distribution unit that makes deals with theater chains and sets release dates.... which happens to be Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. That's what makes it a distributor. Starforce13 02:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Core list

Any thoughts on updating the project's core articles list? I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Core#Update 2019. PC78 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one? I've got a fully updated core list (as per the existing criteria) ready to go but I'd be reluctant to implement it without any input from others. PC78 (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Did Evil Dead (1981) gross $2.7 million or $29 million?

We've got a big discrepency between sources – big enough that I initially thought it was a hoax. Please see Talk:The Evil Dead#Worldwide gross. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ratings templates in references

An editor approached me about this on my talk page: Is it a normal WikiProject Film practice to add ratings templates to references like here? Are there any guidelines about this? I've seen this a lot, but I don't think I've seen it much outside of Indian film articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Never seen the ratings template used like that before. A citation doesn't seem like the appropriate place for it. PC78 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that's a really strange usage and I don't think it should be encouraged. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the concerns already expressed there really shouldn't be two separate items in one set of ref tags. If a reader clicks on the rating template they won't be taken to a reference. I recommend removal of these if they exist and an addition to MOSFILM deprecating them. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be done in at least a few hundred articles, look at Shreya Ghoshal, Kamal Haasan, Toy Story 3, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Ajay Devgn, Napoleon Dynamite, Samsung Galaxy S III, Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Ra.One, etc. I agree this is bad practice (it embeds article content in references) and proscribing it in MOS is a good idea, although that may have to be placed in more MOSes than just FILM. Nardog (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
If there is a serious consideration to add such language to the MOS, I'd love to see the community address whether ratings should be included at all. I notice that most of the well-written articles use prose that communicates critical opinions without relying so heavily on numbers. Ratings appear mostly in hastily-slapped-together articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
It's different conventions. Video games, for example, have many more numerical scores and we have fairly consistent ratings templates where these icons can get used. But film in general often only uses stars, non-numerical systems (go see, skip, etc.; letter grades), and very often no distillation of "score" at all, so I don't think it makes much sense to encourage them. I don't think I've ever made a note of a rating in any of the film articles I've done (and in video game articles that content is almost always kept to the ratings box, and certainly not used in references like this either.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

British Film Archive

I am currently defending the British Film Institute as a British Film archive as recognised by WP:NFILM on the AFD for The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus but other Wiki-Editors dispute this because of the BFI's size and heritage. I'd be grateful of comments from contributors here, on the collections policy of the Insititution that I've cited on the AFD discussion page, which undeniably prove it is a selective National Film Archive

  • An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download
4.2 Cultural significance
25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.
26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.
27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content.

Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Museum Policies for Film Collection as Notability

I have been unable to discover if notability is established by a film being collected into a Museum collection. Whilst notability can be established by meeting the requirements of acceptance into a National Film Archive (thought that clearly isn't being supported by the above case with the BFI). Does anybody know if the same case has ever been made for a film being accepted into say the Museum of London especially if that film was the first of it's type and is currently the only held in that collection? Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Plot

I noticed that a lot of the old films substitute "Synopsis" for "Plot". I was wondering why. TY — Ched (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ched. Its one of those "things change over the years" items. When I started in the dim and distant of 2005 synopsis was the word used. Then the film project had a discussion and plot became the preferred wording. I've seen plot synopsis on some articles and I think the articles for novels have plot summary sections. I change film articles to plot when I come across them and you should feel free to do the same. MarnetteD|Talk 04:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi MarnetteD. Thank you - that's exactly what I was wondering (if I should change them). 2005 eh? Well ty for your service, that's quite a lot of work. — Ched (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh - and least I forget - thanks for this as well - it's been stuck in my head since then. :) — Ched (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome Ched. Groucho is a treat at anytime isn't he :-) MarnetteD|Talk 15:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think editors now tend to go via the heading at the MOS for films. I know some time ago, we had a discussion on here about awards vs accolades, with the latter becoming the standard. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fight Club

This article seems to be rather lightly watched for being an FA, so I'm wondering if we can get some more feedback at this dispute thread. Essentially, someone added "Germany" to the infobox a couple years ago, citing IMDB and BFI. I don't know why either of those sites lists Germany as one of the film's countries, as Germany isn't mentioned anywhere in our article. 77Survivor recently removed "American" from the lead based on Germany being in the infobox. I attempted to revert that change and remove Germany from the infobox. My principal concern is that it's a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes—there's not supposed to be anything in an infobox that's not written about in the article. 77Survivor is insisting on the change so I'd like a third opinion or more feedback, whatever that may be. --Laser brain (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Was an RfC for a major change in "2019 in film" closed properly?

I would appreciate comments at Talk:2019 in film#Improper closure of RfC on country lists?? regarding a major change in how films are listed at 2019 in film. My primary concern is that there were not enough opinions expressed prior to closing an RfC on the issue. Thanks. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for 4DX?

Please see my post Talk:4DX#Nominate for speedy deletion. I would copy it here, but I've already spent way too much time (hours) on this and I have to get back to my life. But please {{Ping}} me if you want to discuss it here. --Thnidu (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Filmographies and principal photography

Am I nuts? I know that somewhere there's a guideline for filmographies that seems to want us to only add titles once a film has started shooting. Am I crazy? I can't find it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:FILMOGRAPHY. However, that's an advice page from WikiProject Actors. It has no enforceability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Not nuts Cyphoidbomb. It is something that was discussed and accepted last decade (whoosh last decade is almost a decade ago now.) I can't remember if the WP:CONSENSUS was reached at the film project or at the actor project when that was split off from film. As with many of our discussions over the years it didn't get codified into MOSFILM but I would certainly support adding it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I support it as well as an extension of WP:NFF. Since anything can derail a planned project, planned projects shouldn't be included until they start filming. That's my opinion anyway. When's the next MOS project drive? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Audience, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

1930s color films at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've also added the category for 1920s films to this nomination, as it was created after the CfD was logged. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

John Wick: Chapter 4 article discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:John Wick: Chapter 4#AFC reviewer note. This discussion involves the creation of an article that has not yet begun principal photography. -- /Alex/21 14:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed

While it's a bit off the project, I've been working on an anime movie article titled Psycho-Pass: The Movie. I found that the pamphlet provides some commentary about its themes and character by the writers but I have never used a pamphlet as a reference. Could anybody help me with this? I already asked for help in other parts from Wikipedia but got no response. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you citing the web page or the physical entity itself? If you are citing the pamphlet did it come with anything, such as a DVD, or did you access it through an archived collection, or maybe purchase it from a website? Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC discussion invitation

An RfC that affects your project has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Please review the discussion and contribute as you see fit. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Films originally rejected by the censors in Britain at CfD

Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about transgender/transsexual pornography categories

There is an ongoing discussion here concerning the names of categories for transgender/transsexual pornography and pornographic performers. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo redesign and information paywalling

I didn't know they were doing this but BOM has just redesigned the site and put pretty much everything but the box office gross, budget, and runtime behind a paywall. What alternatives do we have, as BOM was pretty much the major goto and now it's pretty much worthless.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

BOM still lists the box office gross, so I don't know why you'd say it's worthless. The Numbers, BoxOffice, Variety, and Los Angeles Times are alternatives. Entertainment Weekly probably won't have the hard data you're looking for, but it might have a breezy overview. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey D. I know that this is a frustrating situation. Please see WP:PAYWALL where it states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" - also see the documentation at Template:Subscription required for how do adapt the references that use BOM. MarnetteD|Talk 04:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, links to BOM pages for non-American films, under boxofficemojo.com/movies/intl/, are now all dead. I've fixed instances of {{Mojo title}} linking to such pages, but they are still linked from 1.9K+ articles. I tried invoking InternetArchiveBot but it seems it's not recognizing the links as dead (perhaps the pages are not returning 404). Does anyone know how to fix them automatically, whether by linking to the Internet Archive or to live equivalent links? Nardog (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nardog if you don't get an answer here you could try the WP:VPT. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE: The intl links have now been turned into redirects to the corresponding new pages after I contacted IMDb. Nardog (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

...And Justice for All.

Should there be a period at the end of the title? Govvy (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it should. It was moved to the current title in February of this year. Note that the title, without the period, is a disambig page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so either. Edit summary notes that "this film's on-screen title in the opening credits is depicted with ellipses and a period", but I'm struggling to find any other such usage. PC78 (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't even think it should have the ellipsis beforehand. See related discussion about the album of the same title at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_59#Why_do_we_note_all-caps_stylisation?. Popcornduff (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with review needed ahead of Film Premiere next week

Hi - am a newbie so apologies if posting to the wrong place. My draft article for a forthcoming documentary film has yet to be reviewed (6+ weeks). The film's world premiere was last week with the International premiere on 15th November. Be great to have page up by then. Is anyone able to help review or direct as to how to do so?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:The_Rise_of_the_Synths Many thanksDAPJ (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

La Grande Illusion page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

{{TCMDb name}}

Hey, does anyone know what happend to the Turner Classic Movies Database links? I can't get them to work, but they don't look completly dead either. If it's just a simple URL migration I can easily deal with that, but if they're completly dead I guess it's time to remove them from external links sections. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? The Alfred Hitchcock example on the template documentation page still appears to be working properly to me. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Secundus Zephyrus, doesn't for me it, as well as every other link I've tried gives me a "www.tcm.com redirected you too many times." error. What was the final url you ended up at? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/87065%7C10493/Alfred-Hitchcock/ --Gonnym (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems like it is affected by the issue described at Template_talk:TCMDb_title#Proposal_to_change_the_link_in_the_template. If you change the link to http://www.tcm.turner.com/tcmdb/person/87065%7C10493/Alfred-Hitchcock/ it works for me. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
That works for me as well. Could someone who can see the first link check if both links go to the same page/has the same information. If it's the same I will update the link accordingly. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Both seem the same. --Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I've now updated the template such that it works for me both in Sweden and the US through VPN. If someone is still experiencing problems please ping me. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand cinema task force

Lugnuts and Cooltv - you seem to be the only currently active editors other than me who are signed up to the NZ cinema taskforce. Starting small, I'd like to tidy up List of New Zealand films and might need a little moral support and/or help, if you are keen. Quilt Phase (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I added my name to this taskforce, along with all the other film ones, about ten years ago! I don't think anyone will object if you want to tidy it up. Be bold! Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of genre columns over on Talk:List of American films of 2019

I've started a discussion about genre columns in regards to articles for lists of films by country and year. Please take a look if you feel like doing so. Thank you! –Matthew - (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Caligari FAC needs attention

Hello all. I've nominated The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari for FA. So far the comments have been positive and leaning toward support, but it's at risk of getting archived because there haven't been enough editors weighing in on the conversation. If possible, please check out the FAC page and offer some feedback. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

And Then We Danced

Hi. This article now has a lengthy controversies section which has raised some concerns, esp. around the term "pro-Russian". There's some input on the talkpage, but if anyone has any knowledge of the film, or can help with a more neutral tone, I would be grateful for your input/edits. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Renaming discussion for "List of male performers in gay porn films" article

I have suggested that the article List of male performers in gay porn films be changed to List of male performers in gay pornographic films. Porn is slang and Wikipedia generally uses the term "pornography" for categories and articles, as it does with the main gay pornography article. Adding notice here to alert editors. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Netflix films by languages

What do others think of the language sub-categories that are here? I don't think they should exist, but I wanted to check first to see if there is a precedent for such a thing. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OVERCAT to me. We don't have Warner Brothers films by language for example. Let me know if you start a WP:CFD. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: done - discussion is here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Frozen 2 stylization

There is a discussion over the presentation of Frozen 2's Roman numeral stylization in the lead, and if small caps should be used to represent the poster's style. Please share your thoughts on the article's talk page. Sock (tock talk) 06:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Film awards at Cannes page moves

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Star Trek (film)

This list has double infobox. The first one should be removed but I don't know which data is up to date. Eurohunter (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for review of article about disability film "Malou"

Dear ladies and gentlemen, after watching the award-winning disability short film Draft:Malou (film) in Basel I was searching for its English wikipedia article and found a draft that is under review for far more than two months. According to the help information I kindly would like to ask the possibility of a review. I think that would be an enrichment for all searching users. The given plot is currently concealing the story twist at its end, but Malou sets an important message in favor of all disabled human beings in order to embolden them pursuing their dreams and to turn the public spotlight on the unequal opportunities. Thank you very much! Kind regards Sly.bourbon (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Digital exhibition

Can someone take a look at the stub Digital exhibition, find out what it's actually about, and add more context? It reads like pseudo-advertising, thrice-translated fluff. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Revisit on RfC

I am here to clear up this whole fiasco once and for all.

According to this source found on the Walt Disney Studios site itself, you can find these three letters "FSL", "DIS", and "FOX" behind their respective movie titles on Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' release schedule. I found out that they're the names of WDSMP's production companies that are producing said respective films; "FSL" stands for Fox Searchlight, "DIS" stands for Walt Disney Pictures, and "FOX" stands for 20th Century Fox; therefore Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is behind distribution, and Fox Searchlight and 20th Century Fox are behind producing.
And on this source, I noticed this word "(Int'l Only)" behind "TERMINATOR: DARK FATE", indicating that this is the only TCF film it distributes outside Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. Case closed.
XSMan2016 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Better film poster for infobox

For David Crosby: Remember My Name, which is the better film poster for the infobox -- and why? [This one], for the main theatrical release, or [this one], for the world premier at the Sundance Film Festival? — Mudwater (Talk) 19:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

AFAICT, article sources favor the main release poster, so I'd go with that.--Aquegg (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I had changed to the poster to the original one, [this one], for a couple of reasons. Firstly it's much better and better for the aesthetics of the Wikipedia page. The second theatrical release poster, IMHO, is awful. Secondly, and more practically, it's the original release poster for its official premiere. It just seems overall the better and more appropriate poster to use.Hollydude (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hollydude: Thanks for explaining. In my opinion the main or standard theatrical release poster should be used, because it would be more widely or generally associated with, or identified with, the movie. One might find it less or more aesthetically pleasing, but that's individual taste. This would be for movies in general, and also specifically for David Crosby: Remember My Name. Also I'm hoping that more editors will post in this section with their thoughts. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 13 film

A couple of us are working on the Apollo 13 article in preparation for the 50th anniversary. I imagine that the accompanying film will receive a very large amount of views during that time. I can provide sources and any help that I can, but I have little experience developing articles on films. Any help from anyone here, or advice even, would be great. Generally a GA-quality article (even without the GA stamp) would be a great benefit to our readers. Kees08 (Talk) 16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra

Hello all. FYI, I've nominated The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra for featured article status. It's a little-known but fascinating (IMO) little short film (15 minutes in length) from 1928 that was influential on American avant-garde cinema. Any feedback at the FAC page would be most welcome. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Film World

I am currently in possession of a borrowed copy of the 1968 Film World and am willing to provide copies of articles to anyone who wants them. The volume has been digitized here, if anyone wants to do a keyword search for films, personalities, etc. of interest to them. There are also a number of more broadly focused topical articles: there are a number of articles about the role of sexuality in film, for example, and a number of articles about the state of film in specific countries at that time. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Batman in film

Batman in film, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Up There page

There is a 2019 Up There film which is charting on iTunes. May warrant a disambiguation (or new) page between the 2019 film and the current 2012 film page.[1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbydig01 (talk • contribs) 08:26, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Up There, retrieved 2019-12-03
  2. ^ "'Up There,' movie shot in Upper Peninsula, has Michigan premiere". Detroit News. Retrieved 2019-12-03.
  3. ^ "UP THERE". UP THERE. Retrieved 2019-12-03.

Grand Illusion rename

Discussion has started at Talk:Grand Illusion#Requested move 3 December 2019 to rename La Grande Illusion → Grand Illusion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Is the BBFC accurate/reliable for upcoming film names?

With the upcoming Ghostbusters film, the BBFC listed its upcoming trailer which is expected to be out in this or next week or so. LOTS of traditional RSes have picked up on this to report the film as "officially" titled "Ghostbusters: Afterlife". eg [11]. My understanding is that that title at BBFC could still be a placeholder, and if anything, we should wait for official word from Sony, or if the trailer does get released, its title from that. We're fighting a bunch of people editing and page moves because of this so want to see if we can rely on the BBFC here or not. --Masem (t) 18:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the BBFC will just catalog films under the titles they are submitted with, so in this case the title actually comes from the distributor who submitted the trailer. If that is Sony then the title has come from Sony. That doesn't mean the title isn't a place-holder though. You could literally submit a trailer under any name; personally I don't think it counts for a whole lot unless they have actually classified the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That was my understanding that its not "official". --Masem (t) 06:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed user making broad changes to R-rated gross

There is a non-autoconfirmed user making broad changes to the highest-grossing R-rated films based on Box Office Mojo rankings for The Matrix Reloaded. The sources clearly disagree on the gross, and I would appreciate a more familiar editor to help mediate this. See also Deadpool, Deadpool 2. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To expand on this, do we use original releases or all releases to determine these rankings? Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
We use the lifetime gross for the all-time charts and the infobox. However, I am convinced Box Office Mojo's figure is wrong. They have updated the website and have counted some of the figures twice. You can find a fuller explanation at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Finding_Nemo_mistake? where we notified them their figure for Finding Nemo was wrong and they corrected it. I will email them and ask them to double check their figure for The Matrix Reloaded. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate it. I was sure that SOMEONE here would have caught the error if it truly had that high of a gross some time ago. If other editors wish to restore WP:STATUSQUO on the other pages I would not protest since I have already reverted once. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
And it looks like the edits have been reverted due to the anonymous user evading a block. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the BOM data there seems to be many other errors too: [12]. Some of the data is definitely wrong (because I am able to corroborate it) and some of it I suspect is wrong. A lot of their data seems to have been corrupted when the site was redesigned. The problems seem to occur when a film had a reissue, and in some cases they have counted the reissue gross twice. This is what they did on Finding Nemo and they appear to have done it with The Matrix Reloaded. What a mess. I would strongly urge editors to not "correct" data if they discover it has been randomly changed. Some of the corrections may be legitimate but they need to be checked against other sources to make sure. Betty Logan (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Box Office Mojo have now corrected the lifetime gross for The Matrix Reloaded to $741 million: [13] (which is identical to the figure Variety has for it and is almost identical to the figure at The Numbers. If anybody comes across more suspect figures that BOM have suddenly changed then please list them here so I can check them. Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Aliza Rajan and Draft:Aliza Rajan

Can someone who is knowledgeable about Indian film and Indian film people please look at the article and the draft and advise as to whether there is one person named Aliza Rajan with a career spanning from 2000 to 2019, including a beauty title in 2015, or whether there are two people with the same name? (There is also a permission issue about images in the article, but that is a separate matter being worked at Commons.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:On Directing Film#Book report or Wikipedia article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:On Directing Film#Book report or Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Death of a Hollywood Extra

Hey guys. I nominated The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra for FAC, but so far more than two weeks later I've gotten no feedback on the FAC page, negative or positive. I'm hoping to get at least some feedback so it isn't closed for inactivity, or at the very least so I can get some actionable advice on how to improve it for next time if it's not FA-ready. If anyone could check out the FAC page and weigh in if possible, I'd appreciate it. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Critics association awards

Hi. I don't know if this has been discussed before, sorry if this is the case. I created the list of accolades received by The Irishman, and I was wondering if I should add awards given by critic associations that don't have a Wikipedia page, like the Southern Film Critics Association, New Mexico Film Critics Society and more. Those awards seem to be relevant enough, given the fact that the official Twitter and Instagram pages of the film thanked those associations for the honors. Should they be included? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM#Accolades, "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability." In the past, these associations may have had Wikipedia articles only because of their awards being listed with others indiscriminately, but the pendulum has swung the other way to require associations to be notable per WP:NORG. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I feel dumb because I read the MOS but I somehow missed that sentence lol. Sorry about that. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Film since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 in film

I'm planning to set up a new proposal for 2019 in film to bring back the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. What DeluxeVegan proposed for it was totally unnecessary and really messed up the meaning of year in film articles. What year in films articles are about which films were released in that certain year, the births and deaths of notable film stars, directors, producers and such, the ‎accolades that involved those films in these years and the highest box office results of that particular years. Readers have a right to know which films that were released in those years in that old format. How long the pages deemed irrelevant because readers have a right to scroll down to know which films came out in those years. When DeluxeVegan made that proposal, it took away the meaning of the year in film articles and replaced with the list of certain country films, which doesn't meet the criteria of what year in film articles for door. How long the pages are is deemed irrelevant and is not be considered because the old format has the meaning of year in film articles.

We need to find a way to restore the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. We need ideas to bring the old format back while maintaining to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Crabs

I know an article can be created once a film has started principal photography (WP:NFF), but is there any consensus on what to do with films that have been seemingly abandoned after filming, and when? Crabs (film) was apparently filmed in 2015 by a first-time writer/director/editor with two other (co-)producing credits on IMDb. "Parts of it" were screened at a Montreal film festival. There's news about the film being sold to a Canadian production company (also in 2015) for funding to finish it, but nothing further. It's been attracting the attention of a (single, I think) vandal intent on making it look released (without evidence). I thought I'd ask here about precedent before proposing deletion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest to merge and redirect it somewhere, but I am not sure if I see another article where content could be merged to. Coverage of a film's development and production generally means later coverage of its release and reception, but that has not happened here. A review of parts of the film is not sufficient. I would propose deletion. No issue with recreation if it does get a true release and gets reviewed by multiple sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Or perhaps move to draft space, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
A page can't stay forever in draft space, unfortunately. There's a limit (speaking from personal experience, letting such pages linger too long). With no indication of any traction with this, I don't think it's worth it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Batman (2021) RfC

There is currently an RfC on the article discussion page for DC Extended Universe regarding the inclusion of the as-yet unmade Batman movie; to whit, is there notable, reliable sourcing that the film is within the subset of the DC Universe called the DC Extended Universe? More eyes and voices are always welcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Auguste Lumière, Louis Lumière

Despite being among the most influential directors of early film, neither of these had an article on English Wikipedia until I created the stubs today. All the work was done under Auguste and Louis Lumière, which is the name they went by due to an early contract the brothers signed.

Nonetheless, other Wikipedias have extensive biographical notes on these two figures. I would appreciate any additions we could make to the English articles. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions

I've been going through adding short descriptions to articles, importing from the description field in Wikidata entries where possible. Where the article is about a film, the description is often changed by other editors.

In some cases, the description is shortened, for example for House of Tolerance, the description was changed from "2011 film by Bertrand Bonello" to "2011 film". In other cases the description is lengthened, eg on Irréversible, "2002 film by Gaspar Noé" to "2002 French psychological thriller film by Gaspar Noé".

Obviously short descriptions need to be consistent. Being relatively new, there is little guidance established. WP:SHORTDES suggests "WikiProjects may find it useful to suggest standard formats which may be applicable". Anybody got any views for a standard format for short descriptions on articles about films? --John B123 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably year and director(s) might be enough for a short description. El Millo (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This could have been easily done by using {{Infobox film}} to add the short description. --Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
How would it determine the year though? Also, extracting the names of directors in case of multiple directors would not be easy. Nardog (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Year from |released=. "Would not be easy" depends on how you code it and depends on your coding ability. It doesn't seem too difficult. --Gonnym (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I do have the coding ability to pull it off, but not without Lua. The question is: Is it worth it? Nardog (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
To me personally, going over 137,275 articles and adding a manual short description is definitely not worth it, which is why {{Infobox television episode}} has the template handle it. --Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions#Work in progress, it seems somebody is already working on {{Infobox film}} to add the short description. --John B123 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Short_description#Content, "The short description should be as brief as possible". I restrict it to two or three words (where possible), for example "1999 film". I find all the extra fluff about who directed it, or the genre to be superfluous. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
And the continuation is A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary. "1999 film" is just 9, so in theory a few more words would still be in the guideline. --Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The lead of Wikipedia:Short_description defines the short description as a "concise explanation of the scope of the page". To me, "1999 film", is too vague and could be applied to hundreds of articles. If we take "the short description should be as brief as possible" literally, and without the considerations of the rest of the guidelines, then "film" would be the short description which largely defeats the object of having the description. --John B123 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to change them all to just "film" in that case. Having "2002 French psychological thriller film by Gaspar Noé" is clearly the exact opposite of short. And it can lead to edit-wars about the film's genre. I tend to ignore the short description if the article has one already, and add them to pages without them. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see "2002 French psychological thriller film by Gaspar Noé" as the opposite as short in any respect, but it is compliant with "concise explanation of the scope of the page" which "film" is not. --John B123 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
We should consider where the short descriptions will actually show up. At the moment, just "<year> film" seems too short to me, and "<year> <country> <genre> film by <director>" seems too long. I would especially caution against <genre> since that's a sticky parameter (part of why we don't have it in the infobox). I would say <country> is also similarly sticky. For what it's worth, WP:SHORTDESC has an image at File:Top read sep 17 2017.png by a WMF staff member. It shows "<year> film by <director>", which seems to imply that's what they are going for. I'm okay with that approach, but if there is strong disagreement, a formal RfC should be kicked off. (If I am misunderstanding anything about short descriptions, please correct me.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we had at least one discussion in the past which went nowhere. Personally I think that "<year> film by <director>" is great. "<year> <country> film by <director>" can also work, even if it's "1999 American-French film by Some Dude". I'll also note that "concise" doesn't really mean "the least amount of words possible". In any rate, once something is decided upon, it should be seen if it's possible to have the infobox handle this automatically. That is much more efficient. --Gonnym (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think putting the genre is a bit much. Year, director(s), and maybe country is okay. El Millo (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no objections to including the director. Would prefer to keep nationalities and genres out of it though. They are often a source of contention. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Completely agree. El Millo (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Can we take it "<year> film by <director>" is the preferred format? --John B123 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
"<year> film directed by <director>" sure, but not "<year> film by <director>". Nardog (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Showbiz Cheat Sheet and We Got This Covered

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Showbiz Cheat Sheet (cheatsheet.com) and We Got This Covered (wegotthiscovered.com). If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Omigosh, are Cheatsheet.com and WeGotThisCovered.com reliable?. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ideas to bring back the original format that started on 2019 in film

I may have one possible idea to bring the old format that was in 2019 in film back while trying to meet up with WORLDVIEW criteria. What about using some tabbers for American, British, Bollywood, Chinese and few essential countries to arrange them so that? Click on the tabbers of those countries so the readers can go over them with the original format of the year in film articles while having it met with WORLDVIEW. Why can we do that? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Wikipedia's technical side does not support this. This might fall under MOS:DONTHIDE. --Gonnym (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe. But we need a way to bring the old format back while trying to find a way to have it met with WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
we need a way to bring the old format back Nope. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we do. The new format is nothing but links to list of certain country films which isn't what years in films articles stand for and the old format has that meaning. That new consensus is not a good one. Size of the articles like that should not matter, because the old format has what years of film articles stood for, lists of films released in certain years, not the links to certain country films. That is why we need a repeal this consensus and find a way to bring the old format back while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. This new format didn't solve anything, including WP:WORLDVIEW. It only made things complicated and one click to the link is not what years in film articles stand for. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
You keep saying that but it really doesn't make your case at all. Prove it's needed by getting a consensus to support your opinion; otherwise, you need to drop the stick. --Izno (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
MOS:DONTHIDE discourages using tabbers or collapsible divs to hide/expand content. So, that's not really an option I would support. Starforce13 01:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Starforce13: Well, there has to be something to use in order to bring the old format in 2019 in film back while trying to have it with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do we NEED the old format back? Those who requested the change made good points. If you just want to see the American films, then you could just look for the American films page which is pretty much like the old format. Starforce13 01:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Starforce13: The way I see it, the new format takes away the meaning of what years in films articles actually stood for: Lists of films released in certain years, not links to list of certain country films. The new format takes away that meaning. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

TV series and Short descriptions

It was claimed in this edit, that Wikipedia:Short descriptions of TV series contain the beginning year of the series. I don't know whether that is true, and I furthermore don't think that is a good idea. It should either have no year, or an indication of the span of years (like "2018-" in this case. What do people at this project say? Tagging @Joeyconnick. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll comment for now on the last point, "2018-" is not a valid construct per MOS:DATETOPRES. --Gonnym (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, "2018-present" then. That was not the point of the question. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Domestic/international box office gross

Apologies, but I can't find the original discussion for this.

Why are both figures now combined?

Domestic and international gross figures are two distinct categories, for many reasons. Tax reasons, marketing budgets, forecasting, licensed distributors and territories - these are all very important reasons to separate the two. 58.84.119.40 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes a WP:WORLDVIEW of encyclopedic content. For this reason the global gross should go in the infobox. You are correct in respect of the distinction between the domestic and foreign gross, and each article should summarise a film's performance in its domestic market in the box-office section. Betty Logan (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Death of a Nation

Regarding Death of a Nation (2018 film), there is a discussion about whether or not to call the film a political documentary in the lead section's opening sentence. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Death of a Nation (2018 film)#Political documentary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Banned films list discussion you may be interested in

I've started a talkpage discussion at List of banned films; perhaps other editors at this project will be interested? Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong as a separate country

GavinL03 (talk · contribs) seems to think that we shouldn't list Hong Kong separately from China; see this diff as an example. I've argued we should if the sources do so. Has there been any consensus on this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If we were discussing geography he'd be right, but in the context of film production Hong Kong has always been treated as a separate entity. It has its own film industry and laws and to lose that distinction makes the article less informative IMO. The source itself makes that distinction, so it is not something we are imposing on the article. I would argue that while English-language sources make that distinction then Wikipedia should follow suit because it is not our place to create new precedents. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If it's any help, both submit their own films for the Best International Feature Film at the Oscars. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The infobox asked for country, not film industry. It is an unbiased and undisputed fact that Hong Kong isn't a country and the country that holds sovereignty over Hong Kong is China. It doesn't matter if we're discussing geography or film production. If the infobox asked for film industry instead of a country, it's perfectly fine to list Hong Kong. But this infobox asked for country, so if the source says Hong Kong's film industry, it is only right to put the country that holds sovereignty over the industry, not a non-independent region alone. If a distinction has to be made then we can put parentheses. For Ip Man's example, before I edited, the country infobox showed "China" and "Hong Kong", seeming to list them as 2 different countries which is wrong. If both were locations for the film then I strongly request that it should be put "China (Mainland and Hong Kong)". For Ip Man 2, the infobox only showed "Hong Kong", and should be changed to "China (Hong Kong)". As inb4, if the infobox asks for a country we shouldn't put a region that isn't by itself a country alone. If a distinction must be made then parentheses can be used. GavinL03 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Is such a parenthesis drama done at Best International Feature Film ? No. So I guess you should take your political POV to the relevant political page and stay away from this infobox. Remember infoboxes are under WP:ACDS --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not even a political POV or anything about politics, but again as I said the infobox asked for country. If the infobox can be changed to something like "Country/region" then we don't need to sound so political right?GavinL03 (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to alter the infobox to address an anomaly. Hong Kong is an autonomous region and its film industry is treated as a distinct entity. These are not geography articles, so context is everything, especially when it comes to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Chinese films' database

I don't have sufficient knowledge about Chinese films or websites. Is there any place where I can find out the names of the the producers, production companies and distributors of the film Sheep Without a Shepherd, so that I can add it in the infobox. 2409:4073:209A:FE88:44AD:D864:E98B:600C (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Venezuelan cinema task force

Hi, last year I created the above task force with other editors under WikiProject Venezuela. I was not that involved in this project at the time, and didn't know that most film taskforces come through discussion here instead of at the country project. Since then, the Venezuelan cinema task force has been mentioned (if not really discussed) here a few times (1, 2, 3). It's got interest and has been doing well - could I open a discussion on adding WP template support for it? This has recently come up, and we didn't really know a full discussion was a requirement for that. Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to add, is it possible to include the task force's parameter to talk pages? I would like to rate articles that fall in the Wikiproject's scope. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Academy Award page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back

If I were to rewrite this article, what would be some essential sources I'd need? JOEBRO64 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any guidelines or broader discussions about navigation templates for awards? E.g., the {{Academy Award Best Picture}} template. More can be seen at Category:Film award templates. I saw today templates related to the Golden Raspberry Awards and found that a little too much and wondered if there are any restrictions to be had. It seems like it could lead to template bloat in the footer (especially for major award contenders which tend to get the minor ones too). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally dislike/detest them for the navbox bloat and because they aren't defining characteristics, but I haven't sent any to TFD either. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
For the Golden Raspberry Awards there was this discussion at TfD to delete many actor-based ones, following this RfC. Note that they seem to all have been re-created. Categories have also been deleted for the GR, suggesting that all these templates should be (re)deleted. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Could I please have some help with Draft:Edwin Middleton and Draft:George V. Hobart? Many thanks to whomever volunteers. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

George V. Hobart is clearly notable. The page has been brushed up enough to move into main space. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to join a discussion

I have recently started a a discussion (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Boris_Malagurski#Tags_and_other_matters) on Boris Malagurski regarding the recent edits on the article and the overall state of the article (I guess the two are connected). I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oscars question

Does anyone know if Oscars nominations and Oscars shortlists are different? I saw this Pitchfork article, which says Motherless Brooklyn is shortlisted for the academy award for best song, and assumed this meant it had been nominated. So I added that to the Motherless Brooklyn (film) article. Now I'm wondering if they're not the same thing, but I can't find a clear explanation even after googling. Can anyone advise? Popcornduff (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are different. I think the shortlist can be seen as a semi-final round. This says, for example, that 159 documentary feature films were submitted, 15 were shortlisted, and there will be 5 nominees from that shortlist. Not sure what the process is to go from the submitted list to the shortlist. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Erik, thanks for your comprehensive answer. Very helpful. Popcornduff (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
There are comments at Talk:Blackrock (film)#External links that may be of interest to some members. Otr500 (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The Prestige

For whatever reason, several users are edit warring over the genre for The Prestige. While semi-protection might help a bit, it would also be helpful for an expert or two from this project to help settle the issue. In the historical past, the genre was left out of this article to prevent edit wars. I suspect there’s a solid rationale for a genre, and I’m hoping that someone can solve it and implement it, followed up by article protection to keep it stable. If there are any admins reading this, please note the troublesome SPAs in the page history. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure "magician thriller film" is a real genre. I think including the primary genre in the lead would be a good thing to do as per WP:FILMLEAD and I doubt it needs to be omitted to prevent genre warring - seemingly it didn't help this time - but the current pileup needs to go. Popcornduff (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree. "Thriller" is sufficient. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles for creation backlog

Please consider reviewing some of the drafts awaiting review in your project scope, our backlog is over 3,700 articles right now. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This list should be notable, but I can't find sufficient sourcing.

Film teamings/couples/duos?:

Help. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Movie Plot Summaries and Original Research Tags

I happened to browse a few movie pages and many of them have the Original Research tag at the top of the plot summary section. Since this is almost always written by someone who saw the film and not copied from another website, does this tag make any sense? In one case it was added by an ip. Advice is needed. -2001:4898:80E8:0:CA2A:7147:BFE2:B3C6 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Plot summaries should contain no interpretation or stuff that isn't definitely in the plot. For example, Jane dies in the supermarket is OK. Jane dies in the supermarket, tying in with the themes of anti-capitalism. Isn't. Jane dies in the supermarket, and it is implied that Harry shot her, but this is not made clear. Isn't. See WP:FILMPLOT for more info. Popcornduff (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2036_Origin_Unknown Use this as an example. I don't believe the tag should stay. -2001:4898:80E8:0:CA2A:7147:BFE2:B3C6 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If you have full confidence that there is no OR going on on the plot summary, please remove it. Be aware, you should have seen the film so you know that the summary is accurate and non-intepretive before doing so; the tag may possibly be correct. In the case of that film, an IP editor (who did all of 3 similar edits) added that in October, and so looks like a user unaware of when such tags should be added, but I've not seen the film so I can't comment. --Masem (t) 00:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Category discussion editors may be interested in

Editors (particularly those that work in the box office area of the project) may be interested in the discussion in regards to the newly created cat Category:Number-one films in the United States. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Crediting Films Produced and Distributed by 20th Century Fox

I've noticed that for a lot of films that are both produced and distributed by 20th Century Fox, only the smaller director/crew companies are listed as Production Companies while Fox only gets the distributor credit in the infoboxes. Examples are Fox X-Men film series including Deadpool and Logan. Using "presents" doesn't mean you're just a distributor and can't be a producer. For example, Disney often uses "Walt Disney Pictures presents" even though Walt Disney Pictures is the producer and not the distributor - distribution is done by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. Since "20th Century Fox" is both the distributor and producer, they're obviously not going to say "20th Century Fox presents a 20th Century Fox..." Instead they use "in association with" the other production studios. This might not be an issue for future films once they start using "distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" at the the end, but I think past films need to be corrected.

So, is there any reason why 20th Century Fox shouldn't get production credit when it distributes its own film? Starforce13 22:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A credit like "20th Century Fox presents..." is ambiguous. You are correct in noting the credit is not confined to distributors, but it does not necessarily confer production status on the company either. This is why Wikipedia seeks secondary sources; primary sources are sometimes acceptable where there is complete clarity (such as "A Lucasfilm production") but secondary sources should be sought where ambiguity exists. If sources consider Fox to be a production company on these films, it should be included regardless of whether it is listed as a distributor—the two fields are not mutually exclusive. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. So, in other words, if we cite reliable sources confirming 20th Century Fox as a producer, there's no established consensus to leave out the production credit simply because it used "presents". Starforce13 22:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisting discussion about genre columns over on Talk:List of American films of 2019

In November 2019, a discussion was started on Talk:List of American films of 2019 regarding the implementation of genre columns in articles for lists of films by country and year. Around that time, I posted a message to this WikiProject requesting for other users to weigh in, but no consensus has been reached yet. Please head on over, read through the existing discussion, and give your thoughts and opinions on the matter if you feel inclined to do so. Thank you! —Matthew - (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Genre of High Life

I would appreciate any opinions about the genre of the film High Life at Talk:High Life (2018 film)#Genre revisited. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion (Police Story 4: First Strike)

I cordially invite everyone in the project to participate in an ongoing move discussion in the Talk:Police Story 4: First Strike. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion (Producers Guild of America Award)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Producers Guild of America Awards 2019#Requested move 14 January 2020, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Wikipedical (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of plot-summary editing at The Terminator

Regarding The Terminator, there is a discussion about edits being made to the plot summary. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Terminator#Plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jurassic Park / Jurassic World

Please, have a look at Talk:Jurassic Park ("Wrong statement" section). Kintaro (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox character and WAF

I am reaching out to your project because your project may have an interest in this discussion: Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. Izno (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

More eyes on a CfD

Hey folks. Posted about this a bit ago, but a CfD on Category:Number-one_films_in_the_United_States could use some more input. You can find it relisted here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Inflation-adjusted box office take, or number of tickets sold

I raised this issue some months ago, and I'm going to raise it again in case people might change their minds. I think we should add inflation-adjusted box office takes to the infobox for all movies. Why not? I know it's not conventionally-done in the industry, but so what? We're not the movie industry. We can tell readers this if we like. Why would inserting inflation-adjusted takes be bad? Or perhaps numbers of tickets sold, if data for that is available. It would be informative. I am curious about these things, so I imagine other readers might be too. Kurzon (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's a practical reason why we shouldn't list ticket sales or inflation-adjusted revenue, I can accept that because I don't want to mislead readers. But concealing knowledge simply because the industry doesn't do it conventionally is not a good reason. Kurzon (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason we should not do it is because it is not factual, it is analytical. The value would depend entirely on which inflation measure to use, which in turn depends on the context of what you are trying to show. In the case of older films that had multiple reissues (such as Disney films) it would be next to impossible to adjust such a gross with any serious degree of accuracy. It would be even more difficult to document admissions because they are not tracked in many countries. We should stick to facts in the infobox; if there is anything important to say about a film's inflation adjusted gross it can be discussed in the prose. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I also don't think it should be included in the infobox - if for nothing but consistency with the fact it only lists original release. If there's something otherwise notable to say, the article body is there, but the standard is that the infobox is for the original stats, there's no reason to complicate that. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I see. If not in a general fashion, would it be OK to add inflation-adjusted information on a case-by-case basis? For instance, if I found a book or article that says that Gone With The Wind surpassed the take of Avengers: Endgame after adjusting for inflation, would it be OK to mention that in the Endgame article? If I can't add exact figures, would it at least be OK for me to mention that Endgame is not really the biggest movie of all time because of the inflation issue? Kurzon (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan: I want more editors to weigh in on this. Kurzon (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
In theory anything that can be reliably sourced can be included in an article, but that is ultimately for the editors of the article to decide. It depends on many things, such as what you want to say, how much you want to say, where you want to say it in the article etc. The appropriate place for that discussion is the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In this case, it would do fine in the box office section, but I feel is an extra level of detail for the lead. "Highest-grossing" by default refers to the unadjusted figures in almost all sources, so "unadjusted for inflation" would be redundant. Also, such an arrangement may not work in other film articles. As detailed in the article prose of List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation, while its almost universally accepted that Gone with the Wind is the highest-grossing film after adjusting for inflation, it immediately isn't clear whether the runner-up is Avatar or Titanic (Guinness favours Avatar, so our article lists it second, but the discrepancy is explained in a footnote). When we go further down the inflated list, such inconsistencies are only bound to increase, so even if a source states A earned more than B when adjusted for inflation, it would be helpful to look for additional sources too before considering its inclusion. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan: Well, can I do it just for the Endgame article? Because a lot of people think that Endgame is the biggest money-making movie of all time, and do not think of the inflation aspect. Even if it's hard to obtain exact figures, all sources agree that Gone With The Wind took in more than Endgame. And I don't think this is too much detail. I could trim something else from the lede, if that might please you. Kurzon (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to something along the lines of "...including becoming the highest-grossing film of all time and the fifth-highest grossing film of all time when adjusted for inflation" in the lead, but mentioning Gone with the Wind is an extra level of detail we don't need. In either case, you need to take this to Talk:Avengers: Endgame given that there was a previous consensus regarding this. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion (Writers Guild of America Award)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Writers Guild of America Awards 2019#Requested move 23 January 2020, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Wikipedical (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on

There is a discussion at Template talk:Based on about applying the template to wording like "Characters by so-and-so". Editors are invited to commit. The discussion can be found here: Template talk:Based on#Characters by.... Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about warning template

Hello! I work for Executive Writing, and as part of my consultancy work, I work with United Talent Agency. The United Talent Agency page was flagged as advertising in September 2018, and in the time since the article has changed significantly. You can view the page as it was in 2018 here. In June of this year another editor removed sections they identified as "advertising". The rest of the page seems to me well-sourced, neutral, and relevant, so I believe the warning template is out-of-date and should be removed.

I’d appreciate any help and guidance. I believe I've disclosed my conflict of interest appropriately. Thank you in advance for any help.EWChristine (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

EWChristine, I cleaned up a few more issues of undue weight and removed the tag, as I believe that the advert issues have all been addressed. I added a {{lead rewrite}} tag, as the lead currently does a poor job summarizing the article's contents. signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

opinion on addressing filmography comment?

I got a tag suggesting that this listing (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mary_Rosanne_Katzke) needs a "development of table for filmography."

In the info regarding filmography listings, the style guide says this: "Some filmographies are presented in a tabled format; however, you should make sure there is an obvious benefit to table format before creating a table for a filmography (e.g. a relatively short listing of credits for newer actors are better presented in list form, not table form)."

In discussion elsewhere, a consensus agreement said filmographies should only be used for the main creators of the films (which in this case does apply).

I was thinking maybe using the approach from Example #2 in the link below, but perhaps with an added column indicating topic? Would that still meet style/best practices?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Filmography_tables

(Btw, I have addressed the tone comments already, in all parts other than in the filmography, since that will be changed. I will also not be removing any of the tags myself, since I realized after reading further that I probably should never have created this listing due to COI. For now, I am just trying to do my best to address issues, then will allow others to judge if I did it well -- and move on to use my new knowledge to create listings on subjects that will not require a COI disclosure.)

Thanks, Sonyasen (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Tama Tū

Help, how change this page name to Tama Tū? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Tama_T%C5%AB --Nonunblog (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You can move it by clicking "More" in the upper right" then picking "Move". The direct link is here. Change the "New title:" drop-down to "(Article)" and type in a reason, e.g., "Ready to be an article". I would suggest looking for more secondary sources to reflect the topic's notability. While the director is now famous, I am not sure if there is enough content to support a standalone article about a short film. It's possible someone may suggest deletion or merging, so more preemptive work would help avoid that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing move discussions about Hindi films

Move discussions regarding the articles of some old Hindi films are going on at:

Those interested may have a look. Thanks. Oracle of Delhi 13:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability guideline interpretation

Hi! Is this Project active? Filmmakers doesn't appear to be. If you are, I have a concise question regarding notability. Concerning WP:ANYBIO c. #1 and c. #3 & 4 of WP:CREATIVE specifically, isn't a person who won an Emmy, has been nominated for 3 other Emmys, has also been nominated for an Academy Award, and has significant reviews of his work, notable? Am I interpreting these criteria appropriately? Thank you, PK650 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The reviews are probably the clincher here--if you have secondary sources discussing their work (and not just mentioning that they exist) then I would believe GNG is met. If you have any doubt you can always begin with a userspace draft and run it by people when you've written something. GRAPPLE X 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Chakwood

Is this word exist? Looks like fan made. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Chakwood is a real term, though I don't know if it warrants splitting from Cinema of India. Kingsif (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Year in Film Formatting

So, there was recently (I guess? If you count a month and a half recent) a discussion over at 2019 in film and the MOS talk page about formatting 2019 in film. While I don't yet have an opinion about the formatting (as I see pros and cons for both), I'm just wondering about consistency in page. The 2019 in Film article was changed via consensus to the way it was due to complaints about lack of WP:WORLDWIDE, however remains the only article to be in this format. Should we figure out the format we want the "YEAR IN FILM" lists to be to be consistent, and as well help with creating the future lists and establish continuity between lists. QueerFilmNerdtalk 02:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on genre columns

There is currently a discussion taking place regarding the presence of genre columns in lists of films by country and year. Please feel free to read through the discussion and give your thoughts on the matter. Thank you! —Matthew - (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A naming question for an upcoming film with no established title

There is definitive work (including production) for an upcoming animated Mario (the video game character) film. The title is not clear, though sources like Variety are just calling it the Super Mario Bros. animated film (as to distinguish from the live action one Super Mario Bros. (film). It's not hard-set on Universal's calendar yet though the goal is for a 2022 release.

Obviously it can be changed later, but what would be the right title to stick this film at? Super Mario Bros. (upcoming film)? Super Mario Bros. (2022 film)? Upcoming Mario film? --Masem (t) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Has filming started? --Gonnym (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Animated, so.. not filming, but Nintendo in its performance report from last week says "As we have shared previously, production is moving along smoothly aiming for a theatrical release in 2022." [14] And while the film is currently covered in an appropriate franchise article, I'm more trying to prep redirects for expansion (There might be enough now to explain why this film's being made and mistakes to avoid from past attempts). --Masem (t) 16:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
If you're prepping redirects, just claim all of the above for it. A lot of them could be likely enough search terms anyway. By the time it's ready to spin out into its own article we might have a better idea of the actual title. GRAPPLE X 16:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
For redirects, yeah take all those you mentioned. But if you're looking to get some info expanded, maybe start a draft? And if so, I'd suggest Draft:Untitled Super Mario Bros. film for the time being to get the work done until a title is given. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
All good suggestions above, but one thing I am getting on this is that while we want editors to wait until a film starts production to make an article about it, we'd also prefer they wait until there is some reasonable title for the film: doesn't have the be final and can be a working title that can change, such that we aren't parking an article at "Untitled film" or something like that. That might be good advice to consider adding to a guideline here. --Masem (t) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoax nonsense in Japanese film lists (again)

Just like last year, List of Japanese films of 2020 is filling with hoaxes by a serial vandal, this time the hoaxes are mainly fake article titles in the references. It is simply too much work to go through and manually fix things. As before, I have semi-protected the article and added a hoax template. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop filling hoaxes in the 2020s Japanese films, start to ban now! Japanese films list are a pro-gun as vandalism!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.79.0.24 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this seems like a pretty common pastime for vandals. I personally wouldn't trust any lists of films on Wikipedia. Half of the entries are probably hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
As far as I've looked this looks more like OR literal translations of Japanese titles than pure fabrications. Have you identified any entry to be demonstrably false? Nardog (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The titles for references #37, #126 and #208 are utter nonsense, for some examples. The previous years had fake film entries written in this vein; it's clearly the same person. If it's just reference titles this time around then good, but the list will slowly fill with nonsense again if it's not curated properly. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I dropped a note at WT:JAPAN to see if anyone else can help with this issue. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Golden Raspberrys

Hi, a user @Tom Danson: has been adding a lot of golden raspberry awards information to film articles and actors articles including whole Accolades sections completely devoted to the Golden Raspberrys only referenced to the awards own website, is this acceptable? please advise Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
There's been some debate about whether satirical awards should be included in lists of awards, put in their own sections, or what. The Golden Raspberry Awards (or "razzies") are quite notable, though. Nominations and wins tend to be reported by mainstream sources now. It doesn't really mean anything if someone cites a primary source for them because it's trivial to find a secondary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved. For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options below. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Chakwood & Music of Chakwood

Someone please take look in this articles and if necessary, nominate for deletion. As far i understand, the word Chakwood doesn't exist and is made by article creator and looks like a original research. Those two article doesn't pass WP:GNG. If you look at Music of Chakwood, it's a fork of Music of Bollywood. Article creator copied first two line of Music of Bollywood and replaced "Bollywood" with "Chakwood". Article contain two song name, released in youtube and i'm not sure if they are from Chakma film. My suggestion is rename Chakwood as Chakma cinema and merge Music of Chakwood with Chakma cinema.

WikiProject Film members please take a look. Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You already posted this above, where I responded. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Input needed at Template talk:Infobox awards list

This discussion relating to the footnote displayed in Template talk:Infobox awards list has gone a week without participants. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. – Teratix ₵ 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sticky v. Speedwagon adding “film controversy” category to non-controversial pages

Not sure where to put this, but Sticky v. Speedwagon is adding Category:Film controversies to a ton of non-controversial films. There doesn’t seem to be any real reason for this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Much bigger issue: If Category:Film controversies should exist at all, it should only be as a container category. Way too subjective to the point of meaninglessness to contain any articles. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The category is too vague to be meaningful. Film articles are worse off when they have sections blandly titled "Controversy". I would support taking this to WP:CFD. Controversies are better suited to be in lists because they need to be verifiable, especially more so than more basic content since it is likely to be challenged. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Talk:The Shawshank Redemption

See Talk:The_Shawshank_Redemption#"Close paraphrasing" concerns. Thank you. Calidum 19:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Love (2015 film) plot section

Please see this discussion and if anyone can help, that would be great. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Nardog for taking a look and fixing this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Mythica: A Quest for Heroes#Proposal: Merge all Mythica film articles into a single article on the entire Mythica film series

 You are invited to join the discussion at Mythica: A Quest for Heroes#Proposal: Merge all Mythica film articles into a single article on the entire Mythica film series . A proposal has been made to merge the contents of the articles on the several Mythica films into one single article on the entire Mythica film series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Emma. (2020 film)

Emma. (2020 film) currently has a period at the end of the title base, but I thought we didn't include periods at the end of the titles of works (like Adaptation (film), Snatch (film), We Are Young. We Are Strong, Crazy, Stupid, Love, I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore). However, I couldn't find any instruction on this at WP:NC, WP:NCFILM, WP:MOS, or MOS:TITLE. Is there an existing guideline or convention on what to do when the title of a work includes a period at the end? Should we move Emma. (2020 film) to Emma (2020 film)? Nardog (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that we generally use the name as it appears most commonly in print, whereas promotional materials like film posters can sometimes include affectations like full stops, alternative casing, etc, that isn't usually reflected elsewhere. I might be wrong, but my gut would say that if sources are usually referring to the film as Emma. and not Emma we should do likewise, but not purely on the strength of advertising material. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You may be thinking of discussion related to WP:SMALLDETAILS and maybe one of the more recent cases Gangsta (manga), possibly among others. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
MOS:TM, which references "skate.", seems to cover this (and is cited in RMs of this kind), FWIW. Nardog (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, I started a discussion about whether or not to use "Emma" or "Emma." in article text. Discussion can be found here: Talk:Emma (2020 film)#Title in article text. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Massive problems with Box Office Mojo

Ever since its redesign in the Fall, Box Office Mojo has been riddled with errors. Here are some of the discussions that have arisen:

In the case of the above, Box Office Mojo had counted the reissue grosses twice. They had a inadvertently included the reissue gross in the "original release" gross, and then added the reissue grosses on again for the "all-release" gross. I got Matrix Reloaded and Finding Nemo fixed. I am still dealing with Age of Ultron and haven't dealt Avatar yet. In addition, the Toy Story 1 & 2 grosses got messed up; I got Toy Story 2 fixed but they are still including the 3D double bill reissue under the Toy Story 1 gross.

Another problem has arisen. An IP editor (their contributions are at Special:Contributions/119.93.144.93) has been "correcting" weekend rankings for films. The IP has done nothing wrong; in fact they are being incredibly diligent and have obviously spent a lot of time working on this project. The problem though is that they are using corrupted weekend data.

For example if you look at the following films (The Cutting Edge, Like Water for Chocolate and Sommersby—there are many, many more examples) you will see they suddenly zoom back up #1 in the final weekend of release. You can probably guess that this is incorrect. The Numbers does not show The Cutting Edge anywhere in the chart in its final weekend, and the same for Like Water for Chocolate and Sommersby.

If you look closely at the BOM data, you will see the gross in the final weekend takes the total gross up to its exact overall total. They obviously have some rounding algorithm (God knows why!) but it has corrupted many of their historical weekend charts. I am going to email them about it, but I now wondering if Box Office Mojo's status as a reliable source is in jeopardy. Pretty much all of its data prior to the revamp is riddled with errors. We have a ton of well-meaning editors now going around and installing incorrect data and we are propagating it.

I am going to contact them and see if I can get the latest error addressed, but if you notice anybody making alterations to historical box-office data on the basis of a change at BOM then it probably needs to be reverted and double-checked. Betty Logan (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed concerning. Maybe in addition to emailing Box Office Mojo directly, email some publications that have covered BOM in depth in the past? Maybe they can contact BOM themselves asking about these issues. You could forward your email to BOM to these journalists here, here, and here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Inquiries at GetSatisfaction typically result in at least some kind of response from an IMDb representative relatively swiftly FWIW. Nardog (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Since accurately reported box office figures is the entire raison d'être for Box Office Mojo, I'd have to hope this is something BOM addresses quickly. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I do remember raising this as an issue when they first did the redesign and was told it didn't matter. I do wonder what the thought process was when they did change it. "How do we go from the most essential Box Office site, to a back up one?" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
DWB, did you raise the issue with Box Office Mojo? I have contacted them, and if I don't get a satisfactory response we will have to consider transitioning to an alternative source, such as The-Numbers, and maybe consider a course of of action advocated by Erik. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
No I raised it here at the time. I did contact them around the same time but they never responded. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I am bit surprised that you were told it didn't matter (hope to God it wasn't me who produced that nugget of wisdom!). I have received no response either. I am going to give them until the end of the month and then I am going to follow Erik's advice if there isn't a positive response. The fact that they now charge people for the data mean they are defrauding their customers by not taking efforts to ensure its veracity. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Again, have you tried GetSatisfaction? That's how I got them fix the links that stopped working upon redesign. Nardog (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I haven't as yet. I'd have to create an account (which in itself isn't a problem) so I will pursue that angle if I haven't had a response by next week. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe raising it via their Twitter account would help too. Obviously don't do that if you use your real name on your account, but if anyone can spare a second to do it. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:JimMorrison5438

Would someone mind having a word with this user? They constantly add fake or unverified plot summaries to articles. Examples include [15], [16], and [17]. JOEBRO64 20:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this edit description, it seems like the user may be a troll or something. Also 100.8.5.75 (talk · contribs) attempted to restore the unverified plot, so this may be a sock. JOEBRO64 20:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Home Alone/archive2

Members of this project might be interested in leaving comments on the page linked above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Fox films

Yesterday the category "20th Century Fox films" was moved to "20th Century Studios films". As I noted on the talk page (and also here), I think it's wise to maintain a separate category named "20th Century Fox films" for films produced 1935–2020. This would match categories for films produced by earlier iterations of the studio, Category:Twentieth Century Pictures films and Category:Fox Film films. "20th Century Fox films" can be subcategorized under "20th Century Studios films"; please see Commons category:20th Century Studios films. I know there are list articles for the 20th Century Fox titles, but it seems odd to see those movies lose their historical identity just because Disney is rebranding. — WFinch (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is agreeable. It’s patently incorrect to call something like Predator a 20th Century Studios film when it was released under the 20th Century Fox banner. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree. El Millo (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. It just helps Disney's attempts to rewrite history in their own image. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Also agree, per others. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to you all. I did recreate the category for Category:20th Century Fox films as described above, and it's nested within "20th Century Studios films". If anyone is able to recategorize the films listed here and here, go for it. I can do it, but I'll be doing it the hard way, title by title, and it'll take me some time. — WFinch (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you are taking the long road. If I were you I would point an admin to this discussion and ask them to move Category:20th Century Studios films back to Category:20th Century Fox films, and then recreate Category:20th Century Studios films, and make Category:20th Century Fox films a subcat. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe Cat-a-lot can help you, although be extremely careful as it's a powerful tool. (Looks like an IP has undone the changes.) Nardog (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Starzoner, Trivialist, Armbrust, Oculi, and Marcocapelle: would any of you object to reverting the move, which had consensus at WP:CFDS (permalink) ? I know that the usual practice is to rename categories to follow rebranding, but there are cases (e.g. renamed major sports teams) where categories are kept for both old and new. – Fayenatic London 08:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I support reverting the move and having separate categories, as the new name roughly corresponds with, effectively, a new iteration of the studio. Trivialist (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Trivialist. The company before the 2017 announcement/2019 merger and the company after March 2019 are really different to the point where its nearly not recognizable. Starzoner (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have set the bot to revert the move. The new parent will have to be created again. – Fayenatic London 23:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there's some films confirmed to be released under "Studios" such as Free Guy. But I do think the few false positives here are outweighed by the net benefit of this revert. --Masem (t) 01:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
And we just revert the ones that do belong, right? El Millo (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the ones listed in List of 20th Century Studios films. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Masoom(1983) film

This hindi was released in 1982... but the title is wrong... Kindly change the title. Angunnu (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should we list a prominent award in articles about another award?

Please take part in the discussion which applies to many types of awards, for film, television, theatre, etc. See Talk:Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film#RfC: Indication of other awards.

Should we host indicators of prominent awards in articles about other awards, in cases where the two awards are not mentioned by a reliable source listing both? For instance, indicating Academy Awards in other film awards articles, or indicating Emmy Awards in other television awards articles, or indicating Tony Awards in other theatre awards articles. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Extra eyeballs for a small plot debate at Contagion

I stumbled onto a mild content dispute about how to handle writing the final scene in that film here. It's not heated at all or anything just in reading the reasoning and such, I thought some more eyes might be helpful since it's just the two of them trying to hash it out from their directly opposite views. Millahnna (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I wouldn't call our views directly opposite however; I like his compromise :) Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

More restrictions on List of fictional elements

I made a new discussion in WT:Notability (fiction) regarding adding more restrictions on lists regarding fictional elements such as swords, animals, profession, and so on. if anyone is interested in bringing their opinion on the topic. here.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

One shot or one take?

Please see this move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

luminescencefilm.com

Can I please have an evaluation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/luminescencefilm.com? 4 IPs in a close range make it seem spammy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Toho Kingdom

There is a discussion on the Godzilla franchise article Talk:Godzilla_(franchise)#Consensus on whether we should consider the site a reliable source or not. Anyone's input would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Edwin Middleton

I would be happy to have some help with this draft. Thanks in advance to anyone interested. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like this figure meets WP:FILMMAKER #3 in being one of the two directors of Lime Kiln Field Day, which qualifies as "a significant or well-known work" with being the oldest-surviving African American film and being preserved by the National Film Registry. Not to mention that MoMA has a page for him here. Furthermore, it also appears that the Moving Picture World is a good source. While the draft mentions Volume 29, it seems like Volume 28 here provides more of a narrative about his career. Considering the figure's work over a century ago, it seems likely that there is more information in print sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Draft needs work, but definitely notable. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination Akira Kurosawa

Could someone add the FAC nomination for Akira Kurosawa to the main project page:

Akira Kurosawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It was started a few days ago. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding runtime sourcing

Hi all. I've started a discussion at {{Infobox film}} about adding some wording regarding sourcing runtimes that I felt other might be interested in participating in (if you are not also watching that page). You can find that discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Help with new article for indie film

Hi everyone. I'm new to Wikipedia and still learning, and wanted to start creating articles for some quality independent films. I was attempting to model my first article after other existing independent film articles, but the article I was writing, which I thought had plenty of worthwhile reliable sources, keeps getting rejected. I've been informed via some helpful people on the Articles for creation/Help desk that other existing articles aren't always approved or worth modeling a new article on. The film I am writing the article about, Purdah, has reviews from sources like Film Threat, Screen Anarchy, and was named one of the Best Independent Films of 2019 by a Rotten Tomatoes critic. I'm having a hard time figuring out what I might need to do in order to get it approved, given that it's a truly independent film and doesn't have reviews from the most major newspapers and things like that. The Articles for creation/Help desk sent me here and I will be very grateful for any assistance. Thanks!

Here is the article: Draft:Purdah (film)

MovieDude2019 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

JoBlo.com

Is https://www.joblo.com a reliable source for bit players, like this edit? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. Check out the "contact us" page. I would not use that site in a BLP. I found you a better one, though: this article in Starlog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

One-shot film → One-take film

It may be of interest that another nomination, related to Talk:One-shot film#Requested move 7 February 2020, mentioned above (09:35, 25 February 2020) by Lugnuts, has been relisted at Talk:One-shot film#Requested move 24 February 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus and film overlap

Would anyone be interested in collaborating on an article about the impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak on film? Hard not to come across headlines where both topics overlap. Seems like it would be worthwhile to combine that kind of coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm interested in helping out! Just an hour ago I saw the headline "Italy’s Box Office Suffers Disastrous Weekend As Government Closes All Cinemas To Combat Coronavirus" --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm also interested - there is also media discussion on if (the somewhat ironically named) No Time to Die got pushed back because it was wanting to rake in the opening weekend at a time when people won't be scared to go out, rather than to satisfy public health. Interesting topic. Kingsif (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I started 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak's impact on film (not sure if there could be a better title under naming conventions). It may be easier to start with a timeline-based approach before combining into prose at a later point. Pinging Secundus Zephyrus and Kingsif. Please feel free to discuss structure and content on the talk page! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this article may be premature in the sense that it is impacting multiple media industries (I've seen similar questions at both WT:ANIMANGA and WT:VG), never mind the impact it has on more goods-related industries. Contributing to Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak might be preferable. --Izno (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw that article earlier, and might I suggest what we did at the VG project, creating a section on your 2020 in film article (see our 2020 in video games for what I mean). When this was first happening, it felt wrong to be documenting "first world problems" in a wholly separate article, and it still feels wrong to discuss the major inconvincences and the like though clearly there will be economics after the fact, but I dont think a standalone is appropriate here. --Masem (t) 01:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that there could (and should?) be standalone articles for all majorly impacted industries, because it doesn't make sense to talk about e.g. manufacturing with cinema when the structure of their industries are very different. As it stands, global economies can bump and recover, manufacturing industries can reschedule new rollouts without really losing money as long as they have enough current stock, but the film industry is a bit fragile if you have to stop productions or even just releases. So handling them apart seems more sensible to me. Perhaps it could go at 2020 in film, but it would be a long and imprecise section compared to the simple table layout, which would make it the bulk of the article. I would support and contribute to making, e.g., an Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak on sports article, too. No comment on whether timeliness is appropriate, I just know that the news has massively picked up on the film industry implications since March 4th. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
At some point, there probably should be some article off the Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak that serves as an outline list to give summaries of the effects of the outbreak on other industries like airlines, tourism, music, high tech, video games, etc., and where that impact is major, separate details in an appropriate article for that industry. But the extent and to what level of detail at this point is unknown for an encyclopedia because the outbreak is still going, and right now it is not really easy to guess what is the right level of detail. For example, given all that's happening with film, the biggest things to note would be the massive closures of theaters in China and other regions, the pushback of release dates of big blockbusters like No Time To Die, and some films' productions being temporarily halted. But if the outbreak gets worse, it could change that picture. For now, summarizing the higher level stuff in 2020 in film works, but if it does grow, it can be split. --Masem (t) 06:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, put it in 2020 in Film, if it gets too long, then split it. QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Standalone article looks fine and has been expanded a lot since yesterday. Nice work. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I did not suggest this scope because I found it more important than other scopes. It is because we as a community are familiar with various aspects of film and the related reliable sources and the context of the coverage. I saw this topic as notable in its own right because of the significant coverage and the continuing ripple effect. I would support a standalone article for video games too, and other scopes that have been written about. (I wouldn't know the best sources for a sports scope, for example.) The "XXXX in film" articles, to me, are not known for hosting industry-wide coverage. A quick look shows that we have no idea how the film industry fared in the shadow of the Great Recession, which I wasn't expecting to find anyway. So a standalone article to me is the most direct and tangible presentation to have. There are so many distinct sub-topics involved here that I can't imagine ultimately compressing it all into a few paragraphs -- for summary sections elsewhere, sure, but there are a lot of distinct moving parts here that are bouncing off each other. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Award article 'see also' sections

The see also sections of the recent award articles, and presumably other recent ones, are very long, since they list what must be close to every other award ceremony in the same season. I think we could make an, e.g. 2020 film awards season, article for each year that could give a run-down of the different events and would be a better place to include cross-award information, and which could easily replace the very long lists in 'see also'. Kingsif (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So, basically expanding the award section of year in film (2002 in film#Awards)? --Gonnym (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, pretty much - that 2002 one is at least much better than 2020 or even 2019. Kingsif (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a Help on Review of a Re-submission of an AfC of an Indian Filmmaker.

Hello,

I am a Cinephile and was trying to create an article about an Indian filmmaker named, Vinu Kolichal. The submission was once declined by a reviewer and later on, More references of online articles and supporting links are added to the Draft and is resubmitted.

The Review for Resubmission seems to be taking too much time and hence I request help from this Wikiproject to help with the review.

Link for AfC: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Vinu_Kolichal


Thanking in Advance Good day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfanatic28 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Dracula 1931 film page move

There's a discussion here to sink your teeth in to. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT RON A. BISHOP

I once tried to write an article about RON ARTHUR BISHOP but the only information about him came from a brief newspaper bio; apparently, my article might have been viewed as plagiarism by Wiki since it was never accepted by them. I only became aware of Mr.Bishop because he wrote two of my all time favorite Gunsmoke episodes: "Matt's Love Story" (w/ Michael Learned) and "The Squaw" (w/Arlene Martel and John Saxon). The newspaper bio mentioned that Bishop was respected by the other Gunsmoke writers for his ability to capture how people actually spoke in the Western United States during the 19th century. I noticed Mr.Bishop's middle and surnames were similar to a popular Charles Bronson character ("The Mechanic" a hit man who plans his kills with meticulous detail) and wondered if that was an "in" joke among fellow screenwriters but I couldn't find too much general info about Mr.Bishop, let alone what screenwriters he might have been friends with!

Compared with writers in other fields, unless they went on to become producers or directors, in my opinion, screenwriters have been sorely neglected when it comes to recognizing their contributions to popular culture. Although this has started to change, an article about Ron A. Bishop would be a step in that direction. MARK VENTURE (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harold Holland

Could anyone help me with this article? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Coverage in independent sources is needed, I'll see if I can find any for you. Kingsif (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Riddle surrounding two Hong Kong actresses nominated for The Last Emperor

As explained under Talk:Hong Kong Film Award for Best Supporting Actress#Confusion regarding 1987 awards as well as actresses Margaret Lee (Hong Kong actress) and Lee Din-Hing, both nominated for The Last Emperor, the links to the film The Last Emperor that won, on April 11, 1988, the Academy Award for Best Picture are apparently incorrect in Hong Kong Film Award for Best Supporting Actress, with the correct link being Huo long / The Last Emperor (1986 film). However incomplete IMDb's acting credits for the 1986 film may be, these two actresses were nominated for Hong Kong's equivalent of the Oscars and the fact that not only are they are not listed in IMDb's cast list for Huo long / The Last Emperor, but do not even have IMDb entries is indeed puzzling. Perhaps those with knowledge of Hong Kong cinema may provide some illumination at the above talk page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

25th Frame as a WP:RS

Wondering if people had opinions on this source? [18] Someone was adding it to articles I watch for box office, I've never seen it before. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AFI 100 Years...100 Cheers Page

Main article: AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers

Some moderator keeps messing with the page for the American Film Institute's list of 100 Years...100 Cheers (100 most inspiring movies). The 1982 film Gandhi starring Ben Kingsley and directed by Richard Attenborough placed on the actual list. However, the moderator keeps undoing my correction and changes the identification to an obscure 1953 documentary called Mahatma Gandhi- 20th Century Prophet. That is obviously not the correct film. I keep changing it and the moderator keeps undoing my change as if I am the one spamming the page. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.202.73 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this was an interesting situation. I made the appropriate fix and explained it on the talk page here: Talk:AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers#Gandhi. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus film delay categorization

I started the following discussion with Bovineboy2008 at their talk page (here) regarding updating some categories on films delayed because of the coronavirus. This was specifically in reference to The New Mutants (film) and Black Widow (2020 film)). With both of those films no longer having release dates, Bovineboy changed Category:Upcoming films to Category:Unreleased films. On their talk page I wrote the following:

Using Category:Unreleased films for any film that has had its release date altered is not correct. Per that category's info: Completed films that were shelved and to date have not been officially released (bolding mine). None of these films have been shelved. Per Category:Upcoming films Category for films that are not released yet, but are planned to be filmed or released in the near future (again bolding mine). All of these films are still planned to be released in the future. If any of these sources came out and said something like "Disney removes Black Widow from May 2020 date; will not release the film at all", then the film is unreleased. But at this time, they are all still upcoming.

Given their response to me (which I didn't want to copy over myself), I felt it would be better to get wider discussion on this, if "Upcoming films" is still the correct category or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It is apt to use Upcoming in my opinion. There is still intention to release it. An example to look at would be that Gore Vidal movie that was filmed and in post when it was shelved permanently. That would fit the Unreleased criteria for me. Rusted AutoParts 21:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that "Upcoming" is the category to use. For one thing per WP:CATVER there is no sourced info that it will be "Unreleased" - if that changes then the category can be changed. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
That is my thinking as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
My issue with using "Upcoming" as a category is for those films that have been pulled from schedule but do not have a release date confirmed afterwards. That is, in the most basic sense, a "shelved" film, although not permanently. These sources ([19] [20] [21]) is referring the films as shelved. And we typically try to use the "Upcoming" category for films with a confirmed release date. Saying that there is still intention to release the film is a form of WP:CRYSTAL that we should not be representing on Wikipedia. BOVINEBOY2008 09:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion: New category. Category:Films delayed during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic Kingsif (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: That's not the issue at hand. We already have Category:Films postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which isn't an issue. @Bovineboy2008: But at the heart of what the Unreleased category is for, is for films who have no intent whatsoever to ever be released, or missed a scheduled release date without releasing. At this moment, unless explicitly mentioned, all of these delayed films, do have an intent to be released and to hit a future release date. And as of today, that is still the intent, which isn't CRYSTAL. Should that change for any of these films because this situation is so fluid, then Unreleased would be appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Just used the postponed category. That's the solution until more is known. Kingsif (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Films awaiting releases should still be categorized in Upcoming films per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Categories and WP:FILMCAT in addition to the postponed category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus IAR. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I would also consider a film that never had an original release date to begin with (such as Drunk Bus or others that were scheduled for festival premieres) as Unreleased. But if a film had an original release date, got delayed (not explicitly stated as shelved) because of the pandemic, and has intent to be rescheduled (or already rescheduled), it should be Upcoming until new info states otherwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There are a large number of films in the Category:Upcoming films (Chicken Run 2 is but one example} that do not have a confirmed release date. These do not violate WP:CRYSTAL any more than films whose release date has been delayed by the virus. The "unreleased category" is reserved for films that were made and never received a release. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
"Films that were made and never received a release" are literally films that we are talking about right now. I think that there are other films in the Upcoming category without dates is a separate, although related, issue. We should not assume that this films will receive a release unless that have something concrete about their release confirmed, like a release date. Otherwise, we could potentially be indefinitely holding these films in the upcoming category, which is literally what the unreleased category is for. BOVINEBOY2008 21:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Most of these films, if not all of them, did receive a release date, they were just delayed, postponed due to COVID-19. It's a different scenario than most other films. El Millo (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And those dates were cancelled, so they have not received a release, and they don't have a confirmed release date. BOVINEBOY2008 22:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That still doesn’t equate to those films being outright cancelled themselves. If the standard for the Unreleased category was that they have no release date then all upcoming films should be there, or perhaps the Unreleased and Upcoming categories should be merged. I don’t believe they should though. Because there’s a difference between unscheduled with an intent to release, and unscheduled with no intent to release. Rusted AutoParts 23:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And the third category, Category:Cancelled films, which is what I feel like is what is being interpreted as the same as unreleased. And again, the issue of other films with no release date ever confirmed I also believe are miscategorized, but that is not what this discussion is about. BOVINEBOY2008 23:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It's all about the purpose of each category, and I think they are all quite clear: Upcoming films, for films in production or have completed production, and have a release date or intent for one in the near future (per reliable sources of course); Unreleased films, for films that have been completed, but there is no intent for them to be released in the near future; Cancelled films, for anything that never made it through complete production (be it simply stuck in development hell or starting filming and it just stopped and never got finished) with absolutely no release date attached. And again, as myself and others are saying, the majority of these delayed films still have intent on release. None, as far as I've seen, have had release plans outright scrapped. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
So I guess then, the question is, when do the films get "moved" from the Unreleased category to the Upcoming category, in your view? BOVINEBOY2008 00:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
If any clear intent is given to release the film in the near future. I saw this article The King's Daughter (upcoming film), that was supposed to release in 2014 and now has no intent to be released. So should that ever get a new date, then that'd move to Upcoming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok here's a great example I just saw. The Lovebirds (2020 film) was supposed to release theatrically on April 3, 2020. It had the Upcoming category since that date was announced on the article. Then Paramount delayed the film on March 12, stating a new release plan was being figured out. Again, not outright shelved so Upcoming should still apply then. Now it's moving to Netflix for release, so still, Upcoming should be used. Any of these other films could fit in this situation, until new release dates/distributors are revealed or outright cancellations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this one, it has a clear intent to release with concrete sources. But if a film is pulled from a schedule, and there is no information about an intent to release the film (from a source, not assumed), then they shouldn't be classified as upcoming. I would be much more inclined to include them in the upcoming category with a source about their release. BOVINEBOY2008 12:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Right, but as I've been stating and others too, all of these films are simply delayed with intent to release. We are in agreement that if there is not any, they should not be in upcoming, but to me, it seems you still do not believe these films have release intent when sources are saying otherwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
An intent or hope to release is different than having a plan to release on Netflix. BOVINEBOY2008 20:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
For the immediate future, the plan and intent is still to release these films and thus Upcoming is still appropriate. Should that change once the pandemic subsides and there's no indication of new release info, then Unreleased can be considered. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for the plan? We should not as a process just have something sitting on pages that we might change when the pandemic subsides. We should only be using reliable sources to make decisions about material. BOVINEBOY2008 15:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
For Disney's delays: Disney is looking into new release dates for all of the titles later this year. That's pretty cut and dry for a plan if I ever saw one. For any other films affected, the sources I've seen from the studios have either given new dates (No Time To Die, F9, etc) or used wording like Disney has. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Favre1fan93 and MarnetteD that Category:Upcoming films is still appropriate. I agree that "unreleased" means permanently shelved. To label today's batch of films as "unreleased" unnecessarily clumps it in with films retrospectively recognized as shelved. I concur with the notion that the intent to release means to consider the film to be upcoming (regardless of a specific date), unless we find out otherwise. The pandemic is unprecedented, so we should follow the general trend of the industry, which to date is deciding to make it available on demand right away or to wait until later or some variant of these approaches. As far as I can tell, there has not been a case of a film being permanently shelved, and even if there was, it would be outweighed by the ones that have had alternative releases or are still pending. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I still find this extraordinarily optimistic; even if studios are looking for release dates, it does not guarantee that it will happen. I am fine letting this go if this is consensus, but I still will keep my eye out for reliable sources indicating plans for alternate releases. For the big studio films, probably not going to be a problem, but for the many many more smaller films, like those that were to premiere at one of the many festivals that are now cancelled, I think we would need a source to consider it upcoming. BOVINEBOY2008 22:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bovineboy2008: At the moment, I am only advocating the big studio films get the upcoming category readded. I am in agreement regarding the small/festival films are not as clear as to what should happen to them at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I think it would be appropriate to attach a reference for readers who want more details about the film studios looking for future release. BOVINEBOY2008 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead then and readd the Upcoming category where appropriate then. I'm going to look at all the articles in the postponed category first, and then at the impact list article. Hopefully that is all of them, and I'll see what sources/wording can also be added for intent to release soon. Bovineboy2008 if you disagree with anything I add/change, let me know on my talk page so we can resolve. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am certainly not a fan of long cat names, wouldn't a cat of Category:Delayed films of 2020 with a description of reasons why be better? Govvy (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I think this is a special case because of the coronavirus. We don't usually have this number of films being delayed in a given year. Hence, we have Category:Films postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't realize it was that many. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources in the plot section

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Plot summaries. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Untitled Fifth Indiana Jones Film

I was just reviewing this new article, I wasn't sure if the title is right or if it should be moved or not. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be moved to Untitled fifth Indiana Jones film. Just fix the uppercase. El Millo (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like someone else beat me too it, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to chime in that the article should be moved back to draft for now since filming hasn't been confirmed to have begun. See WP:NFF. JOEBRO64 15:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I really don't see much harm in main space, seems to have a decent bit of sourcing. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree with TheJoebro64. I see no reason to go IAR and bend the notability guideline here. And given the current situation, it's entirely possible it gets scrapped. Nardog (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Considering how bad the last film was I wouldn't mind it being scrapped!! Govvy (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and move this back to the draft space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, an older draft already exists. This is a hist-merge situation. The article space name needs to be redirected probably (which I'll do), and then request a hist merge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Mainspace article is redirected properly with edit notice on the page should anyone else try to start the article. All the info was already in the draft, so no hist merge requested. The creator probably just copied the parts they wanted from the section at the franchise article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussingFilm

Hi. I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but is DiscussingFilm a reliable source? El Millo (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You can ask here and/or at WP:RSN. It looks like the website is essentially a WordPress blog that has a team. However, I do not see any corporate/partnership credentials, and I am not seeing this website ever referenced by publications in Google News that jump out to me as reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
All right, this will continue at WP:RSN. I'll go on and cite your comment as well. El Millo (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Considered things that did not make the final film

In production sections, is it okay to write things that were considered but did not make the final film? 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:9818:937D:3E06:4958 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think in general, it's okay as long as it is from a reliable source and can be part of multiple details about the making of the film. It would probably help to show what happened instead. For example, at Panic Room, we have, "Whitaker's character Burnham was originally written to be 'a slick, technical type' and the designer of the panic room in Meg and Sarah's home. Fincher did not think a designer could be persuaded to break into a home, so he rewrote the character to be a blue-collar worker who installs panic rooms for a living." That helps demonstrate relevance. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I see. In Onward (film), there was something about a storyboard scene in the production section. However, some user removed it. What 's your take? 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:9818:937D:3E06:4958 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the article history, it was correct to remove the information but only due to it not having any source to verify it; should it be backed up with a reliable source then it would be fine to add it back in. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74&oldid=1079900372"