Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconFilm Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(8 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Avatar: highest or second-highest grossing?

Additional eyes are requested at Themes in Avatar, where there's a disagreement over whether Avatar should be reported as the highest or second-highest grossing film in history. I believe the key issue is whether not adjustments for inflation should be considered. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith with you at this point. (For context, this guy has been going off about this on my talk page for a while now, without understanding the subject of the article, or bothering to read the sources that were linked in it.)
The opening statement to that article has been the same for over a decade. It was changed when Avengers surpassed Avatar. And then I changed it back after Avatar surpassed Avengers again.
To learn why "adjusted for inflation" isn't taken seriously as a box office metric, go look at the hoops and original research that the folks over at List of highest-grossing films had to go through just to cobble together a top 10 list.
This does not warrant a section here. Please drop this. Stop vandalizing the page. Do not tag me or write on my wall again. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that we provide both statistics as a compromise. Given your aggressive tone, is it reasonable to assume that you would oppose such a compromise? DonIago (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. The actual relevant figure is the one not adjusted by inflation. It's the one that's completely objective (inflation isn't the only thing that influences how much money a film makes), and the one there's consensus for it as the most notable one. That's why we clarify "adjusted for inflation" when we talk about it, because it's not the actual figure. It's a conditional list which, given that only one variable is being changed, doesn't make it more objective. —El Millo (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would not get into inflation metrics on an article about themes. The List of highest-grossing films considers inflation because, you know, it's an article entirely about box-office, and the inflation adjustment is there to provide a counterpoint to the nominal list. But it's not factual at the end of the day, it's analytical, and different inflation considerations can lead to different rankings. I personally find the inflation-adjusted list more interesting than the ever-changing nominal one, but it shouldn't be treated it as a fact. Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback thus far. I agree with Betty that the inflation-adjusted list seems more meaningful ultimately, but there appears to be an emerging consensus that that's not the gold standard, and I'm happy to defer to that. Perhaps another question worth considering: How is this relevant to the article at hand? Will the Themes article suffer in any way if this information isn't included? I'm not trying to move the goalposts, just raise an additional (minor) concern. DonIago (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the core issue, but as an aside. Why its gross record relevant to an article about themes in the film? Surely there is a more appropriate first sentence for the article about the widespread commentary and analysis of its thematic substance than a remark about how much money it made. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I literally didn't even see DonIago raise the same concern in different wording. I literally read their comment, and missed it. I echo the sentiment. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just saw a tumbleweed blow past... Given that at least one other editor shares my question regarding the need to discuss the film's gross record in an article about the themes of the film, and that that sentence could, in our estimation, be removed with minimal (if any) disruption the rest of the article, is there any objection to that text being removed? DonIago (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is perfectly fine as is. It went through a review process to earn its "Good Article" badge. It does not need you to cutting sentences out of it. The first sentence establishes why the film is so discussed in the first place. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a correlation between box office gross and discussion on thematic substance, I find. Otherwise, there would be a more robust scholarship on the Despicable Me and less on Citizen Kane. And Good Article status, especially when promoted eleven years ago in April, isn't really endorsing every single sentence for inclusion and relevance. Removing the sentence would both make for a tighter and more relevant opening sentence, would avoid this exact dispute on whether inflation should be taken into consideration, and ensure that it doesn't need to be updated every time Disney repeats this feat. It's better for long-term stability and relevance. Honestly, just glancing at the lead, it feels like it's less the box-office gross that made it so widely discussed and more the fact that the film itself is so broad it's felt to be acting like an "ideological Rorschach blot". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go further: The quality of GAs is extremely diverse, disregarding their ages. Do not point to "it has a green check mark" as some safety net in general. Izno (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GAs also aren't forever protected from bad edits. DonIago (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the above is that Nikki's statement of concerns regarding removing the statement aren't shared by other editors. I'll give it a few more days for additional comments or additional concerns to be raised before I remove the statement in question. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DonIago (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here willing to peer review

Since there's no request page in WP:Film. Apparently some reddit user said the article for Shiva Baby looked astroturfed, and while I was just trying to get it to the formatting/coverage standard of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World on my TIFF binge (still working on Pieces of a Woman, months later), I can see adverse reactions since it just came out today. I know people thinking an article looks too good is no reason to change anything, but if it looks promotional that would be an issue. I'd just open a peer review but would like to see if the film project would leave comments or not first. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the lead section, "universal" is a strong word and seems based exclusively off Rotten Tomatoes, which categorizes reviews as positive or negative for the main score. There is no mention of its average rating, which is 7.9 out of 10. In the same vein, the Metacritic passage does not mention "generally favorable reviews" (where the topmost conclusion would be "universal acclaim"). Also finding the "Critical response" section to run afoul of WP:SYNTH, with individual reviews repeatedly combined to imply an collective conclusion. Seems more appropriate to go off the elements of the RT consensus. Others can comment on that, though, since I know interweaving sampled reviews is a complicated matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The line between a well-written review section and SYNTH is particularly thin. I will check sources to see the same comments are explicit. RT consensus is often very brief. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Earth FA review

I have nominated Battlefield Earth (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Love Song for Latasha synopsis

Hi all, I’m wondering if anyone has seen the Oscar-nominated documentary short A Love Song for Latasha (on Netflix in the US). I noticed an IP editor replaced the synopsis with what read like PR copy, so I’ve been trying to fix it up from what I can read in secondary sources, but would be a great help if someone who’s seen it could contribute to the synopsis section (and of course anything else). Thank you in advance to whomever might have the time/interest! It’s already 5x expanded so we could make a DYK of it pretty easily, too. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CCI case wrapup

Hello from CCI! this case recently wrapped up at CCI. The page is courtesy blanked, but the previous revision contains the full record of articles and their removals. I am letting you know since this case largely concerned film and its related BLPs. The removals weren't as harsh as others, luckily. Hopefully the content can be restored in full confidence of the copyright policy. Happy editing, and kind regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 03:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Midsommar

I have proposed a move for the article for the film Midsommar. If you are interested, please contribute to the discussion here. Sock (tock talk) 23:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are sources needed for runtimes?

I'm in the middle of a GAN for Zombie Nightmare and it was brought up that the run time should be sourced. I have never had that brought up as an issue and don't think run times should have sources. Are runtimes supposed to have sources to them or are they, as the reviewer puts it, "original research"? GamerPro64 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sourcing is needed if the runtime is noncontroversial. From what I've seen, some editors go over the top in sourcing runtimes (as if that was more controversial than sourcing a film's director). Sourcing would be appropriate if there was an obvious conflict in information based on cuts or perhaps co-producing countries where the length varies depending NTSC/PAL systems. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly common for runtimes to vary from country to country, and even version to version, so I think it is often useful to provide a source if possible. For example, the article says 89 minutes (which matches the time at IMDB) but Amazon states the runtime is 83 minutes. The BBFC has the PAL video down at 80 minutes, which accounting for PAL speedup would also equate to 83 minutes. So the question here is where does the 89 minute runtime come from? I think it is reasonable to ask for a source in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the VHS tape (pre-Internet) says 89 minutes here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what end? I think the runtime is a noncontroversial thing, and can be safely left in the article without a source, but maybe a cn tag. If someone is asking for it to meet the criteria for, say, GA or FA status, then absolutely it needs it. But I wouldn't get bent out of shape over it missing. It can be tagged and left in the article. --Jayron32 16:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue you should have a citation for a running time. This becomes particularly relevant for older films (for example, early screenings of The Testament of Dr. Mabuse) report running times which do not match current home video versions (their run times are longer) suggesting parts of the film are missing. Following this per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, " the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." In short, if its in the infobox and not mentioned in the prose, you should have a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really fight for sources when editors and cinematographers aren't mentioned in the article body... it comes down to minor differences which do not matter in a major way. If we had some kind of rounding system, like by the half hour (e.g., ~90 minutes), then it wouldn't matter if a film was 83 minutes or 89 minutes. As a reader, I only care about a ballpark figure for roughly how long a film is. But I guess if we are being this exact, and differences exist, sources can help. Unless the sources conflict, then it seems like a waste of time quibbling about the specific minutes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Exit Wounds

There's an edit war going on with the film Exit Wounds. There's been an edit war with addition of Jill Hennessy's character Annette Mulcahy was killed in the car chase scene that is kept being removed and brought back by various users, including IP users and such, in the plot summary. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can use a response about what I said above. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BattleshipMan: if it's clearly an important part of the plot and those removing it are IPs or newly created users who have no intention of discussing and don't even leave edit summaries, you can request temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP. —El Millo (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly interesting

Comparing biopics to WP-articles. Trend?

Shortening film names

Is it acceptable after establishing something like Raiders of the Lost Ark to alternately refer to it as just Raiders later on for brevity? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a common abbreviation that sources generally use, then yes, but don't invent abbreviations. In this case, I've seen Raiders of the Lost Ark shortened to Raiders plenty of times. —El Millo (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Probably depends on the title and if reliable sources routinely shorten it. Your example seems kind of in the gray area where it's not quite that long of a title, yet long enough that it could technically be shortened. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raiders of the Lost Ark is technically a official film title name. So I don't think it should have shortened film names. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All film titles are official film title name[s]. The editor is asking about shortening it in the body of the article in order not to constantly repeat it in long form. —El Millo (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water...? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it appears to be a commonly used shorthand, that should be fine. Alternatively, I also think it's acceptable for film's with subtitles to just use the subtile names at various points. So saying The Force Awakens in spots on Star Wars: The Force Awakens is ok in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. It just felt awkward constantly reiterating "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and it obviously balloons the word count over time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I think it's possible to do that as long as the shorthand names are commonly used, Like "Empire Strikes Back" (Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) or "Temple of Doom" (Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom). BattleshipMan (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here to echo above sentiments: common shorthand names are fine after first use. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst

Is List of films considered the worst/Removed films appropriate for article mainspace? It seems more like a non-encyclopedic subpage of List of films considered the worst to retain some of its previous history. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annual award ceremony navboxes instead of extensive see also lists

It was brought up last year that the "see also" lists on articles like the 73rd British Academy Film Awards are too long. I suggested at the time a list article about ceremonies in a given year with some prose on e.g. repeated wins, but other editors felt it would be too similar to the 2020 in film article. Seeing the issue again this year, I boldly created the Template:2021 Film award ceremonies that I feel can be used to replace the long see also list, and hopefully the year in film articles will be able to handle any prose about repeated wins. Would it be valuable to create similar navboxes for previous years, and for television? Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Tower (1998 film)

Hi. This film is at AfD. If anyone can help with sourcing, or agrees with deletion, please comment there. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Ark FAC

This is a neutral notice that Raiders of the Lost Ark is up at FAC because it is relevant to this project. It's unlikely but it'd be nice if it could get enough attention to improve/pass it before it's 40th anniversary on June 12 so could maybe swing it to the Featured Article of the day. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Can others please review Special:Contributions/José Moreno Téllez? They are screwing up films' release years and are adding film companies. The latter behavior reminds me of similar behavior in the past. Is this a sockpuppet of a previous vandal? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can open an investigation at WP:SPI.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I think some editors here have a good sense of recognizing which sockpuppet a vandal may be. In any case, working on getting the editor blocked for disruptive editing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gut check, WP:NFF and Development of Star Trek 4

Development of Star Trek 4 seems like an end-run around WP:NFF by calling itself "development" instead of the film itself (which has no official title) and is not anywhere near close to actually entering production. Shouldn't this just be merged into the List of Star Trek films article? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find WP:NFF to mean an automatic rejection of a planned film if the development history is substantial (and worthwhile, not just fluffed up). There can be rare exceptions. Some films' development histories are long and sordid. Like if Watchmen or Jurassic World never got produced at long last, the development histories of these would be notable enough to be standalone articles, IMO. This instance seems newer, so it's not as strong of a case. At the same time, there is more than enough content to avoid a "permanent stub" per WP:PAGEDECIDE, unlike something like Shantaram (novel)#Movie adaptation, which is only three paragraphs, and with the TV series, likely to only ever be that long. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence in Sound of Metal

Regarding Sound of Metal, there is a dispute about what should go in the opening sentence. Please see the discussion here: Talk:Sound of Metal#Opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User not responding to concerns and advice about list cruft and WP:FILMOGRAPHY deviations

If you will, have a look at User talk:Adtigpta01. Cyphoidbomb, Ab207 and I have all tried talking with Adtigpta01 in the pages' contribution histories and on their talk page. Fylindfotberserk has tried in the contribution history. Example exchange: [1] Adtigpta01 seems to ignore us. They add back their changes no matter what we say. Any advice? For example, does the Jennifer Garner page really need all those films in the introduction? Film Bio Legacy (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1018468334"