Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Editathon[edit]


Bottom 100[edit]

There are 14 articles missing for Bottom 100 IMDb movies (5 of them in the Bottom 10): de:Benutzer:Jobu0101/Die Bottom 100. Look ar the last but one column. --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of them probably fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). We already have Saving Christmas. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for pointing out the Christmas issue. I'll update the table later appropriately. Do you really think that some of the movies fail notability? In German Wikipedia I don't think so and as you probably know German Wikipedia is much more restrictive concerning notability. --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Many of those film exist... you just linked to the wrong title. We don't disambiguate the way you did on your list. You can see our notability guideline at WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't link any of those films of which I think that there is no English article. I just wrote "–" instead. So which of those 13 films has an article here? --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware of WP:RS/IMDB as well as the fact that voting on films on their website is just a popularity (or lack of) contest. There is nothing critical or scholarly involved in compiling the numbers. Thus, as others have mentioned, just because a film is on that list does not mean that it merits an article here. Although I haven't used the German WikiP if they allow IMDb as a reference, or basis, for their articles then they aren't more restrictive than the English WikiP for notability when it comes to films. MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. After I saw Kod Adı: K.O.Z. and Planet Prince (which is Prince of Space, I think), I think I got confused on the columns. Sorry about that. Birdemic 2 is currently a redirect, which is a bit odd. I can probably create an article for that. I think you're right about the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
As a followup, I created a short article for Birdemic 2: The Resurrection. It's not great, but it'll do. It's got a few reviews, including one by Variety, so it should be relatively safe from deletion. I think there may be more, but I didn't see any offhand in the usual spots. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I updated the list. Now, there are only 10 articles missing. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I did Surf School, too. I looked at the others, but I don't see enough coverage. Maybe someone else will create them, but I don't think they'd survive AfD. One of them, Brothers in Arms, has a Rotten Tomatoes page with lots of reviews, but almost all of the listed reviews are for a different film of the same title. I think I read somewhere that the Bottom 100 is only open to films that have had a theatrical release, but with a limited release of a few dozen theaters, it's very difficult to find professional reviews. Most of them come from blogs, web forums, YouTube channels, and other sources that en.wp doesn't consider reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For 2 of the 9 remaining films there is a German article. So it's possible to translate those articles. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Now it are 3 out of 9 films with a German article. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

10 films missing now. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Under the Skin top ten lists[edit]

What should be done about the gigantic top ten lists on Under the Skin (2013 film)? I'm stumped. I want to just delete it all because it's a mess, but is this information useful in some capacity? Is there some sensible way to limit it to just a few? Popcornduff (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a related discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Awards organizations' notability. General consensus seemed to be to limit awards to those verified by a third-party citation. For top ten lists, I would suggest that listed critics demonstrate notability through the existence of an article. I will note that List of accolades received by WALL-E does not have any top ten lists, and it's a featured list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
As seen on my talk page, I am in agreement with Popcornduff that the top ten list in the Under the Skin (2013 film) article should be removed; it is WP:Trivia-like/is WP:Fancruft. As seen with this edit summary for NinjaRobotPirate's above post, he called the information "a bit indiscriminate." Anyone else has thoughts on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone seems to have dealt with this, which is great. Can anyone offer guidance about what to do with the similarly overlong Accolades section? Is it worth creating a separate article for it? This is really out of my experience. Popcornduff (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well first up, it needs to be referenced. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I know that much, but I see that as a separate problem. Where should it go and how long should it be? (I didn't add it.) Popcornduff (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If it was an article on my watchlist, I would have split out the awards into their own article by now (subject to references being found). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I added a citation to every entry, and then just before I saved the page, I closed my browser accidentally. I don't know if I can bring myself to do it again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) edit: Well, that was incredibly tedious, but I did it again. Except this time it's about 95% complete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You hero! Popcornduff (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but it was mostly tedious rather than difficult. I seem to have a high tolerance for that. I located the last few citations, but I don't know what to do with that huge section, though. Maybe tag it with {{split section}} and start a talk page discussion? Most of the time when I do that, I forget about it and nothing ever happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep - that's why I'm asking here instead. I really doubt anything would happen if I asked on the Talk page. Popcornduff (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Censoring a quote at the Titanic (1997 film) article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Censoring the Empire quote. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone... anyone...? Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Core film list[edit]

Hi, So the Core list only has four Stubs left, all of which are currently waiting for a reassessment. I've randomly checked out a few Start-class articles on the list (which I hadn't worked on) and upgraded them to C's, but I think now would be a good time for all of the Stub through C class articles on the list to be reassessed since many of them appear to need it. I suspect that a few Starts may also need to be downgraded.

Personally, I also think that the list should be revised. I think that it should reflect a few films made since 2001, should better reflect the importance of an entire era of films in film history (1890-1910), and should include more experimental/Avant-garde or ethnographic films that are very important historically. Documentaries are also underrepresented. Just my 2 cents.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All of those films seem to have been expanded enough to qualify for Start-Class, so I updated them accordingly. I agree that the core list needs to be updated, specifically to include a proportionate amount of films from the documentary films and silent films task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The full list is here incase anyone couldn't locate it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick look at the top documentary films on IMDb [1], shows that NONE of the top 10 are currently included in the core list. Of course, none of the top 10 documentary films currently have articles on Wikipedia (9 of the top 10 were made in 2014-2015), but it's clear that the core list needs to be updated. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yea, if nothing else Harlan County, USA should be included. And films by Wiseman, the Maysles', Pennebaker, etc. But works by Barbara Kopple most of all. And of course, L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat and Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory are unquestionably important.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Just looking over numbers 481 to 500 on the list. Some of them are clearly influential/important (The Producers, I am Cuba, La terra trema, Forbidden Planet) while others appear to simply be popular (Midnight Run, Dead Ringers, Edward Scissorhands). Now a few of these bottom 20 are among my absolute favorites (Kasper Hauser, Cool Hand Luke, Local Hero), but (if some films did indeed need to be cut in order to revise the list) this may be the best/most fair way to do so.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It's important that all film categories are subject to the same criteria, so that the core list is based on importance to the project overall, and not on anyone's list of personal favorites. All the films currently on the list appear to be Start-Class or better to me, but the list should probably be completely redone, before demoting any articles already on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, the bulk of the work on the list was done in 2008 and hasn't had much of an update since. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeeeeeeeaaaaaa. Riiiiiiight. But regardless of the horrid and traumatic absence of bright and shiny gold coins that one lucky, starry eyed editor may have hoped would grant them entrance into Willy Wonka's factory and was ever so motivated by.....perhaps it would be beneficial to Wikipedia itself and the NORMAL PEOPLE WHO READ WIKIPEDIA AND WILL NEVER, EVER CARE ABOUT THE EDITORS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO IT if the Core list was updated. It really is just that simple. Bubble popped.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still looking for that factory. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I have copied the core list to my sandbox per this discussion, and will update it based on the current criteria when I have a chance. All of the links and classes will be updated as well. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Update - I've gone through the TSPDT list, and come up with 392 films that should definitely be on the core list. Most of them are already on the list, but there are some additions, because each regional task force can have up to 10 additional films after the first 250. I'm working on the genre task forces now, which are based on the top 10 films on IMDb in each genre that aren't already on the list, but so far I've only found information for the Animated, Documentary, Silent and War films task forces. Should I just skip the other genre task forces (Christian, Comic book, and Avant-garde), and add films from the TSPDT list to round up to 500 films? Or should I stick to the current criteria, and just add articles from the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces, which will give us 510 articles on the new core list instead of the current number of 530? Fortdj33 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Another approach is to use the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 tables for each genre task force, and include the top 10 films on each table that are not already on the list. This would eliminate IMDb as a criteria, and allow for all the genre task forces to be included in the core list. Thoughts? Fortdj33 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It is probably best to drop a note at the genre task forces and ask them to update their core lists. If there isn't anyone around to do this then it stands to reason there isn't anyone around to oversee their development, and in that case I would just drop their lists. If the task forces spark into life at some point they can always update their lists then, which won't be possible if we have assigned their slots to other films. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Betty, with all due respect, I see this from the other direction. The current criteria allows for each task force to have 10 additional films on the core list. In the case of the regional task forces, those films are based on the TSPDT list, and the difference is filled in after the first 250, for task forces that don't have 10 additional films on the list. For the genre task forces, those films are supposed to be based on IMDB, but not all of those task forces have a presence on IMDB. Basing it on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 tables for each genre task force instead, allows for each genre task force to have 10 films the core list. I grant you that not all of the task forces are active, but my thinking is that including films from each task force IS what will spark editors to work on those articles. Otherwise, IMO just filling it with more films from the TSPDT list, just makes the list a popularity contest, and doesn't serve much purpose. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I should add that this seems to be the same method used for the top 10 lists in the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, based on this criteria, here is the revised core list [2], including films for all of the existing task forces. 135 films would need to be removed from the core list, due to additions from the TSPDT list. Please let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I will work on updating the page and all of the related films. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In your current list, the current regional task forces don't all have 10 films - Argentina has 2, Australia has 4, Canada has 6, India has 7, Korea has 2, Mexico has 9, New Zealand has 2, Persian has 7, Southeast Asian has 4, Spain has 9 and Baltic has none. From where do you add those missing films to the core list?--Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The current criteria states that each task force "will receive an additional 10 slots for Core. In the case of national cinemas, the next-highest picks from the TSPDT metalists will be taken first". Therefore, I added any films for those task forces after the first 250, up to 10 films for each task force. However, not all of them had 10 additional films on the the TSPDT list. Therefore, "National task forces with less than ten films on the metalist will have their remaining slots held". The task forces that you mention left 48 open spots on the list, so I just added the next 48 films on the TSPDT list that weren't already included by the task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think adding in the next 48 films on the TSPDT list is missing the point of holding spots for those films as you are adding more films of a different area at the expense of these tasks forces. Basically giving more weight to some parts of the core lists and neglecting other parts - such as the Baltic films which have 0 films on the list. Note that I have no interest here as I'm pretty sure I've watched a couple of Baltic films my whole life, but just pointing out that "holding" spots by giving them away to other films does not really help at all. On that point, I actually agreed with your earlier comment where you said: "my thinking is that including films from each task force IS what will spark editors to work on those articles", which will have the same effect here. If the TSPDT and IMDB can't help determain what films to add, maybe add that national's equivalent of the Academy Awards Best Film awarded films?--Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the 48 films "holding" spots, I disagree that it doesn't help the core list. The current core list is just the top 500 films from a previous TSPDT list, and doesn't take the task forces into account at all. My update is taken from the current TSPDT list, and all of the additional films for the regional task forces are also coming from that list. If a regional task force doesn't have enough films on it to warrant 10 additional spots on the core list, IMO it's better to include additional films the TSPDT list, rather than leave those spots blank, which doesn't help the core list at all. If the core list is updated annually from the TSPDT list like it's supposed to be, the regional task forces will always take precedence over any films just holding spots, IF any of them have additional films on the list next year. Otherwise, the core list will still have the number of films from the TSPDT list that it would have had anyway. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it has been a week with no additional input, so I went ahead and updated the core list, which hadn't been brought up to date in 4 years! Any questions or concerns should be discussed here. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for "Justice League: Gods and Monsters" and "Justice League: Gods and Monsters Chronicles"[edit]

Can we get articles for these animatedf films please? Npamusic (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If nothing else, we should have Justice League: Gods and Monsters as a redirect to the appropriate DCUA section. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Academy Awards to Oscars page moves[edit]

Resolved

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Rename all (pornographic actor)s to (actor)s?[edit]

This affects WP Film so be aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Aja_.28actress.29_settled.2C_now_what.3F. Only one of the recent RMs to change (pornographic actress)s to (actress) succeeded but it's already been used for further undiscussed moves and non-admin close by one of two editors proposing the change. I have notified closing admin on Talk:Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) move contrary close. Can we have broader set of eyes on this change please? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Technically, this would be more of an issue for WikiProject Biography. WikiProject Film only covers the actual films themselves. If it's a sitewide issue, you could try ANI, but I think ANI is getting tired of porn-related drama. It might be best to just leave that alone for a while unless you're absolutely certain that it won't boomerang. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FILM RFC[edit]

I have started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RfC: Should the last sentence of the "Critical Reception" section at MOS:FILM be revised? suggesting a slight rewording of a sentence in the MOS, since I believe the current wording encourages original research. It would be good to get a few opinions if possible. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

(Another) Nationality question[edit]

Here is another question on film nationality. Case in point: Der Frosch mit der Maske. At Filmportal.de, which I would consider very reliable because they use a common standard in determining nationality, they list it as a purely Danish film: [3]. Since this is the film which launched the "Wallace series" of German movies, books on the subject tend to list it as "West German/Danish". However, it was filmed in Denmark (and London) and the production company was purely Danish - Preben Philipsen's "Rialto Film Preben Philipsen A/S" Kopenhagen. Yet they produced it for a German distributor - Constantin - using German staff, actors, director etc. It was made in German language and premiered in Germany. Any thoughts?Drow69 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Danish Film Institute states it is a Danish-German co-production. Sam Sailor may know more, although he's not been around for a couple of weeks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ephemeral statements: "film had grossed" vs "film has grossed"[edit]

Howdy WP:FILM: I keep seeing people making ephemeral statements, typically about box office grosses, but using the present tense to do so. "As of April 5 2015, the film has grossed $100 million.[4][5][6] Am I nuts, or is this weird? (Or both?) What makes sense to me is to use the past tense, because this information, even if we write it with today's most current information, is still ephemeral and actually exists in the past. Thus, we should be using the past tense. We wouldn't say "As of yesterday, the Girl Scout has sold two boxes of cookies", we would say "As of yesterday, the Girl Scout had sold two boxes of cookies". Or we'd say "By the end of its run the film had grossed $100 million". I ran this past the reference desk and the general attitude tended to support my position, but I keep trying to change this stuff only to see it get changed back. Thoughts? If there are no objections, it would be nice if I could get some assists on this should you encounter them. Thx! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There's no advantage to using the present tense. I change it when I see it too, but I've never had to fight over it. I also often change "as of April 5" to "by April 5" as it's one fewer word and doesn't date the prose ("this text hasn't been updated in that long?"). Popcornduff (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the context, but in the examples given above where the information is dated I agree past tense should be used. On the other hand, something like "Avatar has grossed $2.8 billion" is ok if you are referring to the current total. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Studios estimate the film will gross $100 million." → Future-looking speculation.
  • "The film had grossed $100 million by April 1." → It's April 7, and we're discussing what happened by the time of April 1.
  • "The film has grossed $100 million as of April 7." → It might continue to make more money later.
  • "The film grossed $100 million." → Box office run is completed, and it will not make more money.
  • "The film will have grossed at least $100 million in April before it is released to home video." → Looking back from a futuristic point.
As long as it's intelligible, it's probably good enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See, I disagree with bullet 3—it should be "had". Because even though we're talking about something that is accurate as of today, by the time you write it down, it's not presumed to be accurate anymore. We don't know when it will be read, and we don't know when someone is going to come along and update it. It's fleeting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with bullet 3 because the time is relevant to the date, not when it is written or read.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The time is relevant to the date? You've lost me. Do any of these sentences read correctly to you such that their general structure would be appropriate for an encyclopedia? "Joey has made $10 as of yesterday." "By December 2, 2014 ISIS has killed 3,000 people." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The phrase "As of" is a dated time reference, so the use of the present perfect tense means that it is current till the specified date. If you were to drop the "as of" statement then it would be current until now. The past perfect as you suggest would be incorrect because it means that the action was completed sometime before the specified date not until the specified date.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Cypoidbomb.
I think we have to careful not to get lost in a separate argument about "the film grossed" vs "the film has grossed", which as NinjaRobotPirate points out have subtly different meanings and provide a useful distinction. But it's not what Betty Logan is asking. I can't think of any reason why using the present tense in the examples Betty Logan's talking about is preferable; the information dates immediately, so what's the benefit? Popcornduff (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The gross is relevant to the date used in prose, April 7 in that example. When the gross is updated, the date is also updated. If the film's box office run is completed then the entire sentence is in past tense; If it's still in theaters then it obviously needs to be in present tense - e.g., "As of April 7, the film has grossed x amount...". It doesn't sound right to say, "the film had grossed..." if it is still making money, unless you're noting a record or gross for a particular time frame. Lapadite (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Present perfect ("has grossed") would be used if you're describing something that started in the past and is ongoing. Past perfect ("had grossed") would be used if you're describing something that started and ended in the past. When you say "had", that implies the action has completed. So: "King Buzzo plays songs when he is in concert." "King Buzzo will play three songs eventually." "King Buzzo is playing a song currently." "King Buzzo has played three songs so far." "King Buzzo had played three songs by the midpoint of the concert." "King Buzzo played three songs total." Subtly different. But few people besides high school English teachers will care. And then there's the subjunctive mood: "If King Buzzo were playing a song, I would listen." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
THE King Buzzo? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Came here from WP:RDL. Either "had grossed" or "has grossed" is appropriate in certain contexts, because they have distinct meanings: as a result, use either one in the wrong context, and it makes a mess. "Has grossed" is good for "as of ____" or without a date qualification: it reports all takings to the present. "Had grossed" is good for a limited period of time, e.g. "By February 31, the film had grossed $2.15 across all theaters"; it talks about something that's already completed. Bear in mind that long-ago films can still earn money: if Disney followed all the copyright provisions carefully, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is still in copyright, and legal copies can easily be found for sale, so we need to say "Disney has grossed $whatever from Snow White". Response to the ISIS comment: the problem is that "As of DATE, whatever" statements are almost always a bad idea. They prevent the encyclopedia from being dated, but they soon become useless: who cares about "As of 2005, George Bush is the US President", since that's ten years ago and no longer current? Remove those statements and offer firm statements, e.g. "George Bush was US President in 2005" — it assumes that 2005 is some sort of time in the past and doesn't make an awkward attempt to avoid becoming dated. Use "Has" in impossible-to-disprove statements, e.g. "Spongebob has grossed more than $100 million" — even if everyone stops going to see it, and nobody ever rents or buys a copy, their sales can't drop below $100 million. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The reported gross amounts are tallies that are completed for the dates reported whether we write "as of date" or "by date", such that these are completed actions, so unless the date is current, I'd use "had grossed" even if the film is still in the theaters or on the internet today (which many are) or at some future date such that they gross even more. --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Then say "The film had grossed 15¢ by YYYY-MM-DD". The other option is really only valid if you're talking present tense, e.g. "Since its release, the film has brought in approximately 15¢", without chronological limit. "As of YYYY-MM-DD" implies an ongoing thing, so it shouldn't be used for a completed item or a benchmark date, the way "By YYYY-MM-DD" is normally used. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps "by" is better understood that way, but I'm not sure "as of" implies an ongoing action. For instance: "As of March 31st Bob had not lost a single game, but he lost the very next day." --Modocc (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

New article Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead (film)[edit]

I quickly put this together this evening, so it still needs a lot of work, but would someone here please take a look at it as it currently stands? I would also ask someone to be kind enough to upload the movie poster for the infobox, as I don't really know how to do that. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for some helpful edits! Anyone know about uploading the poster? Invertzoo (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone for more fix-up, and to Fortdj33 for uploading the film poster. What do people think about the title of the article: should it be in the long form, Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Story of National Lampoon? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the current title is sufficient, per WP:PRECISE. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:PRECISE has no relevance here. If the film name is the full Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Story of the National Lampoon (as would seem from IMDB and the news articles referenced in the article), then that is the name the article should be. 1994 Baker Street: Sherlock Holmes Returns isn't shortened to 1994 Baker Street or Sherlock Holmes Returns and the FA article Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins isn't shortened to Meerkat Manor (film) or Meerkat Manor (tv movie). Adding to that, the title name itself isn't even without additions, but its a disambiguation since its shares the same short name as the book article, which itself isn't the full name of the book which is Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Writers and Artists who made National Lampoon Insanely Great, making the disambiguation very unnecessary. --Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I've often wondered how much of a title to include, but, like Fortdj33, I have settled upon using the full title, more-or-less per WP:PRECISE. I don't understand why someone would say that this does not apply when it's a part of a policy on naming articles. Anyway, there seems to be a de facto practice of using full titles. For other projects, they may frown upon this; for example, WP:SUBTITLES, which allows for a limited degree of subtitle use in order to disambiguate and give proper context. When I created Aziz Ansari: Live at Madison Square Garden, it was partly to disambiguate it against Live at Madison Square Garden, a Bon Jovi album. Since the full title of the film allows me to disambiguate it without going through the bother of creating a disambiguation page, that's what I did. And, as Gonnym points out, we have a history of using full titles in film articles, including many Good and Featured articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So, now I am not sure what to do. Do both the book and the film articles need to be changed, each to the long title form? Currently I set the long forms up as redirect pages. If there is a consensus about how they should be changed, I would be happy to let someone else just go ahead and changed the titles. Invertzoo (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's incredibly important. WP:PRECISE says it's good enough, but the WikiProject often uses full titles. I think that's what I was trying to say in my previous message, but it looks like maybe I was a bit tired; sorry about that. Redirects can resolve any issues relating to titles. Book title looks fine, per WP:SUBTITLES. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant WP:CONCISE, not WP:PRECISE. IMO, if there is no other film article titled "Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead", then the current title is sufficient, and the subtitle is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so we are good then I think? I do have redirects in place. Invertzoo (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The removal of non notable awards on film articles[edit]

I will try to keep my argument short and sweet and to the point. I have always found it logical to remove film awards that do not have their own article from a films/actors/lists page and have cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE in doing so. For example: When the Chlotrudis Society Awards and the Phoenix Film Critics Society pages were deleted, they were subsequently removed from articles that they were linked in. Which makes sense, if they aren't notable enough for an article then why would you want them in a films or actors article? Then every Tom, Dick and Harry award would be listed. I'm not saying remove the minor awards, JUST the ones that don't have their own article. Thoughts? I would love to finally be able to reach a consensus about this. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with LL and I thought we'd reached a consensus on this when it was raised previously? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There was this discussion at the MOS page which seemed to reach this consensus. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think MOS:FILM was ever updated to reflect consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm speaking outside my area of expertise (film awards), but I know something about literary awards. There are a lot of literary awards and generally whenever I see one that doesn't have an article I'll make an attempt to create an article. This is ultimately easier. Of course the award will need to be mentioned in multiple reliable sources to avoid an AfD but typically that is not a problem (except for very new awards). Maybe the film world is different with many "festival" type awards. However with literary awards it's different and I think it would be a mistake to delete refs to red links as often they are notable but no one has bothered to create an article. If the MOS is updated it probably should reflect the film/TV industry. -- GreenC 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The awards that I am specifically talking about had articles, went through AfD and were deleted. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
From my understanding, the consensus was — and the Film Project editors in this discussion all agree that a consensus was reached — that if an organization wasn't notable enough to have an article, we do not list its awards. Which is perfectly logical: Awards from a non-notable organization are by definition non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
So long as it's limited to MOS:FILM it's fine with me. Often these things happen in two phases. The first is establish consensus concerning a change needs to be made. The second is propose specific changes to the documentation - how exactly is MOS:FILM going to be worded? The wording can be controversial, even if everyone agrees it should be done in general. Start a new thread with the proposed wording, and back it up with a link to the previous discussion showing general consensus for a change. If it was an RfC it would have a lot more weight, and would be closed/implemented by an admin. You could also start a short essay page describing the issues and guideline and aggregate all the links to old discussions and give it a short easy to remember name like WP:FILMAWARDS. -- GreenC 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to conclude any one of those discussion saying consensus was reached? I have another editor over at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett making a stink about it. LADY LOTUSTALK 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Tenebrae, there was no such consensus, and you should know that since you initiated those discussions and proposals, here and here. Lady Lotus}, I'm making "a stink" about it because the guidelines do not say they cannot be referenced in an awards article. There was no consensus and the guidelines weren't changed. Lady Lotus, you've ignored the guidelines I linked that contradict your assertion and have gone ahead and deleted it despite them. Lapadite (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure a consensus has been reached, it's just not official yet. Everybody except you has agreed that awards that do not have their own article should be removed, mainly because it's the logical thing to do and also it adds undue weight to articles. LADY LOTUSTALK 19:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It hasn't been reached in actuality, evidenced here and in previous linked discussions. Plus, like I said below, a guideline needs to be changed for a consensus to be official. Lapadite (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
And with this discussion, not talking about a guideline being changed, there is a general consensus. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

GreenC, I'm sure such literary awards should also be removed if the main article was deleted through AFD. Same for those who never had articles beforehand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that supports that. In fact policy overrides it - content that is sourced can be included. The notability guideline only applies to topic level (if an article should exist or not). It doesn't apply to content within articles. Trying to end-run around policy with a misguided MOS guideline to exclude whole categories of perfectly reasonable content across the entire project, it's not supportable. You can make a heuristic (rule of thumb), a softly worded suggestion, that's how the proposal originally started but the discussion then turned more absolute about excluding all non-notable film awards (regardless of previous AfD), then someone else said to stop anyone trying to create an award article(!), and now it's growing to include all awards on Wikipedia not just film awards. If there is consensus I don't know what it is - at best it looks like there is consensus to exclude Film awards which have been previously AfD (ie. established as non-notable) in order to address certain abuses by spammers. -- GreenC 16:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
We're not required to include all verifiable information. Too much indiscriminate information added to the article makes it difficult to read or navigate. Without independent, reliable sources to back up an award, it could very well be considered undue weight to include it. Furthermore, in a standalone list (such as List of accolades received by WALL-E), we are explicitly allowed to limit lists to entries with an article. Nobody in WikiProject Film has proposed that we disallow the creation of articles. WikiProject Film may be leaning toward deletionism these days, but nobody here is that much of an extremist. Furthermore, I really don't think we need an formal RFC to implement consensus on this matter. I have no issue if someone wants to do one, but I don't think it necessary. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Green Cardamom is correct. NinjaRobotPirate, how many awards would = indiscriminate? Presently, that is up to editor discretion. A list of awards page is not indiscriminate when numerous awards from an IMDb page are left off the article. It should be clear that the guidelines do not disallow referencing awards that do not have their own articles (like they do not disallow referencing subjects and topics without their own article) and it should also be clear that - as stated in an older discussion Tenebrae had started (linked above), Wikiprojects do not make their own guidelines. Consensus needs to exist and a guideline needs to be changed to reflect it. Consensus in a Wikiproject, and there's yet to be one here, doesn't override guidelines. I agree with Kww on his comment below; there should be a commited discussion on this for a change, where consensus is reached on what amount = indiscriminate in a list of awards page and/or that awards without articles cannot be referenced in an List of awards articles even if RS' discuss them. And finally have a guideline directly reflect that. Lapadite (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing in WP:IINFO about numbers. It says data should be put into proper context and have a citation to an independent source. WP:CSC offers the opportunity to restrict entries to existing articles (or those that can be reasonably expected to have an article). Beyond that, I don't care all that much. And what guideline or policy is being overridden? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, precisely. And right above WP:CSC (a MOS) - which also contains #2 and #3 agreeing with the inclusion of individual entries without articles - is WP:LSC, which broadly states "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." There is WP:NOTESAL, a guideline, which states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". More to the point, a guideline or MOS change that directly supports the assertion has not occurred. A consensus, should it happen, needs to be followed by a guideline change to support the consensus and become official. Again, Wikiprojects can't make their own guidelines or reinterpret them per a local consensus and demand others abide by it without broader community support and a subsequent guideline change reflecting it. (Lady Louts, please refer to the third paragraph in WP:PROJPAGE). Kww, GreenC, and myself have proposed this moves forward, so it can finally be settled, and a guideline that directly supports a consensus could be linked in edits on list entires. Lapadite (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We faced a similar issue on music articles years ago, and the result was WP:Record charts and its main subentries, WP:GOODCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTS, and WP:SINGLEVENDOR. There's no strict reason to link "existence of article" to "allowed to be used in other articles", but there is a good reason for editors to discuss which awards make sense to include, reach consensus as to which awards to exclude, and have a central place to document the results.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's cool a good solution. The problem Film awards face is scale, there are a lot of film awards with Wikipedia articles and probably many more without. And it would be Sisyphian since every year new ones are added and old ones removed. -- GreenC 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, there are more record charts than film awards. It's upwards of ten thousand.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There might be a technical fix to include the awards and keep it from cluttering the article. For example create a curated visible list with the important awards, and a second collapsed list with the goal of being a complete list of awards. In the end it should be up to the editors how to do it, but something like this is perfect for a MOS solution .. telling editors how to best structure the data, rather then disallowing them from adding something they would like (ie. a complete list of awards). -- GreenC 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's what the link to the IMDb is for. Film articles naturally collect cruft, and they need to be regularly pruned of excessive plots, comprehensive cast lists, non-notable awards, and reviews by bloggers. I don't think the solution is to push the questionable data into a ghetto. Wikipedia is never going to be as comprehensive as inclusionists want, but they need not wail and gnash their teeth; we still link to databases and other sites that collect the information that Wikipedia has seen fit to exclude. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lady Lotus has continued removing sourced information, disregarding lack of guideline change, [7]; e.g., Sydney Theatre Critics Award, a prominent theater award is reported by multiple RS such as Crikey, The Sydney Morning Herald, Broadwayworld.com, Playbill, National Institute of Dramatic Art, ABC, Hollywood Walk of Fame, The New Yorker. Lapadite (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are all good edits by Lady Lotus. They're all (currently) non-notable award ceremonies. So what if they are covered in the press? An example I've used before is that I could set up my own film festival, get a couple of local newspapers to cover it (which wouldn't be too hard - you should see some of the rubbish they do cover) and award Ms. Blanchett some token awards. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Claims of site-wide consensus are nonsense. Editors are encouraged to use the article talk page to decide what is appropriate for that article. -- GreenC 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I was just about to say the same thing. When it comes to article by article basis, a consensus for that page is appropriate. There doesn't have to be a guideline change in order to make that consensus official, it's whatever was discussed on that talk page. And the general consensus Lapadite77 over at List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett was to remove to non notable awards. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The removal of non-notable awards has been the default position at the Film project for quite a while now so Lady Lotus's edits are consistent with that. While WP:CSC may not be a site-wide policy it is unequivocally a WP:Local consensus on film award articles and sections. If there were a clear consensus on the talk page to include a particular award which was at odds with the general understanding here at the project I most likely would not go against that, but the way I see it the onus is on the editor arguing for inclusion to obtain a consensus first. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Betty, Lugnuts, see my comment above (with some added words):

And right above WP:CSC (a MOS) - which also contains #2 and #3 agreeing with the inclusion of individual entries without articles - is WP:LSC, which broadly states "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." There is WP:NOTESAL, a guideline, which states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". More to the point, a guideline or MOS change that directly supports the assertion has not occurred. A local consensus, should it happen, needs to be followed by a guideline change to support the consensus and become official. Again, Wikiprojects can't make their own guidelines or reinterpret them per a local consensus and demand others abide by it without broader community support and a subsequent guideline change reflecting it. (Lady Louts, please refer to the third paragraph in WP:PROJPAGE: "in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope ... and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}."). Kww, GreenC, and myself have proposed this moves forward, so it can finally be settled, and a guideline that directly supports a consensus could be linked in edits on list entires.

Lugnuts, as Ring Cinema reminded editors in past discussion here, and i'll quote him: "Notability is the standard for deciding if a subject should have its own article. It is definitely not the standard for determining if something belongs in an article. Most of the facts in an article are not by themselves notable but they are necessary to cover the subject at hand. This misunderstanding is chronic so I think those of us who supposedly know what we're doing should not misuse it." They are not good edits. They are now disruptive, POV edits that go against community-wide guidelines, and will be reverted on that basis. Local consensus does not override guidelines that allow information and list entries to be sourced in an article whether or not they have their own articles - which is not a requirement per se. Those of you still claiming this view and reverting should reread and understand the content in the above comment; community guidelines don't currently support your view, or prohibit the contrary. Again, Wikiproject editors don't decree. If you object to that then inquire at the guideline's pages or make a community-wide RFC, ask for third opinion or take it to a DR; they will tell you the same. Lady Lotus should familiarize herself more with relevant guidelines (and stop being disruptive with respect to this), as she's recently made a few misguided edits; with regard to the third edit, see WP:EL, WP:ELYES; the only link that may not meet WP:EL is the Sydney Theatre Company link, probably added because she was CEO & artistic director for some years. See also FAs Bette_Davis#External_links, Katharine_Hepburn#External_links. Lapadite (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 you should also familiarize yourself with the guideline of consensus which has already been reached and for whatever reason, you aren't seeming to grasp. I find you more argumentative and stubborn that really trying to grasp the concept here. You want to just spit out guidelines and policy towards people but keep in mind the WP:FIVEPILLARS, one of them being consensus - Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. LADY LOTUSTALK 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Lapadite77 read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:3RR too. You're close to being blocked for the latter. And as for Ring Cinema's opinion. Well, if you can't say anything good about someone, it's best not to say anything at all. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You're both stubbornly refusing to accept community-wide guidelines not supporting your view, and disregarding the fact -linked twice above now- that you do not make or reinterpret guidelines as you please and expect other to abide by it. Lady Lotus see my response to your comment on my page, and again please keep discussion here. Lady Lotus, for the fourth time, WP:PROJPAGE: projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}; WP:CONLIMITED: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Considering you both are pushing a view not presently supported by community-wide consensus, i.e., guidelines, you need to create a RFC or consult the guidelines' talk pages. Take it to DR as well if you wish. Lapadite (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel like I'm talking to a wall. We are not trying to reinterpret guidelines. Nobody has said that. Nobody is trying to do that. This is a discussion to get consensus to remove non notable awards or not. And consensus shows that pretty much everyone except you agrees with and has a logical argument to remove them. That is consensus. And that's what has happened. There is no need for RFC, only if a consensus could not be reached, which is has. This whole "community-wide consensus" isn't flying here and won't because it's bogus. The ONLY ownership I see is you over at Cate Blanchett. Your territorial behavior and stubbornness towards this discussion shows that. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"I feel like I'm talking to a wall". Precisely. Especially when the relevant guidelines contradicting your local consensus parroting is bolded. Of course, in your mind reverting your disruption based on pushing a local view not supported by commnity-wide consensus is ownership. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument, and certainly, however many others were to locally agree with you, it does remotely not overrule community guidelines. Which you don't seem to understand. Lapadite (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I’d just like to say that I have had very similar feelings to you towards a couple of the editors you’re arguing against here, Lapadite. But I also have to say that I agree with them here; if an award isn’t notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it’s fair to say that it’s not notable enough for inclusion in a given article—unless several reliable sources make a big deal of this particular subject receiving that particular award (i.e. it’s notable that the actor/movie/etc. won it). If it doesn’t seem to bear mentioning much anywhere outside of ultra-comprehensive lists and primary sources, it’s likely just a piece of trivia that doesn’t bear mentioning here. And I’d say that goes for any tidbit of trivia in any article, not just in WP:FILM.
I feel like I should point out that I’m not saying all factoids on Wikipedia must be “notable.” I’m saying they should be about notable things, if they’re not big deals in and of themselves. If an RS claims in passing that a given celebrity has a close friendship with Jimothy Joneson (not a notable person), there’s no reason for us to mention it anywhere; if it claims a close friendship with the POTUS (very notable person), that should absolutely be included. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DRN discussion[edit]

Opened one here. Lapadite (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?[edit]

Do items, such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, need to have their own WP article in order to be included in List articles? Some relevant guidelines and MOS: WP:NLISTITEM, WP:NOTESAL, WP:LSC. Lapadite (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying: This is not a proposal for a guideline change, but a request for comment on whether the present guidelines state that lists items are required to have their own articles to be included in a list. Given that some editors at the Wikiproject assert that they do and if they don't they are deleted (which has become a systematic practice), I'm interested in other editors' comments on what the guidelines state with regards to this (which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite). The aim is to get a proper consensus for the WIkiproject based on the present guidelines. I personally think the support/oppose structure here confuses things. If anyone wishes to propose a guideline change they are free to do so in a separate section. Lapadite (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Three editors (Tenebrae, Lady Lotus, Lugnuts) in the above discussion say that the Wikiproject has a consensus that if an award/organization does not have its own WP article it cannot be added to a List article even if it is reliably sourced. Such consensus does not exist per the links given in the discussion, this and this (the latter a proposal to change the MOS, which was not accepted). It was also pointed out that editors of Wikiprojects do not make their own guidelines or reinterpret them as wished and demand others abide by it, per WP:CONLIMITED, WP:PROJPAGE. Lady Lotus has cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE as the reason for removing items without articles, thereby claiming it states items need their own article in order to be included in a list, if not the list is an indiscriminate one. It does not state that. On the contrary, when numerous awards, particularly those of very minor to no importance per lack of RS coverage (such as non-state awards), are left off List of awards articles, it is not an indiscriminate list. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also does not state a threshold. The primary point, is the guidelines linked in the RfC do not directly support the notion asserted here. Sourced awards are relevant to List of awards articles; WP:NOTESAL even states: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Lapadite (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The consensus being referred to is that editors in the discussion agreed WP:CSC is the primary guideline for keeping lists in general from becoming indiscriminate:

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.

Indiscriminate lists help no one. Even WP:NOTESAL notes, "[E]ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)--Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A directly applicable and relevant "rule" here that bears serious consideration is, from common selection criteria for lists in the above-mentioned WP:CSC:
2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
This suggests a "List of secondary awards" or "List of minor awards" or some such, probably as a subsection within a List of awards article, and offers an unambiguous editorial marker for discussing more specific award list-limiting considerations (what is a major vs minor award) should that become an issue for a particular award. Such a well-supported format as "List of minor..." should not need additional editorial scrutiny, providing as it does a simple way for any reasonably relevant content an editor wants to include about a film - and what awards a film has won seems relevant to that film - while avoiding indiscriminate or junk content by clearly indicating what that content is. I don't think we're in the business here of editing content based on editors personal preferences (for example, deciding which of its awards are actually relevant to a film), we simply maintain verifiability and neutral POV, beyond that, any editor should be free to add content, and we collaborate on keeping that content easy to navigate and read. --Tsavage (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a MOS-level guideline based on notability. When someone explains how I can prove a non-existent article is notable let me know. It's impossible and unfair. Using notability as the criteria for content inclusion isn't how things are done - it's confusing WP:NOTE guideline, which is topic-level only, with WP:V and WP:RS policy, which are content level. Even if it's a previously deleted article that's not a sign as articles get recreated all the time with better sourcing. -- GreenC 22:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, Oppose any guideline that says awards can't be added even with reliable secondary sourcing. -- GreenC 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"Using notability as the criteria for content inclusion isn't how things are done - it's confusing WP:NOTE guideline, which is topic-level only, with WP:V and WP:RS policy, which are content level." - precisely. It's not only confusing but violating WP:NLISTITEM. Lapadite (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support having notability as a general criteria for award sections and lists with the caveat that a talk page consensus can override it. Just because something can be sourced does not mean it should necessarily be included per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Which awards to include comes up time and time again so it seems reasonable to have some criteria in regards to which awards should be included, and the notability of an award is a sensible criteria to adopt per WP:CSC. However, notability is not a de facto threshold criteria for inclusion so some care has to be taken not to apply it too stringently: there may extenuating circumstances where it is reasonable to include a non-notable award so such cases should be accommodated if a discussion on the relevant talk page arrives at a consensus that the award has a particular relevance to a particular article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - If an organization isn't notable, its awards aren't notable. Adding non-notable awards is the very essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If it's not notable enough for its own article then it shouldn't be included in an awards list, otherwise you'd be listing every Tom, Dick and Harry award claiming to be relevant their career. LADY LOTUSTALK 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Betty/Tenebrae's arguments. Also to note that our notability guidelines do allow discrimination in lists based on notability even those this is a content-level choice. This is done often for lists of persons to avoid flooding a list with non-notables. Same should be done for non-notable film awards. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What does this proposal mean? I find its wording too unclear to make a judgement upon. It is fundamental to lists that they allow items not having articles and not meeting WP:N individually to be included in that list, when appropriate. We should definitely not change that (at almost any scope). It is also always going to be the case that a list item, should sourcing be required, can be sourced inline in that article without requiring its own linked article. Accepting those two observations, what's left?
If this proposal is merely "Bodies issuing film awards need to meet WP:N as an organisation before their awards belong in a list of awards" (a view that I could accept), then that's much narrower than the simple proposal statement has it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. That's how I read it. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The risk with that is that it's then a gift to future editors, some of whom will not be entirely GF, to delete list entries bearing no relation to the intended scope here with the claimed justification "There was massive support for this as a policy change". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Andy, this is not a proposal, but a request for comment on whether the present guidelines state that lists items are required to have their own articles to be included in a list. Given that some editors at the Wikiproject assert that they do and if they don't they are deleted (which has become a systematic practice), I'm interested in other editors' comments on what the guidelines state with regards to this (which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite). The aim is to get a proper consensus for the WIkiproject based on the present guidelines. I personally think the support/oppose structure here confuses things. If anyone wishes to propose a guideline change they are free to do so in a separate section. Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - We've been running into similar issues in the Wikipedia Pornography Project for quite a few years now. The main issue there usually is:
Should lists of awards & award nominations in adult performer BLPs be limited to just award ceremonies that have Wikipedia articles (blue links) or not? In more recent years, the PORNBIO inclusion standard has been tightened to not include any award nominations - only major award wins from award ceremonies that have their own Wikipedia articles are considered towards a person's notability under PORNBIO.
I personally have never had a problem with listing both awards & award nominations for blue-linked award ceremonies in Wikipedia articles, but I think I've come around more recently to the idea that red-linked award ceremony awards & award nominations should likely be excluded from adult performer BLPs, since they are likely to never add any real notability to any of those Wikipedia articles. Can those kind of red-linked awards & award nominations be properly sourced in any Wikipedia article? Of course they can, but I guess one has to draw the line somewhere. Guy1890 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Guy1890, this RfC is about items in List articles, specifically List of awards and nominations articles. Wouldn't want the discussion to veer off into commentary on awards in BLPs, or film articles for that matter. If anyone wants to discuss awards in BLPs or film articles please create a new section so this doesn't get muddled (as many RfCs here tend to become). Lapadite (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, and the Pornography Project has not many, but a few of these kind of list articles as well. Those specific types of articles only seem to crop up when an individual performer's awards & award nominations become "too long" for inclusion in their own BLP, which is a very similar issue IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per Betty, LL, et al. Here's Lapadite77's failed DRN. All down the forum shop! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Bad form to make accusations that you don’t know what they mean… Taking the next step in dispute resolution after you refused to participate is not forum shopping. That term implies there was some kind of outcome. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As others have already pointed out. Adding non-notable awards adds nothing to an article. --Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would help if we knew the exact situation(s) you were talking about. Wikipedia has a pretty low threshold as to articles on a specific award, so except on a case-by-case basis I'd say if the award hasn't got an article yet, or isn't notable enough for an article, then it sure as heck doesn't need to be spamming up a famous person's/film's list of awards and nominations. If you think an award should be mentioned in an article, write the article about that award first. Per WP:WTAF. Otherwise, I think it counts as spam/self-promotion, which is prohibited. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Softlavender: see Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Lapadite (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
They do for list articles and other lists and listed items such as names, or film/actor awards. And you have not yet told us what situations you are talking about. Therefore, all I can say is, no, don't spam an awards list article with non-noteworthy awards. WP:WTAF. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender to my knowledge, this is the article that started this whole conversation after another editor tried to remove several awards including Central Ohio Film Critics Association, and Georgia Film Critics Association. There was a discussion on the talk page and after another discussion here, I removed the awards in this edit including the previous two and Las Vegas Film Critics Society, Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, Phoenix Film Critics Society, SESC Film Festival and Sydney Theatre Critics Circle Newcomer Award. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender, as I said in the discussion that spawned the RfC, and suggested in the Rfc, it particularly concerns all List of awards articles that are sourced; the deletion of items without articles is across the board, by, in particular, Lady Lotus. WP:NLISTITEM is clear; "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content"; not sure what you're claiming there. Lapadite (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As WP:NOTESAL notes, "[E]ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." That's exactly what this RfC is about: Trying to reach a consensus for this. Which editors here seem largely in favor of. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTESAL states, "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." WP:NLISTITEM states: "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". WP:LSC (Selection criteria) states: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." All I see is "support" comments deliberately ignoring such statements in the guidelines, one even citing an essay. Lapadite (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. I think respondents here would do better to !vote Yes or No, rather than Support or Oppose. Anyway, my own opinion on this is that awards that mean anything substantial tend to be WP:notable enough to meed Wikipedia’s standards. I wouldn’t say that an award must have its own article to merit inclusion in a list, but it should at least be notable enough for its own article. There should be evidence that people have heard of it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose partially per GreenCardanom futher up. But also due one of the basics of WP editing, that is in doubt our content has to follow what (reliable and reputable) external sources say and summarize that. So if such sources consider it worthwhile to mention a particular award, so can or even should the WP article. Sources cannot be overridden by the taste of WP editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We want to be summarizing what secondary sources say for the most part and while primary sources are sometimes okay, we have to avoid the promitional side that can happen here. When publication X gives a film "X's Film of the Year" award, that's a primary source, and that's a large problem here, and without any type of means to discriminate , you can get a bunch of plain self-promotion. (Case in point in the area of video games, we constantly have problems with editors from small sites that want to promote their site putting their site's review or award in a game article, but we have to remove those these). Now, not every award a film gets is documented in secondary sources, but when the awards themselves are documented in this nature (eg meeting WP:N) then noting an award won that way is okay. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Working consensus has been reached on this point in the past. The indiscriminate listing of insignificant awards from non-notable award givers violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is incompatible with the function of an encyclopedia. We don't document every statement by Barack Obama, every pass attempt by Peyton Manning, every guest on the Tonight Show, the credits for every issue of Spider-Man, or the gaffer for every live action movie ever vfilmed. All of these things can be reliably sourced. There's nothing inherently noteworthy about an "award"; even honorifics from notable awardgivers aren't necessarily worth noting. If McDonalds gave the Big Mac its own "America's Favorite Burger" award, we wouldn't mention it, nor do we waste space on Walmart's Employee of the Month. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)}
  • Comment: A topic not having a Wikipedia article does not mean that the topic is not WP:Notable; WP:Notable is even clear about that, addressing the fact that some WP:Notable topics are best covered in an existing article instead of having a standalone article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, Absolutely not, Strongest possible oppose. There is no such requirement at present in any policy or guideline. Nor should there be one. By our notability guideline, notability does not limit the contents of articles. The common selection criteria are optional; using notability as a selection criteria is extremely undesirable as our notability guidelines are a mess and are too arbitrary, subjective, incoherent, and questionable, are not suitable as a criteria for informational lists (as opposed to pure navigation lists), have too many absurd omissions, and contain too much manifest nonsense, half-baked and silly ideas and other rubbish etc; and describing entries as "notable" would violate our policy against original research. INDISCRIMINATE is completely irrelevant, it only applies to lists of statistics and change logs. There is nothing that can support such a requirement. James500 (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There is a clear consensus on this already, and I do not see strong enough arguments (yet) to sway my thoughts on this. If an organisation isn't notable, its awards are not notable, otherwise we end up with school and college film society "awards" that mean nothing to anyone except the five or six people who selected the award. INDISCRIMINATE is entirely relevant on this, as is NOTABLE. – SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    SchroCat, WP:NOTABLE is precisely relevant, relevant to how that view is not supported. See my bolded comment above at 08:15, 17 April 2015. There is "clear consensus" for what and where is it stated in the guidelines? The community consensus is what the guidelines state. Editors that advocate this unsupported no article-no sourcing view may want to propose a change to relevant guidelines, such as WP:NLISTITEM and WP:NOTESAL; refer to their respective talk pages or WP:PROPOSAL. Otherwise, claiming local consensus against guidelines that state otherwise just doesn't fly. See also WP:CONLIMITED, WP:PROJPAGE. Lapadite (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Our notability guidelines allow discrimination in lists based on notability, even to a content-level choice. We have a consensus and the guidelines allow that consensus. We don't try and list everything in awards tables and, in my opinion, that's the right call to make. You are allowed your opinion, of course, but at the moment the consensus is against that stance. Good luck in trying to change it, but I don't think it will. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Awards from school and college students' organisations will be excluded by WP:V because their publications are not reliable sources for the merits of a film, and their awards will not be mentioned in reliable sources. We don't need WP:N for that. James500 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I've seen student awards mentioned on sites we would consider reliable (university and school sites), s it's not their publications that would be an issue: we do need WP:N fo that. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • An organization’s official publications would actually pass WP:V per WP:ABOUTSELF. That’s all we’d need to verify that they gave the award. It’s a question of relevance and notability, not verifiability. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I disagree, at least partly. An award is an expression of opinion about the merits of the film, and is included on that basis. If that opinion is not reliable, due to lack of expertise or otherwise, the award should not be mentioned, because it is an unreliable award. Any award granted by students is prima facie an unreliable award. The students' opinions about the film cannot be considered reliable. They are not reputable professional film critics and have no academic credentials etc that would make you think that they have any particular expertise in that field. We won't include an unreliable award merely because we can verify that it was given. It might be included if it was historically or otherwise significant on account of its fame or otherwise. I think the reason for the exclusion of insignificant unreliable awards would be something along the lines of NOTDIARY, rather than notability. James500 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
            • @James500: From that perspective, it’s no different from quoting a critic’s review. The review is a primary source for the opinion, just like the organization’s announcement of the award. And just like we don’t list every review, we shouldn’t exhaustively list every award. But, again, that’s not a matter of verifiability (and you seem to agree with this point). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Secondary sources coverage determines the relevance, per guidelines, not editors' pov. It's not about citing primary sources for relevance or "notability", but deferring to secondary sources, which is the fundamental basis for encyclopedic coverage on WP. Secondary sources do not cover every award given under the sun, only the ones they deem notable to cover either on their own or as a group (and if they did, what there should be in response is an explicit exclusion guideline). Per multiple guidelines, that is what inclusion in a list and in any article should be based on. Of course there's "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", which is on a case by case basis, normally in reference to the content itself. There is also WP:PRESERVE, which states: Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. To bring it back to relevant items of the topic, look at theatre awards. There are a number of prominent theatre awards, such as the Sydney Theatre Critics awards, that are reported on by multiple secondary sources. Tony Awards and Laurence Olivier Awards are not the only relevant theatre awards. It is not up to editors to dictate that a significant, relevant award in the real world - per secondary sources coverage - can not be included in a List of awards article received by an actor because, essentially, I just don't like it; that is the underlying basis for that view, because, as it's been pointed out multiple times, the notability policy and other guidelines don't actually support it, or forbid the contrary. Lapadite (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, WP:LSC is a good general rule for lists and comparisons. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This seems like a reasonable basic criterion for the inclusion of an award. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Betty Logan, Tenebrae, Lady Lotus, et al. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: In past discussions about listing awards, I have brought up WP:CSC #1 specifically, and I will quote that at length here: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." It should be noted that WP:NLISTITEM says, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)" (bold emphasis mine). WP:CSC #1 is one of several "common selection criteria", and it is up to us to determine a consensus to apply this particular criterion to this family of lists, that of film awards. I think this criterion is more appropriate than depending generally on secondary sources, which would be a spottier approach. For example, what if Variety listed a non-notable organization's award for a film? That could theoretically be used as a secondary source, but what if it does not report anything about that organization's awards the following year? Do we add that year's awards for these films or not, with no direct secondary sources? I see WP:CSC #1 as getting to the core of it, if this organization has notability, which means that all awards and nominations from it are thus worth reporting. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is, as far as I can recall, pretty much how it's always been. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. LSC requires that list selection criteria be unambiguous, objective and supported by reliable sources. Unfortunately, GNG spectacularly fails all three requirements. To begin with, we have never even come close to reaching a consensus on what constitutes "significant coverage", so the criteria is utterly ambiguous and completely subjective. The other parts of GNG are not much clearer because they also deal with relative concepts. And you will never find a reliable source that says "this award/organisation satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria" so it fails that requirement as well. Wikipedia "notability" is useless as a selection criteria for lists that are not navigational in purpose. Lists of awards won by a particular film are informational. Even if there is a need to remove less important awards, "notabilty" is not an adequate test of importance, never mind reliability, of awards. If we have a selection criteria, it would generally be preferable to have something recognised in the real world and not invented by Wikipedians. James500 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, items don't need their own Wikipedia article to be included on lists, and on what serious basis can we attempt to ban the inclusion and mandate the removal of minor film awards? Is there a reliable reference source that lists "non-award awards" or awards/organizations "too insignificant to count for anything in the world of film"? Common selection criteria (WP:CSC) offers clear and useful guidance under the main Wikipedia Manual of Style, for items that "fail notability criteria": we can simply include a "minor awards" subsection or separate "List of minor awards" article, and discuss the merits of individual awards/organizations as they come up. This doesn't need special guidelines, as it appears to be well-covered in the core guidance. --Tsavage (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus. Comments welcome. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Films set in...[edit]

Quick question, and I apologize if this has been asked before... Is there any sort of basic criteria regarding the "Films set in..." categories. I noted that The Day After Tomorrow was recently added to Films set in Antarctica. But the Antarctica sequence only really figures in what's essentially the "prologue" of the film and I think it could be argued that it's not even particularly relevant to the plot.

I'm just wondering whether there should be any sort of criteria applied to these categories beyond "the location appears in the film and stuff happens there". Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss its importance to the film's plot, such as Taxi Driver or Heat, then it definitely belongs, as it's a defining characteristic. If reliable sources mention the setting in passing, then I would have no problem with its inclusion, but I might not bother to add it myself. If the setting is not mentioned in reliable sources, but it's included in the Wikipedia article's plot summary, then that's still good enough for me, as long as the plot summary adheres to MOS:FICT and WP:FILMPLOT. If neither reliable sources nor the Wikipedia article mention it, then I wouldn't have an issue with the category's removal. On the other hand, removal of categories can be a very traumatic experience for some people, and they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep them. So, unless it's really a big deal, I wouldn't bother to remove it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately something like this comes down to editorial discretion. Even if something is fully set in LA where the location isn't integral to the plot and is only covered in passing (Die Hard for example) does that mean we should not categorize it as such? I have never taken a hard line on this, but generally categories should reflect article content, so if the location is mentioned in the article prose at some point I usually let it go. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I think only the setting of a large part of the film, maybe above 25%, should be categorized. For most films that means a single geographic setting. I hope nobody would add a film to Category:Films set in restaurants due to a brief dinner scene at a restaurant. The same should apply to geographic locations. If that part of the film was actually shot at the location, or the location (and not merely the events happening there) is essential to the plot, then I may go lower like 15%. The Day After Tomorrow has categories for Delhi, Los Angeles, New York City, Scotland, Tokyo, Washington D.C., Antarctica. That seems silly. I saw this film (albeit some years ago) and don't remember most of those places. It was a film set in USA with a few scenes from other places, some of which aren't even mentioned in the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with this methodology, though exceptions should maybe be made in scenarios where a setting that typically wouldn't be included received significant attention from third-party sources. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Country list in the infobox film[edit]

Is there a guideline, a consensus, a discussion about the order of listed countries in the infobox film? Is an alphabetical order for example undesired?

There is a dispute in The Grand Budapest Hotel over the correct order of countries in the infobox. In the current revision, there are six different sources for countries, with different (and even conflicting) informations. Provided sources list the countries as follows:

Other potential sources also have different informations:

I think it is logical to list the countries simply in alphabetical order in such cases. I haven't seen anything about this matter in related guidelines, giving priority to IMDb for example. An alphabetical order for countries doesn't seem to be a problem in artilcles like Antichrist, The Pianist, The Ninth Gate, Cosmopolis, In the Fog etc. --Raamin (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

{{infobox film}} offers guidance on this issue, but there isn't a strict rule. In the case of dispute, you can hash it out on the article's talk page or start an RFC. Keep in mind that the IMDb is not a reliable source. I don't see how it matters which way they're sorted. I will debate "has grossed" vs "had grossed", but I don't think I have it in me to debate sort order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
As far I am aware there is no guideline on the order, just inclusion. Some sources will list the countries alphabetically, others in order of relevance. Looking at the sources listed above though, the prevailing combination seems to be either UK/Germany or US/Germany so I don't think there is a straightforward answer, and listing them alphabetically while a logical solution could be regarded as misrepresentative of the sources. If you have a copy of the film it is worth checking the copyright notice right at the end which sometimes lists the countries when produced under a co-production deal. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. For The Grand Budapest Hotel, will probably wait until LUMIERE adds the film to its database. The order of countries there seems to be accepted by different parties. Raamin (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say that when sources are inconsistent or contradictory on the matter LUMIERE is the best source to default to since it is surveys different sources and attempts to list the countries in order of importance per [8]. The problem with LUMIERE though is that if often takes well over a year to update its database so sometimes you can have quite a wait. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

2001 article is too big:[edit]

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This conversation can serve no purpose... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've made a start and trimmed the lead and plot sections. Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It has a plot? That's news to me. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Matterhorn 150th anniversary[edit]

...at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Matterhorn 150th anniversary. ZachG (Talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge at peer review[edit]

Please comment at: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dilwale_Dulhania_Le_Jayenge/archive1 BollyJeff | talk 13:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Co-producers in infobox[edit]

Hi there! Quentin X and I have a question about {{infobox film}}. Should co-producers be listed on in the infobox? The issue is specifically about Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, which credits two people as co-producers on the official poster. This was previously discussed on my talk page, where I said that only the literal "produced by" credit should be listed. Since I may be misunderstanding the infobox documentation, I figured maybe we should get views here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No. "Co-producers" are not "Producers", just like "Co-executive producers" are not "Executive Producers". Those are different roles, and thus they don't match up for the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Having had a look on the Producers Guild of America website, this is what they say about co-producers: "Co-Producers are two or more functioning producers who perform jointly or cumulatively all of the producer functions as a team or group.". Which seems to suggest that they are producers. Quentin X (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If that was the case, you wouldn't have a single "co-producer". You'd have multiple names. You also wouldn't separate them out from "Producers" if there were producers. That seems to differ from how they describe it here. The fact that they separate it out suggests that it is a separate job, and thus doesn't qualify with what we are asking for. If they are credited as "Producer" then they are listed. If not, then they shouldn't be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What if the director also produced, so was credited as produced and directed by. The people who produced alongside him would be co-producers. Quentin X (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Not quite. The director/producer and other producers are all simply "producers". A co-producer is an entirely different credit. For instance, on Robert Rodriguez's movies, we frequently have to remove "co-produced" from the lead as it implies he served in a different position than he did. Sock (tock talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)