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 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 16 Aug 2024 – The Invincible Dragon (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 11 Aug 2024 – A House in Jerusalem (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Makeandtoss (t · c); see discussion 30 Jul 2024 – Wolfman's Got Nards (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by CFA (t · c); see discussion 26 Jul 2024 – Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Morgan695 (t · c); see discussion 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 29 Jul 2024 – 96th Academy Awards (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (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 (8 more...) Featured list removal candidates 16 Aug 2024 – List of Indian winners and nominees of the Academy Awards (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for FL removal by GeniusTaker (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 27 Aug 2024 – Rocky Balboa (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion 27 Aug 2024 – A Hard Day's Night (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Spinixster (t · c); see discussion 21 Aug 2024 – Kony 2012 (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Schierbecker (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 28 Aug 2024 – Deadpool & Wolverine (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by BarntToust (t · c); see discussion 03 Aug 2024 – RRR (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Robert McClenon (t · c); see discussion 30 Jul 2024 – Twisters (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WeatherWriter (t · c); see discussion 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

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)

Claim: people are pushing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to the intro/summary.
Counter-claim: editors write that a film received good reviews/bad reviews, then other editors mark it as "citation needed" as a result editors often use of Metacritic because it very specifically says that their score indicates "generally favorable reviews".
It is not appropriate to put specific RT or MC scores in the lead/summary, if some editors are actually doing that it is not a very good way to summarize, and it also fails to take into account the advice in WP:RTMC about presenting the numbers with some context. Review aggregators are not without their flaws, but as others have said above they are better than Wikipedians subjectively interpreting.
We start articles with a summary, starting the Reception section with a review aggregator as an overview of the critical response only seems consistent with our existing approach. On a general note I'd like to see more of WP:RTMC brought into the WP:MOSFILM guidelines. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2013 (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)

I only ever found the RT Top Critics notable when there was much of a difference from the overall score. Top critics are more willing to highly rate arthouse films, and less likely to take the time to try and find anything good to say about the latest lowbrow comedy or dumb action movie.

The only other reason I use the Top Critics is that the number of critics sampled is about the same as Metacritic, and the scores are often comparable. So if you object to Top Critics because they only use a small number of critics you'd have to reject Metacritic too. (My reading of WP:RTMC is about how to use aggregators in the best way possible, not a call to stop using them, but instead advice for readers and editors to remain skeptical, just as you should be with any reviewers opinion.)

I don't normally get involved with these discussions, I think people who object to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are more likely to comment than the many editors who don't. Rather than a total ban on the Top Critics score, I would suggest that editors should only include it when they can say it is notable. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The consensus seems to be to have a prohibition on Top Critic scores so I have drafted out the guideline ammendment at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_Top_Critics. While there was a consensus to do away with them, the reasons varied so I have summarised them. It's important to note them, since circumstances may change at some point leading to reconsideration. Feel free to comment, offer any revisions etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent as always, Betty. I'll comment on the MOS page. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me also add my thanks for doing this. I, too, will comment on the content on the MOS page. 99.192.78.59 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC) (all the other 99.192's above)

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)

Based on what I've seen in good articles and featured articles, I wouldn't include IGN in isolation, but if you had a film that appeared on several "best of year" lists I would create a subsection and include IGN and those other best of year lists too. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (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)

• I have serious reservations that this is a notable poll. There is a distinct lack of secondary coverage in the mainstream and industry press. The sites that cover it look like they are borderline RS cases themselves: no clear cut RS coverage such as coverage in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter which is something you'd expect. The most telling problem is that the site itself is hosted on Google Sites [2] which elicits some WP:SPS concerns; no criteria for how the critics are selected, who selects the critics etc. In short, there is nothing to stop any of us setting up a site like that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked several times: also the ­Southeastern Film Critics Association, the Iowa Film Critics, the Detroit Film Critics Society, the Indiana Film Critics Association or the Dublin Film Critics Circle aren't nominated by Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, but this doesn't mean that these awards aren't notable. Am I wrong? 79.2.179.16 (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few of those look like they have notability problems to me. I'd say it's quite likely they wouldn't survive an AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if there are pages about these awards, it is right the existence of a page about the International Online Film Critics' Poll too. Am I right? All these awards have a great notability and deserve to be mentioned on wikipedia (even if all of these aren't mentioned by Variety or The Hollywood Reporter). Best, I wish you will change idea. Robert Hardy (talk) 15:32, 30 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)

Update: Erik is not willing to commit. So, with Thargor Orlando there, we have three editors in total. We're still short on editors! Please help! Anthonydraco (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin at the Matrix Wiki; I've been meaning to get around to dealing with the secondary sources, so count me in. What's the best way to co-ordinate this? --xensyria^T 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll leave you a message on your talk page. Anthonydraco (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Spirited Away

Just so everyone's aware, Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and I have agreed to help get Spirited Away up to FA status as a joint work. Any experienced editor here who is willing to help work on this article with us would be great! The discussion is at Talk:Spirited Away#FA discussion. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Chess in The Seventh Seal

I have just suggested on Talk:The Seventh Seal that the section of the article called "Chess in the film" be removed. If you are interested in the matter, please take a look at the section here: The_Seventh_Seal#Chess_in_the_film and drop by the talk page to make a comment. 99.192.64.215 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Check, mate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween II/archive1

Halloween II is under Featured Article review; join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Girl (2012 HBO film)

Hi, there's currently a discussion going on at this article's talk page that might be of interest to members of this project. It concerns the content of an article that appears to be a rebuttal of this film's portrayal of the director Alfred Hitchcock, and its reliability as a source. Please feel free to add any thoughts. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Box office success/failure

I've seen film articles calling the film a box office success or failure based on seemingly nothing. Some films are called successes despite barely recouping their budget, others are called failures despite hauling in three times or more than their budget. The Guideline's box office section currently says nothing about the issue, so I decided to ask here, whether any suggestions should be created and added to the guideline. --89.0.201.94 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NOR guideline covers this adequately. Calling something a success or a failure is analysis, and thus should be sourced. The profit margins are complex due to marketing costs, profit participation, secondary markets, so cannot be simply deduced from the gross and production budget of the film. Any unsourced claim of that nature should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, ok if you say so, but many if not most film articles try to qualify the box office returns in some way, calling it either success/failure or other qualifying terminology such as "disappointing" etc. I agree that NOR and also NPOV cover this, but the problem is rampant. --89.0.201.94 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR is your starting point. The next point is Hollywood Accounting makes it almost impossible to draw any conclusions. Many editors seem to like presenting the production budget and comparing it to the gross. This is only useful as a very rough indicator, for starters the production budget does not include many other costs such as the marketing budget for example. Also a film might cost $10 million to make and then be bought up by a big distributor for much more than that. So mentioning the gross and mentioning the production budget is fine (if a little misleading) but it is incorrect to assume that just because the gross was more than the budget that it must have been profitable. I will usually delete the assumptions but leave the comparison.

Having said that you can get predictions of what a film was expected to take in on the opening weekend (often from the LA Times or articles at Box Office Mojo) and then compare it to what it actually earned and that is usually enough to say it was a box office disappointment, or exceeded expectations.

The box office section of WP:MOSFILM should be updated to warn editors to only present the numbers and not interpret them as meaning a film was profitable or a failure. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Halloween series navbox

Hi, there's been some discussion on the Halloween series navbox about how best to format it, and I'd like to invite any input or feedback about the current or proposed templates to try to establish a consensus. Much appreciated! --xensyria^T 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Character name

Mary Pickford's character's romantic interest in The Hoodlum (1919 film) is given in IMDb, TCM and AllRovi as "John Graham". Yet when I watched it last night on TCM, the name on the title cards was "William Turner". Some other sources[3][4][5] agree. What the heck is going on here? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that one of IMDB, TCM and Allrovi posted the incorrect information first (probably as a geninue mistake), and the other two copied it to compile their databases. As you've actually seen the film & credits and have sources to back this up, I say go with them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. It feels faintly sacrilegious, but the Holy Movie Trinity are all wrong. Just to doublecheck, I watched the opening credits again on youtube, and sure enough, it's Turner. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, IMDb's credits aren't part of any Holy Trinity. Given how anyone can post anything there, it's more like the Apocrypha. I'm disappointed in TCM and AllRovi for evidently accepting IMDb as gospel, which Wikipedia does not.

And my compliments to two fellow editors for excellent work! We might want to add a footnote to this effect and a link to the YouTube video of this public domain work, to help prevent someone down the line seeing the wrong name again in IMDb or elsewhere and reverting. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you've already entered that link and information there! You guys are great! I hope you don't mind if I de-clutter and put the note in a footnote.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Studios RfC

There is an RfC regarding if Disney's ownership is relevant to mention on the Marvel Studios article. The discussion is at Talk:Marvel Studios#RfC: Is Disney's ownership relevant?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Movie review aggregator websites

Previous discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 31#Movie Review Intelligence and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 32#Question from editor of Movie Review Intelligence

Currently, we mainly reference Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles to help report the critical reception. Some less-tended film articles also reference Movie Review Intelligence (MRI) and Movie Review Query Engine (MRQE). (EDIT: When saving this comment, I found that MRI was blacklisted as spam. This may need revisiting depending on this discussion.) I have noticed from time to time that these websites were being referenced. Looking at the websites' Wikipedia articles today, they seem to have some claim to notability. In my research, I also found this which covers MRI with RT and MC. MRQE is also mentioned in passing in that article. I am wondering what other editors think about referencing MRI or MRQE on Wikipedia? It seems like their reputations have steadily grown since their incarnations, so there could be a case now where there was not before. Or if not now, there could be a case in the near future. A couple points to consider: Are these added figures useful where RT and MC figures already exist? Would it help us move away from the existing duopoly (basically, adding variety), or are they not prominent enough at this point?

A related thought: While {{Film ratings}} was recently deleted, it seemed mainly due to the individual reviews section. The template did have a section for aggregate scores which I thought could have value. Would it be possible to have an infobox for just the 3-4 aggregator websites? (It may be too soon to suggest that, but I wanted to put that out there.) With the infobox, we could set parameters (including a new aggregator website only when there is consensus) and possibly standardize score descriptions through using {{H}} hover boxes. It would be the website name, the number of reviews (with hover-over description describing the critics), and the website's score (with hover-over description on how it was determined). It could help us worry less about referencing such websites in prose. What do you all think—of referencing MRI and/or MRQE, and of having an infobox that consolidates aggregate scores? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll number my comments to keep it concise.

(1) I've never heard of MRQE before, so I have no opinion about it.

(2) I have looked at MRI regularly for quite some time and find it to be as credible as any other aggregator, so I would think it worth allowing along with RT and MC.

(3) MRI does not just give one aggregate number, but several for each film based on different categories of reviewers (like "Broad National Press", "Local Newspapers", "Alternative/Indie", "High-Brow Press", "Movie Industry", "NY/LA Chicago Toronto", and "Key Cities"). If MRI is to be included it should only be the overall score because. These more specific ones often only cover small numbers of reviews (so is not statistically significant) and the categories are a bit peculiar.

(4) I anticipate someone might say that we should not add more aggregators because two is plenty enough, but unless there is good reason to think that any of them is more/less credible than the others, Wikipedia should not be playing favourites among them.

(5) I like the infobox way of dealing with aggregators with only approved aggrgators being included. Some editors are already trying to add tables with aggregator scores at the head of the "reception" section, but then just repeat the information in the prose of the section (see Source_Code#Critical_reception, for example). They are clunky and redundant. An infobox would be better. 99.192.69.15 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! :) I hope others can weigh in with their thoughts. Also, I have requested for Movie Review Intelligence to be removed from the spam blacklist; the request can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, I have no objection to adding more aggregator scores: basically these aggregators comprise sample sets, and each 'score' is a single interpretation of that data, and there is a strong statistical argument for increasing the number of sample sets. That raises three issues, however: how do we present the scores? A template would be convenient if we had say 4/5 scores, but would that compromise the context of data? For example, a Metacritic score is quite a different metric to an RT percentage, which isn't a score per se but a frequency. Secondly, if we have more scores we will probably have a greater discord between scores: we already have a problem with those "mixed to positive" summaries, we don't want to end up with "negative to mixed to positive"! Finally, aggregators seem to be proliferating, so it would be important to have a clearly written notability standard for them. I don't suppose there is an aggregator of aggregator scores is there? That would be genius. Maybe I should set it up myself and become a dot com billionaire. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  criticalgrapefruit.com. EDIT, should clarify that isn't a site that meets your demand, just suggesting a name. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  Betty, do you think it would be worth elevating the essay Wikipedia:Review aggregators to a guideline? We could refine it beforehand and make a RfC to gather input about making it a guideline. It would be a subset of the guidelines at MOS:FILM, just with granularity being warranted due to the relative amount of discussion we've had about these websites. The essay does suggest how to report the scores in prose, so what are you looking for? Using overall descriptions from a non-aggregator source reporting on a film's reception? As for the template, I may recover part of the "Film ratings" template code and see if I can put together a mockup. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The essay is useful, but it would be better to cherry-pick what is generally already agreed upon and build a fresh guideline. Text has been inserted into that essay that has not been discussed, and may not have any support (see [6] for example]). It's a good starting point but some care has to be taken to not enshrine the views of just one person. On the issue of the template I am querying how it will be used in conjunction with the prose. Would it just be used to summarise the aggregator stats in the prose, or would it actively replace them? At the moment we try to retain the context of the scores, and prose format helps us to do that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC

A request for comment has been placed here Talk:James Earl Jones#Request for comment and any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Artist page move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for a third-party opinion on Red Tails disagreement

A submission that "Allied fighters abandoned the bombers to chase German fighters" is to be included in the article as part of "historical inaccuracies" has been challenged on the talk page: under the sub-title: "Lies and inaccuracy". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Request for comment

This is just a notice that I have opened a RfC at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RFC: Is it necessary to mention if reviews were mixed, positive, etc. in the opening of the Critical response? TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy - Wholly Shot in 3D?

Hi there. Could someone weigh in on a comment I left in Talk:Tron: Legacy regarding what appear to be some contradictory statements about its filming? The lead and one other section in the article state the film was "wholly shot in 3D", while the film itself (in the theaters at least) stated that some portions were deliberately presented in 2D and interviews around the time of release also mentioned the real-world sequences being in 2D. I left a comment about this in November, but so far nobody's responded or done anything related to that in the article, and I don't have the factual info handy to decide which account is correct. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) is up for GAN at Talk:Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)/GA1. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in the lead and cast list

I have run into a few editors insisting on putting spoilers in beyond the Plot section, such as at Talk:Skyfall#Necessity_of_Spoiler. WP:SPOILERS does not give license to put spoilers where one would not expect to see them. Readers should be able to look at the lead and/or the cast list without having the plot given away. Most people have found ways to discuss the fundamentals of a character without going into their final fate, yet this continuously comes up. Can we get a policy implemented expressing this, here and on the WP:SPOILERS page? - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If the spoiler in question is a fundamental aspect of the piece, then it's likely to come up in the lead—I'm thinking more of television here but if a major character dies in an episode of a TV series, it's something that would appear in the lead (spoilers! This, this or this are examples of articles where the lead is likely to contain a justified spoiler). If the spoilers are being discussed in a real-world manner (for example, this article contains a large spoiler for Twin Peaks during discussion of the series' recurring themes) then that would also be justified. I hate to sound cold but I really have to recommend that spoilers not be danced around. I know myself how bad it feels to spoil a piece of fiction by reading something here that I didn't want to—I picked up bits of The X-Files, Fringe and Dexter without meaning to—but I'll also be the first to admit that it was my fault for reading those articles when I knew I hadn't seen the relevant fiction yet. However, to side with you on something at least, cast sections should not be going into in-world detail about what happens to characters—"Ian McCulloch as Peter West. McCulloch did not see the completed film for several years after its production finished, as the video nasty scandal delayed its release in his native United Kingdom" is perfectly fine; ""Ian McCulloch as Peter West. West is an investigative journalist and one of the film's few survivors" is not. GRAPPLE X 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't usually look at an article for a specific TV episode until I had seen it, so I wouldn't complain about spoilers there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is being asked here - are we to censor our articles because some are not smart enough to not read-up on a film before they watch it?Moxy (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course people should be able to come to WP and get the basics of what a film is before seeing it. I do that all the time. I avoid the plot section. But I should be able to read the lead and look over the cast list without having the plot given away. That is not too much to ask. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OOOOOOO I see that makes sense to me. However we have so many different editors and thus styles of writing this may be hard. So lets break this down - lets make a proposal for formal breakdown of articles - thus have the advice page recommend plot section is were "spoiler" type info should be? But this would be hard because the lead sums up the article and if a main actor dies in that episode - most will want this mentioned in the lead summary. What do others think?Moxy (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be sensitive to it, but I think it's virtually impossible to come up with a guideline that mandates where and when you can divulge spoliers. For instance, in the case of Skyfall, there was intense media speculation about Naomie Harris' role, so it's virtually impossible to cover her casting without giving the game away. When I peer review articles I often skip the plots of films I have not seen, and it's annoying when you get caught out, but if there is a real world context for including a spoiler then you can't really compel an editor to remove it on that basis. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of them are unnecessary and easily avoidable. We shouldn't not make a guideline because of possible, unusual exceptions coming up - all guidelines seem to have some exceptions. We even have WP:IAR. So we should have a guideline that keeps spoilers in the plot section. Any valid exceptions can be worked out where applicable. I'm tired of certain people using WP:SPOILERS as an excuse to put them in anywhere. They seem to enjoy using it as a license to get a reaction or something - don't know what constructive reason they would have. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas of how we can make this clear to our editors if its not a guide? The lead at The Crying Game does a good job or not? - does link and name Jaye Davidson)Moxy (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Crying Game is good in that it does not give away the surprise in the lead. Of course if one clicks on Jaye Davidson the cat is out of the bag, but that can't be helped. I wouldn't complain about that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I generally avoid spoilers in the lede by just giving a very brief overview of the plot there (as in, one sentence). I consider any more undue weight. The recent TFA Terang Boelan is an example of this approach. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a limit, the openinf of Skyfall says it's Dench's last film; fine. What it does not need is to say that Ralph Feinnes fills that role when that happens in the last 5 minutes of the film and is not an important note, the lede is meant to be a summary of the article not a prospectus for what might be important in a future film. It's like opening the Usual Suspects with "starring Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint and Keyser Soze".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping "spoilers" out of the lead, but to keep them out of the cast list or other sections is asking too much. The page for Witness for the Prosecution is a good example. The cast list and production sections both mention and discuss Marlene Dietrich's double role. Expecting the article to exclude such information from these sections would go too far. Also, the fact that Darth Vader is Luke's father is all over the articles for the final two movies of the original Star Wars trilogy, not merely confined to the plot section. People should just learn to accept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that this means providing information, not obscuring it. Read beyond the lead at your own risk. 99.192.78.59 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Except we have people who insist on putting spoilers in the lead, such as at Skyfall - a new release that got lots of attention. No doubt many people looked at the lead before they saw the film - and they got punished for it. Readers should be able to look at the lead without having the plot given away. At minimum we need a policy reflecting that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. I think you and I do agree that (pardon my French) there are assholes out there who get their jollies from telling people what happens in a film before they have seen it, and I hate to sound like I am defending their antics, but a policy against "spoilers" in leads would be a bad idea. People just have to understand that for an encyclopedia, providing information takes priority over hiding it. Like I said before, it would seem to me that most of the time there is no good (encyclopedic) reason to put "spoilers" in the lead (and Skyfall is a good example of that), but I can imagine cases where there would be good reason.

Take the already mentioned example of The Crying Game. It is typical to list Academy Award wins in the lead of film articles, so if Jay Davidson had won for Best Supporting Actor, I would argue that it ought to be included in the lead, as usual. People just need to learn that Wikipedia does not cater to people who want to be protected from information. It is a mistake an intelligent person will make at most one time. If they get "spoiled" once and then read other articles expecting not to be "spoiled" again, they have no one to blame but themselves. 99.192.64.166 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.78.59)

As said above, we shouldn't not make a guideline because of possible, unusual exceptions coming up - all guidelines seem to have some exceptions. We even have WP:IAR. So we should have a guideline that keeps spoilers at least out of the lead. Any valid exceptions can be worked out where applicable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to define spoiler here. There is saying that the film is Dench's last role, that's not a spoiler its a factual statement. Saying say who replaces her in the last 2 minutes of the film is bordering on deliberate malice, he has no relevance until a future film, certainly no relevance to that specific film that requires it to be mentioned in the lede. I wouldn't find it acceptable say to list the identities of the killers in a Scream film or that Liam Neeson is playing Ra's al Ghul, neither are required for the lede to make sense, both would be considered unnecessary and dickish. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I know a spoiler when I see one - it's something that was supposed to be unknown - though some are more blatant then others. There's no need to say Skyfall is Dench's last Bond film in the lead. That's not even a known fact. She could be in a flashback later. Who knows? It's the most recent film, so right now it's everybody's last Bond film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Darkwarriorblake, you raise an issue I almost commented on with my last post: the question of how one defines "spoiler". People have very different ideas about what is and is not a "spoiler". I, for example, have not yet seen Skyfall and intend to do so, but I don't consider knowing what happens to Dench's character a "spoiler". I would even argue that I enjoyed The Sixth Sense more than I would have otherwise because I guessed the "plot twist" when I first saw that film. Knowing did not spoil anything for me. But I am very glad I did not know who Keyser Söze was before seeing The Usual Suspects. A rule against "spoilers" would just open the door to debates about what is or is not one. 99.192.64.166 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a real world reason for having in Skyfall the information that is contained in the lead: the return of two high-profile and popular characters who have been absent from the series, and that it is Dench's last film. Both of these are significant in a wider context of the film series. Again, the "spoiler" of having a returning Moneypenny is utterly unavoidable in the cast list ("Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny" is how we have it, and that's about as unavoidable as it comes). The return of the Moneypenny character is again discussed in the Casting section (identifying that it was Mendes who suggested it, the media speculation and Harris' denial of playing Moneypenny), which is entirely appropriate and germane. There are times when "spoilers" are unavoidable outside a plot section and unless we return to a position of having spoiler warnings then I would be uncomfortable in having a policy that forbids us from only having the information within the plot: too much valid information will have to be removed from articles in order to comply. - SchroCat (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to have all that in the lead. There's a big difference between saying a Bond film from 10 or 20 years ago was an actor's last, and one that was just released. Especially, as with Dench, when it gives something away that was supposed to be unknown. You didn't see critics rushing out to put that info in their reviews. It did not need to be in the lead here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there were a number of reviews who talked about Fiennes replacing Dench and the re-introduction of Moneypenny - is one quick-to-find example. - SchroCat (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There's always exceptions, aren't there? And that has a spoiler alert! One answer for the question of is this a spoiler. But most reviews avoided that, and the BFI is a film site, not a mainstream newspaper critic. And you didn't answer my other points. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And we're not newspaper critics either, mainstream or otherwise: we're an encyclopaedia and deal with information in a very different way. I could give you other reviews which also mention it, both in the balanced manner we do, and also in more detail, but the BFI is a good source and the easiest to hand. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact is WP:SPOILERS is very clear on this: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. No project guideline is going to trump a site-wide guideline in an RfC challenge. You can challenge the Dench/Fiennes point on the grounds it is not pertinent enough to be in the lede, you can challenge it on the grounds that the amount of coverage given to it in the article is not substantial enough to merit a mention in the lede, but if you challenge it on the grounds it is a spoiler editors will just fall back on WP:SPOILERS which is unequivocal in the matter! Basically, if you want to abolish spoilers from ledes then the core guideline is going to have to explicitly state that. I don't fancy your chances of getting it added, but if it were me I would start the discussion at the guideline page and my line of attack would be that removing spoilers from the lede wouldn't technically violate the guideline since ledes should only summarise what already exists in the article i.e. make the location of the information the issue, rather than its inclusion. But discussing it here is all a bit academic, because even if every single project member agrees, a local consensus can't override a main site guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was making the location the issue from the beginning, as can be seen by the name I gave this section. I asked that this be addressed here and on the WP:SPOILERS page. It is WP:UNDUE putting spoilers in the lead, including with Skyfall. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree Goth. I don't think you can have a blanket ruling which won't unbalance a number of articles. The lead of Skyfall mentions the return of two long-established characters to the series. Obviously we deal with that appropriately in the plot section, but we also identify Moneypenny in the cast section. How can we not? Then in the Casting section we highlight that it was Sam Mendes' desire to see them return and the subsequent media brouhaha over Harris' is-she-isn't-she—including Harris' denial. Combined together, there's enough reason to include it in the lead. I think that if it wasn't covered in the lead we'd be unnecessarily pulling our punches. I do take your point over UNDUE, which is why I'm happy with the Skyfall set up: there is nothing undue about the info in the article as it isn't reliant entirely on events in the film, but has a real world background to it that is appropriately covered in the rest of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

if it wasn't covered in the lead we'd be unnecessarily pulling our punches? To me, it's clearly unneeded in the lead. The very example of an outside source you gave above had a spoiler warning. Readers should not be left wishing they had one for the lead of a WP article, especially for a film that was just released. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I just gave you one that easily came to the front of my mind and I can always dig out others as well. We're an encyclopaedia and I think that in some circumstances having a "spoiler" in the lead is entirely acceptable. WP:UNDUE is one great way to ensure that it's not just in there to shock or spoil, but to ensure that there is a valid reason for having it. In some cases there are valid reasons - and Skyfall, with all the real world background to the re-introduction of the Moneypenny character, is a case in point. The point on the spoiler warning is well made, but we have a policy of not having one and I do not think the lack of one means that we should hide away information on that basis alone

Just keep it out of the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not if there is a valid reason for having it there, in line with WP:LEAD. If it fails WP:LEAD, then yes, keep it out, but all information should pass that particular barrier, not just anything we may consider to be a "spoiler". - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I clearly don't see your reasons for inclusion in the Skyfall lead as being valid. You can't even be certain Dench won't act in a flashback in a future film, as said above. You also insisted on reinserting that Live and Let Die (film) had its world premiere after it was released in the U.S., as can be seen here. I chose not to get in a debate with you over that, even though it struck me as non-encyclopedic. Your idea of how to present info in an encyclopedia sometimes differs from mine. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Um... I'm really not sure about need for the tangential point, but the world premiere is an event, rather than just a release date, and the information is based on what the sources say. Back to the main point, it matters not one jot what a project think if it goes against the site-wide consensus, which is quite clear. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one and just accept that there is inherent flexibility built into the guidelines which can be read to support the inclusion of spoilers outside the plot section in certain circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Gothic, you just have to accept the fact that people do not have the right to expect Wikipedia to protect them from knowing things they don't want to know. Such a policy would be anti-encyclopedic. If it matters that much to people to avoid "spoliers", they shouldn't be reading the Wikipedia page. It's as simple as that. 99.192.89.169 (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.166)

Air Diary

Hello! Air Diary was really produced by Jackie Chan? I don't can found article abou this [7].--Basshuntersw (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.china.org.cn/2007-09/03/content_1222970.htm seems to say his company is behind it, but I can't find him credited as a producer either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Fugitive (1993 film)

Fellow Filmproject editors are asked to take a look at the recent edits to The Fugitive (1993 film) and the relevant talk page discussion and offer their input. One editor has taken it upon himself to completely rewrite the article, making some positive changes, along with quite a few that are questionable. I would like him to slow down and discuss these changes in more detail on the talk page, and it would help if other editors encouraged him to do likewise. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning, User: Redcoyote18 and his runtime change.

People of the film project,

I have something to alert you. A user called Redcoyote18 has been shortening films' runtime in the info boxes down. From the runtime listed in the references (from the very beginning to the time the credit really ends), he changes it to the runtime from the beginning to the point the story stops (excluding the runtime of the credit).

He has been editing the films' info boxes for months, and has been passing unnoticed, since his edits are small. I've already told him not to shorten the run time, but since he has made so many edits, I have to tell you too.

I've already fixed The Matrix series, Resident Evil series, and Jaws. If you have your film project listed on his contribution list, kindly go check and see if the runtime of the films you're working on matches the reference for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redcoyote18

Thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. He doesn't seem to be blanking anything or put in false contents, though. So I don't think he's vandalizing. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like classic User:Bambifan101. See [8] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101/Archive#30_April_2011. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'm going to report him to sock investigation. His vandalism will require cleaning up though. Any help would be awesome. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actors by era

Category:20th-century actors and Category:21st-century actors are fairly useless. They should be broken down by decade.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they're pretty pointless and should be deleted. Breaking them down by decade will only add category clutter. Lillian Gish's article would have Category:1910s actors, Category:1920s actors, Category:1930s actors, Category:1940s actors, Category:1950s actors, Category:1960s actors, Category:1970s actors and Category:1980s actors. How is that helpful? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone from the core crew who got Jurassic Park to FA still here?

Kindly see the topic on the discussion page here [9]. Most of its references are in short citations, with only names and page numbers. But the core general reference they are tied to is now missing, rendering over 30 statements in the article without references. It's an FA, so please do something before it's been re-evaluated and got demoted. No one can find a book out of only the name and page numbers. I need someone who worked on it and knows what book they were talking about. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Or by consulting the page history... this has what you needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How did you find it through... what? 6 years of history? I'm amazed. I did try. Anthonydraco (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Replied at the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dot the i proposed move

Please see Talk:Dot the i#Move? for a discussion on the proposal to move Dot the i to Dot the I. BOVINEBOY2008 13:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Brawley Nolte

Brawley Nolte currently redirects to Nick Nolte, and while Brawley is his son, having the link redirect to the top of Nick's article is a bit misleading and has already caused some confusion. I'm not sure that Brawley has enough notability to merit an article of his own, though if anyone wants to set one up I won't stop them. Otherwise, I'm not sure what correct procedure is in this case...can the redirect point to the Personal life section of Nick's article, or should the redirect be removed, or is there a better option? Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked at WP:BIO#Invalid criteria, and they recommend redirecting to the notable person's article. Perhaps what we can do here is redirect to Nick Nolte#Personal life specifically. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I don't think it's an ideal solution, but it's at least a solution, and certainly less confusing than having a redirect that suggests Brawley and Nick are the same person. Doniago (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge low budget films article

I propose that the low budget film article be merged into the b movie and z movie articles. They both relate enough that I don't think the low budget film article is necessary. I have already proposed this on all of the article's talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Annie Hall production credits edit war

Please see this discussion on the article's talk page, and this related discussion on the infobox talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra peer review

Priyanka Chopra peer review underway here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Want to apply for FAC soon. BollyJeff | talk 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey There

There is currently a discussion regarding the lead paragraph on the talk page of Sony Pictures Entertainment. As it according to it's talk page banner falls under this project, some input from participants of this project would be appreciated. Regards. MisterShiney ✉ 08:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oscar nominations announced later

Just a heads up that today is when the Oscar noms are announced. Usually there's a spate of unsourced additions on the related film articles, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The text of "current holder" for Academy Awards, etc. doesn't make sense

Hi everyone: right now the pages for Academy Award categories (like this one) use the default {{Infobox award}} template, which has a "current holder" field. This doesn't feel right for stuff like the Academy Awards, because there is only a "most recent winner", not a "current holder"— all the past awards don't go away just because there's a new winner. I have never heard in either written or spoken English a phrase like "Jean Dujardin, current holder of the Best Actor award..." (or even its corollary, "Fredric Marsh, previous holder of the Best Actor award..."). Looking through the infobox parameters I can see that "current holder" is really the only place to put this info, but the wording is problematic. Any thoughts or history I should be aware of? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Most recent winner" would be more appropriate for the oscars, but it's probably because the infobox is a generic award box. It's not exclusively for the oscars, nor does it fall under the jurisdiction of the Film project. The only solution would be to make our own, and it probably isn't worth it for one poorly named field. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) Actually, what you note is true of pretty much all prizes. Winners of Grammy Awards and Nobel Prizes or any other awards are just like Academy Award winners in being the "most recent" rather than the "current" ones. Even in sports, winners of the World Series don't cease to be World Series champions when the next team wins the same way that the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion ceases to be champion when a new one takes over. But in sports they do tend to talk of "current" and "past" winners. So it is really more of a small language nuance issue not worth bothering about.

(2) If you check pages like Grammy Award for Album of the Year and Nobel Prize in Chemistry you will see that they have infoboxes that do not mention the most recent winners of the award/prize. With Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor the "current" winner could be removed from the box altogether without any real loss, especially since the most recent winner (and all the others) are listed further down the same page. 99.192.88.237 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Brillante Mendoza

What do others think of the filmography section on the article of Filipino film director Brillante Mendoza? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Classic Movie Hub links: spam or valuable addition?

I removed a bunch of links to the Classic Movie Hub website, mostly because one user—Amgcatz—seemed to be spamming the links for promotion, and because the links did not seem to add much to the articles.

Various blogs report that Annmarie Gatti started working on the Classic Movie Hub website in 2009 then went live with it in February 2012. It looks like it invites user information but I don't think it is an open wiki; at any rate the user blogs are not being linked. I don't know the copyright status of its film and actor images, but this page at least appears to ignore the US laws against images of sculptures (freedom of panorama.)

Here are some examples of how the website was brought to various Wikipedia articles:

• James Stewart (website added as external links)
  • James Stewart at Classic Movie Hub
  • The Jimmy Stewart Museum at Classic Movie Hub Travel
• Film noir (website added as external link)
  • Film Noir Movies Sortable by Title and Year at Classic Movie Hub
• List of sports films (website added as external links)
  • Sports Films Sortable by Title and Year at Classic Movie Hub
  • Classic Movie Hub: List of Baseball Films from the Classic Movie Era
  • Classic Movie Hub: List of Boxing Films from the Classic Movie Era
  • Classic Movie Hub: List of Football Films from the Classic Movie Era
• List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (website added as external link)
  • Browse Movie Stars on Sgt. Pepper Cover at Classic Movie Hub
• Television Hall of Fame (website added as external link)
  • Classic Movie Hub: List of Classic Movie Actors, Directors and Producers that were inducted into the Television Hall of Fame
• Grauman's Chinese Theatre (website added as external link)
  • Classic Movie Actors and Actresses with imprints at Grauman's Chinese Theatre (sortable by name and ceremony date at Classic Movie Hub)

To be fair, the images and data appear to conform to Wikipedia:External links such that they are "accurate and on-topic, [containing] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". The images are generally very small and so are not valuable commercially, and they are not able to be downloaded—you cannot "right-click" on them to download.

So what is the thinking of Film project members? Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that film articles get enough external links as it is. If one editor is soliciting a given link across articles, then it should be considered linkspam and removed. There are a great deal of movie websites that I am sure would love to be linked in Wikipedia's film articles (and a few have tried to do it in the same manner as this editor with this website). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed them from articles on my Watchlist because I tend to do that when one user suddenly adds external links to outside sites on multiple WP pages with no explanation or valid reason. I was less certain this one should be removed then others I've deleted, but it didn't look to me like Classic Movie Hub really gave any useful film data not already available on WP and other sites already linked, like TCM. It also put me off how he added his preferred site to the top of WP EL lists. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC) - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(I've never used this wiki before so I hope that I'm doing this correctly.) First of all, thank you for opening this up for discussion. It is much appreciated, and actually very helpful to me in understanding what happened. I respect your insight, and no matter the outcome, I just want to explain a little bit... I had mentioned in my email to Binksternet, that my intent was not to spam; I just thought that I was adding valuable information. I know that I added the links in some spurts, but it was because one idea led to another. I added links about the Clark Gable Museum and the Jimmy Steward Museum, choosing the Classic Movie Hub Page over 1) the Clark Gable Foundation because that site is somewhat convoluted (i.e. not the clearest website to navigate) and 2) the Jimmy.org Page because that page was taking too long to load and was timing out. I added the various lists because I thought that classic movie fans would like to see lists of the iconic/older classic movies (like Pride of the Yankees) vs every sports movie ever made, etc. I similarly added the other lists. Regarding putting the Classic Movie Hub link in the top portion of the link lists (and in hindsight I can see why that would put you off) - I just thought that since the site was specifically related to Classic Era Hollywood Stars (and both Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart are considered movie stars from that era), that it was okay. I can't recall 100%, but I don't think I put either link above the 'king' of movie sites, imdb. I had also fully intended to add other useful links, i.e. Find a Grave biographies, etc. but hadn't done it yet. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and please know that I would love to maintain the privilege of adding content to wikipedia, so any helpful guidelines/parameters/advice on how to approach adding information or links in the future would be greatly appreciated. --Amgcatz (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Crime drama page missing = links go to the wrong page

I almost posted this on a talk page somewhere, but I think this is a general problem. I think deletopedia hit and there is no longer a relevant page called "Crime drama". It is, however, a category commonly used in US television. The page for Crime film is defined as "Crime films are films which focus on the lives of criminals." is not the same as a "Crime drama". There's a redirect set from "Crime drama" to the Crime film page. All Crime drama links for detective TV series that aren't "Police procedural" now go to that page. See Rizzoli & Isles, Elementary (TV series), Perception (U.S. TV series) . BTW: I've never even heard of "police procedural." I assume it's either a British expression or literature term. The shows that link there are also called "crime drama" on the respective show's page, e.g. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation But there are crime dramas that don't match the description for police procedural and links for the genre there now go entirely into the wrong direction. Kindly fix this. Should your portal not be the correct audience, kindly repost this where there are competent contributors who can alleviate the issue. THANKS --99.11.160.111 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)