Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Did you know 15 Oct 2024 – Yen and Ai-Lee (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 14 Oct 2024 – Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gb321 (t · c); see discussion 11 Oct 2024 – Manifesto (2015 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Lapadite (t · c); see discussion 07 Oct 2024 – Get the Hell Out (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 03 Oct 2024 – Stuntman (2024 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 28 Sep 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion 09 Sep 2024 – 48th Hong Kong International Film Festival (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 15 Oct 2024 – John Wick (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion 05 Sep 2024 – Ada Wong (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 08 Oct 2024 – List of accolades received by Jojo Rabbit (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 15 Sep 2024 – List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 17 Oct 2024 – Blood Legacy (TV series) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Afrowriter (t · c); start discussion 17 Oct 2024 – Lisabi: The Uprising (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Afrowriter (t · c); start discussion 12 Oct 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 08 Oct 2024 – Taylor Swift Productions (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Medxvo (t · c); start discussion 08 Oct 2024 – Mufasa (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 01 Oct 2024 – Itim (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mushy Yank (t · c); start discussion 01 Oct 2024 – Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Yovt (t · c); start discussion 27 Sep 2024 – Pokémon Heroes (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Pokelego999 (t · c); start discussion 21 Sep 2024 – The Great Mecca Feast (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); start discussion 10 Sep 2024 – Cinderella III: A Twist in Time (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion (7 more...) Featured article reviews 02 Sep 2024 – E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by TenPoundHammer (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 05 Oct 2024 – Walt Disney Animation Studios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion 05 Oct 2024 – Pre-Code Hollywood (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion Peer reviews 09 Oct 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion 30 Sep 2024 – Lake Michigan Monster (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Paleface Jack (t · c); see discussion 27 Sep 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by FishLoveHam (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Audience says?

Rotten Tomatoes added a new feature "Audience says", where it seems like the RT staff writes a consensus from user reviews similar to critics consensus. Here is an example. I'd like to see your thoughts on this, especially on whether it should be included in the Reception section of film articles. nyxærös 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We should not be including that at all. We may need to update MOS:FILM to reflect this. User ratings are subject to vote stacking (or vote brigading) and demographic skew. There may be rare exceptions where a secondary source analyzes it, but it should not be used as a matter of convention. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly edited the MOS to exclude "Audience Says" here. An RT editorial that discusses the feature is here. It says,

"'Audience Says' is a short blurb that summarizes what fans think of a movie, drawing on common points made in user reviews written for the title. Want to know, at a glance, whether audiences think a film is funny, scary, disappointing, or mindblowing? Check it out.... Plus, if we become aware of any external factors impacting the Audience Score and user reviews, such as a controversy affecting sentiment around a title, we may address that in the Audience Says blurb – all in an effort to equip you with the best and most relevant info to help make your viewing choices... Note that for now we will only have Audience Says blurbs for new films with a significant number of user reviews; we will not initially have them for older movies, nor for TV and streaming seasons or episodes. But: Watch this space."

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, it may be worth putting together a Wikipedia article like user ratings of film and consolidate all the related coverage, like this, for sharing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 thanked me for adding it to the MOS, so I am assuming that is an endorsement of the new text. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. It's just a coalescing of audience info, which isn't any different than audience ratings/opinions in the past, which we don't include currently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TropicAces, please see above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

30th Saturn Awards

I'm currently working on a draft where a film received a nomination for Best Horror Film at the 30th Saturn Awards. Now, I know some award ceremonies don't get much attention "media-wise", but I think there has to be at least one, active, website out there. Just wanted to see if anyone could help me search for a link or archive about the ceremony and its nominees. Any help at all will be greatly appreciated. Some Dude From NC^{wanna talk?} 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You are almost certainly screwed unless the film won the award. I have had to completely ignore some nominations because you just can't find legitimate sources to cover it. I have gotten lucky now and again finding something like this for RoboCop but even then it didn't list every nomination. Your best bet is to search individually for the person/thing who won and "saturn award" and you might get a mention of it on some news site if the person was notable. If you can find a mention of in a magazine for instance you can use the Resource Exchange REquest to see the content, but you need the magazine and a page number for them to help. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks for the kind response. I'll try my best to look for a source. Some Dude From NC^{wanna talk?} 22:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I did have a quick Google to no success. Is there a specific award/film you're looking for? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: I recently made an article covering the Jeepers Creepers film series, and the only award that needs a reference is the 2004 Saturn Award nomination for Best Horror Film received by Jeepers Creepers 2. Some Dude From North Carolina 20:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Dude, had a look on Google and Google Scholar, searched specific sites like the nytimes, latimes, and variety to no avail. I think the only chance you'll have is it being in a magazine like Fangoria if that existed at the time, but I don't know how you'd search for Fangoria contents. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: A fellow editor found a source, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. Some Dude From North Carolina 22:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I would question it, looks like an Italian IMDB, but maybe someone here has more experience with it. Good luck! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Here you can see some information about the website. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Fangoria, NinjaRobotPirate mentions here being able to look up Fangoria back issues. Not sure if that helps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea for resources from Fangoria, too bad I couldn't find any from 2004. Some Dude From North Carolina 12:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I was searching up the year when all it needs is an issue #. Thanks for the tool! Some Dude From North Carolina 13:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Star Wars spinoffs

Template:Star Wars spinoffs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miroir (film)

The article Miroir (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single, weak source exists for this subject, little other information exists for this subject. No further information available and without a doubt fails WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Theprussian (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the template and explained why on the talk page here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Miroir (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miroir (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miroir (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Theprussian (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Coming to America (film series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coming to America (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming to America (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge: Jojo Rabbit (soundtrack) into Jojo Rabbit; dated: 24 February 2021. Proposer's Rationale: This article has no reason to have it's own, as there is enough space to place it in the original Jojo Rabbit article, as you can see in its Music subsection. It also has little things to say here. User:Gerald Waldo Luis. Note: target article is 122k size. Discuss >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Emptying out Category:Films by director

Hello, WikiProject Film,

I'm not sure exactly what is going on but some editor is depopulating director categories on Wikipedia. Starting with the "A"s (first name) yesterday, 5-10 director categories are being emptied out a day. You can see the daily list on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. At WP:CFD, this is called "emptying out of process" because the correct way to delete categories en masse like this is to post a proposal at CFD and argue for deletion. And it's difficult for editors, like me, who are unfamiliar with film to know what films are being removed from these categories or to know whether this editing is following a decision made by this members of this WikiProject to eliminate these categories for lesser known directors.

For those who are not familiar with how empty categories are handled on Wikipedia, they are tagged CSD C1 and sit for a week at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion...if they are still empty after 7 days, they are deleted. However, categories deleted simply for being emptied can be restored whenever they are needed. What we try to avoid though is for individual editors to set about doing mass changes that then have to be undone later. So, I hope someone with this WikiProject could ferret out what's going on, see if it has any widespread support and who might be doing it so we can check in before this starts involving hundreds of categories. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To save everyone some hunting this looks to be the editor in question Sprachraum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It also looks like JJMC89 has tried to explain to things to them at this thread User talk:JJMC89#Mass reverts. Of course there will be more to the story as I am only doing a quick look see so that the rest of you wont be starting from scratch. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I had hoped to introduce myself differently to this page, but anyway... I am not a new Wikipedia user, but most of my work so far has been in the German Wikipedia, where there seem to be plenty of rules and processes that are handled differently to here. Although I'm learning, I keep running into new and unexpected differences. In the German WP, a category that has no corresponding main article, is routinely tagged and quick-deleted, especially if it has been around for a while without the article been created. I'm actually going through the A's of "Films directed by" for a different reason, but thought I might make myself useful while doing that, not just by creating a link to the main article wherever it is missing, but also by preparing for removal of such categories where no main article exists. The first two such pages I found, were Category:Films directed by Aaron Blaise and Category:Films directed by Abdul Razak Mohaideen. I tagged those for a quick delete with the comment "no article about the director exists to go with this category", removing the one film that was in each beforehand, because otherwise that has a red link when the category is deleted. And an admin here in the en-WP, Anthony Appleyard, quick-deleted these two pages several hours later. So it seemed to me I was on the right path, but I asked one of the category experts anyway, and got the answer: It is at least unusual to create a category without a corresponding article, and they would probably be deleted in full discussion – but no rule exists, and it is not a quick delete criteria. So I stopped tagging categories that way, but removed the films in preparation for bringing these categories into CfD. Apparently that was an error too, because I have now been mass reverted by JJMC89, who has also restored the two deleted categories, calling them "inappropriately deleted". Obviously there are differences of opinion even amongst admins where these sort of categories are involved.

I will of course now stop removing films from the categories without a main article. But I would appreciate input from here whether you (apart from my wrong approach to it) agree these categories should not be created and have a good chance of being deleted after full discussion. Because if that too is in dispute, I won't waste any more time on this. Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

American titles for American films and British titles for British films?

A discussion at Talk:Escape to Victory#Requested move 8 March 2021 aims to resolve whether the entry for the American production Victory (1981 film) should have its main title header under its British release form, Escape to Victory or under its American release form, Victory (1981 film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Film poster in infobox

For the image in the infobox of an article about a film, if more than one film poster is available, which one should be used? I was thinking that the best one to use was the poster for the main theatrical release. I'm asking because an editor has recently changed the infobox poster for Hugo Pool, replacing the poster for the main theatrical release with the poster for the Sundance premier (which presumably was earlier), as can be seen here. @QuestFour: Hello! I thought I'd start this discussion here, where more interested editors will see it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's more common to use the main theatrical release poster for the infobox. From what I've found, the current poster isn't for the Sundance premiere, but the DVD cover with the DVD logo removed in the bottom-right corner. —El Millo (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The FUR for a non-free image in a film infobox is to provide visual identification of the topic, so the "main" release poster is usually the most suitable choice. Festival posters are a poor choice, especially if they are too dissimilar from the main theatrical release poster. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@El Millo and Betty Logan: Thanks for the input. I'm going to go ahead and revert it to the theatrical release poster. @QuestFour: Feel free to continue the discussion here if you like. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Film series guidelines

I've boldly added film series guidelines to the MOS. See it at MOS:FILM#Film series and discuss at WT:MOSFILM#Film series. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good Erik. Thanks for being Bold and taking the time to do this work. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

PSA: Army of the Dead was never a Dawn of the Dead sequel

Main articles: Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) and Army of the Dead

Since this was reverted twice over the past few months and the topic is open at Talk:Army of the Dead, I wanted to give everyone a head's up.

Army of the Dead (Zack Snyder) was in development hell for a while until around 2018. When it was first announced in 2006, a number of reliable publications reported it as a sequel to 2004's Dawn of the Dead (same director). This led to the widespread misconception that the film was originally intended to be a DotD sequel. However, this isn't actually true. In an overlooked interview from 2007, the screenwriter actually debunked any connection to DotD:

"It’s not a sequel. It’s its own being, its own film,” he said, clearing up any confusion that this is a sequel to Snyder’s 2003 remake of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. “I think what Zack wanted to do was make the ultimate zombie movie. If you could do anything, what would be the epic be-all-end-all of zombie films, which is a hell of a challenge but very exciting to do. We took it to the next level. I’m extremely pleased with it. It’s definitely out there, it’s crazy, and — much like Awake – it’s not just a straight-up genre film. There’s a lot of action elements, there’s a lot of horror elements, it’s not just your traditional every day zombie movie. We really take it and run with it." [1]

Likewise, it was also originally going to include rape zombies that impregnate women, giving birth to zombie/human hybrids [2]. This actually contradicts the zombies depicted in Dawn of the Dead, which were human corpses whose brain function was partially reanimated by either (according to writer James Gunn) an unexplained supernatural occurrence or (according to the DVD box) an unexplained viral infection. In that interpretation, calling a "human/zombie hybrid" is as nonsensical as saying "bread/sandwich amalgam."

But aside from the screenwriter debunking the proported connection, nobody attached to the film has ever referred to it as a sequel. It's just a Chinese Whisper that started from one reliable third party publication and then got spread over to several more. Like a viral infection in itself... "The misreports are coming to get you, Barbra. Look, there comes one of them now!" Darkknight2149 05:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Awards navigation templates

It seems like the awards navigation templates are getting out of hand. At Chloé Zhao, there are nearly 30 such templates in the article footer alone. See screenshot here. Is it time to come up with guidelines disallowing them based on the related disadvantages listed at WP:CLNT and start posting them at WP:TFD? A case could be made for the most well-known awards, but without specifications like here, the whole matter gets out of hand. Pinging SibTower1987 and Charge2charge as involved editors. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've never seen an issue with awards nav templates for major awards and critics' awards. We seem to have a precedent that actors don't necessarily have critics' awards templates added, that may be contributing to sleekness, but it's obviously getting out of hand when a single person serving as director/writer/editor is winning every critics' award. Zhao seems like an anomaly on that front, but with the rise of multi-hyphenates it may prove to be an issue in the future. That doesn't really require action now, especially since the templates are all condensed under an "Awards for" banner. If you're really that concerned, I think the best course of action is to, on Zhao's page and not CREEP further due to her anomalous status, only include the major awards and major critics' awards templates. This would reduce the block to 2x Critics' Choice, 1x Golden Globe, 1x London Film Critics, 1x LA Film Critics, 1x National Society Critics, 1x NY Film Critics, 3x Online Film Critics, and 1x Satellite Award (11 templates). Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think to get to the heart of the matter, is it really the best assumption that a reader wants to know who else won the Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Director (or whatever else) in preceding and succeeding years? Navigation templates are like more organized "See also" sections (WP:NAVBOX says, "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.") So these templates essentially mean listing other people's names in a "See also"-esque section, yet the relationship is far more tenuous than if the main person had actually worked with them at some other point. The links to the awards organizations already exist in the article body, so it seems excessive to also provide other winners' names in the immediacy of the one person's article.

  Disadvantages of navigation templates include:

• Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. (In this case, even more detail from minor awards organizations than the minimum necessary).
• Can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related
• Includes the full list of links in every article, even though often many of the links are not useful in some of the articles

In other words, it's like we're essentially importing an awards organization's article content into another article, especially considering that organizations don't have much content besides the nominations and wins themselves. I still think the need for awards navigation templates should be reconsidered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the polite way of saying burn it all to the ground? WP:NAVBOX "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers." More than half of users already go without Navboxes, I suggest getting rid of them for the other half too. That's what I'd like to see happen. WP:NAVBOX also says "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article."
What is probably more likely to actually happen is that existing rules such as WP:DONTHIDE or WP:NOTABLE or maybe even WP:OVERLINK will be applied and NAVBOXES will be treated with at least as much discipline as we would expect from links being added to the See also section, or the External links (which I hope is essentially reiterating what Erik has said already). I can understand including a Navbox when you actually want to show the Navbox, but I cannot understand why anyone argues to include NAVBOXES and them immediately hides them! If you don't want to show the contents of the Navboxes you include why exactly do you want to include it at all? It is particularly egregious when editors include Navboxes for things that are otherwise not mentioned anywhere in the article. They are already not supposed to do this, but they do it anyway (see WP:NAVBOX "Do not rely solely on navboxes"). As I have already mentioned Navboxes are not shown to most users, so anything actually worth noting should be included in the article as WP:PROSE. Wikipedia is supposed to be about WP:PROSE, not lists and tables, and just as I would prefer to see bloated Accolades tables split out of film articles and into separate list articles, so too would I like to see Navboxes (which are another tables full of links) relegated to list articles only.
Deep breath. I rant but I grudgingly admit it can sometimes be reasonable to include a few (say three) of the most relevant Navboxes (eg. A Navbox for the director, and maybe one for the topic, see Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)) but when we get past 5 navboxes in total we are making excuses for list cruft and tedious tables we would not allow otherwise, and editors have developed a blind spot, a bad habit of accepting Navboxes as normal. We don't include every category possible we only include the most notable ones, why must we include anything more than single most notable Awards Navbox? (Hint: There is no requirement to include any Navbox at all.) I urge you to pick some of the existing sensible rules and apply them to Navboxes, or preferably ban them entirely, because very little of value would be lost (again more than half of user already never see those navboxes). I'd be happy to see Navboxes relegated to the list of things Wikipedia doesn't do anymore.
As Erik has suggested, I think the existing guidelines already give plenty of of justification to reduce the number of Navboxes to only the essentials. -- 109.76.128.149 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Pasolini (film)

Hi. On the article for Pasolini (film) the same editor insists on adding Salvatore Ruocco's name to the infobox as starring in the film. I don't think that's right based on the character he plays being listed as "Socialist politician". However, they say that it's like that on the Italian page, so therefore the same applies here. Can anyone help with this? Also raised on the article's talkpage. THanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential disruptive editing on multiple film articles

Editors with the time and inclination to do so may want to review edits by CejeroC (talk · contribs). I first noticed that this editor was misusing the color_process parameter, which is intended to only be used for animated films; the documentation clearly states this. I warned Cejero about that previously, and warned them again today as they apparently did not heed my prior warning. I've also noticed that they've applied unsourced and potentially inaccurate genres (notably neo-noir), and in at least one case they changed a film's runtime from what's listed at AllMovie to another value. Because they also don't leave edit summaries, it's difficult to know what their intentions are.

In any event, I'm cleaning up what I can; most of it's not recent enough that it would likely warrant a block, but I think it definitely merits review. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If they're editing through the mobile app, they likely don't see any warnings since apparently such editors don't get notified that way. Not sure what the community's solution for that is. See this for a discussion about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that was a fun read. Will they even notice if they get pinged? In any case, blocks are intended to curb disruption, and they appear to have a possible pattern of (I'm willing to assume unknowing) long-term disruption, so whether or not they're aware of the situation may ultimately be immaterial? I'll agree it would be poor form to block an editor who doesn't even know they've been warned, but if we don't have any other good options... DonIago (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FA considered for review

Just to let the community know, although I have not made any nominations, I have started discussions on Talk:Battlefield Earth (film) and Talk:Tank Girl (film) on why those FAs may no longer meet the criteria. Please join if you have the time. Thanks. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Collider

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Collider in the context of the article Alien (film). If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Collider. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As a sub-note, there isn't really much concern towards the Alien article. I'm working on Jojo Rabbit, which has citations to Collider. GeraldWL 04:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)