Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85

Spider-Man plot discussion

There's a discussion on how we should handle the plot section of the 2002 Spider-Man film. It can be found at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film)#Plot section. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Richard Sénécal

I would be happy to have some help with this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:A Career of Crime

The draft on this crime and punishment early film serial was rejected. Can anyone help with it? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The entry has been moved to mainspace. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Publish Lucky Baskhar Movie

Upcoming Telugu Indian movie Lucky Baskhar is releasing on September. Kindly review the draft page to publish the article soon. Draft:Lucky Baskhar Yashrockybhai (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been submitted for review, you need to be patient while reviewers make their way through the backlog. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Editwar at Ram Setu (film)

Your input is welcome at Talk:Ram_Setu_(film)#New_editwar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

English article Reliant on Foreign Sources?

I've been sheparding the Gamera article for years and I've grown conflicted over the recent edits of User talk:ノコギリ. Not only is the user from Japan and, having spoken to them myself, it seems English is their secondary language, but the user is citing Japanese books/magazines on an English-language Wiki article. At first I did revert the article back to the status quo, but after speaking with the user I reverted back to their edits thinking that copyediting and revisions would best come later.

However, I'm kinda leaning back towards my original reservations because the article has now grown to rely heavily on Japanese sources. I do not speak Japanese and I do not have the Japanese books & magazines cited to verify any claims. For all I know the user could be making things up, citing any random page, and we English-speakers would be none the wiser. Are there guidelines for situations like this, where too many foreign sources (unverified because they're books/magz) dominate an English-language article? Armegon (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

We have WP:NOENG if you haven't seen that already. It's likely fine that the article uses Japanese-language sources. It's similar to AGF of someone who has access to English-language books not available online or at most libraries. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. This puts things in perspective a bit. Armegon (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Armegon The difficulty IMO is to get a reasonable grip on if refs like that are WP:RS or not. For example, is [1] a WP:BLOG or more like WP:RSPDEADLINE? You can try to get hold of another Japanese speaking Wikipedian and ask them to take a look, that may help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Big Fish edit dispute

Hello again. The conversation about Big Fish (see above topic) has become stalled. The Plot summary is no longer the only issue, but I wanted to leave that thread up so nobody gets confused. My understanding is that seeking an RfC should be avoided if possible, so I wanted to post here first.

The gist: I made a series of edits to Big Fish, many of which invovled condensing or trimming content. @Viriditas reverted my edits, feeling that I had condensed content inappropriately. @Viriditas, please chime in if you feel this is not a full or accurate description of our dispute. We talked for awhile (see above link), and it seems that neither of us has been able to fully understand the other's views.

You can review individual edits I made in the article history. You will notice the revert at or near the top of the history, and the version below the revert contains all the edits I made.

Please let me know if you can help with this in some way. Thank you! Wafflewombat (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Big Fish is a Good Article. Wikipedia doesn't write "condensed" versions of articles. If you want to do that, then please use Simple English Wikipedia. Wikipedia writes expanded and complex version of articles, and when they get too large, they are spun out into new articles. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Help requested with Big Fish plot summary

Hey all. I'm having a discussion with another editor about the Big Fish page, including the Plot summary. I was hoping someone could look at the Plot summary on the page now, and then compare it with a version I wrote, which is contained in this version of the page. I know it may take a little time to do this compare/contrast, but since I and the other editor are finding it difficult to come to agreements about the page, I would really appreciate third-party input. Thank you!

If you want to view our ongoing discussion, you can do so here.

Wafflewombat (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on the plot section, but if other people think Wafflewombat's plot is an improvement over the previous version, then I have no objection. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The Cinemaholic reliability

https://thecinemaholic.com/about-us/

They focus on film/TV news, reviews, and anime. Their editorial policy and contact page appear to support reliability.

There was a brief discussion at RSN, where a few sources linked used the website as a source.

Is there any disagreement on the reliability of this website as a source for film/TV news? Lapadite (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say yes, it is reliable, with caveats based on the RSN discussion. The caveat is to be aware of citing unusual material that only appears in a single, exclusive source like Cinemaholic. If the material is very niche and unusual, I would be careful. I’ve run into this problem before, which is why I try to find two independent sources to support every claim. What I’ve found is that some sources will get it wrong, either by way of sheer accident or error, or perhaps unintended bias. So my personal rule is to find at least two separate sources to support an unusual or controversial claim. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Award nominations count

Hi,

Regarding the award list articles, I need clarification on how the nomination count is calculated. Suppose an actor received 7 nominations, of which 3 are wins. Is the total count of nominations 7 or 4? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are 7 nominations total, there are 7 nominations. Wins don't increase or decrease the nomination count. It would be 7 nominations with 3 wins, or 3 wins out of 7 nominations. Lapadite (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Received a satisfactory answer from @Lapadite, related discussions 1, 2 support this.
Anoop Bhatia (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Powers Picture Plays

This entry on an early American film company has been languishing in draftspace for years since user:Barkeep49 moved it from mainspace. Please help improve it so this interesting and important subject can be restored to mainspace. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Production Country of Mad Max: Fury Road

There is discussion on how Mad Max: Fury Road should be described per its country in the lead of the article. Everyone is welcome to join in to give input. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sad Story of Self Supporting Child#Requested move 22 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sad Story of Self Supporting Child#Requested move 22 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox currency for foreign film budgets

Can someone advise about the use of foreign currency denominations in the Infobox for the budget or other costs of a foreign film? It maybe makes sense to quote Euros for, let's say, European films back to a certain point (less so for French francs or German marks—who has any idea what they were worth anymore?). In the article body I think it's fine, as they seem to be converted to USD for the few cases I've noticed, but the older the date of a film gets, the less a currency value seems comprehensible, even for well-known countries.

Who has any idea now, what "3.6 million Reichsmarks" means? That figure is in the Infobox of The Dismissal (1942), and also in the § Production section, where it is accompanied by a conversion value, but the Infobox lacks a conversion. I seem to remember from history there was a point during the interwar period when Germans were carrying around wheelbarrows of cash to go buy groceries, and some of the bills were overstamped with 100-billion Reichmarks, so maybe the production cost was 4 US cents? (Obviously, it wasn't; but the point is, I have no freakin' idea how much it is.)

I can see an argument for not including a conversion in the Infobox, because it would increase clutter, but then that reduces the utility of having it at all; maybe just drop it altogether? Or, maybe just quote in modern USD? Or have the foreign currency and then an explanatory note attached with the conversion? Is there any kind of guideline about this, or even just general practice on how to deal with production costs, especially when they are long ago or in unfamiliar currencies like German Reichsmarks? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

For budgets, it is probably best to use the currency the budget was financed in. That seems to be the most consistent with MOS:CURRENCY. In the case of a worldwide box-office figure that you can source from Box Office Mojo a dollar amount makes sense, but when the bulk of the revenue comes from just one country it is probably better to use the currency of that country. In this case I would stick with Reichsmarks: it can be sourced and is factual. I don't see how converting the figures to dollars benefits the article in this case. I also don't understand how the inflation metric is used here, either: surely inflating using the German CPI will inflate the figure to euros, not dollars? I generally find that some comparative analysis often helps. For example, The Singing Fool uses dollars, but the figures are still meaningless. Even if you inflate them the figures are still meaningless because the landscape of film finance has changed beyond basic inflation. It's only when you read that it was the biggest sound feature until Snow White a decade later that you get a sense of its financial success. Likewise with budgets: something like Ben Hur cost $4 million to make back in 1925 and that inflates to $75 million today. That wouldn't even cover Tom Cruise's salary these days, but Ben Hur held the record as the most expensive film for 25 years. The numbers don't tell the whole story. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Geena Davis Institute article improvements

Hello! I'm Robin, posting here as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of the Geena Davis Institute. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on the article Talk page and on my User page.

I've proposed changes to the article and am looking for editors to review. Specifically, I think the article has grown to be a bit overly detailed and relies on the organization itself somewhat. The version I've proposed brings it back to focus on secondary sourcing. I thought editors here might be interested in taking a look. All discussion is welcome. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion notices: Nationality in the lead section

For anyone in the mood for a spirited discussion, feel free to weigh in at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#Australian in lead.

This has also led to a possible revisit of the MOS:FILMCOUNTRY guideline. For that discussion, please see WT:MOSFILM#Nationality of film.

I am bowing out of both, but I think some good points were brought up worth further consideration by WP:FILM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing lists of works

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works regarding sourcing lists of works. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Are_references_required_for_lists_of_works?. Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Bold text in plot

Priyangen1345 relishes in adding bold text in the plot to "Past" and "present", like this. Their rationale on my talk page is "The past and present separates the flashbacks from the current story". I find this logic dumb since Leo is a single film, not an anthology film where the segments/chapters have names and thus need bold text/division. I feel regular text like "In the past" should suffice since it is prose, not bullet points, but Priyangen1345 accused me of "vandalism". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

They should not be using it per MOS:NOTBOLD since it is being used for emphasis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Categorizing Amazon MGM Studios releases

Recently, Amazon MGM Studios has been pivoting towards producing and releasing their movies under the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Orion Pictures and American International Pictures labels (similar to how Sony Pictures and Amblin Partners operate), yet we are categorizing movies released with these labels as Amazon MGM Studios films, while the article also holds a subcategory of that category (for example, an MGM release having both the Amazon category and its MGM subcategory for its article). I came here to request we stop doing this and just stick to using subcategories as it means most movies from the studio will have two categories (three if its a theatrical release, because Warner currently theatrically distributes AMGMS titles overseas). It also seems like Amazon is going to be reviving the United Artists brand. It's not particularly clear how Amazon will handle it, but if the credits of a movie with the involvement of this new iteration doesn't explicitly credit AMGMS it shouldn't be categorized as one of their films Inpops (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cryptozoo#Requested move 23 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cryptozoo#Requested move 23 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Twisters (film) has an RfC

Twisters (film) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood#Requested move 23 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood#Requested move 23 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Notable career progression content in the lead

Posted this discussion at WP:ACTOR, but posting it here as well as this project talk tends to be more active.

Input is appreciated at Talk:Aubrey Plaza#Lead. There's a dispute pertaining to someone removing notable career content from the lead. Please provide input on whether such content that reliable sources consider significant in the actor/producer's career should be present in the lead. Please refer to the content-related comments in that discussion for further context, including the bullet point specification of the issues. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternate words for "film"

Hey all. When working on film pages I often need another word for "film" so I don't use the same word twice in quick succession. Sometimes I substitute "production" or "project" if appropriate. Is it acceptable to use the word "picture" as well, or is it too archaic? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems likely to be okay, but the most common synonym is probably "movie". TompaDompa (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Is "movie" okay to use? I don't see it used in more well-developed film articles. Wafflewombat (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
No, it's too informal. Just use "film". Don't ostentatiously use synonyms for common words. See Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. It generally makes your prose look like a 5th grade wrote it, which is worse than using the same word twice in two sentences. Or rewrite your sentences.
  • Bad: "The film was released in 2002 by Paramount. The film received negative reviews, and the film's box office gross was equally poor."
  • Even worse: "The picture was released in 2002 by Paramount. The production received negative reviews, and the film's box office gross was equally poor."
  • Better: "Paramount released Wikipedia: The Film in 2002. It received negative reviews, and its box office gross was equally poor."
With practice, it becomes easy. I'm sure you're thinking of even better ways to write that sentence right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Too informal? Nonsense, I say—"movie" is used in plenty of formal contexts. It is something of an WP:ENGVAR issue, on the other hand. But yes, avoiding elegant variation is usually preferable. TompaDompa (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
"Movie" is informal and should be avoided. "Picture" is archaic and ambiguous. Use the correct word and use it every time.
If you find you're using the same word too many times and it's noticeable, it means there's a bigger problem with your syntax, not that you should start using alternative words. See WP:ELEVAR, as NinjaRobotPirate already mentioned. Popcornfud (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, it depends. What effect are you going for? Here is an example. Sometimes, you want short sentences. Other times, longer ones. They give different rhythms. It may or may not be desirable to produce the effect one gets from stacking several shorter sentences one after the other just as it may or may not be desirable to produce the effect one gets from writing a single but rather lengthy sentence. It depends on the context. This also applies to other writing choices. There isn't a "one size fits all" approach to writing. "Never switch between synonyms" isn't better advice than "always switch between synonyms". TompaDompa (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
"Movie" isn't used on WP for the reason stated. If it's present in an article, any film editor will change it to "film". Most reputable film news, review, and industry sources use "film", even if they may also use "movie" in articles. I have never encountered an instance where I think I cannot use "film" more than once or alternate it with "it". Changing up the syntax helps with sentence flow. Sometimes that takes more than one copyedit, especially when you're still adding and arranging content. Lapadite (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Another alternative is to use the actual name of the film in place of "it" or "film". Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes of course. I limit repeated uses of the title within one paragraph as I think more than a couple repetitions can sound more clunky than "film" or "it". Wafflewombat, as for "production", it's not synonymous with "film" as the film is the finished product, though the term can be used for any stage of development; "production" should only be used when you're referring to the production itself, i.e the making of the film (the filming period and anything that occurs during or to the production). "Project" can be interchanged with "film" if it suits the context. For ex, when talking about awards won, it's not fitting to say "The project won three Academy Awards"; but it can be used when writing about, say, a producer, film crew, or cast decision, like: "x joined/financed/worked on the project". Lapadite (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Not using "movie" is one of those quirks of Wikipedia that is really at odds with how the English language is used outside it. Avoiding contractions is another. TompaDompa (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to reflect how the English language is commonly used, WP:SLANG and MOS:CONTRACTIONS. Indagate (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I know, but it's not like all serious outlets avoid "movie" and contractions either. The top story on Time magazine's website at the moment uses a contraction in Biden appears to have pulled his family closer while attempting to prove that he's still the Democrats' best option., for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia not a newspaper or magazine, which are written differently. Wikipedia has a huge English-as-a-second-langauge audience, you would not believe how helpful it can be to keep it simple and how much difference it can makes to readers who have little choice but to read English language Wikipedia. Clarity must be prioritized even if it might make your prose seem a little stilted and repetitive. -- 109.77.200.184 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Certainly we should want the text to be clear to readers and editors who have English as a second language (which is one reason I think MOS:COMMONALITY is usually good to follow while MOS:TIES is sometimes counterproductive), not least because that's the majority of English-speakers. I don't think writing "cannot" instead of "can't" helps with that, though. TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
For what its worth, we have Category:Monster movies rather than "film" as maybe alliteration took over, the generally used term for the genre was "Monster movies" over "monster films". I generally agree to use the term film and I've yet to come across any decently written articles where it feels like I could make a drinking game out of how many times we see the word "film". Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

IMDb credits

General question: to what extent are producing/writing/directing credits on a person's IMDb reliable or accurate? Anyone here have any insight as to whether such credits on IMDb profiles are provided by professionals in the industry or random people, and whether they're verified by IMDb employees? Lapadite (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe WP:IMDB might help? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
My observation is that when an persons name is listed in the credits for a film or TV show, that project automatically gets added to the persons page as a credit for the show. I've done this to fix things when credits were wrong or fakes as sometimes happens. All the credits added to a project are added by unknown people who might be professionals with certain knowledge or random people reading the credits. This all has some unknown amount of checking by IMDB thus the guidance at WP:IMDB. Credits are generally accurate as there are plenty of people watching or correcting, but then again, that is the experience for most user generated content including Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
So it's essentially the same as for other credits, awards, trivia, then. WP:IMDB is vague on this question, and I wondered what "certain content" specifically is verified by staff. I know we can submit corrections to IMDb, but I'm not sure whether anyone can link a person and a project's filmmaking credits or if that was solely done by IMDb staff or industry professionals (such as an actor or filmmaker's team). Geraldo Perez, if you encountered incorrect credits you had to fix, then I guess that answers the question of whether staff or industry professionals add and verify those specific credits. Even if the filmmaking credits can be accurate, they're not inherently reliable. Lapadite (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I found a couple of people who created a fake notable presence on IMDb (they tried this on Wiki too but our checking is better). Created an actor page, then added themselves to a bunch of projects. IMDb allows people to edit credits and it isn't immediately reflected so they do do some checking, but the fake credits and personas got added anyway. I found this when they tried to add themselves to Wiki articles and used IMDb as a source. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb has some examples of stuff that is accurate and obviously IMDb gets fed from the production teams for in progress and newly release films and TV shows. It is just that after that initial population of data they allow random users to edit it and add to it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Yikes. Well that fully answers this. Thank you, I appreciate it. Lapadite (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I seem to recall IMDb Pro has a slightly better shot of being reliable, but in the end, it's likely still just a starting point to see if someone is credited for something and to find a reliable source for them elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. I would try to use better sources. If you absolutely get stuck with using a database, the WP:FILM community at large seems more comfortable with AFI Film Database and the BFI one, for more Anglo-based films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
If you have access to the film itself, the credits are listed there and the film is the primary reliable source for what is in it including the credits. Generally if a film has been released to the public it can be used as a source and if the film is mentioned it is the cite. IMDb is usually correct at least to the point of if a person isn't in IMDb the person likely isn't in the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

American Pie

I'm doing a little work on American Pie (film) and was wondering if anyone else wanted to participate. I don't have the free time to go nuts on it but I'm trying to just bring it up to a solid GA at least and if you're a millennial then this was probably one of the defining comedies of your youth. Even if you jjust have useful sources as the production section is fairly anemic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Crystal Film Company

The draft I submitted for this early American film studio was rejected if anyone can help. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

[2][3] might have something useful, and there could be more at [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Enquête sur un scandale d'État (2021 film)

Would anyone be so kind as to take a look at my draft and say what should be added before submission. Draft is here - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Enqu%C3%AAte_sur_un_scandale_d%27%C3%89tat_(2021_film) Red Fiona (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Pardon my bluntness...I think I was hoping other editors might comment sooner...but my first thought when I look at this is that whoever wrote it hasn't looked at existing film articles (even non-GA or FAs) and tried to emulate their style, and possibly also hasn't looked at MOS:FILM. Right off the bat, the article doesn't say when the film was released, nor is the title of the article consistent with our naming conventions. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
No need to ask for pardon when I asked for a look over :). I promise I did look at MOS Film but will make the suggested change. Red Fiona (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The Frighteners

There's a discussion regarding the plot section of The Frighteners, which can be found at Talk:The Frighteners#Plot section is wonkily written, hard to follow in places, and is both excessively detailed while also missing important plot-beats.. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Film and television backlog

If anyone is looking for something to do, their are many pages listed in the various categories over at Category:Film and television backlog. Gonnym (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Starship Troopers is up for a Featured Article nomination

Neutral notice Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is going to be archived soon due to a lack of comments if anyone has any interest. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dark Phoenix (film)#Requested move 12 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dark Phoenix (film)#Requested move 12 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Renaming of Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)?

This article is about one film that was separated into two parts; these two parts are, as far as I'm aware, always covered together and I don't think this film would qualify as a film series. The first part was released in 1945, while the second part was completed in 1946 and released in 1958; it may be misleading to viewers to have both films be covered under the release date of the first film. Since Ivan the Terrible (1917 film) exists, I cannot rename the film to just "Ivan the Terrible (film)"; I was wondering if Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein) would be an acceptable rename, or if this would conflict with naming guidelines. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

How about something like "(two-part film)"? Seems like an exceptional enough case that NCFILM need not strictly apply. Nardog (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I wouldn’t change the title, which is pretty standard and clear. Yes, it has two parts but it’s generally considered to be one film. Certainly not a film series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Are explanatory footnotes clarifying tie-ins with other films appropriate?

There is currently a content dispute / slow-moving edit-war on Alien: Romulus regarding three explanatory footnotes in the plot summary clarifying plot points in the film that tie directly to past Alien films (spoiler alert). The disputed notes can be found here: [5]. The sole editor expressly opposed to the changes has reverted several users, claiming that the notes violate MOS:FILMPLOT. You are invited to weigh in at Talk:Alien: Romulus#Plot notes. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't watched the film yet so can't comment on the actual issue, but if the scene has a very clear connection, then a regular note is fine. If it requires some OR, then find a source online that makes that connection for you and add it to the note. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This is already done in another section, some sources reporting similarities and connections to previous installments for minor points. The user wants to add same info to the plot section of this standalone installment. ภץאคгöร 17:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Sources directly corroborating the footnotes are included in the notes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Generally speaking, a note should only be added to help explain the plot with information that is not from the plot itself. If the plot summary can be understood without the note then the connection should probably be mentioned in the production section (or not at all if it is just trivia). - adamstom97 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Going to have to agree that a well written plot summary should not have to clarify things with notes or trivial mentions of evens in other films unless just to say "Following the events of Star Wars, The Empire Starts Back begins on the planet hoth..." etc. That said, there are special cases where i've broken this rule of thumb for myself like with Tetsuo: The Iron Man. If the narrative is very not obvious or abstract, it might be good to share that to readers. In the case of these films, I don't think we need them. Material like this is probably better explained in a more overarching Alien franchise article on how the films do or do not connect with each other, as its cool to spot these references, it's not essential to understanding the plot. It may enhance it, but plots are about getting the basic beats of what happens to the user, not content like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Once Upon a Time in the West, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Good article reassessment for A Hard Day's Night (film)

A Hard Day's Night (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Rocky Balboa (film)

Rocky Balboa (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Franchises and film series

I've recently proposed an article for deletion and it was removed as being "obviously notable". In this case it was Rosemary's Baby (franchise). While I do recognize that there are numerous adaptations of the book into theatrical films, television films, etc. but there is no commentary on it as a franchise as a whole.

There is definitely content discussion, the novel, the films, and television series, etc. But even with the films, there is not content discussing them as a whole. Searching it as a discussion on a series yields little to no results for an overarching series. Compare this with the article on Dracula (Universal film series), which goes into specifics of the films as a series and tries to have commentary on a series as a whole, and less about individual films copied and pasted from their respective articles.

In short, these articles fail WP:SIGCOV, specifically that it addresses the topic directly. And that the articles tend to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE as they just repeat production and individual reception of individual works, but not the idea of a franchise as a whole. It also fails WP:UNDUE as applying information such as comparing their gross, cast, characters with no real world context to why its important we know these things. Sure, we can find sources of what the budget of the first Rosemary's Baby was to Apartment 7A, but we have no MOS related discussion for film series specifically so just comparing these on our own comes off as trivial.

Going to tag @Mushy Yank: and @DisneyMetalhead: on this as they both were contributors to article in question and would like them to give their input on how they feel this article and articles like it currently follow the above standards. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, For the record. I did remove the PROD tag but did not say it was "obviously notable"". What I said was "Clearly unsuitable for PROD". I have no opinion on whether you can call it a franchise or series. Feel free to rename it . I don't think I ever edited the page apart from DePRoDing it but the page seems notable as a Wikipedia:SETINDEX.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
No worries. Just to clarify, my issue is not what it is labeled. My issue is that there is no information on the topic as a series/franchise/anything-similar term and that as there is none, we apply information with no weight of what it is, what the focus should be, and that it even exists as there is no sources that is miniscule content discussing it as a series or as a whole at all. As for SETINDEX, they give examples like Dodge Charger, which I'd assume has more articles covering it as a more general wide-meaning term. In this case, we do not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
...you're kidding me. @Andrzejbanas it seems that you frequently get hung up on this idea. The Rosemary's Baby franchise is indeed a franchise, and it is indeed notable. I don't understand why you move to deleting content/pages/details on VARIOUS pages (not just this one). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Side-note it is called a "franchise" because there is a TV miniseries as well.... DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Because I've stated the rules it's breaking. I didn't arhue about terminology, but there is no wide spread coverage of it as that. Which makes it fail the rules i stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead, which three sources provide SIGCOV of the franchise/body of work (as a whole) in RS? Valereee (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: thank you for the question! There a Sportskeeda and Cinema Express which explicitly call it a franchise; while Vulture talks about the juxtaposition of the Rosemary's Baby IP to "saturated by commercially safe franchises". Meanwhile, 1997 Entertainment Weekly and 2019 ScreenRant articles discusses how the sequel book (and its TV movie adaptation) shies in comparison to the original movie and the novel. Further detailed reading at The New York Post discusses the miniseries expansion of the original releases (and where it failed). The most detailed example of one article talking at length about the entire franchise that I had sourced on the article in question however, is LitReactor where the journalist compares the book to the movie to the miniseries. I will use these same sources to further reference that this is a franchise. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
But the argument isn't really whether someone is calling it a franchise but whether the franchise itself is notable? I'm not familiar enough with film to know whether multiple notable entries a franchise make the franchise notable. For authors, multiple notable books generally is considered to prove an author is notable. I'm willing to be pointed at a WikiProject Film PAG that indicates multiple notable entries in a franchise confer notability on the franchise, but if that's not the guideline here, we need three instances of SIGCOV of the franchise in RS in order to support a claim to notability. LitReactor looks like a blog? Valereee (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, @DisneyMetalhead, forgot to ping. I generally try to ping when the other person pings me, but if you've subscribed to this I'll try to remember not to. I don't care whether you ping me or not, I've subscribed. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I hope it's okay to chime in here, I'm just about to step out, but yes, this is kind of what I've been finding. Rosemary's Baby the main film is a major motion picture and novel, and of course spawned sequels and other offshoots. I can find reviews making one off comparisons to the original novel or series, but I struggled finding a lot of commentary on it as a franchise as a whole. This basically my point with the topics surrounding film series, there is plenty of information about some films in a series individually, but sometimes finding discussion about is a whole grows complicated. Like for Sartana, I wouldn't have attempted anything there if I had did not have this source which is pages about it as a series/franchise/cycle/whatever. I'm glad what I've been trying to address before is finally coming forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem tends to be that your explanations of your concerns are often extremely wordy. You can see how Indagate and I both got to the heart of the issue -- notability of the franchise as a whole -- in a sentence. It takes longer to write shorter, but it's a worthwhile skill to develop. Even this post you literally could have replaced with I struggled finding a lot of commentary on it as a franchise as a whole. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The franchise (starting with the novel and the first movie) has been credited with influencing modern horror and one of the greatest horror movies ever made (example: here). That same source details how the sequel didn't live up to the book source nor the original movie. The LitReactor source states that it is a "columns, reviews, and resource for authors". The author of that particular article is playwright and author himself. The formatting of the page is odd, but the author and its topic is notable. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance @Valereee: and @Indagate: -- WP:SIGCOV details the different general notability bullets. I know when initially beginning on the topic I followed "presumed" notability (because there are various media releases), but I had also been under the impression that the variety of reliable sources unrelated to the topic provided significant coverage. I will keep looking for more that discuss the whole franchise. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: you choose to ignore sources that disagree with your opinion is the issue with your mentality here (see the sources I shared below), m8! "wide spread coverage" is not what determines reliability and notability. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a wider issue based on list of articles created on DisneyMetalhead's user page, many franchise articles of barely notables films and no references discussing the franchise as a whole in them. Indagate (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

These specific examples are indeed articles I have been involved with -- but which articles are you declaratively stating are "barely notable films"? And what makes them "barely notable"? Furthermore, which ones don't have the references you are referring to?
This is an ongoing/recurring situation that User:Andrzejbanas has been involved with. See the various discussions at Talk:Universal Monsters for more.
DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Please stick to 1 indent per reply so less confusing to read. A random example is Not Quite Human (film series), no value added to the individual film articles, reception section has basically nothing in it, no significant coverage in references provided of the series as a whole, doesn't seem necessary as an article. Indagate (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out @Indagate:. I am going through each article to find additional sources that discuss the film series/franchise as a whole, and adding them to each page. I have added several at that identified page. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, but looking at sources added to that example, LA Times is reliable but not significant, "What's on Disney Plus" looks not really reliable and routine mention of the series, Mutant Reviewers looks not reliable and only covers first film. We need significant coverage of the franchise for it to be notable enough for a WP article, that example does not have it. Indagate (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I will keep looking for more sources. The sources I provided combined seem to cover the film series, but my question is for films/franchises/etc which are older, does the variety of sources on the page not detail the topic as whole sufficiently to warrant that is a significant series? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian details the book, movie, and miniseries, in addition to the "Michael Bay reboot" which ended up becoming Apartment 7A. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a tumbling block here because, for me at least, this one seems to be providing some overview, but not really on the topic as a whole. unless I'm missing something here. @DisneyMetalhead: Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Continuing

Just to return to this, as I feel like editors have sort of understood my point and want to be caught up on it. WP:SIGCOV suggests we do not not just need brief one line mentions of a series or a franchise, but that the subject as a franchise as a whole. We can't really put weight on a series or a franchise unless it goes into discussion on it. This is kind of why I'd like to apply some sort of addition to MOS:FILM or perhaps a new MOS for film series so we can address articles essential for a film series/franchise for general understanding. Currently, our MOS has about one line about whether franchise articles should be created, and its very lacking in cohesiveness on what to do there (using infoboxes? crew? box office? recpetion? etc.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Very strongly OPPOSE. There are a number or reliable sources that refer to the IP as a franchise. Examples include, but aren't limited to: [Sporskeeda, Cinema Express, Vulture. I will take this to the associated talkpage.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hi @DisneyMetalhead , I've seen these sources. This also, in fact all I found. The issue with this is this is all I've found too and you do not apply them within the article or had not at the time. With this, per [[WP:WEIGHT], you go I to excessive details about financial comparisons, characters, etc. that address these fila individually, but not as a franchise/series/whatever. This is what my issue is as we can't take these sources and expand them based on...well, nothing I can find. In fact, that Vulture article has nothing about it as a franchise. The Cinema Express doesn't have anything critical or historical to say about the franchise other than its a franchise and is an article about a poster being released. So sure, those are the three I found, and they are all focused on different topics without WP:SIGCOV of the topic considered. Please reconsider as all the information currently is just a regurgitation of information about individual elements, and almost nothing as this perceived series. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
    The point here, as stated on various other articles is that you don't get to decide which sources you like/don't like -- based off of them having a different opinion than you. As explained to you before, a more constructive approach would be to request more/better sources. This is exactly the discussion that occurred at Talk:Universal Monsters for years. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not saying whether I like it or not, I'm asking if they follow the current rules. if you are taking the time to reply, please address how you feel the content applies to the rules over perceived intentions, and assume good faith. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
    I have referred to other articles and their topics in my response to Valereee above. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Alien franchise, and what is included

There's some discussion at Talk:Prometheus_(2012_film)#Fifth_or_seventh_in_franchise? as to whether the "Alien franchise" is commonly understood to include the AvP films or not, and whether the associated installment number in the lead should be clarified. Outside input has been requested. Scribolt (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

oi oi saveloy, must be at least two, ideally 3, Alien film fans here that can provide some quick input? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Beetlejuice

Beetlejuice has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ratings discussions

Could someone point me at a couple of prior discussions on ratings? I am not a film buff (far from it), but I've several times during the last year or so needed to find out the rating for a current film, and I find that my process looks like this:

  • Go to Wikipedia article. (There has always been a Wikipedia article.)
  • Find the iMDb link.
  • Go to iMDb.
  • Look around until I can find the rating. (It doesn't happen often enough for me to remember their format.)

The process I'd prefer is:

  • Go to Wikipedia article.
  • Find ratings in the infobox or in a ==Ratings== section. Bonus points if it's not just the US rating system.

I remember seeing discussions about this many years ago, and all I remember is an editor asserting that it was completely impossible for editors to put more than one rating system into an article, and that since only one could be included, that would end up being the US rating system and excluding the entire rest of the world would be bad. Obviously, that's nonsense, so let's hope that I've misremembered it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Is MOS:FILMRATING insufficient? DonIago (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
A MOS page isn't a discussion. I was hoping to find the discussions, not the 'written rule'.
The earliest version of the page (August 2006, then at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines) asserts that ratings are now excluded from the infobox because there are too many rating systems (Category:Motion picture rating systems lists 27, all of which are never relevant to a single film), and it's too complicated to decide which rating applies to which versions, if there have been multiple versions of a film (all similar subjects use the original release, e.g., first edition of a book), and that the information should be included in the text of the article.
It says that this change happened "as consensus has shifted over the years", but provides no links to any relevant discussions. I have found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 2#Ratings, which says that editors in that discussion favored the inclusion of ratings in the infobox by a margin of 6:4, and which I found because it is linked at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 2#Template:Infobox Film rating as evidence that ratings information has been discussed and isn't wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
That was probably the discussion at hand at the time. Generally speaking, you are welcome to suggest an addition to the infobox, but note that general response to any additions to the infobox will likely be shot down as the infobox is already considered too large. Personally, the ratings would only be useful in a contemporary sense, so many films are not re-submitted and do not follow contemporary standards of what is "acceptable", most of it would require explanation for anything that isn't contemporary and would date fast. Personally, looking for a film rating, typing a films name into google and rating gives me the general answer for your own queries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Short description

I have noticed a large number of changes to film articles' short descriptions. Recent examples:

I don't know if this is part of a project to make these changes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film gives no guidance on short description content. It seems to me that firstly there should be a standard; and secondly there should be discussion of the "by [director]" part. This strongly favours auteur theory, primarily crediting the director as the creator of a film, a view which is not universally accepted for every film - see Auteur#Criticism. Perhaps "directed by [director]" would be better. Has this style (date, nationality, by director) been discussed and agreed? Masato.harada (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SDCONTENT, the main purpose of a short description is to differentiate it from other similarly named articles in search results. Editors making these changes may not be aware of that. Often the two most important identifiers, year of release and media type (e.g. 1979 film), are going to distinguish the search result to the extent of what's needed.
You could then optionally insert either "British" or "directed by Francis Megahy", but not both. Both would be overkill 99% of the time. Per WP:SDLENGTH, the goal is to stay within 40 characters when possible to avoid truncation, so in other words, avoid unnecessary detail. The director is usually less controversial than nationality, but either would probably be fine to use. Just keep in mind there will be films that have more than one director. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
A film article using {{Infobox film}} will have it's short description automatically generated in the format of essentially <year> <country> film with {{Infobox film/short description}} (this is hardcoded into the infobox). Past consensus was to remove the inclusion of a director in this auto-generated SD, so this is the work of an editor overriding that generated one. You can find the past discussions about excluding director in the short description here and here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
FWIW (i.e. I'm not advocating for this), WP:SDEXAMPLES explicitly includes, "2017 film by Jordan Peele" as one of their examples. If including the director shouldn't be the default, then I might recommend that that guidance be updated or clarified. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
That's good to know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the example at SDEXAMPLES here citing the two discussions I linked above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tobyhoward talk, you seem to be one of the most active editors inserting "by [director]". Perhaps you have a comment? Masato.harada (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Because WP:SDCONTENT had given the example of "2017 film by Jordan Peele" (now removed, as discussed above) I had respected that and used "by director" in my SD edits. If the consensus is now that a film's SD should not include the director, then I respect that. It would be helpful for WP:SDCONTENT to give a clear example of what a film's SD should be. Currently the only mention of film in WP:SDCONTENT is the example "1964 musical film". So that's got genre in it too! I'm not sure that including genre is particularly meaningful or helpful, or indeed can be done in any consistent way. Tobyhoward (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Tobyhoward: This is super helpful knowing you were looking over at SDCONTENT for these examples. I've gone ahead an altered that "1964 musical film" example too. It has been a while since I was aware of the past infobox discussions I linked, but if I recall (and I'll go back soon to look them over), the conensus was to not have a director added automatically, but there still could be cases where overriding the auto generated one to include a director might be beneficial. I feel this discussion here will lead to creating some guidance for it at MOS:FILM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to WP:SDCONTENT. "1964 American film" is clear. Some explicit guidance on what to do when it's a multi-country film would be helpful – e.g. simply listing all the countries, separated by "/"? And yes, it would extremely helpful to have an unambiguous SD format included at MOS:FILM, which currently has nothing about SD as far as I can see. Tobyhoward (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I just encountered this with the television infobox, which generates a similar SD, and changed that code to state "multi-national" when a film has multiple countries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Now I'm confused, as the previous example ("2017 film by Jordan Peele") obviously did not include the nationality, which led me to believe it shouldn't be included. While I didn't make a point of doing so, as with Toby, I often updated film descriptions based on the seemingly unambiguous example that was provided.
Frankly, if it was a choice, I'd prefer the Peele formatting to the American film formatting. Either way, I hope genre can be left out of it, as that's contentious enough often enough without extending it to the short description. DonIago (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This can all definitely be rehashed, but generally speaking, from the discussion linked regarding the auto-generated SD, consensus was to avoid using directors in the SD. I think some wording in the MOS will be helpful here because as it has been noted, a director might be more useful to describe a film than nationality and overwriting the auto one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The point of the short description is to be short and concise as possible. "A film by Jordan Peele" will be displayed at the beginning of the film in the credits (and reliable third party sources use this phrase), so I think it makes sense to concisely describe the film as such here. Adding the year is acceptable, if it's not already in the page title, since it would just be redundantly duplicated. Adding the film's nationality doesn't seem too insightful? Maybe if it is non-English. Mike Allen 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    My second concern, at the start of this discussion, was the use of "by [director]". If we agree a new format which includes director name, can I suggest "directed by [director]"? Masato.harada (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think one of the reasons that we're using "by" is that short descriptions shouldn't exceed 40 characters, so any space we can reasonably save, we should. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks all for this discussion. Are we moving to the consensus "[1946] film by Joe Bloggs" / "[1946] film by Joe Bloggs and Fred Smith"? where "1946" is only needed if it is not in the article title? No country name(s), no genre, "directed by" => "by" to conserve space. The inclusion of the director per "the auteur" seems controversial, but in terms of pure information seems sensible to me to include in the SD. Tobyhoward (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
    I've left a notice at Template talk:Infobox film about this so if anyone is watch there, they can chime in to this discussion about possibly altering what that template generates for an SD. I will also leave a notice at MOS:FILM noting that there is talk about creating MOS wording about SDs here in this discussion (we should proceed with that here too). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment – Missed a lot of the replies, but I still think a point getting overlooked is that what's needed for one film may not be what's needed for another film. The primary use case for a short description is to help differentiate the title from other similar titles (and we're not just talking about other film titles). Even when other similar films appear in search results, the year of release will be the #1 attribute that needs to be listed in the short description, followed by the phrase "film". If you only had these two attributes, you'd probably be fine in almost every situation.
    There's optionally more space for including the director, country, or something else, but again, these are optional and not required from my POV. The template, if it's going to hard code anything, should only be doing the year and "film", then leaving the optional part up to local consensus. We can help steer that local consensus by putting something in MOS:FILM if the project thinks that's necessary, but that may be overkill. Personally, I find the director more informative than country, and definitely more informative than "multi-national". --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    "The primary use case for a short description is to help differentiate the title from other similar titles" – yes, I've seen this said several times, but I'm not sure the "primariness" (?!) is backed up by WP:SDPURPOSE, which says SDs provide (quote):
    • a very brief indication of the field covered by the article
    • a short descriptive annotation
    • a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields
    I think there is a case for a style which does include more infirmation than "year" and "film". cf the example at WP:SDCONTENT for a novel: "1988 novel by Penelope Fitzgerald". It would be good to have some consistency with other art forms. Tobyhoward (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    Right here in WP:SDCONTENT, it states:

    Editors should keep in mind that short descriptions are meant to distinguish an article from similarly named articles in search results, and not to define the subject.

    The points made in SDPURPOSE are all covered by a simple annotation of something like "1979 film"; this is a brief indication of the field ("film"), short descriptive annotation ("1979 film"), and covers the disambiguation in searches in a vast majority of situations. Totally subjective as to how detailed you want to get with the annotation, as I stated previously. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    Right, my mistake, I didn't spot that sentence. Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm fine with "(year) film" if that's how we want to handle things in cases where we consider it sufficient disambiguation. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

List of film director and actor collaborations

Today I looked at List of film director and actor collaborations, which survived AFD in 2019 following a cleanup I did, and found it absolutely messy again. More content was added to it, around 561 MBs' worth, and I basically rolled that back to a clean version post-AFD closure. Since it was such a big rollback, I'm notifying here for transparency. See discussion thread at Talk:List of film director and actor collaborations § Rollback. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Filmographies and Titles for Multi-country filmakers

I've recently been expanding Jesús Franco filmography to flesh it out with some sources. One issue that has come up is that as Franco has directed several films whose production remains a bit hazy, how should we handle some film titles? One film titled Kiss Me Killer had that English title release on a Dutch home video. The film does not appear to have have a native English-language release, but has two other titles its known by from theatrical releases in France and Italy. WP:NCFF has good standards to follow for when we have films in an article, but as many of these works will not like be getting an article any time soon, what is the best method for titling films like this?

I see that there is Eiji Tsuburaya filmography which has the titles presented in different languages. I'm not crazy about the jumping back and forth between tables to get the information, but this presents further difficulty as Franco worked all around Europe, so titles will not just be Spanish for example. Any thoughts on a solution? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing sports films

So roughly two years ago, its archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, I brought up this article as being a complete disaster of OR and with no one seeming to have any idea what to do about it. It was suggested someone AfD it but that didn't happen. Two years on and its actively gotten worse. Can someone deal with this for AfD because its irreparably original research with no criteria and all the arguments made in the archived post regarding violations of about a dozen wiki rules are now much more apparent. –– Lid(Talk) 11:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone around? –– Lid(Talk) 02:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Is there some reason why you can't open the AfD? DonIago (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Honestly its because I'm over a decade removed from when i really editied wwikipedia. I'm a former admin. I don't feel up for running a whole AfD, especially not one where I'm dealing with people I don't know in topics i've long been removed from and fear of having to explain at length why an article with over 300 references that has existed for a long time needs to be deleted as its not fit for purpose (including how the two related articles, sports films and list of sports films contain entirely different contents than the grossing article which seems some sort of obsessive fan project. –– Lid(Talk) 07:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I meant List of films based on sports books which, again makes much more sense. –– Lid(Talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll quote myself from roughly a year ago over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series: It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge. TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree the list article seems to be a mess, on reading it, the idea and context of what is a sports film seems iffy regardless (Forrest Gump is a sports film, and the sport is ping-pong? who knew?) I'll see if I can take a look at it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to let editors from previous discussions on this know, i've gone ahead and nominated the article for deletion. @TompaDompa:, @Erik:, and @Lid:. The discussion can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing sports films here.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I cannot believe that dumpster fire of a list article hasn't been deleted already. It is an indiscriminate list article, it still includes fictional sports and most of the films listed happen to include sports events but are not actually sports films in any meaningful sense. It is seems entirely unsalvagable. -- 109.79.171.34 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Les Films du losange#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Les Films du losange#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) § Survey

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) § Survey. Editors are debating whether or not to include a rumored casting. Your input would be appreciated. GoneIn60 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep actreeses

Actress is the common word used in common speech. Wikipedia uses common speech and we should retain the actress name in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

What is this pertaining to? Mike Allen 21:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the discussion, please? Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting Featured Article review: E.T.

If anyone has the capacity to assist, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial needs some light-to-medium work to bring it back up to FA standards.

Requested move at Talk:De-aging in motion pictures and television#Requested move 3 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:De-aging in motion pictures and television#Requested move 3 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Recent changes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Recent changes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Major accessibility and sorting problems on "List of (nation) films of YYYY" articles

Please see this discussion, which applies to many film list articles in this project, such as List of Hong Kong films of 2024, List of Japanese films of 2024, List of British films of 2024, and many other pages. I have to assume that this issue has been raised in the past, but it is unclear why it persists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Universal Studios, Inc.#Requested move 31 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Universal Studios, Inc.#Requested move 31 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Title "_____ horror cinema" vs _____ films of [country/continent]"

Probably a non-issue, but I figured I'd ask around before moving forward. I was about to move parts of the Horror film article to either Asian horror cinema or Horror films of Asia". That said, we seem to use both terms on wikipedia, with articles like British horror cinema and Horror films of Cambodia. Is there a standard or a preference for how we should title these? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If sources discuss horror films from a certain region as a cohesive genre or collective, then it might make sense to name the article "... cinema", especially if the sources call it that. Otherwise "horror films of" seems more neutral. Nardog (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I've found both terms used commonly. I mean, we could play a numbers game. But just some examples:
  • The book "Korean Horror Cinema" (2013) by Alison Peirse
  • The book "Hong Kong Horror Cinema" from Daniel Martin, Gary Bettinson
  • "Indian Horror Cinema" from Mithuraaj Dhusiya
  • "Introduction to Japanese Horror Film" by Colette Balmain
James Monaco in his book How to Read a Film The “filmic” is that aspect of the art that concerns its relationship with the world around it; the “cinematic” deals with the esthetics and internal structure of the art [...] in general we use these three names for the art in a way that closely parallels this differentiation: “movies,” like popcorn, are to be consumed; “cinema” (at least in American parlance) is high art, redolent of esthetics; “film” is the most general term we use with the fewest connotations.
So I think I agree with you @Nardog:, I'll probably go towards "Horror films of Asia" or similar items over Asian horror cinema. I'll wait a bit to see if others want to chime in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirection of actor to film

I've noticed a few instances recently of a link to an actor being a redirect to a film they're in. Example: Nancie Wait redirects (with no proper # target) to the film Au Pair Girls. This practice seems unhelpful and misleading to me (even with a working #). I'd be interested to know what others think. Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I loathe it. What often happens is the name of an up-and-coming actor is redirected to the article about a work they appeared in, and then they appear in another work but the article about the new work has a link to the redirect, so anybody who clicks on it or looks up their name is led to the article about the old work, which is often what they're less famous for, and since it's a blue link, it lowers the chance of an article about them being created. It's completely counterproductive and helps no one. Nardog (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to be doing this although it seems to be standard practice for some strange reason. Redirects should go to something substantial about a person, not just a passing mention of a role they played at some point in their career. It is unhelpful to readers who are surprised at the destination they land on and the nothing they get when they click a blue link or search for a name. It is better to be a red link. I've tried getting these deleted in the past at WP:RfD and usually the result is keep. About the only solution is to create an article there if the person can meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, and baffling, that WP:RfD favoured keep. Was the rationale Thou Shalt Not Break Links (even Stupid Ones), or something else? Tobyhoward (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Pretty much "redirects are cheap" better to have than not. Might have had more chance of deleting if I'd had support for the delete. Maybe with some consensus we can get the stupid ones deleted. Some actors redirects might go to a location with more than just a credit mention, but most don't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap, in the sense that having an article would be worth far more and a red link helps to encourage article creation. Even a stub is preferable to a redirect, if the subject is notable. And if the subject is not notable...then why is it being linked in the first place? It seems very counter-productive, and borne out of the aversion some editors have to red links. I was not even aware of this practice until I came across this discussion. It needs to be nipped in the bud, perhaps we can add a sentence to the MOS? Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, there's even a template for it: {{R from cast member}}. A sentence in MOS wouldn't help. The only way we could fully prevent it is get consensus to make them eligible for speedy deletion. Nardog (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I would say that use of the template for this purpose is not justified. Belonging the cast of a film is clearly not the same thing as being a "member of a group", where the notability is derived from the notability of the group. {{R from cast member}} is a poorly named redirect with clear overreach beyond the template's intended purpose. I think having a clear guideline in the MOS would enhance the pathway towards a consensus for speedy deletion of these redirects, including this template redirect. If the project does not have an established position on this matter it will be much more difficult to get them deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
MOS:EGG applies to piped links but there really isn't a difference how a reader gets to a surprise destination either by a pipe or a redirect. WP:Redirect#D10 says "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." That is the closest guideline for deleting actor to cast list links. The biggest problems is the definition of "virtually no information" and RfD reviewers seem to interpret that as being synonymous with "absolutely no information at all" which means just a mere mention of the name at the target is enough to negate that delete reason. I think that this project could work to get D10 updated and have a clear guideline in the project about this issue to back up changes to other guidelines. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
An ultra-literal interpretation of WP:Redirect#D10 seems to contradict WP:REDLINK:

It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see Notability – Whether to create standalone pages). But please do not "kill" red links by redirect because their red color (annoying to some readers) seems to scream for a fix. It is easy to turn any red link blue by creating a redirect, but valid red links exist for a reason, and they are the "buds" from which new Wikipedia articles grow.

If we didn't have an article about John Lennon, I understand why it might be sensible to redirect to The Beatles, but you would never expect an article about Top Gun to house substantive information about Tom Cruise. Perhaps WP:Redirect#D10 needs to reference WP:REDLINK, and then once the main guideline in fixed we can clarify the position in relation to cast members. Once that is done it would hopefully be straightforward to delete these types of redirects. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Trying again at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16#Casey Simpson Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The WP:RETURNTORED argument worked along with support from others to get that redirect deleted. Needed to show multiple mentions, none of which had any non-trivial info that would have supported a retarget. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Can see that, though it's probably better done coordinating with WP:Actors. Nardog (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wolfs (film)#Requested move 19 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wolfs (film)#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Blade (New Line franchise character)#Requested move 27 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blade (New Line franchise character)#Requested move 27 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Robin Williams

Hello. There's a discussion regarding a potential FA push for Robin Williams. It can be found at Talk:Robin Williams#FA plans?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Any experts on Finnish film?

In the process of creating The Missile, about a legitimately noteworthy Finnish film that was screened at a Canadian film festival this past week (not TIFF, but still how it got onto my Canadian radar), I noticed that the director has previously won a Jussi Award for Best Director for her earlier film — but that article has some problems:

  1. It hasn't been updated at all since 2019. Have these awards gone defunct, or are we just not staying on top of it?
  2. Even though it lists only winners, without listing any nominees at all, the winners are double-coded as winners with both a yellow highlight and a double-dagger (‡) — but the double-dagger is entirely unnecessary if the winners are already highlighted, and even the highlighting itself is redundant if the article is only listing winners without also listing unhighlighted nominees alongside them. So is this a "we only know the winners" award where there aren't any nominees to list at all, in which case the winners don't need any special coding to denote their status, or can nominees be added to it, in which case we only need one method of denoting the winners rather than two?

But since I can't read Finnish and don't have access to the kind of archived Finnish media coverage it would take to upgrade the article myself, I wanted to ask if there are any editors with expertise in Finnish film who are willing to take some time to improve it. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the double-dagger is entirely unnecessary if the winners are already highlighted: this is a MOS:ACCESSIBILITY requirement. MOS:COLOR says Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Since the table only includes winners, the colors and the symbol are both not only pointless but also completely distracting. Also, as a related note, can we stop copying print and using symbols and instead use web-technology like {{efn}}? Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of any quibbles about the formatting of the page, it's still lacking any of the winners since 2019. Does anybody have the ability to update that? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation of totals in Template:Infobox awards list

Hello! We would appreciate your input at this discussion concerning whether totals (|wins=, |nominations=, and |honours=) should be removed from {{infobox awards list}}. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wild Wing (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wild Wing (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Films directed by X" categories

Came across an issue yesterday that I wanted to ask for some input about.

We formerly had a consensus that a film director didn't qualify for a dedicated "Films directed by" category until they had a biographical article in place, so that we could track which of their films did or didn't have articles in order to ensure that any category was fully populated with all of the applicable films — but on doing some cleanup yesterday, I came across a lot of examples of categories for directors who did not have a biographical article to parent the category. I nominated the first few that I saw for WP:CFD, but soon realized that there were at least a few dozen of them just among the batch that I was looking at (and thus almost certainly dozens or hundreds more in the much larger set of categories that didn't need cleanup), and quickly lost interest in continuing to CFD them all.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask: do we want to uphold the old consensus that a director has to have a biographical article before they get a dedicated category for their films, or do we want to abandon it since it's obviously become almost impossible to monitor or stay on top of? If the former, then there will likely need to be a coordinated project to get rid of the violators — and if the latter, then I'll likely need to withdraw the set that I did nominate on the grounds that the old consensus no longer applies. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be curious to read the discussion that led to the original consensus, if you can provide a link to it. Otherwise, I don't really see why there should be a need to wait until a director has a biographical article before creating a category for films they directed (I'm having trouble immediately coming up with a categorization P&G that that's falling afoul of). As you noted, it's almost impossible for us to stay on top of it in any case, and it seems a bit like creating more work for the sake of creating more work...not that I can't appreciate the intention; but is that intention being utilized in a meaningful manner at this point? I think there may also be a reasonable argument that we should be consistent, and perhaps barring WP:SMALLCAT scenarios should be applying this kind of category to film articles in general.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way though, given that I can't currently see myself getting involved in trying to clean up those kinds of categories. DonIago (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, it's an incredibly important principle of categories (not just this project's categories, but all Wikipedia categories across the board) that we have to have ways and means to maintain them. If John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt is a film director with a films-directed-by category, then we have to have a way to figure out (a) how many of his films have Wikipedia articles, and (b) are they all in the category or not. If he's directed 15 films that have articles, but only two of them are in the category, then the category isn't serving its intended purpose — but if he doesn't have a biographical article listing the 15 films he directed, then I have no way to figure out that there are 13 other films with articles missing from the category and thus can't fix the issue — but the people who are editing the film articles don't necessarily know that the category exists, and thus can't add the films to it either, so the issue just doesn't get fixed because nobody has a way to identify it in order to fix it.
That's why the principle was, at least in theory, that a film director had to have a biographical article before he or she got a category for their films: so that we had a way to track whether all of their films with articles were categorized in it or not. Because if they don't have a biographical article, then I have no way to track whether the category actually contains all of their films or not and thus can't properly maintain the category to add any films that are missing. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the underlying theory; I appreciate it. I guess my question, though, is whether editors (besides yourself, clearly) are actually engaging in this tracking. It's a sensible and noble idea, but I'd like a sense of whether it's an idea that's being applied. DonIago (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Walt Disney Animation Studios

Walt Disney Animation Studios has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Pre-Code Hollywood

Pre-Code Hollywood has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:DC Studios#Requested move 6 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:DC Studios#Requested move 6 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Council

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. If you are interested in helping WikiProjects, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Poor taste?

Hi all, Yield to the Night, in the Reception section, contains the following sentence:

"A 19-year-old woman reportedly committed suicide within hours of watching the film.[ref]"

This raises a few issues for me. (1) While the citation to The Canberra Times, where it gets a micro-mention, might be an acceptable ref, I can't find any corroborating refs elsewhere. (2) It seems in poor taste, which I guess bothers me the most. I can't find any WP guidance on taste, so I guess it is up to an editor's discretion. (3) It seems irrelevant to an understanding/appreciation of the film. (4) It might be considered as film Trivia (although obviously it's not a trivial matter) and we know Trivia is not encouraged per MOS:TRIVIA. So I'm inclined to delete this sentence. But I'd welcome the views of other editors. What do you think? Thanks!

Tobyhoward (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Although, obviously, a personal tragedy, it looks neither notable nor relevant in the context of the film. The newspaper item does not even claim that the suicide or the method used was inspired by the film. It just looks like innuendo, trivia, and a journalist filling space. I vote to remove it. Masato.harada (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
It seems very unlikely that including it would be WP:DUE. If that's the only source that covers this WP:ASPECT, I would simply remove it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both! Tobyhoward (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Belgian cinema task force

I would like to inform the WikiProject that I have created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Belgian cinema task force. I have been working on this topic for years, and I felt it was an area that needed dedicated coverage. I set it up without prior discussion, as I only realized afterward that proposals for new task forces should be discussed first. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this initiative. If necessary, I’m open to moving it to a sandbox, but I hope it can be useful as it currently stands. Earthh (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Is "film" still the best terminology?

With celluloid film nearly obsolete, have there been discussions about the terminology of film? I see this from 2005, but curious if this has been mentioned in this WikiProject. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Film/Archive_1#Cinema,_Film,_or_Movie_as_the_primary_page - J. J. (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there have been any recent discussions but I think "film" is pretty commonly used even for movies shot digitally. It has transcended the original wording. Similarly, we still use "television series" to refer to shows made for streaming services that are not broadcast on television networks. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's any widespread consensus, not just on Wikipedia but anywhere else in the world either, that a movie ceases to be a "film" just because it was shot digitally instead of on celluloid. The word "film" obviously started as "because it's on celluloid", but it's long since picked up a second definition of "any short or long movie regardless of its production medium". Films shot digitally are still called films. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I brought it up again briefly when trying to figure out what to do with the article I was splitting off from Horror film to Horror films of Europe. Generally speaking, a good conclusion I came to was with the term "movie", "film" or "cinema". Cinema might have been a bit grandiose, movie might have been a bit swaying in the opposite direction. I feel like "film" is probably more neutral consider the previous statements. We do make exceptions though, as we have an article on Monster movie and Road movie as that is far more of a common term than "Monster film" or "Road film". Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No score yet on Rotten Tomatoes

In the past Rotten Tomatoes would give a film a score if it had 4 reviews. If it did not have a Rotten Tomatoes score it seemed to be generally accepted then that we did not add Rotten Tomatoes to the Wikipedia article. (Some editors liked to argue against including Rotten Tomatoes when the review count was less than 20, that never gained consensus though.) Occasionally when Rotten Tomatoes did not list a score people would instead write out something longform, like for example that Rotten Tomatoes listed 1 review as positive and 2 reviews as negative (I'm not sure there was any particular consensus for that either but it happened more than a few times on obscure horror film articles that didn't have very many mainstream reviews).

Rotten Tomatoes seems to be doing things differently now. Hellboy: The Crooked Man has 8 reviews already but no score listed. Editors have gone ahead and claimed (or calculated?) that this film has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 25% despite Rotten Tomatoes not yet posting a score.

Is this acceptable? Should Rotten Tomatoes be omitted (or hidden) until such time as a score is actually published on their site? What is the current consensus on adding Rotten Tomatoes when no score has actually been published? I was going to hide the Rotten Tomatoes text, but I thought maybe I should first check if the consensus is still no score, then do not include. -- 109.76.134.139 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 21:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

IIRC some critics or publications, even if they may be listed on RT, are excluded from the calculation of the Tomatometer. So it would probably not constitute OR to just say "two of eight reviews are positive", but converting it to a percentage is misleading and likely OR. Nardog (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I think they recently changed the number of reviews needed before a score is added but I'm not sure what to. Either way, Wikipedia should not claim that a film has a percentage on Rotten Tomatoes when it does not. I also don't see the benefit in counting the number of positive and negative reviews, just wait until there are more reviews and a score has been calculated. The most important part of Rotten Tomatoes is the average score and the consensus anyway, the RT percentage doesn't mean a whole lot and is widely misunderstood. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the average score important as reviews that don't give a score are discounted, and reputable publications typically don't. Metacritic is far more informative for this reason, though it often lacks enough reviews for smaller or new films. Nardog (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

::: Rotten Tomatoes did eventually add a score for Hellboy: The Crooked Man it is currently 29% based on 14 reviews. I hope this issue doesn't come up too often but it will continue to make things difficult for smaller horror films.

I also don't see the benefit in counting the number of positive and negative reviews, just wait until there are more reviews and a score has been calculated. I wasn't suggesting that was a good way to do it, simply that in cases where a film had very few reviews some editors had attempted to make the best of what little was available and include Rotten Tomatoes anyway, even though we probably shouldn't include Rotten Tomatoes when no score has been issued. (While I admire efforts of editors trying to make an article based on limited sources, it might "benefit" this encyclopedia more to not include less noteworthy topics that haven't received significant coverage.) I haven't seen anyone trying to include Metacritic when not enough reviews were available, it would seem sensible to treat Rotten Tomatoes the same and not include it unless and until enough reviews were actually available. From this discussion it seems there is a consensus to not include Rotten Tomatoes unless a score has actually been issued. Thanks. -- 109.77.194.81 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Crystal Film Company

Could I please have some help with this draft on an early studio? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark

The poster currently being used is from a 1982 re-release. But shouldn't the infobox traditionally include the original release poster? Here it is, but Darkwarriorblake insists the 1982 poster is more common, even being used on VHS. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with DWB? I skimmed the Talk page for the article but didn't see a dispute. I think discussing it there might be a good first step? DonIago (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I did discuss, and his words were, "The infobox image is intended for ease of identification, and teh [sic] 1982 poster is used on most home media, it was even on the VHS". Now I'm seeking consensus. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that WP:FILMPOSTER says that, ideally, the film's original theatrical release poster should be used. @Darkwarriorblake: Could you please provide your reasoning as to why we should ignore that guidance in this instance? DonIago (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Per my explanation to Kailash, the image is meant to be for ease of and quick identification, and the second poster is the most common image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
That seems to be at odds with what WP:FILMPOSTER says? The way I read it, the original theatrical release poster is emphasized. DonIago (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, the beauty of words is that it says "ideally" not "must". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following. If the original theatrical poster is the ideal, and we can provide it, why would we not strive to attain the ideal? DonIago (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the first theatrical poster for Raiders, it can be found here. Also, for reference, The Empire Strikes Back (an FA) uses the original theatrical poster. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Because the main purpose is identification and the current image is how Raiders has been presented to the public since 1982 so it is the easiest form of identification. The guideline includes links to Amazon to help search and if you do, you get this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
No particular opinion on the choice of image for this film, but I do think that WP:FILMPOSTER is a bit out of sync with MOS:LEADIMAGE. DWB is correct that the primary purpose of the image (and what should drive selection) is to identify the article topic for the reader, not simply being the original. In the vast majority of cases the original poster serves this purpose fine so there's nothing wrong with using it as a default choice, but there may be some strange cases (see this recent discussion for a recent example in the book area). I'm going to drop a note on the template talk page to discuss further. Scribolt (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

At this time, the consensus at the discussion initiated by Scribolt is that for Raiders the original film poster is the best choice. As such, barring further input, the image used in the infobox for that film article should be updated. There's some ongoing discussion regarding whether the wording at WP:FILMPOSTER should nevertheless be updated for other cases, primarily involving non-American films. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

best way to cite commentary?

I have been improving She (1935 film) and I cited some commentary from the film. I included some citations to commentary and bonus features on the DVD release. I wasn't sure how to indicate that on the cite AV template. Instead, I ended up naming a plaintext ref and including time stamps as superscripts. Is there a better and more orthodox way to cite DVD features? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it easiest through formats I've done on articles like Audition (1999 film). Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your example! It was just what I needed. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Glad to have helped! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Template:Cite AV media can be used for this, just cite the features you are citing. If it's an audio track, maybe use |type=audio track commentary Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Authority control-style template for films

I was looking at How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (film) (for example) and it struck me that, instead of:

which involves an awful lot of repetition, we could have a template, like {{Authority control}}, for film links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

{{FilmLinks}}? I don't know why the doc says that it should be substed; I didn't investigate. See also this MOS:Film section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Should Idiocracy be categorized as a time travel film?

Idiocracy is not a traditional time travel movie in that it doesn't feature any actual time travel (beyond suspended animation). However, a large part of the movie's plot focuses on the protagonists searching for a time machine (which turns out to just be a dark ride called The Time Masheen). Given that this is a main driver of the plot of the film, and that Category:Films about time travel is described as listing "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel," Idiocracy should be included.

Other people also consider Idiocracy to be a time travel movie, as evidenced by its #2 spot in The Guardian's 2023 top 20 list of time travel movies, #9 spot in Screen Rant's 2023 top 15 time travel movies list, and #9 spot in an IMDB poll of top time travel movies. FriendlyPedant (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a film about a person from the present that ends up several centuries in the future. I don't think the in-universe mechanism really matters. I would note that the "Time Travel" entry of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction includes mentions of both dreams and suspended animation as mechanisms. I wouldn't use the sources you list to bolster this argument, though. The Guardian, while WP:Generally reliable, is writing outside of its generally accepted area of expertise here; Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited, being reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis (it is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight); and IMDb polls are WP:User-generated content. A quick search on Google Books would seem to suggest that counting Idiocracy (and similar stories using suspended animation for this purpose, such as "Rip Van Winkle") as time travel fiction is at least not an outrageous proposition, see e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=6JtGEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA65 and https://books.google.com/books?id=42O2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT43. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
If reliable sources classify it as a time travel movie, then yes. But if we're just making a categorization decision within Wikipedia, I would argue that it is not a time travel movie. The film doesn't have in-universe mechanisms (such as time machines) for permit time travel. In-universe, time only progresses linearly. Yes, the movie spans quite a bit of linear time, but the quantity of linear time doesn't make it time travel. For example, a school year goes back in each (well, most) of the Harry Potter films, but they are not time travel movies (in before someone mentions the Time Turner exception in one of them). The linear passage of time within a film does not render it a time travel movie. Useight (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the suspended animation may not be enough to categorize it as a time travel film. I tried to be clear about that. Rather, it's the focus of the protagonists on going back in time via a promised "time machine" driving the plot of the film that both makes it a time travel film in my opinion and satisfies the Wikipedia category's description as listing "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel." FriendlyPedant (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, you make a good point. Much of the movie focuses on a desire to perform time travel and the protagonist is led to believe that such time travel exists (and is available for use). Does the film include the theme of time travel? I would agree that it does. Is the film about time travel? I would argue that it isn't. I could see this going either way. Poking around a bit, I noticed that 13 Going on 30 is categorized as time travel, but 17 Again isn't. In the former, many years suddenly passed seemingly overnight. In the latter, time itself was unaffected but the protagonist changed. Idiocracy is similar to 13 Going on 30, in that the protagonist experienced the passage of time in an instant. But the thing is, with Idiocracy, it is known that everyone else experienced time at the normal, linear pace. This makes it more like Demolition Man. Someone in suspended animation that is awakened at some point in the future. And Demolition Man is not categorized as time travel. Thus, I feel confident that none of the time-related trickery in Idiocracy qualify it for the category. What remains is the question of whether or not a desire (or attempt) to time travel qualifies. I wonder if there are movies in which someone spends time trying to build a time machine but fails, or something along those lines. Useight (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Unless I'm misremembering the plot, there's nothing to say that actual time travel occurs in Safety Not Guaranteed. That one's currently categorized as a film about time travel, but to me the lynchpin is the about. The whole plot in that film is driven by the idea that someone claims to have a time machine and the ending leaves it ambiguous as to whether the device functions. I believe that's a stronger element than in Idiocracy, but I haven't seen the latter film in a long time either and might be misremembering how strong an element of the plot the desire to time travel really is relative to the other goings-on. I guess the question is whether the category is intended for scenarios where actual time travel is a major component of the film, or whether it's sufficient for themes of time travel to be a major component of the film. I'd argue that incidental time travel to serve a story purpose (suspended animation that isn't ultimately relevant to the greater plot) or a one-off discussion of it or such would be insufficient; I'm not claiming Idiocracy only has one or both of those. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I don’t think it’s time travel Methastophles (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal for Talent agent

I have proposed splitting Talent agent into a new article Talent agency. Members of this WikiProject are welcome to contribute at Talk:Talent agent#Proposed split. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Editnotice on plot summary changes?

I don't know whether this could or should be done (the former may be more of an obstacle than the latter), but would it be possible to display an WP:EDITNOTICE when an editor is working on the plot summary of an article? This might reduce the number of instances where an editor inadvertently expands a plot summary beyond the applicable guidelines (not necessarily for a film article, but I thought I'd start here) and is consequently immediately reverted for having broached said guideline. If it's not possible it's not possible, but I thought it might be something that merits exploration. Since we have universal user warning messages for occasions where an editor expands a plot beyond the recommended guideline, I imagine we could come up with universal wording for such an editnotice as well, presuming it is possible. Thanks for entertaining my thought experiment! DonIago (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that can't be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Alas! I've just started to feel badly when a well-intentioned editor adds 500 words to a summary that really didn't need to be any larger, because I think all of us have fallen afoul of P&G that we didn't know existed when we made our edits. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Did you know there's an edit notice that shows up every single time you edit a biography of a living person? You've been here for years, so you've probably seen it thousands of times. Can you recite it without looking at the template at {{BLP editnotice}}? If so, I guess you don't have banner blindness. I think edit notices can work, but you have to fight against problems like that. Also, I think the best you could do is a universal edit notice when editing a film article, which probably wouldn't go over so well with the rest of the site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I think new editors are probably more likely to pay attention to editnotices than us old fogeys, though perhaps I'm wrong about that? Anyway, as I said, I wasn't even sure this kind of thing would be technically possible; I just thought that if it reduced the instance of plot summary guideline violations by 25% without incurring significant costs, it seemed like something that might be worth pursuing. It sounds like it isn't technically possible though, in which case it's a moot point. DonIago (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pixels (2015 film)#Requested move 22 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pixels (2015 film)#Requested move 22 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

I have started a discussion about the reliability of this website, which is widely used in articles that fall within the scope of this WikiProject, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Music Reporter. All thoughts are welcome. My hope is to come to a definitive consensus on the matter which can be recorded at WP:RS/PS. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

A Manual of Style discussion that may interest the editors here.

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Noteworthy exceptions to SOB, thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Reel Affirmations

Reel Affirmations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_85&oldid=1259489617"