Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79

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

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

→

Posters w/ billing blocks

If an official film poster does not have a billing block, or we supposed to add that version or a poster with a billing block? @ Iamnoahflores recently uploaded a new version of a poster for Godzilla vs. Kong (see the page history here) with a billing block when the official poster does not have a "full" billing block (see here). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, it's just a pattern I see. If I find a US (or film's country of origin) poster with a billing block, that's the one I use. Not sure if there's a specific guideline, but that's what I do. If none is available, it's all good (ex. Space Jam: A New Legacy and Uncharted (film) are ones I have found that have a poster with a billing but both are international, so current versions are kept in place). Similarly, with The Lorax (film) the current version was chosen due to it having the rating on it. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not look like WP:FILMPOSTER says anything about the matter, but I think that a poster having a billing block tends to mean it is more "complete" or "final" than the teaser poster or posters that come before it. Honestly, it is too easy for editors to argue to change posters for some alternative aesthetic reasoning. If a poster has sufficed through many pageviews without issue, it's probably fine and does not need changing. In this particular case, with the general image being the same, the billing block is unreadable in either version, since Wikipedia requires low WP:IMAGERES for non-free images. So I'd say to stick with the status quo. The original file has been fine since March 2021. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. In cases where there is no obvious reason/advantage in changing posters, keep the original. Treat it like the MOS:RETAIN guideline and stick with the established status quo. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Madrigal family to Encanto (film)

There is a proposal to merge Madrigal family into Encanto (film). These articles are covered under the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion is located at: Talk:Encanto (film)#Merger proposal. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeking input: The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film)

~~I have started a discussion in the talk page of this article (see here) regarding which dialect of English the article should use. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Best regards,~~ —Alpaca the Wizard (he/him) (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC); struck 06:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this. It turns out that I just didn't see the tag that was right there. —Alpaca the Wizard (he/him) (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Linking the word "film"

Should the word "film" be linked in the lead? There are a number of IP users changing something like [[disaster film]] to [[disaster film|disaster]] film (take Moonfall for example). I am hesitant in reverting such edits because they do go along with WP:SEAOFBLUE. What do y'all think? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you've slightly misrepresented the situation by making it about "[[disaster film]]" vs "[[disaster film|disaster]] film" when the whole noun phrase was "an upcoming [[Science fiction film|science fiction]] [[disaster film|disaster]] film". I suspect the IP's intent was to disassociate "film" from the link because "disaster" here is not the only modifier of "film" but is coordinate to "science fiction". If it was just "an upcoming disaster film", I'd say link "film", but when there are multiple coordinate qualifiers like in this case, I can see a defense for de-linking "film". My suggestion is to deal with it on a case-by-case basis and not dwell on it too much. Nardog (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Too short and Too long templates

WP:FILM states that "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words." Since going on a film noir binge, I've noticed 45 film plot sections with word counts between 12-351 that have no template reflecting a need for expansion. I've also noticed 34 film plot sections with word counts between 704-1,004 that have no template reflecting the need to streamline. Should all these plot sections receive templates? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a general guidance. WP:FILMPLOT makes allowances for plots the at are longer and shorter than this. I would personally say plots approaching 1,000 words are too long, but going over by a dozen, a hundred words isn't abnormal. The same, plots that are only a dozen words long should be marked as too short, but something at about 350 words is not necessarily too short. There's leeway on either side, and must be taken at a case-by-case basis. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I would not stress too much about templates. If an article is Stub-class, it will be obvious that the plot and everything else needs expansion. As for the plot being overly long, I feel like it's less important when the word count is 700-800, compared to being 900-1,000. I guess it's hard to imagine such templating actually prompting visitors to a page to roll up their sleeves and type up a summary to add or to replace a long one with a short one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Long ago I used to search for film articles that had been templated and would then clean them up. It's difficult to say whether the templates really make any difference...on the other hand, it's five seconds of work to add the template and could make a difference, so I'd say go for it if one is so inclined. DonIago (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'll go ahead and add templates to the real egregious ones (I found another 1,000+ plot summary after posting yesterday). I learned from one of my early posts at the Teahouse that gnomish behavior is appreciated by some.

@Doniago: It was a template requesting plot section expansion that gave me the idea to edit for Wikipedia in the first place! -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, glad that happened. Have at it, then! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Looney Tunes Platinum Collection

The article Looney Tunes Platinum Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article reads like an advertisement or press release, and has only one source for its 10.03-year history.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourthords (talk • contribs) 15:48, February 4, 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1

Input for this PR is welcomed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lesson of the Evil

There is a request to move Lesson of the Evil to Lesson of Evil. See the discussion here: Talk:Lesson of the Evil#Requested move 30 January 2022. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on wording of the Rotten Tomatoes sentence

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose § It is not clear that the reviews are from critics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Masking imdb links as wikilinks

It is possible to make a link to imdb look like a wikilink, like Gillian Dobb (from Magnum,_P.I.#Recurring_characters) and Jonas Brothers: Live in London (from Jonas_Brothers#Television). A normal EL would look like Gillian Dobb.

All these uses [1][2] may not be wrong, but I think these 2 examples clearly go against WP:EL, though in a sneaky way.

So my question is, is there any objection to remove linking like this on sight? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: No objections. I normally remove them as soon as I find them. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ELPOINTS #2 is what would justify removal. It's really only allowed for Wiktionary, Wikisource, and {{external media}} use (per the footnote). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Then I may go hunting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please clean up with care. If someone reverts you, please point them to this discussion instead of undoing their revert. Editors who think external links can be embedded likely mean well, and they can be shown why such links do not belong. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Brokeback Mountain needs input

This [3] is the version I had written and this [4] is the output of User:KyleJoan's wholesale reversion. I am not convinced by said user's arguments, I believe there is a lack of compensation between the length of the film's first act (the mountain portion) and other scenes at the end, and I believe the plot as I had left it solved this and added material that was uncontroversial and useful to the plot.

I also think that some of the arguments presented by the other side of this discussion make no sense, e.g. removing the definition of Ennis' version of Jack's death as that of a homophobic murder. Of course he imagines a homophobic murder, otherwise why would he doubt Lureen's version of the events?

In a nutshell, I think the plot as it currently stands and the arguments used to defend its permanence seem to be indicative of people who did not understand this film. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be easier to share the diff as seen here. As well as linking to the discussion here: Talk:Brokeback Mountain#User:KyleJoan opines that I added unnecessary detail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, also where it says "stepfather" it should read "father-in-law" (my mistake). AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Starring field in film infobox

There is a discussion about the "Starring" field in Template:Infobox film. The discussion can be seen here: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

English-language Canadian films at CfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting discussion! Depending on how it turns out, it may be worth covering in MOS:FILM. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Netflix and its subscribers

I wanted to ask about y'all opinions on List of most-watched Netflix original programming. This list is sourced primarily from Netflix's official website. Most readers could simply go there instead of this list, which is also the only list of its kind. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

While it is based on Netflix own page, there is clear interest in those numbers from third party RSes. It is similar to something like the most watched YouTube videos, a topic that pulls from YouTube but shown of interest from RSes. --Masem (t) 23:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Yeah, but YouTube views update every minute. This list features 28-day views (by hours), which is something unique to Netflix. Readers are not told which films/tv shows are the most-watched of all time. Instead, they are told what Netflix is promoting as their most-watched content based on stats from and only from the first month of release. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, I would say there could be value in the list, but with the caveat that that it only has value if there are some third-party sources for the numbers, which don't currently exist, an the whole page only has three references. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the list seems okay but needs clarity about when the film and TV lists were published. I don't think these lists actually match what is on Netflix's website, which separates English and non-English programming. From what I can tell, Netflix shared a static "combined" (English and non-English) list in October 2021 then again in January 2022. There seem to be enough secondary sources to justify this scope, and the list allows readers to access the Wikipedia articles of these films and TV series. The list could be improved with additional commentary from secondary sources about aspects like cause-and-effect (like if being #1 for a while tends to mean that coverage and interest will persist, keeping it at #1 for longer than others that never got to #1). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:El Capitan Theatre premieres

Saw Category:El Capitan Theatre premieres get added to an article I follow. Is this notable? I'm leaning towards no, but I wanted to get some other thoughts here before starting a CSD discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I cannot recall ever seeing any category, list, or template aggregating films by any venue-specific premiere. I cannot think of a reason to start now with this venue or any other venue. It feels indiscriminate and largely irrelevant to the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not notable. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

CfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Category:El Capitan Theatre premieres. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls FAR

I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Filmography section heading

I want to discuss the use of "Filmography" in a section heading because I do not believe we have had a clear-cut discussion about what that term means for Wikipedia's use. First, I think Wikipedia editors have interpreted "filmography" to include TV credits, and video game and even stage credits have been shoehorned under this label. (For example, see Andrew Garfield#Filmography having a "Theatre" subsection.) However, all real-world definitions of "filmography" indicate that it is supposed to be a list of films; the well-cited Wikipedia article for filmography covers this well. In addition, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Collins confirm this basic definition. I haven't come across any other definition that is broader than that. My sense is that Wikipedia's use of "Filmography" comes from IMDb, where actors' pages list their credits under "Filmography". IMDb used to be the Internet Movie Database, so their structuring seems to be a related leftover artifact of that past.

I'd like to encourage other editors to use other terms instead of "Filmography" when the person's background is in more than just film. I've noticed passerby editors' tendency to "correct" a different term back to "filmography", presumably because it is so prevalent across Wikipedia articles. Can we be open to accepting use of other terms? It could be "Credits", "Screen and stage", "List of performances", or some mixture of these and other possible words. I'd like others to share what they think and what should be considered in using this term or other terms. (Note: I started this discussion here and not at WT:ACTOR because it is more watched and because editors here are likely to have edited such sections. I'll put a notification there for this discussion.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a different header, because there are hardly any actors that stick to JUST film. I’ve used “Acting credits” for some pages to separate from filmmaking credits, so I would suggest maybe that or something similar. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't know if it's needing to change if it's only film and television in the way that bibliography often, ime broadly, includes short fiction and periodicals, which aren't books. A lot of film commissions (example, British Film Commission) include television under a filmography as they're "filmed" works. But "filmography" is definitely inappropriate if it includes stage, video game, and other work. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

One, I don't think it's needs a different header, necessarily. I don't oppose other options, but I do oppose "banning" use of "Filmography". Second, "Filmography" should cover "filmed or broadcast media" only – 'Stage'/'Theater' absolutely does not belong under "Filmography", and should be put in a separate section... So I don't care if other header options are put forward, but oppose "banning" use of "Filmography", as long as it is used correctly (e.g. not including 'Stage'/'Theater' in the section). For standalone list articles, if it includes "Stage/Theater", I actually would support moving any article like that to "[Name] on stage and screen" or some such. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

FTR, I've just adjusted Andrew Garfield – that's a WP:GA, so the sectioning should be done correctly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

First, I doubt that "Filmography" will go away overnight. With this discussion, I want to ensure that we can have the flexibility to use terms other than "Filmography". Still, there is simply not much real-world justification to say that TV credits also belong under "Filmography". The dictionary definition is repeatedly clear-cut, and I can only find sources reinforcing that definition, like in A Dictionary of Film Studies, Dictionary for Library and Information Science, The Dictionary of New Media, and Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Library and Information Science. The TV Guide website actually does film and TV credits under a "Credits" page, as seen with Bob Saget here. Fine if articles vary in uses of terms in section headings, but for specific topics, when is a change away from "Filmography" or to "Filmography" justified or not justified, especially if it's a mix of just film and TV? Some version of MOS:RETAIN or WP:STATUSQUO? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for attention

There is a call for an experienced WikiProject Film editor to look in at Jackass Forever, for a possibly overdone plot summary. (It currently includes an in-section list of all of the film's stunts/gags.) Since I've never seen a plot summary that contained a comprehensive list of all of a movies scenes (the equivalent of the gags list), I though someone should look in on it. (It is also possible, given the very recent release date of the film, no Plot summary should yet appear, but instead a Premise section, as currently appears at other films.) Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:E05F:BFAD:304D:DDBC (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail is excessive, and I've removed the list of stunts. However, any editor can make a change, and we have WP:FILMPLOT as guidelines to follow. It looks like it was added by one editor on February 5th. ...and shoot, I am seeing that Jackass: The Movie, Jackass Number Two, and Jackass 3D all have these lists of stunts, so no wonder Jackass Forever had that added. I've gone ahead and removed these lists as indiscriminate, but I'm not sure if there's any kind of equivalent to a typical plot summary possible if it's just stunt after stunt in each film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I had to revert a restoration at Jackass: The Movie, and Some Dude From North Carolina had to do the same for Jackass Forever. May need more eyes on these articles to avoid these indiscriminate lists of stunts. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this action. What you are asking for is the removal of all the scenes that appear in a film about a bunch of men making a compilation of stunts and pranks. A simplified synopsis to a plot of a standard movie is understandable because there’s a story to tell. Jackass in film and TV is not like that. You want to not give too much detail into what goes on in the stunts, that’s understandable, but removing all of the stunts in each synopsis for the films is like deleting the plot section to other more standard films. 98.216.67.148 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You're right that these films are different from those with narratives, but the level of detail was too much. When summarizing a narrative, we can simplify it further and further. But how achievable is it to summarize a list of distinct stunts? Can we summarize a list of jokes that pop up in a comedy special? I don't think it's comparable, and the overview should be pretty straightforward. Per WP:NOTPLOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and in that vein, it should not be a summary-only descriptions of works. Concise summaries are appropriate to have with the work's "development, design, reception, significance, and influence". So if anything, only the most-discussed stunts should be highlighted, so when readers read the article, they can read about a stunt and then what sources said about it. Like with Jackass Forever, it should mention the severity of Knoxville's injuries in the bull ring because that has been highlighted by sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen the Jackass films, but it appears to me that these films would easily qualify for the exemption to WP:FILMPLOT, and perhaps this would be better left to a local consensus decision. At an initial impression it does not seem unreasonable to me to include a basic list of the stunts, accompanied by a single, short, descriptive sentence. For example, for stunt 5 listed at Jackass Forever the first sentence is sufficient for readers to get the gist. We need to take care that the application of FILMPLOT does not result in a pointless synopsis. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of the Plot section is to "complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects". I'm not against including the stunts in some other way, but that long list was excessive, and the film plot guidelines should apply to this film too. I already suggested on the article talk page that it would make for a better encyclopedia if the writing/development/construction of the more notable stunts was explained as Production details. Maybe even a short list could be included, but an indiscriminate 35 point by point numbered list, does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article. -- 109.79.175.86 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of what the purpose of the plot summary is, but my point is about the guideline. The guideline was obviously not conceived with this type of film in mind, so I think it is misguided to apply it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If the films do not have a conventional plot would it make sense just to have a short "Premise" section explaining that they do a bunch of stunts, and then the noteworthy stunts can just be mentioned against the actor names or in the production/reception sections with sources and commentary? No need to try shoe-horn a standard plot summary in if it doesn't make sense for those films, and that would avoid an indiscriminate list of stunts being put together if that is a concern. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that nearly every stunt/skit in the Jackass films, barring a few that last for only seconds, has its own dedicated title card, with unique titles; it's ridiculous to simply remove them all, even if they shouldn't be overly detailed, and we already have similar plot summaries for films like The Kentucky Fried Movie and Amazon Women on the Moon. 131.123.49.18 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be essentially based on secondary sources, with descriptions of primary sources (in this case, plot summaries of films) being of lesser importance, per WP:PSTS. In addition, WP:PLOT says "concise summaries" are appropriate. The level of detail is unnecessary because a Wikipedia article is not intended to replace a person's viewing experience. Jackass Forever had 35 distinct stunts, apparently, and the draft with that list had 2,124 words, which really is unacceptable, being three times longer than the maximum for a typical plot summary. The default position should be to have a concise summary and not tolerate an excessively-long summary. If the summary had 750 words, then that could perhaps linger while there is a reasonable discussion to improve on that. But 2,100+ words really requires immediate chopping. As for the other examples you mention, The Kentucky Fried Movie is clearly overboard with 1,763 words, where Amazon Women on the Moon has an acceptable 603 words. The former should be chopped while the latter appears acceptable in length. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I bring those two up because they are not simply just a vague premise section that Jackass Forever's page is now. I don't disagree that the summary as originally written was overly long, but the approach taken now is, in my opinion, too far in the opposite direction, especially since (as I mentioned) nearly every segment is given it's own little titlecard, contradicting the idea of some segments being more "notable" than others. 131.123.49.12 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If we're talking about Jackass Forever specifically, it stands at 252 words right now, and there could be room for growth. I don't know if the 35 distinct stunts listed line up with the title cards, but if we have between 15-20 words for each stunt, that would be 525-700 words (not including a summary sentence or two). Feel free to retrieve the overlong draft and whittle it down. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Instead of doing anything reasonable or concise as suggested, someone ignored WP:FILMPLOT, the article talk page, and this whole discussion, and added all the excessively long list back to the article anyway.[5] It is difficult to write shorter and better plot summaries but I still have not seen an exception to film plot length guidelines that talented motivated editors were not able to solve. -- 109.78.209.59 (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've informed the editor of this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Original research in Academy Award lists

I've recently opened two very similar discussions at Talk:Academy Award for Best Actress#Issues with OR and FLC status and Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Issues with OR and FLC status regarding the inclusion of supplementary lists with heavy levels of unsourced detail. I've done some more research to follow up, and there seem to be similar issues at Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, and (to a much lesser extent) Academy Award for Best Director (I won't open new discussions there to avoid confusion, and I'll probably note that one of the existing discussions should shift to the other). All five of these articles are FLs, so the original research issues are deeply problematic if they should maintain their status. Was there some kind of consensus to add these lists, and if so, why are they allowed to include so much unsourced detail? RunningTiger123 (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSFILM § Soundtrack track lists in film articles

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOSFILM § Soundtrack track lists in film articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Z-O-M-B-I-E-S

There is a discussion regarding Zombies (2018 film) and mention of the stylization Z-O-M-B-I-E-S in the opening sentence. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Zombies (2018 film)#Stylization and Hyphenating the title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Streaming films

So I thought that we already put this conversation to bed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_76#Netflix_films_are_Direct-to-video_films?, but apparently not. So we once again have to discuss if it is appropriate to label streaming films as "direct to streaming films" in actors infoboxes. Pinging IJBall, User:Masem, Erik, User:Orange Suede Sofa, Betty Logan, Emir of Wikipedia, BOVINEBOY, El Millo, Gonnym, Joeyconnick, User:Amaury

The phrase "direct-to-streaming" makes it seem like we're calling them direct to video. And direct to video used to be a meaningful descriptor about the quality and budget of the film, that's no longer the case with films made by streaming companies, and is completely misleading for us to try and compare them. Personally, I feel that there's no reason to label streaming films as anything in actor's filmography, but if it has to be labeled, then streaming film is fine as it's a completely accurate label that is not trying to give an impression about the quality of the film, one that might be completely inaccurate. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not "direct-to-streaming" because of the concerns you already expressed and I see no need in labeling them as anything in the actor's filmography. —El Millo (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As per the previous discussion, there was no consensus that one term was "correct" over the other one. The gist of the previous discussion seemed to be that editors felt that either term could be used – certainly not that one was "correct" and the other one "was not correct", regardless of how JDDJS feels on the matter. I've been trying abide by that consensus, leaving "Streaming film" in some filmographies, and leaving "direct-to-streaming film" in other filmographies. Meanwhile, JDDJS has been steadily going around and changing to his preferred version at a number of articles – IOW, gaming the system and trying to get around the previous discussion that either term is acceptable. The fact is there is not a huge amount of difference between streaming films and what used to be called "direct-to-video" – it's basically a subtle difference. But that is arguable, and is not relevant – what is relevant is that JDDJS is trying to act like the consensus was in his favor from the previous discussion – in fact there was no consensus either way. Either term should be acceptable, and JDDJS should stop changing to his preferred version. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, for the second time, you've gone running to the wrong forum – this should go to WT:FILMBIO, as it relates to Filmographies specifically. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

IJBall, Once again, you have completely ignored discussing the actual issue and have instead just complained about me, so again, I must remind you to stay on topic. If you want to discuss my editing practices, then go ahead and start a discussion on WP:ANI (or elsewhere). I don't even understand what you want me to do. If I don't discuss my edits beforehand, you complain that I didn't get a consensus first, but then whenever I try to start an actual discussion in a visible way (either on a project page or by making a RFC), you still complain. However, that's what we're not on this page to discuss. We're here to discuss the content itself. Do you have any actual reasons that we should be using the phrase "direct to streaming" anywhere on Wikipedia? Because several reasons have been stated why we shouldn't use it, but nobody has offered any actual argument in favor of using it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Short answer – yes, for "parallelism" in the tables with "direct-to-video film" (i.e. same formatting). The relevant point, again, is that in the last discussion there was no consensus that "direct-to-streaming film" is somehow "wrong". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion made it extremely clear that almost everyone was completely against using "Direct to Video" and nobody other than you offered any support to the almost identical term "Direct to streaming", and many editors were against labeling them at all in filmographies, so it seemed clear to me that consensus was against using a term. However, regardless of what was discussed, you still haven't provided us with an actual reason as to why we should be using that term. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Do sources even really use "direct-to-streaming" to describe a film's release? Gonnym (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've only seen it used in a negative way for when a film was supposed to go to theaters but went direct-to-streaming either due to COVID or a quality/profitability concern. I would definitely avoid it unless it is being discussed in that context with sources/commentary (and I don't see why this would need to be mentioned in a filmography anyway). - adamstom97 (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like this is a matter of what goes in the "Notes" column of an actor's table that lists their credits. I think by mentioning "direct to video" or "streaming" in "Notes", it presumes that the listed films are theatrically released by default and that readers should know that. (Alternately, one could include "theatrical release" in "Notes" or even have a distinct column about type of release.) However, I'm not seeing the need to have this kind of categorical information at all in a credits table. For any given table, we can't cleanly tell the reader if a listed film was a big hit at the box office and/or with critics, or if the actor's role in it was big or small. Plus, I feel we haven't had consensus to include the director and/or the studio in an actor's table. So in that vein, I don't think the type of release is relevant in the table either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We have traditionally indicated "direct-to-video film" in filmographies for obvious reasons; we also have always noted 'Television' films and listed them under 'Television' as well. (Which is why this discussion belongs better in WT:FILMBIO, where they understand the issues....) In the previous discussion, there was some debate about whether noting whether a film was released via "streaming" was also relevant or not (I am gathering that Facu-el Millo's view is that it is not, that I can't be certain). I would argue that it is (still), as "theatrical films" are the top of the line (see Scarlett Johannson's lawsuit over this very issue), and streaming films are probably only one step up from "direct-to-video" or "direct-to-VOD". But I would acknowledge that this is a less clear-cut issue than it is with "direct-to-video films". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Johansson's lawsuit wasn't about her having problems with the hybrid release on principle, but rather on the fact that her salary was based on the box office performance of the film, which she felt the hybrid release hurt. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I know you say "obvious reasons", but are they really? I understand that items like "Television film" have historically been in the "Notes" column, but... why? Theatrically-released films and television films will each range in quality. If an actor is in all theatrically-released films, with "Notes" being empty of that mention, it could include the biggest box office hit ever and the biggest box office bomb, as well as the most critically acclaimed and the most critically panned. I feel like insisting on identifying the type of release beyond theatrical release is a presumably-knowing wink and nudge to readers, that these aren't "top of the line" films. With streaming, the line is blurred further. So why deal with that in an actor's credits table at all? (Also, WT:FILMBIO barely has any activity, so I don't mind this discussion happening here.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree with everything you're saying. While there used to be a clear distinction in the quality, budget and actors in in direct to video films opposed to theatrical films, streaming has completely destroyed that line, making films that have A-list talent, very high budgets, win many major awards and (especially post Covid) are sometimes seen by more people than most theatrical films. Some streaming films might be of similar quality to direct to video films, but since there's no real objective way to determine a difference between those streaming films, we should be completely avoiding the comparison at all. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that this was originally a way to get around people listing things like "Netflix film" or "Disney+ film" in filmographies, which is definitely a "no-no". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Film is a film imo, I don’t see a pertinent necessity to established whether it’s a streaming film or not. Netflix, Apple TV+, etc by and large wants their films to be in the discussion for mainstream accolades or festival recognition, so they’re still the same thing. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not only has my opinion remained unchanged from the last time this was litigated, I feel even more strongly about it now. These labels no longer carry enough meaning to be encyclopedic. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

CfD: Fantastic Fest alumni

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Category:Fantastic Fest alumni could use input from this project's participants. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Terminator 2 Box Office section

Freaking old film box offices man. Bane of my existence. Almost worse than critical reception sections. Can anyone please provide me with a source for Terminator 2's international figure and where it places it ranking-wise? BOM says 312 million or so which is fine and it's undoubtedly the highest-grossing film OUTSIDE of the US and Canada but I can't source it, anything I find either talk about the North American BO or the Worldwide BO. BOMs worldwide ranking doesn't include foreign figures for the year and The Numbers includes every release ever, so Beauty and the Beast shows up as the highest-grossing film of the year despite having earned 90% of its money outside of 1991. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Film censorship in China

Hello! There is a proposal for a sorely needed rewrite of that article. Since the article doesn't have a lot of editors looking at it generally speaking and the article itself has been, ah, contentious (to say the least) in the past, I'm requesting experienced editors to participate in the discussion or help keep an eye on the article as it undergoes significant changes.

Currently, there is talk about renaming the article to List of banned films in the People's Republic of China, restrict the article to post-1949 (with possible splits), and creating definitions for the scope. As this is a lot of proposed changes for what is currently two editors, additional help or eyes would be very much appreciated. Please see the discussion at: Talk:Film censorship in China#Preparation of Rewriting. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thank you. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And it was relisted for more input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

List of 3D films page move discussion

Hi. Please see this discussion. And maybe there's a better way to split the lists, rather than the random 2005 cut-off (maybe by decade?) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A 2017 film

The Abduction of Jennifer Grayson a 2017 film, should have a wikipedia page. 74.89.212.125 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So write one? DonIago (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add requests to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Requests. It would be helpful to include sources so starting the article is a bit more enticing! BOVINEBOY2008 09:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm reviewing coverage of this film, and I'm not sure if it would meet the Wikipedia:Notability standards. IMD does not show any external reviews for this film, and a lot of indie films tend to have reviews even from blogs. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia

Now that most major studios seem to have pulled their current movie releases from Russia due to current events, I have seen several editors adding this to individual film articles. It doesn't seem to me to necessarily be something that we should note for every film (especially when we are generally talking about U.S. films that should have limited discussion about release in other markets), but I was wondering if anyone feels strongly otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be appropriate to mention as part of describing a film's release in multiple countries. It shouldn't be the only detail that's not "domestic", but I wouldn't remove it on sight if it's just a sentence. I'd rather encourage building around it to cover a film's international release as a whole. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of 3D films (2005 onwards)#Requested move 27 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of 3D films (2005 onwards)#Requested move 27 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Star (Disney+) original programming

There is a discussion about whether or not to list the film Nomadland under List of Star (Disney+) original programming. See the discussion here: Talk:List of Star (Disney+) original programming#Should Nomadland be a Star Original or just even be included on this list? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

AllMovie

Is it legitimate to use AllMovie as a source in the Reviews section of a movie's article? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems legitimate, but I don't know how much reviewers vary? I see that for the AllMovie page for Fight Club, the reviewer is Jason Clark, who has reviewed elsewhere as profiled here. Not sure if AllMovie always has reliable reviewers. What is the movie in this case? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the reviewer have a Rotten Tomatoes profile? Most modern critics in English-speaking countries have an RT entry if they are regarded as credible. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: The movie is Split Second (1953 film). @Betty Logan: The reviewer is a Craig Butler. The only Wikipedia article for that name is about a Canadian football player (with hatnotes for an Apprentice contestant and a snooker player). I don't know what a Rotten Tomatoes profile is. To all: my motivation is that I wanted to add that glowing AllMovie review to the two lackluster ones, since I found it a very enjoyable movie. I've found that before for classic films noir: two bad reviews from the film's era, with no modern reviews for what would probably be a positive revisionist take. I'm new to this; I do plot summaries and am good at searching scholarly articles for interesting information to add to film articles, but I don't know how to drill down and root out reviews (old or modern). -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! A film critic does not have to be notable (meaning to have a Wikipedia article) to use as a reference. I don't see evidence of Craig Butler being a film critic elsewhere. On AllMovie, this seems to indicate that he has reviewed over 150 films. If he has been that prolific under AllMovie, and AllMovie considered a reliable source, then it's probably fine to use. May be worth indicating that he wrote the review in retrospect, and not at the time of release. Other editors are welcome to weigh in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: PS: I just found another review by him I want to use, this time for A Blueprint for Murder. I definitely want to contrast the new reviews to the original ones. I went to that link you provided, but I didnt see the information you mentioned. And what's with Rotten Tomatoes profiles? Thanks for your time! -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The link I provided was only to show how there are numerous Google results for Craig Butler writing reviews for different films on AllMovie. As for Rotten Tomatoes profiles, RT sometimes lists a film critic's credentials because RT can cover a lot of critics. But there isn't one for Craig Butler for whatever reason, where there was a RT profile for Jason Clark. Honestly, I'd be fine with using the reviews considering how many there are by one person on a website that I'd consider a reliable source. Not sure if Betty or others would disagree. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Erik:I've added a review to each article. I hope my use of ellipsis is appropriate. I've got a problem, though. On the page the references look ok, but when I click on the links I get "404 Error: The page you requested cannot be found." Additionally, a box came up on my screen for Split Second that said "Sign up not Found." I don't know what I did wrong, and I don't know how to reopen the web cite template to fix it if I knew. Thanks again, -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the URL you used was slightly off. I was able to fix it. See my fix here. Not sure how you're editing Wikipedia? Is it a visual editor or something? I always edit on my desktop, so it is pretty manual, as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: Thanks for all your help. No visual editor, I just hit the Edit sourse tab and start typing. The initial question sure generated a lot of verbage, but adding those two reviews was important to me. One last thing: so that I can fix things myself the next time, how do you open up the cite web template again after posting the edit? I tried, but it just opened up a new, blank box. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you see the "Edit source" tab. In the article body, I click [edit] next to the "Critical reception" heading, and it takes me to a web page called "Editing Split Second (1953 film) (section)" in which I see all the text and related wiki-code for that section, including the cite web template. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Edit source" indicates visual editor is being implemented, and based on Pete Best Beatles's questions, sounds like they are using that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hotstar#Requested move 2 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hotstar#Requested move 2 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC), Adding WP Film to this. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Masking imdb links as wikilinks, again

Per previous discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_79#Masking_imdb_links_as_wikilinks, @Michael D. Turnbull and myself have removed those we found on, I think, about 2000 pages, using these searchstrings:[6][7]. There's probably editors who like to use them around.

I made an addition at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, see [8]. It's a little off-topic, but may be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice work and thanks for going through 2,000 pages! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation for directors

Are there general thoughts on whether (director) is sufficient disambiguation? It seems like it could be ambiguous with the general title "director" for multiple different disciplines. Checking various categories, it seems like there is a mix of both (director) and (film director), but I think it looks like there are slightly more (director) pages. -2pou (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think "(director)" can be sufficient disambiguation to differentiate a figure from non-directors, regardless of the medium that the figure directs. I'd only expand the disambiguation if you had something like two different directors of the same name, one being in film and one being in theatre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Diana Walter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diana Walter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

—Mahāgaja · talk 12:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Taxi Driver page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gehraiyaan (film)#Requested move 10 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gehraiyaan (film)#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Author's Film Company#Requested move 13 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Author's Film Company#Requested move 13 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Bollywood page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Article about They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? (TSPDT)

Hello everybody, usually I contribute to the german version of WP. Within our own film-related project pages we discussed to include an article about They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?, as it is a much-cited rating platform for films, many of us use as a resource, kind of like IMDb. To my surprise there was no english version, even though it is also a much-cited source. As I wrote the article about TSPDT, I would like to provide an english version - unless the reason why you don't have it, is that you decided against it. What I wrote includes the problematic aspects - such as favouring certain sources (like Sight & Sound) and the effect this has on the overall rating. Even though I'm actually a translator, I would be happy, if a native speaker, who is familiar with the subject could volunteer to be my proofreader. You don't need to know any German of course, I'm just including the link as a reference:

They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?

Greetings from Leipzig Llydia (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Llydia! It looks like the past two times it has been created, they were low-effort creations that meant speedy deletion. First, I don't think that the website being a citable source directly means that the website is notable by Wikipedia's standards. It would be a matter of other sources writing significant coverage about this website. I don't know German, but looking at the German-language article, it looks like 10 out of 20 references are TSPDT itself, and the other references do not (to me) seem to be compelling. This BFI voter page isn't significant coverage, and this seems bloggish. Unless I'm missing something, the two BFI "Reviewing the Greatest Films of All Time" links don't mention TSPDT at all. Doing a very preliminary search engine test myself with the query "they shoot pictures don't they" -site:theyshootpictures.com, this seems like a good possible source, but other than that, I'm not seeing anything that talks about the website more than in passing. This is in passing, for example. I'm not fully sure if it is notable on its own, but considering that Wikipedia has lists of websites, I wouldn't object to a list of websites about films that can list blue-linked websites as well as websites that may not have their own notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Erik, thank you for your answer and the explanation. I needed to think about it for a moment, as it acutally surprised me. German WP doesn't have many individual articels fictional characters which appear in films or series, which are rather common on the english WP, sop I kind of had wrong assumptions about things not being deleted. Our rule is more or less that if sources are cited, they should be explained. When I looked at entries your have, I found a few online film resources, like [[AllMovie], Deadline Hollywood or The Futon Critic which don't neccessarily seem to be in a category much above TSPDT, this is why I assumed - if they have an entry why souldn't this one have one as well. Anyways, it's not a heartblood-issue, I wanted to aks here first, as because I don't feel like putting work into a possible candidate for speedy deletion. In case someone feels like creating this "list of websites about films" ping me and I'll be glad to contribute the paragraph about TSPDT. Have a good weekend, best,Llydia (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think when it comes to fictional characters, there are a lot of little battlegrounds going on over whether or not to keep, delete, merge, or redirect. That kind of topic has been of focus for some editors who see such topics as fancruft, but I am not sure if that kind of focus happens for websites, so something like The Futon Critic may be under the radar. (I kind of find its notability somewhat dubious but not enough to pursue the matter.) I forgot to mention that there are notability guidelines here at WP:WEB. For what it's worth, any article you put together wouldn't be speedily deleted, but it's possible there would be a WP:AFD discussion, and the article should be in solid shape to survive that. Though personally, I don't have a good sense about how strict people are with websites' Wikipedia articles when these wind up under scrutiny. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, The Futon Critic is more of a TV-centric site and used a lot within articles covered under the TV project. I don't know if this ever was not the case, but they are mostly a housing site for network press releases covering individual episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Listing of crew in Godzilla films

There is discussion on the talk pages of Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster and Talk:Mothra vs. Godzilla about the extra credits for crew within the article. If anyone could weigh in on these details, it would help a lot. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Defining a film noir redux

On January 14 2022, I posted to this talk page with a section entitled "Defining a film noir." I pointed out a RS had called the movie When Strangers Marry a film noir, although its Wikipedia article simply defined it as "a 1950 American suspense film". The reply from editor Facu-el Millo was:

      Per WP:FILMGENRE, 'Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources", so just
      one reliable source isn't enough to justify including in the lead section, you need to show it is generally refered to as a film noir.

The issue came up again last night, when I saw that TCM's Noir Alley had featured the movie Guilty Bystander (originally broadcast on July 4 2021, Intro and Outro available on You Tube). The movie's Wikipedia article described it simply as "a 1950 American crime drama" in the lead section. Noir Alley may not be a RS, but I found the movie referred to as a film noir in several other places:

1) the AFI catalog

2) an AllMovie review by Bruce Eder

3) a Rotten Tomatoes review by Dennis Schwartz

4) the website at www.bynwr.com

5) in the Film Noir section at Internet Archive's Moving Image Archive

6) in the Guardian newspaper, "Lockdown Watch" by Nicolas Winding Refn (May 29, 2020)

7) in The Dark Page II: Books that Inspired American Film Noir (1950-1965) by Kevin Johnson, Oak Knoll Press, New Castle DE 2009, page 202

8) in Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style ed. by Alain Silver et al., Overlook Press, Woodstock NY 1992, page 115

9) in A Film Noir Guide: 745 Films of the Classic Era, 1940-1959 by Michael F. Keaney, McFarland & Company Inc., Jefferson NC, 2003, p. 172

(All three books are available for free at the Internet Archive.)

Is this enough to add "film noir" to Guilty Bystander's lead section? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems a likely candidate, but many films are rarely classified in just one genre. Be aware of the spotlight effect, where if you look up a title and specific genre, you'll likely find sources supporting that. But will you find more if you look up that title and another genre? Ideally, look up how sources cover a title without seeking out a genre, and then try to compare results. Without looking for a genre, searching for the film in Google Books shows "film noir" coming up repeatedly, so it seems appropriate. I think some editors try to put too many film genres in the opening sentence when they can cover other elements of the film later in the lead section. For example, WP:FILMLEAD also suggests adding the general premise, so if you did that for Guilty Bystander, you could cover the crime and drama elements of the film, like mentioning that the protagonist's son was kidnapped. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What I've been trying to do lately is to just put one (maybe two) genres in the opening sentence. I try to source it to a reliable database, such as the AFI Catalog of Feature Films, and move all the other cruft elsewhere in the lead. For example: 2020 American satirical comedy spy film" would turn into "2020 American comedy film ... (a sentence or two later) It is a satirical take on spy films." That way, people can still have their cruft in the lead, but it stays outside of the opening sentence, which is sometimes unreadable an unreadable mess in film articles. For whatever reason, the opening sentence in video game and television articles are almost always much easier to parse and read. Plus, I think this might be less contentious with other editors, too, because you're not explicitly labeling the film as "X genre" in the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

DC Films

Hey, please comment on Talk:List of films based on DC Comics publications#Theatrically released films Subheading regarding https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_based_on_DC_Comics_publications&type=revision&diff=1078442456&oldid=1078397531. I gave section without subheading a subheading so clearer in TOC there's content, and made what appears as sub-heading a sub-heading. User 86 10 25 197 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 15 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 15 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Review aggregator prose templates

The templates {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{MC film}} have been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Review aggregator prose templates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Name correction of the Screenwriter and adding more article links

Hi I would like to propose correcting the name of the Writer Akshat Saluja, his full name is Akshat R Saluja Also there are many articles available to be added in the wiki article.such as below.

https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/entertainment/2022/03/10/ent5-cinema-kapur.html https://theprint.in/features/aditya-roy-kapurs-om-the-battle-within-to-hit-theatres-in-july/866752/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatrsaluja (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sergio Film:

The description has factually incorrect information regarding the aftermath of Sergio's death. Specifically this line - "Later, the US pulls out of Iraq leading to a long Civil War, but"

This needs to be corrected. The UN pulled out of Iraq after the bombing and deaths of Sergio and other UN workers.

The "civil war" was started by Al Queda bombings and began during US time and followed by ISIS. You cant really call it a true civil war, and the US did not pull out leading to it - so whoemver wrote this was smoking something funny or got their info only from the movies final credits scenes and twisted it around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.211.151 (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Accidental criticism

If a director criticizes a part of their film while on a press tour, is that relevant to include in an article? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This sort of thing has happened before, though it usually comes out later on rather than when they are trying to promote the film. It's probably more appropriate as a note in the relevant production section rather than as part of the actual reception or marketing sections though. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: To be more specific, I'm referring to a Michael Bay interview for Ambulance (see it here) where he says, "some of the CGI is shit in this movie. There's a couple shots that I wasn't happy with". Is that relevant for a section on the visual effects? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I figured that was what you were talking about, and I would just say in the post-production section that he said he was not happy with some of the visual effects. If/when more details come up they can be added to flesh it out more than just "the CGI is shit" of course. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot vs. other terms for documentaries

Do other editors consider it erroneous to describe documentaries as having a "plot"? I'm wondering if I should change the section header to "Synopsis" or "Summary" for all such articles, since "plot" seems to me to connote fiction. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Synopsis" is definitely the right term! See MOS:FILM#Documentaries. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, perfect! If it's already in guidance, that makes me feel confident setting up an AWB task for it. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Narrative? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Overview? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think "Overview" is ever a good section title for anything, because the lead should be the overview. Popcornfud (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC resolution

I posted an RfC entitled "Removing actors' names from plot summaries" to this page on February 5. The last comment was on February 9. I see now that the entire discussion has been archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, topic # 7, with no formal closure or consensus being determined. How do I get a consensus on this topic? The reason I started the RfC was because an editor had reverted a bunch of my edits, against an informal consensus on the talk page. I figure I need a formal consensus to get the reverts reinstated (and to know how to proceed in the future). What should I do? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles, you could list it at closure requests. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks, that's just what I need. It's done. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User:HM2021

User:HM2021 keeps adding unsourced information about the Amazon-MGM merger. I've already told them about it but they keep doing it. The most recent example was on 30 March (see Special:Diff/1080201522). Also, they seem to be using IMDb as a source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted their edits and left a notice at their Talk page. Hopefully they'll be more careful going forward. If not, persistently adding unsourced material is grounds for a block. DonIago (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gunga Jumna#Requested move 24 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gunga Jumna#Requested move 24 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Should "films by country" categories remain all-inclusive?

The project has long had an established practice of deeming each country's basic "[Country] films" category to be "all-inclusive", meaning that it had to directly include all films from that country even if they were otherwise extensively subcategorized by genre or other characteristics. However, I wanted to ask for some opinions about whether it should stay that way or not.

Going back to the original establishment of that practice, it's not at all clear that there was actually an overwhelmingly large discussion — rather, it seems to have been a relatively small discussion, led by an editor who was on an active campaign to have Wikipedia make all categories all-inclusive across the board. There weren't really compelling reasons given for why WikiProject Film had special needs in this regard that were different from other category trees — the rationale essentially seemed to boil down to "we should do it this way because every category should always be this way", but the editor tried in other projects as well and mostly failed to convince them, with Film being about the only WikiProject where he succeeded in imposing his view.

Now, fifteen years ago it wasn't really the end of the world: nearly all countries only had a few hundred film articles at most — but in 2022, a considerable number of the categories are now too large and in dire need of diffusion, because they far exceed the size at which a category in almost any other category tree would be deemed to need subcategorization on size management grounds. As of right now, Argentina has 1,907 films; Australia has 2,635; Britain has 11,802; Canada has 5,154; China has 1,580; France has 7,821; Germany has 4,715; Hong Kong has 1,931; India has 22,599; Italy has 6,767; Japan has 4,246; Mexico has 1,626; Russia has 1,223; the Soviet Union has 1,924; Spain has 2,180; and Sweden has 1,112.

And then there's the United States, with 57,542 — which is so large that even the basic task of ensuring that films from the subcategories are actually included in the parent category is literally impossible to look after. In any of the other categories, I can easily do a list comparison in AWB between the base Country films category and a Country genre films subcategory to ensure that all of the subcategory's films are appropriately categorized in the parent — but for the US I can't do that because the list comparer cuts off at 25,000, which literally only gets me to the letter I and renders everything from J through Z unbatchable.

So my question is, are there genuinely important reasons why we should keep the base Country films categories all-inclusive, or should we abandon that rule so that the categories can be better managed for size? Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I say abandon it. One editor encouraged me to add the "American film" category to every article I made, which I felt was wrong simply because the category was already too big. Using subcategories instead (based on year/genre/etc.) would be immensely better. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the argument for categories like country and language were that they were treated as non-diffusing per WP:ALLINCLUDED. Is there a distinction being made between country and language here? What happens with other media -- TV shows, books, albums, etc? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No other form of media — not books, not TV shows, not music, not newspapers, not magazines, etc. — treats "Country media" as all-inclusive, such that an individual item would have to be categorized in the base country media category directly alongside other subcategories. Film is the only one that does that at all. And even films-by-language categories are starting to get comprehensively subbed for a country-language intersection now, as well. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I would endorse diffusing the films-by-country categories, then, to be in line with other topics. I'd be curious to know how other media treat language too, before endorsing to diffuse that also. I believe that the film infobox automatically categorizes the film based on the "language" parameter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox adds articles to appropriate language categories based on |language=. If consensus is reached to diffuse that, we'd have to adjust the infobox coding, which likely would result in a massive drop in articles in the categories. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that could be a separate discussion, then. Do you have any preference about the country aspect here? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to diffuse the articles into appropriate subcategories. I find it highly unlikely there would be any articles that should only be in say "American films" and not any of its subcategories. If a parent language category doesn't have subcategories to diffuse into, then we probably shouldn't. But if the subcategories exist, let's do it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've never especially understood why the films by country categories were non-diffusing...though I also admittedly never cared enough to try digging into the roots of that decision either. In my personal editing experience, non-diffusing categories are pretty rare...as such, I'd be in favor of diffusing the films by country categories unless someone has a substative argument as to why that's a bad idea. DonIago (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In a perfect world where categories are made up more dynamically, then having all-included categories makes sense. So for a "1999 American film" you'd have one category for the year, one for the country and one for the media. Then, a user can create search queries and find relevant results. For example "Anything from the US", "Anything from the US in 1999", etc. However, we don't have that system and having a category with 50k entries isn't really helpful, other than for having the number of articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Bearcat, do you plan to act on this consensus? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly not a project I was planning to tackle alone, no. It would require a lot of work by a lot of people, and isn't something I'm prepared to do all by myself without assistance. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If this is something that can be automated, you could ask a bot operator to do this. Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a bot would be a good idea. It seems like a straightforward step of removing Category:American films from all articles? Unless we want to do something more? I did notice that we don't have American films by decade or by year, but I wonder if a bot could do that too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently the only country that somewhat has this style is Egypt- Category:Egyptian films by year. I'm also pretty sure a bot can take the year from the infobox or lead or even the categories themselves and set this. Gonnym (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to handing it off to a bot, but I would have a few cautions about that.

Firstly, is {{Infobox film}} still autogenerating "Country films" categories based on the contents of country= in the infobox? It doesn't seem to do that anymore, as far as I can tell based on the template code, but I'm not an expert in template coding and can't be sure of that, and I can't find any particularly obvious indication of where and when that feature was ever removed from the infobox coding. So that would need to be clarified before we go ahead, because if it does still do so then removing the category from the category declarations wouldn't actually depopulate the category as the category would still be transcluded via the infobox anyway. But conversely, I have occasionally come across film articles that were categorized only through infobox-transcluded categories with no direct category declarations present on the page at all — so if that feature does still need to be turned off now, then some caution would need to be applied to ensure that turning it off didn't isolate any films from the country tree. Of course, if that feature has actually been turned off already, then there's no problem — but if it's still active, then we'd need to be careful to turn it off only after we were sure that all films had already been sorted for the correct nationality-genre intersections.

Secondly, we would of course want to ensure that we were using the bot only on subcategories, so that any films that are currently categorized only in "country films" and not in any "country-genre intersection" subcategories also don't get stranded — for example, the bot should be used to remove "American films" from films that are already in "American comedy films", and on and so forth — but it should not be set loose directly on Category:American films itself, as there may be some stragglers that have been categorized only for country and will thus need some human attention paid to them independently of a bot project. (And by the same token, for some smaller countries with fewer film articles, some or all of the genre subcategories might not necessarily exist at all yet.) So the bot project would need to be structured to ensure that the bot was removing a country films category only from films that are already in one or more country+genre or country+year subcategories, but not from any films that are sitting only in Country films without other subcategorization.

Those are the two main concerns I can think of offhand, but in principle I definitely endorse the idea of handing as much of this as possible to a bot for convenience's sake. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

On the first point, I don't think the film infobox ever categorized by country. Checking the template history's edit summaries as well as the template's talk page archives, I don't see anything discussing that. It was only for categorizing by language, I believe. On the second point, good point about not stranding certain topics. I feel like if an article already has a category with the words "American and "films" in the category name, Category:American films can be removed. We can then see what is left and clean that up. Afterward, we can also see about categorizing by decade or by year, but that seems like it could be automated too, at least for articles with just one "19XX/20XX films" category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Dramedy page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral notice that Total Recall is up for Featured Article

Per title Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Eddie Muller

Is Eddie Muller a RS when he is hosting TCM's Noir Alley? His Wikipedia article says "Muller is considered a noir expert..", though no direct reference is given for this statement. He is the founder and President of the Film Noir Foundation, and is co-programmer of the San Francisco film festival. He writes commentaries for Fox's film noir series, and has written seven books about the cinema, although the only academic qualifications given are "Muller studied with filmmaker George Kuchar at the San Francisco Art Institute in the late 1990s". His profile at TCM also adds he curates museums, and "he has been instrumental in preserving America's noir heritage, which to date has included restoring and preserving more than 30 nearly lost classics in partnership with the UCLA Film and Television Archive." He has lectured on film noir at the Cinematheque Francaise in Paris, the Museum of Madern Art in New York, and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking. When checking for reliability, the first check would be the publisher, which is Turner Classic Movies. When the publisher is reliable, you can generally trust specific coverage under them because it is assumed that the publisher has checked facts or ensured editorial oversight. The host of Noir Alley does not have to be a notable or even personally authoritative figure themselves. So content that appears on Noir Alley can be cited for Wikipedia articles, I believe. As for Muller himself, looks like his being "considered a noir expert" dates to the very first (and completely unreferenced) draft of his article here. It does seem like he can be considered a noir expert, but the article should reflect his specific credentials, and if someone as a result calls him "a noir expert", that can be included with citation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Wikidata and current releases

If editors aren't aware, Rotten Tomatoes data can be used in articles from Wikidata with {{RT data}}. It's pretty nifty and an overall positive in my view of switching that info over to Wikidata. However, Indagate has been going around changing articles of currently releasing films (Morbius (film)) or those recently released in the last year (such as Ghostbusters: Afterlife) to use the template and Wikidata info. I have taken issue to this (and other editors have also reverted them), because Rotten Tomatoes is so volatile and in flux after a films initial release, and even up to a year after, that we shouldn't be sending editors to Wikidata to make such adjustments. I'm wondering if wording needs to be implemented (in MOS:FILM#Critical reception maybe?) to help curb this if others agree. I'm thinking the following:

Rotten Tomatoes information may be integrated to Wikidata with the template {{Rotten Tomatoes data}}. This may be beneficial for films part of a franchise that list the information on multiple articles. For new or currently releasing films, changes in articles and tables to the template to access the information from Wikidata should not be done until at least 12-18 months following a film's wide release, given the constant fluctuation that can occur with a film's score. Additional information regarding setting up a film's Wikidata entry to house Rotten Tomatoes information can be found in the template documentation.

I've used may be in the first sentence because even though this option exists, an article doesn't need to change over, and if the change is reverted, it shouldn't result in an edit war regarding it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I normally wait six months to a year after release before adding the Wikidata template. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We can also figure out a time frame (I'm personally in the camp of longer ie 12-18 months), but that can be discussed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't get this. we shouldn't be sending editors to Wikidata to make such adjustments Why not? Editing on Wikidata is pretty user-friendly, arguably more so than on Wikipedia. The only possible hindrance is to learn that that's where the data is pulled from (Notacardoor briefly put {{EditAtWikidata}} in references with RottenBot at my suggestion but he changed his mind after one person complained). But that doesn't seem too big of a problem if who you're dealing with are regular editors (we could also add invisible comments pointing to Wikidata).

The benefit of using Wikidata extends beyond the English Wikipedia. And the English Wikipedia using it significantly increases the chance of the data being attended and maintained. (I also wonder why Notacardoor is not willing to run RottenBot more frequently.) Nardog (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the benefits of Wikidata. It just seems like for current films in the immediate aftermath of a film's release, we shouldn't be sending editors to another Wiki run site if they are just looking to update the scores. I see a lot of IP editors, and registered users, who for the majority just come to make those edits. I'm not saying to completely avoid using the template, but within the immediate release window of a film, it seems counter intuitive to send users over to Wikidata for the constant fluctuations in the score. I agree that I think the bot should be run more seeing as its last run was November 2021, and if it can update existing scores beyond just adding the qualifiers to films, I think it should. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Think the RT numbers don't normally fluctuate in a significant way after a week or so from release so 18 months is way too long. Agree with Nardog that Wikidata is fairly accessible for editors with less experience, numbers are in separate rows and labelled rather than within text. Many films have their RT score in multiple articles, e.g. the Ghostbusters example you gave is also at Ghostbusters (franchise)#Reception so using Wikidata means only have to be updated in once place if added. When I have added Wikidata, have usually added the 'Edit at Wikidata' button to end of reference so people can click that and go straight to the part of the Wikidata page to edit it, can add that to the text near scores if people think would be better? Would also support using hidden comments mentioned by Nardog. Don't think may be should be used in MoS as think the template should be used wherever the data is in WP as bot wouldn't be able to update without it and data more likely to become inaccurate. Prose can be up to individual editors, but don't think the numbers should be. Think 12-18 months in MoS would create ambiguity, should have one number so clear. Indagate (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

First, I'm curious too why RottenBot is not run more often? Would that help if it did? It does seem tedious for editors to have to go to Wikidata to update the score so frequently. This extra legwork feels like it is making it more difficult for editors to edit Wikipedia. Overall, the barrier should be low, and it could be that new editors do small edits like updating a score here and now before getting more involved in the long run. Of course it's possible for editors to get the hang of Wikidata, but what was simple before is now more complicated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I oppose having any number. Reviews come in not gradually but in rushes. If for example a film premieres at Sundance, then Toronto, gets a release in the US, in the UK, in Latin America etc., you'll see the number of reviews go up all of a sudden and then die down for months. Also what about films that never get "wide release" (i.e. most of them)? The proposal strikes me as having conceived with a very specific scope of situations in mind that doesn't apply to a majority of articles. Nardog (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I can kind of see it make sense if it's meant to cover only studio tentpoles, but then that should be explicitly stated. And 12–18 months seems way too long. I think one or two would be enough. Nardog (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I am a fan of a longer time, but yes, the idea is to write something up that will cover the "rushes" when scores are in more flux. Obviously, once things stabilize, I love the idea of using Wikidata and pointing a user who may be looking to update there if they are unaware of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the amount of time it takes to stabilize differs from film to film. Setting a constant range makes little sense to me, except perhaps for roughly simultaneous worldwide releases. Nardog (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Do you have suggested wording we could try to use then? Because if I reading thoughts correctly, there's at least some agreement that Wikidata shouldn't be used until after the "rushes". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I probably won't be running RottenBot anymore due to time constraints and also because it might be against the terms of use of RT, and I want to be on the safe side. The template/module which retrieves data from Wikidata will still work and can be modified as needed by anyone. Using the template along with Wikidata still facilitates easily using the rating info in multiple locations in or across articles, and it also means you only have to update the rating in one place (and it contributes to Wikidata). Of course, it is not required use the template—that is up to individual editors, but shouldn't result in an edit war especially since the same info would ultimately be presented to readers.

Regarding recently released films, I agree that the template should only be used once the rating and editing has settled down, whether it be weeks or months after the release. Winston (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Winston @Notacardoor, thanks for letting us know. Can see you've published the source code of the bot on GitHub, would you be okay with someone else using that please? Indagate (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yea it's open source. Notacardoor (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll have a look at your GitHub Indagate (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: has argued there isn't consensus for using Wikidata in this way regardless of time at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Indagate&diff=prev&oldid=1080923256 Indagate (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Using Wikidata templates in the mainspace goes against current consensus, see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Inserting Wikidata values into Wikipedia articles. The info on Wikidata is often outdated, and people checking for vandalism here will not see vandalism on Wikidata. I see above that most people feel it shouldn't be used for "current" movies (good), but that it could be used for older ones. In many cases, this simply means replacing correct RT figures here, with a template from Wikidata which may have the same figures, or even outdated ones. I was reverting the addition of this template from many articles for these reasons, and was pointed to this discussion. See e.g. this, where the Wikidata data was identical to the already present ones, or this, which changed the March 2022 data to October 2021 data by using the Wikidata template. Please keep this stuff local, and at worst substitute the more recent figures into our articles if you are reasonably certain that the Wikidata ones are reliable and more recent. Fram (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "keep this stuff local" and "our articles"? This project talk page concerns all Film articles. Think the bot can be used to update the scores but not sure how currently. The more recent figures can be added to Wikidata manually using the link provided in each article rather than reverting. Indagate (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Local = enwiki. "Our" articles = "enwiki". You are free to update Wikidata, but updating Wikidata shouldn't be a requirement to keep enwiki up-to-date (or worse, to keep it is as up-to-date as it already was before this template was added). Making it "harder" to update enwiki articles is not progress, making it harder to check for vandalism either, changing recent figures with older ones either. Fram (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Can other editors please comment on above by Fram. Should Wikidata be used at all regardless of time? Indagate (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding PostTrak Notification

Hey, please see and respond Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#RfC:_PostTrak Indagate (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Public service announcement

People don't "serve as director" or "serve as producer". They direct or produce a film. You wouldn't say "Saoirse Ronan serves as an actor", would you? Then don't say "Jason Blum serves as a producer". Jason Blum produced the film, not served as producer. This bizarrely verbose bit of journalese seems to be imported from Variety. Variety is a great source, but their tone is completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. The last thing we need are a bunch of people adding content to Wikipedia about "a new shingle on the Universal lot", "actioners that are tops with auds", and for every film to be described as some kind of "romp" (go ahead, do a google search of "romp" site:variety.com – "exuberant romp", "regal romp", "energetic romp", and the Coen Brothers get "a gorgeously crafted romp"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure if this is a community issue. I feel like there are only a small number of editors who are very proactive in creating articles for films when they start filming and therefore set the tone. Maybe that's the case here, and the specific editor or editors could be informed of this? I know that similar proactively-created articles tend to have proseline and passively-voiced wording ("was hired by") too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Toxic Avenger (2022 film)#Requested move 23 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Toxic Avenger (2022 film)#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lost films

I often browse lists of films or filmographies of directors and actors, and for a lot of the films released prior to the 1930s, sadly quite a few of them are lost or are presumed to be lost. Some are being found even to this day, thankfully. But still, browsing these lists I think it's necessary to somehow highlight which films are considered lost, so as to differentiate them from those films on the list that we actually have the ability to view currently. See a trial attempt here: List of animated feature films before 1940. Would be nice if editors carried this over to other lists they edit or happen upon. Jmj713 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ready Player One

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the addition of the sequel to the lead section of the Ready Player One article. The discussion is at Talk:Ready Player One (film)#Sequel. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Having Extra crew members listed in film articles

I've had a discussion with users on the talk page for Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, but I feel like we should discuss it here as we've reached a stand-still and need to figure out where we should stand with this. there was a brief dicussion on this topic in 2017, but I feel we should address it again. Should we or should we not include a further section for crew in film articles? If so, when should they be included and to what extent? If not, why not (as we have a cast section?). Personally, I feel like crew sections would go against WP:TRIVIA which states "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." and "Research may be necessary to give each fact some context". A list of excessive crew members without context of what they have done in the production (opposed to a cast section, which is far more obvious to a general audience), does not help the average reader. Per WP:FILMPRODUCTION, which states, " Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process." I feel adding a list of crew members ranging from assistants to a director or special effects lighting are trivial unless you can provide context on how the individuals work contributed specifically to the production and how these individuals contributed. (i.e: even if we can't gather much into what a specific producer on a film did, it warrants an inclusion in the infobox as it's one of the most primarily contributors to the production of the film while a "special effects assistant director" is not, unless you can provide context on how it noteworthy. I'm not against going into detail on special effects artists on heavy special effects laden films (Godzilla films, Marvel movies, etc.) but I feel like that information can be provided without going into specifics in the prose which actually helps readers understand why you should know why an Eiji Tsuburaya is an important figure for a Godzilla production. I look forward to anyone else's thoughts on this. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's trivia unless there's relevant information on their work on the film. —El Millo (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus has already been established, back in 2018 on this very talk page, in favor of crew lists. It seems odd to undo a consensus just 'cause one doesn't like it. Value and context has already been established at the Ghidorah talk page by @Erik: (who was involved in that 2018 consensus I just linked) and myself, but Andrzejbanas seems to ignore it. Articles like Edge of Tomorrow, Interstellar, (where I got the idea from) and Panic Room have added crew lists and have passed GA nominations with the crews retained. So clearly value has been acknowledged warranting their inclusion. Armegon (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA does not apply here at all. I do not support banning crew lists completely from film articles. There is no policy or guideline to prohibit crew lists, and the value of a crew list will depend on the film. So this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, like Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster should be evaluated on its own merits. There will always be some degree of so-called irrelevance with some articles. For example, with Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, nobody actually cares who the editor and cinematographer for that film were, or who were the actors in the film were beyond the top four or five actors. (No, not even "a general audience" cares about them.) That could all be considered "trivia" under your particular interpretation.

Like I've said elsewhere, it is reasonable to list more crew members in the article body than who we list in the infobox, just like we list more cast members in the "Cast" section than we list in the infobox's "Starring" field. It is relatively new territory on where to draw the line for listing crew members. There are certain crew positions that win awards that aren't in the infobox, for example. Or certain positions for specific kinds of films, like choreographers for dance films. I think we can use WP:FILMCAST like WP:FILMCREW in looking for reasonable rules of thumb on where to cut off a list.

So the question is, are you looking for a specific resolution on Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, or are you looking to get crew lists completely banned from all film articles? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that I have a strong position on this one way or another...to me, just including a 'random' list of crew associated with a film does seem a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I don't know that I feel strongly enough about that for it to constitute opposition. Perhaps one thing we could look to is whether the crewmembers have bluelinks or otherwise received significant coverage from sources for their work on the film in question? DonIago (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn’t apply here either because WP:PERSONNEL supports adding the same “indiscriminate” crew list for albums. So why not for films as well? But like I said above, a consensus has already been established in 2018 in favor of crew lists. It doesn’t make sense to have another consensus every time someone doesn’t like this/that, despite an established consensus. Armegon (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for responding.

@Erik:, I'm curious why WP:TRIVIA doesn't respond here. I'm curious what your proposal for WP:FILMCREW would be for FILMCAST, because this seems like a logical path.
@Armegon:, as discussed previously at discussion on Godzilla film, WP:PERSONNEL is for WikiProjects:Albums and I don't think that really applies here. As for the 2018 article, I wasn't aware of it when it happened, that's why I bring it up again, nothing was added to the MOS:FILM to make it a regular part of the documentation and it the conversation seem to involve 2 to 4 folks. I'm looking for broader discussion here in 2022 to establish a larger consensus.

What @Doniago: states kind of echos my feelings on this. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, lists must "provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." In short, you have to state why it is important. These issues did not seem to be brought up with the inclusion with other special effects crews. And I think this information is better set for prose. Of course, I feel like there should be exceptions (if there is a special effects team that specifically worked together in compacities like a music band would, knowing which members contribtued on certain projects could be useful. I'm thinking of groups like The Chiodo Brothers and such. As for someone asking me if I want removal or to keep it, i'm not 100% against it, but I think it requires context and without it, I think sporadically adidng it to articles make it fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is about trivia sections or sections that list miscellaneous information. Crew names aren't trivia or miscellaneous. I think it's fine to talk about whether or not a crew list is indiscriminate per policy, but WP:TRIVIA is not the relevant guideline to apply here.

I think there are a couple of items to address. First, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." In the film infobox's "Starring" field, we only list the topmost actors of a fuller list of actors' names in the "Cast" section. I think it would be unrealistic for us to remove the "Cast" section if it had the same or similar number of actors as the "Starring" field. For crew members, we've traditionally not listed them in the article body, perhaps because the film infobox has seemed to cover the major crew members. But it is not all of them, and I've seen many requests to add parameters to the film infobox over the years. I think the community in general is reluctant to add a new parameter because it very likely means that some editors will go around populating it for every single film. So if we added art director or production designer parameters, these would be populated indiscriminately. And we probably indiscriminately name a lot of crew members in the infobox regardless of the film. Maybe you'll argue that the same thing could happen to crew lists, but I think if crew lists were used here and there, they would fluctuate just like cast lists do. We don't have editors going around putting dozens of actors under "Cast" sections everywhere.

On the second point, content being indiscriminate is going to be subjective. With cast lists, they are largely a staple of film articles, and we know there's a point when too many names are listed, and that varies from film to film. Furthermore, editors could argue from their own perspective why an actor should be added or deleted, and I think WP:FILMCAST helps deal with that, to reference something outside ourselves. For crew lists, for example, Panic Room was mentioned, and I referenced a book about David Fincher where the main crew for Panic Room was listed on a page. That seemed like a good rule of thumb to follow; I didn't crib names from IMDb or watching the movie. If a secondary source found the set of names worth listing, then I don't think there's a strong case to call it indiscriminate.

Can follow up with other thoughts later. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I wrote too much already, but I also wanted to say that I don't think we need an actual WP:FILMCREW guideline at this point. Crew lists are hardly prevalent and don't really have to be standardized. I think it's okay for some articles to be a little differently structured. I'm wary about adding rules about what editors can or can't do. A lot of rules can be useful, but I think there can be some flexibility. There are some things I experiment with doing differently. One example I know of, a Featured Article like Mulholland Drive (film) was done by an editor outside this community, and with sections like "Characters" and "Style", that outsider approach shows. And I think that's good too. Crew lists aren't inherently detrimental, and the extent of their value may vary from article to article, and I'm okay with other editors trying out approaches to share and structure content of different kinds. Who knows, maybe articles for films that win awards for their cinematography would benefit from small tables of related technical details in a "Cinematography" subsection. Just because something hasn't really existed before does not mean it should never exist going forward. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly! That's what I did with the Godzilla articles. I followed a rule of thumb by using and citing a secondary source. Since they are effects driven films, I felt it was worth noting the crew responsible for bringing such large scale films to life. Also considering that filmmaking is a large team effort. Films are not brought to life by the filmmakers in the infobox alone. Armegon (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My key factor is why is it actually useful? Which has not been stated in any of our conversations. Most of the people are either a) mentioned already in the article or b) fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We aren't really here to make our own conclusions, as you'll have to explain why either you don't think the rules don't apply here with some detail as it's not just up to us whether we like it or not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's useful to list the names of the main contributors to films, particularly because secondary sources name them as well. Reviews will name the main crew members including the positions in the infobox and beyond. Books and chapters about the films will list the crew more completely than the Wikipedia article's film infobox will. Even if seeing the production designer listed is not useful to you, it could be useful to others, as evidenced by their appearance in secondary sources. These same sources aren't going to list the "bottom" 99% of a comprehensive crew list. In addition, as mentioned, a crew list would satisfy MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, and I would say MOS:BUILD applies too. Blue-linked actors and their blue-linked films are likely to be interlinked most of the time (meaning that the film is linked on the actor's article and vice versa), even when an actor appears for like ten seconds in a film. (And they probably don't get named in most secondary sources about films.) A main crew member surely warrants recognition like that, and infobox constraints should not affect that interlinking. Editors and cinematographers probably get interlinked decently just because they "made it" into the infobox, but other main crew members won't, essentially because of the infobox constraints. I think that cutoff is unintentional and that a crew list can be a good way to ensure completeness in listing main contributors and establishing a presence for interlinking. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Erik:, that goes against WP:NOTEVERYTHING which states "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful". As they have all been added without context, I'd even argue excessive cast listing would be more useful than knowing the additional assistant director to a special effects director. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You literally asked me why a crew list is useful. Maybe move on from that line of questioning? My point still stands above, that secondary sources can often list the main crew members, and Wikipedia predominantly uses secondary sources. I'm not arguing for "additional assistant director to a special effects director" itself. It should depend on the film, and a set of names should have its roots in something secondary, may it be the cast or the crew. That should help inform inclusion or not, not our personal take (of which we can have many). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Andrzejbanas has made a habit of this on the Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster page by repeatedly asking/demanding proof of value, only to ignore the answer and repeat this "not good enough, try again" behavior. This is what led me to accuse him of WP:NOTGETTINGIT and return to WP:LAWYERING. WP:NOTGETTINGIT states "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus". WP:LAWYERING states "Using the rules in a manner to achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule (for example, to "win" an editing dispute)". All of that reflects Andrzejbanas behavior here, as they continue to ignore consensus established long ago. Armegon (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion that I can't totally follow, but the key differences between album recording personnel and film crew are that 1. music studio personal will likely be less than a dozen, while film crews can be in the thousands, and 2. if an album wins a Grammy, theoretically that entire list of people are winning a Grammy, but there are no Oscars for second unit cameramen. So, I think, listing all the music personnel of an album is about the same as listing all the producers of a film (which we already do). There is no guideline I know of currently that would say to add or not.
Whether there should be a "Crew" as well as "Cast" section, and who that should contain, is another question, and maybe all the positions for which there are individual awards possible at the majors should be considered for article body inclusion. Kingsif (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It takes a village to make a film as well. Not just the crew members listed in the infobox. But I agree that we can't list all thousands of crew members. So, it would be logical to list additional crew members based on prominence. Or prominence of their roles if blue links are not available. And it would have to depend on the nature on the film. Since this entire argument originated in the Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster talk page, most of the crew listed could be effects crew since it is an effects driven film. Armegon (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on something Erik said about letting the sources inform a debate on inclusion, which I am taking to mean "see if multiple RS list extra crew members, and then see which crew positions are the most frequently mentioned, and then propose a guideline for inclusion of those positions based on external notability of their involvement" (based on what Armegon added, I think this could be happily expanded to also have a line about including other crew positions if RS deems them particularly relevant to the specific film).
So, does anyone think it would be valuable to do some rough data collection: using e.g. the List of highest-grossing films and Academy Award for Best Picture list to get a broad spectrum of popular films, search the titles and "film crew" or something as a limiting term?
For what it's worth, of course, I know Variety reviews/announcements include a selection of crew credits, but only be the current infobox selection (above-the-line, music, and editing, typically). Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Erik has provided a compelling proposal at the Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster page [9]. He proposes using websites like Turner Classic Movies and other verified sources that repeatedly cite certain crew members to establish a rule of thumb. In the case of the Godzilla films, in this case Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, I also suggested using the Criterion Collection site to further cull crew members that are repeatedly referenced. Armegon (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we really don't want to create some rule of thumb that only applies to Godzilla movies... Any other sources to suggest? Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I thought it went without saying, but I guess it needs to be said? This proposal could work for other films as well. Not just Godzilla films. Here's a TCM credits page for Scarface, Apocalypse Now, etc. We may also use AFI wherever possible or print publications. A print publication was cited as a source for the crew credits for Panic Room. I mentioned Godzilla films because this dispute originated at Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, and then the disputer attempted to expand the dispute to Mothra vs. Godzilla, where it was agreed upon to establish a consensus at Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. However, the disputer brought the dispute here, which seems to be an extension of the same dispute from Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. Armegon (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I was more saying that, if developing a rule, it should be broad enough to apply to all films. So, taking care to use sources that also apply broadly. And that it makes sense to have the discussion here, not at a talkpage to apply to one film specifically - if there is going to be a guideline that could be applied broadly (even if not intended), more eyes are better. I'd also take care to avoid databases as sources, or anything else that lists the full crew, as they don't give any idea as to which crew positions the general media considers notable. Kingsif (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Now you're confusing me a bit. @Erik: are developing a new rule/guideline for crew lists? Armegon (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't want to develop guidelines because I don't think crew lists are even a drop in the ocean of film-article content. Deal with them on case-by-case basis. I think the spirit of WP:FILMCAST #1 could easily apply to crew lists at this point. That's why I highlighted some possible rules of thumb for Ghidorah. One last personal thought, as I don't plan to do crew lists everywhere in the edits I make, is that such a list could be better suited in films that have a lot of technical merit. Like I wouldn't mind seeing Dune (2021 film) have one with all its production work being recognized. (In that case, I see names buried in a "Development" subsection and think that a distinct list of names above the wall of text would be better.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The worry is that as soon as you make a rule of thumb for one film, it will be used as a precedent for others. So better to broaden it to start with. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hey everyone at WP Film, There is a new Wikiproject proposal for 20th Century Studios. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/20th Century Studios) So if you are interested in joining please say so in the proposal, so we can see if there will be enough member to start a project. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Diary of a Camper Featured article review

I have nominated Diary of a Camper for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Critical reception at Morbius

There is an ongoing content dispute at Morbius (film) regarding how to summarize the critical reception for the film. Please see Talk:Morbius (film)#"Leto and Smith's performances were praised". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Soundtrack Geek

It was brought to my attention by this edit that the website Soundtrack Geek, which formerly published reviews for film soundtracks, is now a website on sex-related topics. So, for all of the articles listed here, any links to Soundtrack Geek needs to be archived, have their URL statuses changed to url-status=dead, or removed outright. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

More direct linking here: Special:LinkSearch Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Actors lists at AfD

Hi. You may be interested in the following discussions:

One
Two

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

New stub Everything's Gonna Be All White created

I've created a new stub called Everything's Gonna Be All White. I've added 9 references to the article and have added the infobox as well as the overview, cast, episodes and reception sections, but the article still needs some work like expanding and the episode list reformatted to the correct format. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Godzilla discussion

There's an ongoing discussion regarding Japan's involvement in Legendary Pictures' Godzilla franchise. It can be found at Talk:Godzilla (2014 film)#Japan. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Cinemascore template

Indagate has created a CinemaScore template and is mass adding it to articles with an archive of the main CinemaScore page with its search bar alone. Looking at the page code it's just calling on an external database which to me means it isn't a proper archive since if the site, code, or database dies, there's no longer an archive. The archive as it is, is no different than going directly to CinemaScore.com. It wouldn't be an issue except the user is removing existing archives that definitively contain the info to add in this blank archive like this one which is a hard copy list of tonnes of cinemascores that will withstand any future changes to the actual CinemaScore site. Can I get some opinions please as the user and I disagree. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of the links I replaced were dead, https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ and either relied on archive or were just dead. Template like this that wraps cite web allows someone to change the template to dead or replace url if it becomes dead in the future. Benefit is also consistency across articles in reference. There are 1608 links to cinemascore.com per Special:Linksearch so it's widely used.

Don't see how your link is an improvement, it's an archive of a former dead link so not suitable for films updated after 9 August 2019. Doesn't work on my laptop but archive link I've used does work. Don't see why your archive link would work but mine wouldn't, both are https://web.archive.org/ Indagate (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The point of the archive is to be there when the original link is dead. That's the whole point, and the archive on one article does not need to be relevant to other articles, that is not its purpose, but an archive that covers all the way up to 2019 is pretty substantial on its own. Your comments don't address the longevity of your archive which is only an actual archive of CinemaScore's frontpage and is otherwise reliant on an external database. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed about purpose of archive being for when original link is dead but live direct link is better than dead link as more recent and can verify information. Same as your archive though regarding longevity, link to search engine for scores, I'd guess both are just as likely to work at any point in time, I'd say mine better as more up to date. Indagate (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The upshot is that you have removed a direct citation that provided the information and replaced it by one that does not. A reader must now type the title of the film into the interface to get the score, and as DWB points out if the website dies the information is then lost. Replacing the source with a template as done here has not improved anything, but has made it more protracted to verify the information and made the source vulnerable to link rot. The articles where this template has been added need to be put back to how they were. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion in one place instead of similar comments here and deletion discussion please, responded there Indagate (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

They are different discussions, so I would encourage project members to participate in both. The deletion discussion pertains to the validity of the template, while this discussion is specifically about replacing existing sourcing with the template. Betty Logan (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding references to the empty Cinemascore search box is one thing, but removing other better references from secondary sources (as Betty highlighted) is a different matter entirely. That is not a constructive edit. -- 109.78.199.198 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Responded to that in deletion discussion, but don't think Box Office Mojo is reliable for their articles, just Box Office figures, especially being owned by IMDb Indagate (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Are there any examples of Box Office Mojo misquoting a Cinemascore? If not, then a reliable source should be presumed reliable for this information unless evidence emerges that indicates otherwise. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Related, I've nominated {{Cite CinemaScore}} for deletion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Looks like the result is to delete: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_17#Template:Cite_CinemaScore. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we simply replace it with {{cite web}}. I don't think the "Each film's score can be accessed from the website's search bar" note is necessary. Nardog (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, included that because was in some high-visible articles so thought should include in template, agree that it's unnecessary, should be consistent across articles Indagate (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Nardog (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks @Nardog, isn't CinemaScore a website so should be italicised though and not publisher as you've put? Indagate (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It is both a website and a publisher, but putting it in |website= makes little sense because the website is already the very thing that's being cited, so I put it in |publisher=. Nardog (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The cite web documentation says "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)", so thought that means the website parameter should be used for CinemaScore? Don't think the publisher parameter should be included as they're the same, only in future if different enough Indagate (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What |work= (which |website= is an alias for) means is "the thing I'm citing is part of this larger work", e.g. the journal for an academic paper, the newspaper for a news article. That could not apply when the thing you're citing and the website are the same thing. And of course the company CinemaScore is the publisher of the website CinemaScore. Nardog (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog:, per WP:ITALICWEBCITE, it should be at |website= or |work=. —El Millo (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What Facu-el Millo said. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Per which part of WP:ITALICWEBSITE? Are you saying CinemaScore is an online magazine, newspaper, news site with original content, or online non-user-generated encyclopedia or dictionary? And even if it was, it still wouldn't make sense to use |website=, which is for the name of the work containing the source. The website CinemaScore is not the work containing the source; it's the source itself. Nardog (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't pick WP:BIKESHED-ish topics to argue about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

War drama

Notification that Category:War drama films and its sub-categories are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_28#Category:War_drama_films. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Citizen Kane

Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Citizen Kane#Reception in lead where there is a dispute over how the film's critical standing should be characterized. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The Last Jedi

I am updating the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article to talk about the film's recent re-evaluation. I know what sources I will use - but I was wondering if my sources can all be primary sources - or whether I have to use a mix of primary and secondary. If I do have to mix, I would like to know why as I don't understand that. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I've left comments on the talk page for The Last Jedi if anyone wants to reply to me there :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Unattributed translations copied into Plot summary of many film articles

Please be aware of new users such as KatBet (talk · contribs)^[noping] pasting unattributed machine-translated content word for word from German, Italian, or other Wikipedias into the Plot section of film articles in violation of the attribution requirements at WP:Copying within Wikipedia (in particular, WP:TFOLWP). For further details, see User talk:KatBet#Please stop adding translated plot summaries without attribution. In addition, there is some concern that KatBet may be a sockpuppet of indeffed User:Oldhedge (see this discussion) and so may return as a new user under some other name. The pattern appears to be: adding paragraphs sequentially to the Plot section of a film article, one paragraph at a time, with paragraphs appearing from one to four minutes apart (as if passing them through DeepL or Google translate one paragraph at a time, and pasting the result into the Plot section).

Please remain vigilant about film articles, in particular German or Italian films from the 1950s and 1960s, and please examine any updates that hit your watchlist, especially when they are to Plot sections and look like they might have stiff, or "translated-sounding" content. If you do notice anything suspicious, please add a comment to the CCI noticeboard, where there is already an investigation request pending. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing actors' names from plot summaries

There is a strong consensus to follow WP:FILMPLOT and remove actors name when summarizing.

WP:FILMPLOT states: Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the "Cast" section. The vast majority of editors in the discussion concur with the established guideline that actors named should not be mentioned when summarizing the plot. Mentioning their names is seen as redundant and unnecessary. The only argument, promoted by one user, to not follow the guideline is the fact that FILMPLOT is just a guideline. This argument has been overwhelmingly rejected by the community.

(non-admin closure) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Should the rule from WP:FILMPLOT "Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the `cast` section" be followed rigorously, or not at all? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The guideline should definitely be followed. There's no point in listing an actor's name in the summary and making a "Cast" section. The only exception is if you excluded a #Cast section entirely (see Panic Room and Moonrise Kingdom) but I recommend following the rule. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I've seen arguments either way, but I think that it is simpler to not include it. If we talk about including it, we have to answer the following questions: Should we do it for all film articles, or only where the actors are known? Should we name the actor for every character mentioned in the plot summary? Should we rewrite the plot summary to try to mention more characters thus more roles? Should we have blue links for all the actors? Should we rewrite the plot summary to avoid introducing multiple characters in one sentence (because that means naming all the actors too)? I feel like there are all these nuances that editors can argue over and have fair points in different ways, and it's not worth the debating. I'd prefer tying starring actors with their roles or the film's premise in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I say follow it. In addition to challenges including the names poses outlined by Erik, there's additional issues of "do these names count toward FILMPLOT word count" and constructions like "John Smith's (Some Guy) house" are awkward to read. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Sidebar, just curious, is there a particular reason this RfC was opened. I recall this was discussed one month ago with the opener, where it was unanimously stated by project members that the guideline is very clear. I'm just curious if some disagreement occurred in the past month that necessitates an RfC to clarify what is already very explicitly stated in the MOS. An RfC is for disputes. If this is just a general question, then this RfC was opened improperly. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the editor is new and may be unfamiliar with the fact that RFCs are kind of a last resort. Pete Best Beatles, based on WP:RFCBEFORE, simply asking the question on this WikiProject talk page is sufficient. I would say to think of launching an RFC as casting a very wide net for opinions, like for instance discussing changes to policies and the overarching guidelines (not just subject-specific). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's what happened. After that earlier discussion, I began happily deleting actor' names from plot summaries whenever I found them, referencing WP|FILMPLOT in the edit summaries as suggested, and feeling pretty productive and helpful about it. Yesterday Beyond My Ken sent me a message stating "Please note that FILMPLOT is a guideline and not a mandatory policy. Many of us feel that the actors' names in the plot section is a service to our readers...I will be reverting your edits using rollback." I didn't know what to do (yes, I'm a new editor), so I contacted one of the helpful contributors to that earlier discussion directly. They replied to Beyond My Ken on my talk page: "If you disagree with WP:FILMPLOT or think it does not reflect the current de facto consensus, I'd suggest opening a discussion or RfC...to clarify consensus (Pete Best Beatles, you're welcome to open the RfC there yourself if you get to it first...)." So that's what I did. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Pinging @Beyond My Ken for response/comment. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, BMK has been the minority opinion for various film-related guidelines over the years, always emphasizing the "only a guideline" rationale to revert changes to articles they edit. Of course I'm only noticing when they contest the guidelines, there may be some that they follow willingly or incidentally. While their rationale can be a fair point in general, I think the community tries to balance flexibility in what to do and what not to do, and the reason for this particular guideline has been outlined in this discussion.

On the other hand, Pete Best Beatles, I'm personally not crazy about serial editing of one kind. The more articles one makes the same change to, the more likely a dispute will arise with another editor, and the more petty the power dynamic (e.g., going around making the same change and getting challenged and trying to restore that change invoking consensus-based best practices, forcing a guideline to be universally applied as policy). My personal advice is to worry less about making widespread changes especially when neither version is outright detrimental. I think there are good reasons to avoid actors' names in plot summaries, but I don't think they're compelling enough to "enforce" that avoidance systemically. Who knows, maybe years down the road, the consensus will change, or Wikipedia will have some dynamic way for readers to toggle between seeing and not seeing actors' names in the plot, and this discussion would be rendered moot. I think it is more meaningful to add content to articles since in my experience, content is "sticky" -- it will stick around for a long time, perhaps "forever". That's my $0.02. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Follow it. (Summoned by bot) I wasn't aware of the rule, but in general find such 'inline' naming intrusive or reduntant at best. So yes, follow the rule. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we should be following the rule as the information is redundant. At the very least, we should not be reverting changes to conform with the guideline without any attempt to change the guideline. No guideline, policy or rule on Wikipedia is ever "mandatory" (because of WP:IAR), but you need a reason of some kind to break the rule. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
(Invited b the bot) I think that the discussions above are missing the reality which is the middle ground. It's practice that is usually a good one to follow, and to be taken into consideration when considering decision otherwise. It's in a guideline, not a policy, and from a set of guidelines which have huge amount of content that has had only a local consensus. So it's certainly not a mandate. And also is not enough to go on to rapidly make large amount of un-discussed changes at a large amount of articles, including without checking if there has already been a discussed decision otherwise at the article.North8000 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with removing names, outside of cases where the cast (or other equivalent section) is not used, as would be the case of arthouse films which may have a cast you can count on one hand. The style of naming cast members after character names is an extension that falls from movie reviews in newspapers and magazines where there isn't a cast list, so it makes sense that its listed there, but here where we 99.99% of the time have such a section devoted to cast lists, its wasting space and noise. But we should be flexible in cases where the cast list is not used, and in other rare instances if editors agree by consensus that there's a good reason to include the names in the plot. --Masem (t) 14:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
No - Just a reminder to all and sundry, that ArbCom has stated very clearly that WikiProjects do not control the content of the articles they include within their purview. FILMPLOT is, and remains only a guideline, and it cannot be made mandatory by this or any other RfC held in this venue -- which, of course, makes the RfC totally pointless. Whatever the result, this is essentially a local consensus, and is not valid for Wikipedia as a whole. Those who wish to make FILMPLOT mandatory are advised to nominate it to be a policy and have the community as a whole decide the issue. In the meantime, it remains a non-mandatory guideline. (And Erik, you know damn well that I follow the vast majority of guidelines. I am very disappointed in your well-poisoning comment.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I was citing what I have observed here. I do not recall a past guideline-related discussion where there was a positive agreement at the end, whether a compelling enough argument being made to follow a best practice as outlined in guidelines, or to concede to a kind of consensus. It's possible these happen before and out of sight, whereas irreconcilable differences escalate to this talk page and end bitterly. I know for myself that sometimes I do not agree with the guidelines and other kinds of consensus that revoke some new approach I try out. Feel free to make your case further here as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Definitely. It is utterly ridiculous that plot sections - many of which already struggle with their length - are littered with bracketed references to the actors, when the very same information is almost always set out in detail in the section immediately following, as well as the leads usually having been named already in the lead section. These bracketed bits of redundant information interrupt the reading flow for people who want to know what the storyline is, whilst helping only those who have somehow prized off and lost the page down button from their keyboard. MapReader (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Definitely, follow it. It amazes me, given the few policies, and the many guidelines, and the fact that guidelines were created as the practical activities required to see policies followed, that guidelines are here being given short shrift (Ken). See the tables of policies and guidelines that follow every policy article (e.g., WP:VERIFY)—it is clear, by achieving a consensus around given guidelines, we achieve the policy aims of the community. That said, here is my full perspective, which will likely aggravate everyone.

Ken's emphases notwithstanding, guidelines exist to guarantee readers uniformity of reading experience with regard to quality and appearance, and having a guideline that is followed, except at the articles that make a particular editor angry, is an invitation to diminished overall quality at the encyclopedia. And while Ken's wikilawyering is correct, it is not the way of this place to elevate the strident perspective of even a devoted editor. Ken's tendency is to focus on the fact that the MOS allows for common sense exceptions; but that is a distortion, here: the MOS describes itself as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", and doing the exact opposite is neither a common sense exception, nor is it a good faith attempt to follow the "generally accepted standard". Moreover, overarching decisions are made by consensus, and the clear consensus in the Project (which is more important than any individual perspective, see following for mine) is to proceed with plot descriptions absent actor-character pairings. So, Guideline in place, consensus in place, the course should be clear—make the articles uniform in this direction. That is to say, this group of editors should support the editor making the edits-to-guideline, and revert Ken. (There is no excuse to hang out a guideline-following editor to dry. This group has the needed local majority to move articles in the direction that the guideline asks.)

Now, to make everyone else angry: I strongly disagree with the sentiment stated we should not do cross-article, guideline-directed edits (over many articles). Is that not what many automations at WP are doing? Is that not what tag-informed teams are already doing for unsourced and undersourced articles (etc.)? Are we to tell individuals not to make blanket improvements and corrections, just because the process is not yet bot-driven? Yes, it increases the chance of conflict with other editors. But that is what guidelines and the consensus efforts of WikiProjects are for—to ensure the will of the community prevails over any single perspective (or of any local article bully). So, change the guideline, or enforce it, but don't tell earnest, properly compliant editors not to make edits that they are willing to, to improve the quality and consistency of the encyclopedia.

Finally, I have to close by saying... I personally disagree with the guideline. I personally agree with Ken. [If the plot summaries included in the movie reviews of every major esteemed review venue (to the extent to which they include such summaries) does not find character-actor presentations in the text to be intrusive or awkward, neither do I.] In my first experiences here, it was the absence of these, not their presence that was jarring. As for redundancies—they are so far and wide here, the minor redundancy of stating the character-actor pairing twice is a non-concern. Likewise, comparing the awkwardness of someone naive about a film having to jump back and forth between two sections to know which actor is playing which part, versus the awkwardness of haing sentences interspersed, parenthetically, with actor name... there is a strong case to be made that the original guideline got it wrong (and that Ken is fundamentally correct).

This last paragraph is not really stated to incite anger or disagreement. Rather, it is stated to make clear that my "let's get tough with Ken" content is actually a statement against interest. I actually agree, fundamentally, with Ken's view. But if the place has rules (and guidelines are near to as strong a set of rules as we have), then we (a) need to follow them, and (b) as well, we need to bring the consensus of the Project to articles in support of editors that follow them. (I will have no reply to anything here. This is just to spur closing comments, but more so, action.) 2601:246:C700:558:E05F:BFAD:304D:DDBC (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Clarification: the discussion in this section was unarchived from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79 at 02:56, 5 May 2022 and added back here at 02:56, 5 May 2022. Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Update

Pursuant to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Should "films by country" categories remain all-inclusive?, I noted as of today that there still hadn't been any move by anybody else toward getting a bot going on the task. So just an update that I've now posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Film categories, so hopefully this will get started soon. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Advice on Gordy and Ringing Bell

Lately, some edits to Gordy have introduced unsourced home media edits that may or may not be true. I have started a discussion at the talk page. Then for Ringing Bell, this article on the other hand seems to need a large amount of improvement. On it, some statements have recently been removed that were sourced to dead links or to the wrong source, but one of those statements was left in while the reference was removed. Some citations meanwhile are crudely filled, and they should be filled in properly. Finally, both articles are missing production sections, and they are only start-class articles at most (for the most part at least). Further help would be appreciated. 2600:1700:53F1:5560:D438:2B7E:AEF7:4F8 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page of Gordy, the unsourced paragraph was removed by the same person who added it, and I reverted the other edit that lacked a source. However, if it turns out to be true, can a source be provided? 2600:1700:53F1:5560:9904:5463:ED0C:BC6A (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hubli (film)#Requested move 4 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hubli (film)#Requested move 4 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Youtube

Hello,

I want to edit the page for Forrest Gump to talk more about its perceived conservative politics. I was wondering if I can use this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfmIOWY6go . It's an incredibly well-researched video but am not sure if it counts as a reliable source. Could someone please tell me if it is nor not? 78.150.129.45 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So, it's not just some random person ranting, but it's equally not an actual staffed media analysis producer. Do you have any sources where other media analyses by this person/people are discussed in reliable news media sources, to give an indication of the video creator's notability and reliability? Also, what would your edits add to what is already at Forrest_Gump#Political_interpretations (in terms of the length/depth of the section being appropriate for the level of analysis and length of article overall)? Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There are probably reliable news media sources discussing Renegade Cut (the creator) and his work. I will look for them in the morning. Additionally, I will also re-read the Forrest Gump#Political interpretations section then and rewatch their video, to make sure I'm not repeating things already in the article. Goodnight! 78.150.129.45 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Jack Sparrow

I have nominated Jack Sparrow for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing sports films

I don't know where to begin here, or where this should go for wikiprojects, but this list which seems to have been maintained by two authors, is quite possibly the loosest interpretation of "sports film" to begin with. I would go in and clean it but I know, from reading the history, that I would be accused of vandalism or OR. The various edits show an ongoing war over whether to include pokemon, as it is a blood sport with cockfighting, whether or not Titanic counts due to featuring a poker game, the top of the list is The Hunger Games linking to battle royale which is a historical concept and pro wrestling thing but has no connection to the film outside of the "battle royale" greater genre of murder/horror films and games.

Sports films seems to be the template for the article, but if the average person came to read this (and I am one) they would be left befuddled by the disconnect between what they understand a sports film to be and a film that includes sport. Forrest Gump, Gladiator (2000 film), Alita: Battle Angel and Casino Royale (2006 film). I don't know where to begin but this has been tagged for over two years and it's only gotten worse. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur that the criteria is way too loose. It is pretty much original research how this list is compiled, and it does not seem any of the references even talk about this topic collectively. I hate to say it, but maybe deletion should be considered. It seems like the highest-grossing films should be recognized by sport, and that could be done at lists of specific sports films (though these lists don't look in particularly great shape). Like on a list of baseball films, the highest-grossing ones could be mentioned in prose or in a top-ten list in addition to the main list. Something like that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

How do we go about this? –– Lid^(Talk) 09:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I would follow the process at WP:AFD. Even if it is not deleted, there can be a consensus determined on what to do next. I take it back about having the box office hits at the specific lists. I think something like what I mentioned below would be more narrow and better. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do propose it for deletion. I was worried before that the list was poorly defined[10] but I do not believe it can actually be saved and turned into a coherent encyclopedia article. Even if it can be saved it would require a firm definition and near total rewrite anyway. -- 109.76.199.51 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The list seems to violate WP:LSC, where there is no reliable sourcing for how a film appears on the list. Furthermore, is the list topic even a notable list topic? Are there, out there outside of Wikipedia, other lists of highest grossing sports films? If not, the topic is not notable. If so, our list should substantially match those lists, or else it is orignal research. If this is not a valid topic for a list, AFD may be the way to go. --Jayron 32 13:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

They do exist: CNBC, Sports Illustrated. But it seems like we could just have a top-ten list at sports film itself and not use these as a license to have this kind of vague and sprawling list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Planned sequels

In Special:Diff/1087653835, an IP editor added some rumors and announcements about planned sequels to a film. If we pruned it down to the parts that are well-sourced, it wouldn't really amount to much. But my question is how much of this is even relevant? Do we usually report casting announcements for planned sequels? It seems to me like you'd end up with a section similar to the current one, full of repetitive statements like "This was planned to happen, but it didn't. Then something else was planned to happen, but it didn't." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Another editor went ahead and reverted it already.[11] (The anon editor was adding WP:UNSOURCED content, tagging his own newly made edits with {{citation needed}} so I would have reverted it too. Tagging your own edits as citation needed, seems oddly familiar, and I see the user has been blocked from editing again.) I might salvage a very small part of that edit, mentioning that a ~~sequel~~ [P.S. or in this specific example a reboot] is in production seems appropriate, and the casting of the lead seems reasonable. If it was available I might also want to include the prospective release date.

It is good that you ask about this in general and perhaps the guidelines could address the matter of Sequel sub sections. (If the section is was labeled "Possible Sequel" or "Planned sequel" I would argue that it shouldn't be there at all.) I would lean heavily on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF and also WP:RS and reapply the same intentions here. If it hasn't happened yet (started production/filming) then it remains to be seen if it is actually noteworthy, anything else is speculation. In the past editors have allowed "Sequel" sections to get quite long, but trimmed them back to only the most relevant bits when the sequel actually gets an article of its own. So I would also consider WP:UNDUE part of the justification not to put to much emphasis on Sequels sections, and even if it is all verified by reliable sources, trim it back to only the most important points. Many times fans start a Sequel section based on comments from an actor saying they would like to do the sequel, but again I think that is only speculation and of course while promoting a film most actors will say they want to keep getting work. I have tried to remove that sort of thing before[12] and I wouldn't put much weight on comments from directors or producers before a film has even been released, sequels rarely happen unless the first one makes money. Again I think it is reasonable to apply existing standards about speculation and relevance to all this. -- 109.76.199.51 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware for any sequel to the article which has been the centre of attention. And this website will not be useful either. I certainly agree with Geraldo Perez for reverting that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files lede

There is a RFC concerning the lede for a recently released film on Kashmir. Comments are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Project newsletter

Is there still a film project newsletter? Or was that stopped ages ago? Govvy (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Suitability of AwardsWatch and Next Best Picture

I've been doing some work at List of accolades received by CODA (2021 film), and I noticed that a lot of awards are sourced to AwardsWatch (website) and/or Next Best Picture (website). From my browsing over the last few months, I've noticed these sites are used a lot to cite other films' awards, particularly when it comes to recent films. Are these websites sufficient to establish an award's notability? I have no reason to doubt their reliability, which is why I'm not bringing this up at WP:RSN, but it seems they cover pretty much every award they can find, which, to me, means it's impossible to tell which awards should be taken seriously for our purposes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Both of those look fine to me considering the contributors for both seem to include plenty of approved critics and contributors to other reliable sites, etc., but for most major awards there is usually a major website like one of the trades (Deadline, THR, Variety, etc.) covering it that could also be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades, Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Nardog (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct, but consider something like the article for DiscussingFilm Critics Awards, which was created in April. Its sole sources are from these two websites (plus a primary source). Because the article exists, it now meets the aforementioned MOS guideline, but it's not clear if the awards are notable. In other words, I could see someone creating an article based on these websites to justify the inclusion of an award that otherwise would be excluded. (Not saying that's what happened here, just that it could happen, and I think that would be problematic.) That's why I think it's worth determining if these websites are indicative of notability. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Then I don't think the question is whether it's appropriate to use these websites in particular as much as whether a list of winners/nominees constitutes significant coverage of the awards or the award-giving body. And I'd argue it does not. Nardog (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have summarized the issue better than I did – it is indeed a matter of significant coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

questions about Plot guidelines

I'm a new editor and recently added text to the Plot section of Flashback (2001). That version of the Plot section was later edited with the comment "Plot: Drastically shortened this section - per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries of films should be between 400-700 words, and this was around 1600 words." The pre-edit version is at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Flashback_(2021_film)&oldid=1088512007 and the post-edit version is at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Flashback_(2021_film)&oldid=1088594453 (The first paragraph of Plot pre-dates my edit.)

I read WP:FILMPLOT and am unclear on how handle plots. This film has a non-linear storyline involving time-travel. Here is guideline language from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:FILMPLOT that I would like some help with.

"Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, ..."

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines ..."

Being a new editor, I'd appreciate advice on whether the non-linear complexity of the plot in this film justifies the longer plot section, and if not, would it be appropriate to present the information about the individual episodes in an additional section, such as "themes". Thanks, Labbrla (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The plot summary is only supposed to provide a brief overview of the story. In the overwhelming majority of films it should be possible to do this. However there may be exceptions where the structure of the plot makes it very difficult to summarize in under 700 words. One example of where this exception was invoked is Pulp Fiction. An exception is not an automatic "get out" clause, though. Other editors may think it is possible to adequately summarise the film's plot even if the structure is unconventional. I would say that Flashback is certainly a candidate for waivering the limit, although 1600 words (over twice the limit does seem excessive for even a very unconventional plot. You could try reinstating a shorter version of your synopsis and see if other editors accept it,or you could start a discussion on the article talk page and solicit the views of other editors. Plot summaries (along with critical reception sections) are usually the most hotly contested aspects of film articles so I am not surprised that your edit is getting some pushback. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Reading both the before and after, while time travel is involved, the set that the main character experiences twelve "episodes" in history seems right, and it becomes a matter of just reducing those to fit 700 words. --Masem (t) 16:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Consider the following: "In a sequence of events that is composed of almost a dozen death-defying stunts, the skilled motorcyclist slowly begins to win over the hostile crowd." Now consider this more concise version: "Following several dangerous stunts, the motorcyclist wins over the hostile crowd." Basically the same sentence but 11 words versus 26 words. The other problem is people summarize each scene in sequence instead of summarizing the film as a whole. If you write 20 words about each scene, and there are 100 scenes, there's going to be a problem. Instead, spend the 700 words writing about the film as a whole. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to Betty Logan, Masem, and NinjaRobotPirate - I will work on it. A follow up question: Would it violate any guidelines to include additional plot description in footnotes to paragraphs in the Plot section? I noticed this approach in the biography article on Huey Long. Labbrla (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You should just write concisely. In The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, it doesn't matter what Tuco's exact crimes are. The point is that he's untrustworthy. One could just call him a thief and be done with it without faithfully transcribing all the crimes he's been accused of. Likewise, it doesn't matter what kind of gun he uses to shoot someone. The point is that he shot someone, and any further detail than that is extraneous. You shouldn't need explanatory footnotes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

One-shots and Rope (1948)

In the talk of the page about one-shot movies I am arguing that Rope should be removed from the list of the movies "edited to appear as "one shot"". My point is that the movie actually it's edited to appear has four long takes given that half if the cuts are clear and undisguised. I have given the time of these cuts in the universal bluray (00:19:55; 00:34:24; 00:51:57; 01:09:51) and the film's page itself points out the timing for the version used by the page editor. In my opinion this movie clearly it's edited to look like it has four long takes, not one, but at least two users do not agree so I'm asking here for other opinions. --PedroPistolas (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The question I think has been resolved PedroPistolas (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently not and I invite you to the talk page of the movie Talk:Rope_(film)#Reliability_of_sources--PedroPistolas (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of WeGotThisCovered, an over-cited unreliable source

This unreliable source has been cited 600 times and and enough is enough. I've started a discussion about it at RSN because it can't be continued to cite unreal rumors on film pages which need to have factual information. RanDom 404 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

How far do you want to take it? I tried doing a random bit of cleanup and it seems not all their content is rumor or recycled, although most of it is. Do you want to exclude even their reviews and interviews? (e.g. The Diabolical film, or We Belong (Sheppard song).) I would be very reluctant to exclude reviews unless absolutely necessary. -- 109.76.141.34 (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You can probably find more reviews from more reputable sources than We Got This Covered. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, better sources can almost always be found of course. I wouldn't add WGTC as a reference myself but I'd be reluctant to remove them when other editors have added them in good faith. Also finding a better source takes effort, which past experience has shown some editors are entirely unwilling to make that effort. Unfortunately certain editors have no nuance and have interpreted "deprecated" to mean delete immediately rather than {{Better source needed}}. I have been very disappointed before to see film reviews from reputable critics deleted because they happened to be printed in less reputable newspapers. Interviews too. (Film reviews are inherently opinion pieces, reflexively excluding them still makes no sense to me even though I have no love for WP:THESUN or WP:DAILYMAIL or WP:NYPOST.)

It is good that RanDom 404 has highlighted this, and (also other editors have highlighted the problem with speculation about Planned sequels so) hopefully more editors will actively discourage the use of WeGotThisCovered as a reference. -- 109.79.163.154 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sadly movie wikipedia often use unreliable sources. Until now I left alone these things but now when I'll see a site like this cited I'll replace it PedroPistolas (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN seems to have fizzled out with a whimper and no action taken.[13] I've made a few small efforts to remove unnecessary references to WeGotThisCovered.com and replace them with better sources where possible. I was wondering would it be any help if I used Template:Cite interview to make it clearer when the WeGotThisCovered.com is actually the original source of the interview? Is there any other way I might make it clearer or in some way indicate to other editors that someone has actually looked at a reference and tried to replace it but decided to leave well enough alone? Is heavy use of the tag {{Better source needed}} the way to go? -- 109.78.201.203 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Better source needed would work. Historyday01 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories "Films featuring character X"

On this page a large amount of categories "Films featuring character X" have been nominated for renaming or deletion. More input in these discussions is very welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Blockbuster Entertainment Awards help please!

I'm working on the List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Bullock article again, and found that she rec'd 2 noms at the 1996 edition of the above. Problem is, I can't find anything to confirm whether she won or not. Are there any editors around who might know, or can direct me to somewhere I can check? Can't fill in the appropriate template in 'Result' column otherwise. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Looks like she won both: [14]. Nardog (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)