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 22 Aug 2024 – Total Recall (1990 film) (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 19 Aug 2024 – William, Prince of Wales in film and television (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by AndrewPeterT (t · c); see discussion 16 Aug 2024 – The Invincible Dragon (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 11 Aug 2024 – A House in Jerusalem (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Makeandtoss (t · c); see discussion 30 Jul 2024 – Wolfman's Got Nards (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by CFA (t · c); see discussion 26 Jul 2024 – Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Morgan695 (t · c); see discussion 22 Jul 2024 – A. Sreekar Prasad filmography (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jeraxmoira (t · c); see discussion 28 Jun 2024 – ABC Cinema, Brighton (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hassocks5489 (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 04 Aug 2024 – Troika (1969 film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Paleface Jack (t · c); 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 29 Jul 2024 – 96th Academy Awards (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (t · c); see discussion 21 Jul 2024 – List of accolades received by Parasite (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 16 Aug 2024 – Dracula (Universal film series) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Andrzejbanas (t · c); start 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 31 Jul 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Jaguarnik (t · c); see 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 26 Jun 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion (7 more...) 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 Requests for comments 03 Aug 2024 – RRR (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Robert McClenon (t · c); see discussion 30 Jul 2024 – Twisters (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WeatherWriter (t · c); see discussion 08 Aug 2024 – Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Crampsteed (t · c) was closed; see discussion Peer reviews 11 Jul 2024 – Godzilla Minus One (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Eiga-Kevin2 (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

Aviation film task force

Any interest in creating this task force? The following are examples of authoritative sources that can be exploited in writing articles on this genre.

• Carlson, Mark. Flying on Film: A Century of Aviation in the Movies, 1912–2012. Duncan, Oklahoma: BearManor Media, 2012. ISBN 978-1-59393-219-0.
• Dolan, Edward F. Jr. Hollywood Goes to War. London: Bison Books, 1985. ISBN 0-86124-229-7.
• Farmer, James H. Broken Wings: Hollywood's Air Crashes. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Pub Co., 1984. ISBN 978-0-933126-46-6.
• Farmer, James H. Celluloid Wings: The Impact of Movies on Aviation. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: Tab Books Inc., 1984. ISBN 978-0-83062-374-7.
• Farmer, James H. "Filming the Right Stuff." Air Classics, Part One: Vol. 19, No. 12, December 1983, Part Two: Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1984.
• Harwick, Jack and Ed Schnepf. "A Buff's Guide to Aviation Movies". Air Progress Aviation, Volume 7, No. 1, Spring 1983.
• Mackenzie, S.P. British War Films, 1939-1945: The Cinema and the Services. London: Continuum, 2001. ISBN 978-1-85285-586-4.
• Murphy, Robert. British Cinema and the Second World War. London: Continuum, 2000. ISBN 978-0-82645-139-2.
• Orriss, Bruce W. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War I. Los Angeles: Aero Associates, 2013. ISBN 978-0-692-02004-3.
• Orriss, Bruce. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War II. Hawthorne, California: Aero Associates Inc., 1984. ISBN 0-9613088-0-X.

• Parish, James Robert. The Great Combat Pictures: Twentieth-Century Warfare on the Screen. Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1990. ISBN 978-0810823150.
• Pendo, Stephen. Aviation in the Cinema. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1985. ISBN 0-8-1081-746-2.
• Silke, James R. "Fists, Dames & Wings." Air Progress Aviation Review, Volume 4, No. 4, October 1980.
• Wynne, H. Hugh. The Motion Picture Stunt Pilots and Hollywood's Classic Aviation Movies. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., 1987. ISBN 0-933126-85-9. FWiW Bzuk (talk)

Bugs Bunny gets a starring credit in Space Jam?

Anyone have a thought about this?. Every time Bugs Bunny's name is removed from the Starring parameter of the infobox at Space Jam, someone invariably re-adds it, so I'm going to temporarily assume the problem is my narrow thinking. Not sure if this is a legit poster to use, but here you go. I'm drawing the line at Daffy Duck though! He's not even on the frickin' poster! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If Bugs is credited as an actor, rather than a character, in the film's credits, the sure, keep him in there. But if not, then don't. The Bugs Bunny name being used in advertising is no different than throwing a T-Rex into a trailer for The Lost World, but Mr. Rex doesn't get a credit for that one. GRAPPLE ^X 23:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I only know what the poster says. No idea about the crawling credits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

He's fictional. He doesn't get listed. It's a marketing gimmick, not an actual credit. You cannot credit a fictional character in that way. It's not like he's part of the SAG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, crediting him is nonsense. Popcornduff (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BIGNOLE and Popcornduff. A cartoon character is not an actor. And Wikipedia pages on feature-length Disney movies like Fantasia or The Three Caballeros do not credit Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck as actors. - Xenxax (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but on the other hand, we're suddenly gonna fault Bugs Bunny because Mickey and Donald didn't have the stones to find a great agent?! Just sayin'... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the history of this issue or this discussion before editing before removing Bugs. (The IP made a "mistake" (?) in arguing that "Donald Kaufman" was nominated for an Oscar for Adaptation. Not true, that was Donald Kaufman, not "Donald Kaufman".)

Anyway, yeah, it's a marketing gimmick. Bugs cannot perform, receive a paycheck, eat carrots, &ct., so it cannot be a featured "performer". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this is also an issue at a few other articles (e.g. Looney Tunes: Back in Action). - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a similar issue a while back about Mythbusters, and whether or not the inanimate crash test dummy they dubbed "Buster", should be listed as a cast member in the Wikipedia article, on the basis that The Discovery Channel website referred to Buster as a cast member. I was on the side of exclusion because inclusion seemed to defy common sense, but I could see where the inclusionists were coming from: that we should be going by what reliable sources say. Gah. Still seems silly to me for an encyclopedia to credit a cartoon rabbit as a star. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we want reliable sources. However, we prefer independent reliable sources. A couple of years back, we had an album being promoted as if it were a movie: "scenes" not "songs", "co-stars" not "featuring", etc. We decided (somewhere...) that no, it is an album with songs and such.

Dependent reliable sources will often state that a religious figure is still alive long after independent sources say they died. Dependent reliable sources will sometimes shave a few years to a decade off an actress's age compared to independent sources. Yes, kids' movies, TV shows, songs, books, etc. are often credited as being the work of fictional characters. Dependent reliable sources will say lots of things that independent reliable sources say simply are not so. How many self-proclaimed "innocent" murderers do we have? How about perpetual motion machines? Bugs Bunny is an idea. Ideas cannot act. Ideas cannot "star". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed similar credits at Looney Tunes: Back in Action, with an edit summary and talk page comment inviting discussion here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a complete non-issue. Fictional characters have been being credited throughout the history of cinema. I also can't but notice that Summer "PhD" removes all of her ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments she made while presenting this argument here, all the while saying I'm an IP who made a mistake? What mistake? Or was the fictional Donald Kaufman not only not credited with co-writing Adaptation but also not nominated for a real Academy Award? (Spoiler alert: He was). There never has been a rule that fictional characters cannot be credited. Aside from the dispositive fact that Bugs Bunny is listed above the title on the official poster (where the stars of the movie go), there is a long history of other fake names being used and discussed like the real stars, writers, directors, or editors of films. Not just psuedonyms like Alan Smithee but full-fledged alter-egos and fake personae. They get nominated, they get accolades, they get credit and sometimes they get unioncards. Also how often are dogs, horses and bears credited? They're listed in the cast, lots of things are listed in the cast. Sergeant Murphy comes to mind as the horse is credited. The point is: Never has there ever been a rule that only living people can be credited, it's up to the producers or director of each film to distribute the credit and for Wikipedia to neutrally report it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What "ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments" are you talking about?

I see no personal attacks.

Wayne Knight is not a straw man. We credit him (the actor) not "Stanley 'Stan' Podolak" (the role). Similarly, the actor is Billy West. "Bugs Bunny" is a role, as independent reliable sources state. Bugs Bunny was not paid for performing ("starring" in this film). Billy West was, because he performed in the film.

Strawman arguments: We are talking about who we should credit as starring in a film. I say we credit actors, not roles, for films. You say the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences accepted a nomination for a writer. We credit actors. They nominate a writer. Which one discusses who we credit?

Yes, Terry (a real dog) played Toto in the Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Higgins (a real dog) played Benji in Benji (1974 film). Pal played Lassie, Bamboo Harvester played Mister Ed and Bruno the Bear played Gentle Ben. Real animals, not fictional ones.

Yes, primary sources sometimes say absurd things about themselves. Sometimes they are non-neutral or promotional. ("Billy West" on a poster doesn't sell tickets.) Wikipedia prefers independent reliable sources. (I hesitate to think what we would say about OxiClean if we preferred the company's statements over independent reliable sources.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you don't know how blatantly you are making strawman arguments and false equivalencies is why I call you a "PhD". Textbook keyboard warrior tactic. JesseRafe (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue, not the editors, JesseRafe. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the film itself credit the character as a performer in its credit reel, or as a role being played? If it's the former, I'd be okay with it being listed as a credit with an inline ref explaining this; if the latter, then obviously it should only be treated as a character. For what it's worth, BFI list the film with plenty of "themselves" credits, but Bugs is just listed as a character played by Billy West (whose name, it should be said, would not sell as many tickets on a poster beside Jordan as his character's would). GRAPPLE ^X 14:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As you note, independent reliable sources do not credit the fictional rabbit as an actor. Secondary sources contradict the primary source (the poster), tertiary sources agree with the secondary. Billy West was a performer in this film. Bugs Bunny is a character. "Stars" are principle performers. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a entertainment guide. It may be cute to credit a fictional character as a star of a film, but it is blatantly wrong to call that character an actor of the film, given that it is the voice artist (Billy West here) that gets paid to do that role. It can be mentioned in a marketing section that Bugs etc. were marketed as stars of the film, but from a fundamental basis, no, the film does not star a fictional character, regardless of what other sources say. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What about crediting Bugs Bunny then including a footnote explaining that the film itself credits him and who the current bugs bunny voice was at the time? While it may seem overly cute or gimmicky I think that if the movie itself does not credit a specific voice actor than we're just making an educated guess, which I would feel somewhat uncomfortable with. --Deathawk (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

IMDb, which typically reproduces screen credits quite reliably, does list West as the voice of Bugs. Other reliable sources also list West (e.g., The New York Times). To my knowledge, the only place that says Bugs is a "star" is the poster. It's marketing, nothing more - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case it should clearly be credited to West. You could add a note in the markup so editors are aware of the situation. --Deathawk (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent problem with leads

WP:LEAD It seems like the lead section in many film articles is as brief and cryptic as possible. I can't tell you how many times I have come across articles with leads like, "X is a 1995 film about a man with a car. Y starred as the man. It grossed $Z." This is barely an exaggeration. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just a product of trying to write many articles about many films in a short time but I figured I would alert members of this project. The one section that virtually every film article has is "Plot" and two to four sentences describing what happens is entirely appropriate for summarizing the article. I get the impression (although this is unfounded speculation) that these obscure leads are to avoid "spoilers" which is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There's two types of editors - new article creators and those that add content to existing articles. I'm firmly in the former, and loathe writing plots for films. I can only think of two articles I've added the plot to out of the thousands of stubs I've started (one and two for those who care). I don't think it's an attempt to hide spoilers, just that there's not that many editors who spend that much time fleshing out plot sections (excluding the obvious blockbuster films, of course). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Writing accurate, guideline-appropriate plot sections is the worst; so doing it for any given article without having any real desire to greatly expand the whole article is a pain. This, coupled with the fact that most editors aren't overly concerned with an appropriate lead section (hence the fact that there's an ongoing contest to improve leads across the site), and you have your answer. GRAPPLE ^X 09:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realise writing plot summaries was so loathed. Can't get enough of it, myself. Popcornduff (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan of writing plot summaries myself. I see them re-written constantly because there are probably infinite ways to describe what happened in a film. In contrast, the other sections are not as heavily re-written. I used to avoid for a template that warned editors that the plot summary would be in flux and to focus on other sections, but I doubt that mattered.

Koavf, I think I know the kind of articles you mean, though I don't recall the last one I saw. I doubt that such light lead sections are on purpose. Any article that gets concerted effort means the key editors will summarize details into a lead section. If different editors contribute to an article over time (from being a stub), then someone may not necessarily have come by and said, we need to summarize all this upfront. Do you have an example to share? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: Sure. This revision of The Gallows only says "The Gallows is a 2015 American found footage supernatural horror film..." in terms of plot. Of course writing a well-formed article is a challenge for any subject but it seems positively rampant for films in particular. I agree that summarizing the plot of a film can be written several ways and for something even borderline experimental, you can magnify those options. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I find writing a lead to be more tedious than a plot. If I already spent hours writing, summarizing, and copy editing an article, I generally don't want to restart that whole process for the lead. However, I've been trying to work on improving leads in film articles. I don't mind minimalist leads, but I agree they should have at least some kind of plot summary. I try to add this if it's missing. More often, it seems like I end up trimming trivia and synthesis from leads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples In case anyone else is wondering, I just stumbled across two more examples purely by happenstance: Moon (film) and Source Code. I think these are fairly indicative of what I'm saying above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A lot of our WP:Good and WP:Featured film articles have fleshed out leads. The only time I worry about spoilers in the lead is per what I recently stated on the matter. The spoiler would need to be important to the lead for me to support it being there. As for the Plot section, the plot sections usually have spoilers and a lot of plot bloat to fix; we have WP:Film plot to try to keep the plot bloat under control. As for Lugnuts's point, there are also the editors who create articles and keep expanding/looking after those articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming "List of Chinese films"

Pacerier (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC): ❝

The page List of Chinese films of 2015 writes:

...list of Chinese films first released in 2015.

However within the article, we seem to see the sub-condition "released in China" applied to the film listings. For example, "Our Times", a Chinese film that is not released in China (it's released in Taiwan) is not included in the film listings.

Should "list of Chinese films" be renamed to "list of films in China"?

❞

I think the intro needs changing, rather than the list renaming. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rather than renaming it, I'd be of the opinion that we don't need lists of films by countries in which they were released. Especially if they're broken up by year, in which case we're looking at over a thousand lists per decade, for information that's not really useful. Even lists of films produced in a country seem redundant to me, given that they serve as little more than a glorified category page. GRAPPLE ^X 12:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Pacerier (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC): ❝

What do you mean? Do you mean to remove the 26 pages/lists, starting from List_of_Chinese_films#1905-1929?

❞

Production section problems

It's a new year and I think we should finally tighten our production section guidelines this year. This is something I've been trying to bring up in various ways off and on, but I feel the new year it would make sense to actually do it.

Right now my major issue is that it seems there is no formal agreed upon "house" style for production sections. For older films this isn't really a problem so much, but it's really hurting new film articles. Often times you end up with people putting in every little piece of news that comes out into these articles. So you often end up with bloated production section that list, who the screenwriters are, when the cast joined, when locations were scouted but in the end it doesn't really add up to anything.

Look at the current page for The Conjuring 2: The Pre-production section lists A) when cast members were announced B) When they were confirmed C) When location scouting occurred, and when actors visited the set. None of these actions I would say really add up to anything in that they don't really present the story of how the film came to be.

The traditional view of many Wikipedians seems to be that if it's sourced information no matter what information it is, it should stay, and that leads to some bloated production section, that like I said don't really accomplish the goal of Wikipedia.

I dunno maybe I'm crazy to think like this. Could we maybe try to say something in the Manual of Style for film aricles about this? ----Deathawk (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a form of trivia that seems unique to film articles: overly detailed proseline sourced to press releases. It's tedious to rewrite these sections, but I've done a few. I guess the best thing to do is suggest wording to be added to MOS:FILM, then hold an RfC to get it added. We don't need that to start a cleanup campaign, but it might help to have a guideline behind us. One thing we can do is search for "Variety confirmed"/"confirmed by Variety", which seems to be a stock phrase. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at WT:MOSFILM can be revived (e.g., pinging involved editors). We never really finalized the wording. Discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Production sections can be difficult to do without adding any trivial stuff. Here's some suggestions I can come up.

1. We need to make sure we add any necessary production information without adding any trivial stuff and make sure any source is reliable.
2. Filming sections should have only any necessary filming information on locations, which actors that they are seen in pictures of filming and make sure there is nothing too trivial about it. We also need make sure we check out the sites first that have that filming information first before adding references to it.
3. What we need to do is set up some consensus to include some news and references about some actors who joined some movies without making too much clutter. The details should be compressed to avoid removing entirely removing sourced information about that stuff like Erik previously suggested. We should only add any actor who have first joined any movie, any actors who are top listing ones, anyone in the billing bulletin list or named in theatrical posters and any recurring actors who appeared in{any film series should be included with reliable sources.

That's the suggestions I can come up. Any one else who add some suggestions to it, I'm all ears. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: While I concede that for certain movies casting sections are important, I wouldn't feel totally comfortable with a hardlined rule that when top billed signed on must be included. For every Doctor Strange and Deadpool there are hundreds and hundreds of smaller movies where including this information would be negligible at best. Overall I'd like to guide users more than tell them "Have this, don't have that". I'd more like it to be "These would make for a good section, these may make for a cluttered section." and then kind of let users make there own judgement. --Deathawk (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Maybe. But I want to make sure some things about production sections have some necessary consensus. Cast members who joined in any movie should be kept there without any unnecessary clutter and such. @Erik: previously came up with some suggestions about that as you know that. @MarnetteD:, @Betty Logan:, @NinjaRobotPirate: and others should state their opinions to these suggestions. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by trivia and clutter. I think "on [date], [source] confirmed that [actor] joined [film]" is poorly written trivia. If it's salvageable, I rewrite it. If not, I remove it. To me, salvageable means that there's more information than dates and names. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hey, look. Erik came up with a solution to settle a compromise, which I at much agreed. This is what he said in a previous discussion which is now archived.

I agree that the proseline clutter needs to be addressed. The details do not necessarily have to be removed entirely, but at least compressed. Here's an example of what I did at Gods of Egypt (film):

• Before: On 5 June 2013, actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau has signed up to star in the film as Horus, a God of the sky. On September 24, 2013, Gerard Butler also joined the film's cast to play the role of Set, a God of the desert, storms and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion. On the same day Geoffrey Rush also closed a deal to join the epic fantasy Gods of Egypt for Summit, he'll play the role of Ra, a God of the Sun and also father of Set and Osiris. Later on 7 October, Summit added Brenton Thwaites as a lead actor in the fantasy film's cast, he will play Bek, a human thief. On December 12, 2013, a new actress Courtney Eaton joined the film as a lead actress, she will be playing the role of Zaya, a slave girl who is cursed by Set. On January 30, 2014, Chadwick Boseman has signed on to star in the film as Thoth, the god of wisdom. On February 19, 2014 Élodie Yung joined the cast of the film as the goddess Hathor. On March 20, all other cast was also revealed as filming began, which includes Bruce Spence, Bryan Brown, Emma Booth, Abbey Lee Kershaw, Rachael Blake, Robyn Nevin, Paula Arundell, Alexander England, Goran D. Kleut and Yaya Deng.
• After: Actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau was cast in June 2013. Gerard Butler, Geoffrey Rush, and Brenton Thwaites joined the cast toward the end of 2013. Chadwick Boseman and Elodie Yung joined the cast at the start of 2014.

Here, I excluded the character names since they can be seen in the "Cast" section and excluded actors who did not receive billing (the last sentence). I identified the first person to join the cast, then I grouped those who joined later that year. I also mentioned another group that joined at the beginning of the year. I applied WP:CITEBUNDLE here as well to avoid multiple footnotes at the end of a sentence. Maybe we do not need the new passage at all, but I think it at least helps frame the "Production" section, like to show that the first actor did not join until a year after the film began development. The problem with the proseline clutter is that sentence after sentence is just tacked on. The content has to be revisited after some growth to determine a cleaner way to present it.

That's the suggestion he came up with. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I'm in favor of doing that for movies where the production section is already written however I think moving forward we can give a bit more guidance. What I want to say is something to the extent of " the goal of the production section is to establish the story of how a movie came together, this is different from a news site like The Hollywood Reporter or Vanity Fair which reports on every little aspect of the production. For instance a location scouting excursion may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article, however if a significant story change was made because of the location scouting than that would be appropriate. Editors are encouraged to evaluate the stories coming out to see if they contribute in a significant way to the story of how the film came to be." and then let the editors make the call. obviously I kind this is a rough version and I do want to tweak it up, before going forward. --Deathawk (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty good, and I agree with it; however, it avoids all mention of proseline, which is something I would have explicitly mentioned. Leaving everything to editor discretion is how we ended up with long, overly-detailed casting sections written in proseline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: @Deathawk: What can we do about that? The production will need a lot of work and we should have at least a trimmed down casting sub-section without clutters. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Casting sections should focus mostly on the casting process and not necessarily casting news, although in some cases these may overlap. For instance listing "On X date Y joined the cast" For every major character, in most cases, would lead to a very repetitive section, instead it would be better to explain what qualities the director saw in the actor that brought them aboard, or how the actor studied for the role. I'm sure we can tighten the wording on that section, and make it more clear why some dates would be valuable, but that's honestly my basic feeling on how it should be handled. I'm open to suggestions though. It still doesn't quite address @NinjaRobotPirate: concerns though. I'm not trying to avoid that, I'm just really tired right now. --Deathawk (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most important bit is the first sentence. The second sentence is good to have as an example of what we're trying to avoid. And, I think the third sentence helps to address Erik's concerns from the prior discussion, in that we were telling them what not to do without any help on what they should do. So, I think this is pretty good. Certainly, we could tweak it further, but this is good enough for me. If you'd like a copyedited version: "Casting sections should focus primarily on the casting process and not necessarily casting news, although in some cases these may overlap. For instance, listing 'On X date, Y joined the cast' for every major character would lead to a very repetitious section. Instead, it would be better to explain what qualities the director saw in the actor or how the actor studied for the role." If someone wants to expand on it or streamline it, that's fine, but, like I said, I'm fine with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Deathawk's proposal. How and when an actor comes aboard a project is very relevant and essential to a film's development. Same goes for location scouting and other "news" items. Theses bits of information can be useful to tell a more complete story about the film's development. Its all about presentation. The real issue here seems to be proseline, which not only effects casting but how articles are written generally. So instead, I think we should focus on helpful technics to reduce proseline like avoiding exact dates, and WP:Citation merging to group similar pieces of information. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @TriiipleThreat:. We need to find a way add how and when an actor/actress joined that movie without clutter to reduce proseline. It's all about presentation and development of the film. We removed all that casting information, we will lose much meaning of the development and presentation of that film, which we're not gotta take that kind of chance. Which means we should probably do based of what Erik previously suggested and try to reduce proseline of how they are written. We need to also make sure we add information about filming locations, post-production work and such without any trivial stuff or any clutter.

@Erik:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Deathawk:. Alright, let's inform everyone who mainly work in film articles & such about this issue. Get them to discuss the issue. Make sure we keep this interest alive as much as possible. Let's work on problem and settle for compromises, people. Let's not make things worse by having them removed completely by entirely removing casting sections and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:. @BattleshipMan: Perhaps my passage about Location Scouting and Casting could be better rewritten. There are a lot of steps involved in filming a movie, and what I'm trying to avoid is listing all of them, because then you end up with a very messy production section. I really don't have a problem with say, for instance, if a scouting location takes place in a historic building and the producers had to work overtime to secure it, but what I don't like is when you just have a "Location scouting began on X date" and then moves on. Similarly I don't have much conflict with big buzzed about movie like The Force Awakens listing casting news, what's problematic I think is when little known comedies or dramas listing all the casting news on the page. I don't know if that makes my position any clearer or not--Deathawk (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat. It's a better way to put all details of casting and filming. @Deathawk: It won't be too messy if we do it better way, and that's what we need to figure out. And until then we should be keep going as we were. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:. @BattleshipMan: @Captain Assassin!:So I'm thinking the best way to go here, might be an infobox, where we could list such rote information. Such an info box would be seperate from the regular box and could include colums such as "Original Draft by" "First Actor to sign on" "Latest to sign on" Etc. Then we could devote the entire production section to prose regarding inspirations and the like. This would be especially useful for dealing with past articles on the subject. It would also leave a lot less room for misinterpritations of the guideline as we could simply say "avoid what's repeated in the box" --Deathawk (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: @Captain Assassin!: @TriiipleThreat: I agree with Captain Assassin!. We need to find a better way to put all details of casting and filming without making it too messy. Deathawk, it isn't as simple as you think. Production and casting sections are not meant to have infoboxes for such information. We need outside references to have such information on them. We add infoboxes and columns, we could have issues among many readers. It's too messy to add infoboxes and columns on those sections. We're not going to do that. That's means we have figure a better way to ensure we have all the presentation and development of those films without any clutter, reduce proseline, make sure it sounds encyclopedic and get it solved without having to remove those sections completely. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think prose is the way to go. There are ways as @BattleshipMan: pointed out to do it without listing each casting individually and avoiding proseline. Also I'm generally not in favor of one-size-fits-all approaches to addressing problems. The MoS should focus on giving advice to help editors write better articles instead of telling them exactly what to do. There are already a number of guidelines and essays on the subject that we can borrow from and incorporate into our MoS.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: :@TriiipleThreat:.@Captain Assassin!: Can we all agree with this passsage of my draft "the goal of the production section is to establish the story of how a movie came together, this is different from a news site like The Hollywood Reporter or Vanity Fair which reports on every little aspect of the production." I think we get hung up in the example I used, but can agree that these sections shouldn't read like a news section from Variety correct? Like we all agree that there's a problem, it's just how do we fix it that's a problem.--Deathawk (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk:, maybe we don't understand, but those news feeds provide us with information on who has joined in the movie. Therefore, it provides that information with a valuable source, whatever you like it or not. There are reasons not to remove this information entirely from the production sections. What we need to do is too add that information from that source and write that casting information in a encyclopedic way. @TriiipleThreat: @Captain Assassin!: BattleshipMan (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we just need to write all information in an encyclopedic way. And we don't have any other way to put all that information this time. But whenever someone gets an idea please feel free to contact and share. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I do think you are misunderstanding my wording. I'm not saying not to use these articles as sources, they provide a great and valuable resource for us. What I'm saying is that these publications have different goals than a Wikipedia and that users should evaluate whether and how such information should be integrated into the article. --Deathawk (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To @NinjaRobotPirate:'s point earlier in this thread. I've been thinking about how to cut down on the clutter and I though we might include such wording as "Production sections should be created when there is an ample story to tell and not created merely because a film article is expected to have them. For instance while it might be useful to provide dates when cast members or filming joined or dates filming started for a production section in process these shouldn't be the only sections contained within it. Instead the production section should create context for how the casting came about or how the filming location was decided"--Deathawk (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's very close to my thinking. Dates are good to have, but they should have context. Per policy, just because something is verifiable doesn't mean that it should necessarily be included in the article. That means that not every trivial fact belongs in Wikipedia. In some cases, excessive detail simply needs editing down; for example, an entire paragraph of proseline could be streamlined to: "A, B, C, D, and E joined in 2015. After extensive auditions, F was cast in 2016." I wrote something like that myself in Cold in July (film), which I think is written pretty decently. I wrote that production section two years ago, so I'd probably do things a bit differently now, but it's a fair representation of what I've been saying. It describes how Michael Hall was cast, what issues he faced (potential typecasting), and how he overcame them. It doesn't just list a bunch of dates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: @TriiipleThreat: @Deathawk: @Captain Assassin!: Based on what we saw on Cold in July, there is another movie you can check for proseline and such, Ninja. This is the link to 2016 remake of Pete's Dragon and you should check out the production and casting section. This is where Deathawk and I started this whole issue, so do some test edit on that section and we'll see how it is. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I think these are two different discussion. The Pete's Dragon remake discussion was about how to compromise so that the article was at least readable what @NinjaRobotPirate: is talking about is making sure that everything has context. Cold July and the Pete's Dragon article are thus dramatically different in terms of casting news, as one was. I'm guessing, thoroughly reconstructed from the ground up to give the exact reasoning the casting took place while the Pete's Dragon was quickly whittled down as part of a compromise. Ideally I think we should strive for more articles like "In Cold July" as opposed to Pete's Dragon's in the future but because there is so much grey area in the language for Production section right now, that is somewhat difficult. --Deathawk (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to start coming up with some consensus on things. right now it appears to be that one thing we can all agree on is that the film should follow proseline formatting. I have heard no complaints about my idea that the production should follow a clear narrative. Although for the latter there hasn't been quite as much discussion as I'd like. :@TriiipleThreat:. @Captain Assassin!: (talk) do you agree with the wording? --Deathawk (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of this page

Anybody have any ideas on how to better the table format on List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees ? Jennica^Talk 06:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd leave out the "Year in film" or the "Awards ceremony" column, one or the other would work fine. Maybe merge them so as to have the ceremony year a piped link to the ceremony (1934 Academy Award for example). I'd also consider the next column being the film's title ("Best picture"), then the other awards in sequence, then the other nomination guff. That other guff could also be trimmed or jettisoned, too—generally for lists like this, there's an extended lead/prose section that would cover additional information, so other wins by these films outside the "big five" could be covered there if necessary. I think how I would present it would be as follows:

Key

Symbol	Meaning
Bold green text	Winner
O	Best Original Screenplay
A	Best Adapted Screenplay

"Big Five" winners and nominees

Awards ceremony	Best Picture	Best Director	Best Actor	Best Actress	Best Screenplay	Notes	Ref(s)
7th Academy Awards (1934)	It Happened One Night	Frank Capra	Clark Gable	Claudette Colbert	Robert RiskinA

This should fit all on one page to make things much easier to navigate, without scrolling horizontally. I've also included the necessary formatting in there for compatibility with screenreaders, so if you copy that it should stand up to scrutiny for FLC if you go that far (plus it just means anyone relying on one can still read it). GRAPPLE ^X 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: GRAPPLE ^X 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A24 Films

Regarding A24 Films, I am interested in overhauling the "Filmography" table. I have a few ideas and have proposed them on the talk page as seen here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Incomplete film lists" v. "Film incomplete lists" categories

What is the difference between Category:Incomplete film lists and Category:Film incomplete lists? If none, they should be nominated for merging; if there is a difference, someone should give an explanation on the category pages. Any advice?? Pegship (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a difference, other than the awkwardness of the title of the second category. Would support a merge of the second into the first. In fact, I don't think that's even controversial enough to open up a discussion, you could simply be bold and do it, Pegship. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like one is for public consumption (Category:Incomplete film lists) and the other is a maintenance "clean-up" category (Category:Film incomplete lists). Category:Incomplete film lists does have Category:WikiProject Film as a parent, while the other doesn't. Just an update - I don't think I'll be messing with these myself. Thanks for the input! Pegship (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In film accolades lists, should a film placing 2nd or 3rd etc. be counted as a win?

For a long time, film accolades lists including featured lists have listed 2nd or 3rd as a win in their infobox and have also coded them green as wins in the main table e.g. List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film). This was because they were seen as a special distinction different from simply being nominated. However I was unable to find the consensus in the archives for this. This issue was also brought up in this featured list candidate. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Lost in Translation (film)/archive1. I welcome comments on this so that we may establish consensus on this. I personally would not mind changing the tables and infobox if there was a template to show wins, nominations and placings as different entities. Cowlibob (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote up List of accolades received by David Lynch, I included a field in the summary infobox awards outside of the normal "nominee/winner" process; I figure something similar could be used for these instances. GRAPPLE ^X 13:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You could use {{nom}} with customized text like "2nd". If they receive some designation like "Silver" or "Bronze" then you can color code with those colors as with Olympic competition {{won}}. If the award for second place has its own name then you can just use won. There are some Kpop music awards called Bonsang where the top 10 would win that physical award, but be a finalist for the Daesang. Similar for Best in Class and Best in Show for dog shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fly Away Solo → Masaan page-move discussion

A request to move the film article Fly Away Solo to Masaan, has been initiated here. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion.—indopug (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Category: Films about women

I've started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Films about women. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Craig in Star Wars

There seems to be an unconfirmed rumor flying around that Daniel Craig cameos in Star Wars. "Unconfirmed" as in Disney have not confirmed it and Craig himself denies it. An IP keeps adding the rumor to an article so I would appreciate a couple more opinions on the issue: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom#Daniel_Craig_in_Star_Wars. The film has also been added to Craig's filmography at Daniel_Craig#Filmography and while this discussion does not address that article I have doubts about its inclusion there too. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC) EDIT: There is a parallel discussion at Talk:Daniel_Craig#Star_Wars_rumor. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No credit, needs a source. No source, needs excised. That's always been the way with these things. GRAPPLE ^X 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan - I wondered about that as well. However, it seems to be confirmed: The Daily Mail], [Yahoo News] (via The Sun), and Eonline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The EOnline source Onel5969 is referring to is this article. Putting here to avoid editing One's reply. That article refers to this one and the language of that one makes me a little uncomfy tbh. I do advise continuing your current discretion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Could we not just write that multiple sources reported that Craig played the part, but Craig denies it? Both sides of the story, covered in one sentence. Popcornduff (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we could state something to that effect in the Daniel Craig article, but do we include an entry in his filmography for it when he denies being in it and no formal credit exists? Personally I would sit on it for a while and see how other "respectable" film databases handle it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Betty. I can see a future news source saying something along the lines of "...even Wikipedia reported the hoax of Craig being in Star Wars..." or words to that affect. So far we have rumours recycled by tabloid-esque Hollywood paps, with no real substance. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

All the so-called sources repeat the same line of "...He did it for sh–s and grins,” says one of the people with knowledge of the actor’s performance." with reference to Simon Pegg saying it happened. That's it. It's a rumour. Someone said someone did something. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Kitchen sink realism

I've started a talk-page discussion on the relevance (or not) of two images added to the article. Opinions sought. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello I am looking for some people with more experience and comments/opinions on a series of articles [1] created by a single user over several years. My concerns are that almost every article I have looked at has no reliable sources and are nothing more then a plot summary on the film. As each of these films seem to predate computers sources may be difficult to track down, but I do not know where to start to my WP:BEFORE and am hoping someone here may be able to help. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Cinema" and "movie theatre"

The usage of "cinema" and the naming of "movie theater" is under discussion, see talk:movie theater -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The Revenant (2015 film) opening line

Please see this discussion about the opening line/lead section for this film. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaning articles for templates

So we had no real reply here to the concerns raised by the council about omitting certain types of articles from navigational aids. So we are moving forward regardless of this projects willingness to participate or not in the discussion. As seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance we think it may be best to start a site-wide discussion on the matter. We will move forward with this in the next week or so....I will inform the project when this takes place. Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: This seems to be drama over MOS:FILM. Not sure exactly what the dispute is all about, but this is not an advice page from a WikiProject. It's a guideline that's part of the manual of style. WikiProject Film follows the guideline; we don't dictate what the guideline says. If you have a problem with the guideline, you can start an RFC on its talk page. I don't really see what WikiProject Council has to do with the MOS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read the MOS your referring to.. there is advice from the project injected into the MOS. Beyond the MOS problem our concern is that editors of this project do not have the right to dictate that a certain type of article is not allowed in navigational aids and/or have the right to tell others they cant link the articles they work on in said navigation templates. We are concerned about the fact that films, actors and writers links are being deleted from all navigational templates despite the concerns raised by many editors and other Wikiprojects. Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance for more info. -- Moxy (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Film adheres to WP:CLN in supporting appropriate implementation of navigation templates. It is against WP:CLN to have every actor's filmography available at the bottom of every film article. The disadvantages of this kind of bloated implementation have been articulated at various TfDs. I think the slippery-slope argument is vastly underestimated here. When we add a new field to the film infobox, it will get filled out everywhere. When we endorse director templates, such templates will be (and have been) made and inserted everywhere for everyone, including work-for-hire directors. To endorse non-director templates is to effectively endorse inserting all cast and crew members' filmographies in each and every film article, which is disadvantageous per WP:CLN. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again the point is being missed....no one is saying the project needs more nav templates or is forced to use them in articles the project covers (you are free to use WP:BIDIRECTIONAL at your discretion) ....what is being said is that there is a problem that people from the project are removing all films, actors, directors and writes from all exciting templates because of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL . Prohibiting (Orphaning) certain types of articles from all nav templates even by other projects is the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What is an example of this? It seems like an either/or proposition. If a multi-faceted person's navigation template includes specific film roles, are we not "compelled" to include their entire career in a film article per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, even if they only have a cameo role that is only "tangentially related"? How does this not amount to forced use when the setup doesn't satisfy advantages and have disadvantages? Perhaps there ought to be guidelines at WP:CLN regarding navigation templates for people since many tend to have varying degrees of involvement or contributions in society. If someone is a film director and also a musician, there could be separate templates for different bodies of work. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not this again. Moxy is pissed off as actor's filmographies are removed (quite rightly) from actor templates. I think the previous example was the Madonna template. Quite sad that he's still going on about this, despite a clear consensus against it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You got it right Lugnuts...we are still dealing with this and have made the decision to move forward with or without this projects input...because its now moved on to actors, directors, cast and crew ...understanding consensus is the problem here WP:Local consensus. @ Erik I am sure most would agree there is no need to remove links just because the template is not wanted in a certain article (its an abuse of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). Let me give a few examples... again as mentioned by "Lugnuts" ... an old one that the members of the Madonna project are still puzzled about no acting roles in navboxes. Then we have edits that people ask about at the help desks like this and this..... again all done to remove the template from the film and actor articles. People may argue that the links are reachable by others means ...but this POV does not think about those with accessibility issues ...making people have to click multiply times to find an article (every click is hard for some) and/or having to load huge pages (not all have fast internet nor unlimited data allowances) to find said info. Not to mention the fact many many readers navigate to the bottom of pages to find said info at a glance. Going out of our way to make a certain types of articles hard to navigate to is the opposite of what projects should be doing. If spam is a concern with the project just remove them from said article...over orphaning articles from templates just to stop there placement in one article. We are looking for common sense implementation of our policies and guidelines....not conflict driven edits.-- Moxy (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids

User:Mshmurd at film articles

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mshmurd at film articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding navboxes for Actors, etc.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term "development hell"

On my WP:Watchlist today, I saw that Coconutporkpie is removing the term "development hell" from film articles, per MOS:JARGON, as seen here and here. While I understand Coconutporkpie's point, I don't see that we should be completely avoiding that term/article, especially in cases where the creator is using the term. We can, for example, WP:Pipelink it with clearer wording. My point is that "development hell" is standard film terminology, and we shouldn't WP:Orphan that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We can also use its alternative name "development limbo." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, too. I figured it wasn't a big enough deal to care about. Maybe it is jargon, but I think a link resolves the issue. Then again, if the concept can be explained without jargon, I guess that's just as well. So, I'm OK with pretty much any resolution of the issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to fear. My intention is not to orphan the article, but merely to make film articles written for a general audience more intuitively understandable. "Development hell" is not a term in common use outside the entertainment industry field of entertainment. My impression is that most readers interested in a particular work of film will be primarily interested in the story, characters, cultural impact celebrity actors, etc., and will find unnecessary jargon to be distracting. Personally I feel think that diverting readers to a linked page so that they can understand a concept that could be simply explained in a handful of everyday words is snobbish and condescending. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

However, I see that a piped link such as stalled in development could provide the needed explanation while avoiding jargon. Since the link is a phrase, it signals that some concept is being referred to, while avoiding confusion with the general term Development. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally prefer Coconutporkpie's wording, which is much more accurate and encyclopedic. I think development hell should be avoided, and if or where a consensus deems it necessary to use, that it be placed in quotation marks. It's much better to state what actually happened than to use slang. Softlavender (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie and Softlavender, I feel that we have the Development hell article for a valid reason: To educate readers on that topic. I don't find anything snobbish and condescending about that. If we are not going to link to that topic/mention it on Wikipedia, we shouldn't have a Wikipedia article on it. No matter those who dislike the term development hell, that is the name of the topic. And, like I noted, development limbo is the other name for it, and we can pipelink the term with wording that is considered more encyclopedic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't think that the sequel to Wanted (2008 film) is in development. There is a difference between "in development" and "in development hell." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For a comparison, enough of our editors feel that the term box office bomb is unencyclopedic, but we still link to it in our film articles, commonly pipelinked as "underperformed" or a similar term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Existence of an article on Wikipedia does not mean that it either should or must be linked to, that it is encyclopedic wording, or that it is the optimal way to describe something on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Orphan, existence of an article on Wikipedia does indeed mean that it should be linked to. But linking to the article because it exists is nowhere close to my main argument. Linking to the article because it explains an encyclopedic concept to our readers, and because there is a difference between "in development" and "in development hell" is my argument. Using "In development" when what is actually meant is "in development hell" is misleading. Not linking to an encyclopedic concept directly related to the topic because some editors don't like the term is a poor reason not to link to the concept. If we were talking about a MOS:Neo violation and a term that easily offends some of our readers, as in the case cisgender, then I would see the point. But even in that case, I noted pipelinking as an option. With the existence of pipelinking for "more appropriate" wording, there is no valid reason at all to avoid the development hell link in an article about a film discussing that aspect, and especially not when the creator has used that exact term for explaining the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the filmmaker's point of view is not privileged over other sources, which may be more reliable. Giving due weight would mean choosing wording and descriptions—including linked topics—that reflect how reliable sources choose to talk about a topic. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, consensus as to not leaving articles as orphans does not override Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, including due weight and the general notability guideline. I'm not convinced that the concept of "development hell" is all that notable. Putting links to it wherever possible where they don't really belong, as seems to have been done, looks like simple advocacy for the phrase itself, in order to shore up a perception of notability where little exists (as well as noteworthiness vis-a-vis due weight). For instance, under Wanted (2008 film)#Sequel, the idea of "development hell" was not even alluded to by the source cited. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

NB: Wanted (2008 film) has been updated with more precise wording about the sequel's status. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think development hell is unencyclopedic - it's a well-used industry term, and I think is pretty clear in the meaning.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be a general reference, not a specialized industry publication. Accordingly, articles are written for a general audience, and everyday language is preferred (see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone). Another question is whether using the concept of "development hell" is original research, for example in The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. That example was easy to find; my impression is that there are probably numerous others, especially since a lot of these pop culture articles are poorly cited. [NB: that article has been updated. —Coconutporkpie (talk)] Even when a reliable source uses the term, as the New York Times does in their review of Broken City, I think that Wikipedia's job is to translate such jargon into everyday language. "Education" per se is not the aim; per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, we are neither a dictionary nor a guide to jargon. Due weight notwithstanding, I think that the use of specialty buzzwords in place of everyday language is jarring and distracting. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, nowhere did I state "the filmmaker's point of view is privileged over other sources." As for your argument that "consensus as to not leaving articles as orphans does not override Wikipedia's policies or guidelines," take note that WP:Consensus is a policy. Your interpretation of the WP:Jargon guideline does not mean that you are correct on this matter. I do not interpret WP:Jargon as meaning that we should not link to the encyclopedic topic of development hell. No matter what the topic is called, it is encyclopedic and is a notable topic with regard to the film industry, which is why it is noted in various screenwriting books. It's also why the development (film) link currently takes readers to the term; it's there to explain to readers what is meant by "Many projects fail to move beyond this stage." Wikilinks are there to help our readers. Linking should not be about whether or not an editor personally thinks that a term is notable or personally dislikes a term. It is supposed to be about what is best for our readers. You are going beyond the WP:Jargon guideline by removing links to the article altogether; you are not simply rewording. I don't have a problem with the rewording if it sounds more encyclopedic; I have a problem with you removing the link as though it's useless. If you doubt the notability of the development hell topic, then nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, I would like to see some form of WP:Consensus for you or the rest of us avoiding the link. So if we need to take the matter to MOS:Film, maybe start a WP:RfC on it and/or other film terms like "box office bomb," let's do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the personal nature of the above previous comment to be inappropriate and insulting, so I will not reply to it except to say that it seems more like bullying then an attempt to reach consensus. I will only add to my above remarks that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Vocabulary, new and specialized terms should not be introduced simply in order to educate the reader about them. In the case of "development hell", I think it's much more straightforward and informative to simply describe the facts: whether progress on the film stalled, and why. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing personal about my "06:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)" comment, and certainly not any more personal than your commentary in this section. You've again focused on the terminology aspect. I focused on the linking aspect in my "06:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)" post. It's been established in this section, including by you, that rewording can be done without removing the link. So I stated, "I would like to see some form of WP:Consensus for you or the rest of us avoiding the link. So if we need to take the matter to MOS:Film, maybe start a WP:RfC on it and/or other film terms like 'box office bomb,' let's do that." I'm not going to be avoiding the link because of an editor's personal opinion on it, or because of their interpretation of a guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Since Coconutporkpie is still going around removing the term and link as though the term and/or link are banned, as seen here, I will soon be taking this matter to MOS:FILM and working it out there; sometime later this week or next week (if someone else doesn't address the matter there first). Editors commonly have this type of problem with those who strictly enforce the WP:Words to watch guideline (as noted more than once at that guideline talk page), despite that guideline being clear that the words noted there are not banned and that the guideline should not be applied rigidly. Guidelines are not policies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And, yes, I know that this was addressing wording not directly supported by the sources. It still doesn't take away from the fact that terms like "development hell," "box office bomb," etc. need to be discussed at MOS:FILM with regard to their use in our film articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments solicited - "YYYY in film" revisited - Tables in film summary articles

Hey guys, I brought this up a few weeks back, but dropped the matter because it was close to the holidays and I thought it'd be better to wait for everybody get back in the swing. There are a number of articles like 2014 in film, List of Bollywood films of 2013, List of Italian films of 2014, etc. which all use complicated tables like this:

Extended content

Opening Title Studio Cast and crew Genre(s) Ref. J A N U A R Y 1 Pinnokam D' Cinema A.Hamen Kumar (director/screenplay); A.Hamen Kumar, Anu Ramamoorthy, Aghonderan Sahadevan, Surenderaj Yuvaraj Action, Romance 8 20 Once Again CJ E&M Film Division Leste Chen (director); Yang Zishan, Kuei Ya-lei, Chen Bolin, Luhan Comedy Blackhat Universal Studios Michael Mann (director/screenplay); Morgan Davis Foehl (screenplay); Chris Hemsworth, Viola Davis, John Ortiz, Yorick van Wageningen, Tang Wei, Leehom Wang Action, Thriller, Mystery 14 I Aascar Film S. Shankar (director/screenplay); Subha (screenplay); Vikram, Amy Jackson, N. Santhanam, Suresh Gopi, Upen Patel, Ramkumar Ganesan Romantic, Thriller Wild Card Lions Gate Entertainment Simon West (director); William Goldman (screenwriter); Jason Statham, Stanley Tucci, Sofía Vergara, Milo Ventimiglia, Michael Angarano, Anne Heche, Hope Davis, Jason Alexander, Cedric the Entertainer, Max Casella Drama 15 Aambala Avni Cinemax Sundar C. (director); S. B. Ramadas (screenplay); Vishal, Prabhu, Hansika Motwani, Ramya Krishnan Action, Comedy Darling Dream Factory Sam Anton (director); G. V. Prakash Kumar, Nikki Galrani, Karunas, Srushti Dange Horror, Comedy 16 Spare Parts Lions Gate Entertainment Sean McNamara (director); Elissa Matsueda (screenplay); George Lopez, Jamie Lee Curtis, Carlos PenaVega, Alexa PenaVega, Marisa Tomei Drama The Wedding Ringer Screen Gems Jeremy Garelick (director/screenplay); Jay Lavender (screenplay); Kevin Hart, Josh Gad, Kaley Cuoco, Olivia Thirlby, Alan Ritchson, Mimi Rogers, Ken Howard, Affion Crockett, Lindsay Pearce, Jenifer Lewis, Cloris Leachman Romance, Comedy 21 Ex Machina A24 Films Alex Garland (director/screenplay); Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Alicia Vikander Sci-fi, Thriller 22 The Summer of Sangailė Fralita Films Alantė Kavaitė (director); Alantė Kavaitė (screenplay); Julija Steponaityte, Aistė Diržiūtė Drama 23 A Walk in the Woods Broad Green Pictures Ken Kwapis (director); Rick Kerb, Bill Holderman (screenplay); Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Emma Thompson Adventure, Comedy, Biography Knock Knock Lionsgate Eli Roth (director/screenplay); Nicolás López, Guillermo Amoedo (screenplay) Keanu Reeves, Lorenza Izzo, Ana de Armas, Ignacia Allamand, Aaron Burns, Colleen Camp Erotic, Horror Mortdecai Lions Gate Entertainment David Koepp (director); Eric Aronson (screenwriter); Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor, Olivia Munn, Aubrey Plaza, Oliver Platt, Gwyneth Paltrow, Paul Bettany, Ulrich Thomsen, Jeff Goldblum Action, Comedy

Initially was concerned that there were WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, which may or may not be the case. I do know that formatting vertical text like this is problematic:

J<br />

U<br />

N<br />

E<br />

But my major problem with this style of table, is from a wikignome perspective. While they are intended to be pleasing to the eye, table formatting is confusing to begin with, and this fancy format requires casual editors to be familiar with nested rowspan formatting in order to add and subtract values. This very often necessitates that other editors clean up the mess. (Ex: Editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to perform cleanup by adjusting the rowspans for September and for the 23rd.) This is not an efficient use of volunteer time.

My recommendation for future articles is that the community consider a simpler format, like this:

Extended content

Opening Name Genre Director Cast Source 7 October Half Girlfriend Romance/Drama Mohit Suri Arjun Kapoor, Shraddha Kapoor 28 October Ae Dil Hai Mushkil Drama/Romance Karan Johar Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Anushka Sharma, Ranbir Kapoor, Fawad Khan, Imran Abbas, Lisa Haydon 28 October Shivaay Action/Drama Ajay Devgn Ajay Devgn, Sayesha Saigal, Erika Kaar, Ali Kazmi, Jabbz Farooqi, Vir Das 11 November Rock On!! 2 Drama Sujaat Saudagar Farhan Akhtar, Arjun Rampal, Purab Kohli, Shraddha Kapoor, Prachi Desai, Shashank Arora, Shahana Goswami 23 December Dangal Biopic Nitesh Tiwari Aamir Khan, Sakshi Tanwar, Fatima Sana Shaikh, Sanya Malhotra, Rajkummar Rao

This general style would make it far more intuitive to add and subtract titles, and would add the functionality of being able to sort by date and title. (I will note that I'm not good with table formatting, so I'm sure there are significant improvements to be made here. Sorting by genre and cast would be somewhat pointless, I'm aware.) Anyhow, your thoughts are warmly solicited. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)