Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Today's featured articles 11 Jul 2024 – Still Reigning (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb 08 Jul 2024 – RoboCop (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 27 Jun 2024 – Pure Japanese (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 13 Jun 2024 – Infested (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 13 Jun 2024 – Beijing Watermelon (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Morgan695 (t · c); see discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Na O-mi (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Wuju Daisuki (t · c); see discussion 06 Jun 2024 – Breaking Through (2022 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Toadboy123 (t · c); see discussion 03 Jun 2024 – Kaur (short film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Whispyhistory (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – Avatar Studios (production company) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Zingo156 (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – South by South Lawn (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 07 May 2024 – Peter Capaldi filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 28 Jun 2024 – Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by De Disney (t · c); start discussion 26 Jun 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 25 Jun 2024 – The Black Phone (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DAP389 (t · c); start discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Rogue One (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cocobb8 (t · c); start discussion 30 May 2024 – Mushu (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 16 May 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FishLoveHam (t · c); start discussion 13 May 2024 – Jane Fonda's Workout (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Binksternet (t · c); start discussion 26 Apr 2024 – 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion 14 Apr 2024 – Kristoff (Frozen) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion (7 more...) Featured article reviews 13 Jun 2024 – Jason Voorhees (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 19 Jun 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by TrademarkedTWOrantula (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Treatment of film awards

Had a question I wanted to ask about film awards: specifically, does the project have any rule that some awards are so uniquely important that they warrant dual mention in the lead section of the article and in the awards table while other awards are somehow not?

A Canadian short film called Invincible got an Oscar nomination for best short film last week, and while obviously that's reflected in its awards table and nobody's been questioning that, another user has also been insisting that the Oscar nomination also belongs in the lead. But the thing is, the film already has several wins of other film awards under its belt, including best short film at the Prix Iris. In other words, it is not notable because of an Oscar nomination, it's a film that was already notable because it has already won the second most important film award in its own native country — so an Oscar nomination is just a bonus, not the central fact that made it notable in the first place. (And while I'm not psychic, its performance so far suggests that it's likely also a near-lock for a Canadian Screen Award nomination when those come out in a few more weeks, i.e. the only film award in its own native country that's even more important and more nailing-notability-to-the-wall than the Iris, though obviously that remains to be seen.)

And for added bonus, even though the film's Academy Award nomination is already properly sourced in the awards table, the user is adding it to the lead with primary sourcing to the Oscars' own self-published website, which is not proper format: the question of whether a film award is notable enough to be listed in the article in the first place hinges specifically on whether it's an award that gets media coverage to establish the notability of said award or not, so the source for an award nomination has to be media coverage in order to establish that the award is notable enough to merit mention. And for the icing on the cake, the last time they reverted me they even tried to order me to just obey them and not to take the question to any talk pages for any discussion on it, which is obviously not how Wikipedia works.

So the question is, are the Oscars really considered such a uniquely special case that a mere nomination for that award requires special treatment over and above any other awards? Are they really so special that an Oscar nomination needs to be dual-mentioned in both the introduction and the awards table, while the Iris (and CSA if it gets there) are somehow restricted to just the table? Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say, generally speaking, the Oscars can be argued as the mostly commonly known/recognized award for films in the United States so that does throw some weight behind including such in the lead. However, as you noted, that shouldn't be the only single awards mention given the short film has won other notable/prestigious awards. My recommendation is just a summary sentence such as "Invincible has been nominated for best short film, winning a Prix Iris award and being nominated for an Academy Award." adding in additional notable awards as applicable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've gone with that. We'll see if it finally dies down, or if the user tries to revert me on the grounds that the Oscar is somehow more special than anything else. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In some instances, a film's Oscar nom is it's only "major" one, hence many editors trying to have it (and only it) mentioned in the lead. That is not the case here, so a neutral sentence as I suggested (and you've implemented) is the way to go on that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Oscars are certainly the most coveted peer-based honor in the industry, regardless of which country you come from. If you are an aspiring British actor, you don't dream of giving your Bafta acceptance speech, let's put it that way. I think I would generally put major oscar wins/nominations in the lead in most cases, but it's not set in stone. If someone had compelling reasons for not covering the oscars in the lead I would approach the discussion with an open mind, but at the end of the day the lead should be summarising why the subject of the article is notable, and it is difficult to make a case that getting an oscar nom is not one of the most notable aspects of a film's reception. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said that an Oscar nomination wasn't noteworthy at all — the question was whether it's somehow the only noteworthy thing about a film that has already won another notable award. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Referencing in filmographies – one reference for each single entry or one reference for all?

Article in question: Ineko Arima

User 55go has repeatedly added references for each single entry in filmographies in the past. To reduce clutter per WP:CITEKILL WP:ILCLUTTER, I've swapped the dozen+ single references with one in said article, here using the Kinenote/Kinema Junpo website which should be sufficient as a WP:RELIABLE.

55go has reversed my edit without consulting me for e.g. finding consensus, even blaming me for "rendering the efforts of others futile" in the edit commentary (others meaning himself, as 55go has no problem with "rendering futile" other editors' work). As 55go is not even above of making block threats against other editors (see here) who are of a different opininion – which he isn't entitled to as being a non-admin, but says a lot otherwise –, I've taken this question directly here for discussion and finding consensus. I know some editors do not agree in citing WP:ILCLUTTER here, but I think referencing filmographies with one reliable source instead of individual referencing prevents needless bloating of both the reference section and the text in the editing window (just imagine filmographies with 50 or more entries, not just a dozen as is the case here). Robert Kerber (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Conduct issues aside: I would consider citing each entry separately and using a dedicated "references" column best practices. I don't consider the argument that using a single reference reduces clutter a particularly strong one—the clutter when doing it the other way is minimal—and I think the benefits of explicitly citing each individual entry outweigh any potential drawbacks. It significantly reduces the vulnerability to incorrect or not-properly-sourced material creeping in at a later point in time, for one thing. It's also not entirely uncommon for a single source to cover almost an entire filmography (or similar), but with one or a few missing entries. We don't have to imagine what it would be like with more than 50 entries: William S. Hart filmography has approximately 70 entries, each cited separately, and it was promoted to WP:Featured list as recently as August of last year. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, your given example only proves my point regarding the extent of the reference section which is anything but "minimal", and a plethora of references is all the more vulnerable to inreliabilities (with each single one to be marked, if necessary, as "unreliable", "better source needed" etc.) instead of using a single source which has proven reliable in the past – and in case if it suddenly weren't, only a single "unreliable" or "better source needed" tag would be needed. Regards, Robert Kerber (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

If all sources in play are reliable, and we can do more with less, then I see no reason why we can't condense citations. "To make it easier to identify misinformation" means nothing to me. In general, any person could add false information with a seemingly authentic source. If anything, it's easier to look at the Kinenote source to compare to the wiki list rather than check each source individually. And regarding what TompaDompa said, I agree that some filmography sources may not be complete, but it's possible to combine multiple filmography sources. Furthermore, per WP:REFBOMB, it also helps indicate the true value of the references and perhaps that more substance is needed for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. There are at least two aspects here: whether to prefer a higher or lower number of sources, and whether to prefer a higher or lower number of references (or inline citations). Sources can be reused, after all. I'm saying that regardless of the number of sources, a reference for each entry is preferable (an argument could be made that when there is only one source used, citing it once is preferable to citing it for each individual entry; I don't particularly agree but the case against it is also not as strong as when multiple sources are used). I would also hardly consider a lengthy reference section at the end of an article "clutter", but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. TompaDompa (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I see this as initially comparable to how we have agreed that only one cite for a cast list in a movie is fine, or one cite for a particular set of awards.

But to be fair, filmographies may be different. There may not always be one official reliable reference for these; I mean, an individual's official website is usually the best, but then it may exclude work the individual wants to distance themselves from (David Fincher's website, for instance, would give you no idea he was involved with Alien 3 in any way). So what might be an authoritative source for a filmography that can be cited in a prefatory sentence and not for every succeeding work mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

I don't agree that an individual's site is usually the best, for the exact reason you gave. In any case, the specific issue here involves a generally reliable secondary source (or so I'm told) so malicious unreliability shouldn't be a factor here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this already handled by WP:LISTVERIFY? We don't need to add inline citations to every single claim, and if one source is sufficient to verify a bunch of stuff all at once, we allow one citation to verify many things at once, and general references are also allowed. For this specific case, I see no value in creating a bunch of different citations to different sub-pages of a list, when the list itself is all that is needed to verify the claim. And I don't agree with the claim that providing individual references makes verification easier; if someone wanted to add a bogus entry, then the single list will verify it just as reliably as an individual page. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A regularly recurring situation is that a film person dies, and the thing that's keeping us from posting it to WP:Recent deaths is that the filmography is unsourced. In my experience, it is then typically necessary to combine multiple sources to cover all the entries. In this scenario, I think it's way better to indicate which entries can be verified by which source(s) rather than citing the sources without doing so. This is an example of when verification is made a lot easier by citing individual entries—if multiple sources are used, one would otherwise potentially have to check all of them to verify any given entry, and to discover that an entry fails verification it would indeed be necessary to check all of them. TompaDompa (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, could you give an example of that? I do see a current situation developing for Chita Rivera, but I'll note that the article doesn't have any citations for the filmography at all, which I also agree is bad practice. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa: Sorry about the late response, I completely missed your comment. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall Sam Lloyd not having a properly sourced filmography at the time of his death, nor did Anne Rice have a properly sourced bibliography at the time of her death. TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to the discussion's original subject, which is still unresolved, if a filmography, if it is sourced, has to be sourced with an individual source for each entry, or if one reliable source isn't more reasonable (I vote for the latter for reasons I've given above). It would be great if future discussions or dissents on artists' (filmmakers, writers, actors) sites could be cut short thanks to a consensus or a decision among editors (and even better a decision which finds its way into a WP:ESSAY). Robert Kerber (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Every entry having a different source is not an end in itself, and in many cases runs contrary to the principle of using the best source(s). Every entry having the same (singular) source is also not an end in itself, and in many cases comes with certain drawbacks. Every entry having a separate reference, which might be reused for multiple entries in the list, is on the other hand a good thing for several reasons. TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing: I'm talking about a filmography where each entry is referenced, using the same source (e.g. Kinenote, a reliable source, in a Japanese artist's filmography), which I consider a good thing (a: reliable, b: shorter reflist, c: more quickly changed when reliability issues occur). Can you give an example for what you mean with your third suggestion ("Every entry having a separate reference, which might be reused for multiple entries in the list"), meaning, an article, when you want to make a distinction here? Robert Kerber (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Yasujirō Ozu#Filmography does not have separate references for each entry – while there are two sources used, the references are in the table header. Ineko Arima#Television, on the other hand, does have separate references for each entry – while only a single source is used, it is explicitly cited for each individual entry (and thus reused multiple times). TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'd agree that the filmography in the Yasujirō Ozu article is a good and reasonable solution, while the solution in the Ineko Arima cinema filmography is not. I condensed the source/referencing in the Ineko Arima article, which user 55go reverted with the argument that I would interfere with their work, which I find questionable both in working method and conduct – and which is why I opened this thread to find a working method which users agree on.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The approach in the Ozu article is terrible—there is no way of telling which entry is verified by which source. Imagine if the header had had fourteen sources instead of just two. TompaDompa (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's rather say, it's the opposite of what you meant, it wasn't clear from your statement which solution you prefer. Well, I definitely tend to the Ozu solution. At least the Ineko Arima TV filmography reduces the size of the Reflist, agreed, while the Ineko Arima cinema filmography unnecessarily blows it up. Maybe some other users might give their opinion on these two (or three, to be precise) examples? User:Erik User:Daniel Case User: Orange Suede Sofa. This discussion has sadly slowed down a bit. Robert Kerber (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what needs to be decided here, but I don't love the Ozu approach. It makes me think of having two paragraphs of text, and an inline citation at the end of the second paragraph that purportedly covers both paragraphs. (Hence why we'd just duplicate the citation tag.) If it was something like a top-ten list like at Gothic film, I'd be fine with one citation tag preceding the list. But filmographies aren't as "set" and may vary in importance. So ultimately, I'd prefer a citation tag for each entry, and grouped if possible, like at William Hoy (film editor), which is a blend of two filmography-type sources plus others filling in gaps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've lost the plot as well (looks like it started as an edit war), but here are my final thoughts: there are many variables that make an article readable, maintainable, and ultimately reliable. Maximizing fine-grained citations may be one of those, but it's not one warrants content disputes. We're not even required to ensure that sources are online, or in English, or anything else other than simply verifiable, so tilting hard into one specific approach feels counter-productive. We already have clear guidelines to handle these kinds of situations and I haven't yet seen a compelling argument to demand anything more from editors. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm following the above discussion well enough, and maybe it's a moot point by now, but here are my thoughts...

There is nothing inherently wrong with using inline citations in a list, and clutter is not really a concern when there is only 1 or 2 inline citations per list entry. List entries are subject to the same Verifiability requirements as regular prose. If there is a concern about clutter, a dedicated reference column can make inline citations more visually appealing, as shown in the Ineko Arima example. Of course, you can always move sources to the end of a list instead of using inline citations, as you would with paragraph citations, as long as all sources in question support every entry in the list; readers should not be expected to fish for the source that supports the entry they are trying to verify.

As for the separate topic of reducing the number of sources, that's goes back to Verifiability. The list is stronger and more relevant with a wide variety of sources, but at minimum, one or two sources is sufficient. Reducing to one or two sources isn't necessarily better, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to merge two similar categories

Hello. I'm the Wikimedian-In-Residence for AfroCreatives WikiProject. While checking to improve the categorization of African film and television on English Wikipedia, I noticed African film festivals and Film festivals in Africa‎ literally contain the same things. Is it possible for African film festivals to be collapsed into Film festivals in Africa‎? Ceslause (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They're not the same thing. Category:Film festivals in Africa is for film festivals that take place in Africa, while Category:African film festivals is for festivals devoted to the subject of African cinema which could be taking place anywhere on earth.

For instance, there's an African film festival in my city in North America — it's obviously not happening in Africa, but it's devoted to the subject of African and African-diaspora films. Certainly some film festivals might genuinely be both things at the same time — but a film festival can also be based in Africa while not being devoted exclusively to African films per se, and a film festival devoted to African films can also be staged in Italy, France, Germany, Canada, Australia or any other country outside of Africa too.

So the "African film festivals" category could potentially be renamed to something else for added clarity, and I've listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 20#Category:African film festivals, but merging the two categories isn't appropriate because they're not actually the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Ip Man movies

These movies are not listed on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ip_Man_(film_series) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21028848/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12567246/ 89.147.81.224 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The first IMDb link is Ip Man: The Awakening while the second link is Ip Man: Kung Fu Master. The latter one is listed in the Ip Man template under "Other films", which means it is not in the film series and therefore shouldn't be included in the article mentioned above. (The Awakening does not have an article on this Wikipedia, but even so, it should be listed in "Other films" instead.) Jolly1253 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on unrealized projects

A bunch of material has been added to the encyclopedia regarding "unrealized" projects associated with film directors. The Ohio IP Special:Contributions/69.171.196.80 and Philadelphia IP range Special:Contributions/2601:4A:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 have been involved, and the user named ZanderAlbatraz1145. The recent series of additions started in November 2022. The Ohio IP got blocked twice for adding improperly supported material.[1]

The problem here is twofold: sometimes text is being added which is not supported by the cites. The cites talk about current projects, but the users here are looking back with hindsight, classifying them as unrealized. That's a problem with WP:Verifiability which demands that "the cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." And multiple sources are being thrown together to create a new conclusion not found in any of the individual sources. That's a violation of WP:SYNTH.

This kind of stuff can be added with appropriate cites. For instance, the now-retired editor Hitcher vs. Candyman started the article David Gordon Green's unrealized projects in 2019, based on the valid source https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/the-lost-unmade-abandoned-projects-of-director-david-gordon-green-87145/. There were some problems with synthesis, but at least the foundation was there. One of the Philadelphia IPs began the draft article Wes Craven's unrealized projects in January 2023,[2] based on a valid source: https://screenrant.com/unmade-wes-craven-horror-movie-projects/. Again, there were problems with synthesis.

In May 2023, ZanderAlbatraz1145 made a substantial expansion to the Peter Bogdanovich biography, adding a long paragraph about the project Wait for Me. This paragraph described the project as one of Bogdanovich's "final hopes" even though the sourcing is contemporary, lacking any objectivity about whether the project ever got filmed, or how it fits into Bogdanovich's oeuvre. The material violates WP:V because it is not being presented the same way it appears in the source. And there was entirely too much detail relative to the importance of this unrealized project.

I would like to ask WikiProject Film to compose guidance for unrealized projects appearing in various forms on Wikipedia. Feel free to comment on the following suggestions.

• 1: Unrealized projects can be contained in their own list articles if the entries are adequately cited as being incomplete/canceled/unrealized or lost in development hell. We should not assemble such lists with contemporary reports of the film project underway.
• 2: Unrealized projects can be added to the biographies of film directors, producers, actors, etc., if and only if the media describe such projects as unrealized.
• 3: Contemporary citations describing the project as ongoing or future should only be used to add detail on top of a foundation citation that says the project was canceled.
• 4: In all cases, the material should be presented with due WP:WEIGHT; that is, it should not be considered as important as realized projects unless the media describe it that way. In a typical biography, realized projects are much more important than unrealized projects. We would rarely need detailed descriptions of unrealized projects.

Thanks for your consideration. 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to say that I used to be User:Hitcher vs. Candyman (I retired per WP:CLEANSTART). In my previous account, I did create “unrealized projects” articles on John Hughes, Terry Gilliam, David Gordon Green (as User:Binksternet aforementioned) and Michael Cimino (which has been redirected to article of said filmmaker). At the time I created those pages, I was unaware of WP:LISTN.

That being said, ever since I became The Film Creator, I’ve created more “unrealized projects” articles using the LISTN protocol. Basically, I encourage that if there are multiple reliable sources that show a list of unrealized projects from a said filmmaker, it can be eligible for article creation. The Film Creator (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, when it comes to an “Unrealized projects” section on a page about a certain filmmaker…

Take these for example:

John Badham#Unrealized projects

Noel Black#Unrealized projects

Cameron Crowe#Unrealized projects

Frank Oz#Unrealized projects

Alexander Payne#Unrealized projects

Nicolas Winding Refn#Unrealized projects

If there is not one reliable source that covers the list of unrealized projects as a set for each of those six filmmakers, the sections ought to be removed per WP:SYNTH.

Now take a section like Terry Zwigoff#Unrealized projects for example. That section (on the Zwigoff page) should not be removed because there is a link from, in this case, ThePlaylist.net, that mentions the list of Zwigoff’s unrealized projects as a whole.

Therefore, if there’s only one reliable source that mentions the list as a set, it should be eligible for a section on the page of said filmmaker. If there’s more than one reliable source, that can be eligible for an article itself per WP:LISTN. That’s how I think information concerning a filmmaker’s unrealized projects should be addressed on Wikipedia. The Film Creator (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

One last thing, I would like to add: if there’s more than one reliable source that mentions the list of unrealized projects as a set, the reliable sources have to be different from each other. I’ll use Sergio Leone for example: if you look at these links from IndieWire and ThePlaylist.net, it’s the same word-for-word article written by the same author, Oliver Lyttleton. Therefore, in the case of Leone, that would be eligible for a section in Leone’s page and not an article creation IMO. The Film Creator (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. One reliable WP:SECONDARY source: paragraph in biography, or possibly a section considering weight. Two sources: list article can be created per LISTN. What do you think of this? Each of the list article entries should be based on at least one source describing the project as unrealized. No entries can be based on contemporary news items by themselves, describing the project as ongoing or future. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a good topic to discuss! First, it is worth noting that this WikiProject focuses on just films, where WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers would be more appropriate. Though I do recognize that the latter lacks a MOS (and really should have one).

Even so, I think we can discuss this topic a bit more broadly. The concept of "unrealized projects" could be beyond directors too, with some studios trying to finally produce certain development-hell films. The Logan's Run remake comes to mind. Or some films have sequel plans announced with no follow-up. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective has (had?) a planned reboot with screenwriters attached in 2021 with no update since. It's hard to know when to frame it in retrospect when we don't know what is going on or not going on. Obviously reliable sources reporting in retrospect "unrealized" projects is an excellent qualifier, especially for endorsing standalone lists.

I'm less sure of requiring "unrealized" for more passing mentions. Sometimes directors go from one project to another with a false start in between, and bio articles can have a rough chronological flow that can encompass that. Like saying Director A joined X project but moved on, being replaced by Director B. Maybe that sentence seems boring, but I think a lot of projects tend to have basis in source material (may it be books or original films or other IP), so having that sentence means a reader can click the "X project" link and see a fuller history of it at the source material's article and see how that director fit into the history of the attempt to make a film.

Maybe this line of thinking is getting away from a director's unrealized project which may be more of a personal passion project? Thinking back for myself, I know for Neil Marshall, I was diligently listing his future projects up to back in 2015 as seen here before removing them (and linking the diff on the talk page). Maybe if I ideally overhauled that article, I'd think of how to weave some details back in, if they fit, like Burst 3D was covered from 2009 to as late as 2012. It's not like the director just had some idea in their head; there is unseen conceptualization, writing, and development going on that never gets fulfilled. So I'm not opposed to touching on these efforts as part of a biographical flow, like keeping it to a sentence or sentence fragment. Open to thoughts and critiques. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Erik It’s interesting you said “The concept of ‘unrealized projects’ could be beyond directors too…” because I would have thought the page Unpublished and uncollected works by Stephen King would also count as an “unrealized projects” list article. Sure, King directed only one film in his career, but like you said, the concept could be beyond directors. The Film Creator (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Erik, I would be okay with a chronological telling of a person's film career that includes a brief mention of an unmade film. Like the person finished a film, then was reported working on an ultimately unsuccessful project, then started the next successful film. Very brief, unless the media describe the failure in depth. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Would the following sources be suitable enough to re-create the 'Michael Cimino's unrealized projects' page? The first article, while written in French, does discuss five projects as a group of films that were not made. Plus, there are sections in these other two articles that break down and discuss some of his unrealized projects as a group. I included quotes in the last two to make it easier:

ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Those look like solid sources to satisfy LISTN. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I also would like to know what should be the correct number of unrealized projects necessary for either a section or an article itself. If you look at Cameron Crowe#Unrealized projects, there are only two listed (the cancelled biopics of Phil Spector and Marvin Gaye respectively). I personally think that two projects is not enough. Plus, when I created Christopher Nolan's unrealized projects, there were only three projects mentioned in sources provided by IndieWire, MovieWeb and Screen Rant. Since three projects is not enough, Nolan’s unrealized projects became a redirect. Therefore, how many unrealized projects should be on the list per filmmaker? The Film Creator (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to pose this question: would it be appropriate to include said information the article without giving it it's own 'Unrealized projects' section? I don't see the problem with just including that information in Crowe's career bio. Same thing goes for Nicolas Winding Refn#Unrealized projects. Agreed that the information present should not be given its own section, but some projects I feel should definitely be included with his bio, as they were major parts of career, rather than deleted, removed entirely from existence and forgotten forever. If it's apart of a director's history, then it's apart of film history. And I think that at least is worthy of inclusion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if this is appropriate, but the Screen Rant article for Nolan does discuss a fourth project: Larry Mahoney. Plus, Nolan has been circling to direct a James Bond film for a WHILE, and has spoken publicly of his interest in doing so, even though he may not want to anymore; mentioned here, here, here, and here. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:High Tension#Requested move 14 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:High Tension#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Help needed (Ayres/Silent films/1914)

Hello, various films by Sydney Ayres would need attention (mostly sources), including A Man's Way. If someone has time and interest, thanks! @Justinkrivers, pinging you as I think you could help, hope you don't mind. Thank you. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

alrighty i'll take a look Justinkrivers (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Cunard has vastly improved A Man's Way so that that very article does not need urgent attention anymore. Thanks. (Other films by Ayres may still be improved (euphemism) if anyone has time.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)! The Internet Archive is a very good place to find sources for silent films. I found all of these sources through this Internet Archive search (for the film's name and director: "A Man's Way" "Sydney Ayres") and this Internet Archive search (for "A Man's Way" filtered by the year the film was released, 1914). Cunard (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I very modestly improved a few, thanks to you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Jumanji

There's a discussion regarding the final scene of Jumanji at Talk:Jumanji#Girls in the final scene. Any additional comment from project members would be helpful. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Santa Clause (franchise)#Requested move 8 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Santa Clause (franchise)#Requested move 8 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Een Vreemde Liefde

The article Een Vreemde Liefde has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly unreferenced for 14.79 years, and lacking any evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I redirected it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Savaari (2020 film)#Requested move 18 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Savaari (2020 film)#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force § The format of all BAFTA occurences

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force § The format of all BAFTA occurences. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jumanji § Timelines in the film

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jumanji § Timelines in the film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Madame Web listed budget

On the Madame Web infobox, there is a disagreement on how to list the reported budgets. Two publications list the cost as high as $100 million or as low as the reported $80 million, with neither noting the $100 million is specifically before any taxe breaks. So by Wiki’s film article cherrypick guidelines, the budget should be listed as simply “$80–100 million”.

Two specific users have done seemingly own-research/ignored the cited articles and saying the $100 million number is exclusively a gross cost, and trying to list as such. Would love a fresh pair of eyes on there to avoid a further edit war (I started a Talk tab a few days back). Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Deadline is quite specific, it does not use any range. It says about Madame Web that "a $52M global opening here means this reported $80M net production will not break even, but not suffer as much as originally feared". https://deadline.com/2024/02/box-office-bob-marley-one-love-madame-web-1235828289/

So what is this " $80M net production" Deadline is reporting? This is clearer in an other version of the article that you can find bellow the same page, where it says "I’m also told Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits, where the VFX were handled".

So Deadline is being very specific about what it is saying, it is a "$80M net production". This is more common than you think, nowadays many studios search for specific places that give them tax credits which makes the cost of their productions get less expensive. The same thing was reported about The Marvels, its budget of 220 million could have been way more expensive, without tax credits the Marvels would have costed 270 million. You can see this on The Marvels WP page. So range is used when publications are not specific about the budget of a movie, but Deadline is quite specific at least about its net/final value, it says it is a "$80M net production" (as I mentioned above with a link).  :) Solit.act (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

But aren't most reported budgets gross? Nardog (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Usually if there is information about tax credits we mention that in prose but we don't update the budget param in the infobox to reflect the net budget. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Requested move 13 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Requested move 13 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential movie theater task force

I noticed that there is currently no task force for movie theaters and think that it would be a worthwhile addition. There seems to be a good amount of wiki editors interested in movie theaters, and by extension a lot of movie theater articles. Sewageboy (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dune (2021 film)#Requested move 21 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dune (2021 film)#Requested move 21 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The Woman King

There is a content dispute at The Woman King. Please see discussion thread here: Talk:The Woman King § Problematic edits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

More has happened on this front. Editors are invited to review the content dispute and share thoughts about what content to include or exclude. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Seeking input on process (discussion about whether to have a discussion)

In the last half of 2023, there were several discussions of whether to capitalize Westerns as a genre.[3][4][5] followed by a move review [6] and yet another RM [7] They were move requests for individual articles related to subgenre article titles. The end result was a slight lean towards upper case "Westerns". I fully expect this discussion to come up again because the MOS participants generally circle back around on a regular basis (and already had, if you note that last link). The reason I bring this up here is that it mostly affects the Film project (although some TV as well), and that the move requests leave us inconsistent if done on the articles these discussions occurred at, making it a backdoor to changing capitalization all around (although there is some inconsistency already). I believe that it would be better to have a broader discussion about the genre's capitalization or lowercasing as a whole, one that incorporates participation from the projects it affects. The two key points of past debate tend to center around the following:

1. Both sides (uppercase "Western" and lowercase "western") have used the same guideline as support, depending on the interpretation: MOS:GENRECAPS. Genre is generally lowercased unless it is a proper noun. The lowercase crowd takes that at face value, and that "Western" is "Western civilization" while "western" is the genre. The uppercase crowd points out that the name of the "Western" genre comes specifically from "the American West" and the "Wild West shows" of the 1870s, such as the sourced description from Western film: Western films derive from the Wild West shows that began in the 1870s. Originally referred to as "Wild West dramas", the shortened term "Western" came to describe the genre.
2. Capitalization in sources is split. The MOS crowd generally uses a lot of ngrams to support their position. However, in some of the previous discussions, these were accused of cherry picking and other inaccuracies. The fact is, it's inconsistent in sources - even across highly reliable ones (for example, uppercase in the The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Cultural and Intellectual History and in some academic film texts, while lowercase in others, including the AFI). The fact is, it's about dead even across the board with a slight edge in one direction or the other depending on the sources looked at and the context.

Previous discussion was very close, and somewhat contentious, which is why I expect this will come up again until there is a thorough discussion attended by more than just MOS editors that results in a clear consensus one way or the other. The question is one of venue and process. Should this be an RfC? Where should it take place to generate the widest possible participation that includes editors who participate in the genre (and are thus informed on it) and how to avoid degenerating into the bludgeoning that previous discussions have had? Is that the Western (genre) article? Or, since it affects primarily the Western film genre the most, should it happen here? Looking for some input from film project participants all around. TIA. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I support capitalization, and have since this first came up. My feeling is the discussion focuses on the film genre because Wiki biases in that direction (its coverage of the literary Western is thin at best, and TV isn't much better), but I don't believe that's the correct place to have the discussion. The genre article feels like a better choice to me because it removes the artificial spotlight from films and redirects it to the parent genre. There were Westerns both on stage and in print well before motion pictures. As an aside, I find the "Western civilization" argument rather spurious (and often advanced by editors who either don't know much about the genre or have another agenda). Intothatdarkness 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Dictionaries seem split ("Western": [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]; "western": [14] [15] [16] [17]), but lean toward capping. AP style and BuzzFeed specify capping, The Guardian specifies lowercase, and every other style guide I looked at was silent. Ngrams show "Western" leading. Too many times do editors think "sources" only means news publications and books. MOS:GENRECAPS also supports this; it states that genres are capitalized if they contain a proper name, and "Western" contains the proper name American West/Wild West, which itself is capitalized per MOS:COMPASS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:John Wick (film)#Requested move 24 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:John Wick (film)#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Alien 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alien 2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10 § Alien 2 until a consensus is reached.

The !votes have been all over the place on this one, so additional input from the film project would be appreciated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:John Wick#Requested move 24 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:John Wick#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 00:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of Display resolution, Graphics display resolution and Computer display standard

Since this related to digital cinema and modern movie theaters, I'll notify here as well. I've started a discussion about how to handle these seemingly overlapping articles. Input appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Old project pages

I happened to swing by the WikiProject homepage and noticed the tab header. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Spotlight are both severely out-of-date, having been last updated substantively in 2011. (We have a "spotlight department"?!) They should be marked {{historical}} and removed from the tab header. Looking at the other pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach is also very old, and I'm not sure if anyone reads it anymore, but the newsletter doesn't exist anymore — the "current" issue has been stuck in January 2012 for a decade (if anyone would like to bring this one back, I would support that, but someone would need to step up). Pinging the three "coordinators" who are still around: @Erik, Bovineboy2008, Karthikndr, and MikeAllen. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I support marking them as historical and retiring them from the project scope (but still keep a link to them somewhere). WikiProject Film has changed over the years. My personal take is that editors tend to work on topics of their own interest, and there is rarely collaboration. I find the most important aspect of WikiProject Film to be the MOS. In terms of engagement, I hope that editors can at least be willing to resolve content disputes that are brought up here. Oftentimes there is a dispute between two editors in some random film article, and having third and fourth opinions can help resolve that (usually). Beyond these considerations, I am not sure if there is much desire for collaboration and upkeep. We can probably instead emphasize the automated pages, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Popular pages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Superman (1978 film)#Requested move 1 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Superman (1978 film)#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 29#Template:Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films

May be of great interest to this Wikiproject. Here is the navbox under discussion: {{Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 81#Template:Sight and Sound Poll for context. --woodensuperman 14:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Content exists in other forms such as a list article Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists. It would not be a loss to delete a redundant table of links that almost half of users never even see and is usually further hidden from those few who are even shown it. Good riddance to yet another unnecessary Navbox. -- 109.76.131.136 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As long as comments are being allowed here, this top ten list is one of the two most credible lists (the first, the Sight and Sound poll template, was removed by two "votes" and will be deletion reviewed), and is valuable for readers of the film's pages to contrast and compare among the other films listed as top tens. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

RM notice — Bruce Wayne (1989 film series character)

An editor has requested that Bruce Wayne (1989 film series character) be moved to Bruce Wayne (1989 film series), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

Requested move at Talk:Meek's Cutoff (film)#Requested move 4 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Meek's Cutoff (film)#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

More deletion attempts of AFI poll navboxes

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#AFI templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

These should have been speedy deleted anyway due to prior consensus at this discussion and recent deletion of similar navboxes here. --woodensuperman 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Tarzan (1999 film)

There's a discussion about the plot summary for Tarzan (1999 film). Please see the thread here: Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Plot rewrite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Star Wars

Hello, I'm a new editor and have been doing a lot of work on the Star Wars page. I've been having a discussion with other editors about the "Cinematic and literary allusions" section. I feel it has a lot of issues, but I'm having trouble communicating to the others what the problems are. I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm wrong, and the issues I've identified are not problems at all. Instead of trying to list all the issues here, I'm wondering whether an experienced editor would be willing to read through the section and offer their perspective, so I have a better sense of whether my views are correct or not. Thank you! Wafflewombat (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the thread you have started at the article's talk page is the right approach. I would focus that discussion on the more controversial changes, such as wording that you think should be removed entirely. If you keep your suggestions to the point and don't get any responses still then there is nothing wrong with being bold and making the changes, they can always be reverted and discussed later if needed. For the wording that is presented as fact but is actually an opinion in the sources, I would recommend rewording it rather than removing it entirely. Hope that helps. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm just feeling frustrated because people tell me to post potential edits on the talk page instead of just making them, but then nobody replies to the talk page post! It seems like the only time people want to discuss edits is when I make one that upsets them. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Twentieth Century-Fox

I'm working on the page for Star Wars, which was produced by Twentieth Century-Fox (this is the spelling, including the hyphen, that was used at the time). Some parts of the article use the name "20th Century-Fox." Which is correct? So far, I've been using the first version, because that's how it's spelled on its Wikipedia page. Wafflewombat (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sony Spider-Man Universe

Although the franchise “Spider-Man” has the Sony Spider Universe under its category, shouldn’t the Sony Spider-Man universe have its own heading in the top 25 highest grossing superhero franchises as it contains its own “universe”? Pathaan2024 (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

From a real-world perspective it is the same franchise from the same film studio, regardless of what fictional "universe" the films are set in. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

2014 films by country

As everybody here knows, the project's standard practice is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with separate by-year lists spun off only when that base list has become too large and needs to be chunked out for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user undertook a misguided project of creating standalone "list of country films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which has never otherwise been done for any other year before or since. So where all other "Lists of YYYY films by country" categories have about 25 articles in them, Category:Lists of 2014 films by country alone has 80.

Obviously, a country should have a 2014 list only if it's also got a more complete set for other years alongside it — if the country otherwise only has by-decade lists, then the 2014 list should be merged to "List of country films of the 2010s", and if the country otherwise only has one base list, then the 2014 list should be merged there. And even where a list is justifiable, some of them are separating the films on a "major releases" vs. "minor releases" distinction that seems awfully point of view to me (as in, what's the criterion for distinguishing "major" from "minor" here?) and probably should be kiboshed.

I've started tackling some of the unnecessary lists with merger or deletion discussions, but this is obviously a big project and I could use some help. So I wanted to ask if anybody is willing to help go through Category:Lists of 2014 films by country to identify and deal with some of the more unwarranted pages. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sammarinese films of 2014 (where there's no viable merge target, because even a base list of Sammarinese films doesn't exist at all) has additionally seen some support for the idea that we could legitimately just mass-merge or mass-delete them without having to individually discuss each one, but of course each editor's personal comfort level with just acting on their own needs to be taken into consideration. So feel free to initiate a merger or deletion discussion if you'd prefer, or just be bold if you're comfortable with that — but this problem has been lingering for a decade, so it's time that we did something to fix it. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Determining the "year" of a film

Not sure if this is discussed anywhere, but if a film premieres in 1982, but isn't released into theaters until 1983, is it considered a "1982 film" or a "1983 film"? Specifically, I'm referring to Koyaanisqatsi. IMDb lists it as a 1982 film [18] but other sources consider it a 1983 film: Criterion BFI AFI. I don't know what the standards are so I would appreciate some input. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The premiere year is sufficient. I think the idea is that the film is "completed" at that point and has been seen by people outside of the production (even if it's not the moviegoing audience). Like I see that The New York Times reviewed it in 1982 here. This happened with A Quiet Place Part II, premiering in 2020 before the pandemic hit, and the consensus there is to stick with 2020 even though its theatrical release was 2021. No issue with mentioning 1983 relatively upfront in Koyaanisqatsi's lead section, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Different sources have different practices, and you can even find some sources that will classify films as "year that the film was in production" even if they were never publicly screened until one or more years after that, so our consensus has always been to go with the year of the original (often, but not always, festival) premiere. For instance, a film that premiered at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival would be a 2023 film even if it takes until 2025 for it to actually screen anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, WP consensus is to use the year a film first premiered, i.e was publicly screened. If there's noteworthy info about a film's premiere and/or release schedule that can be mentioned in the lead. Lapadite (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of BFI for country of production

IP user 2600:1002:B0EC:304A:0:36:E682:6901 (talk · contribs) has been amending a few film articles to include Japan as a country of production based on listings at the BFI (for example The Thing [19], which does indeed have USA and Japan as production country at the BFI [20] but not Canada as also listed at the article).

The inclusion of Japan seems to be based on the involvement of a company called Dentsu, which appears to be solely an advertising company with no mention of film production in their article.

Has there been any previous discussion on the reliability of the BFI for sourcing production countries? Barry Wom (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume a database like BFI is "perfect". It's always possible for any database to get it wrong. I think for some crew members, the BFI database's filmography has been spotty. That said, when that happens, we have to sort through on a case-by-case basis. The Lumiere database states US and CA for the film here, and AFI Catalog shows just US here. There are three companies in the film's billing block: Universal Pictures, Morgan Creek Productions, and Strike Entertainment, which seem all US-based. Dentsu is not a production company, and that false inclusion triggers the improper Japanese categorization. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why it is good to look at multiple sources. A good example of this would be Subspecies (film series). For a long time it was listed as "American-Romanian", but I finally went through the sources and the was only 1 film that ever listed "Romanian" as a country, and that film didn't have "Romanian" listed on any other website. American was the only one listed for the rest of the films and for the first film beyond that one website, which I believe was in fact BFI.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)