Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.76.144.221 (talk) at 02:39, 1 November 2021 (→‎Very short plot section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 articles

Did you know

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(7 more...)

Featured article reviews

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
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

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

c 65 Army of Thieves 322,737 10,410 Stub Unknown

  • 129 Dark Side of the Ring 228,155 7,359 Stub Unknown
  • 405 Madam Chief Minister 125,341 4,043 Stub Unknown
  • 488 One (2021 film) 116,797 3,767 Stub Unknown
  • 530 Justice Society: World War II 113,115 3,648 Stub Unknown
  • 575 I Am All Girls 108,711 3,506 Stub Unknown
  • 628 Spirit Untamed 104,171 3,360 Stub Unknown
  • 742 The Last Letter from Your Lover 94,778 3,057 Stub Unknown
  • 845 Greater (film) 88,762 2,863 Stub Unknown
  • 2 Radhe (2021 film) 2,038,627 65,762 Start Unknown

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk)

Superhero film character articles

I wanted to bring this to the attention of WP:FILM because it's something that's beginning to get a little out of hand. So a lot of comic book characters have appeared in the MCU, DCEU, and such. Normally we used to just link back to the main character articles (like Batman, Iron Man, etc.), and it was an anomaly for an incarnation of a character who appeared in a film to receive his/her own article—it only happened in extraordinary cases like Joker (The Dark Knight). Nowadays, pretty much every single superhero who has appeared in an MCU or DCEU movie gets their own standalone article specifically about that incarnation of the character. It's gotten to the point that Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe)—a character who only appeared in two versions of the same movie—is an article that exists.

This is problematic, unencyclopedic, and pure fancruft. Not to mention, most of the standalone articles are 100% unnecessary; in cases like Peter Parker (Sam Raimi film series), Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), and Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (three separate articles about the exact same character), everything important could neatly be summarized in Spider-Man in film. Anyone have any ideas on the course of action we should take here? JOEBRO64 22:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the instructions at {{Merge}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is just a simple merger issue. There are probably well over a dozen of these articles. JOEBRO64 02:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a very lengthy disussion about this issue among MCU editors a few months ago, and we now have guidelines about which characters qualify for standalone articles at WP:MCUCHARACTERS. While other franchises (such as the DCEU and X-Men films) don't have taskforces, they can still follow this model. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination would be to merge these articles where possible. I'm seeing large amounts of uncited/fancrufty material that could be culled. Large chunks of the various Peter Parker articles are merely lengthy plot summaries. Information about specific costume design etc for specific films can be covered in articles for those films and, where they're relevant enough to the big picture, summarised in the main Peter Parker/Spider-Man article. Popcornfud (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with calls to merge these articles; they do all seem to cover a core concept which can be covered in one article. It might not be the most pertinent example but I did work on the Richard Roma article which covers multiple adaptations of a work, for an example of how to discuss a character being portrayed by multiple actors (for example, breaking up critical reception of the role distinct from any portrayal); it doesn't touch on the issue of separate plot lines or anything but we should always be keeping these to a minimum anyway. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely oppose to merging non-comic articles into comic articles. Comic articles are from my experience mostly garbage articles. Unfocused, unreferenced and with almost no value, either encyclopedic or even plot-wise. The film and TV articles on the other hand (in general) are the exact opposite with a clear focus. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the best solution be to merge the articles into their ideal place and then make them not suck? Popcornfud (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Having a clear focus to an article is the foundation of a good article. Having a comic-central article with a giant "in other media" sections which is unfocused and full of one-liners isn't the solution. The MCU articles for example, have very little in common with the comic article. A reader wanting to read one very likely does not want the other. When they do, there are "see also" links available. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot that can be done with the Spider-man in film article and the three above articles to actually break up that film article and discuss the three sets of films (Raimi's, "The Amazing", and the MCU set) as films as to remove some wasted cruft in the first article (the "Recurring cast and characters" table is useless outside of three notable roles), and then those three character articles now turn into film series articles (far more notable on their own), and the character can be discussed in context of the series. As a further benefit, the "Appearances" sections get nuked in favor of the normal short summary of each film that should be on that page. But that's only a solution that works for the Peter Parker articles. I totally agree all these spinouts (typically to allow expansion on regurgitation of film plot) is absolutely unnecessary. --Masem (t) 13:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Splitting one subject into multiple articles just because some elements of the subject material are better-written or sourced than the rest isn't really a valid forking reason; and there is no reason to suppose that the article should be "a comic-central article with a giant "in other media" section" if it is properly written. We cover articles for characters who span multiple media all the time; Sancho Panza, Prince Hamlet, Robin Hood to name a few, it's hard to see why Spiderman should be an exception to this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, saying we shouldn't merge because "comic character articles suck" is a pretty bad reason not to merge. If anything, the merging process should provide incentive to improve the comic character article. JOEBRO64 15:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had some similar thoughts when I started this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_66#More_fiction. FANCRUFT and plot-only/mostly be gone, but if there's a lot of money involved, there's often WP-usable coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any compelling reason to pursue widespread merging. Film-incarnation characters are much more well-covered by secondary sources than their comic-book counterparts, so to simply merge film-related coverage to the comics articles would be to create undue weight. The film-incarnation character articles should be considered properly split off in its own scope. For example, I doubt that Steppenwolf will ever have more than a Start-class or C-class article about the original comic-book character. From what I've seen, such characters simply are not being covered in secondary sources. In contrast, film incarnations are on a bigger stage and subject to much more critique about their design and their behavior, and we see that with even Steppenwolf. I'm sure there could be some cases where merging makes more sense, but to dismiss the majority of it as merely "fancruft" is disingenuous. These films have very large audiences and as part of that have a ton of secondary-source coverage, so it's no surprise that there can be film-incarnation character articles. Furthermore, I see the organization of content as scope-driven. The related films' articles have a lot of content, mostly grouped by the nature of the production. Film character articles have a different scope to focus more on a particular element. That's my take anyway. I don't find these articles detrimental, and as a reader, the availability of articles with this kind of scope is appreciated. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, a very good example of an article on a film incarnation of a character exists at Portrayal of James Bond in film. IronManCap (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe). This is getting completely out of control. JOEBRO64 00:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

WGA considering a new writing credit

Felt the project should be aware that the WGA is considering adding an "Additional Literary Material" credit for all participating writers who do not otherwise receive writing credits. This would not alter the "Written by/Story by/Screenplay by" credits, and this new credit, if adopted, would be separated from those credits. This might be helpful for future films that have a lot of writers work on it, that it can be mentioned that that those not fully credited receive this. More info in this Deadline article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, trying to explain it all in lay terms was already a ballache. Is the proposed change as simple as "everyone else gets a minor credit, but they're still going to fight about it"? Kingsif (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, yes, the goal is to give every writer who did X amount of work on a script to get some form of credit, even if that work doesn't justify them getting the full credits based on the percentages the WGA uses. The best example I saw in the Deadline article was likening it to TV series, where all writers get some form of credit, like "co-producers/story editors" etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler concern in T2's lead

Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day#Mentioning Schwarzenegger as the good guy in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lake House

Can someone take a look at The Lake House (film) and tell me whether the tag at the top of the page is still applicable or not? I've been slowly working on the page for a while now and I think the tag's explanation is more applicable to the Production section rather than the entire article. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged (justifiably) by MarnetteD four years ago, and the article was in a very different state back then. At a glance I would say sufficient progress has been made since then to remove the tag. In any case, if there are any remaining problems the tagging would need to be a bit more focused to direct further necessary improvements. Betty Logan (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work Carlobunnie (and others) - As you have put in the effort I think you should have the honor of removing the tag. I would suggest that the last sentence of the "Home media" section needs a ref. Again thanks for your editing. MarnetteD|Talk 12:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for replying. I feel more comfortable with removing the tag having reading your comments. MarnetteD I haven't come across a satisfactory secondary source for that yet (short of citing the dvd itself), so if it's not too much trouble, would you mind lmk if you find anything that could work? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some searching and didn't find anything. I added a {{citation needed}} tag. That does mean another editor might remove the sentence some day. I'm not sure that the info helps in a readers understanding of the film but that is just me. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the info because I saw similar details included in other film articles, so I thought it was okay to add. I have no issue w removing it though, if you think that would be better? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see if another editor takes care of it in the future :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery

There aren't any images provided for some viewers to view as examples. Some people use images as a way for them to focus, and others use it to find the information they need from a long article. Sairamaret (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, editors run into WP:NFCC issues for non-free images, particularly WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Editors are welcome to upload and add free, fair use images to WP:COMMONS if available. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where should videos of public domain films go in the article?

I recently did some fixing up of The General (1926 film). It's in the public domain, so the full film is available on Commons as File:The General (1926).webm. Currently, the file appears in the plot section, but I'd kinda like to see it in the lead. After all, we feature an image of a painting in the infobox for its article, and surely a video file of a film is as relevant to its article as that? I'm not sure if we'd want to replace the poster or add a new field to {{Infobox film}} for the file or something else. This question will become larger as more films enter the public domain, so I'm curious to hear others' thoughts. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in the infobox or the lead. We include the poster in the infobox as the primary means of visual identification. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the contents of the article and state what is notable about the film. I don't think it is an appropriate location for supporting media. I prefer the approach taken at Debbie Does Dallas which provides a link to the film in the External links section, but if you are going to provide a thumbnail video file in the article itself then either the plot section or the home media section would seem to be a sensible place to host the file. I agree with you that this is going to become more an issue so it would be sensible for the project to provide some guidance. Betty Logan (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Betty's take, of putting a link to it in the external links section, but a thumbnail, if desired in the plot or release/home media section as appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also point out for PD works that may not yet be on commons, {{external media}} provides a way to give a link in the body of the article (but this can also be used for relevant copyrighted pieces that may be of interest, such as a behind-the-scenes featurette in a production section) --Masem (t) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions needed about James Bond recurring film characters table

There's a discussion Talk:List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series#New table format that's becoming stale as a compromise between me and another editor doesn't seem possible due to opposing viewpoints. Third opinions are welcome. Details on the different options available will be at the discussion. —El Millo (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention actor auditions?

160.2.211.63 (talk · contribs) has been adding a lot of casting information to a lot of film articles, but sometimes it's little more than "X auditioned for the role of Y." They are at least providing presumably reliable sources, but I question the value of simply mentioning that an actor, even a blue-linked one, merely auditioned for a role that they did not get. I presume that many actors audition for many roles. Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's context-specific. Some notable actors being considered for a landmark role is worth nothing (Sean Connery as Gandalf or Tom Selleck as Han Solo, for example) but there's no need to be exhaustive. It is however the kind of information that makes a cast section a bit more encyclopaedic than just an imdb-style raw list of names, so I'd say I'm more for than against. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would go a step further and ask, "what was the level of consideration?" If someone says, "Peter Jackson considered Sean Connery," but he was never actually contacted or auditioned (i.e., in the running) then how relevant is it? That's less consideration and more fleeting thought. If Connery actually auditioned and it came down to him and McKellan, then absolutely it should be mentioned because the context shows there was real consideration for a different actor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As mentioned there will be exceptions but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If we need to add something about this to WP:FILMMOS it has my full support — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs)
Thanks folks. It sounds to me that in the general case, at least, if the most that can be said is that an actor auditioned for a role, then that's probably not appropriate for inclusion. I don't know whether an MOS update is really warranted as I've only seen this one IP making these changes, though they are making a lot of edits. I'm assuming they mean well, but would encourage other editors to review their contributions as well in case there are larger issues. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to auto-update Rotten Tomatoes scores with Wikidata

Hi, the bot just made some trial edits. Check out the bot request for approval. Winston (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Made a merger proposal here for the film The Constant Gardener and a related page, hasn't gotten any traction there so I'm listing it here for more attention. QuietHere (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal on Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (soundtrack)

I have started merger discussion about Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (soundtrack), located at Talk:Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason#Merge soundtrack article? --George Ho (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BFI, AllMovie and years listed

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Umberto Lenzi filmography on the use of the British Film Institute and AllMovie to cite the release years of films. Any input on this would be welcome. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release dates and prior-day early showings

To take an example Dune (2021 film) officially opened Oct 22, 2021 (the typical Friday), but as typical with films, there were early theater shows the evening before, and because this was on WB's day-and-date for HBO Max, it was also available to watch on Oct 21, 2021 roughly 6pm ET, since WB knew. (This is sourced too). The question is: what then is the wide release date for the film for lede/infobox purposes? --Masem (t) 13:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many movies that officially open on a Friday in the US actually start screening on Thursday nights, but we (and most sites) list them as opening on Friday anyway. Looks like HBO Max is simply sticking to the day-and-date model. I don't see how this has to be treated any differently from any other movie that officially opens on a Friday but in reality on Thursday. Nardog (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my thought too, that the "early Thursday showings" is a happenstance of the official Friday release date, and for WP's purpose, we should stick to that official one. In the case of Dune (being an highly anticipated film), noting in prose about early showings/HBO Max is fair but I don't think the infobox should reflect that. --Masem (t) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the body maybe, but not in the infobox. Unless otherwise noted, those release dates are to be understood as the dates of theatrical release (although that's changing thanks to streaming and the pandemic). Nardog (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Language at Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the use of the phrase "wheelchair-bound" taking place at Talk:Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film); any additional input would be welcome. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio question

Does anyone here know how to check for a copy vio? I found this La_Dolce Vita#Plot (which I have already tagged for length) and it seemed mighty specific for it to have been created from scratch on WikiP. I thought I'd ask here first before proceeding to the other places to report these. Thanks for you time. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig might be your best bet for this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ. I've never run one of these reports before so I am not completely sure how to process the results. The report shows two sites over 90%. The Classic Arts site acknowledges WikiP. But this wordpress entry doesn't. I think I'll ask Diannaa to take a look. MarnetteD|Talk 23:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That Wordpress article seems to have cribbed from Wikipedia rather than the other way around--it's dated February 2014, whereas the article in 2012 had the same plot description. It still needs a stern, stern trim but it doesn't appear to be a copyvio there. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional suggestions: you can check to see if the suspected source webpage was ever saved in the wayback machine to try to pinpoint a date for its creation if the date is not shown on the page. Another idea is to use the Wikiblame tool and search for a unique phrase and see what date it was added to our article. Searching for the phrase "in search of new sensations" turns up this result from 2010 which also shows how the plot description grew through the work of a Wikipedia editor. So this particular article looks okay. Not all cases can be solved however.— Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional explanation Diannaa. I have added both tools to my arsenal though I may need help in interpreting their results :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only considered a "directorial debut" if it's a theatrical release?

Kevin Bacon has directed two films. Losing Chase, a 1996 film that first debuted on television though later received a limited theatrical release, and Loverboy (2005 film), which had a standard theatrical release. Currently, both films have a category considering it to be his directorial debut. An editor on my talk page has mentioned that the criteria for List of directorial debuts appears to be theatrical releases, and that since Losing Chase first appeared on TV, it should not be considered a directorial debut, even though a reliable source explicitly calls it that). Does it have to be a initial theatrical release to be a directorial debut? Which of the two films should hold the title? It seemed obvious to me his first film should have the title regardless of what format it was released in, but I'm no expert in terminology in this area. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list is mostly unsourced, which is not ideal. Sometimes this is not a problem in obvious cases but it can be complicated. Take Spielberg for example: that list includes Firelight, which is essentially a student film that has never been released, and Duel—which had a theatrical release in Europe—is overwhelmingly regarded as Spielberg's feature film debut, despite not having a theatrical release in the United States. If there is a reliable source explicitly referring to the earlier film as Bacon's debut then that takes precedence over editorial opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should not matter whether it is film, television or stage. A debut is a debut. I would suggest that the categories need to be specific to the format. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing that should cause any disqualification is unreleased material; "début" implies a showing so someone's first directorial effort going unreleased might mean their second, third etc film may be their first one released and therefore their début, but the medium should not be a factor here. If there's any doubt or if sources seem to contradict, then we can also just not specify what we don't need to—if someone had directed television films before but sources refer to their first theatrical release as their début film, then we can simply skip the query and be specific with "début theatrical film", etc. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox discussion

While I'm sure most of you have the film infobox on your watchlists I'm leaving this link Template talk:Infobox film#Subtitle parameter so those of you who don't can add your input. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very short plot section

First off Wild Things (film series) of films are bad. Terrible film aside, I'm asking for other opinions about a very short plot section. (I vaguely recall past discussions where some editors expressed the opinion that a very short plot section was not a problem and that there was no need for a lower recommended length.)

The plot section of the article for fourth film in the series Wild Things: Foursome was bloated and at various stages exceeded 800 words, sometimes far in excess of that. (The last almost acceptable version was from 2018 and the plot section was then only just a little over 700 words.[1]) An editor recently (start of October) shorted the plot section way down to just 230 words[2], but this seemed excessively short to me and I added the {{more plot}} tag. That tag was reverted repeatedly without any explanation (until very recently).

The other editor eventually responded but I'm having difficulty understanding their apparent unwillingness to expand the plot section closer to the 400-700 words that the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines recommend and their flat rejection of my suggestion that the it would be better to have a slightly too long plot section than a very short one.
I think it would be better to restore the older version of plot section from 2018 that was just slightly over 700 words than to have an excessively short plot section of just 230 words. -- 109.76.200.55 (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is likely a happy medium here—if there are any major details missing from the current short version, they can be worked into it to expand it while still ending up below the 700 word mark. I haven't seen the film so don't know what's actually important on-screen but it seems like bringing the current version closer to 400 words would be a good compromise. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that seems to unify the series is that they have convoluted crime thriller plots that are largely unexplained until a big infodump right at the end. As I said the films are terrible and I haven't seen the fourth either myself, but it does not seem like the plot has been fully explained in 230 words. Frankly with a film as bad as this series, it better serves readers to have a more detailed plot description so that they can read it and avoid watching the film entirely. If you look at the discussion Talk:Wild Things: Foursome maybe it will make some sense to you than it did to me, but compromise did not seem likely. Even so, to more towards a compromise version I believe we would need to either reinstate the {{More plot}} tag until it is expanded, or restore the ~700 word version until someone wanted to trim it back. -- 109.76.200.55 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if it's particularly convoluted it might be best to oversimplify it—one of those byzantine plots that's full of red herrings may make sense as you watch it over the course of 90+ minutes but can read very turgidly. I'd suggest perhaps merging the last list into the prose to provide a little more context for each character, while the section Scenes in the end credits reveal a deeper truth about the many crimes and how they came to fruition. A mastermind is revealed who is a career con artist who used impersonation to further his plans to steal the Wheetly fortune. The show closes on a well-planned, years-long confidence game that has been resolved. could probably be spelt out instead of hinted at (who is the mastermind, what is the resolved con?) without going into too much detail. Ultimately many of these films that no one has any real love for can go neglected for a while since few people will be inclined to see them just to aid the article, so the tag itself may languish for a long time if just added and left there. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question I was asking might not have been clear enough, so I will restate it: is a slightly too long plot preferably to a an extremely short plot summary? -- 109.76.200.55 (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better question: can the slightly too long plot be trimmed down? I personally find it easier to remove material from a plot summary than to add more, and that would resolve any WP:FILMPLOT concerns. DonIago (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem highly likely that the ~730 word plot summary could be trimmed slightly to bring it under 700 words. (While that is a better more specific question about how to improve the article, it is not a general question to ask Wikiproject Film.) -- 109.76.144.221 (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1052960519"