Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Star Wars Documentaries AfD

Currently nominated too Star Wars documentaries on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Making of Star Wars and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SP FX: The Empire Strikes Back. WP:STARWARS appears to be inactive so it would be best to get the most consensus from this wikiproject.Lucia Black (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we please get some input in here? It would be a shame to have this be kept over one oppose.Lucia Black (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Robocop peer review

The article needs some work. I have started a peer review to get input from others. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You have 20 seconds to comply. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat duplicate lists

There are two lists out there that are very similar--List of films about animals, and List of animal films. "List of animal films" was created in April 2005, and is categorized under "Lists of films by genre". "List of films about animals" was created in November 2007, and is categorized under "Lists of films by topic". Since these two lists are almost identical, I would like to merge the two; however, I would like some input to 1) which title should we use? and 2) which category should it be under?. Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there will any opposition to a merge, there is a huge overlap. I would merge under List of films about animals since animal films are not a genre like horror films and action films etc, and I would use the categories that are used on that list. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree, I didn't think 'animal' films was a genre either, but it's definitely a topic! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Executive producers in the info box, again...

Despite numerous discussions at Template talk:Infobox film#Executive producers, Gothicfilm (talk · contribs) has readded the executive producer credit in the infoboxes of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. I feel that we don't even include those in the info box. I think we should get a clear consensus at this issue here, since it has been debated for quite some time now. What should we possibly do about this situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, that credit was there for months, until Sjones23 took it out again today without discussion first. I did not "readd" it today. I restored it, referring him to Template talk:Infobox film#Executive Producers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had to take it out for a reason: the credit only calls for producers, not executive producers. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of executive produces comes mostly from how they work in television, not film, but even at that I still don't really know if they're worth listing. From what I've seen of the term in film it's often a promotional thing, inflating the contributions of a known filmmaker who has contributed to an extent but not enough to warrant a writing/directing/producing credit fully, which really isn't something I'd expect us to either reproduce or care about. I could be wrong, though. GRAPPLE X 03:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be kept in the same place, so I don't have to repeat everything: See Template talk:Infobox film#Executive Producers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that. I just want to make other users aware of what is going on. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And the discussion has been taken to RfC. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Friends of Eddie Coyle

Would a previously uninvolved editor, or perhaps more than one, mind taking a look at the recent edits to this article? The situation is becoming very contentious, so I am going to step back before an all-out edit war begins. But, neutral editors should take a look and make some sound judgements about the quality of recent additions. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about film title

Got a recommendation to bring it up for you as you probably have more experience in this. There is an ongoing move discussion on The Troll Hunter → Troll Hunter. Could someone that has not been clouded by the previous move warring, edit warring, and long talk "discussion" please take a look at this?

My main point of view is that the WP:THE guideline weights heavier than the varying sources, even the distributors themselves, which can't agree on how to spell the film, and often have mixed spelling even on the one same page. More specifically I think this section of WP:THE applies: «Titles of works and publications» and «[...] applies if the definite or indefinite article is actually a part of the title of the work.» The original Norwegian title of the film is «Trolljegeren» where the «...en» is the definite article which is added at the end in Norwegian. (troll=troll, jeger=hunter) For this reason I do not believe the part in WP:THE about languages that does not have indefinite and definite articles apply either.

The other user's view seems to be that the current, and probably most widespread, DVD/Blu-ray cover for sale is what weights the most. The same user also claims that "Troll Hunter" is the only title in use everywhere (except in Canada when given a Canadian front cover). The user have provided several links that show some film sites, and various online shops are selling it as a variant title of what s/he wants the title to be. But the user seems to ignore hints about WP:RS, and ignores the part that the same sites s/he lists varies in their spelling ("trollhunter" or "troll hunter"), and ignores any counter links that give the title as "the troll hunter", even ignores that one of the selv-provided links has it as such.

But I'm clouded by the other user accusing me of various stuff, so do I interpret WP:THE correctly? And if I should happen to do so, does this guideline weight more than the cover-spelled version that's probably most in use at the current time? Any feedback either way is welcome. -Laniala (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... the eternal question about Anglification of non-English titles.... and one that will not be answered in one sitting. In simply looking at sources of the original theatrical release, and not getting into how certain English websites inexplicably added the work "The" to the title in their translation or how it was added for DVD promotions and sales, I see that he film's original and easily sourcable title is indeed "Trolljegeren",[1][2] and in their own Anglification, even IMDB simply uses the single word "Trollhunter", not two words... not three... and THEY offer an official English poster that also uses a single word title "Trollhunter". And even if many sources do use a two or three word title for marketing purposes of DVD releases, we deal with the original release... and industry experts such as Roger Ebert do indeed call the film by its one-word title "Trollhunter". I would usually opt for the sourcable simplicity of the one-word title, just as does Ebert, as the best answer would be to use the simplest and cleanest translation of the original release title, Guideline offers that there are other acceptable considerations. WP:THE#Titles of works and publications even gives a cogent example in "Whether an article is actually part of the title of a work can be a bit hard to distinguish when translation is involved; there are, for example: The Scream - Original Norwegian without article (Skrik)." What may be prudent to avoid arguments in the future, is to simply add the verifiable sentence "In their marketing purpose translations of the original title of Trolljegeren for later DVD releases, some English sources call the film Trollhunter, some call it Troll Hunter, some call it The Trollhunter, and some call it The Troll Hunter. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the response :) However, just want to comment that the reason for The Scream = Skrik (not Skriket) can be explained by the mention of "visual works of art" (I think that mostly means pictures, paintings, drawings, and similar?) which has its own guideline. And to maybe make a comparison I see the different titles as "The Deer Hunter" vs "Deer Hunter". It gets a slight difference in meaning. Substitute Deer with Troll you might see what I try to express and why I don't like the change. -Laniala (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

United 93

The cast and awards sections could use a touch up, if anyone would like to help. RAP (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nationality in opening sentence of lede.

Is there any particular opinion or drive for this? I keep saying it lately and have dealt iwth a lot of issues with it lately on certain films, as have Illazilla, Triplethreat, Mike Wazowski and others, most prominently on The Dark Knight Rises. I don't see how it is particularly vital information when we leave it out of the infobox entirely if a dispute arises and it seems more like an attempt to take ownership than to declare any meaningful information about the film. It also seems to be based a great deal on POV, OR and which studio is funding it, which basically then makes it a declaration of ownership. For instance Prometheus (film), is produced by 20th Century Fox (American), directed and based on a concept originated by Ridley Scott (British) and it has been filmed entirely outside of America, in Canada, England, Spain, and Iceland, amongst others, using crews native to these areas for the most part. So the American part seems based on the funder, but I don't see what this says about the film. It is not as if saying "American film" conveys that these films will only be filled with American flags and Eagles. Similarly, The Hunger Games (film) is as I understand it, a wholly American production based on an American book, directed by a bad American director (Oh yes I did, why are you shaky camming during a quiet moment?), it's origin is not questionable and yet the opening sentence reads "The Hunger Games is a 2012 American science fiction action drama film" when the key information seems, to me at least, to be "The Hunger Games is a 2012 science fiction action drama film". 'Name', 'Year', 'Genre'. I also do not like when it starts getting crowded with American-British production or the like.

The point I guess I am trying to convey is that I would like to propose we update our style guide to not include it, unless it is a notable factor. Include it in the infobox as minor information like runtime, but it shouldn't be the 4th or 5th word that a user will see in the article unless it has some significance. What significance? Maybe someone else can suggest that, the only thing I can think of is a foreign film such as a Luc Besson production like The Fifth Element, where it presented like a more American production and would, without clarification, be considered such, or perhaps the Artist? I don't know much about the Artist but my understanding is that, that is a french production, presented as an old style American silent-film.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's not in doubt as to a film's nationality, then I'm not opposed to it being added, though it's most definitely not a vital piece of information. The real problem is when films of a mixed origin (such as the aforementioned Batmen) are targeted by editors who insist on a single nationality—which, in my experience, has always seemed to consist of enforcing the "American" nature of films which are of mixed origin, which is just frankly obnoxious. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:OBVIOUS applies in most cases. X is <year> <country> <genre> film. Where nationality is in doubt, or a co-production from multiple countries, this should be expanded upon in the production (or relevant) section. And yes, The Artist is a French film, in the style of an American silent film. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think film nationality is pretty irrelevant these days; there are very few "in house" productions now, and it's mostly an international business. Identifying a film's nationality in the lead is only useful to the point of conveying the film's identity. In the case of something like The Artist, telling readers it is a French film helps to identify the film, in the case of a Batman film do we really need to say anything beyond the fact it is a Batman film? An American/British Batman film as opposed to what? The Turkish Batman film? To draw an analogy, we identify Skyfall as a James Bond film, rather than a British espionage thriller since everyone knows what a James Bond film is. At the end of the day though, stating the film's nationality is a claim about the production process, and should be dealt in the same way we deal with any other factual claim we make on Wikipedia i.e. back it up with a source. If the sources themselves are not consistent then it should probably be omitted because the lead isn't the place for disputed claims. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All good points.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest something to this effect: If it's a two country production, such as french-italian or hong kong-chinese, then it might be better to submit the countries language in the lead. i.e: Eyes Without a Face is a French-language film and so forth. The production countries are listed on the side and it eliminates problems such as with films like O'Horten or Antichrist which have several film production countries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's such a good suggestion I wouldn't object if it should apply to any film that is not in English. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are there no review score boxes

I don't understand why don't articles on movies/films use review score boxes. There is one, but it is never used. I think review score boxes are a pretty clever thing, since just by looking at it, you can see if it's critically acclaimed/panned/generally favourably received/mixed reviewed etc. So, why not? --Khanassassin ☪ 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Every time it is attempted, the Film project coordinators tend to shoot it down in preference of prose. The latest incarnation was by User:Galmicmi and the immediate deletion discussion for it can be found here. DrNegative (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the general feeling is that we're not all that interested in what individual reviewers thought of the film; generally, we just let the two aggregators (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) represent the strength of critical opinion. We then draw on film reviews to address specific aspects of the film, and a score box is redundant in that capacity. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Turning Trollhunter into Trolljegeren?

I have proposed a rename in Talk:trollhunter based on previous discussions, especially in WT:RM#Strange move closure?. Feel free to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Should Mojo title include an optional accessdate parameter

{{Mojo title}} is commonly cited as a reliable source for a film's box office. As pointed out at WP:Citing sources#Web pages, the date of retrieval is important for WP:verifiability (or more precisely, it is "required" if the web page's publication date is unknown). I'm thinking of submitting an {{Edit protected}} request to add support for accessdate as an optional parameter to {{Mojo title}}. Making it optional is both necessary (since {{Mojo title}} is also used in the external links section), and practical, (since requiring its use would break a large number of existing uses). It would be proposed to be implemented based on how accessdate is supported within {{cite web}}.

Before I submit such a request, I am posting this proposal here, for feedback and comments. 68.165.77.180 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. The alternative is to use {{cite web}} as seen on Batman (1989 film), which is suboptimal. jonkerz ♠talk 13:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff comparisons

If anyone is having problems with the fuck awful new "compare versions" screen, you can restore the old color scheme: preferences->gadgets->appearence->check "Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design". Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU. So much. GRAPPLE X 12:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Passion of the Christ

There has been a sequence of edits at The Passion of the Christ that myself along with three other editors have been reverting. Anyway, as a consequence, we have been threatened with a block for tag-team editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:71.239.128.44_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_31h.29. Personally I don't feel it is justified, but that is besides the point, because either way the involved editors no longer have a mandate to revert the article, so some independent opinions would be particularly welcome at Talk:The Passion of the Christ to clearly establish a clear consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Cannes Film Festival‎

Hello. All the main line-ups for this years Cannes Film Festival have been announced. I invite members of the Film Project to help expand/create anything related to the films, actors and directors for the 2012 edition. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Three Musketeers 2011 mobile site casting mistake

Milady isn't played by Reema Khan...the regular site doesn't say this but the Mobile site does — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.101.113.75 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Film templates in the infobox

Please see this discussion about the template Film US. It raises other questions about the year and language categories that are auto-populated from the infobox. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A request for editors to keep their eyes open

Hello project members. It looks like we have an enthusiastic editor who wants to add their thesis style WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to various film articles. These are the three that I have found so far

• Mes5523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wzk5057 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psupsychmom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.111.229.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AGF leads me to think that they may have started with good intentions but the willingness to create socks is a worrying trend. If you will just keep your eyes open for new versions of this same MO it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that if new socks pop up please feel free to add them to my list as we may have to file an SPI if this continues. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw this cropping up this afternoon, but saw only the last name. Thanks for keeping us informed, and I will keep my eyes open, as you suggested. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?

I posed a question on the Walter Hill (filmmaker) talk page, because I would like to know why that article was moved from Walter Hill (director) with no discussion or explanation. The parenthetical descriptor "director" is far more common on WP. Does anyone here have any thoughts about this? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging into things it looks like it was moved back in August of 08 [3]. As you can see no reason was given. Strictly speaking one isn't required nor is a discussion but it is a good idea to do both. Also naming conventions have changed over time but I can't remember the term filmmaker ever being recommended over director and it seems to generic to me - isn't everyone who works on a film a filmmaker? Specific job descriptions as the qualifier would be better. I would say that, unless there are specific objections, that you could go ahead and move it back in a few days and I actually recommended this almost a year ago [4]. Other opinions are welcome of course. MarnetteD | Talk 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Filmmaker redirects to filmmaking, which seems to be more about film production than film directing. The opening line on the film director article states "A film director is a person who directs the actors and film crew in filmmaking". I would suggest the disambig of director is the correct term to use in this (and probably the majority) of cases. Also, I hate that double mm in filmmaker... Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I posed this same question over at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, as well, and the feeling there is that it should be moved back. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Notes, trivia, etc.

OK, so there's this Iniced (talk · contribs) who's got it in his head to zap all the "notes" sections in all the cartoon articles. Tortoise Wins by a Hare is just one of many examples. What say y'all? Is he doing the right thing? Or is he getting carried away? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia goes. Reliably-sourced stuff should be integrated into prose; generally not in a section to itself but merged with the usual "Reception" or "Legacy" headings that are often present. GRAPPLE X 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but if the trivia list is sourced it shouldn't be removed simply because it is in list format. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Just remember not to call it "trivia" as deletionists jump on anything labelled "trivial". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

As they should. Notable facts about something are not trivia: trivia is not important, and shouldn't be included in our articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But the whole of DYK is trivia under another name! Lugnuts (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ideally DYK's hooks should be Quite Interesting. If you can't picture a DYK hook, or indeed a "trivia" item in a random article, making QI then it probably doesn't belong. I should probably codify that in an essay. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The addition of incidental or tangential information that is, nonetheless, significant, can be successfully integrated as prose rather than in list form. I agree that trivial or "useless" information is, well, useless. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

• I took a look at one of the deletions and even though it is unreferenced, and needs a tag, a wholesale campaign to delete all "notes" should at least trigger a WP:BRD response. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
  • Mass reverts are only appropriate where an analysis suggests a significant negative impact. Otherwise it's just edit warring to make a point. it is, after all, easy enough to hit the rollback button a few dozen times once the discussion has been had, whereas it may not be necessary at all if the work in question turns out to be a net benefit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the first instance of a discussion about a rationalization to delete all notes sections, so no consensus was ever present on any of the article talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

There is already a project-wide consensus that trivia should be discouraged. It should be assumed that this editor is acting in good faith to improve the project. There is no need to get the blessing of any particular group of editors before acting to improve the encyclopedia, and BRD is not a commandment that any bold edit must be reverted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The question remains, whether notes are trivia, but written in list form, have triggered a response. If the individual notes sections provide authoritative and verifiable information, the statements themselves can be incorporated in other sections or rewritten, but what I see is a knee-jerk reaction to all "notes" sections without any discussion, and that concern has led to an editor seeking a consensus in this forum. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Having taken the time to inspect a bunch of these, the content is at very best borderline, and the removal of long-term unsourced content marked as trivia should not be at all controversial. The most notable material removed consists of production observations like someone appearing in the credits or the score being changed: in the event that this material is desirable, it can easily be fished out of the article history when someone is driving to improve the page. Having yet to have received a response from the user, we should assume that he is not blindly removing sections which happen to have certain titles or formatting, but is selectively removing content which he has concluded is inappropriate. Not difficult when the topic area in question has so much low-hanging fruit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the recent edit history, there is no mention of talk regarding the changes, merely a long list of deletions of notes sections, with only one mention that it is "trivia." I have given a AGF reading but in some cases, there is a lengthy passage that is removed, that does provide production notes that could be sourced with a modicum of attention to the references that are already present in the article. The editor in question, has also not replied to any of the concerns now enunciated, but then again, this is early in the process. I would err on the sign of caution in having mass revert campaigns, such as this, especially since many of the deleted sections were tagged for others to assist in finding cites. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

There is a note that the aforementioned editor has left, sorry, I didn't see it until now: "ah i see. well i read and taken on board what i see here. and note i sorry if i have go a bit far in me notes trivia removeing. if it a bother than i stop as i don,t wish to make bother here. sorry if i have>." Not exactly a scholarly response, but obviously, exhibits a level of concern. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Plot section

Can someone help me reduce the plot section of this article of an Indian film? I'm planning to take it to GA soon, and unless I patch up this issue, I don't think it can be considered as a candidate. Secret of success (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Plainlists in infoboxes

Has there ever been a discussion of the use of plainlists in infoboxes? If so, where is it? There is a question above about plainlists vs. ubl, but I really prefer neither. Is there a preference for one of these two formats vs. simply having the names, separated by breaks? This last is my preference, but I noticed that this is being changed in a lot of film articles (see here) with no comment or explanation. I really feel this should be discussed. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive 39#Using Plainlist in Infobox film

L&S it's an accessibility issue that is getting rid of the <br> useage as well as bulleted lists and ubl.

- J Greb (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What I learned from reading that discussion is that most experienced film project editors are dubious about the use of this style. In his response, Pigsonthewing displayed an attitude of superiority and arrogance that I don't find particularly helpful. He was the one who changed the style in the film I linked to, and offered no reasoning at the time for the change. If this is an "option," why force the change and not even bother saying why? I find that tremendously unhelpful. And, quite frankly, his explanation of why it is necessary to get rid of the <br> was overly technical, so I still find the necessity of this change baffling. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What I got out of it - and for clarity, I've butted heads with Pigsonthewing on other issues so keep that in mind - is that it 'is a technical issue that hampers the accessibility of the articles as a whole. If the html or a bulleted list causes software that converts the text of an article in to speech for someone with a visual issue, then the accessibility issue trumps the consensus to do it our way anyway.

- J Greb (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The simple explanation is that screen reader software (and other software which can read our articles) "knows" what a list is and can present it as such, whereas a bunch of things separated by line breaks could be anything. In addition, using list format means that we don't need to insert raw HTML into article content, which is discouraged in favour of using wikimarkup. Lastly, if the amount of whitespace is an issue then this can be trivially resolved by adjusting {{plainlist}} itself: that's one of the great benefits of the template system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo movies external link template broken

The template Template:Ymovies_name is broken, the page is locked. Can an Administrator fix it?.--Wikien2009 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it broken? I just tried a couple and it seems to work. Can you point out the articles it doesn't work on? Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've you try to add the template to an article it won't work any more, see here. They changed the way they link to person pages. It used to be http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/[NUMBER ID] but now it is http://movies.yahoo.com/person/[NAME ID]. For example see Brad Pitt#External links. A similar think happening to the movie pages.--Wikien2009 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's probably better if it was deleted as imdb does the same thing, and yahoo movies template is barely used. A bot could delete the template from the articles.--Wikien2009 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• The template is used in over 300 articles, so I wouldn't say it is "barely used". Also, I have checked a few of these links and they are all working, so there is no reason to remove the template on that basis. However, there may be a valid argument they are redundant, and I am all for keeping external links to a minimum. It doesn't seem to be much different from IMDB or Allmovie, so I'm fairly indifferent to the link. We sprobably should have a clear out of the EL link sections, is anyone strongly in favor of retaining this template? Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Delete. Next. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I never understood why we needed it in the first place. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, You can no longer add this template to new articles as the linking system is different, as stated in my previous post.--Wikien2009 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion started by admin who hasn't got the time to notify the project

Please see this discussion. Obviously, Tumperwad is too busy/important to notify people directly affected. Lugnuts (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Crystal GA/FA Push

I am considering taking The Dark Crystal to GA/FA status. Please see this discussion page. Anyone willing to help is welcome. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Zhivago#Requested move

This renaming proposal is currently discuss. Feel free to improve the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men (film)

Previously-uninvolved editors are encouraged to take a look at this article, as there are currently two disputes raging over the plot and the reception sections. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And also see this on the Admin noticeboard. Stating that because the plot hasn't changed in two years as grounds for not changing it now has to be the most retarded thing I've ever read. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that idea is ridiculous on its face. Any issue can be revisited, and a two year old consensus on a plot summary is not set in stone. Clearly, other eyes are needed on this, as these two users cannot come to an agreement. Taking it to ANI was also ridiculous. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not retarded or ridiculous. Since the summary has been relatively stable since the thorough editing it got two years ago (there weren't any changes in the plot since then) there's good reason to think that it doesn't need a massive makeover -- which is what I said, not your retarded mischaracterizations, Lugnuts and Jacobite. So if you're going to comment, maybe you should know what you're talking about, both of you. There have been many changes by consensus in the last two years and I've worked with many editors on that article. Since apparently neither of you did any research, allow me to also mention that the other editor involved has violated the admin's terms of engagement repeatedly; I have not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it and my opinion hasn't changed. Thanks for your time. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about your carefully reasoned argument and... no, wait, you just said something without knowing what you're talking about. Never mind. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's great. I look forward to more valid contributions from you in the future. Lugnuts (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WPSG

I propose a conversion of this Project into a task force. You may improve a consensus by clicking WT:WikiProject Stargate#Turning WikiProject Stargate into a task force? and discussing a proposal. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Breaking Wind

Why did you delete Breaking Wind page? --87.7.56.56 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? I followed the link you posted and saw a deletion in 2005. Doniago (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look there's been an article on that film on Wikipedia. As DonIago says, the deletion log shows an article of that name was deleted in 2005, so don't think it can be the same thing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The reasons given for deletion would lead me to believe that it was a joke page regarding what happens after one has eaten beans. Now there is at least one film that has shown that aftereffect. The IMDb link is for a film that was released last month on DVD in the US. There is nothing wrong with creating a new article for it as long as WP:NOTABILITY can be established. I would suggest that the article be named Breaking Wind (film) to avoid confusion with the earlier article and the medical condition. If any of you have a better name please feel free to use it instead. MarnetteD | Talk 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD is correct -- a review of the deleted material shows it was a joke page (that was already well-described at Flatulence) but had no relation to any film. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There would be no need for a disambiguator, as no other page with this title exists. Breaking Wind would be the correct title for the page, with maybe a hatnote directing to flatulence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Halloween III on Featured Article Review

I have nominated Halloween III: Season of the Witch 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. George Ho (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

National cinema navigation templates

I've spotted that on a lot of foreign-language film articles, the navigational template for the relevant national cinema is included at the bottom of the page. For example, see Template:Cinema of Sweden on the Secrets of Women article. Now, to my mind, this shouldn't be there, as I was under the impression that navboxes should only appear on articles which are included in the template as per WP:NAVBOX. Also WP:MOSFILM. Anyone have any opinions on this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would do away with these where they're found. The template should be placed on the pages it lists; otherwise it simply functions as a decoration that doesn't help navigate been relevant pages. GRAPPLE X 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

They were originally added to all World Cinema articles, as a help to navigation to the lower-profile articles. I thought it was a good idea to allow quick access to "hidden" film articles, such as Swedish films of the 1950s, giving the casual user more info. However, per the policy points cited above and previous discussions, it's been agreed not to include them on all articles. Lugnuts (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(Originally a section below moved up here) I was always under the impression that navigational templates should only be listed in articles that are listed in the template. On this basis I had removed some Template:Cinema of the United Kingdom and Template:Bollywood with edit summaries of "Removed navigational template the article is not listed in", for example in Lalkaar. Some of my Bollywood template removals were reverted along the lines of the films are located in the year articles, so therefore they are listed in the template. I think this is incorrect and that the articles would need to be directly listed in the template. For example Template:Cinema of the United States specifically states "Due to the huge amount of American films and also due to objections that have been expressed about its use, please, do not transclude this template in American film articles, but only in general articles about the American film industry." Am I wrong in my thinking this and should this cinema navigational templates be located in individual film articles? Aspects (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be bold and revert it back, unless of course, the film is actually in the generic template! Lugnuts (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing in WP:NAVBOX or WP:MOSFILM that says navboxes can only be placed on articles linked from the navbox. Certainly we don't always post a given navbox on every article mentioned in that particular navbox (usually because the article already has a more appropriate navbox or navboxes). There is no need for navboxes to be in exact one-to-one correspondence with their articles; we have categories for that. In the case of my new article Asmaa, I included {{Cinema of Egypt}} as it's a nice little introduction to Egyptian cinema, which I think is useful to our readers in the absence of a more specific navbox that mentions the film. I envisage that, sooner or later, a more specific navbox will become available, for example, one for films by the director Amr Salama, who is young, energetic, and likely to make many more films, or one for the outstanding lead actress Hend Sabri. When such a navbox becomes available, it can then replace the generic one. The argument that we don't add {{Cinema of the United States}} to United States films doesn't carry any weight, since our American cinema coverage already has a wealth of navboxes. It would obviously be absurd to place that one on tens of thousands of American film articles, but it makes sense, in the cases of countries where our coverage is more limited, to use the country template on a much smaller number of films where a more appropriate navbox simply isn't yet available. --NSH001 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have missed something. Previous consensus has stated these shouldn't be on every single film article. Look through the talkpage archives. Lugnuts (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be on "every single film article", far from it. I am saying there are some articles on which they are appropriate. If there is a previous consensus, then I would expect it to be reflected in WP:NAVBOX, or WP:MOSFILM. --NSH001 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Rob Siden (above) has already stated this: "Now, to my mind, this shouldn't be there, as I was under the impression that navboxes should only appear on articles which are included in the template as per WP:NAVBOX". Where does it say you can? Lugnuts (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw what Rob Siden said, so I looked at WP:NAVBOX and WP:MOSFILM, and neither of them states what he says is his "impression". So far no-one has produced a valid argument that we should never use such navboxes on individual film articles. I am saying that what matters is to provide information that's useful and helpful to our readers, and to do that, it's helpful in some cases to provide a national cinema navbox if nothing better is available. The question now is to gain consensus on the set of such articles (which might be an empty set). But I would suggest a guideline something along the following lines:

1. They are not appropriate for the major film-producing countries where we already have good coverage. I leave this to the Film Project to define, but it would include USA, UK, and probably quite a few others.
2. For minor film-producing countries, or countries where our coverage is limited, they are permissible, because they are then very useful.
3. They should be replaced by a more specific navbox whenever one is available.
4. They should only be used on individual film articles, not on actors, directors, etc.

--NSH001 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never liked these and most editors seem to agree. Can we please remove them from all the articles on individual films? I can help out by using WP:AWB. jonkerz ♠talk 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

3D in Lede Opening sentence?

I notice people doing this a lot "Whatever is a 2012 3D horror film". Now to me this seems incorrect if only because there are few, if any, films that are released exclusively in 3D. If it is not only available in 3D how can it be described as a 3D film? I liken it to a discussion I, Betty, Grapple and others had over at Avatar where someone was calling it a "motion capture science fiction film". Am I right in saying this is nothing something that should be there? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, standard practice is to release films in both 2D and 3D, not the latter exclusively (I can imagine this will end within a few years once the ridiculous practice of charging extra for tickets to 3D films ends). As such it's not really worth mentioning it right up front. Properly discussed, it either belongs in a production section if the film is a deliberately-shot 3D outing, or a release section if it's tacked-on as an afterthought; it could be mentioned within the lead if it's the former (Avatar, Amityville III', etc) but it's not really important enough for the very first sentence. GRAPPLE X 11:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Grapple, I agree. Even if a film was released exclusively in 3D, it would be worth discussing in the lede but I don't think it should be used to describe the film, its a filming style. Would be like saying "Whatever is a 2012 shaky cam action film" (which would apply to so many films :( ) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead is a 1977 what the fuck is going on in this film film written and directed by David Lynch... ? GRAPPLE X 12:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I actually agree with that one, I could have done with being fully prepared before I read that plot summary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What about films, such as Piranha 3D, which explicitly mention the fact that they are in 3D in the title? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well 3D still wouldn't be the genre and from what I remember it was also released in 2D. I think it gives a false impression that it is a 3D exclusive title that can only be viewed in 3D to call it a 3D film in the opening sentence. I think discussing whether it was a post-convert or filmed in 3D should be mentioned in the lede, just not the opening sentence. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should watch Eraserhead instead! Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you could pay me to watch that. Sounds crazy as hell. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Its one of those films that everyone (with a strong constitution that is) should experience once. Others include this and this. Getting through them is a bit like going on a survivor course and you'll be pretty wrung out at the end but you can't call yourself a film buff without seeing them. Well, I exaggerate, you can call yourself one but you will never be properly warped :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I just knew that first link was going to go to Salo before I even hovered over it! I think the most disturbing part was when the lady playing the piano just snaps and hurls herself out of the window. Eraserhead is amazing. I got to see it at an independent cinema a few years back with Inland Empire. Don't get that with the Odeon. Lugnuts (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"An infamous scene shows a young woman forced to eat the feces of the Duke", whaaaaaaaaaaa? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately our most reliable indie cinema (actually the university-owned one!) has yet to show Eraserhead, but I did manage to catch The Elephant Man with a Q&A session with Lynch himself. Man's a hoot. I'm also shocked and appalled that the "must experience" list doesn't seem to include this, this or this, all of which are both fine examples of virtuoso film-making and thoroughly romance-destroying. Also surprisingly difficult to get through Irish customs sometimes which is strange. GRAPPLE X 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And to think Pasolini was killed not long after it was released...! Lugnuts (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So I watched Salo and I hate you all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(>")> ? GRAPPLE X 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please see if Listen To Britain can be upgraded from start class, please?

Ganpati23 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In the talk section on Listen to Britain I've explained the improvements made, error corrected, refs and reading added etc.

It was rated as start class, but I was wondering if it's now worthy of being up-graded.

I'm not entirely sure where the boundaries are for start/C/B class, and I realise that all I've added is a discussion on the film as a work of propaganda, not any scene-by-scene textual analysis, but I believe that what I've added reflects the latest academic research on the film as a work of propaganda, providing some contextual analysis of the situation facing Jennings at the time, as well as discussing what he was trying to achieve and how he went about it.

Previously, there was only an introduction and a section marked plot which wrongly suggested the film had a spoken introduction, though this was ONLY for the US release, as the whole point of the film was to get the world to Listen to Britain without a word being spoken. I've corrected this error and referenced it.

The refernces need tidying up as I don't know how to do that ^abc thing where 3 different refernces for the same page are shown as just one number in the reflist with ^abc by the number. But I've provided online links to two of the sources in the reading section. (Should I call it 'bibliography' instead, btw?)

So please tell me how I ask for its grade to be reviewed, how I find out if its been changed, and where I can get advice about what would need to be done to improve it sufficiently to get its grade improved.

Many thanks.

Ganpati23 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List of film accidents

Can anybody think of any and help improve this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This might help, can't recall off-hand how many were accidents though. I'm also 99% sure that the original Ben-Hur featured more than a few stuntmen being killed. GRAPPLE X 21:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

UBL or Plainlist?

Which are we supposed to be using for Infoboxes? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that UBL doesn't work in all browsers. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've been using UBL so better I know now before I keep doing it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As UBL does not work in all browsers, I've been avoiding it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily production report and Production report

Is there a reason for having both? Neither is a redirect and they have near identical content. They both appear in the Filmmaking navbox so I assume a few sets of eyes have glanced at this... --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 17:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct title for East Meets West 2011

Anyone familar with this film and/or Hong Kong cinema? Should it be at the current title of East Meets West 2011, or should it be East Meets West (2011 film)? Lugnuts (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The title according to Film Biz Asia is "東成西就２０１１" in Chinese, and it's English title is simply "East Meets West". The poster here, shows a line between the 2011 with the chinese title seperating it from the the English name. So it's title should be East Meets West I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Mumblecore films category

More input is required at the CfD here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Escape from the Planet of the Apes - does going back in time make a sequel a prequel?

My position is no, it doesn't. For the main characters the story continues forward. Take a look and comment at Talk:Prequel#Planet of the Apes series has no prequels or the following Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A decidedly unneutral and misleading title and description of the issue. The text of the RfC is:

Planet of the Apes prequels

A prequel is defined in the article as "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." Until recently the films: Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972), Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973), and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) were all listed as prequels to Planet of the Apes (1968) in the list of Prequels.The inclusion of these films is now disputed. Barsoomian (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation or three...

• The original films were a closed cycle with some character carry overs. That results in some of the later films becoming more and more prequel like for the original film.
• Rise seems out of place since it was, IIUC, tied to the remake. It would be a prequel for that, but uncrelated to the original cycle.
• FWIW, sequels move the narrative, not just the characters, forward. When time travel is an element in the narrative, the sequels can wind up being set in earlier times but still follow from the previous installment. Prequels generally fall into one of two types: a character from the previous installment tell how things lead up to the start of the series or a story set prior to the first installment and not following from the current narrative.

- J Greb (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The terms are not mutually exclusive, any film that follows another in a production process is a sequel. Even the Star Wars prequels are sequels; a prequel is just a type of sequel where generally the events are set before those of the previous film and there is no direct continuation of the narrative from the previous film. I'm not sure how strict that definition is since it seems very woolly, but the POTA films where they go back in time don't make sense unless you have seen the previous films so I'd say they are definitely not prequels. Personally I would prefer it if we didn't invoke the term, because it is an "in universe" description and we try to steer clear of that sort of think generally, preferring stick to a real-world perspective. From the point of view of the encyclopedia it is just the next film along in the production process so we should probably just describe all prequels as sequels, but that's just my opinion, I don't know if there is a formal project approach to applying the terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the term prequel only has meaning if it is applied to a film that is made later but occurs narratively prior. There are only three cases: the film shot later is narratively earlier, later, or both (as in The Godfather, Part II). However, Betty, you are implying that we define it in terms of production; the film made later is the production sequel, so it's a sequel. The Godfather, Part II is a good film to mention in this context, because it is narratively both a prequel and a sequel, so what is the rule? But then what if the filmmakers refer to it as a prequel? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a fourth case like with Back to the Future 2, where the events actually intercept those of the previous film...a 'midquel'? 'Prequel' seems to be very restrictively defined, in that the events of the prequel should precede those of the earlier film, but that very much depends on the internal chronology of the film, and with time travel films it becomes very messy. Does Goldeneye with a pre-credit sequence set in 1986 make it a prequel to the Dalton Bond films, for instance? In view of that I think the terminology we use should focus on the real world production rather than subjective in-universe interpretation. It's not a big deal really, I don't really have a problem with the Star Wars prequel trilogy being described as such, I'm not for making things deliberately obtuse, but I'm against applying the terms when their application is open to interpretation. In the case of The Godfather 2, why not just state it is the second film in The Godfather trilogy, and then describe the structure of the narrative (which it basically does anyway), and drop labels that don't adequately convey the complex internal chronology of the work? Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I say ti depends if they're considered part of the same series as the previous version.Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite the fact that no one commenting here or at Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels supported his position Barsoomian has gone against consensus and restored the Apes sequels to the Prequel list. He is relying on a simplistic definition of prequel and a couple sources that made imprecise or sloppy use of the term, at least one of which contradicted itself. No one who commented here but him sees these films as prequels. I took them out, explaining why on the Talk page, and he reverted me again. He is determined to do as he wants. I have to ask again that others take a look at this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think there is a consensus on this? 'Prequel' is a word with a definition and it seems to apply to the film. In general, a prequel is a production sequel (it's shot later). There might be an example of a film that is released later but is shot before and has events that predate the first release. But that would be totally strange! Lord of the Rings was shot all together. Now comes The Hobbit, shot later with predating events. This is not a prequel? If this Planet... case isn't a prequel, what is? (I'm not asking rhetorically). --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, a list of true prequels would include Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Obviously we can use the word prequel in cases where it unquestionably applies: The Hobbit, Star Wars Episode I, etc. However, being a longtime Apes fan and owning all the films, I don't feel comfortable using "prequel" to describe Escape. Escape doesn't just tell a story set chronologically before the prior films, it takes characters from those films and transports them into the past through time travel. This continues their adventure from the previous films, therefore it storyline doesn't entirely precede those of the first 2 films. I consider Escape a sequel. However, I do feel comfortable saying that together, the last 3 original films (Escape, Conquest, and Battle) serve as prequel stories to the original Planet of the Apes, since they set up the world in which the original takes place. I know that sounds confusing, but basically no, I wouldn't call Escape a prequel. I'm more comfortable just calling it a sequel, and I'd probably feel the same way about any example that entailed characters from a prior film time-travelling to the past. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If what Illazilla says is accurate (I havent watched the films) then I don't see how it's anymore a prequel than Back to the Future III is to BTTF I and II. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The time travel thing escaped me. But perhaps there is a consistency to this if we look at it from the characters' personal chronologies....? No, there is no word for a story told later with the same character who's in an earlier time but he's older. That is not a prequel. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a word for it: Sequel. It's a story of what that character experienced after the original story. In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole pre-se argument will shift per film series but in this instance the "Time paradox" argument is correct. Escape would only be a prequel if Zira and Cornelius effect on the story had been mentioned in the first two films. The extraordinary escalation of this to "Dispute Resolution" status may be a perfect example of The Butterfly Effect". For me there are too many absurdities going on now that Ray was writing about more than 50 years ago. MarnetteD | Talk 03:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • • The idea of an RfC is to comment at the actual article, not to form a subcommittee on each page and caucus. Please see Prequel and take a look at the numerous references I have cited there before jumping to a conclusion. Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not making up your own rules. One such "rule" I particularly dispute is the that the labels "prequel", "sequel", "reboot" are all mutually exclusive. They are not. Whether each is applicable is a separate question. Barsoomian (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

1)An Rfc is totally different from and "Dispute resolution" so it looks like you are doing the forum shopping and b) I know our prequel article (remember that wikis cant be used as a source) as well as having looked at your few sources-which are not all the ones available BTW-that back up your bias. Interestingly, there are no sources from the year that the film was released that call it a prequel. Your obsession is fine for you and would go great at a blog but they are not encyclopedic. Given the state of things at this point you may well get your way but don't be surprised if things change down the road. MarnetteD | Talk 06:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's Gothicfilm who is forum shopping. He insisted on starting a new discussion here after the RfC at the article. When no one except myself and him were active, and he continually deleted text supported by reliable sources, I went to dispute resolution. "there are no sources from the year that the film was released that call it a prequel." What? There are literally thousands. Just about every review does so. I already cited these below in the discussion at Talk:Prequel:

• Rotten Tomatoes " The prequel/reboot arguably did not receive the amount of publicity and hype that many other summer films did, " Nov. 04 2011
• Huffington Post "So effectively does director Rupert Wyatt's prequel/reboot of the legendary Apes brand..." and "by changing its title from an oblique reference to the prior Apes series to one that specifically situates it within that brand, it also changes how we view the story. Once you state explicitly that your story is a prequel to Planet of the Apes". 08/09/11
• Chicago Tribune "'Apes' prequel stands alone, upright" August 04, 2011
• The Telegraph "Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an entertaining prequel with marvellous special effects." 11 Aug 2011

Barsoomian (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought we were talking about Escape. You're talking about Rise? Rise is a reboot. Have you seen the original films? They tell the whole story of the ape revolt: In Escape Cornelius & Zera travel back in time to the '70s & give birth to Caesar, the first ape who can talk; In Conquest, Caesar leads the apes in a revolt against humanity; In Battle, the apes & humans coexist in a world ravaged by nuclear war, until some radiation-scarred humans attack & Caesar established apes as dominant. Rise contradicts these 3 original films by portraying an entirely different origin story for Caesar, a different story of the ape revolt, and a different means by which humanity is mostly wiped out (a virus as opposed to nuclear war). Rise is, in every sense, a reboot of the franchise. It would be as if I made a Star Wars film depicting a completely different origin for Darth Vader than those portrayed in Episodes I, II, & III. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure Rise is a reboot of the franchise. That's not the question. Rise is also prequel to PotA (1968). Same as your hypothetical SW movie could be a prequel to "New Hope" while contradicting SW I, II, III. "Prequel" is relation between two works, not a statement of how a work fits into a "franchise". A single film or book can have many "prequels", completely contradictory. Why not? See the RfC for more details, I don't want to just repeat this over and over. Barsoomian (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's quite wrong. Rise of the Planet of the Apes isn't a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes, since it contradicts it where details of events before the rise of the apes are concerned. In the original Planet of the Apes, the Icarus is sent out into space in the early 1970s. In Rise, on the other hand, it gets sent out during the events of that film, and it clearly isn't set in the early 1970s. You can't reconcile them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why doesn't anyone respond to the RfC? Why can't anyone read the prior discussion before leaping in? I've laid all this out, cited references. Please take the time to read them if you are gong to join this debate. Barsoomian (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Dispute Resolution

I'm now being asked to continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Prequel discussion. I said I'd prefer to keep it on the Talk page, but Curb Chain (talk) and JJB seem to want to have it there. The big problem here is Barsoomian keeps picking and choosing what he thinks is important. He repeatedly states that it doesn't matter that Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. This is obviously just his opinion and POV. To me and most everyone else, that's the main difference between a prequel and a reboot, and why it can't be both. A prequel has to fit in with the original series. Barsoomian has no standing to say it doesn't, and it's a mystery why he's so obsessed with pushing this point. He should not be allowed to override consensus and commonly accepted use of the term prequel (among those of us who care) just because a minority of writers made imprecise, sloppy use of the word in their articles on Rise. Can someone tell me what the rules at Dispute Resolution are? I have no previous experience with this, and I'm so far carrying the water over there on my own. Can Curb Chain and JJB at Dispute Resolution override the consensus here because Barsoomian, alone in his quest, found a minority of writers who made imprecise, sloppy use of the word prequel in their articles on Rise? - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Can I say it might help if WP:FILM people would post their comments over there? - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would, but the discussion is so long and confusing that I don't even know where to place my comments. Is there any edit warring at any Apes articles that needs reverting? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at the moment, and they're all on my watchlist. Protecting the integrity of the original series is in fact the first thing I set out to do on WP a year ago. All the articles had real problems, especially the leads and the credits. (Someone had even listed the producer as co-directing all of them, and no one had reverted that - it was there on all five articles for months! In fact I think that was my first dispute, as someone reverted me at least twice when I took that made-up nonsense out.) I addressed all of that, but the Apes articles are still well short of what they should be. But at least now people can look at any article's lead and know where that film falls in the series, and who made it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please continue at Talk:Prequel in the RFC or a new section. My take here is that (I did not read to confirm Gothic's characterization that) there may be project consensus; but at the article itself we have a newer decent consensus among Gothic, Barsoomian, Betty and myself that the article is stable except for a portion of the ongoing WP:DRN request, and that that portion is at a temporary impasse. However, nobody else has chimed in with sufficient comments or sources to demonstrate that this page's generic consensus should be brought over to the specific case. I believe that article talk will resolve the loose ends, and readers here are free to chime in. JJB 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

One guy from Dispute Resolution to override consensus?

I thought this debate was all but wrapped up, but unfortunately the Dispute Resolution guy JJB for some reason now seems to want to to advocate for Barsoomian, the one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus both here and at the Prequel Talk page. He closed the Prequel discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Yet we continue. It now appears JJB wants to override WP:CONSENSUS and declare the last three of the original Planet of the Apes series films to be "prequels". He found a tiny number of sources that imprecisely use that word, and - despite having it pointed out by Betty Logan that People who don't believe it is a prequel are hardly likely to describe it as "not a prequel", they are much more likely to describe it as something else, he wants me to find sources that describe Apes films like Escape from the Planet of the Apes as "not a prequel". He wants me to prove a negative. That's seems unreasonable to me. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before. The fact that only a tiny number of sources have called Escape a prequel ought to be enough. WP:WEIGHT says Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. He is now claiming that WP:SILENT acceptance is (until noted otherwise) a change of opinion, from prior activity to present inactivity, and allows him to override the consensus from a week and a half ago. This is the new way to override consensus? Declare it inactive? Though I note Barry Wom came over there today to comment on how consensus is being ignored. They are now talking about taking this dispute to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard which it seems to me would once again bring in people like JJB from DR who don't care about these films, or film genres or categories, and thus have little problem with overruling consensus and calling them prequels because a small number of sources did - never mind if those sources were less than rigorous. Barry pointed out how some of the citations provided are a bit desperate. You can comment at the new discussion started at Talk:Prequel#Apes source analysis. Probably better to comment over there rather than here, to once again demonstrate a move toward consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing your friends again, I see. Urging them to ignore Wikipedia:Editing policy, ignore WP:RS, and now to ignore Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and just go with your gut and overrule those "people like JJB from DR who don't care about these films", as only the true anointed ones have any say on any subject peripherally related to film. Barsoomian (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up B, I don't watch all the boards. I have already encouraged the workgroup, in the section just above, to join discussion at Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels, which has now moved on to Talk:Prequel#Apes source analysis because of overflow. We also opened a side question at WP:NPOVN#Prequel. I agree with Gothic on following up at one of those links. JJB 14:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the current prequel page has now largely stabilized. If there are any more recommendations or rationales, please continue at Talk:Prequel. JJB 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Errors from HotCat

• It's a Wonderful Life‎ (1946 James Stewart film) This evening, I reverted an edit by Lobo512 (talk):(removed Category:Films set in the 1940s using HotCat) – My edit summary reads: Wrong! World War II finishes (1945) during the story of this film.

Surely, these quasi-automated revisions may cause many incorrect deletions and should be curbed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

HotCat is a crock o' shite. Lugnuts (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts – exactly in line with my thinking. Once again your propenseness for brevity on Wikipedia continues to impress. I am still smiling when I remember our previous (our first) encounter here  – The Godfather, and especially your edit summary when I replied ... crisp and accurate. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As with any other situation, it's not the tool, it's the mechanic. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Production budget v marketing budget in infoboxes

I'd like to adjust Template:Infobox film so that the budget= field clearly renders as "Production budget", and we add an additional marketing= field for the advertising/marketing budget. Obviously most studios don't release marketing information, but on the rare occasion that this can be reliably sourced (like John Carter), it confuses people. Many think that the "budget" includes all costs, and a film surpassing that means that it is profitable. Editors wrote that Inspector Gadget was a "success" using OR math even though it probably did not make back the production+marketing budgets. The John Carter info caused some confusion for that reason, because readers thought that marketing was included in the budget. Creating a separate field for the less common marketing budgets should fix confusion, as well as make the info more presentable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult enough to get reliable figures for production budgets and marketing budgets are even more problematic. John Carter is no exception; the marketing budget hasn't been made public and can't be reliably sourced. The link you supplied to an analyst's estimate was $125m. NY Times gives an "estimated $350 million to make and market", implying a $100m marketing budget. Hollywood Reporter has "the studio is spending north of $100 million on a worldwide campaign". Sky news has a figure of £63m (~$101m). All of these are just guesses. Barry Wom (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Platoon cast section

I want to solicit opinions from other editors about the current state of the cast section of the Platoon article. I removed a reference from that section's heading, and was reverted with what I think was an absurd edit summary. References do not belong in the heading, not for any reason, and if this citation is actually being used to source something, it should be embedded in the section. But, what is actually being sourced by this reference? Is there some controversy involving to who did and did not appear in the film? In my experience, references are rarely used in cast sections, so I would like to know why this one is necessary. The fact that the article has so few references is not relevant. I posted a question on the talk page, asking why the cast is so long, with so many nonnotable actors listed. The response from Doc9871 was not really helpful. In his response, he makes a comment about original research, which I do not understand, because there is no OR involved in reducing the cast list to only those actors who have articles. As I say, I find all of this puzzling, to say the least. So, again, I would like some other editors to offer their thoughts here, or over there, to sort this out. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you are correct that the reference tag is out of place, but perhaps it is there as the consequence of a disagreement. On the cast list itself, yes, that is a long cast list, but the movie had a large cast. Should the cast list include only actors with articles? It has more to do with the role in the film, right? Some articles might include only roles with a written line, others might use anyone who speaks, etc. There's not one right standard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In reference to citations in section headers I believe that the relevant guideline is here MOS:HEAD. Hey wasn't that a film starring The Monkees? MarnetteD | Talk 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Umm... my ears were burning, and now I know why. Doc talk 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, what is being sourced is the cast list itself. The complete and sourced cast list: which is far better than an unsourced partial cast list, IMHO. Sources are what we want. Due to the nature of this film's characters, OR finds its way into the cast list because people think they have to come up with ranks and names for characters that "officially" have no ranks or those names: unless you're doing some serious original research. I have said many times that this type of OR is fine for the body of the article, because we have no choice but to accept it. What can one do about the OR in those sections? But sometimes someone has to make a stand so the same crap doesn't repeat itself, and I chose this film's cast list as one of those stands. If this is a MOS thing, and the cite shouldn't be in the header: where should the citation be, exactly? Because having a high-quality citation when one is available is certainly preferable to not having any citation at all, I would think. Doc talk 05:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Prehaps have a sentence below the heading to say "The following actors appeared in the film" followed by the cite. Def. should not be cited in the header itself. The cast should be listed per the credits too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I did what you suggested with moving the cite with the added sentence. I don't have my book in front of me at the moment, but I know that Berenger and Dafoe were "top-billed" ahead of Sheen; this was a compromise that had to be made in this cast list, as Charlie Sheen clearly was the "star" of the film in most viewer's eyes, and incessant edits putting him at the top of the cast list will always happen. The only other entry that is not directly in line with the source (and therefore is original research), is Oliver Stone's credit for his cameo as the bunker officer. Doc talk 07:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice one. Unbelievably I watched Platoon for the very first time two nights ago! When I saw the bunker scene I thought to myself "I'm sure that's Oliver Stone". There must be a cite for that somewhere - I'll have a look. And aid this discussion, everyone must use the insult cheesedick. Lugnuts (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hah! The "cheesedick" insult was actually not in the original script, I later found out (get the book used, cheap - you will thank me for it!), so it had to be improvised on the set by someone. It's just a truly classic film, and when you watch it for the second, third, etc. time, you'll know why all the more. Doc talk 08:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, got two refs for his cameo and have added them in. Now to catch some Zs in the bush... Lugnuts (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"O'Neill, get me that centipede." Doc talk 05:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jazz Singer page move discussion

Please see this regarding moving the 1927 film without the year. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Serenity images

Hi. I'm currently reviewing Serenity for GA and I have some concerns about whether the four non-free images meet the NFCC and WP:FILMNFI. Could an experienced member of this project take a look? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ffmuleskiff.jpg and the full-cast picture could easily go. The other one used in the article's body does seem to illustrate something relevant so there's an argument for it staying, but yes, four non-free files used like that is too much. Free images of relevant subjects (the cast, crew, locations, etc) could easily be used to replace those removed. GRAPPLE X 20:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll note this in the review. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I've made some discussion about the countries in the infobox. If anyone can give some more input on my idea on the talk page of infobox:film, it would be greatly be appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

David Peoples

I made a suggestion over at Talk:David Peoples that the article be moved to David Webb Peoples, since he is always credited by his full name. I started thinking about this when I saw the piped link on his name in the Unforgiven article. As this is clearly the name by which he is credited, and more widely known, the article should be at that name, yes? Any thoughts, fellow film article editors? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do note he was credited as David Peoples on his first several films, including Blade Runner. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be some discrepancies on his IMDB page, which shows him credited as David Peoples for films whose credits, I am nearly certain, included the middle name. Hmmm... ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The BFI website has him as David Webb Peoples and notes "Usually known as David Peoples prior to 1990". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the BFI site enough to justify the page move if it says that use of the middle name is his preference? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. I don't see any reference to his preference anywhere. As I said, he was credited as David Peoples on his first several films, including Blade Runner. He wasn't credited as David Webb Peoples until Unforgiven. Then he went back to David Peoples for Twelve Monkeys. So he actually has more credits without the middle name. Probably best to leave it as it is, with a re-direct from the full name. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm, it does say that! Under the biography section. Personally I have no preference where the page is, just adding what I found elsewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see that? Under the biography section it only says Usually known as David Peoples prior to 1990. I don't see any reference to his preference, and if anything that backs up what I'm saying. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, we're talking at cross purposes! I thought you meant you didn't see the "prior to 1990" phrase. You and I are seeing the same thing! The site doesn't make any claim regarding what Peoples prefers, although isn't it customary to use the name that people most recently go by as the article title? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy Peer Review

Would anyone be willing to provide a review for Tron: Legacy so I can move forward with the GA nom? RAP (talk) 15:24 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Boys in the Band#Requested move

Move on both The Boys in the Band and The Boys in the Band (disambiguation) is requested. You can join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by 201.19.*.*

On May 15, 2012, it became apparent that a vandal, suspected to be a sockpuppet of Pé de Chinelo, has performed some 2500 edits of mostly film-related articles from hundreds of different IP addresses in the range 201.19/16, inserting generally plausible but false information in over 750 Wikipedia articles.

Your help in cleaning up this mess is appreciated. For coordinating the effort, I've set up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.*. The progress can be recorded there.  --Lambiam 21:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Content_vandalism for the original post on this, along with a few of the most recent diffs. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been after this guy off and on for weeks, on half a dozen or more pages, particularly The Descendants. He uses real names in positions they actually perform, but adds them to films they didn't work on. I knew right away X did not work on Y, but most people would not catch this unless they looked it up. After a spree in March I labeled my reverts More made-up credits from this persistent IP hopper so others watching those pages would realize what he's doing. I hit all the pages on his contributions list, but I didn't know he had so many more IPs. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering, is an abuse response report necessary in this case? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD Section?

Does this project have a place for AfDs? The article Gag dub is up for AfD and a dub is used in film making. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts automatically lists any article tagged with {{WikiProject Film}} that is AfD-ed, PROD-ed, or has any other major action performed on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

See Also links to filmography pages

Editor Lugnuts has linked every film Isabelle Huppert has appeared in to her filmography page. I took these links out based on that they aren't done with other film articles of an an actor with a filmography page. I didn't check everyone but those I did include John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Woody Allen, Audrey Hepburn, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole. BTW O'Toole co-stars in Rosebud with Huppert but the article links to Huppert's filmography page only.

Editor Lugnuts defends it on the grounds the article is an orphan.[5] Based on the O'Toole/Huppert double statndard(which I even mentioned to Lugnuts) and this editor created the Huppert list page, I think what we have here is a case of internal WP:SPAM. Lugnuts wants to advertise his article. I'm asking for opinions on whether these links should stay or not....William 16:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith. It's not "my article" as you put it. I add the link as it's an aid to navigation. Lots of other filmography links exist in the see also section, along with generic links to cinema of x, or films of x year. Hardly spam at all. Lugnuts (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Raoul Silva

Hi! I noticed that someone has already created an article on Raoul Silva, the announced villain for the new Bond film who does not seem to have any appearances yet in other media. I'd normally just redirect something like this, but I was curious what the project's opinion was. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to pass WP:GNG, so I'd be reluctant to redirect. Think of the AfD test - would this likely to be deleted if you took it there? I don't think it would (I could be wrong though). Lugnuts (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

L'Avventura

Anyone else think the list of filming locations in the L'Avventura article isn't needed? I was going to turn some of it into prose (the island where Anna goes missing, etc) and delete the rest of the cruft. Thoughts? Lugnuts (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks good, but if you have the time to change some of it into prose perhaps it would make it that little bit more interesting. I guess if you keep the content concise and to the point it might serve as a better read. comment added by RobertBarr1943 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan AFD

• Paul Carrigan

Pornographic actor/director page up for AFD, deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan (3rd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kind Hearts and Coronets

I seem to have gotten myself into an edit war with an IP regarding the synopsis. Could somebody step in and referee please? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you just kill off his/her family one-by-one, until you inherit the fortune... ;-) I'll have a look at this. Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Any idea when you'll get to this? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

For anyone that is interested your input is requested at this discussion Talk:2013 and beyond in film#Article separation. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

White Ribbon production countries

Oi. There's a long discussion going on involving the production countries on The White Ribbon article. If anyone could help sort it out, it would be much appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox images

For as long as I can remember I have been uploading images with a maximum edge of 300px to comply with fair use and also reducing images in size to this effect. I am sure I read this was policy somewhere but now I can't find it anywhere. Can anyone point me in the right directon or is this not a hard and fast rule? Quentin X (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsung Films

I have seen this link added to several articles today. Is anyone familiar with this site? Is it notable? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How are they using it? Judging by this page, they except articles from users, which would not suggest they are a really quality source. Looks like an okay-site to me personally, but I don't think it would follow wiki standards. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a solid source of information to me. Everything's linked appropriately and the writers appear to be well-informed. I've actually gotten a lot of info from these guys in the past. comment added by RobertBarr1943 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I had never heard of the site, which is why I asked. It is a moot point now, as all the links were removed. There does seem to have been a conflict-of-interest issue, as the new user who added the links has the same name as the site's founder, editor, and chief writer. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move at Gojira

There is a move discussion taking place here, and the input of any and all interested editors would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Meatballs - American or Canadian?

For years now, there has been a running dispute at the Meatballs article as to whether it is an American or Canadian film. Not that any conclusion reached here will have any influence on the (mostly) anonymous users who keep changing the article, but I would at least like to discuss this with other knowledgeable editors. The question of the film's nationality also influences certain spelling and grammar questions in the plot, so it is important that some conclusion be reached. As MarnetteD‎ said back in November: "US production company-US writers-Us cast-the only thing canadian is locations thus per WP:ENGVAR US usage applies". A look at the infobox shows us that it was distributed by Paramount Pictures, but that the studio was Famous Players, with financial help from CFDC. Famous Players, though, was the Canadian division of Paramount, not a separate company. No information is given about how much financial help was received from CFDC, though I do not know how much difference that makes. The primary cast, writers, and production company were American. But, as Kelisi points out, "The director was Canadian; two of the three 'adult' stars were Canadian, and it was filmed in Canada with CFDC's involvement." Is there a way of determining this? I would like some input here, please. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the two studios are Canadian I don't see what the problem is, why would it be American?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is one studio, which, as I said, is the Canadian arm of an American company. There was also some money provided by a Canadian gov't. agency. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was produced by a Canadian company it's obviously a Canadian production. Who owns the Canadian company doesn't matter. Smetanahue (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Canadian Film Archive if that helps it any, (source) and the British Film Institute calls it a Canadian film, It's production companies on the BFI website list it as Haliburton films (Canadian), the Canadian Film Development Corporation (obviously Canadian), Famous Players (Canadian), and Mount Royal Productions (Canadian!). I think it's safe to refer to it as a Canadian film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Cinema of templates

What's the status now? I've seen there was a TfD, and now some people remove it. Are they no longer to be used? --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, gone. Raised by people who don't participate in the film project (IE clue = 0) and voted for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Top 10 lists from articles

I've seen some top 10 lists removed from articles quite recently - see the edit history of Funny Games which states "As noted at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2‎, this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT WP:PUFFERY. Please do not reinsert without discussion on talk page of these guideline violations". The Talk page of the Harry Potter article in question doesn't really point to a consensus, esp. as two of the cited links (WP:FANCRUFT WP:PUFFERY) are essays and not policy. What do others think? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page, an editor named User: Tenebrae stated that the top ten Iist shouldn't be on any article. Shortly after, he/she erased the top-ten list of of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Nobody opposed his actions, so I decided to start erasing them on all film articles.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the underlying policy. Fancruft and puffery are the shorthand reasons for why that policy applies in this particular case. Lists of top-10 lists serve no encyclopedic purpose, in that they add nothing to what the Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic scores and the critics' quotes, which give context and detail, already provide. There are other reasons why lists of top-10 lists aren't done elsewhere in Wikipedia. I'm in full agreement with Norgizfox5041. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the views expressed above, by Norgizfox5041, andTenebrae (talk). -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more precise to say that the Scott Pilgrim page had too many statistics since, as just a matter of fact, RT and Metacritic scoring is not the same information as a mention in a top ten list. Also, puffery, it seems, is piling on praise for the purpose of avoiding an article's deletion; at least, that's what it says there. Another point: if a reliable source says a film is one of the best in some way, that is not prima facie "indiscriminate"; superlatives are allowed if true. Rare praise is not common, so it seems this places a film in context if handled properly, since even those who are not fans may find it interesting that Scott Pilgrim was recognized. There are problems with handling a high volume of repetitive praise, but a blanket prohibition leaves something out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and i kinda agree. But putting an entire list of top-ten rankings is really not needed. I think it would be a good idea to take down the top-ten lists, but have a sentence or two saying how the film appeared on many critic's list. Just my opinion.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

2-ish¢...

Linking to or stating that a film made X's top 10 list really doesn't do much, especially if list is flat (10 titles, no text), poll driven, or fan targeted. And that seems to be where a lot of the lists come from.

Linking to or mentioning "top 10s" that have a more balanced, critical approach though is a good thing, even if they may become dated. Those wind up giving context and weight. But the paragraph or section should be more than "The film placed 3rd on A's list, 5th on B's, and 1st on C's." That's somewhere between INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIR. Pulling out why a critic/group/relevant person placed the film on their list and ranked it where they did off-sets that.

- J Greb (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, but what do you mean by "fan-targeted"? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Lists that are written/compiled specifically for fans of a particular character, genre, person, and/or topic and contain little or no critical commentary on the films or ranking criteria. - J Greb (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but just because it's "fan-targeted" doesn't automatically mean that that person isn't a legitimate critic.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox case study : distributors of Pride & Prejudice and Atonement

Sorry for putting another Infobox case study:

Some people think that films' pages should only display their domestic distributors on the infoboxs, but there is official rule for this matter. On the other hand, what would happen if the film only have very few distributors in the world? Just like Pride & Prejudice and Atonement.

Some indie films may have many different distributors in worldwide. But Atonement only have three distributors in the world: . StudioCanal released the film in France (because of its deal with Working Title) [6][7] , Focus Features released the film in USA and Universal Pictures released the film in other countries. [8]

The worldwide distribution of Pride & Prejudice was also the same.[9][10][11]

If the film only has three distributors in worldwide, would it be OK to mention them all on infobox? My opinion is that if all three distributors are added in the distributor field, it can totally reveal the film's distributors in all English-speaking countries without making the field to be too big. But it is still only my opinion; there is still no official rule about it; but you can feel free to discuss it. --Marychan41 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The same line of argument could also be applied to release dates, so that we cover a multitude of information in a section that is supposed to be kept to a minimum—(see WP:IBX) an infobox is supposed "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears." The fact that Atonement doesn't have the information about the distributors in the article, but does have it in the infobox also puts it in breach of the infobox guides (The only info in the article is "Worldwide distribution was managed by Universal Studios, with minor releases through other divisions"). If that level of information is suitable for the text of the article, then it is certainly sufficient for the infobox. Secondly, for a film such as Atonement, which is classed as a British film, the information about the US distributor is fairly irrelevant, unless there is something particularly pertinent that would elevate it to deserving a position in the infobox. What you're suggesting and trying to do goes against the spirit in which WP:FILMRELEASE and WP:ENGVAR were written. Thirdly, there are a number of distributors—more than three—although most of these are single-territory only and acting at the behest of one of the three larger ones. Why bother listing distributors in some territories and not others? Atonement was largely through Universal, so why list others? - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Originally, the Atonement article stated that [Distributed worldwide by Universal Studios (with the North American release handled through its Focus Features division)].[12] I tried to mention about StudioCanal in the sentence (to states that Universal released the film in most of the countries, but not all), and then you deleted both StudioCanal and Focus Features from the sentence.[13] Therefore, the distributors field of Atonement infobox originally did summarize key facts in the article in which it appears..... until you edited the Atonement article.

There are numbers of companies worked at the behest of one of the three larger ones, but we can simply not list them, just list the three main distributors. For example, Zodiac infobox mentions Warner Bros as the international distributors, but it doesn't mention the companies worked at the behest of Warner Bros (ie. Sandrew, Karo, etc.....), and Zodiac page is still rated as Featured articles.--Marychan41 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Atonement seems to have more than just three distributors in the world, see [14]. However, it is clear that Universal Pictures is the dominant distributor in the majority of regions; all others are just "locals" distributing in their region. On the basis of that I think it is sufficient to just list Universal Pictures, since they are clearly the 'main' distributor for this film, it is the only one that stands out from the pack. Universal distributed it in the UK as well, so is also the "home distributor" if we go by that criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Those companies just worked for at the behest of Universal; they don't own the library rights of the film. We can simply not list them. Just like Zodiac page doesn't list Warner Bros' distribution partners in worldwide.

And then, Focus didn't just worked at the behest of Universal; Focus own the North America library rights of Atonement.(It is why "Universal Pictures presents" doesn't appear on the US poster of Atonement[15])

On the other hand, Focus Features' release strategy did help the film to receive many Oscar nominations, which would boost the film's commercial potential in other countries. If both Focus and Universal are on the infobox, the infobox's distributors field can just just totally reveal the film's distribution in all English-speaking countries (in English wiki), and the field still wouldn't be big. (The field would only mention two distributors, afterall.) But that is just my opinion. --Marychan41 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to comprehend why Universal Pictures alone isn't sufficient for the infobox. The company distributed to most of the world and yet we're having another discussion about a distributor in one territory! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Atonement grossed 39.4% of its box office gross in that territory. And then, without a distributor in that territory, Atonement wouldn't get any Oscar nominations. A distributor in that territory also won't make the infobox's distributor field to become overbig. --Marychan41 (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The film got the nominations, not the distributor and if Focus hadn't picked it up, a number of others could have done, with the same level of interest from the Academy and from US cinema-goers. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You meant that Atonement that the film would have the same level of success no matter which companies release the film? In fact, a film wouldn't automatically enjoy successes without distributor's handling; it is a distributor's job to create interest from the Academy and from US cinema-goers.

Fox example, Warner Bros had considered to send Slumdog Millionaire straight-to-DVD in USA. But Fox Searchlight's handling helped this film to become a big Oscar winner, and it helped the film to enjoy box office success in worldwide. [16]--Marychan41 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's all well and good for Slumdog and the information should be—and indeed is—contained in the body of the article, but not in the infobox, where there really is no need. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Fox Searchlight and Warner Bros should be on the infobox of Slumdog Millionaire (which is what it is right now). In this case, the Slumdog Millionaire infobox definitely "summarize key facts in the article in which it appears."

(and then, please don't delete Fox Searchlight and Warner Bros from the Slumdog Millionaire infobox until we have consensus from the talk.)--Marychan41 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should re-phrase my last point, just to ensure that we don't start going through every film on WP: strike "where there really is no need" and replace "which is the point under discussion". Having said that—and it's a discussion to be had elsewhere and at another time—Slumdog is another where there are 101 distributors, but 3 are listed in the infobox under no definable criteria. I really do feel fairly strongly that there should be some form of guideline applied to this field or that it be taken out entirely. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox issue : USA distributors of foreign films

(This issue had been sightly discussed in other thread, but I think this issue deserves its own thread) Some people think that the wiki of foreign films should only display their domestic distributors on the infoboxs. Other people think that we can display distributors for the most notable releases, including the international ones.

I think USA is the extremely important movie market in the world. For any film, an US theatrical release can trigger sales other countries. These two articles explain more. http://www.screendaily.com/news/opinion/the-us-deal-conundrum/5004159.article http://www.screendaily.com/reports/features/the-foreign-fallout/5013522.article

So I think that USA distributors' names are definitely notable information.

On the other hand, I was always be involved in edit wars; I keep putting the US distributors on the infoboxs, and some other people would keep deleting them. Here is the new one [17] So I think we may need a strict guideline about this issue. Here are two of examples to discuss:

1) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy did have a very notable release in USA; the film grossed higher in USA than in UK (the film's homeland), and the film wouldn't get any Oscar nomination without its US distributor Focus Features. Should Focus Features be put on infobox?

2) The Crying Game flopped at UK box office, but a hugely successful release in USA helped the film to become hugely famous. Miramax is on the infobox of the film's wiki page; should it be deleted?

Let discuss.... --Marychan41 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for starters I'll point out that Tinker Tailor isn't a foreign film to some of us... Secondly, this issue isn't about the US market: it's about what information should and shouldn't be in an infobox. See WP:IBX, which says "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". On that basis, the existing general rule of thumb is that it should be only the distribution companies of countries involved in the production, unless there is a noteable issue which would support the inclusion of another distributor (such as Crying Game). Tinker Tailor has not had a noteable release in this respect and if we go outside these general guidelines then we may as well start listing every company involved for each territory. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

USA is different from other movie markets: an USA theatrical release can affect a film's global commercial potential. It is why when we mention USA distributor, we still don't need to start listing every company involved for each territory.--Marychan41 (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the US is a territory just like any other—larger perhaps and with its own dynamic, but still just another territory, especially when talking about an Anglo-French film. This isn't US-Wiki, it's a global thing. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

USA isn't just like others. USA release can affect a film's commercial potential in other countries. (ie. many TV channels in worldwide would only air the films that have been released in USA theatrically.)

On the other hand, there are different language versions of wiki. Japanese people can read Japanese-wiki and English-wiki. But a lot of US people may only know how to read English-wiki. --Marychan41 (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember that Japan is still, I think, the second biggest film market in monetary terms, and it can be a bigger market for some European films than the American one. Does that mean the infobox should always include the Japanese distributor? I think not. Just as we restrict release dates basically to that of the country of origin (see WP:FILMRELEASE), I think we should stick to the distributor in the original country. Michitaro (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

But The marketing effect of a Japan release isn't as big as an USA release; the crossover effect of US release is global.[18] Like what screendaily.com states. "Overseas distributors can get their hands on specially created US marketing materials and benefit from an often splashy domestic marketing campaign. Young target audiences in foreign markets will pick up word of the film on the internet, and magazines everywhere publish interviews around the US release." --Marychan41 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Marychan, yes, the US is a big market, but it's still only one territory and, as far as films like Tinker Tailor go, the US has had nothing to do with the making of the film, only the watching of it. Whilst that is important in its own right, it's really not noteable enough to start listing every aspect of US involvement in its own aspect of the supply chain. Secondly, you missed my point about this being a global wiki: this is the wiki that is read by English-speaking people all over the world, not just in the US, so to have a permanent US-bias on all articles risks alienating the vast majority of the world. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

the US has had nothing to do with the making of Tinker Tailor, but it has important effect on the worldwide release of Tinker Tailor.

I'm not US-bias and saying that USA is a better country than others , but it is a fact that USA release can affect a film's commercial potential in other countries. (On the other hand, a french-wiki would display the films' France distributors on the Infoboxs, and Japanese-wiki would display the films' Japan distributors on the Infoboxs. And there are only four countries that use English as the de facto language, including USA.)--Marychan41 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

pmsl... Try looking at the English language page - I think you're out by at least 50 countries! I've said enough and, just to mix my metaphors, I feel like I'm running into a brick wall and going round in circles here: what you're essentially suggesting is putting the US distributor on EVERY film page, which is a quite ridiculous concept. The US was not involved in the making of Tinker Tailor and there is nothing noteable about the distribution of the film in that territory which would persuade me to agree with you on this point. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is something sensible about including information on the market where a film's grosses are largest. If that was a limiting principle, it wouldn't be bad. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You think that it is not important doesn't meant that it isn't important for other people's standard. And there is no guideline to point out that USA distributors of foreign films have to be deleted from the infoboxs.

I suspect you think that the release of the film is much less important the making of the film, and the wiki pages should mainly show the info about the making of the film. Am I right? (No offense) --Marychan41 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not right. And this isn't about deleting from the infoboxes, it's about not filling them up in the first place. And, just to repeat myself, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Shall we list all countries in there, just because we feel like we may want to? No, of course not, even though the distributors in Outer Mongolia may want their name in there doesn't mean they should go in: it's for production countries and those where there is a noteable reason for doing so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not the standard. Not every fact in every article need be notable. Rather, the subjects of the articles must be notable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a given; but the infobox is slightly different and inclusion in there is not solely justified on the criteria of "oooh, I want it in there", but something more concrete. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat regarding this. The US distributor should not be in the infobox, nor should the Australian, UK, Canadian, etc, etc. if they had nothing to do with the production of the film, but there's nothing to stop it being discussed in the article if the information is pertinent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think I probably side with Rob on this one. I think the idea that we should have the "home market" distributor in the infobox and exclude international ones is a bit arbitrary. By the same token I don't think it is always necessary to have the "home distributor" in the infobox either; the thing is, the infobox should really be documenting information that is integral to the film itself. In many cases where a distributor simply picks up the film and releases it then I don't really think the distributor is that important. Even with The Crying Game, even though the film's US release was particularly notable the distributor isn't all that important in relation to the film itself. Then you have the Bond films where United Artists where not involved in making the early films but were a financier, so there is a strong case for including them in the infobox. I recall a similar discussion about Titanic where I argued for the inclusion of Fox which distributed the film internationally because it partly financed the film. I think the key to this is how important the distributor is to the production of the film, which is basically the information we are trying to summarise in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the distributor is included because they have something to do with the production of the film. If that is the reason, that is an argument to strike the field since those people are included under production. For independent films, the distributor is significant because getting a distribution deal is difficult. We don't see many films that fail on that. Anyway I'm not advocating we add the distributor for the most successful market; it is one sensible idea among many. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If that is the reason, I think that US theatrical distributor is also significant because getting an US theatrical distribution is extremely difficult and profitable. (And the impact of an US theatrical release is global; "The Crying Game" would be the perfect example.)

Anyway, one thing sure is that there is no official rule to restrict infobox to contain only "home market" distributor. (ie. Match Point is rated as "Good Article" despite of displaying its US distributors DreamWorks on the infobox.) --Marychan41 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to add it because doing the distribution is "extremely difficult and profitable"? That's laughable – it's extremely difficult and profitable in any territory for any distributor. There is hardly a consensus here—and, Marychan, before you start re-adding the information to the Tinker Tailor infobox, you should note that Focus was only responsible for one territory and was not involved in the production or distribution of the film apart from that one part; does this justify inclusion in the infobox at all? No, just because someone has distributed in the US does not make that company an automatic inclusion in the infobox: to the majority of the world, the US distributor is not significant, but the distributor to their country is—should we include them too? On a wider point, I do find it ridiculous that we have a field in an infobox that has no clear criteria on what should or should not be included. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Other than Marychan41, we all seem to be roughly on the same page here. Should we continue this discussion on the infobox talk page in order to draw up some guidelines for the field (or indeed discuss whether it should be struck altogether)? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. There is so much confusion over who should or should not be included, that getting an agreed consensus on the field (or removing it altogether) seems to me something that should have been settled a long time ago. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. For some reason, MaryChan's sensible comments have not been given due weight. Schrodinger's comment is rude and probably not as smart as he wished it was. An apology is in order. The subject under discussion is one about which editors may differ. The slight numerical superiority of one side in this discussion is far from a consensus and there have been errors included in almost every one of their posts. I thought the purpose of discussion is to pay attention to each others' thinking and correct errors. Perhaps it would be a good idea to correct those errors first, instead of acting like they didn't occur or that they don't matter. In the meantime, the editors on the article pages seem to be handling this nicely. We don't need a new rule every time there's a disagreement about details. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ring, I'm not sure what you are referring to but I have not been rude and see no point on which I have to apologise. Personally I think her suggestion has not been given due weight for a good reason and I don't see other editors joining in to back it up. You are right, there is no consensus on this point (and there has not been any consensus every time the issue has been discussed previously, which is exactly why there needs to be a guideline of what should or should not go in there.) - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought we were on the same page! MaryChan's comments want to give undue weight to US distributors if the film is not a US production, and also seem to equate English language Wikipedia to US Wikipedia, creating a country bias. In any case, it is more appropriately discussed at the infobox talk page though, and it is appropriate to establish guidelines for what should be included in the infobox for future editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not everything requires a guideline. The strength of Wikipedia is not from editors following guidelines, it's from editors trying to create a useful reference. It is obvious that other markets besides the home market might be important for distribution. I'm sure you realize as well as I do that there is more than one reasonable way to handle this. There's no reason to play guideline police. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes already have guidelines. It seems natural to include criteria based on these kinds of discussions in these guidelines in order for future editors to consider previous consensus. Especially seeing as a couple of editors were suprised by the lack of guidelines in the course of the above discussion. However, you're probably right about it already being handled sensibly - I can see that the US distributor has not been added in the two examples above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In the case of The Crying Game, US distributor has been added on the infobox (while UK distributor hasn't).

On the other hand, I didn't meant to equate English language Wikipedia to US Wikipedia. I am sorry for leading you to have this feeling. --Marychan41 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ring, it's not forcing the "home distributor" above all others, but it is about putting in place something that doesn't lead to argument and confusion. Actually I think that guidelines may well be what is needed: they can be relatively loose or flexible, but having absolutely nothing will lead to this point being discussed ad nauseam on this page—and a search of the archives shows that is exactly what has happened in the past. Such a vacuum will lead only to edit warring and further aggravation if there is nothing sensible in place. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• We could have lots of US related release information in there: the US gross, the US release date, the MPAA certificates, but generally we keep regional information out of the infobox. The guidelines seem to work well for the release date (first release and the date of release in the home country), so maybe the guideline can just tie the distributors to the release dates. After all, the same arguments seem to apply in both cases: if the American release is not important enough to have the US release date listed, then there isn't really a case for including the distributor, but if the release is important enough to list the date then it is obviously important enough to list the distributor. It would at least provide a general rule of thumb. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• • There is that the guideline for release date, but it doesn't officially tie with the distributor. In fact, many foreign films' page mentioning the films' USA/international distributors without mentioning the films' USA/international release date. Like Match Point and Not One Less, and both pages still received very good grades. (the China distributor of Not One Less is on the page's main article, but not on the infobox.) Other examples would be Slumdog Millionaire, The King's Speech, The Artist and many others. Therefore, there is still no official rule to restrict infobox to contain only "home market" distributor. --Marychan41 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Betty's suggestion is a good one. If the U.S. release date is significant enough to list then the U.S. distributor should be listed as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I like it, too. (Gothic, you are just picking an example, right? First release and home release could be any country. To state the obvious.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So are we looking at first release distributor connected with first country release, or also including any other notable other releases, or—as in the film release info—first release plus home territory? - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems we're getting somewhere near consensus, but aren't we putting to much US bias on this? Let's say, for example a wholly (for sake of argument) Australian film is released in Japan one day earlier than it is in the home country. Whilst the first release date is relevant, I can't see how the Japanese distributor would be relevant. Therefore, we should apply the same rules to any country. Oh, and incidentally, Marychan41 keeps citing Match Point. This is a UK/US/Luxembourg co-production, so US distributor is relevant in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But from the perspective of American, Canadian, British, Irish and all the second language readers of Wikipedia, is the Australian distributor any more relevant than the Japanese distributor? As a reader I'm interested in who directed this mythical Australian film, I'm interested about the company who produced it, I'm possibly interested in the date it went on general release, however I really don't care who distributed it in Australia or Japan. This is why we generally keep the regional stuff out, because region specific information only tends to be of interest to a small percentage of the readership. I can sort of see why a distributor may be worth mentioning in the context of its release, but I think it's pretty low on the list of things readers look for in the infobox. Honestly, I'd drop the parameter, but barring that we just need a simple rule of thumb. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly at least the principal distributor should always be listed. Sometimes it will even re-edit a film it picked up before releasing it. Usually unfortunately. Most if not all of our sources always list the distributor. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But how would you define the "principal distributor"? Taking the mythical Aussie film above, who is the principal one? The "home" one of Australia? The first release one in Japan, or the one who takes it to the US? Or perhaps the one that covers Europe, Africa and the ME? - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you list more than one. Consensus at Infobox went with listing five countries for Alien vs. Predator - American-British-Czech-Canadian-German under "Country" - That's five lines being taken up in its infobox. Listing every country used for finance transactions seems a bit much to me. At the time I wrote "The reader will wonder how is this film Czech, Canadian and German? We often have editors on here complaining about infobox clutter - how are they going to take this?" They took it fine. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine for the production countries, but what if there are five distribution companies, each dealing with separately with each country? And what about—as MaryChan has been advocating—putting in the distributor of the US one as the largest market? - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There can be over a dozen distributors for a film these days around the world, but nobody's talking about listing every territory. This is not a big problem, and is already being handled reasonably well on a case-by-case basis. As said above, if the U.S. release date is significant enough to list then the U.S. distributor should be listed as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The US release date would be notable if that was the premiere of the film, but it would not automatically follow that this would somehow make the US distributor notable. I think Betty is leaning towards doing without the field completely, and I'm starting to think that this may be the way forward. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed Betty brought that idea up. She's usually for going with the sources, and as I said most if not all of our sources always list the distributor. You don't drop a category one would expect to see in an encyclopedia just because it has occasional issues. I feel we're running in circles. I'm done, at least for now. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a brief note: The recent change on Match Point page was a mistake; the film is not a UK/US/Luxembourg co-production. According to Hanway films (the film's sales agent), Match Point is an UK production[19], while Don't Come Knocking is an US/Germany co-production. [20]--Marychan41 (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Both the AFI and BFI have Match Point as UK/USA/Lux, so this is what we should go by. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

AFI and BFI weren't directly involved with Match Point. On the other hand, Hanway films is the film's official sales agent[21], so the infos Hanway films provide are official.--Marychan41 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. Hanway could have motive for describing it as a UK film. As per recent infobox consensus, we should refer to AFI/BFI database. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Hanway have [special] motive; for example, Hanway still mention that Fast Food Nation is a UK/USA co-production.[22]

On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to use the infos from the unofficial source [AFI/BFI database] instead of the official source (Hanway's site).--Marychan41 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion at Talk:Match Point#Country. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this can just open up a can of worms. How do we define a release as "important"? Remember this is not exclusive to US releases. Letters from Iwo Jima and Last Samurai did as or even better at the Japanese box office as they did in the US. Do we include the releases/distributors of any country with a significant BO take? (Note that of the two I mentioned, the former but not the latter has the Japanese release in the infobox, and that is likely because the former is being treated as a co-production.) Michitaro (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Like Betty, I am happy to delete the field. My understanding (to answer Gothic) is that the name of the distributor is verifiable, the first release date is also, as is the home release date. Betty's suggestion was a simple rule of thumb that links the distributor listing to these releases. Let's avoid long discussions about not much at all. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the field would the movement I can accept. --Marychan41 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair Gothic, verifiability isn't the issue: the literature tends to list the distributor in the market it is written i.e. American sources list the US distributor, Australian sources the Aussie distributor, the Japanese sources the Jap one. We can probably source the distributor for every single market. The issue clearly is how we select. Everything should be done case by case, but ultimately the purpose of a common template on the film articles is to make generalizations about the film, so it should be done within a consistent framework otherwise we may end up with a dozen distributors in an infobox. Tying the distributor to the release dates we list is just one way of doing it. Another would be to just list the dominant distributor, for example the distributor that simply distributes the film in the most regions; if there isn't a dominant distributor i.e. if distribution is so fragmented, then should we really be be elevation one above the other? Another solution along the same thinking is to not list "locals", maybe a distributor is only notable if it distributes the film internationally i.e. Disney in France, and Gaumont in US, if it is undertaking a global operation if you like. Another way of looking at it is that if a distributor doesn't distribute in the majority of markets then it is only going to be of interest to a minority of readers, so probably shouldn't be listed in the infobox. I think there are a number of logical solutions, and I am happy with most of them to varying degrees:

1. Dropping the field, since distribution is only incidental to the film anyway.
2. Tying the distributor to the release dates.
3. Listing the "majority" distributor i.e. only listing a distributor if it distributes in over half the markets, based on the view that minority distributors will be of interest only to a minority of readers.
4. Listing the "dominant" distributor i.e. the distributor that distributes the film in the most markets.
5. Leaving out the "locals" and listing only the distributors with a global operation.
6. Listing home distributors only.
7. Listing the distributor in the "biggest" market, but how is that defined? Is the European Union a market? Is China the biggest market by virtue of having the biggest population? Is the US the biggest market if this is where the most box-office is accumulated? Is the "market" defined by the distributor's territories rather than by economic zones?

I think that pretty much sums up all the options. Maybe a combination. Solving it "case by case" is the way to go, but that approach has broken down here because there is a problem with the guidelines. They don't really provide editors with enough information to interpret on case-by-case basis, so that needs to be resolved. Ultimately a guideline doesn't have to cater to every single case, it's a rule of thumb that should apply to most cases. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great sum up, Betty! On the other hand, Let me explain more of my opinion: the USA theatrical release can affect a film's global commercial potential, and there is not only about the box office numbers in USA. (ie. many TV channels in worldwide only air the films that have been released in USA theatrically. Medias in many countries also publish press coverages around the films' US theatrical release. etc.....) But yeah, they may still be about the final point you had wrote ("Listing the distributor in the "biggest" market"). --Marychan41 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is another option that might make some sense. For us, the English language Wikipedia, we could list the first English language distributor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of how to define [English-language territories].... Many countries accept English. But only in very few countries, English is spoken by the vast majority of the population in the vast majority of time, and it is how people in film industry define [English-language territories].

For instance, when Sony Pictures Classics stated that they acquired all English speaking territorial rights of Love Liza, they actually acquired the rights to release the film in North America, UK, Australia and New Zealand.[23] When Magnolia stated that they acquired all English speaking territorial rights of Cocaine Cowboys, it only includes the distribution rights of North America, UK, Australia and New Zealand. [24]--Marychan41 (talk) 7:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand. My personal opinion is that the infobox should simply contain the name of the first distributor, no matter the country or language and, per WP:UNDUE, not depend upon which one may or may not be the most important monetarily (specially as "importance" is a subjective term), and then any additional informaton, such as other country/language distributors, or distributors of later videos, belongs as text within the body of the article.

That opinion shared, the removal of US distributors of foreign films from the infobox, runs contrary to Template:Infobox film current instructions: "Insert the company name(s) of the distributor(s). Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each distributor to its appropriate article if possible". "(S)" means that a plurality of distributors is acceptable. So unless the template itself is modified to limit inclusion to only the original distributor, other country distributors of films (such as USA) should not be removed, and Marychan41's original point is well made. Perhaps this discussion might be continued at Template talk:Infobox film? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Differences between novel and film at A Simple Plan (film)

There is currently a discussion here regarding a section comparing differences between A Simple Plan (novel) and A Simple Plan (film). These discussions have taken place before, on both film talk pages and here on the project talk page, but it seems the matter is never settled. I come down on the side that argues that such sections, if not accompanied by third party sources, is original research, with editors making observations and analysis based on two primary sources. Other opinions are requested. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad news: more Brazilian vandalism

While we're still in the middle of a gigantic cleaning-up operation (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41#Vandalism by 201.19.*.*; more hands would be welcome) I discovered similar earlier vandalism from 187.2.*.*, for example this edit from December 2010. I haven't attempted to estimate the extent, but at first glance it seems more sporadic than the 201.19 vandalism.  --Lambiam 20:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thor discussion

There's a discussion on the Thor (film) article whether we should use advanced technology or actual gods in the film. The discussion can be found at Talk:Thor (film)#Thor's origin. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Task force for movie articles

I think a special task force needs to set up for un sourced movie articles. There are too many articles even hit movies with no sources especially movies from 70s-90s movies. What does everyone else think? Dwanyewest (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We have to start somewhere, I guess. I've added sources to thousands of articles, but I know for everyone I do source, there's probably another 5 that are not. Maybe a better use of the country taskforces would help? For example, having unsourced Italian task-force articles or unsourced Japanese task-force articles would make the task look a bit more realistic. Lugnuts (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand movies from anything before the 70's it might be hard to find legitimate mainstream sources. But there no sources for some legitimate movies I am having to provide sources for Eddie Murphy movies as an example or the lack there was little or no sources for major Hollywood hits like Robin Hood prince of thieves or Crocodile Dundee before I started editing some of them we are not talking obscure movies in some cases. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation was invented with a reason. 131.211.113.1 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You missed a comma out of the title. And there's no apostrophe in "70's". Lugnuts (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ScreenRant etc.

I really feel that ScreenRant and maybe even Cinema Blend should be considered reliable sources for film. But I don't think that's quite official yet. I think if we question those being reliable then we might need to question Collider and other sources as well. I want your opinions on this. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing I am bringing this up because I am concerned when it comes to GA/FA nominations that these websites will probably infringe on a nomination when I don't think they will need to. I think if they are ok sources then I think we need to make it official somewhere, somehow that they are ok if a article is nominated. If not then of course they might need to be removed. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I have used CinemaBlend before in GA. I don't see a problem with CinemaBlend being considered a reliable source, I think ScreenRant has been reliable in the past, in fact I think I asked about it at RS recently Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say Cinema Blend is weakly reliable, there appears to be editorial oversight but it lacks the recognizable notability of some other industry websites / trade magazines. In most cases its probably safe to use but I would go with a more notable source if one is available. Also at a quick glance, CB, blogs a lot of content from other website so remember to trace back to the original source and if the original source has died, make sure to attribute who did the actual work in the citation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Same thing goes for ScreenRant and Collider. Furthermore if the particular source being used has audio/video components, I think it strengthens the reliability of that particular source, as they are less likely to be doctored.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

With Collider though it helps to check who wrote the particular source as I think they sometimes accept user submissions. I generally just trust the listed staff. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What if it's a interview like this and this on the website? I also think ScreenRant is signifigant on trailer reviews or other kind of reviews or if it's the original source personally.(which it rarely is) I just don't think it doesn't need to be cut out of a article because someone might dispute it as a reason for GA/FA. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I DO think it can be for anyone has the right to say it isn't...but I just hope it doesn't have to be if these sources are already there. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

"Soundtrack" or "Music"

I have to imagine that this has come up before, but what is the proper way to title the section covering the musical soundtrack of a film? My feeling was "Soundtrack", but it seems "Music" is already in general use. Has a consensus already been reached on this? --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Soundtrack seems to cover the subtleties. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam Research

Not sure who as applied for this or not but in a recent article on a 2004 independent Filipino movie I found this to be an incredible resource and found lots of Filipino newspaper articles not picked up by google. I strongly recommend and who edits articles on films and cinema personalities to get this asap as it wil be an invaluable research tool and will often turn up detailed articles which will not appear in google. You can gain access to the full articles by applying for it at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement on Talk:2012 in film on whether The Intouchables should be listed as a 2012 film

There is a disagreement on 2012 in film on whether The Intouchables should be listed as one of the 10 current highest grossing films of 2012. The arguement for listing it is that Box Office Mojo, the primary source being used, lists it as a 2012 film and currently in the top 10 highest grossing films of 2012. The arguements against listing it are that it was first released in 2011 and made much of its money in 2011. It would be helpful if more people could join the discussion to establish a clear consensus on when a film should or shouldn't be listed in the top 10 grossing films for a year. The discussion is at Talk:2012_in_film#World_View. Calathan (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a 2011 film. It could be included on a list of top-grossing films of 2012 because it is one of the top-grossing films of that year, but if you're going to list it as being released in 2012 then that's incorrect. GRAPPLE X 14:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This highlights the horrendous American bias of this page and others like it. All the release dates only take into account America, so the film is listed on this page as a 2012 film. Hence the confusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

2011 film. Period. Fecking Twilight or mission impossible pushed Fast Five down in the rankings of 2011 films and it was only released in the last week or so of hte year. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo says that a film's year of release is the year of the film's release in North America. Maybe Wikipedia should define the year of release as the year in which the film was released in its country of origin. Spinc5 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Under what title was The Avengers released in the UK and Ireland ?

A single editor (Tenebrae) has insisted on using the rather ugly term "classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble in the UK and Ireland" in The Avengers article lead, rather than the simpler and more accurate "released as".

Ten other editors have disagreed with the use of the term "classified" on the talk page, but Tenebrae is insisting that this is a "compromise" version and is not to be amended.

As further detailed under the Release section in the article, there are several reasons for stating that the film was released under this title:

- It's the title Marvel themselves used in the press release announcing the name change.[25]

- It's the title that was submitted to the BBFC and IFCO.

- It's the onscreen title and the title on the advertising posters.

- It's the title used by a large number of UK publications, as a Google search will confirm.

Tenebrae is insisting that it is incorrect to state that the film was released under this title because the official Marvel UK site [26] uses the title Marvel's Avengers Assemble.

Disney uses both titles on its UK website [27].

Any thoughts ? Barry Wom (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we settled this a long time ago. -_-. RAP (talk) 14:35 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And Barry Wom's characterization is blatantly unfair and needlessly personal. This issue was discussed at length by numerous editors weeks ago, and an admin monitoring the discussion approved the compromise version that appears there now.

Disney does not use both titles at its UK site. You want the harsh word? It's a lie. Every single text mention of the film contains "Marvel's".

What was said in the purported press release came in February; every statement after that and the official production notes contains "Marvel's".

My friends in England say apostrophe-s appears onscreen, as it does in the U.S. version.

No evidence has been presented confirming what title Disney/Marvel submitted to the BBFC and IFCO. Anyone saying so is making an assumption — not stating a fact. That's an important distinction.

Consensus isn't a matter of voting. This is well-established in Wikipedia. Otherwise anyone could gather friends and tilt a vote. Consensus involves compromise. For my part, I would argue that the title of the movie is what the owner of the movie says it is: Marvel's Avengers Assemble. But I went along with the compromise, and Barry Wom should, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Robsinden at The Avengers talk page has suggested another compromise wording that I've suggested he bring here. I, for one, am certainly willing to go along with his new wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to centralise discussion at the article's talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"This issue was discussed at length by numerous editors weeks ago". Yes, it was. And no-one agreed with the wording you inserted.

"An admin monitoring the discussion approved the compromise version". The admin mentioned was incorrect in stating that the consensus was in favour of the term "classified". This has been pointed out to them, but they have failed to respond.

"Disney does not use both titles at its UK site." All you have to do is click on the link I supplied. Here it is again. [28]

"Every statement after [February] and the official production notes contains "Marvel's". Here's another Disney press release from April [29] and another from Disney/Marvel post-release in May [30]

"My friends in England say apostrophe-s appears onscreen". Your friends are most certainly incorrect - there is definitely no apostrophe in the title screen.

"No evidence has been presented confirming what title Disney/Marvel submitted to the BBFC and IFCO." It would appear that you are still clinging to the opinion you stated on the talk page: that the BBFC (and presumably the IFCO) "got it wrong". The evidence that the title submitted to these bodies was Marvel Avengers Assemble is that this is the title displayed on both their websites. It's inconceivable that both bodies made a mistake in the wording.

"Consensus involves compromise." Indeed. But the problem here is that many editors have loudly complained about your wording and no others have shown any support for it. ETA: And apologies if this all seems "needlessly personal"; if your stance was supported by any other editors this wouldn't be necessary.Barry Wom (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BBFC lists the title as Marvel Avengers Assemble[31], and the title was even subject to a piece in The Guardian Is Marvel Avengers assemble the worst film title ever?. I don't remember seeing an apostrophe at the screening I was at, but then even if I did that would be OR? I say go with Marvel Avengers Assemble.yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure other UK cinemas will probably show it 101 different ways, but Odeon cinema shows it as Marvel's Avengers Assemble. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

First, the official UK site for the movie itself uses only "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." That is the site I and all past discussions until today have referred to. I apologize for misinterpreting — but I notice you didn't link to the Disney / UK site that disagrees with you.

Second, it's not my wording. Another editor came up with the "classified" wording.

"No one agreed" — not true. Look at the discussions.

I'm not clinging to any "opinion" about the lack of any form online that we can see that was filled out by Disney / Marvel and submitted to the BBFC — which at its own site talks about the process for when the submitted title is different from what the BBFC considers the title to be.

I might also point out that even The Guardian article says that "Marvel Avengers Assemble" makes no grammatical sense.

We've gone all over this already and are now simply rehashing old arguments. Clearly, you are uninterested in a compromise and only want to have your own way. There's a word for that kind of behavior, and it is not "mature." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae are you referring to my comment? Until today I haven't even looked at the Avenger's page so I came to this as an uninterested neutral editor only to find my behaviour described as not "mature". Clearly if this is the way you interact with other editors then it's no surprise that this dispute has ended here. I'm out of here, call it what you want. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Barry Wom's. I apologize if you thought I meant you; I'd assumed the list-format matching his made it clear. Similarly, you assumed that I meant you. Asking me might have avoided any hard feelings. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides the two issues that are being discussed ("classified" or "titled/released", and "Marvel" or "Marvel's") I think there's one more issue: If the official name is Marvel's The Avengers, why is the article called The Avengers (2012 film) and not Marvel's The Avengers? Spinc5 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME is still The Avengers and per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, official names should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)