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
Today's featured article requests 21 Jan 2025 – Ada Wong (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Did you know 05 Nov 2024 – Miss Shampoo (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 24 Oct 2024 – Marcia Moore (actress) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Silver seren (t · c); see discussion 24 Oct 2024 – A Nail Clipper Romance (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 23 Oct 2024 – Yan Ruisheng (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 20 Oct 2024 – Feelie (Brave New World) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 19 Oct 2024 – Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Zanahary (t · c); see discussion 15 Oct 2024 – Yen and Ai-Lee (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 28 Sep 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 10 Nov 2024 – 2001: A Space Odyssey (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ægc's friendly xbox alt (t · c); see discussion 29 Oct 2024 – Overdrawn at the Memory Bank (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by GamerPro64 (t · c); see discussion 28 Oct 2024 – Pulgasari (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion 15 Oct 2024 – John Wick (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 08 Oct 2024 – List of accolades received by Jojo Rabbit (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 15 Sep 2024 – List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 09 Nov 2024 – United Palace (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Epicgenius (t · c); start discussion 07 Nov 2024 – Bullet hit squib (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Adenosine Triphosphate (t · c); start discussion 25 Oct 2024 – Mr. McMahon (miniseries) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Royiswariii (t · c); start discussion 24 Oct 2024 – Alien: Romulus (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lankyant (t · c); start discussion 24 Oct 2024 – The Hunt for Gollum (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion 23 Oct 2024 – Yan Ruisheng (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); start discussion 19 Oct 2024 – Daredevil (Marvel Comics character) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Wrangler1981 (t · c); start discussion 12 Oct 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 08 Oct 2024 – Mufasa (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 01 Oct 2024 – Itim (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mushy Yank (t · c); start discussion (8 more...) Good article reassessments 05 Oct 2024 – Walt Disney Animation Studios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 18 Oct 2024 – How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by M48SKY (t · c); see discussion 09 Oct 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion 27 Sep 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by FishLoveHam (t · c); see discussion 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

Child category definition

The instructions for Category:Child characters in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) state "As with real children, the term refers to characters who are understood to be biologically and/or chronologically under age 21 during the course of a film in which they are depicted." The age of 20 is far beyond the age of childhood for science and numerous religions. The sourced info in our article child states "is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty" and the sourced info in the puberty article gives the ages of 10-11 for girls and 11-12 for boys. I propose that we change the wording in the instructions to give the age of 12 as the cutoff for this category. Now if we want to use 13 or even 14 to error on the side of caution that would be okay but IMO this cat should not be in articles where the young characters are older than 14. Any and all input on this will be appreciated. When a consensus is reached we should add the new instructions to the cat page and to WP:MOSFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Age 20 is clearly too old to categorize as a child (well, unless there are significant competence issues). While the age of majority (legal adulthood) varies, legal adulthood is usually categorized as age 18. It's rare that a person is not considered an adult until age 20 or 21. As the Child article states, there is the biological definition of what it means to be a child, and there is the legal definition of what it means to be a child. I'm not sure which definition the aforementioned category should follow. Maybe we should have a teenage category for teenage characters? Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that MJBurrage has addressed the matter at Category talk:Child characters in film. Also, above I changed the title of the heading from "Category definition" to "Child category definition" to make it clearer as to what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea of adding a "teenagers in film" category is an excellent solution. That way the child cat could be birth to 12 and teen cat could be 13 to 19. This would address several of the issues raised by the current situation. MarnetteD|Talk 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the onset of puberty is variable—and the age of majority is not universally 18—I would support adding a "category:Teenage characters in film" category for age 13–19, and then making category:Child characters in film for age 12 and under. There should also probably be a note at each category, to the effect that most relevant articles should only be added to the category most relevant to the characters story arc. For example the Harry Potter characters are not quite teens when the series starts, but the story-arc is significantly more relevant to their teen years than to their pre-teen childhood. ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with all the above comments. "Child category": birth to 12 years old. 'Teenage category": 13 to 17 - but not to 19. IMHO, anyone 18 years old and above is an adult. - Xenxax (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the overall sentiments expressed so far, but I'm not sure we can have a practical hard cut-off age. It is not always clear how old a character is supposed to be and actors often play younger than they are. I agree with having two categories and we should have a "soft" split between children (defined as being pre-pubescent) and adolescents. Someone like Lolita, for example, could probably be added to both categories. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Betty, your comment makes good sense to me. - Xenxax (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks to all for the input. I understand what you are saying Xenxax but eighteen and nineteen year olds are still "teens" though they can be considered adults legally so I don't see a problem with using the cat. As to Betty Logan's point some leeway is always allowable per WP:IAR. We can also default to WP:CATDEF and make sure that any use of the categories is based on reliably sourced info in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, 18 to 19-year-olds are teenagers regardless of whether or not they are adults by the age of majority in their countries. By the way, I recently reverted MagicatthemovieS on a child category matter (see here) and pointed him to this discussion. Looking at his contributions, he has added that category to other articles about characters who were/are teenagers below the age of 18. His edit that I reverted at the Buffy Summers article was based on the fact that Buffy was originally below the age of 18. So while it might seem wise to argue that these categories need to be clear that they are about what the characters' current age is, fiction is in present tense. In other words, for example, Buffy Summers is age 16 to a person just beginning the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series or watching the show at that point in time. It's like what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries states: By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE). At any particular point in the story there is a "past" and a "future", but whether something is "past" or "future" changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous "present". So we are likely to end up with characters being placed in both categories. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:MagicatthemovieS here. I'm not sure about the idea that we should categorize a character's age based on what their "current" age is. This again creates confusion. For instance, Alice is clearly a child in the 1951 film Alice in Wonderland, but she is 19 years old in the 2010 film Alice in Wonderland. The two Alice's exist in different continuities, so should Alice be counted as a child character or not? I propose that a character be considered a "child character" as long as they appear in at least one film where they are under 18 for a significant portion of the film's run time. This would classify Buffy Summers as a child character, as she is a high schooler in the 1992 theatrically-released film which bears her name. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2015 ‎(UTC)

MagicatthemovieS, remember to sign your username for your comments; I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As usual, I agree with Flyer22. There's no reason why we can't put articles into multiple categories. One example is a film that fits into multiple, possibly conflicting genres, such as "romantic comedy" and "zombie film". You might have seen a British film like that in 2004. Another example is when a film is shot or set in both New York City and Los Angeles. We don't pick and choose between the locations; we source and list them all in the categories. Likewise, if a character is depicted as both a child and a teenager, we can list both categories. They do not cancel each other out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

MagicatthemovieS, why did you re-add the child category to the Buffy Summers article when this discussion is not yet resolved? There is general agreement in this section that the child category should not include teenagers. Once the teenager category is created, you can place Buffy in that category. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that there is now a Category:Teenage characters in film, and thought we might want to consider better defining that as part of this discussion. I.E. should it be renamed Category:Adolescent characters in film, and be focused on that stage of development—i.e from the onset of puberty (around age 13) though the age of majority (generally age 18)—rather than strictly just teenager (age 13–19).

I for one would favour the latter, and thus not include (for example) Sarah Connor (Terminator) in the category, since she is treated as an adult (despite being 18/19) in the original film.

―MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at MJB but IMO making decisions like that are subjective and can lead to all sorts of back and forth and even ecit warring over who is and isn't an adolescent. It is always worth remembering the instructions at WP:CATDEF. Since cats need verifiable sourced info and should be a defining characteristic I am not sure how often references to adolescence will be available. The given age of a character (most times) is much easier to define. MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Yes, MJBurrage, with this edit, I noticed that MagicatthemovieS created Category:Teenage characters in film and defined it. I think the Category:Teenage characters in film is a better title than Category:Adolescent characters in film; this is because, as noted by the Adolescence article, even scholars sometimes disagree on what adolescence is; it is not always interchangeable with the teenage years. The teenage years, however, are undoubtedly ages 13-19. With the way that MagicatthemovieS defined Category:Teenage characters in film, the Sarah Connor (Terminator) character certainly does not need to be in the category. MagicatthemovieS's definition states: "This is a category for film characters between the ages of 13 and 19. In the case of characters who mature to adulthood in the course of the story, articles should only be included in this category if the character's teenage experiences form a notable part of the story." There has never been an onscreen focus with regard to Sarah Connor being a teenager. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The catch that I see in have an age range first, and then a detailed explanation that uses the phrase "teenage years" or teenager, is examples like Sarah Connor, who is literally in her "teenage years" for the whole first film (18 at beginning of film, 19 when JC born), but is not an adolescent.

I think that we all agree that we want the category to be for those characters that are no longer "children", and are not yet adults. The problem is that in common usage "teenager" and "teen years" are equivalent to the more accurate term adolescent, while strictly speaking teen also includes some adults.

So no matter what we call it, and no matter how we parse the explanation, there will still have to be judgement calls for characters at either end of adolescence.

So we might as well name and define the category to explain the rational behind such judgement calls.

For example which category would you put a character, who is 12, in a story about the pressures from some peers to become sexually active? ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

MJBurrage, I just now read your reply; I don't understand what you mean by stating that Sarah Connor is a teenager but not an adolescent; she is both a teenager and adolescent. A teenager is an adolescent (unless one wants to state that a teenager must first be pubescent; either way, teenagers these days are usually pubescent). But not all adolescents are teenagers. Again, see what the Adolescence article states about defining adolescence. Adolescence does not automatically end at age 18; it's just that age 18 is a rough marker for when legal adulthood usually begins. Per what I stated above, I still prefer the title "Category:Teenage characters in film" to "Category:Adolescent characters in film"; it's cleaner and will not result in as much debate as "Category:Adolescent characters in film" would. I know that the term teenager is usually associated with adolescence; the Adolescence article is also clear about that. But I am still opposed to having Category:Adolescent characters in film. As to your question, I would place the 12-year-old in the child category even if the 12-year-old is adolescent. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In general usage, "teenager" is equated with adolescence, i.e. someone who is not yet an adult. The Sarah Connor character is already an adult at the start of the film. So while putting her in a "teenage" category is pedantically true, is not correct based on how people use and interpret "teenager". ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 08:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MJBurrage, I stated above, "With the way that MagicatthemovieS defined Category:Teenage characters in film, the Sarah Connor (Terminator) character certainly does not need to be in the category. MagicatthemovieS's definition states: 'This is a category for film characters between the ages of 13 and 19. In the case of characters who mature to adulthood in the course of the story, articles should only be included in this category if the character's teenage experiences form a notable part of the story.' There has never been an onscreen focus with regard to Sarah Connor being a teenager." So you can argue that Sarah Connor should not be placed in the teenager category. That stated, I don't see the problem with labeling Sarah Connor a teenager if one is judging her by the first film. People know that age 18 is both a teenager and an adult, usually anyway (going by the typical age of majority). When people think of "teenager," they may not automatically think of age 18, but they are quite aware that age 18 is a teenager. Furthermore, many older adults still consider late teenagers and early 20-somethings to be "kids."

Anyway, what do you and others think of Goustien adding Category:Child characters in film to Category:Teenage characters in film? Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see the age definition has changed at Category:Child characters in film. Would it be appropriate to add Category:Teens in fiction or Category:Teen films? Goustien (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tin Tin Move Request

A Move request has been asked for by a user at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Requested move 30 January 2015.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The lengthy talkpage discussions make me feel much better about myself. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

When I posted the same notice, User:Jojhutton had no problem accusing me of "WP:canvassing". And it's spelled "Tintin". Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bazinga. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Prhartcom, it's perfectly acceptable to leave messages at talk pages to inform other editors about discussions. What I thought you did was violate the section of WP:CAVASS at WP:VOTESTACKING. You left several seemingly random messages at various editors' talk pages, informing them of the move request. And they all, here's a shocker, agreed with not only your move request, but date issue as well. A little back tracking finds that the same editors whom you left messages for, also participated in a recent previous discussion with you, and again here's another shocker, they were on your side. It's okay to leave messages to inform editors about discussions, but not if your intent is to stack the vote in your favor, which it appears you did in this case. JOJ ^Hutton 16:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that this is not canvassing. The notification was posted to the relevant WikiProject and was neutrally worded, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a fine line between comprehensive and excessive

For example, this. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not need ceremony location and date as it is pretty extraneous. I don't know about "Lost to". It's not a bad piece of information, but I don't think it is commonly shared in most awards tables. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. Those tables are a bit of a mess. This is a good example of an organized awards table. Lapadite (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the section on rates appropriate? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Erik, the "date" section is usually used to link to the specific ceremony, while the "Award" section is used for linking to the overall ceremony. For instance, take a look at the accolade pages for American Hustle and Her. Both featured lists, and both include the "Date of ceremony" to link to the specific one where applicable. Otherwise, yeah, trim the excess. Sock (tock talk) 10:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I don't find that stars and grades from reviews count as accolades. Sock, I'll admit I don't follow these list articles too closely. Still, it seems like the "Date of ceremony" links go against WP:EGG. I guess I would prefer a different way to link to a year-specific list, maybe like "(53rd)" being linked after whatever the award is. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, I would say that "rates" table is unnecessary.--Lapadite (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lapadite about "rates" tables being unnecessary. Opinion pieces by any and all critics and news sources are not that important. The only exception could be if the rating comes from a major industry source, but then significant awards and nominations should cover that. - Xenxax (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Night Will Fall and German Concentration Camps Factual Survey

More eyes on these two articles are requested. The first is an HBO documentary about the second. I'm concerned about the length of the "synopsis" section of Night Will Fall and the use of Night Will Fall as a source in German Concentration Camps Factual Survey. Verification is hampered a bit by Night Will Fall being an HBO documentary of limited availability. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal Tenenbaums on screen musicians not included in credits

My name is Gregor Kitzis. I was one of four musicians who appeared in the movie The Royal Tenenbaums but weren't listed in the credits even though we were seen and our music was heard for probably a full minute. I wrote to Wiki about this omission months ago but the article was never updated to include us. We all still get royalty checks and you can find enough photos of me on line that this is easily provable.

About ten minutes before the end of the movie a string quartet is seen and heard playing about a minute of The Hunt String Quartet by Mozart. Then a man crashes through a window landing at the feet of the musicians in a pile of broken glass. I was one of those musicians. That was me playing first violin, Adam Abeshouse playing second violin, a violist named Sasha something (I don't remember anymore) and a cellist named Karl Bennion. We were all members of the Orchestra of St. Luke's and were hired by Michael Feldman, who used to work for the orchestra.

We went to a beautiful old apartment in Harlem (New York City) to record the scene and Wes Anderson even coached our reaction scene. Our names were not listed in the credits, though oddly enough the studio musicians who played on the sound track (recorded in Los Angeles) but weren't on screen were listed. The first violinist in the sound track (Julie Gigante) and I both studied with the same violin teacher (Charlie Castleman) and I remember getting a phone call from him commenting on the fact that he recognized me in the movie but was surprised to see Julie's name in the credits rather than mine.

Please let me know if you can include our names in the article and if not then why.

Thank you, Gregor Kitzis gregor@gregorkitzis.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.124.186 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gregor. Wikipedia includes material that can be referenced from reliable and independent sources. In other words, if a reliable source highlights uncredited music in a film, that source can be referenced to mention that music. If there are no reliable sources that do this, then there is not a strong case to include that music. To avoid a conflict of interest here, any research done should try to identify all uncredited music for this film, not just this particular group. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Erik's comment about sources, there is an issue of undue weight. It is not unusual for a film to have dozens of actors who appear briefly in a film and have a line or two, but unless that person is otherwise notable, mentioning that appearance in a film article is mostly trivial. Lots of films involve scenes where music is heard on a radio, for example, but naming the song and performer in the article again is fairly trivial. So even if there were a reliable source available to support the information about the names of musicians and the music they played in a film it still might not be sufficiently significant to merit inclusion in an article. Whether this particular example of musical performance in the film is significant enough to include would ultimately be one that would be decided by discussion among Wikipedia editors who choose to become involved. My gut tells me that this would not pass that test, but I could be wrong. 99.192.59.202 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina Film Critics Association again

Another article with the same problems as the previous one has been created. Please comment on the AfD here. Sock (tock talk) 19:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to organise the "Controversies" section of "American Sniper"

There has been some back-and-forth partisan bickering over the "Controversies" section of the movie "American Sniper". The people who liked the film have wanted to defend it from criticism by either censoring it or, currently, allowing it extremely limited room, whereas one of the people who didn't like it has organised an entire Wikipedia page that likely goes into excessive detail, but which gained the consensus vote to be merged into the main section.

I am somewhere in the middle. I simply think that the more relevant criticism articles should be given more explanation, especially as the quoted counter-arguments from Clint Eastwood and Michelle Obama currently take up twice as much room as the criticism itself.

Other editors at the Talk page have stated that we should start categorising the Controversies section into different sentiments for a more coherent flow.

As a first step/draft, I have now read through all of the articles referenced within it, as well as a couple new ones, and attempted to briefly summarise the contents as best that I can within the Talk page. I would very much appreciate help from the community with compressing, structuring and organising the sentiments of the section into reading much better as an acceptable coherent text. As well as selecting which articles that are the most relevant and we should focus on.

Thank you very much for any assistance. David A (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Film External Link Templates

Hello. I am a new user to Wikipedia and I'm trying to figure out how to create a template similar to the templates on Category:Film external link templates. I would like our external links to be directed to the Margaret Herrick Library catalog. For example, for the Katharine Hepburn page, I would like to add the following under the 'External Links' section: Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This link will direct users to the Katharine Hepburn collection record in the Margaret Herrick Library catalog Katharine Hepburn papers, which notes that the library is the repository of her film and television papers. Ideally, the syntax for the template could be something along the lines of this: { {MHL catalog | Katharine Hepburn papers | bibID=xxxxx} }. Thank you.

Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lauren. I've given it a go. See this edit. The template is {{MHL catalog}}. I'll get round to adding the document sub-page later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you adjust the display of the external link so it says: 'Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' instead of 'Katharine Hepburn at the Margaret Herrick Library'? Thanks.

Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lauren that info is a bit to specific for the EL template to handle (though Lugnuts well correct me if I am wrong). You can pipe the link though like this {{MHL catalog|67192|Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences}}. IMO that is a bit long and unwieldy. I would be inclined to shorten it thus, {{MHL catalog|67192|Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, AMPASS}} but that it just me. Thanks for making all of this information available. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've kept the length of the text brief enough to give the reader an idea of what it relates to, and not too long that it over-whelms the link at the foot of the page. Compare the same length for the IMDB and TCM links on Hepburn's page, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the template to add the word "papers". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical response summary - was consensus ever achieved?

Hi WikiProject Film. I've come by here a few times over the years over this subject: was consensus ever established on the inclusion/exclusion of summaries like "Critical response was generally favorable" and "Critical response was generally negative"? I know that there is an almost unanimous hatred for "mixed to negative" and "mixed to positive", but I can't tell if the community ever agreed or disagreed to summarize the aggregators. (This came up today and provoked this question). It would be very helpful to see something added to the MOS on this. Love, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's probably better to try to establish WP:LOCALCONCENSUS on the article's talk page rather than trying to establish a hard and fast rule across every article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Cyphoidbom, I thought that the matter was clear from our most recent discussion about this before now: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Summary statement for "Reception" section. The result is essentially the same every time this is discussed here at this talk page or at the MOS:Film talk page. As noted in that discussion, editors are free to add a summary statement if the matter is, or can be, sufficiently sourced. Others might not want a summary statement even if the matter is, or can be, sufficiently sourced. Like TriiipleThreat stated, it is a case-by-case matter. Except for agreement to generally not use "mixed to negative" type of wording, there will never be any WP:Consensus on this among film editors, or editors in general. As noted in that aforementioned discussion, I prefer a summary statement in the critical reception section of a film article; no editor can convince me otherwise on that matter, unless I feel that the section is truly better off without a summary statement. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly it weren't too clear for my easily distracted brain... I want to make sure I understand this: There is no consensus for whether or not we include a summary--this is a case-by-case thing. But if editors do add a summary statement like "Critical response was generally positive", are we using the aggregators as the reference for that conclusion, or do we need a new reference that supports this conclusion? Also, I assume that if the aggregators are not in alignment (ex: Hey Arnold! The Movie and Marvel's Avengers) we would not summarize? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I generally remove any unsourced statements about reception. It's original research to post your own analysis of the reception. If the Los Angeles Times or Variety say that reviewers were mixed, that's fine. But to draw your own conclusions based on the five reviews you saw from a Google search is not allowed by policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, for the first question in your "19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)" post, I quote Sock (then Corvoe) from the aforementioned discussion: "Myself and some others' personal rule of thumb is if a reliable source categorizes the reviews as something (mostly positive, universally negative, etc.), we use that reference and that specific wording. If one doesn't exist, the standard procedure is to adapt Metacritic's wording into our own. Many try to use the Tomatometer as a gauge for critical acclaim, which is why The Avengers doesn't even have a critical summary anymore. While a 92% is impressive, it had an average score of 68/100 according to Metacritic, which is far from critical acclaim. On the other hand, films like All Is Lost are damn near unanimously positive, and it says 'critical acclaim'. Personally, I think any form of 'acclaim' should be avoided unless explicitly sourced, and should be replaced with 'nearly unanimous positive reviews' (like when Metacritic says a film received 'universal acclaim'). It's hard to standardize this, though."

For the second question in your "19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)" post, it can be a matter like what Sock stated regarding The Avengers, or we will summarize even if the aggregators are not in alignment. If critical reviews in the general media are typically in alignment with one of the aggregators, then I would take that to mean that this alignment is the critical consensus about that film. There is also the option of WP:In-text attribution for a summary matter that is not clear-cut; we can state "According to [so and so]." Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the point, the aggregators are in themselves a summary so why summarize a summary. Also keep in mind that the aggregators only summarize the reviews that they count so it's WP:OR to say the film recieved generally positive or negative reviews based on them. In order to be accurate you'd have to say "According to RottenTomatoes" the film recieved generally positive reviews. I know we all would like a nice clean cut statement to cover everything but it's just not that simple. I thinks it's best to just let the aggregators speak for themselves. Besides that's their job.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to know why I feel that it is generally best to include a summary statement can look to the aforementioned discussion about this topic that I linked to above; I don't want to repeat myself on that yet again. As for the WP:Original research policy, it is clear that "[t]he phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It then clarifies with a reference-note beside that statement the following: "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

So the vast majority of these summary statement cases are not WP:OR. WP:OR does not simply mean "unsourced." And many WP:Reliable sources base their critical reception summary of a film on what Rotten Tomatoes has stated and/or shows with its aggregator. I just don't see the matter as WP:OR, not unless there is no WP:Reliable source out there for the matter or unless it is WP:Synthesis. I usually don't see the problem with summary statements for critical reception sections; from what I have seen, they usually help our readers gauge the critical reception, which is why some of them add summary statements themselves to our film articles. The Avengers 2012 film is judged as a well-received film by the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, or at least it looks that way, and yet it still does not have a summary statement for its Critical response section. Perhaps it does not need one, but I certainly don't see the problem with it having one. And it's widespread critical appeal is only made clear in the lead by the lead stating "The film garnered numerous critical awards and nominations." Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

For cases such as this one at the Jupiter Ascending article, I am perfectly fine with there not being a summary statement. When the Rotten Tomatoes score is that low, I don't see why the film's reception should simply be categorized as "mixed." The Metacritic score is not that different in this case, since the film barely has a mixed score on that site. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Mixed to negative - Taking a brief detour, the virus has spread to reliable sources! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I know. It's strange that the CS Monitor would explicitly state that the reviews have been negative, then hedge their bets a few inches below that with "mixed to negative". I'm guessing that this is a newsblog that didn't get edited. Even scarier are the fact that The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have used it. Regardless, we have our own manual of style, and they don't have to write an formal encyclopedia. Even if William Safire used the word "irregardless", I would still say that it's nonsensical. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, before this discussion (on the same day it began, however), I noticed a WP:Reliable source use "mixed to negative" type of wording. In cases where editors are arguing over whether or not to use that type of wording, as was the case with the Transformers: Dark of the Moon article, I would suggest that they look for a WP:Reliable source using that wording. When I was somewhat involved with the aforementioned Transformers: Dark of the Moon dispute, I didn't think to do that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the WP:Reliable sources got that wording, and similar wording, from Wikipedia; after several years editing this site, I've seen how very influential Wikipedia is (for example, via reports at WP:Med that WP:Reliable sources have copied Wikipedia material). Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association redux

The recent AfD discussion was closed as delete, along with the associated sub-pages. Malcolmxl5 has removed all the links to the pages (check his edit history) and I've gone a step further and removed all mention of the award from pages that are on my watchlist (example). I think the previous consensus was to only list awards and festivals that are notable (have an article on WP), so any help removing the rest of them would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that AfD was from 2010. I recreated the article sometime last year or the year before with some details from Columbus Dispatch, Variety, and Time. It did strain to meet WP:ORGDEPTH, though, since while Columbus Dispatch had some coverage about the organization, it was not totally independent of it. Variety and Time had some award-specific commentary about the organization's awards on top of just listing them. Tenebrae proposed it for deletion, and because it had a previous AfD, the article was flagged as a potential speedy-deletion candidate. Verrai thus deleted it as such.

Since I wrote the article and based it on secondary sources as much as I could, I asked the admin how it compared to previous versions. They said, "The version deleted in the 2010 AfD was in fact significantly more in-depth than the most recent iteration. The version deleted in 2007 was similar but somewhat shorter. An article that has been deleted for non-notability at two separate AfDs, and deleted a total of five previous times, is not worth having yet another AfD discussion on when the new version covers the exact same substantive ground." I suspect that the so-called "in-depth" coverage was just details from the official website as well as the awards listing. I don't think I had WP:ORGDEPTH under consideration when I created it, but I have not recently found the kind of coverage to fit that. I searched online in Ohio newspapers, but nothing came up. A news database search may turn up something, or nothing at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

This is a neutral request for comments regarding a dispute about whether or not Sony's planned Spider-Man film is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. All are welcome to discuss at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Spider-Man & Sinister Six. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Release dates, and silent era Fox films

Ah, release dates. A quick tour through the archives here and at the infobox reveals they've been the topic of a lot of debate over the years, and I'm sad to say I'm here to write another chapter of it. I've been recently specializing in writing about films of the silent era. Specifically, I'm focusing on early Fox Film features, at least for now. In one sense, I'm fortunate: every single Fox Film feature release—from the very first Box Office Attractions production to the last Fox-produced movies released after the merger—has a specific, documented, reliably-sourced release date, akin to the "general release" date in modern cinema terminology.

But our style guide says that using that release date as the "release date" is wrong.

You see, some of these films had showings of one sort or another prior to their official studio release date. Unfortunately, these showings were (generally speaking) not very well documented. Nor were they all the same sort of thing. Especially for the films in the 1910s, there's not even standardized terminology used; this is way, way before such luxuries as standardized credits (or, often, credits at all!). Variously, they are "premieres", "pre-releases", "previews", "advances", "debuts", or probably twice that many other terms. Some were what we think of as modern premieres: gala presentations with select audiences (and/or ludicrously-inflated tickets) at prestige locations. Some were ... entirely private events that I suspect are more akin to a modern press screening. Most, there's no concrete data about, except that they happened.

For a lucky few films of the era, it's possible to cite the exact date of ... whatever you want to call the first time it played in a theater. The very first Box Office film, for example, was shown 20 October 1914 at Academy of Music in New York, an old once-renowned opera house acquired by William Fox and turned into a movie theater; it's official release date was 19 November. For many others, all that can be conclusively said is that there was a premiere showing. For perhaps the majority, it's simply impossible to say when or whether they were viewed at all before their official release.

I'm not comfortable replacing a list of documented release dates at something like List of Fox Film films (and pardon the dust there; it's taking me a bit to build a stand-alone list of 1000+ films where we formerly had a list of about a dozen, merged into another article) with a miscellaneous assortment of official release dates (when nothing else is extant), uncertain showings that I can't pin to an exact day (March 1915, and the like) and the lucky ones with actual dated premieres. That doesn't allow for apples-to-apples comparisons and I think it does the readership a disservice. Obviously, I intend to fully document release information, as best as reliable sources permit, as I write the articles on the films themselves. But there, too, we should demand internal consistency: if the studio film list is dated in one manner, so should be the director's filmography and the article itself (albeit, again, with other information discussed). I'm not really interested in changing the rules for modern films, where the definitions and dates can be reliably documented, but as with other topics (run time in reels vs. minutes, for example), the general case isn't always an ideal fit for the early days of cinema. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd simply go with the "general release" date you mention in your opening paragraph, unless you find sources that indicate an earlier release to the contrary. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would go with the formal premiere and the date it begins its proper cinema run in the infobox. If there are any previews, advance screenings etc then save those for the release section. The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) deals with this quite well. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I ran into the same issue dealing with the early RKO pictures. Per all prior discussions, the consensus was to use the earliest date, whether that date was a special viewing (like at a festival), a premiere, or the general release. My understanding of the further consensus was that if there was an earlier, special showing, that date, and the general release date could be used, specifying them in the infobox. This is the format I've been using on the RKO films. You can go to List of RKO films, and see that the list is by earliest viewing, with the general release mentioned in the notes. An example of the format I used can be found at Laugh and Get Rich. I hope this helps. It would be nice if we could be consistent. Onel5969 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that's compliant with the current style guidelines (although the archives show that this wasn't always particularly unified consensus), but I'm going to be honest; I don't much like it. I don't think we should be mixing release types under a single "release date" heading. Maybe the whole idea of finding a single date to call the release date is fundamentally flawed; perhaps we should talk about "general release" vs. "earliest release" (or ... something like that). But I think our first priority should be displaying consistent data to the readers. The early Fox stuff just makes the problem worse, since there are quite a few films that had premieres (of one sort or another) but where the exact date is apparently no longer available (e.g. "March 1917"). I'm not comfortable presenting all of that in the same field as though it provided the reader with a single, consistent chronology. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea of a "general release" is a flawed concept for many older films anyway. Gone with the Wind, for example, was already the highest-grossing film by the time of its general release in 1941 due to its roadshow. Many silents never had a general release, and were mostly exhibited on a states rights basis. There are two fundamental ways to think of a release date: i) as a publication date, which usually coincides with the official premiere; ii) when it is released to the paying public i.e. the general public can purchase a ticket and watch the film, whether that is a festival, a limited release or a wide release. Generally I just take the earlier date in these cases to keep it simple. If you want a "one size fits all" solution then I don't think one exists because release patterns have changed down the years. We have a space for relevant dates in the infobox and it is mostly left to editors to determine the relevant dates within reason. It is not all that uncommon to see a couple of dates in the infobox where editors have include a premiere and a formal release date. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Film industry

The Film industry article is in a pretty poor state, considering it's importance. I'll try to make some improvements, it'd be great if others joined in :)--Cattus ^talk 15:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Citizen Kane GA nomination

Hello, Citizen Kane is currently a Good article nominee. It would be great if it received some attention and good suggestions for improvements. Its listed as number one on the WikiProject Film Core List and would be a great addition to the GAs, and the FAs in the future. Personally I would like to see it improved and possibly promoted to FA for Orson Welles' 100th birthday on May 6th. It would be great if regular Film board people took an interest in this article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap. That's almost 24,000 words. You need to split that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That was the suggestion a couple of months ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 55#Citizen Kane article question. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, don't be shy about pitching in and getting the ball rolling. You could coordinate with the articles primary contributor User:WFinch in regards to the best way of splitting it, so long as there's consensus about the split.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

80, 000 Suspects

An IP editor is restoring speculation to the 80,000 Suspects article, as seen here. I think the material ("Despite the antiquity of the Film, and the fact that it was produced in monochrome, (black and white) there is a constant flow of old material appearing that relates to this production. Items for sale from various locations are mainly the "stills" (single frame image) posters used by distributors of this film in their quest to promote interest in it. Further research in this area may well uncover artifacts associated with this production left behind, and "recovered" by souvenir hunters at the various outdoor locations used") needs to stay out of the article as it is simply crystal-ball gazing speculation, not something that belongs in a reputable encyclopedia. I would be grateful if project members could comment on the talk page, or do whatever they see fit about this issue, as the IP is still edit warring to reinsert this original research, most recently here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New set of eyes on a discussion

Hello. This is a neutral notice to request some fresh eyes on a discussion over at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe. The discussion in question is trying to determine, based on all reliable sources available to us, if the recently announced deal between Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios for use of the Spider-Man character, unquestionably confirms or indicates that the upcoming 2017 Sony film is indeed a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

SpongeBob Movie 2 - Director

The infobox for our The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water article credits both Paul Tibbitt and Mike Mitchell. Although Mitchell directed the live-action sequences, I have seen no sources that credit both him and Tibbitt as co-directors. As such I think the infobox should just list Tibbitt's name. What do others think of this?Ryan Nohomersryan (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

At the official website, there is a "Credits" link that shows the billing block for the film. It says "Directed by Paul Tibbitt" at the end, and earlier it says "Live Action Direction Mike Mitchell". I think it is appropriate to say that Paul Tibbitt is the director in the infobox, but I think it is fine to mention Mike Mitchell in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Anal sex reference in Kingsman

Comments are welcome at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service#The anal sex gag at the end of the film as to whether a joke at the end of the film is worthy of inclusion in the plot summary of an grown up encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception section for Fifty Shades of Grey (film)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey (film)#critical reception. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)