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 30 Aug 2024 – Eniaios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hinnk (t · c); see discussion 30 Aug 2024 – The Right and the Wrong (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Slgrandson (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Over My Dead Body (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – IMAX Melbourne (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Mjks28 (t · c); see discussion 28 Aug 2024 – Norma Phillips (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Silver seren (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2024 – List of accolades received by Joe Hisaishi (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TechnoSquirrel69 (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2024 – Time (2021 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 22 Aug 2024 – G Affairs (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 Featured article candidates 26 Aug 2024 – Starship Troopers (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion 21 Aug 2024 – Godzilla Minus One (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion 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 Good article nominees 20 Aug 2024 – Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); start discussion 19 Aug 2024 – Pokémon Heroes (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Pokelego999 (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 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 (5 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 02 Sep 2024 – Beetlejuice (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Zmbro (t · c); see discussion 27 Aug 2024 – Rocky Balboa (film) (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 27 Aug 2024 – A Hard Day's Night (film) (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Spinixster (t · c) was closed; see discussion Requests for comments 28 Aug 2024 – Deadpool & Wolverine (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by BarntToust (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (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

Adding images to articles without images

Hi everyone. Can I just check I'm doing something right? I don't want to screw things up! If an article's Talk page has (for example) Category:British cinema articles needing an image, and I then add an image to the article, is the process to then edit the Talk page and remove needs-image=yes from the {{Film|British-task-force=yes}} template? Similarly, if I find an article which already has an image, yet strangely also hasneeds-image=yes , to again simply remove that bit from the template? Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Tobyhoward, I think that is how it works or simply replace yes with no? Did you find any clarification about this? If yes please consider sharing it here. Thank you. 456legendtalk 03:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, add an image and remove |needs-image=. Gonnym (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@456legend @Gonnym Thanks both. I haven't been able to find any other clarification, so thank you. I had been hoping to use Category:British cinema articles needing an image to help me find articles without images, but alas it hasn't worked out. Many articles with needs-image=yes on their Talk page have actually had images added – I guess because the editor adding the image didn't know to remove the needs-image. Tobyhoward (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the maintenance categories could benefit from bots going over them and removing them if they no longer need to be there. But until we have those bots, we have to do it manually :) Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:$pent#Requested move 13 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:$pent#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Memento (film)

Memento (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. Z1720 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival

Anyone know anything about Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival? I came across the claim that the latest Neil Breen nonsense won some awards there and figured I'd check it out. Our article has a lot of sources, nearly all of which are primary. The article was written by two users, one of whom has never edited anything else and the other has the same name as someone who won one of its awards. It seems like it exists, but I can find very little written about it that the organizers and winners didn't write themselves. Feels like one of those "industry awards" schemes, but maybe it's just so indie it doesn't even get noticed by the indie press. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a red flag to see most of the citations be primary sources. Checking Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, the former mentions it in passing once, and the latter doesn't mention it at all. I don't think this festival is notable for a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've listed it for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox original theatrical release poster

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Original theatrical release poster that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Οἶδα (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Documentary films

Are biographical documentary films considered as "cultural depictions"? I ask because I've noticed some inconsistencies in categorisation, e.g.:

• Pelé (2021 film) is in Category:Cultural depictions of Pelé, but
• Elton John: Tantrums & Tiaras is not in Category:Cultural depictions of Elton John

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Depictions of people on film is sub-category of Category:Cultural depictions so the tree seems ok. Interisintgly, Category:Biographical works by subject does not seem to be connected.

I'd also note that Category:Cultural depictions of Pelé has a few pages that should probably be placed in a Category:Works about Pelé category. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Thanks for the reply. DH85868993 (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Genre on Poor Things

There is discussion on how to apply genre to the lead in the Poor Things (film) article. If anyone is interested to add there thoughts here, it would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Genre articles

So, among our most linked to articles we have are on film genres. I've slowly been trying to re-work some of them into more stable formats (namely, Horror film, Thriller film, Mystery film and just now, Action film. I've seen very little feedback on this (except for Horror!) and I was curious if anyone had any suggestions on how to make these better or where we could go from here with these. I've made some talk about it on the action film talk page, but I figured I'd bring it to the attention of the WikiProject. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about Screen Rant reliability

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Priscilla (film)#Vandalism about the reliability of using a Screen Rant article to support a box office break even amount. More input is appreciated. Mike Allen 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sub-genre in Horror film article

There is discussion on the inclusion of a sub-genre on Talk:Horror film. The current discussion seems to be around whether a proposal for an added sub-genre is backed up by it's sources. Any additional commentary here would be helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about character name spelling at Beetlejuice

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Beetlejuice regarding the spelling of the titular character. The thread is Character name spelling. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of film awards

Had a question I wanted to ask about film awards: specifically, does the project have any rule that some awards are so uniquely important that they warrant dual mention in the lead section of the article and in the awards table while other awards are somehow not?

A Canadian short film called Invincible got an Oscar nomination for best short film last week, and while obviously that's reflected in its awards table and nobody's been questioning that, another user has also been insisting that the Oscar nomination also belongs in the lead. But the thing is, the film already has several wins of other film awards under its belt, including best short film at the Prix Iris. In other words, it is not notable because of an Oscar nomination, it's a film that was already notable because it has already won the second most important film award in its own native country — so an Oscar nomination is just a bonus, not the central fact that made it notable in the first place. (And while I'm not psychic, its performance so far suggests that it's likely also a near-lock for a Canadian Screen Award nomination when those come out in a few more weeks, i.e. the only film award in its own native country that's even more important and more nailing-notability-to-the-wall than the Iris, though obviously that remains to be seen.)

And for added bonus, even though the film's Academy Award nomination is already properly sourced in the awards table, the user is adding it to the lead with primary sourcing to the Oscars' own self-published website, which is not proper format: the question of whether a film award is notable enough to be listed in the article in the first place hinges specifically on whether it's an award that gets media coverage to establish the notability of said award or not, so the source for an award nomination has to be media coverage in order to establish that the award is notable enough to merit mention. And for the icing on the cake, the last time they reverted me they even tried to order me to just obey them and not to take the question to any talk pages for any discussion on it, which is obviously not how Wikipedia works.

So the question is, are the Oscars really considered such a uniquely special case that a mere nomination for that award requires special treatment over and above any other awards? Are they really so special that an Oscar nomination needs to be dual-mentioned in both the introduction and the awards table, while the Iris (and CSA if it gets there) are somehow restricted to just the table? Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say, generally speaking, the Oscars can be argued as the mostly commonly known/recognized award for films in the United States so that does throw some weight behind including such in the lead. However, as you noted, that shouldn't be the only single awards mention given the short film has won other notable/prestigious awards. My recommendation is just a summary sentence such as "Invincible has been nominated for best short film, winning a Prix Iris award and being nominated for an Academy Award." adding in additional notable awards as applicable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've gone with that. We'll see if it finally dies down, or if the user tries to revert me on the grounds that the Oscar is somehow more special than anything else. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In some instances, a film's Oscar nom is it's only "major" one, hence many editors trying to have it (and only it) mentioned in the lead. That is not the case here, so a neutral sentence as I suggested (and you've implemented) is the way to go on that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Oscars are certainly the most coveted peer-based honor in the industry, regardless of which country you come from. If you are an aspiring British actor, you don't dream of giving your Bafta acceptance speech, let's put it that way. I think I would generally put major oscar wins/nominations in the lead in most cases, but it's not set in stone. If someone had compelling reasons for not covering the oscars in the lead I would approach the discussion with an open mind, but at the end of the day the lead should be summarising why the subject of the article is notable, and it is difficult to make a case that getting an oscar nom is not one of the most notable aspects of a film's reception. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Damascus International Film Festival shoehorned into Cinema of Syria

Hi all--I have a fairly simple question/dispute for you: should the content of Damascus International Film Festival be inserted into Cinema of Syria? I don't see why, there is no reason given for it, and the text (unacknowledged) for a local film festival is simply pasted into an article on a national cinema--but User:Thatsyrianitalian persists. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"See You On Venus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect See You On Venus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § See You On Venus until a consensus is reached.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response, the request for discussion of See You On Venus has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_6#See_You_On_Venus. Readers of this page are encouraged to comment on the redirect there.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Referencing in filmographies – one reference for each single entry or one reference for all?

Article in question: Ineko Arima

User 55go has repeatedly added references for each single entry in filmographies in the past. To reduce clutter per WP:CITEKILL WP:ILCLUTTER, I've swapped the dozen+ single references with one in said article, here using the Kinenote/Kinema Junpo website which should be sufficient as a WP:RELIABLE.

55go has reversed my edit without consulting me for e.g. finding consensus, even blaming me for "rendering the efforts of others futile" in the edit commentary (others meaning himself, as 55go has no problem with "rendering futile" other editors' work). As 55go is not even above of making block threats against other editors (see here) who are of a different opininion – which he isn't entitled to as being a non-admin, but says a lot otherwise –, I've taken this question directly here for discussion and finding consensus. I know some editors do not agree in citing WP:ILCLUTTER here, but I think referencing filmographies with one reliable source instead of individual referencing prevents needless bloating of both the reference section and the text in the editing window (just imagine filmographies with 50 or more entries, not just a dozen as is the case here). Robert Kerber (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Conduct issues aside: I would consider citing each entry separately and using a dedicated "references" column best practices. I don't consider the argument that using a single reference reduces clutter a particularly strong one—the clutter when doing it the other way is minimal—and I think the benefits of explicitly citing each individual entry outweigh any potential drawbacks. It significantly reduces the vulnerability to incorrect or not-properly-sourced material creeping in at a later point in time, for one thing. It's also not entirely uncommon for a single source to cover almost an entire filmography (or similar), but with one or a few missing entries. We don't have to imagine what it would be like with more than 50 entries: William S. Hart filmography has approximately 70 entries, each cited separately, and it was promoted to WP:Featured list as recently as August of last year. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, your given example only proves my point regarding the extent of the reference section which is anything but "minimal", and a plethora of references is all the more vulnerable to inreliabilities (with each single one to be marked, if necessary, as "unreliable", "better source needed" etc.) instead of using a single source which has proven reliable in the past – and in case if it suddenly weren't, only a single "unreliable" or "better source needed" tag would be needed. Regards, Robert Kerber (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

If all sources in play are reliable, and we can do more with less, then I see no reason why we can't condense citations. "To make it easier to identify misinformation" means nothing to me. In general, any person could add false information with a seemingly authentic source. If anything, it's easier to look at the Kinenote source to compare to the wiki list rather than check each source individually. And regarding what TompaDompa said, I agree that some filmography sources may not be complete, but it's possible to combine multiple filmography sources. Furthermore, per WP:REFBOMB, it also helps indicate the true value of the references and perhaps that more substance is needed for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. There are at least two aspects here: whether to prefer a higher or lower number of sources, and whether to prefer a higher or lower number of references (or inline citations). Sources can be reused, after all. I'm saying that regardless of the number of sources, a reference for each entry is preferable (an argument could be made that when there is only one source used, citing it once is preferable to citing it for each individual entry; I don't particularly agree but the case against it is also not as strong as when multiple sources are used). I would also hardly consider a lengthy reference section at the end of an article "clutter", but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. TompaDompa (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I see this as initially comparable to how we have agreed that only one cite for a cast list in a movie is fine, or one cite for a particular set of awards.

But to be fair, filmographies may be different. There may not always be one official reliable reference for these; I mean, an individual's official website is usually the best, but then it may exclude work the individual wants to distance themselves from (David Fincher's website, for instance, would give you no idea he was involved with Alien 3 in any way). So what might be an authoritative source for a filmography that can be cited in a prefatory sentence and not for every succeeding work mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

I don't agree that an individual's site is usually the best, for the exact reason you gave. In any case, the specific issue here involves a generally reliable secondary source (or so I'm told) so malicious unreliability shouldn't be a factor here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this already handled by WP:LISTVERIFY? We don't need to add inline citations to every single claim, and if one source is sufficient to verify a bunch of stuff all at once, we allow one citation to verify many things at once, and general references are also allowed. For this specific case, I see no value in creating a bunch of different citations to different sub-pages of a list, when the list itself is all that is needed to verify the claim. And I don't agree with the claim that providing individual references makes verification easier; if someone wanted to add a bogus entry, then the single list will verify it just as reliably as an individual page. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A regularly recurring situation is that a film person dies, and the thing that's keeping us from posting it to WP:Recent deaths is that the filmography is unsourced. In my experience, it is then typically necessary to combine multiple sources to cover all the entries. In this scenario, I think it's way better to indicate which entries can be verified by which source(s) rather than citing the sources without doing so. This is an example of when verification is made a lot easier by citing individual entries—if multiple sources are used, one would otherwise potentially have to check all of them to verify any given entry, and to discover that an entry fails verification it would indeed be necessary to check all of them. TompaDompa (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, could you give an example of that? I do see a current situation developing for Chita Rivera, but I'll note that the article doesn't have any citations for the filmography at all, which I also agree is bad practice. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa: Sorry about the late response, I completely missed your comment. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall Sam Lloyd not having a properly sourced filmography at the time of his death, nor did Anne Rice have a properly sourced bibliography at the time of her death. TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to the discussion's original subject, which is still unresolved, if a filmography, if it is sourced, has to be sourced with an individual source for each entry, or if one reliable source isn't more reasonable (I vote for the latter for reasons I've given above). It would be great if future discussions or dissents on artists' (filmmakers, writers, actors) sites could be cut short thanks to a consensus or a decision among editors (and even better a decision which finds its way into a WP:ESSAY). Robert Kerber (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Every entry having a different source is not an end in itself, and in many cases runs contrary to the principle of using the best source(s). Every entry having the same (singular) source is also not an end in itself, and in many cases comes with certain drawbacks. Every entry having a separate reference, which might be reused for multiple entries in the list, is on the other hand a good thing for several reasons. TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing: I'm talking about a filmography where each entry is referenced, using the same source (e.g. Kinenote, a reliable source, in a Japanese artist's filmography), which I consider a good thing (a: reliable, b: shorter reflist, c: more quickly changed when reliability issues occur). Can you give an example for what you mean with your third suggestion ("Every entry having a separate reference, which might be reused for multiple entries in the list"), meaning, an article, when you want to make a distinction here? Robert Kerber (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Yasujirō Ozu#Filmography does not have separate references for each entry – while there are two sources used, the references are in the table header. Ineko Arima#Television, on the other hand, does have separate references for each entry – while only a single source is used, it is explicitly cited for each individual entry (and thus reused multiple times). TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'd agree that the filmography in the Yasujirō Ozu article is a good and reasonable solution, while the solution in the Ineko Arima cinema filmography is not. I condensed the source/referencing in the Ineko Arima article, which user 55go reverted with the argument that I would interfere with their work, which I find questionable both in working method and conduct – and which is why I opened this thread to find a working method which users agree on.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The approach in the Ozu article is terrible—there is no way of telling which entry is verified by which source. Imagine if the header had had fourteen sources instead of just two. TompaDompa (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's rather say, it's the opposite of what you meant, it wasn't clear from your statement which solution you prefer. Well, I definitely tend to the Ozu solution. At least the Ineko Arima TV filmography reduces the size of the Reflist, agreed, while the Ineko Arima cinema filmography unnecessarily blows it up. Maybe some other users might give their opinion on these two (or three, to be precise) examples? User:Erik User:Daniel Case User: Orange Suede Sofa. This discussion has sadly slowed down a bit. Robert Kerber (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what needs to be decided here, but I don't love the Ozu approach. It makes me think of having two paragraphs of text, and an inline citation at the end of the second paragraph that purportedly covers both paragraphs. (Hence why we'd just duplicate the citation tag.) If it was something like a top-ten list like at Gothic film, I'd be fine with one citation tag preceding the list. But filmographies aren't as "set" and may vary in importance. So ultimately, I'd prefer a citation tag for each entry, and grouped if possible, like at William Hoy (film editor), which is a blend of two filmography-type sources plus others filling in gaps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allegro Non Troppo#Requested move 24 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allegro Non Troppo#Requested move 24 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Film directors by genre

We currently have Category:Film directors by genre, with several subcategories. I have some concerns about this. Particularly, WP:PERFCAT is very clear that performers shouldn't be categorized by the genre(s) in which they've performed. Obviously directors aren't actors, but I'm not clear on why directors should be treated differently in this case. I was considering opening a CfD on the matter, but I thought I'd request opinions here first, as opening a multi-category CfD is a fair amount of effort, and if there are arguments I haven't considered, I'd rather hear them here first. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Millie De Chirico, former programmer and host of TCM Underground

I just made an article for Millie De Chirico, the former programmer and host of TCM Underground. Any help finding more sourcing would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page for The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea regarding the credited names. It can be found at Talk:The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea#Tara Charendoff. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with improving article about Mania Akbari

The subject of the article Mania Akbari has written a list of things that need correcting or updating in her article - see User talk:Womanfeminist2024. I've worked on some of the items, but the article could use more help. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ref missing from citation. Help?

I tried updating the Metacritic cite on Godzilla, King of the Monsters! but the ref is missing [1]. Am I doing something wrong? Armegon (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Armegon In order for the reference to appear when using the template, it requires "Metacritic ID" property to be defined on Wikidata. (per the template's documentation) I've added the property on Wikidata; the reference should appear now. Jolly1253 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Armegon (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Production budget versus cost?

For the Argylle (film) I believe it is misleading to knowingly present the cost paid by Apple like as if was the actual production budget. In December I first raised concerns about the sloppy reporting of costs Talk:Argylle#Budget,_cost,_or_price_paid?. (For example Apple bought CODA (2021 film) for $25 million, but the film itself had a production budget of $10 million. We do not yet have any official budget figures for Argylle, just the price Apple paid to buy the distribution rights.)

Including this information in the Production section attributed to the reliable sources and with context to explain is entirely appropriate but summarizing Apple's cost and putting them in the Infobox with the label buget is WP:UNDUE and misleading. User:TropicAces takes a different view and insist that is appropriate to put these numbers in the Infobox. I believe this encyclopedia should be more cautious and take greater care not to mislead readers, or highlight figures that the director has disputed. Do other editors think caution is necessary with these disputed figures or do they think highlighting these figures with the label "budget" in the Infobox is appropriate and consistent with existing guidelines? See Talk:Argylle#Budget,_cost,_or_price_paid? -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aadarsam#Requested move 5 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aadarsam#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject Film banner applicable to actor filmography articles?

The guidance on banners says:

Remove the {{WikiProject Film}} banner and/or any cinema parameters from the talk pages of {{WikiProject Biography}} articles.

But when an actor's filmography is moved from the actor's biography article to its own separate article is it appropriate or not to apply the {{WikiProject Film}} banner since the filmography article is not a {{WikiProject Biography}} article? See, for example, Talk:Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan_filmography?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 02:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A filmography article is technically a sub-article of the actor article that is split off due to size limits. So I think the banner approach should carry over -- continuing to use the biography banner and never using the film banner. We would not put the film banner in an actor's article if they had a filmography short enough not to be split off. The underlying linchpin of a filmography article is the actor (or the crew member). For film series, companies, etc, the underlying linchpin isn't a person. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Distributors of Mission Impossible - Fallout

I hate films. Just say "Distributed by"

A few people have removed Skydance as distributor from the article. I have followed the opening credits which gives Paramount and SkyDance the Presented By credit at this Variety review which says "A Paramount Pictures release, presented with Skydance" and these companies had a co-financing, production and distribution agreement from 2009 to about 2021, which reads, to me, that they're both involved even if it's just SkyDance's financing. Both companies provided financing and worked together, only TC Productions and Bad Robot Productions are listed as production companies. The end credits say "Copyright Paramount" but I'm unsure what that means or if that is anything to do with distribution. I need some input so there is a bar set for the article please. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"A Paramount Pictures release, presented with Skydance" sounds like Paramount is doing the releasing on its own, which would make it the sole distributor. This article covers the deal between the two companies that Fallout was made under and it is not explicit, but it refers to Skydance as producing and the only mention of distribution is Paramount distributing Skydance's animated films (doesn't say co-distributing). This article is from after Fallout opened and is once again not explicit, but it refers to Skydance as "the film's financier" and seems to refer to Paramount as "the distributor". - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback Requested for Draft on '+380 | Kyiv, Ukraine'.

I've drafted an article on '+380 | Kyiv, Ukraine,' a 2022 short film by Andrew Opryshko, notable for its storytelling and non-verbal acting. I seek feedback on content accuracy, formatting, and presentation to align with Wikipedia standards. Insights on emphasizing its contribution to Ukrainian cinema would also be valuable.

Draft link: Draft:+380 Kyiv, Ukraine

Thanks for your support, BrickWik ~~~~ BrickWik (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

~~~~BrickWik BrickWik (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reference Help Needed - Hilary Harris "Organism 1975"

Dear wiki film fellows,

I have been trying for a few weeks to publish a page on Organism (1975) a pioneer film by Hilary Harris. I am struggling big times to find good enough sources for the page to be accepted, even though, we are talking about a milestone in avant-garde cinema.

Draft:Organism (1975)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAQVP-3U_UQ

Can anyone help out? Maybe you know of a strong article or book about/mentioning the film.

Thanks! Cinematic Poetry (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cinematic Poetry Have you tried digging in the [2]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Something:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång wow! thank you so much for the tip! I'll look deeply into it. Cinematic Poetry (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cinematic Poetry Also, with 514 edits to your name, I think you have access to this:[4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes, you are right, it's a new tool for me I'll dig in both. Thank you. Cinematic Poetry (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Tusen tack, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll count that as my article, now. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cast list for a short film

I'm trying to find a source to verify the cast list at Don't Be a Sucker, but I'm not having any luck. The video doesn't even have on screen credits. Is there anyone here with tips on how to find info about short films like this, or for cast lists for things other than feature films and TV episodes? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with taking the sentence, "It stars Paul Lukas, Felix Bressart, and Kurt Kreuger, and it is narrated by Lloyd Nolan," and using the three starring names in a "Cast" section? It doesn't have to be that long. Also, in my research, I found that Richard Collins may have written and/or directed it, so perhaps the article could cover that too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's just three names without additional detail, a bulleted list isn't necessary (MOS:PROSE). Good catch on Collins, added. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to merge two similar categories

Hello. I'm the Wikimedian-In-Residence for AfroCreatives WikiProject. While checking to improve the categorization of African film and television on English Wikipedia, I noticed African film festivals and Film festivals in Africa‎ literally contain the same things. Is it possible for African film festivals to be collapsed into Film festivals in Africa‎? Ceslause (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Ip Man movies

These movies are not listed on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ip_Man_(film_series) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21028848/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12567246/ 89.147.81.224 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)