Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [ ]
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
The December 2011 newsletter is now available.
Featured article candidates 19 Jan 2012 – Manhunter (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Grapple X (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 13 Jan 2012 – List of highest-grossing films (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Betty Logan (t · c); see discussion 23 Dec 2011 – Jennifer Lopez filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Status (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 22 Jan 2012 – Match Point (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Ktlynch (t · c); start discussion 12 Jan 2012 – Motifs in the James Bond film series (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Schrodinger's cat is alive (t · c); see discussion 09 Jan 2012 – The Dirty Picture (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Smarojit (t · c); see discussion 08 Jan 2012 – The Lion King (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Rusted AutoParts (t · c); see discussion 04 Jan 2012 – Night of the Blood Beast (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hunter Kahn (t · c); start discussion 31 Dec 2011 – The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Rusted AutoParts (t · c); start discussion 30 Jan 2012 – M (James Bond) (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Schrodinger's cat is alive (t · c) was promoted, see discussion Featured article reviews 25 Jan 2012 – Night of the Living Dead (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by George Ho (t · c); see discussion 24 Dec 2011 – Superman (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Dana boomer (t · c); see discussion Good article reviews 12 Jan 2012 – The Muppets' Wizard of Oz (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA review by Rusted AutoParts (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 14 Jan 2012 – Storm in a Teacup (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by George Ho (t · c); see discussion 27 Jan 2012 – Philosophy and religion in Star Wars (talk · edit · hist) RfC by 93.182.190.72 (t · c) was closed; see discussion Peer reviews 29 Dec 2011 – We Found Love (music video) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Calvin999 (t · c); see discussion 04 Feb 2012 – Pokémon: The First Movie (talk · edit · hist) put up for PR by Nineteen-Eightyit(s) (t · c) was closed; see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Neutral language in critical reception

There is a debate at Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2#.22Universal_critical_acclaim.22 about descriptors we can legitimately use to neutrally describe the critical recepetion of a film. The debate specifically focuses on how to interpret the scores of aggregator sites such as Rotten Tomatoes. In this particular case, some editors make the case that since Harry Potter got something like 96/97% then that denotes "critical acclaim", and accurately summarises the reception of the film. The counter-argument is that since Rotten Tomatoes primarily only counts positive reviews and averages ratings, it does not make qualitative assessments of the reviews i.e a good review does not equate to acclaim, so terminology such as "reviewed well" or "received many positive reviews" is more neutral wording. The issue obviously extends beyond Harry Potter, since it is essentially how we qualify data from aggregator, so I think the discussion would benefit from the input of other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't acclaim akin to accolades and so inappropriate unless it has won recognized awards? Ideally not a People's Choice award. or a Golden Globe really but I guess we have to accept that. Unless it has won more than one award I would think acclaim is inappropriate and the proper way to address it would be positive or generally positive since I can guarantee those reviews didn't like something to do with those films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just read the article, people actually listed it as #2 on their list of films? Did they only watch 2 films? I am not a Harry Potter fan if you are not guessing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact I may be wrong but isn't acclaim reserved for things that kind of sweep the awards like The Social Network or the King's Speech? Where it's critical success is unquestionable? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing with Ralph Fiennes in it can ever be good. That withstanding, "acclaim" is not a measure of trophies won, but of esteem and opinion. If the average reviews are exceptionally positive (compare Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes - Metacritic seems a fairer judge, Rotten Tomatoes is a more sweeping net, so together you get a good picture), then "critically acclaimed" is warranted. Perhaps spelling it out more basically would work better, phrasing it as "The film was met with positive reviews" and then leading into several high-profile ones as a good set of examples. GRAPPLE X 19:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We could do with perhaps having this discussion and then adding a list of accepted terms and accepted definitions to the Film MOS. A problem with places like MC and RT is that they just say "It was positive", they don't say that the reviewer felt it was positive "Because you're able to switch your brain off and enjoy it for the mindless popcorn pap it is" for instance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I was thinking a more bare bones approach, rather than using words like "acclaim" might work. I guess we could maybe implement a "checklist" kind of guideline, whereby a certain number of recognised accolades, be they awards nominations/wins, or retrospective esteem (as opposed to the"popular at the time" kind of regard that films tend to get - I've seen glowing reviews for Michael Bay's work as it's released, followed by vitriol months and years later, for instance) would be needed in order to justify certain phrases used in a film's lead. In the article body I'd let things go more readily as there's going to be a bunch of examples and citations to verify things more readily, and the section as a whole would need to stand up to attention rather than focussing on certain specific words here or there. GRAPPLE X 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think some sources will refer to works as "critically acclaimed" which may make the term more acceptable. As it is, especially with Harry Potter, it seems more like fans just wanting to make it sound awesome. We could use guidelines in general really, there has been a lot of incidents of people changing mixed to positive for instance, especially on the latest Pirates of the Caribbean, which is far from mixed or negative and the newest Sherlock Holmes which between MC and RT offers mixed leaning positive, but users keep removing the positive. Obviously a few cases as well where MC can offer low mixed and RT will offer low positives (say 60-70%) but others just latch onto RT and call it positive. I admit I do this as well because they offer broader coverage than MC but their system is questionable. While working on Tower Heist pretty much every review was mixed, complaining about pretty much everything but the acting and Eddie Murphy, yet these reviews were being classed as positive (although the average score was lower, I think about 6 so incorporating that average score might help as well. I think agreeing on a standard would be good so we could stop teh constant back and forth between the impartial editor and the fan. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Personally, I only use the statistics from RT or Metacritic. You're bordering on original research when you try and identify a qualitative value from a percentage like that. I get tired of seeing "critical acclaim" or "universally panned" because, for one, we don't have near enough sample sizes from RT to make those statements. Secondly, it comes across like we're either favoring a film or trying to crush it. To me, it's more neutral to just stick to the facts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Grapple, are you saying Schindler's List is terrible? ;) Also, do you think that Pearl Harbor or Transformers would have gotten 96% on RT and 87 on MC? I don't think so. Besides, I don't think awards should be looked at for critical reception. There are plenty of films that have gotten great reviews that are overlooked for some reason at award ceremonies (specifically if it is foreign). Besides, what about War Horse or The Reader? The former got favorable (not "great") reviews and is nominated for many awards, while the other got "meh" reviews and got nominated for freaking Best Picture! I think it is early to go saying that it is doing crappy at award ceremonies, as by the end of the year I think it will be nominated for plenty of awards. But I do think critical reception should be looked at more to see if it is neutral. Guy546^(Talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Schindler's was the worst Rumble Fish rip-off I ever saw. :P

On a more serious note, I'm not going solely by awards (for example, I doubt we'd argue much over the currently high esteem films like The Thing or Blade Runner, which both fared modestly in terms of awards), but by a sense of establishment beyond what's currently "popular" at the time. Reviews for something with a large fanbase might be initially high, especially with franchises, but we can always work in a degree of retrospective reviewing to either balance or reaffirm something—home media releases offer a good opportunity for this. Awards alone are a terrible indicator of quality. The King's Speech was a glittering turd, Titanic was an embarrassment to Irishmen everywhere and I still don't exactly understand the whole deal about Silence of the Lambs. GRAPPLE X 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then we should probably wait a few years to see what people say about it, since it came out a few months ago? Guy546^(Talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with  BIGNOLE  , Darkwarriorblake, GRAPPLE, Betty Logan and others who favor a standardized approach with neutral language, avoiding WP:PEACOCK terms like "praise" and "acclaim," which are vaguer and more undefined than "positive reviews" or "favorable reviews."

Darkwarriorblake makes a particularly good point about popcorn movies getting reviewed well for what they are. A good horror-thriller, fantasy film or modest little indie, for example, may get great reviews by the majority of critics for what it is, but are they really comparing it with High Noon or Raging Bull? Does the 100 percent for the Harry Potter movie here mean that it's as good as or better than Citizen Kane? So short of saying "universally positive reviews for the kind of movie it is," saying "positive reviews" is both neutral and accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should have peacock terms, but where does it say "it got better reviews than The Godfather"? Nowhere! It just says that it got really good reviews! You guys are trying to turn this into something its not for some reason. Just sayin'. Guy546^(Talk) 19:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Agree with Bignole. Positive, favorable (favourable for UK films), mixed, negative reviews is the preferred wording. The word "universal" is always dodgy and inaccurate as the reviewers from the Horsehead Nebula usually detest films from the planet Earth. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Even the Horse Whisperer? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bignole's approach is to let the data speak for itself, and I fully advocate that approach. The thing about RT and MC is that they present the data to us in its most neutral form i.e. a statistic. I mean, a 97% score in its most literal sense means that 97% of the critics gave it a positive review, so do we really need to interpret the score beyond that? What does "critical acclaim" or "rave reviews" actually add to that statement? Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My point earlier though was that it is questionable how they define a positive review. I've seen Negative reviews on there which have been downright praising and positive which are ambivalent at best. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well exactly, RT scores don't get handed down to us on stone tablets, they are still just another point of view at the end of the day, somebody's interpretation of a critical opinion. When we use RT and MC data it is best to keep it within their respective contexts. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that RT and Metacritic, or at least RT (I don't use the latter that much) are not saying a film has 90% really positive reviews. It just means that 90% of the critics they sampled wrote a favorable review that was considered "approving" of the film. Harry Potter was not necessarily "critically acclaimed", so much as the majority of critics simply liked the film. You can like a film and still find a lot of faults with it. So, don't mistaken a high approval rating for critical acclaim or any other qualifier (or that they got "really good reviews", because you're attributing quality to someone that doesn't actually depict quality).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly put. I've often bemoaned that RT has no "average" category: it's all either positive or negative, when many reviews are mixed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One can work from the other end, e.g.: there were few negative reviews for Harry Potter. It's not peacock and it may be a good compromise. --63.228.45.222 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But you cannot say that "there were few negative reviews" or that "there were mostly positive reviews" without adding, "in the sample size collected by Rotten Tomatoes". That's rather a mouthful for something that is also irrelevant. If you just stick there, "Harry Potter received a 90% approval ratings from critics at Rotten Tomatoes", or something like that, then that is as objective as it gets.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that I'm actually somewhat opposed to all of this striving for cold, sterile language in relation to reception sections. It's as though we want to make every article just say "some people liked it; some people hated it". Overly technical and neutral language reveals nothing. Instead of bickering on what the overall opinion among opinions is, we should be focusing on what got praised or derided. --Remurmur (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The reception section SHOULD focus on what was praised and derided, by when it comes to summarizing reviews it isn't our place to take a couple of examples and generalize that back on the whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly would solve a lot of debates and edit-warring if the Reception section eschewed entirely such comments as "The film received mixed reviews" or "The film received highly favorable reviews", etc., and just said some variant of "The film received 67 percent positive reviews from the film-critic aggregate site Rotten Tomaotes and 55 percent from the aggregate site Metacritic" and just leave it to the reader to interpret what that means. (Then, of course, we give a hopefully representative sampling of explanatory critics' quotes.) There might be a bit of a danger in attributing too much to RT and Metacritic terminology, since they only have positive and negative and no "mixed" category, but the explanatory-quotes sampling may counter that. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's similar to plastering "overwhelmigly" or "universally" for awful films. This problem i have seen mostly on New Year's Eve, when even though they are told not to, they do anyway. Talking to an IP may as well be talking to a wall. Films like Bridesmaids (which in my opinion is the biggest piece of shit of 2011) can get 90% on that Tomatometer, but it really gets 75% approval on Metascore and from general critics. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:45 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The RT numbers are not so easy to put in context. 95% positive is clearly something good, but many films do better. A neutral point of view is our policy, so it's not obvious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just it, it's not "95% positive", it's "95% approval"...as in 95% of critics liked the film overall. That doesn't denote that they wrote a really positive review, just that in the end they found that it was worth a viewing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Most people here probably already know this, but Metacritic assigns descriptors to its weighted average scores (see here, under "What's with these green, yellow, and red colors?"). These generally appear next to the "Metascore" on a film's MC page, for example Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol has a score of 73 out of 100, summarized as "generally favorable reviews". When there is debate about how to summarize a film's reception, I generally default to the language used by Metacritic (ie. "Ghost Protocol receved generally favorable reviews") and cite Metacritic. The scores from both MC and RT then follow. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue with that is MetaCritic only uses a handful of reviews, akin to Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics" (which we do not cite anymore because there is usually only like 15 of them). RT's general lists usually (for at least most new films) garners closer to 100 reviews, but doesn't do anything but summarize key statements in random reviews (and doesn't change that after new reviews arrive).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla, as for most of the other comments they aren't very germane to the topic we were discussing. I think we can work with Metacritics wording and cite it as the source...I find a really good solution. RT tries to summarize many critics' points of views in one sentence. I think to state such a thing with a maximum of 20 words, RT does a great job. And in many cases the consensus does reflect what other critics are saying. -Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Bignole "The issue with that is MetaCritic only uses a handful of reviews, akin to Rotten Tomatoes' 'Top Critics'" — That's not true. In my experience Metacritic uses as many reviews as they can find from reliable sources, though they do give more weight to the more notable ones. For example the Ghost Protocol score is based on 38 critics' reviews, significantly more than a handful. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I like [User:Eddyghazaley|Eddyghazaley]]'s suggestion, which also seems along the lines of where  BIGNOLE  is going. I think it's a wonderful idea that we simply quote the Metacritic and RT encapsulating language and cite it. (I would use both since we don't want to have a single, unified, "official" site.) This would be concrete and verifiable, and it would completely end the edit-warring and back-and-forth over different editors' subjective interpretations of "positive, negative, mixed-to-favorable vs. mixed" etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with citing the summaries, and this is actually done in the Harry Potter article. We actual quote the Metacritic score with the "universal acclaim" comment, and that's not a problem, and no-one has challenged that because it is in context. The problem is when you take the MC summary and use it to to introduce the whole of the critical reception section. The MC and RT summariers don't really speak for anyone but themselves. Basically this how the HP section is worderd now:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received many positive reviews; as of January 2012 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an overall approval rating of 96% based on 269 reviews and an average score of 8.4/10. The site's consensus describes the film as "Thrilling, powerfully acted, and visually dazzling, Deathly Hallows Part II brings the Harry Potter franchise to a satisfying – and suitably magical – conclusion."[44] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 based on individual reviews, the film achieved an average of 87 based on 41 reviews, signifying "universal acclaim".[45] The film received a score of 93 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association; it is their highest rated Harry Potter film.

The point of contention is the first sentence, with some editors believing that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received many positive reviews should be changed to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received universal acclaim. As you can see, the Metacritic summary works fine in the context of the Metacritic score since it summarises MC's position, but it's the first sentence that is causing the problem . MC saying something is "universally acclaimed" doesn't make it so, they can only speak for themselves. Converting the first sentence doesn't add anything to the section in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Acclaim is unwarranted, acclaim is defined as " an overwhelming affirmative vote by cheers, shouts, or applause rather than by ballot" and this is not the case. It has as BigNole pointed out, approval, but it is not universally, overwhelmingly affirmed by all walks of life, professional and otherwise and acclaim is apparently not by ballot which by its loosest definition would probably apply to RT. No one is going to say with a straight face that it is a life changing, cinema changing, history making film and it is unlikely to be preserved in the Library of Congress as culturally significant. Your quoted text seems more appropriate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Darkwarriorblake — not least because Metacritic calling 87 percent "universal" is self-contradictory. So two things: 1) What is the most accurate, neutral way to summarize things here, and 2) in order to avoid this kind of debate, which hinges on subjective interpretations of statistics, shall we, as a group, make a move to formally change MOS on the "Reception" section? I would be in favor of that, for reasons I (and others) have given above. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Critical acclaim seems to be something that wouldn't be measurable until well after the fact when it has had years of after thought. I mean I like Star Wars but it was probably not thought it would get put in the archives when it first came out (if there were archives then). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for universal critical acclaim. And it definitely should be up for Best Picture at this years Oscars. Even if it isn't it still is one of the best reviewed films of the year, a true testament to J.K. Rowling's amazing series and equal to The Lord of the Rings in terms of an action-packed, terrifically acted, emotional and satisfying conclusion to one of the best film series ever put to film. It's really a film that defines a generation of not just fans but audiences in general, because I'm sure everyone, all over the world, has heard of the Harry Potter book and film series'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And acclaimed means to be highly praised which this film was. Watch this if you don't believe me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=80IW0dJANmI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Here's more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Aa8CWPp70g&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cobKlOLRbgc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYkvDiK9Qko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Fluffymoose is a big fan of the film, and his unbridled enthusiasm is not shared by anyone else in this discussion. It is a fringe opinion expressed with exceedingly non-neutral language and a clear fan's bias. No one else in the discussion agrees with "acclaim", and so I believe the issue has reached WP:SNOWBALL. I propose that we close this issue and movie on. I am assuming Fluffymoose disagrees, and will note his objection in advance. What do the rest of you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should definitely avoid using words such as "acclaim" (especially "universal acclaim"- LOL to MarnetteD and Darkwarriorblake), and stick with terms such as "positive", "favourable", etc. However, if it is quoting a source, using the term "critical acclaim" is fine. I see no problem in including that statement in quotation marks, to show that it is the source's opinion, rather than an actual reality. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone want to draft a proposal to make the Reception guideline more specific, which we can then do as an RfC here? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest this:

95%-100%-Critical acclaim
70%-95%-Positive
50%-70%-Generally positive
45%-50%-Mixed
30%-45%-Unfavorable
10%-30%-Negative
0%-10%-Panned (or something more toned). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:40 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that won't do. The film was acclaimed, and if it wasn't, wikipedia wouldn't have said it in the first place. It was stupid to change it, just leave it the way it originally was. And fine, if your going to change Harry Potter's critical recpetion then do it for every other film too because that isn't fair to change just one film's reception based off of some idiot editors opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That will do. No need to start namecalling and getting emotionally attached. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:16 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the big deal with Harry Potter and it's "non-neutral" reception? It's not fair to change this films reception when there are plenty of other films that say critical or universal acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To say it received universal acclaim is to say every single film critic in the world gave it a high grade. That isn't the case whatsoever. And please try to sign your comments, poor Signbot is probably breaking his back chasing you around.Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:29 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter is just an example. If we establish a guideline the other films will be adapted appropriately. As it is however, Fluffymoose is a perfect example of why we require a guideline to compensate for obvious bias. That you like Harry Potter is not a crime (it should be) but it has not received universal acclaim, even ignoring the folks of the Horsehead Nebula, not everyone loved it. As we have established Rotten Tomatoes represents approval of any kind not overwhelming approval, just that they would not tell you not to watch it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And the film recieved a 96% so that indicates critical acclaim. And acclaim means (like i've said) to be highly praised and that's what this film recieved. You can go on pretty much any film critics website and their review for the final HP film will have been positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I did, I picked Peter Travers at random from some experience with his work where he is listed on the Harry Potter article as listing it as his number 10 film. Following the reference it reveals it was tied for number 10 with War Horse and the Help and his only comment on it was that it ends the franchise on a high note. So straight away with the first ref I picked, there was a bias in not listing the other two films it shared the spot with.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your [Fluffymoose] opinion has been noted — several times. Repeating the same things over and over isn't helpful. Editors have answered "what is the big deal" several times — indeed, that's what this entire discussion is about. The consensus here by a wide margin is that "universal acclaim" is not agreed upon and that it is inappropriate WP:TONE. If other Wikipedia film articles likewise are violating tone with this hyperbolic, non-neutral phrase, you should change the wording there.

I'm not going to respond to this anymore. There is no consensus to use the phrase "universal acclaim" in this article, and if you make that change without consensus, an admin will be asked to intervene. The discussion has now turned to the larger issue of finding standard language for WP:FILM's Reception guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically "universal acclaim" sounds like a studio buzzword or tagline. I struggle to think off the top of my head of any film that has gained something comparable to universal acclaim; there will be some but there are few enough I can't think of them. I loved The Dark Knight, people loved it and it made a bajillion dollars but got fairly snubbed as well, and as much as I love it I wouldn't say it gained universal acclaim. Widespread positive reception maybe. EDIT: Funnily enough it does say Universal acclaim. Maybe any guideline we create should advocate against the use of "universal".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should follow the Metascore. Anything else is opinion. And also for Rotten Tomatoes you can Google search it and it has five stars. Nobody is saying it's the next Citizen Kane or The Godfather with all the positive reviews but critical acclaim seems to be accurate for the last Harry Potter movie. The only thing different between Metascore is I think we should say "critical acclaim" instead of "universal acclaim". Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

With all props to my good colleague Jhenderson, I'm not sure "acclaim" says anything different than the more specific phrase "primarily favorable reviews", which has, I'm sure we'll agree, a more blandly neutral WP:TONE. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Rusted AutoParts (talk) proposition since it was somewhat similar to mine and it allows editors to an all applicable format for the critical reception. I had to make some edits since it was rather illogical to have 95% at the same time positive or critical acclaim.

95%-100%-Critical acclaim or critical praise or strong word of mouth
70%-94%-Positive or favorable reviews or critical approval
50%-69%-Generally positive or generally favorable if at 50 you can say mixed to positive etc..
45%-49%-Mixed
30%-44%-Unfavorable
10%-29%-Negative
0%-9%-Panned (unsure of the word and tone)

Anyhow, another interesting option was citing Meta critic and using the sites terminology in wikis. However, I was thinking why not mix both of them like if both Meta critics and rotten tomatoes agree on acclaim then use that term. A simple table can be formed for the use of words akin to the one above but with Meta critics point of view on top.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical question: Since RT and Meta give (generally) two different percentage figures (which sometimes change as more reviews come in) is there a mechanism we can use to arrived at a percentage for something like the table above?

Another question: Is there compelling reason we need to say "got positive/mixed/negative reviews" at all? I think someone might have suggested earlier not to spin gravel and just go straight to the numbers, so that all these interpretation issues just go away. This would also be a much simpler thing to propose as a guidelines change that coming up with tables and percentage mechanisms, come to think.

And that might be a good compromise, since when we quote RT and Meta, following their numbers, then if RT or Meta say acclaim or whatever, we keep that (within the quoted context, without saying it ourselves). That way everybody's happy! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose your right about the "universal" acclaim thing. I guess even saying critical acclaim or NEAR-universal acclaim would be more appropriate. I don't think favourable or postive reviews would quite sum it all up though. Because every film critic site you go on has either given an enjoyable review or has highly praised the film. ( Fluffymoose (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) )

I prefer the pure statistical fact approach, with allowance for "generally/mostly favorable", "mixed", etc. I do not support use of "critically acclaimed" based purely on a MC/RT score. I think that would require actual analysis of the reviews to state, which unfortunately leads to OR. "panned" I would more easily support on the basis of the statistics, as I think that is just a rephrasing of "mostly negative reviews", and does not carry nearly the OR "weight" of "critically acclaimed". Significant awards such as oscars, etc, or specific reviews saying "the best movie of the decade" or whatnot are acclaim worthy imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea Eddyghazaley has proposed. Would we average the RT and MC scores and use that new score, or would we just use either the RT or MC score? My understanding of the way the Tomatometer works is that if nine out of ten critics give a film a 61 (or above) score, then the RT score will be 90%, because 90% of the critics liked it. There's a big difference between a critic giving a film a score of 61 versus 95, but both count as "approving" of the film. Receiving a 61 from nine critics is pretty far from "acclaimed," yet under your proposition the film would merit being called so.

I suggest we avoid using acclaimed at all, unless it is a direct quote. We're having a hard time deciding when a film is deserving of being called "acclaimed," so I think it's best to forget about using the word altogether, and stick with "positive, mixed, and negative" reviews. Murmuration (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My response to Tenebrae I understand your reasoning nobody is saying the reviews aren't favorable. According to Metacritic those are different comparisons though. Compare part one's review with part two's. So it depends on what site and when it comes to this site we are debating it according to our opinion when I think we need to be closer to what our sources say it is. Follow the source that's always been Wikipedia's policy. By the way Rusted Auto Part's opinion on how it should be done is nice but the problem is it's still a opinion. Plus according to Rotten Tomatoes 50% to 59% is rotten on Rotten Tomatoes so that wouldn't be considered positive to the source material. That is most likely considered mixed. Also critical acclaim is better than universal acclaim because we are determining reviews by proffesional critics not by average moviegoers whose opinions might differ. We have IMDb, Flixster and Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes user reviews to see what average moviegoers think. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Tenebrae...your sum-up of the compromise is really good,...I was merely providing other alternatives for this situation and if any of you find it silly then that is fine with me(we are here to discuss). And the way many of the editors and you proposed is very good and seems logical. It is simply quoting from the article verbatim without actually 'deneutralizing' the terms or adding any bias.I am with that compromise all-the way, it is equal and fair.And in response to Jhenderson777, I do agree with him, but if as a community we decide on the wording than it wouldn't be a single opinion but a group opinion for a critical scheme. IF that doesn't sound appealing then the compromise is again a really good way to go -Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally think this neutral language thing is stupid. Just leave thingas the way they were, it was better this way and more descriptive rather than just saying positive, mixed or negative. (Fluffymoose (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

To Eddie I agree with you. This discussion is for a consensus debate on what some people agree/disagree with. I also agree with Tenebrae that saying how positive and negative isn't necessary. For Rotten Tomatoes all we need to say is the score (and if it's ripe or rotten) and sometimes the consensus if it has one. As for Metacritic we state the score and quote the score significance instead of saying it in our own words. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please editors, consider using universal critical acclaim, NEAR-universal acclaim or just critical acclaim. I like using that term better. I feel it's more descriptive than just saying the film recieved positive reviews. Because postive reviews can really range from anywhere, whereas universal acclaim gives a very solid description of the overall reception for the movie. (Fluffymoose (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

I appreciate your constructive response, but we must only quote from metacritic, so the use of the word is allowed on the condition that it is cited.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This really is one of the calmest, most collegial debates I've seen in a while. I think we should take a moment to give ourselves a small "attaboy!"

We seem mostly agreed to propose quoting RT and Metacritic consensus, each following their respective percentage figure, and opening with an interpretation, which as we can see is subject to time-consuming debate. Aside from Fluffymoose, who I acknowledge disagrees, are we ready to draft something here that we can propose to WP:FILM as an RfC to the effect of "Proposal to address recurring interpretation issue in Reception sections"? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not turn the reception section into a form to fill. Perhaps we can avoid that if we think about it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We do need to do something. I believe it's time we brought this to {{WP:FILM]]. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:00 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Im open to the RFC, but I have a problem with if a film having 100% of its reviews as 6/10 or 7/10, saying it has "critical acclaim" - I think you need 9/10 10/10 consistently for that. The most I think we can reliably WP:CALC based on the summary statistics is "generally positive", "mixed", "generally negative". I would be ok with more detailed interpretation, but only if people dig into the underlying reviews, and that is OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, check RT for any recent year, sorting all films by high score. My observation is that 95s are relatively common and 100s are pretty rare. Also, we have to account for the different number of critics that are polled for each picture. If only one critic disagrees on a lightly reviewed film, I would put less weight on that outlier than I would for the many critics that lower a widely reviewed film to 95. In other words, sample size matters. And, the way these things go, if we put it in the guidelines it will be used as a club even where a little nuance is called for. So, acclaim is not a word I would associate with a new release at 95, while for an older film that has been marked for preservation there is a different way to talk about it. Does anyone else feel this way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that we encourage editors to find summaries of reception in sources. For example, end of year lists often say something about a film's reception. Isn't that more the Wikipedia way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - if some newspaper says it had critical acclaim, then you are golden. everything else is OR/SYNTH/CALC, and I think we are just debating how much we can get away with without a firm source. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So sources similiar to this an this are what we should be looking for. Not sure if reliable but this one actually uses the phrase "critical acclaim. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can quote that type of source, assuming they are considered reliable. obviously the more mainstream a source is, the more weight it will carry. Things like major international newspapers or magazines would obviously be best, and industry websites perhaps giving a bit less weight in my opinion (and blogs not counted at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, we're always supposed to quote reliable film critics. No one wants to affect that part whatsoever. I'm a little concerned that the relatively simple issue is getting unclear, so howzabout I offer this draft statement for a proposed RfC and let's see how everyone feels. Modeling this on a couple of Good Article pages:

"Proposal to reduce POV interpretation in Reception sections"

"Due to frequent edit-warring, disagreements and time-consuming debates over editors' subjective terms in the first line of the Reception section ("favorable reviews" "highly favorable reviews" "universal acclaim" "mixed" "mixed-to-positive" etc.), it is proposed we dispense with editors' POV interpretation of film-critic aggregate figures and instead go straight to the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic figures and summations we already quote.

"For example: The film received an 85% approval rating based on 117 reviews listed at the film-critics aggregate site RottenTomatoes.com, which summarized them as 'A meandering script and uneven acting, but lush cinematography and a director to watch for.' [footnote] Metacritic calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews, and said, "Accents go in and out but this jewel box of a film captures the eye and never lets it go.' [footnote] CinemaScore polls reported that audiences gave the film was "B" average on an A+ to F scale, and that audiences skewed slightly male and older. [footnote].

"The remainder of the Reception section would remain as is, with critics' quotes, etc."

Let the tweaking begin! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support – I'm ok with that draft; that's the direction I'd like it to go in. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak support - I'm fine with it. I don't care for the quoting of RT or Metacritic, because I think their "summaries" are nothing more than hot words from random critics, but it's better than the awfulness of trying to decide what constitutes "critical acclaim". Though, I don't like the "remainder should be critics' quotes", because I think that a lot of articles I've come across are just that, big blocks of quotes. To me, I statement saying that is only going to reinforce that type of reporting, when we should be summarizing a critic's entire review, instead of picking snippets here and there that we like (though, some quoting is necessary, I just don't like the idea of saying just quote them because it implies that's all that should be done).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't realized that was an issue with some articles. I've struck that last part. What do you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we probably need to start looking at articles and possible (re)visit the notion of summarizing critics, because a lot of newer films (usually those popcorn films like Thor or Sherlock Holmes...not necessarily saying those, just films like them) are receiving more of that block quote from critics. It makes them read more like the back of a DVD box, or that we're unable to summarize information with any degree of skill (which I know is not the case, because we have a lot of good writers in the Film Project). I think, after this discussion, we probably need to work on working the MOS to push editors to summarize critics more instead of relying on copy and paste jobs from the reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think it covers everything nicely. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is my personal thoughts. When you read the newspaper or check the back of a DVD box it will say that a film has received 5 stars and is the most 'acclaimed film of the year'. Critically panned films however might just get four out of five stars by movie reviewers from stupid newspapers.

But myself and everyone else I know, when they look up a film they would like to look to see how the critics view it, even if its not just the critics the audiences view too. For example The Butterfly Effect received mixed to negative reviews from critics but was a favourite film and earned a cult following by the audience (it did say something similar on the actual page for the film, not sure about it now). But if films are just going to be 'positive' and 'negative', well thats kind of stupid. When you look at the analyses of certain parts of the world and the people there you don't just say 'they are poor' or 'they are rich'. There are different 'classes'. So why can't there be different classes for films? There are about 7/8 classes of 'reviews' when you think about it; Universal Acclaim, Critical Acclaim, Positive, Mixed, Negative, Critically Panned. There are films more famous and greater than others aren't there? For example The Reader got good reviews, but the Godfather is more famous and more adored, they can't go into the same category as they are different in their 'acclaim'.

Infact, I don't even know why this discussion is going on. It seems like a stupid discussion for something that has always been around for years and is just stupid guidelines for Wikipedia to distance themselves from any other website. People come here to look things up, not to look at 'guidelines'. Critically acclaimed films, generally positive reviews, negative reviews and panned films have been around for the past 100 years and even when reviews added up for a film 50 years ago there still would have been an average. Lets say there is just 'positive', 'mixed' and 'negative'. You calculate how many positives, mixed and negatives there are and then if there are mostly all positives then you can say its 'acclaimed', if its more negatives it will be 'panned'.

But if there is only just 'positive' and 'negative' reviewed films, then there aren't ever going to be 'acclaimed' films and The Godfather would be as good as Splice according to the 'reviews'. --Charlr6 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is just saying you can't interpret the critic scores to say that. If it gets a sweep of the oscars, or someone writes an article talking about the "critical acclaim", then thats fine, but you need to independently source that. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

'or someone writes an article talking about the "critical acclaim", then thats fine, but you need to independently source that.'. This is a discussion, not an article that needs references for everything. But Wikipedia could be a modern day example/reference like that as depending on how many good reviews it gets, then it could say 'very positive reviews'. If it gets many bad reviews it could be 'generally negative'. But I have seen old articles that have said that, but I'm not going to spend hours on the internet finding a 50 year old article from a newspaper that was scanned in, just to prove a point. I could find a bad review of a film, go onto that page on Wiki and paste it in and say 'this film is bad, and this is why' and a link to the critic explaining why he doesn't like it.Charlr6 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also (to Charlr6), right now we're just working on wording to take to an RfC. Everyone will have a chance to debate the merits of the proposal itself when it goes up. Right now we're just tweaking the wording so that it's just right. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

support I think the objective standard is best, unless individual sourcing to a RS quoting "Acclaim" or "panned" etc can be found. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK: It's been a week now that we've had proposed wording up for an RfC (above at 00:40, 5 January 2012), and everyone's had a chance to make tweaks. I guess we're ready to put it up as a formal RfC. Would someone else like to do the honors, so it's that much more of a community thing? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would love to. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to start an RfC with the wording we've all worked on. I'm not sure we can go ahead and change WP:FILM without that, and we were also envisioning something more detailed than the sentence you added in good faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. I am going to post it on the RfC now. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Darth. I went to look for the RfC notice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All but couldn't find it. Might it be somewhere else? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Request board

An RFC has been posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Neutral_language_in_critical_reception. Please comment there. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Film released independently and then theatrically. Which one gets focus?

Hi. I'm here because we have a little debate over at Paranormal Activity. Thing is, the film was created by an independent director in 2007, and released independently at Screamfest that year. Paramount representatives attended that screening, and decided to acquire the film, modify it (ending included) and re-release it two years later, in 2009. Now, currently the article describes the film as being released in 2007, which would lead to think it's about the independent film, which later happened to have been acquired by some studio and re-released, which is what I personally think is right, since it reflects the actual course of events. But other editors insist that the article should cover mainly the theatrical release, with the original version getting only a passing mention. I will appreciate it if people could drop by and leave their opinions on the matter. Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention of both the festival and theatrical releases of films is quite common - the only difference here being the film was apparently significantly changed after the festival screening. In such a case, the theatrical release date trumps the festival release, as festivals are short term and have less significance and long-term impact than theatricals, such as box office totals, general critical response, length of run, etc. Film festival release information usually only involves which studio bought it, and if it won any awards, and in this case, if it was changed significantly, which deserves mention if noteworthy enough, but the overall focus should be on the theatrical release. However, IMO only general theatrical release dates should appear in the infobox and not the festival showing, unless the film never got picked up by a studio and went straight to video, which is not the case here. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The first release date is notable, whether it be theatrical or at a film festival. This is the first time the film was shown and is technically the release date. You should be mentioning both, but it should be considered released with the first showing. This is what WP:FILMRELEASE describes. BOVINEBOY2008 14:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Since WP:FILMRELEASE calls for "the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film", both dates should appear in the infobox. If we follow that, there are an awful lot of infoboxes that need to be changed, including Reservoir Dogs and every other film that was first shown in a festival to maintain consistency. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well they're only project guidelines; ideally the article should document the first public exhibition, but it's not really a big deal if general release date is recorded instead. The main point of including the date is so a reader can instantly work out the age of the film. I would say leave the guideline as it stands, and if any of these articles come up for review then these various MOS issues can be fixed then. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But I think the OP's point relates not to the infobox, but to mention of the release date in the lead. If, as in this case, the festival and general releases were not in the same year, which date becomes the "official release date" mentioned in the lead? Shouldn't it be the general theatrical release date? Shirtwaist ☎ 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The single most important date to most people is the day/weekend it opened in theaters, but the festival debut should be noted as well. Listing both years in the lead is a little awkward, but it's probably the best and most accurate solution when the dates are two years apart, like here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think from a consumer point of view this is true, but since films are released in different regions on different dates I don't think it's that important after the event in an encyclopedic context. I mean, Gone with the Wind premiered in 1939 and went on general release in 1940 but film literature documents it as a 1939 film. If we went with the 1940 release date it would seem counter-intuitive. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Dec 1939 GWTW release was not the equivalent of a film festival release. It was a limited theatrical release which later went wide. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about the infobox or the lead. That's easily solved by mentioning both, but I'm more concerned by what the plot description should be. Should it describe the original film+ending, or the modified commercial version? Also, to the people who said that if we were to follow the guidelines then there would be too many other articles to change, there's WP:OTHER. Other articles being wrong doesn't mean we should keep doing it. --uKER (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not unusual for films to be edited after a festival screening, so I'd go with the theatrical version for the main plot. Films like 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia were withdrawn during release and re-edited, and presumably we use the plots of the 'final' theatrical version. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree with this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Wasn't Citizen Kane previewed somewhere in the boonies, after which it was edited down to its final form? Shirtwaist ☎ 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to mention the edit in that section. That is also where post-theatrical release edits/director's cuts probably belong. It is part of the editing process. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I had come to terms with the article describing the commercial version and not the original one. In fact, I made the change myself. Problem is, now an editor insists that despite the fact that the article's Plot section describes the ending from the theatrical version, released in 2009, the lead and infobox for some reason should bear the release date from the original version, which is 2007. I'd say we should make our minds here. Either the article is about the original one or the theatrical. If it's to be about the theatrical, fine, the ending is the new one and the date is the new one, with the info on the original presented later. If it's about the original, so be it too, but it's ridiculous to mix things up like that. --uKER (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are some people here being payed by the commerical film review sites?

That's a rhetorical question, but I'm seriously wondering what has brought this project to device an MoS which in its guidelines for writing the lede section completely omits what most people would be looking for when looking up a movie, i.e. a brief summary of what the film is about. Instead readers are thrust into an exhaustive plot section, no spoilers barred. For weeks now, after opening a title here on Wikipedia I've had to jump immediately on to IMDB for any useful information that can tell me if this is a film I might like to watch. __meco (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Beside the fact that WP is not meant to be a film recommendation site for you or anyone else, what changes do you suggest to improve WP:MOSFILM (which includes this sentence: "If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise")? Shirtwaist ☎ 11:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, replace "If possible" with "In one or two sentences". __meco (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any improvement in doing that, since film leads usually contain one or two sentences that convey the general premise already. Do you have any specific examples of what you're talking about?. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't recite the films I've looked up recently. It just appears to me that very few if any had any mention whatsoever of what the film was about in the lede section. And I think that is something that should always be in that section. __meco (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a tag that can be added to pages where the lede is insufficient or too short to represent the article. While it should contain a brief idea of what the film about, it takes someone to actually write it for it to be there.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jocular sub-section

Jimbo pays me for each article I start. Lugnuts (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RottenTomatoes pays better. Just sayin'. ;-}Shirtwaist ☎ 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you have been spoiled on a film, to compensate may I recommend you see THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, A RIP ROARING RIDE OF EXCELLENCE WHERE THE GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATTOO INVESTIGATES STUFF AND IT TURNS OUT THE BUTLER DID IT.I'm jokingDarkwarriorblake (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a new Category - Films that people might want to watch? Doniago (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier to just delete articles for bad films. I nominate Jack and Jill. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

...is a 2011 comedy film starring Adam Sandler... Dear god, make it stop. Lugnuts (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I say delete 'em all...let Ebert sort 'em out! If anyone knows which movies we should watch, He does. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Film plots

The above conversation reminded me that some articles still don't have a plot. Films such as J. Edgar and Jack and Jill still have a huge blank between the lead and cast. RAP (talk) 14:47 25 January 2012 (UTC)

{{noplot}} would seem like a good intermediate step to take in such cases. Doniago (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're going to struggle to find anyone who has seen Jack and Jill and wants to spend time improving its article. Anyone who has 70 minutes to burn should watch the Red Letter Media review of the film here, I found it very interesting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Without being rude, WP:SOFIXIT! The Artist didn't have a plot until I added it. Took about 5 to 10 minutes to do a baisc overview, and since then, others have helped to flesh it out. Lugnuts (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, i can't because i haven't seen the films yet, so hopefully someone who did will. RAP (talk) 1:33 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that adding noplot would be best, so I've done that, in an empty section, which usually encourages anonymous editors to add something. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently also encourages them to copy and paste from other websites. —Mike Allen 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that person added the plot header themselves, not after I added it. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Would YOU want to watch Jack and Jill to get the plot? I suggest we each take it upon ourselves to go and watch 2 minutes each of the film, someone takes 0:00-2:00 and so on and then in a collaborative effort we piece together what happened, so as to avoid any of us experiencing all of it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable blogs in top ten lists

I've removed reference to the blog NothingButFilm in several top-ten lists in articles (The Artist, Hugo, that George Clooney one, you know the one I mean), as I don't believe the blog is notable. Infact, it feels as if the owner is trying hard to promote their blog via WP. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed at WP:RM: Bande à part (film) → Band of Outsiders

A discussion [and ultimate vote] of interest to members is taking place at Talk:Bande à part (film). —Roman Spinner (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival

Hello,

At WP:RSN, we've been having a discussion of whether the NYIIFVF should be considered a major festival for notability purposes (WP:NFILMS #3), and more specifically whether the fact that it's widely recognized as a scam invalidates the awards it offers, and we'd appreciate input from members of the Film Project. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_International_Independent_Film_and_Video_Festival. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

New article that might need some help

As I am pressed for time today I thought that I would ask any of you that are interested to take a look at this new article Kimmy Dora and The Temple of Kiyeme. At a quick glance it looks like some of the refs seems okay but both of the external links that we added have zero info about this film on them. I have removed them but you can access them here [1]. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do to help the article. MarnetteD | Talk 15:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've follow all the links used as references and can confirm that all are related to the sequel and not first film. jonkerz ♠talk 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Im the creator of the page, all links are related to all the informations stated in the article. jmarkfrancia (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of "Foreign language film" in place of "Non-English film" in Wikipedia

Please comment at Talk:List of 3-D films#"Foreign language" films.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dracula film from 1920 - possible hoax?

Please see this discussion about the possible deletion of a 1920 Russian film, which claims to be the first film adaptation of the Dracula story. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on this folding table?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone_(film)#Awards

As seen here, what are thoughts on it? I like it and think it would be useful on articles with lengthy award tables that aren't big enough to justify an individual article but long enough that they seem kind of awkward on the page, but I also thought we could use them on actor/actress articles to hide the sometimes massive filmography tables. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I think there is potential to adapt it and use it on actors and filmmakers bio pages as well. MarnetteD | Talk 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this hide/show technique. As I've said before regarding the page-bottom templates, the casual, infrequent reader won't be looking for them and may not even realize they're there. And I especially would be against using them for hiding filmography tables. That's one of the main elements I want easily accessible on a bio page, and I don't want to have to click show all the time to see it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you don't have to use it on everything, you'd use it where necessary. For instance I don't think Michael Caine really needs a separate article just for his filmography. With that table you could put it in the same article and its now more immediately accessible to a reader htan it was before. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that - Michael Caine could use such a table. It's probably worth doing, but either way you have to click a link, so would it really be that much more accessible? My main point is I wouldn't want to see filmography tables currently showing on pages made hidden. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Checked on my phone to make sure it's compatible with the Wapedia app, and it just shows the full table by default. I don't see any reason to not use it.--Remurmur (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think filmographies should be hidden because they are primary data, although collapsible tables could be utilised in compacting secondary data so it doesn't dominate an article. We seem to be getting more and more sub-articles for things like box-office records and soundtracks which can fragment the article over 2/3 pages, and maybe a collapsible table can be considered as an alternative to a sub-article in some cases. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well just to clarify I am not advocating these be used in general, only in cases where you have a table that is two-three times longer than the prose presented in the article, it might be that the list is pretty long and is a hindrance to getting to lower areas of the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just implemented this over at The Artist (film)--Remurmur (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, could use prose, but I don't see it as any different than the album table or any other hideable tables. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Film will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles (no pun intended!) in film, movies and related areas. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

United 93

The cast and awards sections could use a touch up, if anyone would like to help. RAP (talk) 20:41 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of worthwhile content

Doniago has been deleting entire sections from older film articles on the grounds they're unsourced. He's not the only one, but I have to point to a specific example of something that's bothered me for some time. Now, I do wish whoever built these older articles up had listed their sources, but turning articles into stumps is not good policy, and I would like to see it modified. As said by another editor at his talkpage, deleting worthwhile content solely on the grounds it is uncited does not help WP.

Doniago's response was I am of the opinion that material that is not sourced is inherently not worthwhile. I would rather see a smaller Wikipedia with more reliable content than a large Wikipedia with large amounts of information that is not readily verifiable via citation. Then he said I also believe that my views (in fact, both of ours) are supported by current policy. Perhaps the issue then is that policy should be revised to more clearly address this matter. So let's take him up on that.

I restored the Production section to Black Sunday (1977 film) after he put it on the talk page, in a hidden template. I added a ref from IMDb, which is better than nothing, but he reverted me anyway, deleting it again. Having read a good deal on film history over the years, I can say the info on this page looks valid and accurate to me. I don't have time to go looking for better sources on this over 30-year-old film. Until someone does, the section should be restored and perhaps tagged as lacking all the refs one would wish it to have. But it shouldn't be eviscerated. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If information looks like it could be sourced with a bit of work, it's much better to just mark it out as needing citations with {{citation needed}} than to just erase it entirely. I'd find it much easier to fix up an article if I had essentially a checklist of information to look for than a whole blank slate to fill. GRAPPLE X 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith on the part of editors is assumed. Unless Doniago believes the material is incorrect, he's out of bounds deleting it. In fact, it is more often the case that new material is added first, then sourced later. This is not a question of the rules, it's a matter of the usual practices of Wikipedia, which are a little bit more significant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it. The film article in question was tagged for needing sources in June of 2011. No effort was made to furnish such references for over six months. At that point, removing the unsourced content is a legitimate challenge to it regardless of whether it is believed to be accurate...in fact, removing unsourced content is a legitimate form of challenging it regardless of the amount of time it was unsourced for, per WP:MINREF. Material published on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, not simply accurate. And as noted, it was not deleted...it was moved to the Talk page so that invested editors would have easy access to the material and the opportunity to locate proper references...which IMDb is not, as explicitly stated at WP:RS/IMDb. Doniago (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

FWIW

If it's BLP related, Doniago's method is correct if the material is contentious. Otherwise the general guideline is to tag it, source it, or remove it with a link to a source showing the information is fictitious. If it is already tagged, and has been for a reasonable length of time - IMO 3-6+ months - a statement is fair game for removal.

- J Greb (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is not contentious. It is merely not sourced, beyond IMDb. This is a 35-year-old film. WP FILM editors are not going to put it high on their priority list of articles to go source-hunting for. So I see nothing wrong with letting good info remain in the article, tagged, for well over 6 months. That is much better than having a stump. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely not, but I was referring to things like "Actor X (still alive) did this demeaning thing or that bad thing during production." Even in an article on a film that's going counter BLP and would get removed point blank without a source.

Beyond that, the maintenance tags for unsourced statements, sections, and articles have a reason for being there. (And it would have been nice if it had been mentioned that the article had such a tag off the hop. That stops people from assuming that Doniago pruned the article instead of doing the tagging.) At some point an article's, section's, or statement's lack of sources must be addressed not just tagged. Somewhere between 3 and 6 months seems to be the norm for that depending on profile of the article and the editor(s) involved. Other wise that tag becomes blunt statement "This article is what it is and we don't care. Having verifiable information isn't as important as we make it out to be." And as far as "good info" goes... it has to be asked "Based on what?" An editor's imprison of the information? Sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia? Reliable sources that the editor is looking at? Something else?

If it's based on an editor's impression or belief that the info is good, then why bother even thinking about finding sources? The article can stay in a poor shape based on guidelines simply on faith. There's no need to get it right.

If it's sources like IMDb, then why bother applying any standards to where the info comes from? Based on guidelines that can actually be seen as hurting the article since it implies that nothing reliable and verifiable can be found.

If it's based on a reliable source... well... add it. Take away the reason for the tag or at least one of them.

- J Greb (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WHOA!!!! As the "other editor" being quoted above, let me say two things here. 1 - Doniago and I agreed that we disagreed on this finer point of interpreting policy as regards deleting/tagging, and 2 - we agreed that in any case, the best solution was to set about finding references. The discussion being referred to that we had ended with an agreement that I would use his deletions as a guide for reinstating correctly sourced material.

Doniago and I also mutually recognised that we are both committed to building the encyclopedia. Hence rather than embark on this ridiculous flamewar, why not just find a reference and reinstate the deleted material? That is much easier than creating this sort of grief. Manning (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He did not agree that he was going to go looking for missing sources. And as I said, I did restore the material to Black Sunday, with a ref, and he deleted it again anyway on the grounds it wasn't good enough. He did this after his "agreement" with you. It seems to me he would rather the article be a stump if I don't have the time to track down better sources for a 1977 film, and he's going to keep on with the same behavior. So I took it here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The ref you used was IMDb, which is not considered reliable per WP:RS/IMDb. You're right that, after 6 months of the article being tagged, I would rather the unsourced material be moved out of the article proper and the tag removed, but it would be facetious to claim that I wish it weren't there at all...if that were the case I would not have relocated it to the Talk page. I note that you didn't come here asking for help with finding reliable sources for the article or asking that someone else do what you don't have the time to do, rather you came here to complain about my removing unsourced material, despite the fact that what I did is within the bounds of policy, if perhaps not "best practice"...but then, the latter seems to vary depending on what editor you're talking to at the time. You also, notably, came here without even waiting for me to respond to the note you left on my Talk page, which frankly makes it hard for me to assume good faith on your part, especially when you bring in selected excerpts of a discussion I had with another editor without presenting the full context and negelect to mention that the article had been tagged long-term. Doniago (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That was an oversight I did not intend. Had I realized people might assume I was referring to untagged articles I would have corrected it. I did provide the links. It's not like I was hiding anything. I didn't ask someone else to go source hunting because I thought no one would. (And watch - no one will now either.) No one else cares enough about that article to go on a research expedition to back up material unknown past contributors put in. And how was that supposed to happen with you literally hiding it in a template on the talk page? Who's going to see it there? My good faith is demonstrated by my months of trying to improve articles, especially on less travelled older films. These older articles often have interesting, unsourced info. Sometimes I'll tag it. Change or delete it if I know it to be wrong. I've added refs when I could. But I never would take something out unless it looked inaccurate. What do you do? It only takes a fraction of a minute to delete material from articles - it would take someone a hundred times longer to restore and back up what you removed. Much easier to destroy rather than create. Because of you, the Black Sunday article is now a stub - it wasn't that great yesterday, and now it's even less. You admit what you're doing is perhaps not "best practice", but you're clearly determined to keep doing it. I knew engaging you would be futile. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If nobody cares enough to dig up sources, the pertinent material will remain in violation of WP:V and most certainly is not appropriate for inclusion. Your accusation that I am "literally hiding it" is ludicrous. The section is clearly marked as "Unsourced Material" with the pertinent information collapsed to avoid filling the page...in fact I've been asked to collapse such things in the past. Any editor interested enough in the article to view the Talk page will see the information...bluntly, it's not as though that Talk page is a hot-bed of activity. If you really feel that I'm "hiding it" (how nefarious of me!), might I ask why you didn't simply re-post the information without the collapse? Additionally, if you have a problem with it being there, might I ask where you would suggest I put it instead, other than back into the article? That your practice is not to remove something unless it looks inaccurate is well and good, but other editors are not bound by your practices, and as other editors have already noted policy allows for how I approached the situation.

Since you asked - if I can identify the contributor of recent unsourced information, I remove it and point them to the relevant sourcing guidelines, as generally I believe the contributor themselves is best suited to locate the source, and knowing how to source information is a good thing...my doing "their work" for them won't help anything. If I can't identify the contributor I'll tag...and if the information has been tagged long-term, I have no compunctions against removing it. If you have a problem with this approach, I suggest you look into getting the relevant policies modified so that my approach is no longer in accordance with them.

As noted, the material was moved to the Talk page. Your claim that it would take someone "a hundred times longer to restore" it is without merit. It's called copy-and-paste.

The next time you essentially accuse me of vandalism, I will consider it a personal attack. I had every right based on policy to behave in the manner I did. You have every right to disagree with my perspective on how to handle unsourced material, but if you're not willing to do anything about the problem other than come here and complain about me, and ignore the editors who agree that I had the right to take the action I did, then I have to question what you're actually hoping to achieve.

As for the "I knew engaging you would be futile" - perhaps if you'd approached me in the spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation you would have seen more positive results. Good Day. Doniago (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I clearly said It only takes a fraction of a minute to delete material from articles - it would take someone a hundred times longer to restore and back up what you removed. Did you miss the part about restore and back up? You're not deleting material that's unsourced? You didn't revert me when I restored material, with an IMDb source? Any bad faith there?

And how would you have collaborated?

You say I have to question what you're actually hoping to achieve. I was trying to save the article from being gutted. Obviously.

You say If you have a problem with this approach, I suggest you look into getting the relevant policies modified so that my approach is no longer in accordance with them. That is obviously what I was trying to do when I posted here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have sympathies for Donagio's stance, but we have to be careful not to become out of step with the natural evolution of articles. There is a reason we have an article grading system. Unsourced material should be removed from FA and GA articles because they have to meet a standard. B-class articles are a judgement call, but generally unsourced material should be removed or the article should be demoted, because the guidelines do explicitly state that any material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. C-class articles are expected to have sourcing issues among other things, they represent a work in progress. The emphasis on C-class and Start class articles should be development rather than consistency with guidelines IMO, so having unsourced material in them is par for the course. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your viewpoint may have merit, but again, there's nothing in policy that recommends reviewing that aspect of an article, and I don't think it's realistic to try mandating that editors review that information before deciding whether or not it's okay to remove unsourced material from an article, especially material that's been tagged for it long-term with no evident attempts at improvement. Doniago (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging for references is much better than wholesale deletion. There is no deadline. There are articles on here unref'd for over 6 years, let alone 6 months. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging references is indeed a lot better than wholesale deletion, man. The wholesale deletion on articles is not one of the better solutions. BattleshipMan (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE is an opinion piece, not policy. You're all entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine. And as noted above, the removed information had already been tagged...it did no good. Say what you'd like, but at least my "deletion" ("relocation" would be a more accurate and less inflammatory term) of the information actually got it some notice. "The extreme always makes an impression", apparently. Doniago (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy, and lazy, to remove something than take the time to reference it. Just my opinion. Lugnuts (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly constructive. Just my opinion. Doniago (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst everything must be verifiable, the policy states that "in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information which has been challenged or which is likely to be challenged". In the specific case of Black Sunday (1977 film), if an editor wanted to remove content that he believed to be contentious, shouldn't his first action be to try to find a source for this? A quick Google search for "robert evans goodyear blimp" found me a TCM article (among other probably equally as useful results) which verifies most of the information removed in the production section of the article. Therefore if this kind of deletion is happening wholesale, it should be discouraged as we run the risk of removing verifiable (albeit unsourced) information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can google it, or you can ask the editor who made the addition if they know what they're talking about. Since good faith is assumed, I think it's fair to say that if there is no reason to believe that the article text is wrong, it's destructive to delete it. Clearly, not everything in an article will have a reference. If it's not false, our default is to keep it in, right? So it's going over the line to delete first and double check later, no matter how much time has elapsed. That's definitely not how we operate. Disrespect for other editors' contributions is a no-no. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If I knew who the contributing editor(s) was/were, I most certainly would have asked them whether they knew what they were talking about. As it was the information had been unsourced for months and I'll admit I'm not invested enough to go digging through an article's history to determine who may have originally added unsourced material, especially if there may be multiple parties involved. As already noted, nothing was deleted; the text was moved to the Talk page, which I would call a specific effort not to have it deleted. Also, as the information was unsourced, I was unable to determine whether or not it was false; kudos to editors who were or are able to confirm this. As noted, nothing I did was in violation of policy, so while you may not like how I operated, your claims that I was disrespectful and that "that's definitely not how we operate" appear to be matters of opinion rather than fact.

Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we're spending this amount of time putting me on trial for acting in accordance with policy, if perhaps not in a "nice" or "best practice" manner, rather than actually bothering to improve the article or change policy so that the concerns being expressed here become moot points going forward? Doniago (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The idea that entire articles are reduced to stubs because of an "opinion" that unsourced material should be excised is ludicrous. Tag the sections as needing work, and ask for help. Using WP:Bold as an excuse for making arbitrary and non-consensual actions, is at the root of this issue; not the canard of "helping" the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Mmm, yes, and the current state of the article, with IMDb used as a reference and no maintenance tags, is certainly an improvement, even if it violates WP:RS/IMDB. Doniago (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Doniago, your respect for policy is admirable, however I don't see your actions in line with our normal practice. Policy can be read tendentiously or it can be read with a comparison to usual means and methods that reflect it. I'm not completely clear on your motive. Are you taking out something you doubt on a subject about which you have some knowledge or are you deleting something no one ever formally sourced? The difference is critical, since there will be no references for 1+1=2. I don't see in your defense anything about your belief the material is false. That seems to indicate a lack of appreciation that the editors on a page are at least as likely to know the subject better than you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I should say that I appreciate your tone in the above note. A lot of what has been said here has struck me as less well-worded than it perhaps could have been. So, thank you for that.

I'm deleting something that no one ever formally sourced, after it was tagged long-term for needing sources and none were provided. I don't particularly have any reason to believe it's inaccurate, but as Big Bird noted below, whether or not I believe the material to be accurate isn't pertinent to its appropriateness for inclusion (granted I'd likely pounce faster on material I was 100% certain was inaccurate).

Lastly, if we allowed Wikipedia content to be guided by the apparent knowledge level of its contributors rather than reliable sourcing, then there would seem to be no reason to have verifiability policies in the first place, as "contributing editor knows what they're talking about" would then be grounds for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to carefully selected deletion of material that is unsourced and tagged as such for some time. I don't believe in the status quo that we should leave text in the article simply because it's already there. What differentiates us from blogs and "uncyclopedias" is that we verify, not assume, that what we write is correct. Truth is irrelevant, only verifiability matters. The burden of proof in verifiability lies upon the editor adding the text rather than the editor removing the text. But I also do believe in being careful in what is deleted and how it is deleted. If a section stands tagged as unreferenced for a year, I search for sources verifying the statements made. If I find them, I add them and remove the tag. If I'm unable to find any sources myself and I decide that the likelihood exists that the statement is incorrect, then yes, I do consider it appropriate to delete the material. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Big Bird. I'm glad someone else seems to understand where I'm coming from. Doniago (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As an editor that has come across this in the past, I have to say that I would probably side with Doniago here. If the material itself was tagged as requiring a source for over 6 months, and no one has even bothered to try and source any aspect of it, then clearly either no one cares to try or there are no sources for the information period. As such, if there are no reliable sources to the information then how can be be sure it is even true (or verifiable as is really the case). IMDb is user submitted so we cannot use them, because anyone can add something to their production and trivia sections who is registered to do so. We don't operate on the basis of "well, it looks legitimate to me", because we as editors are not authorities on "what looks legitimate" (only exceptions are when an editors is established as a legitimate authority - e.g., identity is known and said identity is authority in real life). In the end, 7 to 8 months of being tagged as needing a source is plenty of time. I would understand a complaint if Don was deleting stuff that was just recently tagged, but that is not the case here. The standard practice IS to eventually remove material that has been tagged for a significant amount of time and place it in a location so that it can be accessed and eventually sourced. Putting it on the talk page is sufficient.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with  BIGNOLE . The whole idea of an encyclopedia is to have information that is as concrete and verified as humanly possible — when researchers and others come to any encyclopedia, they quite reasonably expect it to contain unimpeachable facts. Six months is more than enough time to source something, and I believe Doniago is right to removed tagged, unverified material after that.

Is hunting for a cite better? I believe so. But this has to be balanced with the fact that, more and more, I see some magazines, newspaper and books citing Wikipedia — no major publications, but small-press publishers — and this should be of great concern to all of us, since Wikipedia (by nature of having an astronomical amount of articles all written mostly by non-professional volunteers) carries so much inaccurate material. The safest course may well be to prioritize keeping unverified material out of Wikipedia.

And I believe the title of this section is a misnomer: If information isn't verified, there is no way of knowing whether it's worthwhile. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we might be speaking a little bit at cross purposes. Doniago's personal beliefs about the material's veracity is germane. For example, I don't know about Beyonce, so I don't edit the page on Beyonce. Beyonce experts don't question that she sings, so there won't be a reference on that. There is a continuum from obvious to arcane and the way to negotiate that is to bring to bear personal knowledge. Again, unless you believe material is false, there's nothing heroic about deleting it. If anything, it undermines the encyclopedia and the work of the other editors. Assuming good faith, the absence of a reference is not evidence it is false. That is the wrong inference. Wikipedia has an excellent record, and editors who came before us are at least as diligent as we are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not even comparing the same things here. The details about the production of a film and the fact that a worldwide known singer is in fact a singer are not even relatable. If it's a matter of challenging stuff, then this statement from Black Sunday in the production section is one that I am challenging: "The final attack on the stadium was filmed later, using a mock-up of the forward section of the blimp and 10,000 extras supplied for free by The United Way charity, in exchange for Frankenheimer directing a promotional film for them, which Shaw would narrate." - There is no general knowledge surrounding this that would excuse it from requiring a source. It's a very specific claim on the production and requires a source. What is interesting is that the article now has several sources, only 2 of which are currently being cited to IMDb (which should be rectified) and only one statement at this moment (the one I just pointed out) that is completely unsourced. Why does it always take the removal of something to force people to actually follow through with a simple expectation of sourcing content? If it was this easy, why did we need these discussion in the first place? All I heard at the start was this was a 35 year old film and it was hard to find sources, yet Bzuk appears to have found some in a grand total of about 3 hours. It shows that the sourcing tag never should have needed 7 months before someone removed the content, because editors following that page should have saw the tag and done some simple research liek Bzuk did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the absence of a reference is no evidence that something is false and I think others in this discussion agree with that as well. A statement that is true should be verifiable. If an editor cannot verify on their own a statement that's been unsourced for an extended period of time, I don't think the encyclopedia loses anything by shedding this unverifiable material. Although I'm a bit more lenient in its application, I've always considered appropriate the principles laid out in this statement and as somewhat of a guiding principle for the way I edit. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, actually the encyclopedia would lose a lot. Many true statements are not sourced. Many, many, many. The word that is used here is 'verifiable', not 'verified'. So, something that you personally know is false can't ever be verified, so it's unverifiable and you should delete it. But unless an editor thinks some material is false (or, in rare cases, can't by definition be verified), it is counterproductive to remove it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You nailed it. That is the heart of the matter. I would like to see policy modified to express that. Good, verifiable information should not be removed. Especially on the less-traveled articles of older films, where it could be some time before a qualified editor discovers the tags and is able and willing to put in the time to find sources for someone else's earlier entries. (A time-consuming task, especially if you have to go into offline sources like books and older film publications...) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank Bzuk for heroically swinging into action, tracking down refs and restoring the article Black Sunday (1977 film). Like he said in his edit summary, it still needs work, but it's much better than the stub it was reduced to yesterday. Someone may want to take a crack at The Cassandra Crossing, where Doniago also reverted my attempts to restore production material he deleted. I added an IMDb ref, but of course, it wasn't good enough. Of particular interest, the bridge depicted in the film is actually the Garabit viaduct in southern France. Until recently, both articles referred and linked to each other. I'm taking a risk in mentioning that, as none of Garabit Viaduct in fiction is currently backed up by refs, and Doniago might go over and delete that entire section as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, but I will tag it for needing sources. Charming attitude by the way...it really fosters a desire to work with you and AGF. In any event, I also commend Bzuk for their work on Black Sunday. The article's looking pretty darn awesome. Glad someone was able and willing to work on digging up and utilizing references.

If the above thread didn't make it clear why IMDb is not considered sufficient as a reference, I'm at a loss to explain it any further. Doniago (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's all drop the subject since it is considered widely talked about. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and kudos again to Bzuk for swinging into action a second time, tracking down refs and restoring an article, this time The Cassandra Crossing. Again, it could still use more work, but it's much better than it was yesterday. I, along with all who care about these older film articles, really appreciate it. People like this make WP a better site. I placed two refs into the Garabit viaduct article as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrap-up - All of this started when I has a discussion with Doniago about deletion of worthwhile content. The two of us concluded by agreeing that we disagreed on the best approach. Although I still prefer the "tag, don't erase' option, I cannot help but note that Doniago's original (and admittedly provocative) actions have now led to at least two articles being correctly sourced. So in my best 'crusty old-timer' voice, let me just say that we're ALL good people and we're all committed to the project. Occasional disagreement on how best to go about things will always happen, but let's not start firebombing the good guys. I still don't endorse Doniago's approach, but hey, like seriously, whatever. Peace, out. Manning (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually this started when my efforts to restore those above articles were reverted. I went to the page of the one responsible, and found someone else already complaining about his practice. But I would have next taken it here once I found the responsible party was determined to keep doing the same behavior, regardless of what was or was not on his talk page. And this isn't much of a wrap-up, as he's going to keep on doing it, and the policy is not being addressed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material on first story proposals for Beneath the Planet of the Apes

On August 9, 2011‎ User:24.35.199.246 added a large amount of text to the Production section of this 1970 sequel's article, with no sources given. It appears to be an extensive interview with Beneath associate producer and co-story writer Mort Abrahams, who also worked on the original 1968 film. It looks to me like it's for real - nothing in it strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about the Planet of the Apes series history, and I have read a good deal on it over the years. But this had details I had not seen before, so I cannot personally vouch for it. It is, however, very interesting, as they had no concept of making a sequel to the first film until after its release, and it seemed impossible.

This contributor has made very few edits. Never communicated in an edit summary or on a talk page. His text was not tagged. It was not moved to the talk page. It was abruptly deleted within minutes, as if it were vandalism. He only managed one comment, in the wrong place - the text of the article. He wrote I was trying to give you all the backstory, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. This too was immediately deleted.

I only found this by looking back in the article's history. I have decided to take more moderate action here. I have tried to save it from the dustbin of the history archives by copying and pasting it into the film's talk page, with a few minor edits, using the collapsing template because it's so large. Perhaps someone can track down where it came from, source it, and then adapt it into the article. If nothing else, it makes for a good read if you're interested in a detailed account of how this film was developed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrap-up - Wrap up this discussion. It's been widely discussed and let's settle it down. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard

Have any of you have recent developments about a Good Day to Die Hard, the upcoming fifth Die Hard movie? They said they are start filming it in Hungary in January, which was last month as reported awhile ago. I haven't heard anything new about it this month and I'm sure you guys haven't heard any about it either. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen no news about it but I would think filming on this, even if it is a travesty of the Die Hard films, would be worth mentioning so I imagine filming has not yet begun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this article in a Serbian newspaper magazine from a couple of weeks ago, the film crew visited Belgrade to scope out the filming locations. It states that the principal photography will take place sometime in the next few months. That article seems to be the closest of any other one I found in identifying when the filming will begin. As of yet, it hasn't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, upon reading the article all the way through, it states that the filming had already begun earlier this month in Budapest. It may be worth trying to dig up some Hungarian sources to confirm this. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See if that source is realible. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an entertainment magazine, similar in format and reliability to something like Us Weekly. It has editorial oversight but I don't know about its fact checking record. That's why I suggested searching for other sources to confirm what these guys had to say. I'd be cautious to use Svet Plus as the only source for something, I'd prefer to see another source confirm the claims. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. See if you can another source to confirm the claims. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Line producer - undue?

This addition of a line producer seems like an WP:UNDUE weight issue - comments? F911 had 19 various producers; more generally, which types are significant enough to warrant mention? MOS:FILM appears to be silent on this. Rostz (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FILM is silent on this because no-one actually agrees on it. My personal view is that only the actual credited producers should automatically be listed, but no doubt someone will be along shortly with an opposing view. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rostz, I think that regardless, no one other than a "Producer" should be in the "Producer" field. That isn't a general category, it's specifically for people credited as "Producer". If they were credited as a "Line producer" or "Associate producer" or even an "Executive producer" then they do not belong strictly on the grounds that they are in the wrong category. We don't put "2nd unit director" in the "Directed by" field, because it isn't the same job, just like those are not the same job as "Producer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did actually start a discussion on the Film Infobox about this, that we once and for all make a decision about this. So far only betty, Gothicfilm and RingCinema have participated. I urge everyone to go here and have a say so that we no longer have to keep having this same discussion and can just say "See Infobox:Film" . Discussion is hereDarkwarriorblake (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion is still rumbling on over at Infobox:Film, and the dispute seems to be more over the producer/executive producer credit; there is no-one arguing for the inclusion of "line producer", so I think it is reasonable to assume there is a tacit consensus for not including the line producer in the infobox. If anyone disagrees with this assessment just strike out this comment. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD

An AfD is going on here. If anyone is interested, please comment. X.One ^SOS 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible split of List of film and television directors

There was an AfD a couple of months ago which highlighted certain failings of this article. Anyone have anything to add to this discussion regarding a possible split? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)