Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Project-class)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (films) page.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|This page was nominated for deletion on February 27 2007. The result of the discussion was keep—the nomination was withdrawn.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 Notability of Verax
- 2 Untitled projects
- 3 Malavika Nair
- 4 Biography
- 5 Comment
- 6 Multiple DVD releases?
- 7 Wikipedia:Notability (television shows)
- 8 RfC: Can reviews through Film Threat's paid "Submission for Review system" be considered an independent source for determining notability?
- 9 Director's cuts
- 10 Notability Should be Expanded to Allow More Room for Niche Independent Films
Notability of Verax
At Edward_Snowden#Legacy I started a section about "Verax", a Hong Kong-produced short five minute film that got extensive coverage in reliable sources. I believe I can write more content about this film, but I would need a separate article. Based on the sources I have, should I start a separate article now?
Sources (five English sources in number, with the AFP source being widely distributed and being used as one source by the Voice of Russia source, plus two not in English):
- Tam, Aaron. "Hong Kong filmmakers first to make Snowden movie." Agence France Presse at Fox News. June 29, 2013.
- ""Hong Kong amateur filmmakers produce world's first Edward Snowden film". South China Morning Post (Hong Kong). Agence France-Presse. June 30, 2013. (seems to be copy)
- "Four expatriates in Hong Kong make first film on leaker Edward Snowden." Agence France-Presse at Taipei Times Monday July 1, 2013. p. 5 (seems to be derived from AFP sources)
- "‘Verax’ frenzy." Agence France-Presse at Global Times. June 30, 2013. (seems to be copy)
- "Hong Kong filmmakers make Snowden movie." Agence France-Presse at Arab News. Saturday 29 June 2013.
- "Hong Kong filmmakers first to make Snowden movie." Agence France-Presse at Geo TV. June 30, 2013. (seems to be copy)
- "Hong Kong filmmakers to make Snowden movie." Agence France Presse at The Nation. June 30, 2013.
- "Hong Kong filmmakers first to make Snowden movie." Agence France Presse at the Economic Times. June 29, 2013.
- "Hong Kong filmmakers first to make Snowden movie." Agence France Presse at NDTV. June 29, 2013.
- "Edward Snowden: The Movie." Agence France Presse at The Australian. June 30, 2013. (seems to be copy)
- "HK filmmakers first to make Edward Snowden movie." Agence France Presse at The Straits Times. June 29, 2013. (seems to be copy)
- "Hong Kong filmmakers first to make Snowden movie." Agence France Presse at France 24. June 29, 2013. (seems to be copy)
- "Hong Kong filmmakers publish online first movie about Edward Snowden." The Voice of Russia. Credited to: Voice of Russia, RIA Novosti, Agence France Presse -- It has multiple sources with AFP being one.
- Keegan, Rebecca (June 28, 2013). "Edward Snowden insta-movie hits YouTube". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
- Napolitano, Dean (June 28, 2013).Lights, Camera, Leaks! Watch Edward Snowden: The Movie." The Wall Street Journal blog. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
- FlorCruz, Michelle. "Watch 'Verax,' The Edward Snowden Movie By Hong Kong Filmmakers [VIDEO]." International Business Times. June 26, 2013.
- (Romanian) A.M.P. ""Verax" - Primul film despre Snowden, realizat de patru cineaşti din Hong Kong." Antena3. Intact Media Group. 29 June 2013.
- "Datagate, il primo film su Snowden è cinese: ecco "Verax"." La Repubblica.
After finding more sources, I'm sure it's notable:
- "Kurz-Thriller aus Hongkong: Edward Snowden, der Film." [[Der Spiegel]. Sunday June 30, 2013.
- "Amateurfilmer drehten in Hongkong ersten Film über Snowden." Der Standard. 30 June 2013.
- According to WP:NFF, an article can't be produced until filming has begun. There are probably many more plans to make films than actual films that get made. Even once financing has been secured, a screenplay written and a cast put together, that still isn't far along enough to warrant a separate article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding WP:NFF, I'm running into articles like "Untitled So-and-so's Project" with a proposed 2014 release. Usually there is scant information about plots or casting but because So-and-so is a well-known director, their future movie projects have a Wikipedia page.
Is that warranted or should editors wait until more information has been released to the public before a page is created? I've never proposed an article to be deleted but after reading WP:NFF, I can see several film projects that are just in the planning or preproduction stages. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, if it's an untitled project by "so and so", I'd have thought it most likely more appropriate to put the information on "so and so"'s article, in the spirit of this guideline: "information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material". Do you have any examples? --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Malavika Nair is born on Malavika Nair is an indian actress made her debut in Malayalam movie Perariyapoovu directed by P Sreenivas. She is Primarily working with Malayalam Movie industry
Anybody cares to comment on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#An_article_on_a_movie_before_release.? AnupMehra ✈ 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Multiple DVD releases?
I'm involved with an AfD that I launched and one of the arguments that someone brought up was that the film had multiple DVD releases over the years. Now while this isn't currently anything that would count towards notability, part of me does have to argue that this should be a criteria towards notability. If a film continues to get re-released over the years, then that must attest to its notability in some shape or fashion, right? I wouldn't argue for it to be something that would give absolute notability ala a film getting shown at a film festival or a commercial theatrical re-release five years after its initial showing, but I do think that it should count at least towards partial notability. I'm aware that many films will eventually hit public domain and get released by no-name film distribution companies or get self-published, but we also get a lot of films that get released by rather mainstream film distributors such as Viacom/Paramount and the like. Shouldn't that at least count towards partial notability and get included in our official film GNG as well? It'd take some tweaking to ensure that self-published films and ones published through Darryl's DVD Dungeon (ie, very no-name, fly-by-night distribution companies) wouldn't really count, but I think that there is some merit in this person's argument. (The film in question is Nightmare Circus, if anyone's interested in helping to dig for sources, and while it is getting republished by some indie publishes, it also got a DVD release through Media Blasters, which is considered to be a fairly well-known known distributer.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I mean basically, that someone in a relatively mainstream distribution company would consider a movie to be worth re-releasing on DVD years after its initial release should count for something. We can argue that the article would still require other sourcing and it wouldn't keep on that alone, but this would really help give some articles a much needed boost, as we have a lot of films that are very underground cult classics that are known but either didn't get an overly large amount of coverage or had coverage that never made it onto the internet. It's just that I've had multiple instances where I've come across movies, books, etc that are incredibly well known but fall just shy of actually passing film notability guidelines - yet are continually re-released onto the various home film media formats because there is obviously a market out there that values the film. This isn't WP:POPULAR really, just saying that repeated releases onto home media does and should show some notability for the film akin to how a review through a RS would help count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've always been under the impression that commercial re-release was intended to mean a theatrical re-release, but I'd love it if this meant that this could also count a DVD (or respective current media format) re-release for a film released earlier in time. Of course we'd have to word this carefully. If say, a film released today and continued to get distributed for the next 6 years through one distribution company, that might not necessarily count towards notability. I think that the time period should be lengthened a little to say, 10 years after its initial theatrical release and the distribution must be done through a relatively mainstream company. That would help whittle down the criteria some. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Multiple "commercial releases" indicates releases that a film generates "commercial profit" for the filmmakers or distributors. In this modern world where more and more folks choose to rent DVDs or download films rather than spend their money at theaters, this means that restricting notability to "theatrical release" only does not serve the encyclopedia. In the case of the film discussed at that AFD, we might better consider repeated successful releases as an acknowledgement of a cult following. Our issue become one of how to define a cult following, as reviews in multiple "cult" or "genre" sources do not meet the strict definitions of RS, but "might be" considered as non-rs support of otherwise verifiable existence of the film. Reviews are opinion, and as opinion we may consider use-by-others and expertise of reviewers as long as we are not dealing with a WP:BLP. And while WP:GNG is the easiest tool for determining notability, it is not the only tool. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Can reviews through Film Threat's paid "Submission for Review system" be considered an independent source for determining notability?
There is consensus that Film Threat is considered a reliable source, but should reviews of films submitted through their paid "Submission for Review system", in which the creator/distributor of the film pays Film Threat to review the film, be considered an independent source for determining notability? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have no issues at all with Film Threat reviews being cited in articles, per consensus that their reviewers are well respected in their field and that they hold that the reviews themselves maintain editorial independence. I also have no issues with reviews that they consider "solicited", in that the editorial staff chooses and seeks out the films, being used to determine notability.
- However, I do have an issue with the reviews that have a disclaimer that the films were submitted through their paid "Submission for Review system", in which the creator/distributor of the film pays Film Threat to review the film, being used to determine notability. Film Threat maintains that even the paid reviews are unbiased, and that paying for a review doesn't guarantee a positive review, and I have no reason to doubt that (and I have no problem using even paid reviews as reliable sources for facts within the article). However, the fact that the film was included because of payment by those involved with the film indicates to me that the existence of the review can NOT be used as evidence of notability. The only thing the existence of the review indicates is that a) the movie really exists and isn't a hoax and b) that the creators of the film paid Film Threat. It does not indicate an independent assessment on the notability of the film. Yes, Film Threat has the right to refuse submissions (usually if there are legal issues involved), but per their own FAQ such refusals are "very rare". It doesn't matter that they don't guarantee good reviews, as the notability standard requires "full-length reviews", not good reviews.
- Such situations (paid independent reviews) are somewhat rare in the film world, but are much more common in the biographical world, and WP:BIO specifically calls out similar situations: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability. Film Threat accepts self-nominations, so it should not prove notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously we cannot use it as an indicator of notability, as the site's FAQ says the review essentially every film submitted and paid for, though they do place an appropriate notice at the bottom of each review if it is a paid review. My own felling is that a policy such as that casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the site as a while, or on all their reviews. There's a similar case with books: Midwestern Book Review, which I consequently no longer consider reliable for any purpose, even though they apparently only charge for ebooks and for pre-publication reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
What's our policy regarding films that are recut and then rereleased as their own films? I notice that both Apocalypse Now Redux and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut have their own articles, and there are articles on the different versions of Blade Runner and Star Wars. When is it appropriate for a director's cut to have its own article? Is there a specific inclusion criteria for this, or is it simply WP:GNG? Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- A Thousand Doors, we do not have any guidelines about director's cuts. I think it should depend on the amount of related content. Some director's cuts are easily covered in the primary film article, but if there is a great deal of commentary from reliable sources about the cut, the content can be split into a kind of sub-article (with a section at the primary film article providing a high-level summary of the content). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Notability Should be Expanded to Allow More Room for Niche Independent Films
I understand that we don't want every youtube video to be eligible for inclusion as a Wikipedia page. But I think any independent film which meets a minimum length requirement (say 30 minutes) and involves a minimum number of actors and production people (say, for example, 20), should be allowed into this "encyclopedia of all human knowledge," and has had at least one or more public showings to a minimum number of people (say, one hundred) should be eligible for an article if someone (excluding the actors, producers, financiers or others having some form of ownership of the film) cares enough to write up a description of the film.
One of the key valued of Wikipedia is that it is not limited by printed pages and the need to be brief.
Related to this is that it allows the creation of articles about minor topics that would never be notable enough for Encyclopedia Britannica but might be notable enough for a small niche of a few thousand people interested in a topic.
So, while I understand the desire to have guidelines that seeks to prevent self-promoters from turning Wikipedia into a free advertising vehicle (and also recognize that to some extent, that remains inevitable), I don't think the "notability" issue should become an obstacle to the fan(s) of a low budget independent film creating and maintaining an article about it.
If it is "notable" enough to a fan who saw the film at one of it's few public showings, or even it's only public airing, then it is likely notable enough to at least a few thousand potential readers out there that they may a appreciate that Wikipedia has a reference to it. This is especially true if the film is directed toward a niche audience that supports it's own niche, topic oriented news media. Just because the film is not notable to mainstream media doesn't mean it's not notable to thousands, perhaps millions, of readers/viewers in that topic niche.
As indicated above, absent the criteria that are already identified as making a film notable, I think one public showing to at least 100 people, and a production crew of over 20, and length over 30 minutes (or similar criteria) indicates that the effort to produce the film was at least serious enough to be notable enough in Wikipedia. At least it's not just a funny cat video.
I like the idea of Wikipedia being the equivalent of Captain Kirk's computer which held the entirety of human knowledge. Even very small, independent films which fail to get coverage in the "mainstream press" are part of our human knowledge and human creative effort. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- GodBlessYou2, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, which generally means if there is not independent commentary about the film, we would not have an article for it. Wikipedia is not intended to be trailblazing in writing about films that no one else has. We are summarizing existing content about these films. The policy at WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." What can we write about a film if no reliable sources are covering it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that an editor must be able to cite other sources. The question regards avoiding a limitation of sources to "main stream media" -- especially when there are so many other sources of information and third party reviews and reporting, often in niches, as I indicated, which clearly indicate that a film was "notable" enough to niche media sources.
I didn't have a particular example, but ArtifexMayhem has suggested 22 Weeks as an example of a disputed entry. A quick glance shows he/she "combined refs" in a December edit on that article so I assume he/she has an opinion on this subject. What are your recommendations, Artifex? (May I call you Artifex?) GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)