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 08 Jul 2024 – RoboCop (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 24 Jun 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 13 Jun 2024 – Infested (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 13 Jun 2024 – Beijing Watermelon (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Morgan695 (t · c); see discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Na O-mi (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Wuju Daisuki (t · c); see discussion 06 Jun 2024 – Breaking Through (2022 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Toadboy123 (t · c); see discussion 03 Jun 2024 – Kaur (short film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Whispyhistory (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – Avatar Studios (production company) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Zingo156 (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – South by South Lawn (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion 21 May 2024 – Score: A Hockey Musical (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Reidgreg (t · c); see discussion 01 May 2024 – List of roles and awards of Liza Soberano (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Pseud 14 (t · c); see discussion (1 more...) Featured list candidates 31 May 2024 – List of accolades received by Inception (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 07 May 2024 – Peter Capaldi filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (t · c); see discussion 19 Apr 2024 – Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Trailblazer101 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Rogue One (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cocobb8 (t · c); start discussion 30 May 2024 – Mushu (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 16 May 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FishLoveHam (t · c); start discussion 13 May 2024 – Jane Fonda's Workout (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Binksternet (t · c); start discussion 26 Apr 2024 – 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion 14 Apr 2024 – Kristoff (Frozen) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Apocalypse Clown (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bilorv (t · c); see discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Metro Theater (New York City) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Epicgenius (t · c); start discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Hounds (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mooonswimmer (t · c); start discussion (5 more...) Featured article reviews 13 Jun 2024 – Jason Voorhees (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 19 Jun 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by TrademarkedTWOrantula (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Star Trek into Darkness vs. Star Trek Into Darkness title capitalisation issue

I thought that this had been put to bed, but there seems to be another call to ignore capitalisation guidelines. Anyone want to join in at Talk:Star Trek into Darkness? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I also notified the other two projects that include the movie. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There's now a move request in place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to spark a debate on here, more of a suggestion. But if there is "another call to ignore MS:CT" then surely possible exceptions to this should be discussed about writing this into guidelines for future clarification? MisterShiney ✉ 18:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Film review aggregators - RS?

(This is a narrow-topic discussion of fundamentals, not intended to detract from or stop any discussion elsewhere):
Film review aggregators fail some WP standards as reliable sources:

1. Aggregators are derivative sources, solely based on "secondary" independent RS (reviewers), writing about the primary event, the film. Aggregators should be treated like all tertiary sources (like dictionaries and encyclopedias): ignored, per WP:V and WP:RS.
2. They are not considered reliable by other reliable sources, or primary sources:
   • They are not quoted or cited elsewhere, especially not by other reliable sources.
   • They are not quoted in film advertisements or blurbs.
3. Their aggregation algorithms are unverifiable, subjective, and inconsistent for ambiguous reviews:
   • The Rotten Tomatoes evaluation of "fresh" or "rotten" based on prose reviews which lack scores or strongly expressed opinion, is inconsistent.
   • Metacritic subjectively extracts numeric scores from prose reviews lacking scores or strong opinions.

The only place that cites RT or Metacritic is us; this puts us in the awkward position of elevating the importance of anonymous, unaccountable aggregators to that of reliable encyclopedic source, which in my opinion, they do not merit, by our own standards. This (to me) is a sound reason to relegate aggregators to External links sections only. If there is countervailing discussion, consensus, or guideline about aggregator assessed reliability, point me there. --Lexein (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think RT counts as a tertiary source (at last not for their scores), they're a primary source since they are specifically performing analysis and publishing their findings. They are obviously reliable for their own analysis, the question I suppose is whether including RT satisfies WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are definitely reliable sources. They have been frequently referenced in Good and Featured Articles. They are often in other reliable sources such as newspapers reporting on films. I'm not sure where your claim that they are not quoted elsewhere comes from. The consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of using these two sources. I would say that there are other aggregators that are more questionable, but I have seen a couple brought up in coverage about films, such as Movie Review Intelligence. I'm happy to discuss a less common aggregator like that, but Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have been definite mainstays that allow us to summarize the balance of reviews, not just for the readers, but also for editors to know how many positive and how many negative reviews to reference in a "Reception" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here - as long as they are just being used to say, along the lines of "The film received X positive reviews of Y, according to RT." That puts the OR on RT's site for how they claim positive reviews. The important thing about RT/MC is they provide numerous review links for people researching about films can go review, something that we'd likely not be able to do on WP due to the number involved. I know that MC is very important in the VG industry as it can make or break a game and its developers in terms of financila bonuses or the like, and RT seems to be equivalent for films. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Erik, I was just about to write you, since I just read that you started the essay, originally called WP:Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I know there's strong feeling about using RT and Metacritic, there are even editors with strong feelings about mentioning RT's anonymous, unaccountable, inconsistent findings in the lead paragraph of Wikipedia articles. No source is reliable unless it meets WP standards of reliability, which is policy. What I don't see in your essay is any sort of use limitations, like "not in the lead", or "not the first thing mentioned in reception sections." Why would any editor claim that an anonymous, unaccountable, inconsistent aggregator's number matter more than the actual words of human reviewers? As for mentions of RT: there are interviews about Rotten Tomatoes, so what? And Fox News lets someone from RT "announce" their scores about some movies - so what? That's one. I suppose we could cite those sources which quote RT in specific film articles, but that still leaves RT in the cold as not RS on its own for every film. And I'd like to get your answer about RT somehow getting to a numerical score, where reviews are internally inconsistent, vague, and lack their own numerical scores. I'm just extremely skeptical about Wikipedia promoting these unaccountable, anonymous commercial entities without restriction. I'll be more than a little annoyed if editors who work for RT or Metacritic have been pushing their agenda here, to drive traffic. --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• You say that Rotten Tomatoes has "anonymous, unaccountable, inconsistent findings" and that its "reviews are internally inconsistent, vague, and lack their own numerical scores". What is the source of these claims? This community has been comfortable with using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for a long time now; wording attribution has been the only main challenge with these sources. In addition, reliable sources have referenced the aggregators not only on their own, but when covering individual films. This to me is an endorsement of the credibility and relevance of such scores, which are worth reporting in Wikipedia articles. On another level, you want transparency of how they determine their scores, which I think is irrelevant. We do not question how a journalist from Variety summarized critics' reaction to a particular film; we do not ask if that journalist took a head count or some other approach. Since the consensus is strongly in favor about using the sources, it would help for you to cite specifics about why the aggregators are not reliable enough sources to be referenced. For what it's worth, we have an understanding of how each aggregator works, and each one's staff makes a judgment call in scoring each review. In particular, I think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic serve well back-to-back because they are inherently different systems. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I wrote "where reviews are internally inconsistent, vague, and lack their own numerical scores", not that "RT's reviews" are such. I meant that when a review is internally inconsistent(gives two recommendations), vague (gives no strong recommendation), and lack its own scoring system, how does RT calculate some sort of "score" from that? Answer: they make one up. That makes me quite confident that their numbers are bullshit. Correction 2: "This community has been comfortable with using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for a long time now". You don't get to say "comfortable" at all: RT and MC have been disputed every year they've been used. I've always disputed their use anywhere but in EL and at the end of Reception sections. That they're derivative is obvious. That they quantify unquantifiable reviews is obvious. That their numerical results are internally inconsistent is laughably obvious. That their numerical results cannot accurately reflect an "average" opinion unless the reviewers are unanimous, is manifestly clear in any case. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with MASEM that we are just saying that "according to these widely referenced aggregators, the films received this percentage of positive reviews based on our sample of X number of film critics," the number of which we give at that mention. And I generally agree with Erik that Rotten Tomatoes is considered useful by industry sources such as Sirius XM radio, and that trade journals such as The Hollywood Reporter call it "popular" and that its doing are newsworthy, both point of which are exemplified here. And these examples come from only a 90-second skim of the Internet. I think it would burying our heads in the sand to ignore RT, and moreover, it casts a wider eye to capture film-critic reviews than anyone on his or her own could reasonably be expected to do in order to gauge critical sentiment. It's an imperfect tool, but so are many things: Even The New York Times best-seller lists can and have been manipulated by publishers. Does that mean we don't mention that list? No, it simply means we put that list in context: "Here is what this widely used resource says. Take it for what it's worth." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me WP film articles often have RT at the beginning of Reception sections so the reader immediately gets a consensus - while imperfect, there's no better objective way to do it. The reader can then read on, getting specific examples of critics opinions. And RT scores are often mentioned in newspapers talking about various films' receptions. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Articles often have RT shoved to the top of Reception sections by zealous RT fanbois who won't have it any other way, and it is now starting to appear to me, by RT employees. I am rather unconvinced that RT adds any value which justifies a lead spot in our reception section, or the lead of the article, or multiple mentions in the article, your revert not supported by consensus notwithstanding. It adds no value higher than a review by Maslin, Ebert, and other "name" reviewers. RT numbers do not convey any "sense" of anything, especially since they are based (especially for unclear reviews) on questionable numeric assignment of specific values, where the reviews make no such absolute statements of value. RT numbers echo a sense of clarity when a vast majority of reviews agree, but in no other way, and at no other time. Still, because RT is derivative, and is not a person, it has no place being listed before authoritative, well known reviewers. --Lexein (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence that RT employees are pushing the RT inclusion, that's a bad faith assumption. It does provide the perfect lead in sentence for most film reception sections, setting in mind for the reader which side of good or bad the film is on. While it does have its own mechanics to determine - for nonnumerical/grade scores - whether a review is positive or negative of a review, it is internally self-consistent, which is important; again, as long as we state "The film got X of Y positive reviews, which RT considers "fresh".", there is OR going on, but it is in the hands of RT to make that assessment, not Wikipedias. Without that, it would be very difficult to have an opening sentence that describes the scope of reviews truthfully without introducing original research or peacock words , barring the obviously best or obviously worst films. Your concerns really aren't well justified in these cases. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Who pushes RT/MC numbers to the front of the lead sentence of Reception sections, and lead paragraphs of articles? Which epithet should I use: lazy, fanboi, misguided, conflicted, or merely overzealous? They're all bad reasons for PROMO and UNDUE use of RT and MC. This was supposed to be primarily about lack of reliability. But since you bring it up: Lead in sentence to reception sections are not necessary. This has been demonstrated in many places, without controversy (other places, with extreme controversy). "Perfect lead in". Prove to me why derivative statistics, formed after reviews are published, and universally recognized as less important than the reviews from which they are derived, should now, here, take precedence over flesh and blood reviewers. Per PROMO and UNDUE, we're not here to drive traffic to these for-profit companies based on, (be honest), bad numbers. The only time the numbers aren't bad is on near total reviewer unanimity. If reviews are unanimous, why mention any aggregators at all except to dot that i? This is an encyclopedia of prose, not a catalog of statistics. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of our contributions. We've explained why we think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are appropriate as reliable sources. As you saw in the essay, they do have to be used with care under certain circumstances. I think you raise a good point about scores when the film is not universally acclaimed or panned. We try to report the scores as accurately yet as succinctly as possible from each source. It can be a challenge to nail down a good prose description for how a film was received in general, so additional sources can help with that. Still, I'm still not sure why RT and MC are being so denounced. We can talk about using them better, but I do not think there are grounds for dismissing them outright. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My faith in use of RT and MC will be restored after it stops being broken by PROMO and UNDUE placement of derivative statistics in front of actual prose reviews. Why should ad-based for-profit corporations (one of which is now owned by a content producer, Warner Bros), whose only notability comes from surviving the dot-com bust and pushing low-quality statistics (and appearing on Fox, oh my), take precedence over the review authors which they claim to represent, but factually misrepresent? --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is where I stand on RT: first of all they are obviously a reliable source for their own analysis, the question is one just one of WEIGHT. Aggregators aren't perfect and I can understand why people dislike them, but they can be a convenient utility for gauging a film's critical reception. However, I do think they should be used with restraint: I don't think they should be used on older films because most of the reviews are revisionist i.e. they are not indicative of the contemporary reception of older films (Vertigo for instance gets a 98% score yet was slated on its original release). They should be used with caution on foreign language films too, and perhaps some independent films where the number of reviews are low. However, this just applies to the scores, I have no objection to them as external links since they provide an index of reviews so satisfy the EL requirement. The bigger problem is the way in which their scores are used. RT do not extrapolate their scores to all critical reception, so for us to take a 90% RT score and state that critical reception is "mostly positive" etc, while may be true is OR. I would prefer to see the information presented in a more statistical way: "Rotten Tomotoes sampled 200 reviewers, and judged 90% of the reviews to be positive". We have to remember that RT uses its own judgment in determining whether a review is positive or not, and its sample may not be representative of critical reception in general: in fact it is not, since its sample is restricted to English language reviews. They are a useful tool, and like most tools, they do their job when used correctly. I do think the guidelines on their use needs to be tightened up though. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, except that we have to be very clear: RT and MC are primary sources about their own analysis, yes, but secondary about the reviews, and tertiary (if anything) about the films. This is my argument for listing them last: their analysis doesn't exist until after the reviews exist, which don't exist until after the film is finished. The reviews are not merely chowder for the RT and MC maw. Derivative results simply do not and cannot take precedence in time or importance. Film articles are first about the film, then the reviews, then metareviews, if at all. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lexein, putting RT and MC aside, would you not start a "Reception" section by referencing sources that cover the critics' consensus in retrospect? Such an introduction is intended to be an overview, regardless of the source. I do not think it makes sense to reference Critics A, B, and C and then mention that in general, critics liked it. The reader should have an impression upfront. Is this particular flow a problem in general? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed some of your contributions, and I think you're fine with that particular flow. Looking at El Gringo and Return (1985 film), you started the "Reception" sections with the sentences "The film received mildly warm reviews" and "Reviews varied from mildly to strongly negative", respectively. You apparently base these conclusions on the reviews you included in these articles. The reason that I support use of RT and MC and other sources is that it helps us avoid weasel words: "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." Obviously, not all films will have aggregate or retrospective coverage. So how do you accomplish determining overall consensus with individual reviews? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. For reception sections, we have a lead sentence. We as editors are allowed to name things for what they uncontroversially are, and we are not required to cite that the sky is blue. We are allowed to paraphrase (summarize in our own words), because the source is right there for the reader to check our every word. I prefer to paraphrase in the lead, but quote the reviewer, so there can be little doubt. Other editors paraphrase the reviews - I dislike this. For small numbers of reviews (if that's all there are), I trust my judgement more than I trust RT & MC. If the reviews I find agree, I feel justified using the single phrase "mildly warm reviews" because they all were mildly warm (for example: "I liked the film well enough, but it's slow; best for a lazy afternoon with nothing else to do"). Rotten Tomatoes would just label that one "fresh." Prose, please, not numbers, and not absolutes. Where reviews disagree, I feel justified to explain that in the lead sentence in two clauses, maybe more. For example, "Reviews varied from mildly to strongly negative", tracked the reviews well, because none fell outside that range. (You don't say whether you disagree with my assessments). I strongly feel this works because we're all readers of English. I'm not using weasel words, I'm using language analogous to the reviews themselves. My job has been made a bit easier by working on films with a small-ish number of reviews. For high numbers of reviews, I try very hard to find "representative" reviews, center and edges on perhaps more than one axis: sometimes as many as 5 or 7 of them, to give the reader a sense of scope. Some films are quite difficult due to strong reviewer "cultural biases" - a great film might be hated and loved for wildly varying reasons. These require even more careful representative analysis. In none of these cases did RT or MC help my editing process, or add any clarity of any kind to a reader of the article: just mute, useless, contextless numbers; the more film articles I research, the more reviews I read, the more RT/MC I read, the more I am continually convinced that they are not reliable, and should not be depended on for their "statistics".

I have more to write about this, but I'm pretty sure that it won't help you shake off that quizzical stare at my ramblings.

It's a wiki. If people really disagree with the reception sections which I initially wrote, they can be edited: they're CC, after all. So far, some, but not much of that has happened. Why? Because I always ask for sanity checks and spot checks from editors on IRC, and have requested assessment and reviews as well. I'm not doing this in a vacuum. --Lexein (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You do write a lot. :) I see such lead sentences as weasel wording (or at least bordering on it) because I do not think they are truly sourced to the individual reviews that follow. To me, it is a slippery slope compared to summarizing "Production" in a film article's lead section. Like you said, you prefer your own judgment of the reviews and conduct "careful representative analysis" in complex cases. I personally cannot speak of a consensus based on sampled individuals. My judgment could be wrong, or the sample is not large enough. For example, I notice that the reviews you sampled for Return (1985 film) are all online. How many reviews are not available online? Enough to have a different kind of lead sentence? In a way, I think the limitations we put on Rotten Tomatoes should apply to us, to exercise caution with older films, especially lesser known ones. For example, for the 1993 film Surf Ninjas, I sought all the reviews I could find, and most of them were not online. It's also a film that nobody cares to write about retrospectively. It looks like I wrote "being received generally unfavorably by critics" at the time (~2007?), though I question that now. I'm sure it's probably in the ballpark, like your lead sentences may be; I just favor direct attribution of the overview itself rather than us editors drawing such conclusions.

I know that you do not endorse referencing Rotten Tomatoes, but it is used for that attribution. I know the aggregation system is a dichotomy of positive/negative judgments, and I believe that's why we pair it with Metacritic, which judges more precisely. (I personally like Metacritic over Rotten Tomatoes for that reason.) We also avoid parading around simplistic "Fresh" and "Rotten" labels and try to extract value in other ways. I try to take into consideration the limitations; I do not reference them for Surf Ninjas, Fight Club, or Apt Pupil (film). I don't think it has to be either/or about using a source, though it happens in some cases, such as the community at large eschewing online user ratings, such as those from IMDb even though reliable sources cover it from time to time, like recently. So my question is, how do you think Rotten Tomatoes should be used, if at all? Some thoughts: We could emphasize finding other sources attributing consensuses to either put such sources in front of RT/MC or to relegate them to the end. We could use only Metacritic in the article (if that is considered a better system). We could be stricter with RT/MC limitations, elevating them from essay to guidelines. We could outline how to make our own judgment of the reviews (though I'm personally not keen on that). What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I am totally against an editor using their own judgment to decide whether a film reviewed favorably or not. A good faith editor is limited to what they can find, and as we have seen on an article like The Hobbit recently you will simply get editors who simply go out and find a stack of positive reviews. What Lexein is advocating, is basically an approach similar to the film ratings box but simply without the box. When we summarise a section, such as a lede, each statement should still be directly attributable to a source: you can't do this with reviews, since each review only expresses one opinion, not a collective view. To take a bunch of reviews and summarise them as positive or negative is WP:SYNTHESIS whichever way you look at it, regardless of whether it is accurate or inaccurate. If people want a nutshell overview of how a recent film reviewed then aggregators can serve that purpose. They aren't perfect, but they are preferable to the alternatives. You've got to consider the practical side of things too: if editorial judgment tried to trump RT and Metacritic, then how do you think that would play out if it were challenged in an RFC? It simply wouldn't fly, so for better or worse I think we are stuck with them, and we should be focusing on their correct usage. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that my intro sentences are wrong? I heartily disagree; in each case, I have correctly summarized, meaning paraphrased, then bracketed. I'm not creating any new idea, nor synthesizing one from others. Seems like you've sort of gone off on proper paraphrasing. Or are you saying we should quote and cite every review we can find? The alternative, relying on RT, or MC, or RT & MC, is horrifying, and seriously undermines the credibility we're trying to achieve here. We're encyclopedists, and encyclopedists do exercise a degree of rational skill in summarizing and paraphrasing, do we not? --Lexein (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Betty? I was saying for Return as an example, there could be additional offline reviews to be included that could require rewriting the summary sentence, if you are basing such sentences on the reviews you cite in the Wikipedia article. The fact that this can happen reflects that you are trying to extract an overall consensus from individual reviews. Betty calls it synthesis. Like I said, it is not the same thing as summarizing the production of a film; it is more subjective than that. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick note about "online" reviews: AFAIK RT and MC never seek offline reviews. I at least search all the EBSCO/Highbeam/Google archives/all others accessible via library, still, "online", even if necro-online. Lucky for us, the L.A. Times, New York Times, and many other large-market papers have started bringing their old reviews back online for lots of films. Unluckily, that's bias toward large-market papers. --Lexein (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why we discourage RT and MC for older films. What you said above about their use at all being "horrifying" is not helpful and not a statement generally supported. They're not going to be excised from Wikipedia articles anytime soon. I asked you a few questions above about ideas on how to use them better because I think we can find some middle ground in that regard. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Our Brazilian sock master is back at it

Just a little heads up to warn everyone that Pé de Chinelo has returned. So far I have only found this IP 201.19.167.1 (talk · contribs). As was done so often here he is adding people to film article that had nothing to do with said film. His pattern over the last few months has been to edit for a day or so and then disappear for a couple weeks so he may be done for now but I thought I'd let you know so you can be prepared. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

201.19.66.160 (talk · contribs) and here is another. MarnetteD | Talk 23:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like Cluebot should start auto-reverting IP edits from a particular address after that IP has been reverted for vandalism manually three times in a row, with no intervening kept edits. Has this already been proposed? Or is there already such a Cluebot training widget available - I imagine it would (like Twinkle) revert, warn, and add the IP to the Cluebot rvlist. Proposed at User talk:ClueBot Commons - discuss there. --Lexein (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that we should we use an abuse filter for edits made by Pe de Chinelo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good, too. Is there a low-barrier tool to add IPs to the filter? --Lexein (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have little understanding of how the bots or the edit filters might help with this persons edits. His main editing seems to take two different tacks. One is, like the recent edits by the two IPs above, adding false info about actors, directors or producers to films that the people were not part of. His other is to make genre changes to articles like Léon: The Professional. The one other thing that often winds up happening is that he either leaves personal attacks on User:Andrzejbanas talk page or in his edit summaries. For several years his edits came exclusively from IPs that tracked to Rio but in the last year he has also edited from Sao Paulo. As I say I don't know if filters or bots can be programmed to catch any of this so any help or assistance that either of you can provide will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I was intending manual reverts to "prime" the bot to revert following edits... So catching the first few by hand would result in the rest of the chain being reverted as they happen. Depends on sharp-eyed RC patrollers... --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Brazilian individual's edits are bothersome and the edit filter can make their edits easier to catch. His simpler edits would not be caught by the edit filter and can be easily reverted. We might also file an abuse report on the ISP. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Michigan category, original research if not mentioned?

In a film there is a scene where they zoom out to a sattelite view of the planet, and we can clearly see that the movie it taking place in lower Michigan, however, they don't specifically mention the WORD Michigan in the movie. Is it legitimate to add the "Films set in Michigan" category to the movie? Some editors said it's original research, but it doesn't seem to be that researchy to me. I see Michigan clearly on the screen, so I should be able to say the film is set there. Mathewignash (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Which film? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't really matter, but Megamind. Mathewignash (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that point that out, to at least determine the relevance of that category? If we're only operating on a satellite zoom-in, and nothing else from the film itself, it does not seem worth categorizing Megamind as a film set in Michigan. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are none I'm aware of, I figured the criteria for a film having that category would be that the film depicts the plot happening in Michigan. I didn't think there had to be a long talk about it in the dialog or press to qualify as a Michigan setting. The actual location of "Metro City" seems to be pricisely on Detroit when seen from orbit. Detroit is often referred to as "Metro Detroit" in real life, but I figured calling Metro City an analogy to Detroit would be original research unless I could get some source to back it up. Mathewignash (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Top Critics at The Hobbit

There is a discussion about the mentioning of Top critics of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey's critical reception section. The discussion can be found at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Top critics. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Follow-up - An RFC has been filed at Talk:The_Hobbit:_An_Unexpected_Journey#RFC:_Is_it_relevant_to_mention_top_critics_in_The_Hobbit:_An_Unexpected_Journey.3F. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment - This is a potentially very important discussion, because there are a lot of Wikipedia pages that list the scores for RT's "top critics". If it cannot be used on the page for The Hobbit, then the same reasons would make it inappropriate to use on pages like The Lord of the Rings (film series), Critical response to the Harry Potter films, Critical response to Star Trek, Critical response to the Chronicles of Narnia films, Avatar (2009 film), The Social Network, Inglourious Basterds, and possibly hundreds of other pages (just pop site:en.wikipedia.org "top critics" into google to see a list of several hundred Wikipedia pages that report "top critics" scores). 99.192.52.131 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's long been consensus practice that we don't use "top critics" since it's an arbitrary distinction, and some editors have indicated that the list of top critics change depending on the geographic location of the user. Also, simply because other articles include things they should not doesn't mean we extend bad practices to other articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly was not suggesting that "bad practices" should be extended. I was merely pointing out that if it is decided that listing "top critics" is not permitted, then it would be a decision that says that hundreds of pages should be changed, not just one. It is useful for people to understand the extent of the effect of a decision when discussing it, so I was doing that. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus up for Featured Article

I have added Prometheus to the FAC nomination process, I don't know if you have to have not had a significant influence on it to vote, but if you are interested, please do add your comments. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you informed Tumadoireacht? I'm sure he will have a few 'suggestions'.Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

God no, would rather nominate the article for deletion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Liz & Dick

Hello everybody! I have a request for someone. I have been working on this article for a few months now, and I am no good at writing plots (also haven't seen the film yet, so I can't really do that). I was wondering if anyone (who has seen the movie, of course) could write a plot summary for it? Thanks in advance. Statυs (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to complain in the strongest possible terms about being made aware that this film exists. :( GRAPPLE X 02:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear god. And I thought the baby death in Eraserhead was disturbing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys... Even bad films need a lil love and support... :( Statυs (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes

The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to report "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes was raised at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It was widely agreed that they should not. Following that discussion, editor "2nyte" and I have both changed a number of pages to remove the "Top Critics" scores. Editor "DrNegative" has noted that WP:RTMC is an essay without binding authority and so if there is to be a general policy about "Top Critics" scores that it needs to be done here and editor "TheOldJacobite" has objected to several of my edits removing "Top Critics" scores. So I am asking for input to settle the matter as to whether or not policy should allow reporting "Top Critics" scores or not. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do the disputing editors explain why they think the "Top Critics" scores are valid? Reviewing the arguments at the RfC, I agree that "Top Critics" is a problematic measurement because it is region-based. It does not seem possible to get a static measurement. In addition, it is not accurate to talk about establishing policy about whether or not to use "Top Critics" scores. It is too granular for policy level. The better approach would be to discuss updating the guidelines at MOS:FILM, though not all WikiProject Film consensuses are necessarily reflected in these guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) It is probably not constructive to dscribe editors who have supported using "Top Critics" scores as "disruptive". I supported using it until I was informed that there is a regional variation as to who counts as a "Top Critic". I would suspect that others who support the use of "Top Critics" scores are similarly unaware of this. Disagreement is often not disruptive. (2) I really don't know what all the ins and outs are about setting policies, so that's why I posted here. I'll make a post at MOS:FILM to see if that gets some action. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I said "disputing", not "disrupting". :) It just means that they disagree with removing "Top Critics" scores. Would like to know if they think the scores have value despite the regional trickiness. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I misread your post. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the core problem is similar to that of the Film ratings template, in that we should be striving to provide an overview of the film's overall critical reception rather than focusing on a select array of opinions. I don't know what the criteria is for being a top critic, but it still serves to elevate the opinions of some critics above the opinions of others, and it seems a bit counter-productive to the aims of the section. It seems to me that the critic's opinion is deemed valid by the site or it isn't, and the "celebrity" of a critic shouldn't give them more of a 'say' in the film's critical evaluation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Were it not for the fact that "Top Critic" status is region dependent, I would disagree with you. RT makes a judgment when the decide whether or not to count a critic at all, and so them making a judgment about who is a "top" critic and who is not is no different. I would not presume that they do it based on celebrity so much as based on whether or not the critic is a full time critic (as opposed to a newspaper columnist who also happens to review film), how major the publication is that employs them (A NYTimes reviewer being preferred to a small town penny saver writer). But however they do it, if it were a single, stable, location-independent designation then I would not object to including their scores any more than the general score. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically what we are trying to do is sum up the critical consensus in general terms i.e. what critics collectively think of a film. Any sane person would put more stock in Roger Ebert's opinion than Paul Ross's opinion, but that doesn't mean Paul Ross's review is inherently less of a critique. Say for instance your top critics are your Pauline Kaels, Roger Eberts and Dilys Powells of the world, and the regular score also takes account of the low-rent tabloid journalism, does that mean it should receive less representation? It just seems to me the TC scores are not consistent with our aims of summing up the critical consensus since it is omitting opinion it has already implicitly accepted as valid critique. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone were arguing that pages should only report the top critics score and not also report the overall score for all critics, then I would agree that "low-rent" reviews would be given less representation, but not if both are given. When the scores for all critics and for top critics are almost identical (as they often are) it serves no purpose to report both. Just the general one will do. But if, as in the case of The Hobbit, the "all critics" score is 65% and the "top critics" score is 42% (as it is as I write this), then that difference surely says something about the critical response to the film. In fact, if you do the math (and I realize that this would never be allowed on a page for WP:SYNTH reasons) it actually turns out that 71% of the non-top critics liked the film while only 42% of the top critics liked it. That's a pretty significant difference that tells a reader something about who the film does and does not appeal to. You need to represent both statistics equally to see that difference. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem for me is that Rotten Tomatoes has no inherent value, its validity comes from quantifying a representative sample of critical opinion. However, if the top critics are representative of a minority of the critical reception then I suggest that deviates from our mandate for using it in the first place, since the very reason we use an aggregator is so that undue emphasis isn't placed on a minority of opinions. We are trying to quantify what the majority of critical opinion is, and while the manin score seems to meet with that aim the TC score doesn't IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that it is region dependent? I don't know the criteria for the Top Critics, but it seems like a good way to get a broad consensus of a variety of views of the general public. I may not agree with the reviews themselves, but that is my personal opinion and I have my chance to give it by partaking in the project that is Rotten Tomatoes. Just because we don't agree with what they say. MisterShiney ✉ 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A previous discussion on this matter can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It also says that they are region dependent in the section "Top Critics in Rotten Tomatoes," the exact same section of WP:RTMC that you just re-edited. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I was asking for a source outside of Wikipedia that backs this up, as Wikipedia I am sure we all agree that it can be edited by anyone, and that page does not any that they are region dependent. MisterShiney ✉ 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If we do not establish some sort of policy or guideline in regards to this issue, we are merely suggesting that editors do or do not use it. In this case. you are going to have a disagreement at times, possible revert war, and then we are right back here talking about it again. I would really like to see a good consensus on this and a guideline written which addresses it. That way, we have a foundational rule so to speak of which to base our arguments other than personal opinion. Quite simply, we allow RT's selection of critics, but shall we disallow their selection of the most prestigious to be represented in our film articles? DrNegative (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

re: MisterShiney's request for an outside RS. I'm searching for one. I realise we don't accept "original research" and so my following comments don't bind wikipedia and have no policy weight. However, for Stargate (film)

US IP: Top Critics : 20%

Average Rating: 4.7/10

Critic Reviews: 5

Fresh: 1 (Hal Hinson)| Rotten: 4 (Owen Gleiberman, Roger Ebert, James Beradinelli, Owen Geliberman again!)

Oddly it lists several other top critics but doesn't use the "fresh/rotten" icon next to the listing. These critics are: Leonard Klady, Variety; Stephanie Dolgoff, New York Times; Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle.

UK IP: Top Critics : 0%

Critic Reviews: 1

Fresh: 0 | Rotten: 1 (Roger Ebert)

It too lists several other top critics but again doesn't use the "fresh/rotten" icon next to the listing. These critics are: Leonard Klady, Variety; Derek Adams, Time Out; Stephanie Dolgoff, New York Times.

I used two proxies to get these results: docoja (dot) com (UK) hidemyass dot com (US). If we eliminate the extra "rotten" vote that occurs when RT counts Owen Gleiberman's vote twice, then Stargate has a US 25% fresh rating and a UK 0% fresh rating. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say to Fanthrillers: Admirable work. Above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty editorial research. That amount of work and effort should be acknowledged and thanked. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DrNegative, I personally would not mind discussing the usage of "Top Critics" scores in articles, but we have to address the regional trickiness first. Like Fanthrillers outlined above, an editor in the US will see a different "Top Critics" score than an editor in the UK for the same film. If we cannot get a static measurement, we cannot be accurate in including it. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion indicates a larger problem with using Rotten Tomatoes in the first place, i.e., many of the critics it lists would not be considered notable on their own. The critics we would tend to quote in a critical reception section would be those RT considers "Top Critics," because the others are just a bunch of guys who started film review blogs. This is also why I have consistently removed the RT "consensus" whenever I see it quoted in a film article: RT's opinion, or summation of opinions, is not notable in and of itself. We only consider RT reliable because it posts the opinions of critics who were already considered reliable and notable apart from RT. This also relates to the problem that has been discussed elsewhere of using RT scores for films that existed long before RT. In those cases, the opinions of contemporary reviewers is largely irrelevant. RT is a dubious source, quite frankly. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that we include Rotten Tomatoes because it has been referenced elsewhere, which to us meant that it is recognized as authoritative. The rest are details we have to discuss how to use for clarity and encyclopedic value (such as how to best report the score). I can't see it as a dubious source; it (and Metacritic) continue to be effective ways to report the consensus for recent films. To me, the aggregations have not been out of step with award outcomes. Here, though, we have the "Top Critics" score, a detail which we're discussing. I could see a case for including it if it was not for the regional trickiness. On that particular level, do you think that warrants excluding the "Top Critics" score from film articles? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Erik and the years-long de facto consensus on using RT simply for what it is, a review aggregator, which we state upfront. "Top Critic," even without the regionalism issue, is an arbitrary choice: To give one personal example among many I could give, I'm a "Top Critic" when I write for one certain publication, but not a "Top Critic" when I write for another, equally esteemed publication (or at least equally esteemed everywhere outside RT). Yet I'm the same critic writing the same thoughts. What RT calls "Top Critic" is too arbitrary for any sort of meaningful use.

On an unrelated note, it also seems a bit much: We have two review aggregators and Cinemascore. Three things that give a balanced overview. Beyond that I think we're parsing way too minutely. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 99.192.81.168 (talk · contribs) [who I assume to be the same person as 99.192.91.3 (talk · contribs)] is going around removing any mention of "top critics" from film articles en masse, citing this discussion as rationale. I believe this is wholly inappropriate since the discussion was started less than 2 days ago and has only a handful of participants. If the end consensus is that this content is not to be included, then fine, but for this anon to go around numerous articles removing content they don't like, based on their interpretation of which way the discussion is leaning after less than 2 days (not to mention obvious bias) is totally unacceptable, especially when they have already been spoken to about this type of behavior. A clear consensus must be established first, and the project's guidelines changed to reflect it, before such a mass culling is undertaken. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I concur that it is too soon to make such edits. There's no rush here. I'm sure the scores have been on the articles for a while, it won't hurt for them to be there a few more days. I've messaged the IP saying so. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah when I saw that I tried to warn said editor (and removed his addition to the said essay he was quoting citing a conflict of interest/lack of consensus/sufficient discussion for change). Erik has spoken to him. MisterShiney ✉ 18:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I dont like RT. I read some of the reviews of a film that I thought was really good and they irritate the hell out of me! So much so I stopped reviewing films because I personally thought they got it all wrong. I would prefer to go with the general consensus (with wording of articles to reflect that it was the general consensus). But we should be careful when providing extracts of reviews. MisterShiney ✉ 18:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think as long as they are relevant, especially if they are from the country of origin. 109.149.37.65 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that we cannot tell. Editors in the US working on a UK film would not be able to determine the "Top Critics" score in that region unless they use a proxy (like Fanthrillers did above). Same situation vice versa. We just do not have static measurements that are readily verifiable by any one person. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Erik, I disagree with your argument, but still agree with the conclusion that we should not use "Top Critics" scores. The problem with your reasoning is twofold: (1) Because proxies do exist, any editor in any country can do what Fanthrillers did and access the "Top Critics" score that is given in some specific country. So there is no problem of accessing the information. (2) Even if there were a problem getting the relevant information for some editors, that would not be a good reason to exclude it. Sometimes people forget that there are valid sources for information that are not even on the Internet at all. So, for example, books are often used as sources on Wikipedia pages even though you might have to go to a library or book store to access that information, and, especially with older or specialist books, many editors might not even be able to get them that way. Lack of availability to many editors does not make the source any less appropriate to use.

But I still agree that we should not use "Top Critics" scores for three different reasons: (A) A lot of movies are international co-productions. Taking, for example, the film page that launched this entire discussion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, that film is listed as a New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States co-production. So for a film like that there would be no way to settle which version of RT's "Top Critics" to use. Since many films are international co-productions, this would be a frequent problem, and so it is best to avoid it by not using the "Top Critics" scores from anywhere. (B) Even in cases where there is a clear country of origin for a film, it does not follow that there will be a "Top Critics" list for that country. RT does not have as many different versions as they are countries, so if, for example, there is no "Top Critics" list that is specific to Sweden, then it would not be obvious which "Top Critics" report to use for any Swedish film. So again, this is a problem best avoided by forgoing the "Top Critics" scores altogether. (C) Even in cases where there is one clear country of origin of a film AND there is a local version of RT's "Top Critics" there, it still is not a good reason to use that score. Yes, Wikipedia guidelines suggest being attentive to reviews of critics from the country of origin for films, particulalrly non-English language ones, but there is no reason to think that this is accomplished by being selective about which version of RT's "Top Critics" one uses. In the example Fanthrillers gave above for Stargate, the UK version of RT reports only one "Top Critics" review, and that one came from an American critic (Ebert). So using the UK version of RT's "Top Critics" offers no assurance that British critics are being counted at all.

One final note: Editor 109.149.37.65 is, so far, the first and only person to say, in effect, "yes, I am aware that RT's 'Top Critics' are region dependent, but I think it is ok to use it anyway." Everyone else (both here and in the original discussion at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey) has either opposed using "Top Critics" or advocated using it while still ignorant of the fact that it is a region-variable number. So unless I have missed something, at this point there is near unanimity on the matter. 99.192.48.33 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.91.3, =99.192.81.168)

It has been 2 days since the last comment (mine) was added to the above discussion and I am wondering how one is supposed to know when a discussion is over. Also, how is one supposed to know what the outcome of a discussion is? It looks like people contributing have just been happy to have their say and now have wandered off to other things, but I would like to edit some pages as a result of this discussion, so I'd like to know how I will know when we are at that point.

I just recently discovered this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_8#Rotten_Tomatoes. In short, 23 months ago four editors contributed to a discussion about using RT's "Top critics" scores. All four agreed that they should not be used. One editor, who has also participated in this discussion (Erik) suggested that WP:RTMC be edited to reflect this. He wrote, "We can modify the 'Top Critics' bullet under 'Limitations' to indicate not to use it." Betty Logan (who also has also participated in the discussion above) agreed, writing "covering it at WP:RTMC should be sufficient". At that point the discussion ended. WP:RTMC was never modified nor was there any further discussion of so doing that I could find. I worry that the same thing could be happening again. 99.192.75.232 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.48.33)

Indeed, I'm not seeing any consensus in favor of Top Critics, and this has been discussed previously on WP:FILM with a consensus against it. I would say give this discussion a week (another three days, since this began on Dec. 17) and unless the pendulum suddenly swings wildly in the opposite direction, that's enough time to have gathered a consensus. If the editor who wants to use Top Critics wants to call for an RfC then — or even now — that's perfectly his right and I'm sure we'll respect it and marshall (or even copy-paste) our same arguments. RfCs have a default duration of 30 days. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd actually be quite happy if there were an RfC next week, since then there would be a clear basis for edits that I could cite in edit summaries when making edits after the matter has been settled. It also might be nice (assuming, as seems safe, that the decision goes against "top critics") to also take steps toward amending WP:RTMC as Erik and Betty recommended two years ago, 2nyte recommended 5 days ago, and I attempted to do four days ago. If there is a further special process that needs to be initiated to make that change happen, I'd be glad to get it started as well. But for now I'll just wait until after Christmas to let this discussion conclude first. Thanks again. 99.192.80.43 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.75.232)

It's probably not a great time for a discussion due to the xmas break, but if TC ratings are going to be prohibited the ammendment would be best in MOS:FILM#Critical response, since ammending an essay won't compel anyone to anything, it's just a piece of advice. It might be best to break off until after the holiday and do a straw poll when we get back. If people are happy to scrap them we can alter the MOS; if there is no consensus to do that, we have to figure out how to make them properly citable. No changes should be made now anyway, since some key editors may not be present. Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter if people are happy about it? It's fairly provable that the Top Critics is both regionally dependent and statistically too small a pool to be useful. It's time to start being the great future Oscar winner Ashton Kutcher in Dude, Where's My Car (the greatest film ever made) and taking charge of this motherlovin' 'pedia on this motherlovin' internet, and not like the great future Oscar winner Ashton Kutcher in his worst film, everything else he has ever made or will ever make. He Marisa Tomei's that oscar. As future President Arnold Schwarzenneger once said, "You have to go back to the Future Marty". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally, Betty Logan and I are pretty much in sync, and I think this time we're in at least half-sync. I would have thought a week was plenty, given the previous discussion and what looks like a WP:SNOWBALL no-consensus to use Top Critics. But I'm certainly not averse to her suggestion of giving it, say, a week past Jan. 1 (i.e., Jan 8). Unless there's much movement demanding the use of Top Critics, though, I'm really not sure of the need for a poll. Wikipedia really doesn't use a voting model for guideline changes, but rather discussion-derived consensus. And I think we have one already. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For me the more important thing is that there be some sort of a clear timeline for dealing with the matter and not just that it be dealt with quickly, so your suggestion of January 8 sounds fine to me. If there is no further movement on the discussion here between now and then I'll take that as an "all clear" to remove "Top Critics" scores from film pages. By then people will have had three weeks to make any case there might be for using them. Thanks again for your help, Tenebrae. 99.192.57.31 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.73.22)

Since to my thinking, the purpose of using RT is to get an overall consensus rating, the regular rating is better because it encompasses more reviews. Therefore a top critics rating is not needed. BollyJeff | talk 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If we do change WP:RTMC, then as long as Erik and Betty Logan still agree that we should not use "Top Critics", I'd prefer either (or both) of them edit/re-write the policy. Then and only then can the rest of us tinker with it (which probably won't be necessary). - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to jump the gun on making changes, but if you want a suggestion for a revision to WP:RTMC to consider how about this? [1] It's a relatively simple change and with the text already there explaining the problems with RT's "top critics" it fits nicely. This is the text I tried to add (twice) already only to be slapped down for it. I should also add that I worry that a change to WP:RTMC might not be sufficient, because when I previously cited it as the basis for removing RT "Top Critics" scores a couple of editors objected that essays are not policy, thus it is invalid to cite them when making a change. 99.192.81.148 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.57.31)

Guidelines for cast sections

I wanted to notify editors here that I updated MOS:FILM#Cast with rewritten guidelines for cast sections. This rewrite was based on the discussion we had last September, which can be found here. If you have a major dispute with the rewrite, we can revert temporarily. If there are minor qualms, we can revisit the previous discussion and see about updating the rewritten guidelines further. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Precious - move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy Rollers

I have a content dispute with another editor at the article Holy Rollers. I would appreciate it if project members could take a look at the dispute and express their views. Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion here. I've attempted a solution but additional opinions are welcome about the nature of the situation, which has to do with defining the film's title. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Too Much Johnson, not enough proof.

Too Much Johnson claims an incomplete print exists and was screened in October 2010, but the reference[2] says nothing about it. I haven't had much luck finding out either way. Maybe somebody else can figure it out? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find anything either. Mbroderick271 (talk · contribs) added the content with the URL you provided. I also checked the URL in the Internet Archive but the 2011 archived page is the same. I searched Access World News but there was not a single mention of the film being screened at Berkeley. Maybe you can message him, but it seems like a piece of information like this would have been more widely reported. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the lack of news coverage smells fishy to me too. I'll email the Pacific Film Archive people. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Are IGN Best of Year awards something we recognise?

I was looking on http://uk.ign.com/wikis/best-of-2012 for video game awards and noticed they did them for films and tv too, with films such as The Avengers, Dredd, Prometheus, Django Unchained, etc being nominated or winning. Obviously I don't think they are prestigious or even an award, its just naming them the best, but is it something worth mentioning? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally it just looks like corporate self-promotion to me, and completely un-notable. Unless there is independent secondary coverage somewhere I'd leave it out. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

IGN is a notable and reliable site for popular consumer media coverage. Because they are selective about which films/shows they cover, the "importance" of their awards should be considered far less than some like the Oscars or a NYTimes top 10 list, but in popular films (Avengers, etc.) its not wrong to include them. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely wouldn't consider the awards Oscar level, and it doesn't seem to be awards so much as in there is no show or recipient to receive a statuette, just a list like any general award, but I wasn't sure if it would be applicable to the film project as much as it is for games where there are less notable bodies giving out recognition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is something we have not fully discussed about awards. Our guidelines do not quite cover sourcing. I'm not sure what we've generally used as a threshold for inclusion. At the most extreme, we would cull the list from IMDb and try to find outside sources to instead use as references. However, not all awards even have Wikipedia pages, and even if they do, such awards may not be covered independently. In this case, it does not look like IGN's awards have been mentioned elsewhere, and I doubt we'll see a Wikipedia page, even though the host is notable by Wikipedia standards. Is it possible that we run the risk of indiscriminately listing awards, especially in tables? For example, Panic Room#Accolades is a bit more parading in terms of presentation compared to Apt Pupil (film)#Accolades. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me of the time Tenebrae was lynched by Harry Potter fans after he removed the "Wizards Council of Britain" awards from one of the Harry Potter articles. I think we can immediately agree on what should be included and what shouldn't: any recognized national or international film body (i.e. BAFTA, Oscars, Golden Globes) are notable, while polls that solicit votes from the general public (Orange Film Awards) are not. Beyond that you have a huge gray area: are the New York and London Critics Circles notable enough to be included? Are the MTV Movie Awards anything more than corporate promotion? There seems to be a limitless number of film festivals around these days, and some films make a career of playing them: so how do you distinguish between the best film award at the Cannes Film Festival, and with the greatest respect, the Bradford Film Festival? I think generally we should allow plenty of discretion (since it's not usually a problem unless a film wins lots of awards), but if there is a fundamental dispute between editors we should let Wikipedia's notability criteria do the job for us: if the awards themselves (as opposed to the company/institution that host/sponsor them) have an entry on Wikipedia they implicitly satisfy notability; if you disagree you can always AfD the awards page and test your argument. If an awards page doesn't exist, then any editor wishing to add the award to the film article can test their argument by creating an article about the awards. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something like IGN, you'd just add as recognition rather than as part of an award table. Don't think its sufficient to class as a Legacy item. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Intouchables - Box office

What do others think of this section in the article of the French film The Intouchables? I've never seen this on any other film article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It does have a whiff of WP:INDISCRIMINATE about it, but it's an unusual case, especially in regards to how it has become a global hit comparable to a major Hollywood blockbuster without penetrating the US market. I think some of the data could be useful in developing a more comprehensive and typical box office section. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The info itself seems okay but the presentation is wild off. Bullet points should be avoided at all costs; a nice prose section would be much more preferable. Other than that I see no issue with it. GRAPPLE X 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Betty and Grapple but I would add that, per WP:FLAG, the table with the box office figures needs the flags removed, at the least, and if those figures could be incorporated into the article that would be even better. MarnetteD | Talk 03:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Merry Christmas! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Distributor rentals/box office gross

Following a recent discussion, it was suggested that I raise this question here. What is the preferred formatting/wording for including distributor rentals in the box office field for Template:Infobox film? Obviously it needs to be made clear that the amount does not refer to the box office gross, but referring to the amount as 'rentals' could confuse readers who might think it refers to video/DVD rental grosses. Here is an example of what I'm referring to. Thanks, Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 10:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We changed the field label to "Box office" for that reason, I believe. We can't exactly change the field name itself without affecting a lot of articles that already use it. Unless I'm mistaken, rentals should not fall under "box office", and such errors should be fixed. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Theatrical rental is box office though: you have the box office gross which is the quantity we usually document, and the box-office office gross rental, which is the distributor's share of the box office. They are both box office metrics but one is the modern day quantity we usually associate with the term and the other is a historic concept. The rental was usually reported for films up to the 70s, and both quantities are known in some cases: The Godfather earned $86 million gross rental from a box offfice gross of $135 million at the US box office. Ideally it's best to report the gross where known (since the same gross can generate different rental figures depending on the deal between the distributor and exhibitor) but in the case of older films only the rental may be known. We changed the parameter to "box office" since overwhelmingly that was the figure that the infobox used, and precluded home video and television income which is usually unknown or incomplete and ongoing. For films like The Big Parade, MGM only tracked the rental, and it is still a measure of its box office success, so I see no reason to preclude it, but it probably needs to be clear what the quantity is. Bar excluding it, there are several options I can see: split the parameter into two (box office gross/box office rentals) with the proviso that the rentals parameter should only be utilised if the gross is unknown; clarify the term with a wikilink: $18 million (gross rental); add a footnote to explain the distinction; add a hoverbox: $18 million (The box office gross rental is the share of the box office gross that the distributor receives after the exhibitor has taken their cut.). I'm fine with any of those, it just needs to be clear. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think any of these solutions would be workable. The article that gross rental links to loads rather slowly for me, and while I like the blue box explanation there quite a lot, it seems strange to me that a definition for the term drops readers in the middle of the List of highest-grossing films. A footnote would do the trick and a hoverbox is an elegant solution. I would favour splitting the infobox parameter and perhaps incorporating a hoverbox into the parameter. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 13:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The parameter should not be split into two (box office gross/box office rentals) because too many people will put the wrong figure in the wrong box. I agree the gross should always be used when known, rentals should be used if they're the only option, with a note of some type identifying them as such. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Un singe en hiver with Jean Gabin and Jean-Paul Belmondo

Hello, this film features two of the greatest French filmstars of all times. Moreover it is listed at the Internet Movie Database, the TCM Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes, www.unifrance.org and www.allmovie.com. What else is required to prove notability? Nordhorner_The man from Nordhorn 23:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi NordhornerII. Our notability guideline for films can be seen at WP:MOVIE. Films are considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 06:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The film had a national theatrical release in France (where it was a considerable commercial success and an acclaimed milestone for Belmondo's career) and it was also released in English-speaking countries. Before my article Un singe en hiver there have also already been Wiki articles in other languages (to which I connected my article). Four of the five above mentioned sources are appreciated well enough to even have their own Wikipedia-template. Moreover there is a plethora of film clips from this film available on You Tube. If you google the film title for pictures you will have an overwhelming harvest. So from my point of view the notability of this film (but I may be biased because I am the author of Jean Gabin's and Jean-Paul Belomondo's filmography-wikitables and I wanted to complete those) is beyond question. But the tag says otherwise. Nordhorner__The man from Nordhorn 08:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on creating the article. I'd say it's notable with the director and the main cast already having articles in the first place. There's several sources in the French artice that could be used too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for help! I appreciate the contributions. It is indeed now a much better article.

NordhornerII (talk _The man from Nordhorn 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing all Project Film members Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Feel welcome to spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbiem someone with whom you had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks Michael! I hope everyone is watching It's a Wonderful Life today. I see Film4 has Oldboy on tonight. Perfect! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows Die Hard is the ultimate Christmas film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL at Oldboy and Die Hard. It will be Les Misérables for me and my family today. Merry Christmas, all. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

International Online Film Critics' Poll

Excuse me, I want to create a page about the International Online Film Critics' Poll. It is a film award voted, every two years, by film critics. The award was created in 2007 and this year there was the 3rd edition. Do I have to respect any standards?? 79.44.63.129 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, we would want to determine if the award is notable by Wikipedia's standards. The general notability guidelines say, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Basically, if there are periodicals that have covered the announcement of awards by this circle, it would warrant creation. For example, if this by Yes! Weekly is considered a reliable source, that would count toward notability. (I'm not quite sure if it is; I think we could find better sources.) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! There is IMDB here! There is also... HitFix here 79.44.63.129 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've found a polish site as a reliable source: Filmweb! Here 79.44.63.129 (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I need to know if I can create the page... with these reliable sources, I think I can do it, but I would (and I need) your permission... Best wishes, 79.23.181.41 (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that these are very reliable sources: especially IMDB and HitFix. I think that the page about this film awards should be created. But to create this page you need other favorable opinions in addition to mine. Augusto Antonio (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thank you Doniago for your answer. But there are also Yes! Weekly, HitFix, Filmweb and other american and foreign sources... Best, Augusto Antonio (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I create the page? I'm quite thrilled... All the best, 79.18.193.254 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So far there are no dissenting opinions, can I create the page? Cheers, 95.239.177.113 (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm now registered, I'm ready to create the page... and actually I'm creating the page in my Sandbox! PassionFilm (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you can find the example of the article: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/International Online Film Critics' Poll. What do you think about it? PassionFilm (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Les Miserables discussions

There are two discussions going on with the Les Misérables (2012 film) article. They can be found at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Plot summary and Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing. The cast billing discussion is whether to include prose format or all bullet format. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

How to categorize/title Teleplays?

Hi everyone. I'm working on articles from the CBS Playhouse series, and many of the titles need to be disambiguated. They're long-form dramatic broadcasts, would probably be considered films, but they're more accurately teleplays. Is there a standard we've accepted to use on these? Please see The People Next Door as a significant one that's giving me some issues. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say to treat them as episodes of a television series and use "(CBS Playhouse)" as the disambiguator when it's needed (so your example would be The People Next Door (CBS Playhouse)). GRAPPLE X 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My Darling Is a Foreigner title

Hi! I posted a comment for discussion on Talk:My Darling Is a Foreigner not long ago. The title has a couple of somewhat odd issues (the "official English title" used on the Japanese and Hong Kong posters doesn't use any capitalization) and I'm not sure how to deal with it by myself, so I haven't directly made a move request. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix (film) article needs more experienced contributors.

Topic. This film should've been a GA long ago, but it hadn't, and now almost nobody cares about it anymore. I want it a GA, but at the moment, there are only two active contributors there who know what we're doing, and the other contributor doesn't seem to have time these days. As a result, I've been doing this almost alone for weeks now, and there are only so much I can cover. For instance, I don't live in an English-speaking country, so reliable physical sources are scarce to me, and it seems that the article have gaps those references can fill. People in my country also don't grow up watching The Simpsons or Family Guy, we grow up watching Saint Seiya or Doraemon instead, so when there's an unsourced statement saying that Family Guy or The Simpsons parodied The Matrix in some episodes, I just have no idea how to look for those references because I don't know the series. Many sections of the articles are still uncomfortably short too, but despite actively going out hunting for sources, I find no reliable info for expansion. So... if you recall yourself going wide-eyed when you saw Trinity's kick in bullet time for the first time, or when Neo dodged bullets, can you help us? It's such a pivotal and revolutionary film that I want to see its article go GA.

So... the Matrix has you (hopefully.) Anthonydraco (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix is a major enough film where there should be enough sourcing to possibly bring it to featured level. I'm willing to help. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please do. I look forward to your contribution. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Anthony! I saw that you were adding references to the "References to use" section on the film article's talk page. I appreciate that! I think the challenge with The Matrix is that it is an immensely influential film, so a lot has been written about it—books and lengthy articles. My personal opinion is that when that is the case, such sources should make up the core of the Wikipedia article. I think this is the hardest part of writing about a film of this notoriety—being able to access all the sources that cover it. One can tell the limit of a given expansion by seeing how many references are online, like with this very article. There's going to be information locked up in print sources that should at least be reviewed. In such cases, you have to have access to a really good library and/or buy the books themselves. (I did the latter with Panic Room to write about its production, and for the analysis, I've been able to retrieve the other offline sources via the library system. Still a work in progress though!) My suggestion is to figure out your area of focus. If it is production, then surely there's DVD content about the making of the film or even a book about it (to my recollection). That could be used to overhaul the appropriate section and contribute to other sections as well. In case you were not aware, we have WP:FILMRES. I also have a write-up about research here if that helps. One thing I could do is provide a list of resources from British Film Institute's Film Index International. (A similar list is under "Unformatted" at Talk:Batman Begins/references, to give you an idea.) Most of it is not online, but I have a university account with which I can look up certain periodicals for you. (If you start a discussion at Talk:The Matrix, we can continue there.) Erik (talk | contribs) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Erik. Thanks for your suggestions. Am I correct to understand that you want the article to rely on those physical sources?

I'm trying to look for people who can help me add offline sources, actually. My country just don't have enough of English ones for the article, so using physical sources as the core references isn't going to be possible without someone providing those references themselves. I'm sure a list of resources from BFI Film Index International is going to be helpful to people who have access to the books. But not to me, I'm afraid. Because I just don't have access to the books even if I have the names. Which means that I won't know what's in them and what I can quote from them. So if you provide names of books, I'll have to ask to you to search those books for me anyway, because I can't. Anything English here must be imported, and if I do that, it'll cost me a fortune. And even if there are some English text books in libraries, chances are that non-fiction in a not-so-necessary field like films and entertainment isn't going to be included. I need someone who can expand the articles with offline sources. Do you like The Matrix enough to provide sources, especially offline sources, for it?

Or... do you have a way to read physical books online, like, an online library that let me do that? Anthonydraco (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Cult film": Hundra

Hi, I've written another film article. This time it is not a French film but an international "cult oddity". The plot description might appear somewhat peculiar but that's because the plot is peculiar. However, the article has been tagged. Please check it out. NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)