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 articles 11 Jul 2024 – Still Reigning (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb 08 Jul 2024 – RoboCop (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 02 Jul 2024 – Twice a Man (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hinnk (t · c); see discussion 27 Jun 2024 – Pure Japanese (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 13 Jun 2024 – Infested (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 13 Jun 2024 – Beijing Watermelon (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Morgan695 (t · c); see discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Na O-mi (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Wuju Daisuki (t · c); see discussion 06 Jun 2024 – Breaking Through (2022 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Toadboy123 (t · c); see discussion 03 Jun 2024 – Kaur (short film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Whispyhistory (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – South by South Lawn (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 07 May 2024 – Peter Capaldi filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 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 26 Jun 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 25 Jun 2024 – The Black Phone (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Rogue One (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cocobb8 (t · c); start discussion 30 May 2024 – Mushu (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 16 May 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FishLoveHam (t · c); start discussion 13 May 2024 – Jane Fonda's Workout (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Binksternet (t · c); start discussion 26 Apr 2024 – 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion (7 more...) Featured article reviews 13 Jun 2024 – Jason Voorhees (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 19 Jun 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by TrademarkedTWOrantula (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Pan (2015 film)

Thoughts re: this edit? Seems like another loophole in the 'starring roles are determined by the poster billing block' guideline at Template:Infobox film. Levi Miller appears at the top of the theatrical poster. He plays Pan. Amanda Seyfried does not appear at the top of the poster, but she does get a credit in the billing block where Levi Miller does not. Should we exclude Levi Miller because he does not appear in the billing block? Or should we go by the top-of-poster billing, and then tack on Amanda Seyfried who is the only significant difference between the top of the poster and the bottom? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization in the title of the film

There's a discussion at Talk:Naughty but Nice (1939 film)#Ping BMK which folks at this project might be interested in participating in. Sure would be nice to get some opinions there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr Turner page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

List of women in film

Please see this AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Gold Diggers of Broadway

Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway#Technicolor, redux: Would Technicolor be considered a "studio" or "production company" for the purposes of the "studio" parameter on this article? BMK (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Joy (film)

[1][2] I don't ever recall a film being required to have "Scheduled for [date]" in the infobox. I find it unnecessary as it is sourced. Many other upcoming movies I have on my watchlist do not state any of this. I am asking for the community's opinion. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I've never seen that, either. I also think it's unnecessary, but it's a minor issue that I'd probably just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. It goes without saying that a date in the future is a scheduled date. That's why nobody says it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Black" and "Black American" vs. "African American" at the Viola Davis article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Viola Davis#WP:Citation overkill in the lead; also see the section started immediately below that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Assassin

There is an ongoing discussion about what poster image to use for the film infobox at The Assassin (2015 film). The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

2K resolution and 1080p

Hi, can someone weigh in at Talk:2K resolution#1080p? Thanks! Lonaowna (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

R U Professional - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the song "R U Professional" for Featured Article consideration.

It's a satirical song and a form of parody music using sampling.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Alien from Predator

At the moment, we have a template that covers the Alien franchise, the Predator franchise & Alien vs. Predator franchise. These are in the same template for the sake of there being an AvP franchise. But, for the sake of individual franchises and continuity, I believe this template should be split, with a new one called Template:Predator. Both these templates would include the AvP content, but would not include the continuity from the individual Alien and Predator franchises.

So far as continuity is concerned, the canon of Alien and Predator are separate and will continue to be separated, as the Alien franchise is expanding with the prequel series that negates the crossover AvP (non)-canon. I would also look to split any pages that attempt to count all the characters or other elements beyond the AvP franchise, as well.

The reason I am bringing this up here is that the talk pages for the individual franchises are rather inactive and as this is a major proposal. There have been recent restructuring efforts on the Alien franchise page with the announcement of the prequel series connecting directly with the main series. I'm honestly prepared to apply these proposed splits, should I feel there is consensus with this WikiProject. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds most sensible to me. Unless there's a new movie planned where Alien marries Predator and the Blues Brothers, per this. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've split the content into three streamlined templates: Template:Alien, Template:Predator and Template:AVP. All corresponding pages have been assigned their respective templates. There's still more work to be done, such as the page that describes the accolades of the three franchises, but it's a start. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As an experiment I've mocked up the start of a version of the template which uses a variable switch to call up some of its content; User talk:Grapple X/Lenny shows three states that are called from the same template by using a variable field, such as {{User:Grapple X/Lenny|A}} or {{User:Grapple X/Lenny|AVP}}. I think a fourth parameter allowing the display of everything might be worth looking at two, maybe just for use on the main AVP franchise article, but useful nonetheless. I can finish this if people think it's worthwhile. GRAPPLE ^X 08:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: @Cirt: Any opinion either way on this? GRAPPLE ^X 08:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks fantastic. Ripley would approve. — Cirt (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's give it a try. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Lists of films and sorting them

I am wondering other editors' opinions about how to approach listing films in stand-alone lists. I've created a number of list of films, and I've listed them alphabetically with the film title in the first column, followed by the release year in the second column. I am wondering if editors are okay with this or prefer a chronological order. If it is the latter, should the columns stay the same (first film title, then release year) or be switched around? My impression is that it is ideal for the first column to be the same one that is sorted. What do others think, as readers? To offer an example for review: List of films set on Mars. (Edit: Another possibility is listing films from newest to oldest. Not sure if that would appeal better.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I am not sure to see where is the problem to solve. The list given in example is sortable. So it remains only to discuss what is the better initial disposition. Newest on top is perhaps 5% better. Not sufficient to rewrite everything. Pldx1 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pldx1, you're right that it is sortable. I mean as a default view. (Not sure if sortability works in mobile view?) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would favour the default listing being chronological, oldest first, but keep them sortable by title as well, along with any other relevant field (director, perhaps). GRAPPLE ^X 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be sorted on what the average reader would expect to find, and I think that so-called person would want to see a simple A-Z list for most of these type of articles. The only exception I can think of is something like the Golden Lion article (or any awards list, come to think of it), when the film is awarded from year to year. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts. If you take the sorting out of the equation then finding a specific entry would be easier in an alphabetically ordered list, since a reader is more likely able to recall a title than the year the film was made in. Obviously there may be good reasons for indexing a list in another way, but if there isn't one then an alphabetized approach is generally good enough. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Martian

At The Martian (film), there is a discussion about covering the accuracy of the film's approach to science and technology in the lead section. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to this disruption. Left a comment there. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Or herding cats... — Cirt (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Resident Evil"

FYI, there's a proposal to rename the category "Resident Evil films" to "Resident Evil (film series)", see WP:CFDS.

This category currently contains the Paul WS Anderson films, and the unrelated animated films. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Three out of five stars

Hi friends! I (very, very, very reluctantly) do a lot of editing in Indian cinema articles (did I mention very reluctantly?) and I'm seeing a trend of adding raw critic ratings to articles without any context, for instance in this version of the article a well-meaning editor just listed the "2 stars out of 5" summary. I'd like to hang my hat on a solid guideline about this, but I don't see one. Naturally my instinct is to avoid these arbitrary numbers and go with prose content that describes the critic's likes/dislikes with plot, acting, etc. Anyone got anything? A community discussion perhaps? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it is insufficient to only state a critic's rating, but I would prefer the options of either expanding that passage with prose content or replacing it with prose content, not just the latter. I would say the basis for not just writing critics' ratings is that it is a kind of proseline version of critic rating table templates that we've determined consensus to delete when such a template comes up every so often. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comicbookmovie.com

With this edit, I saw that TriiipleThreat removed comicbookmovie.com as a source, citing it as non-WP:Reliable. And with this edit, I saw that Favre1fan93 removed the source as well, for the same reason. Looking at their latest contributions shows that they've been removing this source from a lot of articles. And as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 32#comicbookmovie.com and the use of citizen journalism as reliable sources, whether or not this source is WP:Reliable was discussed here in 2010. I don't see where it yet has been discussed at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, but I've also wondered about its reliability. Seeing it used in so many Wikipedia articles, though, I figured that WP:Film and WP:TV must be okay with its use. TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93 have clearly recently discussed this source, although I haven't yet looked to see where that discussion took place. Maybe this is the time to have an updated, wider discussion about this source? For example, as seen with this edit, Drovethrughosts disagrees with TriiipleThreat's removal of the source because it's an exclusive interview. I happen to agree with Drovethrughosts on that matter; there have been cases at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, where an exclusive interview from a source that is otherwise generally considered unreliable is deemed fine because the interview is exclusive from that website. For such an example, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). I'm going to WP:Ping Viriditas since he was the main opposer to removing the exclusive interview in that case and is a film editor. I'll alert WP:TV to this discussion. And for the record, I don't object to TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93's comicbookmovie.com removals where it's not an exclusive interview. But this type of edit (exclusive interview material) seems questionable. It has also been requested that the source is blacklisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'll also leave a note there about this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As I told Drovethrughosts, if the source is not credible, then we cannot assume that the content is credible. Even if they say it is. Who is to know that the exclusive interview is not fully or partially fabricated or misquoted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I again refer editors to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS), which is a discussion about a source (the Daily Mail) that has been deemed unreliable times over at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and the WP:BLP noticeboard, and yet is deemed okay for certain cases, such as exclusive interviews. And unlike the wide WP:Consensus against the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia, there is no wide WP:Consensus against using comicbookmovie.com as a source on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Its unfair to compare the Daily Mail to comicbookmovie.com (CBM) because unlike CBM, Daily Mail has editorial oversight, even if it is tabloid. It's funny looking back at that discussion you linked, I was originally on the other side of this argument. @Erik, RobertMfromLI, Tenebrae, and Cameron Scott:, who all participated in that discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering that its editorial oversight has been repeatedly considered unreliable and/or dubious by experienced Wikipedians, I think it's very fair to compare this matter to that one, including per what I stated in my "00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)" post below. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I have also alerted Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this would help, but per WP:USEBYOTHERS, we can evaluate how the website is referenced in books here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In order to give newcomers some understanding, CBM has long been considered unreliable by the Comic book films task force because it relies solely on user-generated content. This same principle has been applied to IMDb as a source and self-referencing Wikipedia. While there may or may not have been a community wide discussion (I seem to recall a few) about CBM specifically, it has certainly been discussed locally on numerous occasions on article talk pages and in edit summaries.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding if the article is apparently "exclusive" to Comic Book Movie, but as Triiiple pointed out, the site has not editorial oversight. Per their home page: "We are the #1 comic book movie fansite on the web, and completely user-generated by the FANS! Join our 6 million PLUS community and start contributing!" That right there makes it unreliable. So Flyer22, it is not quite the same as the situation with Daily Mail. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And additionally, I'd say about 98% of the time, CBM "reports" on material that can be sourced from reliable sources. It just happens that users tend to want to use the CBM url instead of the "horse's mouth" source as it were. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to see what other experienced WP:Film and WP:TV editors, and/or editors watching the WP:Reliable sources talk page, have to state about this. I can't agree that we should not use the source for exclusive interviews. This is per the site not having had any issues with its reliability noted in WP:Reliable sources, and per there being a lot of cases on Wikipedia, including the aforementioned one, where a source that is considered unreliable (or generally unreliable) by Wikipedia may used for an exclusive interview. I never stated that this is the same thing as the Daily Mail case, but it's similar. That source has been cited as fabricating whole stories; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Daily Mail. AndyTheGrump, who is currently retired, stated in that discussion, "Exactly - the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' clause is in WP:RS for a reason. No source is always accurate, and no source is never accurate - and accordingly, we have to make a judgement call when looking at a source being cited for something we can't verify elsewhere, based on how generally trustworthy they are. Which is to say a judgement call based on reputation." And yet, even with that source's horrible reputation, that source is still commonly accepted on Wikipedia. And as we can see with the Google Books link Erik pointed to above, comicbookmovie.com is seemingly considered reliable by some WP:Reliable sources. If there were actors and/or actresses stating that comicbookmovie.com fabricated their interviews, I would disregard the source for exclusive interviews. There is none of that for comicbookmovie.com, however; instead, WP:Reliable sources commonly report these comicbookmovie.com interviews as fact or seemingly as fact. Similar goes for other things reported at that site. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The books in Erik's link do not look scholarly or authoritative. And actors/actresses are less likely to go after a self-described fan site like CBM than a major publication like the Daily Mail. Also the sources that re-print information from CBM avoid liability by attributing it to them. Besides the argument against CBM is not based on accuracy but on authorship. Wikipedia has strict guidelines against user-generated content. IMDb can be accurate but we're still not allowed to use it a source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your issue regarding the fact that unreliable sources with exclusives can sometimes be used does not fit here. Yes, that is the case, but as I and Triiiple have pointed out, all articles on CBM, regardless of exclusivity or not, are user generated, which is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. This should be a non-issue questioning this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, there are various books in Erik's link that show WP:Reliable sources citing comicbookmovie.com and treating it as a WP:Reliable source; I checked the publishing company for some of them. So Erik was smart to link to those sources and cite WP:USEBYOTHERS as a basis for linking to them. Those sources do not have to look or be authoritative; they only need to be WP:Reliable as far as this case goes. Given some of those sources, I also gather that we define "scholarly" differently. Furthermore, as made very clear by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts, and by the aforementioned archived discussions, our sourcing guidelines (guidelines, not policies) are not as strict as you two are making them out to be. And since it's only you two so far stating that we can't use comicbookmovie.com for exclusive interviews, I will likely take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or start a WP:RfC on it for wider input. For now, as I've stated before, I await other opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm notifying the following users who work within the Comic book films task force and may wish to comment and/or be aware of this discussion: @Richiekim, Sock, and Adamstom.97: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

On that note, and given what TriiipleThreat stated above about that WikiProject, I definitely think that this discussion needs a wider audience. So after waiting for others to comment, I will be taking this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or starting a WP:RfC on it, making sure to word things neutrally; that is, if no one beats to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You already posted a notice at WT:IRS, please don't exhaust our efforts by WP:FORUMSHOPping.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't already "post a notice there" (good that you corrected your comment). I posted a notice at the WP:Reliable sources talk page, which is different, and clearly no one there is yet willing to weigh in on this dispute. In fact, the many editors watching this dispute via their WP:Watchlists are leaving it to three editors so far. I've been explicitly clear why this discussion needs a wider audience. Two or a few editors stating that we should not use a source for exclusive interviews because it's unreliable or user-generated, despite the fact that the source is treated as reliable by WP:Reliable sources and doesn't appear to have fabricated any of its interviews, does not cut it. If you consider me taking this matter to the WP:Reliable source noticeboard, where discussions like this should be had, a WP:FORUMSHOPing violation, you are more than free to report me on that. In addition to the WP:Reliable book sources that seemingly trust comicbookmovie.com, comicbookmovie.com interviews are cited by online sources that pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline for certain content, such as this and this slashfilm.com source, and this Mstars News source. These facts, and that celebrities, writers and directors seem to trust this source, and that this source does not have any sort of bad reputation, should factor into any decision regarding its use on Wikipedia. To throw away these interviews, which most certainly seem to be the real deal, is silly to me. So, in a few minutes, I will be taking this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. This particular matter has only been discussed in one place so far: This WikiProject. Now it will be discussed in the wider forum. Of course, discussing it there won't help if those weighing in are mainly a bunch of film editors who are against the source being used at all without truly considering the points I or others bring up on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't even been 24 hours, give it sometime. Re-arguing the same points is exhausting. You can easily turn this discussion into a RfC, or post a link at the noticeboard. I'm not against a wider audience but don't try to wear us down.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?. A WP:Permalink is here. And I'm not trying to wear you down. I'm a WP:Film editor as well, and commonly participate in discussions here and at MOS:FILM. Obviously, we aren't always on the same side, except for the fact that we all want to improve Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Only commenting here on technical terms - Blacklisting does not mean that a site cannot be used at all anymore - there is always the whitelist (MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist), where specific links that pass a bar can be whitelisted. We do that with examiner.com, for example - Most of the content of that site is unreliable, scraped, posted there to make money for the poster, etc. etc., and replaceable with better sources. However, there is unique content available, and edits sometimes do make a case for having a specific document on examiner.com whitelisted as there is no alternative. If there is consensus here that blacklisting is the best option (in principle the blacklist is not meant for unreliable sources, it is meant for abused links - this seems more a case of misused links. But a community consensus by knowledgeable editors, like here 'film people' about a 'film site', could override that), then blacklisting could be performed followed by selective whitelisting of the unique material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: would you be open to this? Whitelist specific links based on its individual merit since the exclusive interviews that you mention are only a fraction of the website's content and like the examiner.com the vast majority of the content can be replaced by more reputable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would be okay with that. And good on Beetstra (Dirk Beetstra) for pointing out that option. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

10th TCA Awards - Nominations

I'm looking for references to cite for the Nominations at the 10th TCA Awards.

I can already find plenty of sources that only just cite the Winners, but I want a cite for the Nominees.

Specifically because I'm drafting up a Featured List drive for Bill Nye the Science Guy, and I want to find a WP:RS source that indeed confirms the television show was nominated for the 10th TCA Awards.

Please ping or message me on my user talk page if you find anything.

Any help would be appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)