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

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Audience reception: additional considerations

Generally, we discourage the inclusion of audience scores from user-generated sources like the scores published on Rotten Tomatoes (per WP:UGC and MOS:FILMAUDIENCE). That's pretty clear, but what's not clear is what do we do in situations when there are multiple reliable sources commenting on those unreliable scores?

Usually we'll see this in situations where the audience score is much higher (or lower) than the critics' score. Does it warrant inclusion when a significant number of sources are mentioning it? Does this become a WP:DUE concern that overrides the two guidelines I cited? I have my opinions but wanted to see what the general consensus was. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: A discussion notice was left at WT:RS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: A discussion notice was left at WP:RSN. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it's going to depend on the exact balance of coverage on a case-by-case basis, but generally speaking, if RS are discussing the discrepancy in their coverage it becomes WP:DUE for us to mention. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There are some editors who are zealous about removing all mention of user generated scores from the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which I don't really understand. If reliable sources are discussing it, I think that's a reason to at least discuss inclusion. If an IMDb score with lots of existing votes drops from an 8.5 down to a 5, and then it shoots back up to a 7.5, that'd be odd, but we couldn't document it. Anything we said would be original research. If Variety or the BBC wrote an article that documented the cause, though, I'd include it – or, at least, I'd include the story. The scores themselves probably aren't all that incredibly important. I'd say something like "The IMDb score see-sawed sharply between positive and negative. Variety attributed this to concerned efforts by both fans and haters to manipulate the score, potentially involving thousands of bots." Some random film has an IMDb score of 6.5? Who cares. Thousands of dueling bots? Worth mentioning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses so far. Just wanted to briefly add that for any given film, whether a discrepancy exists or not, you can easily find a dozen or so solid, reputable sources mentioning the audience score.

Once that door is opened, it won't be easy to close.

1. Maybe we want it opened at this point based on the significant coverage that's becoming more commonplace? Or maybe we want it closed, because out of thousands of articles published on each film, we know someone is bound to mention them?
2. Does the author's qualifications matter (e.g. journalist, industry research analyst, etc.)?
3. Does the source need to go beyond mere observation and speculation (author may not be aware of their inherent unreliability)?

--GoneIn60 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ratings are opinions, and are not a matter of fact. We don't trust user generated content in the sense of when a person was born, or who their wife is, or things like that. However, for widely reported user generated ratings and opinions, I don't see anything in conflict with Wikipedia policy like WP:RS: as long as we trust that the source like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes is accurately reporting this opinion, only WP:DUE is a concern, and insofar as these are among the most widely used sources of review information, there's an acceptable argument to be made that they are due in a limited fashion. --Jayron32 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• The problem with user-generated content is that it is inherently unreliable. Even something like RT verified scores requires you to actively sign in and rate something. As statistical content, the concept is pretty bunk; only scientific, randomized polls like CinemaScore or PostTrak are reliable. If media is covering user-generated scores, that might be worth mentioning - we have articles that cover review-bombing campaigns, for example - but such mentions have to not be done with the idea user-generated scores are reliable, because they aren’t. Toa Nidhiki05 16:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• In order for us to include info on IMDb and RT audience scores, they would have to be WP:DUE, which in this case would mean exceptionally relevant, due to a review-bombing or something of that nature. If the threshold is just that they're covered by reliable sources, we'll have reliable sources occasionally mentioning how an audience score was high despite the critics' score being low, which is treating the audience scores as reliable when they're not, and would qualify as WP:FRUIT. —El Millo (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• User-generated ratings/votes can be gamed, which is why they should never be referred to in any Wikipedia article. If a reliable source which is independent of the subject mentions that a film was an audience hit while (perhaps) being a critical failure, we can state that and use that source as a citation. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example here? Every critic in the business is aware of Metacritic audience ratings varying wildly from publication ratings -- generally because those audiences are sending them hate mail -- so I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where multiple publications will turn this very common situation into a story unless there is something genuinely noteworthy about a given case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot find any reliable source which is independent of the subject mentioning that a film was an audience hit while (perhaps) being a critical failure, then that conjecture does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does list box office earnings and sometimes also rental and/or streaming amounts/earnings if those are mentioned in a reliable source which is independent of the subject. If people want to read user reviews or ratings then they go to sites where those are user-generated, not to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"If people want to read user reviews or ratings then they go to sites where those are user-generated, not to Wikipedia". — exactly where I stand on "audience ratings" being inserted into reception sections, unless it has significant coverage/analysis (not merely mentioning it) in independent third party sources. Mike Allen 04:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This was meant as a bullet point reply to GoneIn60, I'm not sure why you indented it to look like a reply to you. I don't think we disagree on anything. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Holes (film)

There is a new discussion regarding the character names in the cast section on Holes (film). It can be found at Talk:Holes (film)#Character names in the cast section. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary columns in table?

The table for DVD, Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD releases in the List of Criterion Collection releases article has the following columns which I feel is totally irrelevant: LD No. (Criterion LaserDiscs have been out of print for decades, there is a separate article covering those LaserDiscs and most importantly, the overwhelming majority of entries for that column have this field blank), Art House (same as the last logic for the previous one), Box set availability (same), UK release (same and Wikipedia is not a retail site anyway so not sure what purpose this one is serving here). The Blu-ray column can be removed too by just color-coding the spine numbers to indicate whether the release is a DVD, a Blu-ray, a UHD or a combination of any two. The table is too huge already. Would request other editors to comment on this and let us know about their opinions. _Jovian ^Eclipse 17:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Um, why does a page like this exist anyway? It's just a list of every film they've released....which is basically what's on their website.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bignole: It is definitely due to Criterion's reputation and mainstream media coverage. This article was a featured list nominee long back and although it could not gather much support, the very purpose of this article's existence was not questioned by editors then. Even the result of a later discussion for deletion was "Keep". _Jovian ^Eclipse 06:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion should probably take place on the talk page of the actual article. However, in a general sense I think these types of lists are better served if they avoid availability-type information (i.e. a list of different available formats) because it is not especially encyclopedic. I also take issue with the "art house" column—is this a Criterion designation or is original research? If that designation is not verifiable it should definitely be excised. Betty Logan (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: It is explained in the legend (The "Art House" column notes stand-alone releases of a film within the "Essential Art House" series. Some films are available through the "Essential Art House" 50-DVD set, but not as a stand-alone package.) But of course, this does not merit its justification for being included in the table. _Jovian ^Eclipse 06:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Jovian, there's a difference between listing all the films that Criterion has put their mark on and listing all the formats you can buy a film from them. Criterion being special doesn't mean that we need a page that just lists every single film they ever released as if they did anything other than purchase the license to distribute the film. You came here to ask about the relevance of listing laserdiscs and other antiquated formats, but arguably if the page itself isn't irrelevant than those formats wouldn't be either. Given that what editors are saying is that Criterion touching a film makes that release special then it would stand to reason that even older formats no longer produced still have historical relevance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bignole: Of course, they do still have historical relevance. I am not questioning that. I merely opined that the LaserDisc No. column does not have much use in the Blu-ray and DVD table, that's all. I think it is also inaccurate to say that Criterion did not do "anything other than purchase the license to distribute the film". As has been already mentioned in the deletion discussion, Criterion has created new restorations, recorded interviews and commentaries, commissioned essays for their releases, besides setting industry standards for releasing home cinema releases. _Jovian ^Eclipse 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are the only sources to in the article to www.criterion.com? It has no third party sources to show it even has notability. I agree with BIGNOLE. This really is just carbon copy of their website, in Wiki format. The featured list candidate was 13 years ago and it surprisingly passed AFD 4 years ago. In my opinion, everything in the table is unnecessary because there are no third party sources. Mike Allen 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

My god. You people are idiots. You've deleted an incredibly useful resource for the stupidest reasons. SilasPWilliams (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@SilasPWilliams: Make your point without personal attacks. Please read over the guidelines WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Lapadite (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the point has been made already. SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't have enough people burning actual books? Now we have to do it online as well? SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

They still run a website, with all of the content was just copied to Wikipedia anyway. No one erased their existence. Calm down. Also, I didn't see your participation in the discussion. Mike Allen 00:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware it was happening until you burned down all the information you didn't like. What a truly shameful act. SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You biblioclastic buffooon. SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah.. I guess you're right... 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Mike Allen 00:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Warlock (1959 film)

Are any editors aware of any discussion in film criticism/history of a homoerotic subtext to the Quinn/Fonda relationship in the 1959 Western Warlock? Having seen the film for the first time, I thought the undertone was extraordinarily explicit for a movie made in 1959. Looking at our article, I see that there was some coverage, which was removed around 2009, with some mildly homophobic commentary. Looking for sources, there certainly is some discussion of the issue, though it appears to be largely in blogs. I’d be interested if any editors are aware of coverage in RS. I’ve also posted on the Westerns Project. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion on "the greatest film of all time"

Move discussion going on at Talk:Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles#Requested move 27 May 2023. Might be of interest to this WikiProject editors. _Jovian ^Eclipse 07:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sky High

Hey, there. I'm thinking about bringing the Sky High (2005 film) article up to a potential GA (or FA) status. If this article is brought to FA, we can feature it as a TFA on the main page on July 29, 2025 (the 20th anniversary of the film's release). Any thoughts on what to do here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Terminator 2 is at FAC again

Eight days and no comments if anyone is interested Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Some Like It Hot

Can more editors please take a look at Some Like It Hot and its talk page. An editor is removing the film's trailer and a couple long-term images from the page and I really can't figure out why, WP:OWN is being bandied about by both of us. I've asked why the free-use Some Like It Hot trailer sholdn't be used on the Some Like It Hot article and have gotten no answer aside from requests to cite policy and reverts. Thanks, outside help seems needed on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Regarding this topic, everything is clear from the history of the page and is adequately explained in the latest discussion on the talk page. FYI, this user is the contributor who recently added the trailer and the long-term image. ภץאคгöร 10:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as adding a long-term image, that's called a revert. As for adding the trailer, "thank you" seems the proper response, since it should be on the page. Maybe you can answer why it shouldn't either here or there. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added back the Some Like It Hot trailer on the Some Like It Hot article per common sense and Nyxaros not explaining just why on Earth or Wikipedia the film's page shouldn't contain the film's free-use trailer. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Sight and Sound Poll

Why was this deleted, it seemed a very good and useful navigational box. The sparsely attended Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 23#Template:Sight and Sound Poll was closed (one of the least watched areas of Wikipedia, this Wikiproject definitely should have been notified of the deletion attempt going on in a sub-basement of Wikipedia) and I'm sorry I missed it. This long-term navbox really was a great source and map for the world's most important film poll, and I'd suggest this Wikiproject get it back into mainspace. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk to Izno first, then WP:DRV second, if you do not like the results of a deletion discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging Izno, and will ping Woodensuperman who nominated the removal. At a bare minimum the nomination could have been relisted (it was so sparsely attended that a small table at a cafe could hold the participants) while at the same time this Wikiproject alerted. The Sight and Sound poll is the premium honored and accepted film poll in the world, and the navbox laid out perfectly the decade-by-decade progression of the honor. Can someone here start a DRV page if they agree, I'm not good at doing that. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to be kept more in the loop, watch Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Article_alerts#TfD which lists all film tagged templates. Gonnym (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a suitable for a navbox, it's not a proper set. The information is there in the article, that's good enough. --woodensuperman 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The navbox seemed a perfect map to the topic. That's what navboxes are for, to navigate a topic in one easy place and in a readable map. This one did that very well. The article has nothing to do with the map, nav boxes are used to accent the topics of thousands of articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And what the hey, might as well call in the three editors (two delete one keep) who commented on this table-top deletion discussion, WikiCleanerMan, Butlerblog, and Frietjes. I'd ask Izno to please reopen the discussion, it should have had a relisting and more of a notice on the relevant pages - it wasn't even listed on the Sight and Sound talk page which would have likely added more participation. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you that such minimal involvement would tend towards needing re-listing; but that's the trend on template deletion discussions - they don't often garner much response and tend to be closed as delete with minimal input. I wouldn't necessarily say that the close was improper, but it does raise concerns (at least for me). My primary issue with this deletion was that it's an example of "vote counting" which is not what consensus is supposed to be. The support for deletion is essentially opinion without policy or guideline support and would appear to contradict the established guideline. While guidelines are not engraved in stone, one would at least need to show some solid reason why it does not apply - at least in a deletion discussion that only has three voices. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The XfD was valid, the close was valid. Go to DRV if you disagree. For my 2p, I'd have chimed in to dump it too. Navboxes are a massive amount of clutter, and the Sight and Sound poll is not so vital a topic for any individual film it deserves that much real estate (and it's redundant with both the prose and categories.) It's not everyone else's responsibility to anticipate your complaints. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Navboxes are a massive amount of clutter". What? They are an important and wonderful way of mapping out Wikipedia articles. The Sight and Sound poll is the definitive poll, and that makes it vital for all involved films. Please read the navbox, lists, and categories page, which explains why categories, lists, and navboxes work as a team to guide interested readers to associated article. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it shock you to find that people disagree with your interpretation, hence the AfD? Just being a notable award doesn't mean it merits a navbox on every page that relates to it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't shock me, why would it? My argument is that the AfD was held in a little-viewed corner of Wikipedia, was not promoted on this page nor the Sight and Sound talk page, hence it had the participation of not even a handful of editors (needs one for the thumb). Such a topic seems far too important to leave up to three editors, one who presented a very good 'Keep' response. Any film included in the polling through the decades does well by having had the navbox on its page, and if that's just my opinion it wouldn't be the first time, but I have a feeling it isn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, there was a TFD notice at each of the 60-odd pages the template was transcluded to. If anything, this navbox had a much wider "audience" than many that get nominated. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Lilly Yokoi

The Draft is written by an anonymous contributor and the reviewers unfamiliar with the topic suggest it isn't notable and does not pass inclusion criteria. Would you concur with this judgment or do you have access to additional sources or policies that make the draft qualify for inclusion? I got a question about this draft and this is not my strong topic area. I would greatly appreciate your advice. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 05:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I just looked into it the subject is notable enough even in the newspapers archives. Now the page created is not very good. I will pass it and you could flag it afterward so folks know. Filmman3000 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gryllida I will do a few fixe and we will rock that page into. Page I think it's a matter of milking these article and getting the appropriate info out of it. Filmman3000 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and for publishing the draft! Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 03:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@GryllidaThank you! Filmman3000 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Two articles on the same film?

I just came across The Only Girl (film) which is apparently the same film as The Empress and I. Shouldn't these be in a single article?4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well that's a new one on me... I guess she's not the only girl after all... DonIago (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NCFF, it would appear that the former article should trump the latter, though obviously quality material from the latter should be integrated into the former. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See Multiple-language version. AFAIK there's no guideline that says multiple-language versions of the same work must be covered in one article, so no, not unless either fails WP:NFILM. Nardog (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

AfD: List of Criterion Collection releases

Deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination). Might be of interest to this WikiProject editors. _Jovian ^Eclipse 17:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Infobox character

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Propose removal of the Color parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Pete Maverick

Not sure if this the right place to ask about this, but Pete Maverick is a character from the two Top Gun films. Maybe someone more familiar with articles about fictional characters could take a look at this and see if merits a stand-alone article or should just be a redirect to one of the two articles about the films. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I just took a look. I mean it's a stub page and the admin will deal with this as they see fit. I am unaware if the character deserves a full page or not. Is there enough published material on the character alone? Filmman3000 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That I don't know. There were two films it which the character appeared, but I don't think there's a lot of other things related to the character (e.g. comics, TV series, books, etc.) that might make a stand-alone article GNG worthy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Appearing in only two films doesn't necessarily mean the character doesn't met GNG. A character isn't required necessarily to appear in extended media. I don't know if the character is notable on his own, but just a couple of things I could quickly find that might be good to start looking for things if one really wants to explore that?

• Acting for America: Movie Stars of the 1980s, Rutgers University Press , pp. 94-95, discusses his construction as a rebel image?
• Cineaste's review of Top Gun spends some time at length discussing the character, with reference to the context of film and heroic archetypes of the 80s.
• Nicholson's Tom Cruise: Anatomy of an Actor (published by Cahiers du Cinema and Phaidon), according to a review from Slant discusses Cruise's relationship to the character.

I don't have time to really dig into this topic at the moment, but those seem like good starting places at least. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is another useful link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF1LXL6OOsM Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Film listed as 1969 should be listed as 1970

Hey everyone,

I was working away on Charles Bronson's page, where I stumbled on a page named "Lola (1969 film)" also known as Twinky. However while the film was made in 1969 it was released in 1970. So the page should be called "Lola (1970 film)". On the Charles Bronson filmography page the person who originally wrote it as a 1969 release, it was also the case in his article before, so it creates confusion. It's minor film so on the large scale of things who cares, but if I do notice such mistake how can I resolve them. Thank you.

Filmman3000 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be just to move it to Lola (1970 film), which you can do by selecting the "move" tab at the top of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Filmman3000 and Betty Logan, I made the move and hopefully it is correct. The page text seems to indicate the 1970 dating is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn and @Betty Logan thank you both! Filmman3000 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Superman (1978 film)

Superman (1978 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of DCEU articles

I want to report here this deletion proposal initiated by myself after the last discussion in this WikiProject. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Note: the AfD has been superseded by a series of merge requests on each of the challenged articles' talk pages:

• Talk:Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request
• Talk:Joker (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request
• Talk:Zod (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request
• Talk:Mera (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request
• Talk:Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request
• Talk:Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request
• Talk:Supergirl (1984 film character)#Merge request
• Talk:Vicki Vale (1989 film series character)#Merge request
• Talk:Oswald Cobblepot (Batman Returns)#Merge request
• Talk:Harvey Dent (1989 film series character)#Merge request
• Talk:Dick Grayson (1989 film series character)#Merge request
• Talk:Edward Nygma (Batman Forever)#Merge request
• Talk:Victor Fries (Batman & Robin)#Merge request
• Talk:Pamela Isley (Batman & Robin)#Merge request

Participants of the previous AfD are invited to comment on the new merge requests. Pinging @Redjedi23, Dronebogus, David Fuchs, WuTang94, Jclemens, Piotrus, TheJoebro64, StarTrekker, and Aoba47. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My general feeling is that fictional character articles should generally have one article only, with the various film, TV, comic, etc. instantiations covered in that one article. I have no specific concerns with any of these articles in particular. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd support such merges. A fictional character can have one article, lenghty if necessary, but one will do just fine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a major concern is and has been WP:SIZESPLIT, especially if an article gets too big, which was probably one of the reasons why certain iterations of fictional characters got their separate articles in the first place. But here we're deciding if certain character iterations meet WP:GNG, and if they don't, I totally support merging them back. WuTang94 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it'll depend on the article, but I've found very few articles on fictional characters where SIZESPLIT is the right answer, versus actually condensing and better summarizing the information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, InfiniteNexus :)

Imo, for DCEU articles we should merge the information into Characters of the DC Extended Universe.

For Batman articles, I would just redirect them to the main pages. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated linking change at Manual of Style/Linking

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Trailers in articles?

What’s the guidelines/policy on adding film trailers to film articles? I can’t seem to find anything that either forbids or encourages their inclusion. Armegon (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I would ask, what is the point? The official site has the trailer and if that is not available, then the IMDb link will have the trailer. Mike Allen 00:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Earlier, I saw a user adding trailers to multiple film articles, including Lawrence of Arabia and Godzilla, King of the Monsters!. I was considering doing a mass revert but I didn't know if there's a rule/policy that encourages adding trailer. Personally to me, it seems like WP:FAN and doesn't add any commentary to warrant its inclusion. Armegon (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The trailers I added were all fair-use, are all on Commons, and while going through the Commons trailer collection maybe 3/4ths I looked at were already on the articles and I was picking up the stragglers. This is common practice on Wikipedia, and there is nothing wrong and everything encyclopedic about adding such important descriptive information and historical use of the technology and promotional ability of the time. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it “common practice?” Under what criteria is it common?? How is “important descriptive information and historical use of the technology and promotional ability of the time” when all you added to the caption box was “the film’s trailer”. That’s not descriptive info. It adds no relevance or commentary of any kind that warrants its inclusion. It’s just adding media for the sake of adding media and falls under WP:FAN. No one pinged you because this wasn’t about your edit. Like I said earlier, it was to sate my curiosity if such edits were encouraged or prohibited. WP:TRAILER seems to state that it’s only relevant if it’s both attributed to a reliable source and notable with commentary illustrating the film’s response by audiences and any impact the trailer had. None of which you provided. Armegon (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Although you seem quite combative (over trailers?) I'll answer a few of your concerns. "Common practice" because I've seen, watched, and enjoyed many trailers on Wikipedia for years, and affirmed it was common practice because most of the trailers in the Commons collection were already on pages. The caption "The film's trailer" describes the content, which is self-explanatory, and adding the free-use trailer seems at least equal to adding a photograph of an individual frame which is used on most articles. Pinging is polite when you discuss someone's Wikipedia work as something you'd like to "mass revert", no? May I ask, out of my curiosity, why trailers used on articles bother you so much? I know you've done good work on Godzilla pages, and you removed the trailer from the first U.S. film for page reasons that I don't understand, but trailers greatly accent the plot and descriptor of a film so are much more than "fan". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed. A trailer is not just an interesting artifact, it's an advertisement. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for the advertisement of films or anything else. We also don't post streaming ads for Coca-Cola (even if they're 60 years old) to Coca-Cola (albeit there are numerous still photos of ads there). And how many trailers are in the public domain, anyway? I don't believe that the publication of an entire copyrighted work, especially when that work itself isn't serving as a subject of discussion, qualifies as "fair use". Largoplazo (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Factual correction: The trailers in the Commons collection are not copyrighted, hence "fair use". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The fair-use doctrine refers to uses of copyrighted material. It's the whole point of the doctrine. If a work isn't copyrighted, then one can use it in any way one wishes, full stop; fair-use limitations don't apply. Therefore, for you to say "not copyrighted, hence 'fair use'" suggests that there's a gap in your understanding of the situation. Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The MOS does cover trailers first. Essentially, if there isn't critical commentary on the trailer itself, or something notable about it (e.g., It had record breaking views, etc.) then we don't include it. The fact that the trailer exists does not make it remarkable. The idea that you've watched trailers on Wikipedia doesn't mean that 1) they should be there or 2) that they are anything other than indiscriminate pieces of information about the film. Going to a film page and seeing, "Film X's trailer was released on June 14", adds exactly nothing to the article. We're not here to advertise for a film. I cannot think of anyone that would intelligently come to Wikipedia to see if a trailer exists when they can more easily google "Film X trailer" and just see it directly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My initial response was about adding the trailer link to the external links, but I also agree about adding bits about trailers in "Marketing" sections. For months I've been removing "[Film] trailer was released on June 13, 2023", but usually get backlash even after stressing a Marketing section must have critical commentary and not just a list of when of when trailer and images drop. Now there's an editor that adds "commentary" like this. (Pinging @Rocafellla:, would you like to discuss your position in adding this content to multiple articles, even though you aren't a big talker?) I'm glad CinemaBlend contributor Adreon Patterson thought an image of the lead in costume was "stylish and cool". There's more "reviews" in the marketing section than there will be in the critical reception next month (mark my words). I agree with with this rationale on the Elemental page about too much "commentary". Mike Allen 14:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Please move all further conversations to the MOS talk page (Found here), as that is the more appropriate location to discuss how to handle content being added to film pages in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic Four reception summary

There's a discussion on how we should summarize the reception in the lead on Fantastic Four (2015 film). It can be found at Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)#Summary of reviews in the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox color for DCEU character

Hello, in a similar way to MCU articles, I would suggest to decide a color to use for every DCEU articles. Also, do you think that DCEU and future DCU articles should have the same color? Redjedi23 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes and yes. The color should be extracted from the official franchise logo and adjusted if necessary to be MOS:COLOR-compliant. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be #0476F2, am I right? Redjedi23 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@WuTang94 I ping you because you are a major contributor to DCEU articles. What do you think about my proposal? Redjedi23 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a good color as it matches DC's current logo. The MCU characters seem to be red to match Marvel's logo so I see where you're going with it. WuTang94 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. For every other DC related article? (e.g. Bruce Wayne (1989 film series), Bruce Wayne (The Dark Knight Trilogy), etc. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: I tried this color in the Superman page (here), but I don't think it's a big deal. It would be fine if we could "force" the white text, but I don't think this is possible. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

#0376f2 is a little bit better. Redjedi23 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Colors must be AAA-compliant per MOS:COLOR, as the template documentation notes. Neither  #0077F2  nor  #0376f2  pass AAA standards. I got a different shade of blue,  #0077F2 , when running File:DC Comics logo.svg through a color extractor; dragging the slider at [1] got me  #0057AD  and  #3399FF  as possible colors. But as Masem noted below, I would wait until the discussion on the infobox talk page has ended before making any changes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If the color parameter will be kept, I would go for #0057AD. Redjedi23 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware there is a RFC on removing the color parameter from the infobox character template. See its talk page. Masem (t) 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Template talk:Infobox character#Propose removal of the Color parameter. TompaDompa (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A small group of WikiProject Video games editors trying to force a needless change that affects multiple WikiProjects despite years of implicit consensus from the community... InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Rediscovered film categories

Hi. I've just noticed that there are a lot of articles miscategorised under Category:Rediscovered films and its subcats. Many were added by User:Espngeek, for whom I've left a message asking to stop. I've emptied Category:2010s rediscovered films and removed Category:2000s rediscovered films from all but one article, but help is needed to check the rest.

On another note, these should probably be titled Category:Rediscovered 2000s films, etc., but that's a matter for CfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The user has also added a lot of inappropriate citations to streaming site MUBI, e.g. Special:Diff/1161168191. Articles which they've extensively edited, such as Vulgar auteurism, are a mess. A lot of clean-up will be needed. Espngeek's behaviour has previously been brought up at ANI, but didn't receive attention then. They're now playing obtuse in response to my message regarding the above miscategorisations. I'd appreciate if regular WikiProject Film contributors could take a look and see if further action is needed here. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Review aggregator CherryPicks?

With this edit to Citizen Kane, Themashup (talk · contribs) added a critical reception score from a review aggregator called CherryPicks (redlinked to establish there's no WP article on the site), which is new to me. Are other editors familiar with this site? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I found it randomly. It basically is a site for female and non-binary critics. It is a interesting site but can't find a lot of information around it besides the site itself. From checking, a lot of the time, they lack a lot of reviews so I think that could be a reason for why there's no Wiki place for it. Another is because it essentially, from what I've seen, grabs RT critics who fit their criteria and just post their review on their site and see if it passes tests like the Bechdel test and give it a score. Wouldn't say a Wiki article is needed for it since the site doesn't seemed to share alot of information and likes to be low-key which is fine imo and support that vibe. It's like a antique shop (the website) and I found it intresting and fun. Themashup (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine as a resource for finding reviews in other sources; reliance on their coverage or aggregate scores directly would ideally be backed by WP:USEBYOTHERS examples. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it could work. For myself, I think it follows too much of a similar format as RT to be it's own. My one issue I found with it right now is that many foreign films (from before like the 2010s) are completely missing. Along with that, many more films are missing too and their scores are usually based on no more than a couple dozen (at most) of reviews making their ratings less accurate and taking into account all the reviews usually can be found on RT, it seems less noteworthy. Though, a praise I have with it is it's inventiveness. The site is trying to give voice to a community that I myself am apart of and I love what it's doing. Though, while I think it works as a site, I think as a site we always use like RT to prop up films won't work too well since it mainly feels like a less RT in that regard when it comes to the reviews they have. What should be regarded with them is their notice on if a film meets standards like the Bechdel test, that's interesting that most other film place usually do. Themashup (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there support for the addition of all these foreign and minor/non-notable aggregator sites being added by themashup? Where will that end? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think they matter, sites like KinoPoisk, Allocine are significant since they tell a countries peoples thoughts on a product. They are not "non-notable", but the opposite. I said Cherry Picks is minor but can be mentioned since it's a US service for specific reviews that can be supported but not much more/ I don't find deleting ,for example, information I put out about how The Dark Knight was received by other countries minor, that to me is just wrong. Critics in one country hated a film like The Dark Knight and just because you don't like that doesn't mean it should be hidden. I just found out some information I added for The Dark Knight was deleted and I find that absurd. To me, we should have a section there expressing what other countries thought of the film for others to know. To not seems ,in my opinion, elitist and offensive to other people's opinions. I'm not sure if someone accidently deleted what I wrote what Russia thought of that film but would like to talk to whoever did since I find you're reasoning reductive. Themashup (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"just because you don't like that", bit early to be assuming you know anything about me mash, this is literally our first encounter.

A) It's the English Wikipedia, if Russia has a specific issue with the film that could be notable but otherwise it's Russia, which is known for disinformation and a dislike of America, I question and challenge the neutrality of their reviews, but it's also a pool of 11 Russian Critics from what you added so why is that notable? Who are these critics, why does their opinon matter, are they writing for personal blogs? Who knows. Where is the notability, where is the evidence that their opion is noteworthy or that their opinion, which is so significantly out of line with reviews both in and outside of America are neutral? How are these 11 unknown people reflecting the opinion of a nation of 147 million (and dropping)?

B) Same with CherryPick, where is the notability? Just because 10 people get together and write reviews doesn't make it notable. If I collect 20 people, start a site called Wikiggrate, are our opinions noteworthy because we provided an aggregated score?

C) Where does it end? Literally. If we're including Russia which has no relevance whatsoever to an American/British made film, do we include every other aggregator we can find? A German one, a French One, a Spanish one? It's not feasible to do so and it borders on being well outside of the scope of the article. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem that I find with this website is that when I go to the "About" page....it tells me nothing about the company. In fact, it is partially a fluff piece about how they are a "leader in entertainment and media". Yet, a news search for "CherryPicks" only yields results from their website. That means that no one is referencing them. For reference, Here is Rotten Tomatoes. CherryPicks appears to be someone's personal work. The podcast and the IG are run by Meg McCarthy, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Twitter is also run by her. It looks like they are getting some access to actual people on the industry for interviews, which is good to see, but my concern is that no one is referencing them or their interviews....seemingly anywhere significant. That makes me feel like we are placing some undue weight on their opinion regarding films based on tests that have nothing to do with the quality of the film and more to do with sociopolitical ideals.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

With CherryPicks I understand your reasoning since CherryPicks is one I have myself criticism of and positives. I'm new here and don't know everything but think their platform seems to be trustworthy enough in my opinion for a mention since I believe they do have credibility based on how well organized they are. Themashup (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For KinoPoisk, I think it matters to include foreign countries opinion on media. Checking their Wikis, I have seen wiki for films in different countries describe varying consensus if they're significant. KinoPoisk I thought would be since it shows a shocking distain for a beloved movie which I think is significant and should be shown. For example, for Chernobyl miniseries, the wiki page discusses Russia,Ukraine and critics form US thoughts on it and China's. This is because they're opinions stand out from the masses or are relevant for discussion. If a iconic film gets a shocking response from one country I find that interesting to detail. KinoPoisk has been around for over a decade and has a trustworthy amount of reviews to be called legitimate and each critic review has a link to a reputable source. These reviews are important because they show a place's peoples taste in media and if it stands out it should be noted. I could say delete all Metacritic info for films and their scores since you can find all their reviews usually on RT and a average score and end Metacritic. Also, the reason why I said KinoPoisk critics opinions stands out is how negative it is by comparison showing not all universal acclaim was universal. If you say 11 critics from a nowhere country don't matter then ignore when sites like Allocine are mentioned by the film Boyhood wiki to show acclaim everywhere and verify that. If The Godfather had shocking hate from let's say Russia then I would add that there cause it stands out and opens people's eyes. Themashup (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about Allocine. Unless it's relevant it probably shouldn't be in the Boyhood article, and per WP:OTHERSTUFF just because an editor added Allocine to that article at some point doesn't mean it was a good thing to do, it just means noone ever bothered to remove it. 11 reviews on Kinopoisk, 6 of which are apparently negative, is not a consensus of Russian opinions in general, there is no evidence of Kinopoisk's notability (existing is not in itself notable), and there is no evidence of how it's processes for determining the content of reviews and how it aggregates them. It's not notable. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It is when knowing how many hundreds of thousands of votes from Russia are on films and TV on the site. It shows the site is huge there and is known enough here to have a Wiki page. It is notable with how it stands out and that's undeniable. The critics rating stands out even from the Russian audiences and shows the critics from Russia's odd opinions on it. Honestly don't feel like arguing this since it's not that deep and low-key lost interest. Themashup (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with DWB and Bignole that we need to establish the notability/reliability of CherryPicks before using that site as a reliable source. The "About" page references plenty of sources where CherryPicks received coverage in 2018 when it entered the scene, but the question remains as to whether or not they are receiving sustained coverage and notability. Here are a few samples:

Rotten Tomatoes Alternative CherryPicks to Battle Gender Imbalance in Film Criticism – The Hollywood Reporter (2018)

CherryPicks Launches ‘CherryPop,’ a New Podcast on Sex in Movies With Hosts Beandrea July, Meg McCarthy – Variety (2018)

New aggregator CherryPicks will highlight female reviewers and women in film – Mashable (2018)

Ongoing coverage would indicate their work is being recognized for its quality and contribution to the industry. I didn't find much outside of 2018 in a brief search, and more recent sources I did come across weren't from highly-reputable publishers. Willing to consider further if we can verify sustained coverage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed those at the bottom, but it's weird they don't show up in a basic Google News search as the top choices. That said, I'll go back to what is the point of using them? Rotten Tomatoes "tomato meter" is really just an aggregate of positive and negative reviews, based on reviewers actual scores. The CherryScore claims to be based on female/non-binary reviewers. One would think they would pull from the list at RT, but they actually don't seem to do that. Citizen Kane has 100% rating, but has 1 reviewer listed. Batman Returns has 67%, but with 2 reviewers listed. If there are other reviews, then they are not easy to find. I don't think you can call yourself an "aggregator" with a single review. I'm back to the fact that we're placing undue weight on a website that is reviewing films (not all films mind you) from a sociopolitical standpoint and not from a quality of the film standpoint. That said, it is possible that we use some of their individual reviews as part of the overall summary of reception for the film, but I don't think they should be placed next to RT as some alternative aggregator like MetaCritic is used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The reason we use RT and Metacritic scores in reception for films is not because RT or Metacritic are inherently notable (that is what their articles are for) but because the mainstream media regularly use them for quantifying the immediate reception of a film i.e. they have become a kind of industry standard. This doesn't make it a free-for-all for every kind of metric we can find. For example, we don't add the Bechdel Test to film articles—despite it being notable—because its metrics are not an industry standard for assessing films. I have never heard of "Cherry Picks" and oppose its inclusion in articles unless its scores start popping up in other reliable sources, especially the mainstream trades such as variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen Daily etc. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of pinkvilla

Editors may be interested in this RfC on reliability of pinkvilla.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)

Hello, I have discovered through the reliable source American Film Institute that the movie "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" (1998) is a co-production between the United States, Germany and Mexico, however when I add the information it is removed because I'm not a Wikipedia librarian. For this reason I decided to write to you in the hope that you add the true information that I mentioned and which you can verify, within the "countries" category in the "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" fact sheet. 201.168.135.194 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)