Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Did you know 30 Aug 2024 – Eniaios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hinnk (t · c); see discussion 30 Aug 2024 – The Right and the Wrong (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Slgrandson (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Over My Dead Body (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – IMAX Melbourne (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Mjks28 (t · c); see discussion 28 Aug 2024 – Norma Phillips (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Silver seren (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2024 – List of accolades received by Joe Hisaishi (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TechnoSquirrel69 (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2024 – Time (2021 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 22 Aug 2024 – G Affairs (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 11 Aug 2024 – A House in Jerusalem (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Makeandtoss (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 26 Aug 2024 – Starship Troopers (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion 21 Aug 2024 – Godzilla Minus One (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion 04 Aug 2024 – Troika (1969 film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Paleface Jack (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 31 Jul 2024 – List of accolades received by Carol (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Lapadite (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 20 Aug 2024 – Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); start discussion 19 Aug 2024 – Pokémon Heroes (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Pokelego999 (t · c); start discussion 13 Aug 2024 – Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gb321 (t · c); see discussion 03 Aug 2024 – Manifesto (2015 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lapadite (t · c); start discussion 12 Jul 2024 – Migration (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); start discussion 04 Jul 2024 – Kubrick stare (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bremps (t · c); see discussion 01 Jul 2024 – Buzz Lightyear (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 28 Jun 2024 – Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by De Disney (t · c); start discussion 26 Jun 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion (5 more...) Featured article reviews 02 Sep 2024 – E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by TenPoundHammer (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 02 Sep 2024 – Beetlejuice (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Zmbro (t · c); see discussion 27 Aug 2024 – Rocky Balboa (film) (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion 27 Aug 2024 – A Hard Day's Night (film) (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Spinixster (t · c) was closed; see discussion Requests for comments 28 Aug 2024 – Deadpool & Wolverine (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by BarntToust (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler

This list article is particularly problematic because it contained copious references to the "Golden Raspberry Award" that we discussed above. I'd say about a third of more of the list consists of this parody "award"; I've removed and it's being edit-warred. This is a good example of why we need independent sourcing for parody awards, and they should not be inserted in articles and lists unless they're written about by someone other than the "award" issuer. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple and I have been discussing on the Sandler list talk page the question of whether or not the Razzies raise a BLP issue. I have now started a section on WT:BLP to specifically address that concern. Anyone with thoughts about whether or not there is a BLP problem are invited to contribute to that discussion. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

I think there's also an NPOV problem, as 1) this is not an award but an attack and 2) the Razzie people, whoever they are, have a real problem with Sandler and have showered him with them. Before removal, the article was dominated by razzies. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If there are NPOV problems, then that is worth discussing. If there are more specifically WP:UNDUE concerns, those are also worth discussing. There might be good reasons to exclude mention of Razzies from particular pages, but that does not mean that BLP is one of them. My disagreement with you has been consistently on the specific claim that you have made that there is a BLP problem with including Razzies. I believe you are wrong about that and that is why I have opened the discussion at WT:BLP. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

• Comment I think this falls into a wider debate on how we handle awards, which I don't think we do very well on film articles on Wikipedia. Personally I don't think the Razzies are any more a BLP issue than say a bad review, which we will include to be consistent with WP:NPOV. Indeed, that policy is relevant here, since by ommitting the Razzies we are arguably not being neutral. I would be interested in coming up with some criteria which we can apply. Here are some possible ones from the top of my head (I don't necessarily advocate them, I'm just kicking them into the arena):

1. The Award itself has a dedicated article on Wikipedia.
2. The award win itself has been covered by a secondary source
3. The recipient personally received the award, or someone officially accepted it on their behalf
4. The award has international standing or by an organization or media outlet with a "national" presence

Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Betty, I agree with your view on both the BLP and NPOV status of the Razzies. As for your ideas, here are a few quick thoughts on them

1. This seems like a solid criterion. The Sandler list includes an award he received from the relatively obscure Gijón International Film Festival, which has a Wikipedia page, but whose awards do not. Including this one on his awards list seems of borderline notability.
2. This sounds good, but probably is a very low bar. Even very small film festivals that give awards get coverage in their local news outlets. So it might not exclude much. But if this is read too strictly, then things like Oscars and Emmys for the more obscure categories that the public does not care about (ones that do not make it to the televised broadcasts) could be excluded from pages.
3. This could be a problem, depending on what is meant by "received it on their behalf". Marlon Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather to the Oscars on his behalf, but did not accept the award. Also, it is standard at major awards for the presenter to claim they accept the award on behalf of the winner, but it is never clear that they have been authorized by the winner to do so. Did Woody Allen really accept all those awards? So this criteria could exclude awards we would want to list or include ones that were not actually accepted by the winner because someone claimed to accept it for them.
4. This sounds like a more strict version of #2, so might have the same issues.

Finally, just as a further thought, some awards pages are called "List of awards..." and some are called "List of accolades...." On the issue of the Razzies it could be a NPOV problem to exclude Razzies from a list of awards page, but not a list of accolades page, since the latter more clearly has a positive connotation. That won't settle whether they should be mentioned on actor or film pages, but it could help with list pages. 99.192.93.29 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2

A Request for Comment has been started at the above link to discuss removing the archive site Archive.is from the blacklist. Feel free to join the chorus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Stunt performer

Hi! I have just rewritten the article Stunt performer, and wanted it reassessed on your group quality scale. Also, do you think that there is enough material out there to sustain the article Stunt double, or should it be merged into Stunt performer? Thanks! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC nomination

I have nominated the film article Subway Sadie for Featured Article consideration; as it pertains to this WikiProject I leave a notice here. Thanks, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Direct link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subway Sadie/archive1. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Combing articles

Would somebody combine Bollywood films of 2015 into List of Bollywood films of 2015? Robert4565 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Epic plot summaries

In case you didn't see this, Slate had an interesting article about some of our more lengthy plot summaries. The article listed the ten longest summaries, with the award going to Alley Cats Strike. If anyone's up for plot summary trimming, there's some good examples in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Aw man. That was once of my favorite movies as a child! I'll go take a look and cut down some. I can probably use what is there, plus my memory to get that sucker down. Thanks for the find Nehrams. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear god. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Erik took care of it. But we should probably head over to the other titles on that list as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, you can try to re-expand it. I just thought that it was not worth having a such a dense "Plot" section with nothing else in the article body. Wikipedia basically permits plot summaries to be able to contextualize coverage about fictional works. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly content with it how you changed it. My method would have been to just cut it down to under 750, given what was there, but doing what you did was better in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Meant to reply as soon as I read Nehrams2020's post, a little after he posted it, but I got sidetracked. Anyway, it's an interesting article and I wonder what made the Slate author focus on Wikipedia plot summaries; it's like he's somewhat or completely familiar with the WP:FILMPLOT guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess the Slate author got sidetracked, too. That was a funny yet horrifying article, and I think that we've got our work cut out for us. I'll try to help out, but I just bought SimCity 4 from Good Old Games, and I think my editing might slow down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the follow up article of an interview of the director of the film. It notes that the plot has been modified thanks to the efforts above. It looks like the next article on the list is now getting the additional publicity. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually got in touch with the screenwriter to mention WP:REUSE since his web page was reusing content from Wikipedia. I also said his web page would probably not be acceptable as an external link in the Wikipedia article, though a discussion could confirm that. I also emailed the journalist to mention Wikipedia's policy and WikiProject Film's guidelines since he didn't seem aware of them. (That line graph nicely shows the enforcement of the word count range for our plot summaries!) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Big Country music

I'm not 100% certain, but doesn't the theme music in The Big Country constitute some sort of copyright violation or something of that ilk? (It's not that memorable anyway.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It most likely doesn't fulfil its FU claim, since it isn't the subject of sourced commentary in the article. It also exceeds the 30 second limit for a musical sample too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Films produced by Nicole Kidman

Please see this discussion at CfD. What do members of the film project feel about having a category structure for films by producer to mirror the director's categories? There are only a handful of these categories at the moment. I'm against having them myself, as I don't see it as being as defining as the director, and would be happy to nominate the other categories at CfD if a consensus was reached here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry about FACs

This is really a question for anyone experienced in the FAC department, but it's relating to a film article so I'll post it here. I've bumped into an interesting issue during one of my FACs, and have inquired about it here. Any comments would be greatly appreciated! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary statement for "Reception" section

"Universally panned", "generally positive", "mixed to negative" and the like frequently pop up as summaries for critical reception. They are also a frequent source of edit warring: "mixed" vs. "mixed to positive" vs. "generally favorable" vs. every conceivable spin. Surely there's a guideline that specifically addresses this?

The closest thing I could find was the RfC which received mixed reviews. Is there anything more substantial? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of us are opposed to "<degree> to <degree>" language. It usually arises from poor attempts to interpret Rotten Tomatoes' percentages, which does not work well because the percentages are grossly oversimplified. I personally prefer to use sources other than Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to summarize the critical reception (per MOS:FILM#Critical response) and to use the aggregators to report on the breakdown. Since RT does only positive/negative and MC does positive/mixed/negative, the results can be pretty telling. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I know, there is no such guideline. Myself and some others' personal rule of thumb is if a reliable source categorizes the reviews as something (mostly positive, universally negative, etc.), we use that reference and that specific wording. If one doesn't exist, the standard procedure is to adapt Metacritic's wording into our own. Many try to use the Tomatometer as a gauge for critical acclaim, which is why The Avengers doesn't even have a critical summary anymore. While a 92% is impressive, it had an average score of 68/100 according to Metacritic, which is far from critical acclaim. On the other hand, films like All Is Lost are damn near unanimously positive, and it says "critical acclaim". Personally, I think any form of "acclaim" should be avoided unless explicitly sourced, and should be replaced with "nearly unanimous positive reviews" (like when Metacritic says a film received "universal acclaim"). It's hard to standardize this, though.

Personally, I would make a table of sorts to coordinate the Metacritic wording with what we should use. Maybe that's an atrocious idea, but I feel like it would clear up confusion. In the case that Metacritic or outside sources are unavailable, Rotten Tomatoes could be summarized with a simple "positive reviews" for fresh and "negative reviews" for rotten. I'm kinda spitballing, but it's a start, I guess. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Add-on: I strongly agree with Erik on not using "<degree> to <degree>" language. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I too have once come before the WikiProject with frustration over this. The "mixed to ____" language is a virus and I would support a final clarification at MOS:FILM, if we are headed in that direction. I don't quite understand why we summarize critical response at all. It seems sufficient to write, "Film review aggregators RottenTomatoes rated the film 92% and Metacritic gave it a 68/100" and let the numbers tell the story. But if the community decides that summarizing the response is somehow useful, I would sub-propose we abandon the nonspecific word "mixed", since all critical response is "mixed", and stick with either "mostly positive" or "mostly negative". I also propose that any such summary must be based on the numbers from reliable aggregators . I have too often seen people find a half-dozen positive reviews for a film so they could assert that critical response was mostly positive, which is clearly original research in the form of synthesis. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment The main problem comes from the fact that Metacritic counts "average" reviews as well as positive/negative ones while Rotten Tomatoes just "positive" and negative". I actually analyzed how the two aggregators process the same set of reviews at Talk:Transcendence_(2014_film)#Mixed_vs._negative. It's worth reading even if I do say so myself; the findings are quite illuminating. My view on this is that the terminology should stick to the positive/negative/mixed/average nomenclature that aggregators use, rather than loaded terms like "acclaimed", "universally" or "over-whelmingly" etc. Aggregators count reviews and turn them into a few simple statistics and that is basically it, and we shouldn't step byeond that when summarising it. The problems arise, for example, when RT says the reception has been negative and MC says it is average/mixed, even when they count the same reviews. Basically they are just marking them differently. The same reviews but just different grading methodologies. There are three acceptable ways of dealing with this in my view:

1. Integrate the findings into a proper sentence. On Metacritic reviews may be mixed due to an even spread across positive/average/negative, or they may be mixed because most of them have been graded "average". In the case of the latter you may be able to accommodate the actual breakdown into a meaningful sentence i.e. instead of writing "Reception was mixed to negative" (which doesn't make sense) you can write something like "[Title] received a mixture of mostly average and negative reviews" etc. Obviously that wouldn't work if the mixed rating is due to an even spread across the grades.
2. Find independent reliable sources that we can source to describe the reception of the film, although this may not solve the problem if there is more dissent.
3. Just give the statistic and let the data speak for itself. The cleanest solution but possibly not the most helpful for readers.

My preference is for the first two approaches if they are workable, but if it is particularly problematic then perhaps the third option is the way to go. I also don't think they should be used on older films either, since in such cases many of the reviews are retrospective and don't give an accurate survey of contemporary critical reception. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, this matter has been discussed recently more than once; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 10#"generally mixed", where I point to other recent discussions on the topic. As those discussions show, editors at WP:FILM have had differences of opinion on the matter and have not been in unanimous agreement about any of it, except seemingly for stating things like "mixed to positive." I'm in agreement with you, Betty, about letting the data speak for itself in "particularly problematic" cases (cases that are contentious to summarize), and I also generally agree about older films (classic films that came out when these review aggregators did not exist). I state "generally" because there may be cases where the use of review aggregators are fine for older (as in classic) films, and I also don't think that a film's critical acclaim or lack thereof should be based on changing times by us; Schindler's List, for example, is simply widely acclaimed, and I don't think it's likely that this acclaim will falter at some point in the future. If WP:Reliable sources note that one generation of film critics and/or moviegoers view a film differently than another generation of film critics and/or moviegoers, then of course it's fine to note that...with WP:Due weight.

I stated before that I prefer a summary sentence for the Critical reception section; it flows better to me to have a topic sentence in this case, and it's better for readers who don't understand how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic work; for example, what is "fresh" in terms of a Rotten Tomatoes score? That question is why we discourage use of "fresh" and "rotten" here at WP:FILM. Though it's fairly easy to assume that a 70% score from Rotten Tomatoes means that the film did well, the Metacritic score is usually different. However, usually Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not drastically different in their scores; it's not often that they are of opposite opinion about a film. By this, I disagree that Rotten Tomatoes only does a positive or negative score; this is because a film that received 59% from Rotten Tomatoes is usually not tossed into the negative box by the site's critical consensus (the critical consensus usually gives a mixed reception in the case of such a score). Not to mention that 59% is just one score away from 60%, which is what Rotten Tomatoes labels "fresh." If Rotten Tomatoes gives a film a 59% score and Metacritic gives the film a score of 63, that's clearly not a badly reviewed film in general; it's more positive or simply generally mixed. I also disagree with Cyphoidbomb's suggestion that we abandon "mixed"; I've likewise argued that all film receptions are "mixed" in some way. But if we stick to "mostly positive" or "mostly negative," that can give more of a false impression about a film; I think that people will generally take "mostly positive" to mean that a film did really well and "mostly negative" to mean that a film did really bad. "Mostly" can also mean a small majority, such as 50-59% vs. 60%. In the case of "mixed," I suggest "generally mixed."

Like Cyphoidbomb, I also don't like relying solely on a single, non-review aggregator WP:Reliable source for summarizing a film's reception; this is because the source might simply be the author's take and contrast what the review aggregators state; my exceptions to going by a non-review aggregator WP:Reliable source for summarizing a film's reception is if other such sources state the same thing and/or if the statement is supported by the review aggregators. A good example is what Erik did with the Critical reception section for the Edge of Tomorrow (film) article, though I disagreed with his use of WP:In-text attribution and disagreed with the level of detail that is there explaining what the review aggregators mean. We shouldn't use WP:In-text attribution in clear-cut cases, especially when WP:In-text attribution can make it seem like only that one publication thinks that way on the matter. I tried a similar removal of WP:In-text attribution that Erik added to the X-Men: Days of Future Past article, but when it was returned due to editors' need to add "critical acclaim," I left it in since the specific wording of "nearly unanimous" is coming from that publication. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can easily include language in MOS:FILM to avoid "<degree> to <degree>" wording. I like Betty's suggested alternate wording, especially since Metacritic breaks down reviews more reasonably than Rotten Tomatoes. This is why I prefer to define both websites' methodologies. We cannot assume that aggregate scores make immediate sense to laypersons (especially in the very long run), and I think that blowing out the methodology helps provide useful details for readers. An overall score only hints at the breakdown, where if we show the breakdown, it reveals the sample set's distribution. I also think that topic sentences should be sourced to high-level assessments by authoritative sources. There's no reason to discard Variety or Los Angeles Times in their assessment of critics' reviews. Subjectivity is irrelevant to argue because the RT and MC staff are being subjective in their grading too. Regarding Betty's numbered items, I think #2 is the most important because we have contextual prose we can use. At the very least, it gives us a brief descriptor to reference, and at best, it can outline what elements of reviews are oft-repeated. If we don't have that, as will be the case for less-covered films, we can try to have a topic sentence or two based on RT/MC findings (and without any of the "<degree> to "degree" language). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, since we've all consistently agreed not to use "mixed to positive" ("<degree> to <degree>") wording, it's fine to add something about that to the guideline. As for "[w]e cannot assume that aggregate scores make immediate sense to laypersons," I'm certain that the vast majority of laypersons can discern what the percentages mean for a film; for example, regarding 50%, or something in the 50% range, 50% means is well known to indicate "mixed." And 30% out of %100 is clearly negative, while 70% out of 100% clearly is not. Still, I prefer that we begin with a topoic sentence to plainly state how well a film did among film critics. Regarding the aforementioned Edge of Tomorrow (film) example, while I'm not too opposed to the breakdown style you did there, I do feel that it's a bit (just a little) excessive (it certainly deviates from the typical style of Wikipedia film Critial reception sections); like I stated to you before in one of the aforementioned discussions I linked to above, the Wikilinks to the Review aggregator, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Weighted arithmetic mean articles explain how these sites reach their scores; that's what those links are there for -- to aid readers in getting more detailed information about those matters. As for the rest of what you stated, I don't think subjectivity is irrelevant at all in the case of summarizing critical consensus (not to mention that subjectivity is the reason we're having this discussion); a reviewer claiming that a film did well is quite different than a review aggregator calculating a film as having done well based on its review aggregator breakdown. And I've stated this before, but a lot of reviewers base their critical consensus summary on the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic review aggregator breakdown, but especially on the Rotten Tomatoes review aggregator breakdown. But, yes, as long it's a reliable review aggregator (such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic) and a reliable reviewer, there often isn't much of a problem, if any, with summarizing the critical consensus for a film. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A few minor points:

• "Universal" is, IMO, a horrid word to use in this context. There is absolutely no way to verify that every critic everywhere panned or lauded a film.
• ANY chart we draw up saying x% to y% on RT (or n to m on MC) is our creation. We should not be in the business of judging that x% is "generally positive" (or whatever) while x - 0.0000001% is "mixed". As soon as we draw a line and categorize films based on minor differences (which any line will do), we are presenting a new point of view not found in the sources.
• Yes, RT does call high/low scores "universal _______". There is a world of difference between saying "The film received universal acclaim" and "...96%, which Rotten Tomatoes calls 'universal acclaim'." The first uses Wikipedia's voice to present a point of view (and an apparent unwillingness to look up the definition of "universal"). The second merely quotes RT. If saying "...mixed reviews, with 59% positive..." says more than "...59% positive...", that novel information had to come from somewhere. If it doesn't say anything new, there is no reason to say it. We should not present information not found in the source and we shouldn't be redundant, repeat ourselves or say the same thing several times. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: It's not Rotten Tomatoes that uses the "universal acclaim" wording; it's Metacritic. And I agree that "universal acclaim" should have WP:In-text attribution, which is usually what is done when citing that Metacritic score; see (if you haven't already) the example that Corvoe cited above or the Critical reception section at the Avatar (2009 film) article. Corvoe's WP:In-text attribution example is not as clear of an in-text matter as the Avatar (2009 film) example (especially since it begins the section calling the film critically acclaimed), but it's still connecting itself to what the site has rated the film and puts "universal acclaim" in quotation marks (or scare quotes). Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with most of what SummerPhD bulleted above, especially on the point that when we start assigning language to correspond with various percentages, then we are generating original research (probably synthesis, since we are drawing conclusions not expressly presented in the source.) Although I am against the wording, "Mixed" seems to suggest a strict 50/50 split of opinions. When the opinions get split 49/51, is it still a mixed reception or is it now generally positive? Or do we arbitrarily say that anything within 10% of 50/50 is mixed? That seems like OR to me as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We can use "mixed" if we can source it directly. We cannot draw that conclusion from Rotten Tomatoes since it is all numbers, but we can draw it from Metacritic, which can state that a film has "mixed or average reviews". Some periodicals also describe reviews as mixed. Like Betty mentioned, this can be unclear. Does "mixed" mean a set of reviews, most of them being lukewarm? Or can it be a set of reviews with roughly a third positive, a third negative, and a third in-between? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As indicated by Metacritic and other WP:Reliable sources, "mixed" does not always mean "a strict 50/50 split of opinions." A split of 49/51 is still obviously mixed to me, and is nowhere close to generally positive or generally negative. If Rotten Tomatoes gives such a score, I don't see anything wrong with calling the score "mixed," except that it can be considered a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy (which is an aspect of the WP:Original research policy). But sometimes common sense should be employed, and it's common sense, for example, that 50/50 is mixed. Anyway, because this is Wikipedia, and we should abide by its rules, except for in a clear-cut WP:Ignore all rules matter, I think that we should generally only add "generally positive," "mostly positive," "generally negative," "mostly negative," "mixed" or "generally mixed" (or some acceptable variation of those wordings) only if that language is supported by a WP:Reliable source in the Reception or Critical reception section. Same goes for "critical acclaim." As for "universal acclaim," I already addressed that above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a proposal about rewording the first notability criterium for actors, from "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" to "has had leading/starring roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Discussion here. --Cavarrone 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

DVD title discussion

Already listed on Film alerts, but see Talk:Live 2012 / Volume II, could do with some new eyes. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Blockbuster status

Curious how the WikiProject Film community regards this: In the soul-sucking world of Bollywood movie articles, which are plagued with unreliable sources, rampant POV editing, inflated successes and exaggerated failures, phrases like "Such-and-such a movie achieved Blockbuster status" occur quite often. I am averse to this sort of language for the issues with poor sourcing and obvious agendas from the editors submitting the content, but I'm also averse to it because it doesn't impart anything to the reader. What does "blockbuster" literally mean? That it made a profit? Can we say that without using fancy marketing speech? It seems to me that at the very least, if someone calls a movie a "blockbuster", the write-up should go, "XYZ Magazine declared the movie a 'blockbuster'" instead of stating matter-of-factly that the movie is a blockbuster. What's the community's opinion about this? ♥ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK would apply here. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See what the soul-sucking world of Bollywood movie articles did to me? It sucked out my rational brain and turned me into a chatterbox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln and white savior narrative in film

At white savior narrative in film, there is interest in adding a section as seen here, and this addition is being disputed. A discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rupesh Paul and Rupesh Paul Productions

Comments are welcome regarding a proposal to merge Rupesh Paul Productions Limited with Rupesh Paul. Discussion is at Talk:Rupesh Paul#Merge from Rupesh Paul Productions Limited. Cnilep (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Diana Serra Cary

Should Diana Serra Cary be at [[Baby Peggy Montgomery]], following the precedent of having Marie Osborne Yeats article at Baby Marie Osborne? Paul Austin (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, I would say yes. I would also suggest opening a requested move on Cary's talk page, hopefully get some more opinions than just mine and those of us here. But yeah, can't think of any reason not to move the page. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Starring parameter in infobox

I have revived the conversation from March about a possible wording change to Template:Infobox film regarding the "Starring" parameter. The discussion can be found here. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Kleargear deletion discussion notification notice

1. Kleargear
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination)

Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Stowaway to the Moon: Unsourced plot summary issue

I'm not a member of this project. Back in March of 2014 I moved the lengthy unsourced plot summary for the film to the talk page for the article and now an IP User has repeatedly moved the summary back to the main article.

I think that this has got to the point that intervention by a more experienced editor is needed as I am not familiar enough with the rules surrounding film related articles. Graham1973 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot summaries are always implicitly sourced to the original work they describe. They do not neccessarily need citations and the vast majority don't use one at all. The next question is whether the summary violates WP:FILMPLOT which says they should be 400-700 words. It should arguably be trimmed, but not removed wholesale. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I, however feel unqualified to attempt the trimming, aside from which the IP User is quite agressive sounding in their statements, perhaps if you could either attempt this, or point an editor who is more experienced in such condensation to the page to attempt this. Graham1973 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to check to see if the summary is accurate or know how to trim it, the entire film is available from YouTube. Just put the title into the search box and PRESTO! In 95 minutes you can be Wikipedia's foremost expert on Stowaway to the Moon! 99.192.93.204 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it is entirely helpful or useful to suggest people participate in copyright infringement. Thank you at least for not linking to it or I would have to redact your comment altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that the problem was the inability to verify the plot due to it being otherwise completely unavailable, my suggestion was in fact quite helpful and very useful. Besides, how do you know it has not been uploaded by the copyright holder? You're just assuming it wasn't. 99.192.83.48 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.204)