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
Did you know 12 Sep 2024 – The Taehongdang Party Secretary (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Chipmunkdavis (t · c); see discussion 09 Sep 2024 – 48th Hong Kong International Film Festival (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 30 Aug 2024 – Eniaios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hinnk (t · c); see discussion 30 Aug 2024 – The Right and the Wrong (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Slgrandson (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Over My Dead Body (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – IMAX Melbourne (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Mjks28 (t · c); see discussion 28 Aug 2024 – Norma Phillips (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Silver seren (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2024 – List of accolades received by Joe Hisaishi (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TechnoSquirrel69 (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2024 – Time (2021 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 22 Aug 2024 – G Affairs (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion (1 more...) Featured article candidates 26 Aug 2024 – Starship Troopers (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion 21 Aug 2024 – Godzilla Minus One (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion 04 Aug 2024 – Troika (1969 film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Paleface Jack (t · c); see discussion 08 Sep 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) FA nominated by TrademarkedTWOrantula (t · c) was not promoted; see discussion Featured list candidates 31 Jul 2024 – List of accolades received by Carol (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Lapadite (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 10 Sep 2024 – Cinderella III: A Twist in Time (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 09 Sep 2024 – Pulgasari (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); start discussion 20 Aug 2024 – Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); see discussion 13 Aug 2024 – Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gb321 (t · c); see discussion 03 Aug 2024 – Manifesto (2015 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lapadite (t · c); start discussion 12 Jul 2024 – Migration (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); start discussion 04 Jul 2024 – Kubrick stare (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bremps (t · c); see discussion 01 Jul 2024 – Buzz Lightyear (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 28 Jun 2024 – Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by De Disney (t · c); start discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion (5 more...) Featured article reviews 02 Sep 2024 – E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by TenPoundHammer (t · c); see discussion Featured list removal candidates 16 Aug 2024 – List of Indian winners and nominees of the Academy Awards (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for FL removal by GeniusTaker (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 02 Sep 2024 – Beetlejuice (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Zmbro (t · c) was closed; see discussion Requests for comments 28 Aug 2024 – Deadpool & Wolverine (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by BarntToust (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

List of fiction works made into feature films

These lists could use some tidying up (they don't link between one another for example), but before I take a look, what do we think of the title? I'd prefer "fictional". Also the brackets and ampersand at the end of "List of fiction works made into feature films (0-9) & (A-C)" don't sit quite right to me, but not sure how to improve these.

Category for films by composer

Perhaps Category:Film scores by composer was intended for articles about film scores, but its subcats currently seem to be used mainly for films categorised by the composer who scored them. I recently created Category:Soundtracks by composer which is now used for film score (soundtrack) albums.

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Category:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman for a suggestion to rename the "Film scores by composer " categories to e.g. "Films scored by". – Fayenatic London 13:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Creating a MOS for Years in film articles

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking for further input to take this forward. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed

Greed (film) is currently a FA candidate here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (film)/archive3 is anyone is interested.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Shrek page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Godfather 2 box office figure

Please see this discussion (and ongoing edit war) about the dispute about the box office figure for The Godfather Part II. On a side note, did we ever get a consensus about which site is the prefered one when it comes to using figures for this field? I see some lengthy discussions in the archives about BOM and The Numbers, but can't see anything concrete. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It depends, they both are regarded as reliable sources. If there is a disparity try to corroborate the figure (like at Boxoffice.com). Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films at FLC

Hello. This is a neutral notice to inform the project that List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is currently a Featured List candidate. All are welcome to review it, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of quote boxes in the reception section

Is there a MOS on this? Does anyone else think this is overkill? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Their usage in that article is overkill. I think quote boxes are ok if they are used judiciously (they can help break up big blocks of text in a section where images are not really appropriate) but any more than a couple is overdoing it. All of those are just poster soundbites apart from the very last quote. Betty Logan (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Betty. I don't find these particular quotes insightful enough to highlight, and the combined use makes the presentation appear celebratory of the film when Wikipedia should be writing neutrally about the topic. In terms of guidelines, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says long quotes are appropriate for blocks, so this case is clearly overdoing it (except for the Stratton quote). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both Betty Logan and Erik. Both make valid points about the use breaking up what otherwise might be a monolithic block of text, while too many mess with the neutrality. The lack of adherence to MOS:Blockquote makes this particular example an easy call. Onel5969 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Tangled soundtrack cover image

At the film article Tangled, the "Soundtrack" section includes the non-free image of the soundtrack cover. The image has been posted at WP:FFD to evaluate its compliance with image policies and guidelines. The discussion can be seen here. A previous FFD was had on February 2013 and can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Satanism

I'm surprised to see no category connecting films about satanism or featuring the devil's child theme. We just have Demons in film. Shouldn't we have a category connecting films like Rosemary's Baby and The Omen? Not that it is to my specific interest hehe but I would find it useful as a film buff knowing similar themed films for browsing because they make good horror films!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. It looks like we have Devil in popular culture#Film, but I'd support that being a separate list that could be revised and also included in the film articles' "See also" sections. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How would be define such a category though? I mean, some films actually feature devil worshipping (like Rosemary's Baby) while others simply happen to have references to the devil rather than being specifically about satanism. I mean could you classify a film such as Don't Look Now as a film about Satanism. I don't think so, but it clearly drifts into the occult. I think we probably need at least two categories One Category:Films about Satanism, Category:Demons in film, Category:Films about exorcism and some which is related and can be a subcategory of the paranormal of supernatural thriller films which involve the devil in some form. I don't want too many separate categories but I definitely think a Films about or involving Satanism or the devil would be a good idea. I think we need a mother category to connect the ones like the Demons in films and Films about exorcism etc What name would be ideal to you? Category:Films about Satan might be more ideal than Films about Satanism as a form of worship? Or Category:Films with a Satanic theme? The latter for me is more ideal I think as it would cover all without implying it is actually about the practice of worship or purely about Satan. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "Films about Satanism" (basically devil worshipping) and "Films about Satan" (the big guy or his offspring literally puts in appearance himself) are subtly different: "Race the Devil" would come under the former and "The Exorcist" under the latter; "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Omen" would come under both. Meanwhile, an occult film like "Don't Look Now" wouldn't fall into either category, so maybe "Occult films" would be best if you want a category that groups all of these films together. Maybe "Satanic films" if you just want to focus on films with a Satan theme. Betty Logan (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hi. Please consider merging Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata to Proloy (film). I have added the appropriate templates. Jayakumar RG (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Dollars in film articles and Infoboxes

As I do editing I have been rounding gross dollars, opening dollars etc from the numbers to the nearest dollar ($123,456,789) to something like $123 million typically to nearest million or houndred thousands (2-3 significant figures) per MOS:LARGENUM. There has been some kick-back by editors, insisting that other films use all (as they have not set the the MOS:LARGENUM or insisting that the whole number be used since that is what it is in the citation. To me a citation is sometimes quoted, but since we are not adding quotes, it is no different than paraphrasing the content from the source and adding the relevant info. Could something be done to decide if MOS:LARGENUM is or is not appropriate and if so, try to make it more clear (explicitly mentioning the practice in the Template:Infobox film for example and even mentioning film grosses as an example in MOS:LARGENUM to better ensure that the editors understand what the style is so there more consensus. Thanks.AbramTerger (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you on The Dark Knight Rises article not because you rounded but because you rounded too much. The precision we should round to depends on the context: if something has earned $998,944,111 then I have no problem with rounding that to $999 million; but if something has earned $999,944,111 then I disagree with rounding it to $1 billion because it fundamentally alters the context of the achievement, and $999.9 million would be more appropriate in such a scenario. MOS:LARGENUM is quite explicit on this point: Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should appear in articles only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. Therefore box-office numbers should be precise to the point that they serve the purpose of valid comparison, but not more so. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I just had a situation like this recently, though only in the sense that I wasn't sure whether we should be using exact figures or rounded ones. Any editor claiming that other articles do things a different way should be referred to WP:OTHERSTUFF...not just in this case, but in general. I think if a reference is available with a specific figure then I'd personally prefer to see the specific figure, cited. But generally rounding seems reasonable to me. As for the specifics of how the number should be rounded, I think I'm inclined to agree with Betty on this, but I'd also be curious to hear from other editors. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand Betty's distinction and I will respect the edits she made, but I disagree to some degree. I think we need to have a certain number of significant figures. If we choose 3 then $999,944,111 will be $1.00 billion if we go to 4 sig figs than $999.9 million. It is a summary and a rounding. But some of the edits of mine, Betty wants 5 significant digits. She also seem adverse to round any numbers up. But as I said, I can live with her edits, I started this discussion, not because of your edits, but since there are other editors who want all the numbers to the dollar. I think for the context we are discussing 3 sig figs should be sufficient. I also prefer, if appropriate using $1.06 billion rather than $1,056.2 million, but I will live with the consensus of editors when an appropriate style is accepted. Also even if the sources give all the figures, they are still generally approximate. It seems no different than what we do with most articles. We don't quote everything, we edit and paraphrase what a source states for the context. The citation is there if more details are desired, the wiki article is not the source.AbramTerger (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think three or four significant figures are appropriate for the sort of analysis we have generally have in prose, but it really depends on what you are comparing, what other records are and how close the figures are to important thresholds. It also depends on the presentation too: tables can accommodate higher precision than prose so it's very difficult to specify how exact the numbers should be. Anyway, these are the edits in question: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to apply the significant-figure logic here, but if a film makes millions but not a billion per se, I round to the nearest hundred thousand. I think this makes sense because in terms of box office competition, that rounding is usually enough to differentiate competitors. There are probably not many cases where the ranking comes down to a difference in tens of thousands, if that makes sense. I haven't tried rounding any billion-dollar figures, so I don't have any good feedback there. For films that are less than $1 million, though, I tend to report the full number, though I'm not sure if that's an approach consistent with the million-dollar one. In general, I know that a lot of articles just write the full figures as Box Office Mojo or The Numbers report them, but I think rounding is beneficial because it is less clunky to use in prose, and we don't need that granularity (knowing how many tens of thousands for a film grossing millions). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The "million" seems to be the fundamental unit in film finance, so precision to 1 decimal place of that unit seems to be sensible to me. In a scientific/economic context the general rule of thumb is to allow one extra degree of precision beyond what you actually need, so if further calculations are performed on the figures the inaccuracies that creep in only affect the numbers after the required level of precision. However, that is only a soft rule because you may need more precision depending on the context i.e. records that are separated by a greated degree of precision/sums that are close to a significant threshold/films that earn less than a million etc. It seems to me no-one is actually arguing against roundin here, it's just a disagreement over the general level of precision. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"For films that are less than $1 million, though, I tend to report the full number" - This. Also on the rationale that we write "minutes" and not "min" in the runtime field, as there's space to do so and no good reason not to. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest for $10,000 up to (but not including) $1,000,000 that one can use the thousands value to 1 decimal point, akin to the above millions to one decimal point. Below $10,000, the exact number makes sense (if such a thing can exist for films). --MASEM (t) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be remembered that MOS:LARGENUM, like all else here at WikiP, is a guideline not a hard and fast rule. Also, several of the examples given at the guideline use precise numbers. IMO if the reference gives exact figures there is no reason that we shouldn't use those. If we are going to start rounding those numbers up or down the we should include the words "over" or "under" with the number we put in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If I may, I'll list dummy figures so we can see what to do with them:

• $1,234,567,891 → $1.2 billion or $1.23 billion or $1.235 billion
• $123,456,789 → $123.5 million
• $12,345,678 → $12.3 million (is this right?)
• $1,234,567 → $1.2 million
• $123,456 → $123,456 or $123.4 thousand or $123 thousand
• $12,345 → $12,345 or $12.3 thousand or $12 thousand
• $1,234 → $1,234

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: The numbers come from databases, so they are going to be precise. However, in journalistic coverage, rounding takes place, as seen here. That's why I favor rounding box office figures in running text. I'd prefer to do that in the infobox too, but maybe the infobox figures could be precise with the running-text figures being rounded. I don't know if that jibes with others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Using the terminology "Over/Under 1.2 million" works well in the text but clutters the infobox. Thus, my preference would be for precision in the infobox and flexibility in the text. That is just me though so whatever everyone else agrees on will be fine. MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A consideration is that you will have the box office numbers which are normally reported to the dollar, but then you have production values which are rarely 2-3 significant figures. In the infobox, I find it jarring to have the "exact" box office next to the rough production estimate, and so one consideration would be to try to normalize these values , where appropriate. Eg Captain America: The First Avenger, instead of how it is now, I'd rather see the box office to "$371 million" so that I can easily see that the box office was about 3 times the production cost, a quick metric on the film's financial success. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

for a better comparison sake, do we put everything in the gross into terms of a million? For example instead of $1,234,567,891 being listed as $1.235 billion, it has been suggested by at least one editor to use something like $1,234.6 million, which also would suggest $123,456 could be compared better as $0.1235 million. I don't think it is done in accounting much, but it would make the grosses easier to compare (if that is the intent) if they were all put into units of millions of dollars. Personally I would prefer the billion and thousands, but I can live with either one.192.122.250.248 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think $1,000 million is better than $1 billion in word form just so it's explicitly clear: depending on which country you come from and which generation you come from a "billion" can either mean 1000 million or 1 million million. I think when you are dealing which numbers it's best not to use terminology that can potentially confuse people, which could potentially happen if we don't provide the full figure. That's just my preference though; there is no policy or guideline backing that view up. As for "thousands", 100,000 is the same everywhere so there is no reason to decimalise it to a million. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like MOS:NUMERAL says, "billion and trillion are understood to represent their short-scale values of 10⁹ and 10¹², respectively." Based on this, I think it would be better to use the term "billion" in film articles like Frozen. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The MOS is there to tell us how to write articles, but they are not very useful in telling readers how to read articles. Therefore, if I write "1 billion" then it should use the short scale, but that doesn't mean there won't be confusion over how it's read! As you can see at Long_and_short_scales#Current_usage, usage is divided across the world and so is the English Wikipedia's readership so frankly I don't see how that MOS guideline helps readers at all. I suppose this is where there is an advantage to having the precise figure. Betty Logan (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I do believe it's better to stick to the million though, only because we've (yet) to see a movie with a >billion (10^9) dollar budget even though the box office can exceed that. Again, like with Frozen, I would think it is much clearly and easily to understand in the infobox to say:

• Budget: $150 million
• Box Office: $1,169 million

I can tell immediately that the film drew nearly a magnitude over the budget and can tell how successful that was, than if the box office was "$1.17 billion". --MASEM (t) 17:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

CfD for Category:Film shooting locations

There is a discussion on whether this category should be deleted. If you would like to express an opinion, please voice it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 28#Category:Film shooting locations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Travel documentary, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Category:Tech noir at CFD

There's an open CFD discussion on Category:Tech noir that could use additional opinions. You're invited to join the discussion. DonIago (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IP edits to check

Could someone check the edits by 90.206.243.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Two of the edits were clearly inappropriate category additions (Category:American criminal comedy films to Now You See Me (film) and The Usual Suspects), but I don't know enough to check their other edits. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Checked out his edits. 3 were actually correct, (Gandolfini, the New World and Mulan), but the rest were clearly incorrect, or, in the case of Tarzan and Frollo, possible vandalism.Onel5969 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Two correct edits followed by a mixture of wrong, dubious, and correct edits... Does sound like an attempt at sneaky vandalism. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be adding random BLP-issue categories to articles such as Zapp Brannigan and Glenn Quagmire. Yes, I know they're fictional individuals, but I assume the same thing applies (no source, no category). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Navigation templates

In the guidelines, we endorse navigation templates for directors but not for actors. The guidelines do not say anything about producers and screenwriters. I've been seeing template creep in which director templates are being converted into more general templates, showing the person's credits as a producer, as a screenwriter, or both. There are even screenwriter-only templates like {{Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci}}. I assume this kind of thing is not very visible to most of us since we do not normally watchlist templates. I feel like we are bloating the footer with such expanded templates when the internal links to the filmmakers' pages are sufficient. What are other editors' thoughts about their usage? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Directors are often regarded as the "primary author" of a film; there are exceptions (George Lucas and Star Wars for example) but I think exceptions should only ever be treated as a special case when they occur. I certainly don't agree that we need producer and screenwriter navboxes on each and every film article. If you have too many navboxes on an article you dilute their effectiveness. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of {{Guillermo del Toro}}? How much of the non-directed stuff should we include? (Same goes for other editors.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that this discussion has come up before, but nothing came of it. Does it create template clutter? Is there a downside to having sections for directed/wrote/produced in the same template? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Navigation templates are supposed to be bidirectional, so if we include a link in a navigation template, that article should have the navigation template in its footer. For Guillermo del Toro, he was one of the four writers for The Desolation of Smaug, so his template is inserted at The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, even though he last touched the trilogy in May 2010. (And look, we have {{Fran Walsh}} too, whose template is probably repeated across everything she's been involved in.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether you subscribe to auteur theory or not I suppose the idea behind our navboxes is to link films that are often discussed as a set by reliable sources. This usually applies to directors which is why director boxes are commonplace; the concept occasionally applies to other disciplines too (producers like George Lucas, and maybe writers like Charlie Kaufman and David Mamet). Personally I don't think we even need navboxes for every director, just those where substantial reliable sources discuss their work collectively; in the case of something like The Empire Strikes Back the George Lucas navbox makes more sense to me than the Irvin Kirshner one. I think we can probably turn a blind eye to the "non-auteur" director navboxes since for better or for worse they have become an established feature on film articles but in the case of producers and writers etc I think a rationale should be presented to justify the existence of the box. As for something like del Toro's navbox personally I would strip it back down to director credits only. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you said about director boxes. I'd also like to see writing and producing credits rolled back, but I'm hoping for additional input before taking broad action. (For example, I was just looking at Edge of Tomorrow (film) and noticed {{Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci}} in the footer; they seem to be screenwriters of no real repute.) Whether or not we update the guidelines based on the additional input, I think it would be a good idea to watchlist such templates so they do not get bloated again. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've put {{Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci}} up for deletion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Film vs, television

List of useable sources: here

I think an article discussing the battle between TV and film within showbusiness would be very interesting. Topics would include the stigma regarding TV being a lower-grade form of entertainment that film, and the implication of stars from medium hopping over to the other (a common practice back in the mid 20th century that has come back full force in the past couple of years). Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Drivers Wanted (Documentary) and Drivers Wanted

Dear film experts: It looks to me as though the mainspace article here has information about two different films. I'd like to move the Afc draft to mainspace as "Drivers Wanted (2012 film), remove the information about the documentary from the current article, and create a disambiguation page. Does anyone see a problem with this? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Be bold! It definitely should be broken into two separate articles, since the two pieces of film have absolutely nothing to do with one another.Onel5969 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Production company in film infobox

I am proposing that we add a "Production company" field to the film infobox. The proposal can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Footloose plot section

Could someone who saw Footloose give the article a plot section? It's completely blank and not there for some reason. Surely no one is crying spoilers after 30 years? Rusted AutoParts 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It was removed by an IP editor by vandalism, and the editor that removed the vandalism didn't restore the plot. I reverted the article to the last complete version. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Rusted AutoParts 14:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Describing WP:FILMPLOT as a guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries

Opinions are needed on this matter (WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#WikiProjects don't write guidelines?. It's mainly about whether or not it's best to describe WP:FILMPLOT as a guideline or to convey it as advice, but the discussion touches on other things as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)