Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.192.73.242 (talk) at 23:31, 16 June 2013 (→Rotten Tomatoes "audience interest" claims). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcuts
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

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


Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(6 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

  • 05 Oct 2024 – Walt Disney Animation Studios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion
  • 05 Oct 2024 – Pre-Code Hollywood (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Peer reviews

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

Award nominee article improvements

I feel that the articles for this year's award nominated films could be improved a great deal. Anyone concur? RAP (talk) 17:31 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Film producer

The article film producer has been rewritten. It resembles now in regards to its structure the articles film director, line producer and executive producer. Please check it out and rectify whatever isn't alright. NordhornerII (talk)

Fuck peer review

  1. Fuck (film)
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Spider-Man name change

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) had 2012 in it's title because another film supposedly had that title. But now one editor moved the other film's name saying that the film wasn't referred to as that. Does this mean that the 2012 film should probably be renamed to as just (film) in it's title? Jhenderson 777 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the move, and BBFC backs this up; the earlier film was entitled Spider-Man. A search of their archives also returns nothing else for "The Amazing Spider-Man".  drewmunn  talk  14:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although we'll need to be careful with linking. And I've moved Spider-Man (film) to Spider-Man (2002 film) to properly disambiguate, but also some more link clean-up needed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and requested it then. Jhenderson 777 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Round or not to Round that is the question.

So I have just come across Darkwarriorblake and User:Asd17 edit warring over on Fast and Furious 6 over the rounding of the Box office totals. I point out that GA articles that are specific according to the Box Office Mojo and other reliable sources and then he comes out out a load of other GA articles (all of which he edits) all with rounded. Info box parameters aren't very specific and nor is MOS. Any insight you could all provide would be great.

I am for being specific because the info box is ideal for posting precise figures like that and it is a lot easier to read rounded numbers within the context of the article. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter that I edit them? Did I stealth edit in the rounded figure after they passed or did they pass regardless? And again, Prometheus is a featured article now (waiting for the BOT to update it), and that uses a rounded figure as well. When dealing with millions of dollars, the end numbers become meaningless, if it earned 400 million dollars or 400 million 100 dollars, the only part that people care about is the 400 million, the only thing which has any bearing on its success is the 400 million, and when such formatting is in place, there is no guideline that demands it be changed. Industry sources do not report it in long form manner, and BOM like all other sites, has estimates from countries that actually report figures or can track figures. In Fast and Furious 6's case, the user kept changing it, I restored it WITH reasoning that was not argued against in any manner, which is not a justification against the justification I was giving for the formatting in place. So I'm not sure why you've opened this discussion, because quite frankly I am in the right there, and when you challenged me on it I presented you with multiple examples I have to hand that back up that, that way is acceptable and part of successful articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If the figure in the infobox is being cited by Box Office Mojo, and that website is showing the specific total, then that's what should be used in the infobox. Rounding it off, and using different information to back it up, is WP:OR. And Darkwarriorblake, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that you're right. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rounding is OR? Gimme a break. It's pretty silly to raise "other stuff" when the argument here is that "other stuff" uses long form, cuts both ways and there is no guideline so I direct you back to my argument which is what is in place works without some justification for change, rounding is NOT OR, that is the biggest reach I've seen in a while. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "other stuff" I'm referring to, is the fact that you're using other articles that you've rounded, as examples to back up your POV [1]. And I stand behind my assertion, that if Box Office Mojo is to be used as a reference, the number being used should match the number listed at that website. Using Box Office Mojo as a reference, to back up a number that is NOT listed there, is misleading. Please keep in mind that this discussion was created in order to form a consensus, and that taking this personally is not helpful or constructive. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking it personally I'm debating, you raised points and I pointed out that they were invalid points. It is not OR to round figures and there is no misrepresentation. Again, an article has been raised to FA status doing this. What does it matter if I'VE rounded the figures? Do you want to point out how the rounding was inaccurate? Or are you not able to? The articles in question are what I have at hand because I don't keep a directory of articles with rounded figures, it is no different than saying "these articles do it the other way" except I can actually back up what I'm saying and show that they've seen success regardless. Claiming that two numbers that are the same while rounded beyond numbers of any significance are different is a pedantic and unreasonable argument, you know it is not true, you can not honestly claim that you are looking at the rounded number and being misinformed or that it is in any way modifying the perception of the film in question. Then we come back to BOM being only one source of this information which can differ from others. If you want, I can go and add every single possible box office figure from every source to the infobox to ensure we are not getting an inaccurate picture, 6 or 7 different numbers that might differ by a few hundred dollars and I'll throw in the rounded ones also, and I will expect you to leave them all in place lest someone get confused. OR we can accept that the figures are estimations and offer the rounded figure that industry sources use themselves. Misrepresenting the evidence I brought forward I find incredibly unhelpful and non-constructive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the OR issue, I would like to clarify it is not OR to round figures; basic arithmetic calculations are permitted. There is no MOS guideline for this simply because both formats have always been considered acceptable. Box Office Mojo may report a figure to the dollar so in theory we can be as precise as they are, but in reality does anyone care about anything after the decimal point? One format offers precision, the other uniformity, and personally I can't think of a compelling argument to swing it either way. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of if you stealth edited or not. Point is that there are two competently opposing views. Neither is correct or incorrect, but the point you seem to be making is that you dont like it. Despite other editors disagreeing with you. 95% of the articles I come across editors are using the full number in the info box and rounding in the article. Mainly because the rounding is, unless they are providing a direct reference to the amount the film made, is a lot easier to read. Besides, where do we round from? The nearest Million? Hundred Thousand? Thousand? Hundred? Who gets to decide it? -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"but the point you seem to be making is that you dont like it" that's an outright lie, I've stated why the rounding is superior multiple times, never once have I said it was because I just didn't like it so I suggest you retract that. As ford says, other stuff exists is not an excuse, you're talking about thousand of articles, some with little oversight and people simply copy and paste, this is the reality. Do you type out the BOM figure or do you highlight, CTRL+C, CTRL+V? Be honest now. Rounding requires additional effort and users simply don't think of it, just copy and paste, job done. That is not a justification, it's not a cause, it's a function, why type and round when you can copy and v? There is no guideline that enforces that style so why do you think that users do it that way other than they look at the source and copy and paste. As for the last part of your query, to the fourth significant figure if there is one, that is the standard, unless talking in abstract -> "earned over $400 million", you wouldn't say "earned over $400.1 million". If it is 400,101,202, the figure would be $400.1 million, if it is 400,000,202, then it'd be $400 million, it isn't hard and it is how the figures are reported in decent box office sections now (excluding opening summary if there is one) and how industry professional sources cite it even post exit from the theaters.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I wont. Because you put in the rounded figure because you prefer it to the other version no? The reason you don't put in the full number is because you don't like it and you feel that it is "superior". So what if people Copy/Paste. It doesn't matter. Doesn't mean that they aren't making an effort or lazy as you put it. They are still providing a valid edit. Besides Copy/Paste is a good way to ensure that an accurate figure is being given and that mistakes from typos aren't being made. Besides, I believe you are missing the point I am making. I am saying the precise figures should be used in the infobox and where relevant the main article. Putting the rounded figures in the article body is better than a full figure because it makes for better reading. But for the infobox the precise figures should be used. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave and have given reasons here and in articles for why I prefer using that format, preference does not undermine those reasons, why would you do something you don't prefer? So you will take back your false statement or provide evidence for where I have said I don't like the other format and that's the only reason why I don't use it. Or you can admit you're lying about what I have said. Preferring precision but giving no reason for why an estimated yet somehow precise figure is beneficial isn't an argument. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could be one of those cases where a number with too many significant digits implies a precision in the measurement that does not match reality. We don't know any film's actual box office down to the dollar! Unless it's less than 100. There is so much error in these numbers that it is arbitrary past two or three lead digits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ring Cinema about the fact that having it to the dollar is overly precise. Such figures are reported for a studio's bottom line, but I do not think it imparts value for Wikipedia's readers. To put it plainly, it's chump change. I support rounding (and do not see it as original research) as a more direct way to read the numbers that matter, the ones at the beginning. I would say that precise figures are more acceptable with indie films that only gross tens of thousands of dollars. I don't know about making such practice a guideline, though. Maybe apply MOS:RETAIN in these cases? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you prefer another format over another implies you don't like the other one. You don't like it because you don't think it is a reliable precise figure. Don't forget we are an encyclopedia guys, it is our job to provide precise figures where appropriate and where they are found. Especially when those figures are so regularly available. Darkwarriorblake is the only editor I have come accross who is actively reverting other editors and edit warring over another equally correct format. -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't like it. I used the exact figures for the longest time, but I think I rounded one day to resolve edit warring and decided that it was an improvement. (And yet here we are with a different kind of edit warring... haha.) For me, the logic is that it is straightforward and simple to read $30.5 million as opposed to $30,514,925. It is marginal, but I find it better. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, so we are not compelled to cover every nuance. We don't mention all the actors, we don't cover technical specs unless relevant to context, and we don't have to report box office figures to the dollar. I don't find value lost in rounding; I find value added in improving readability. Another way to think about it is that when the trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter talk about the box office in prose, they do not get that detailed. They say something like, "The film had a $50 million opening weekend." Granted, Monday reports are estimates, but I think even in retrospect, they still don't ever get that specific. It's something to acknowledge. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Is the rounding of some numbers really worth all of this? If this keeps up much longer, this may qualify for WP:LAME. If you make the change to one number (rounded or not) and someone reverts you, here's some advice: let it go. Like I said already, it's not worth it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like a debate over whether something should be "color" or "colour". By rounding we are changing the fundamental nature of the information—sacrificing precision to improve readability/digestibility. It feels like an area the MOS should address to me, but my own views on the matter are mixed. I would like to see a wider range of views. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "precise" figure is accurate for a very short time; the rounded figure, longer. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Erik I was talking to Darwarrierblake. In my defence, this may seem lame, and the only reason I raise the issue is because I came across the two said editors warring over it, whatever I see on pages, rounded or not, I tend to leave it be. I realise that it is an MOS issue, but thought the best place to start was here. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the only reason I offered my opinion, was because of the edit warring. I apologize for comparing this issue to WP:OR, I realize now that was a mistake. But I still think that it's wrong somehow, to use BOM as a reference in an infobox, if that figure has been modified from what is listed on the website. Personally, it doesn't make much difference to me, as long as we come to a consensus about whether either (or both) ways are acceptable. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta (film)

Eyes needed to determine whether the prominent addition of the opinion of an unknown reviewer writing for a non-notable website should be removed per WP:WEIGHT or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the addition, but I'm assuming you brought it here so you don't have to continue to edit war over it. If not, please don't revert it again as I'm sure you're aware of WP:3RR. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth having a discussion about the validity of the review. All I see so far is edit warring with both sides presuming with ease that they are in the right. "Non-notable" as used by Beyond My Ken and MarnetteD is meaningless; notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. We reference film critics whose own names may not be known, but the publications are known. (For example, Justin Chang of Variety.) In addition, while World Socialist Web Site is not a mainstream publication, it appears to be an acceptable reference, as it is seen in Google Books results. The question is, in what situations do we use such political references in a film article? Someone needs to start a discussion; such dialogue cannot happen in edit summaries. A good start would be to consider if the film has any larger socialist coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would almost certainly say that the World Socialist Web Site isn't qualifed to provide film reviews, but it seems to be held in sufficient esteem to provide political insight, and the V for Vendetta (film) article actually has a section dedicated to observations of a political nature. I think the addition would serve as an effective counterpoint to the comment by David Graeber in that section (2nd paragraph), and it's just a case of making it a bit more integrated into the article. If we choose to reject Walsh's analysis I don't personally see an argument for retaining Graeber's: both seem qualified to discuss the concepts of democracy and anarchy, and they offer opposing views, so we should address both perspectives or ditch the point completely. Given the theme of the film it seems a reasonable thing to cover to me. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late addition. In the last couple weeks we suddenly had we had an uptick in additions [2], [3], [4], [5] (among several others) of WSWS reviews by Walsh so, along with notability I had COI and selfpromotion concerns. I now note that most of the reviews were added by a different editor than the one editing on V for V. While I don't think the reviews on their own merit inclusion if Erik, Betty or any other editors can find ways to include them in the articles with better context then I will be glad to have any of the removals reversed. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with much of what Erik and Betty Logan have to say, but add that Walsh is certainly qualified to write film reviews: he covers plenty of film festivals, and often interviews film makers. In the last five minutes looking at their own page I see interviews with Jem Cohen, Bryan Wizemann, five directors from different countries at the Toronto film festival, Mahdi Fleifel and Patrick Campbell, Ken Loach, Woo Ming-jin, and Asli Özge. As to notability I also see him cited in various books, a few odd journals or articles, and ironically in one instance by The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International. I can't see any basis for systematically removing Walsh's commentaries from wikipedia, and think that kind of project would be highly inappropriate. -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful that notability is not the standard for inclusion in an article. Most of the sentences in articles are not notable by themselves. Notability is the standard for inclusion of an article in WP. The articles are composed of mostly non-notable facts that are drawn from reliable sources. I believe reliability is the standard in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Erik and Betty are only discussing the site in relation to the V for Vendetta article and the political nature of that film. You should note that Betty states "World Socialist Web Site isn't qualified to provide film reviews" also the mention of the site in Journals like the C&HSI has no relation to any film criticism. MarnetteD | Talk 21:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I should retract that remark, since I did a search on "David Walsh" at RT (our acid test) and didn't get a hit. However, a search of the publications list reveals that the WSWS is among the surveyed publications, and Walsh is included among the critics: [6]. I don't know why it didn't come up in the critic search I did, but regardless, if Walsh and his publication are good enough for RT then they should be good enough for us. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Additionally, art criticism does involve some level of criticism, and as far as I can tell nobody here is disputing any facts. What fact from Walsh's review, and quoted on the V article, is contested? Otherwise it seems clear that presenting Walsh's political critique, for a political film, is helpful to readers. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that we need to cover more, but I just searched the WSWS site for Walsh's interviews, and rather than write out the list, I'll just post the link here. Note that not all interviews are with directors... one is with Olivier Besancenot, and another with historian James M. McPherson (I'd strongly recommend Battle Cry of Freedom to anyone interested in the civil war). -Darouet (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created new article Steve Anderson (director)

I've created a new article on the film director, Steve Anderson (director).

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be welcomed, at Talk:Steve Anderson (director). — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating redirects to future films.

User:Captain_Assassin! has been busy creating redirects to films that have yet to enter production, in some cases redirecting to actors who may or may not be in the film, with the targets not including any information about said film. How do we feel about this? See Cleo (film), The Golden Tux, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can only justify a redirect to another article if the subject of the first is mentioned on the other article, with citations backing it up. Preferably, if the other page has a section on the film, direct it there. I don't think redirecting to actors is a good plan, only directors, maybe writers, and perhaps producers. Other examples of a good use would be Interstellar that, until recently, redirected to Kip Thorne, whose work was the basis for the script. However, that situation is, as with redirecting to other articles, reliant on strong references proving that it's the place to be.  drewmunn  talk  11:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've popped something on the user's talk page - they seem to have stopped for now. What's the best way to go about deleting these? I thought about csd-g8, but probably not appropriate... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stopped for some other reason but there is a thing that if the film project goes to someone other actor or director, we can redirect it to that article, simple method to go. I've seen this.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as drew says above, ONLY if there is sourced information regarding the film at the target, and no redirects to actors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this a while ago, and an admin resolved it, give me a sec and I'll find out how...  drewmunn  talk  12:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, he moved the redirect to the target page without leaving a redirect, and reinstated any lost content on the target page. A bit of a pain, really. It may be easier to redirect to a relevant disambiguation page for now (if that's acceptable).  drewmunn  talk  12:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of them can just be deleted outright. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to a previous attempt, redirects aren't applicable for speedy delete, so it'd have to be the long process (or a helpful admin on hand).  drewmunn  talk  12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any admins here at the project? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few at least, MichaelQSchmidt being one of them.  drewmunn  talk  12:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've CSD-R3 some of them, some I have redirected elsewhere if appropriate. Still more to go though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating redirects FOR future films

  • Per POLICY it IS okay to speak about sourcable future events (such as planned films) somewhere even if they do not yet per guideline merit their own independent article. So yes, in order to serve this project and its readers, and IF the proposed target has sourced information about the redirected topic, a redirect to a sensible target is fine. However, as a sourced topic might be properly mentioned withing several different related articles, such as production company, producer, director, writer, an/or main cast, we discuss and determine on a case-by-case basis just which potential redirect is best. IE: a redirect to an actor could be okay if the totality of available news coverage centers around that actor and his relationship to that film. Same for directors, writers, or producers. IF the bulk of early coverage is mostly in relationship to a particular director, writers, or producer, such may be worth considering as a possible target. What must be remembered is primary notability guideline. There must be enough coverage of a planned film so that the redirect target can itself contain enough information to inform our readers of the redirected topic and likely merit a proper WP:SPINOUT when an individual target is merited. So to whomsoever wishes to create such a redirect, please do not do so unless the target contains sourced information to serve our readers. Before anyone deletes such a redirect, please notify and give the creator of it the opportunity to include and source information at the target. If after notification, the target still does not speak toward the redirected topic, THEN we might propose such for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the redirects in question had no information at the target, and I have successfully R3d a lot of them. Others I have amended to redirect to somewhere more suitable, and have left the ones where there was information at the target. Not necessarily good information, but have given the benefit of the doubt in those cases. There are others still to be removed mind you... --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not ask the creator to include information before R3d-ing, I do hope you tell him that after including sourced information a return of those redirects would be worth considering. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I discussed on his talk page before removal that any redirect he created would need to point to an article that included sourced information at the target. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Super. I hope he realizes that a valid redlink in some articles encourages new article far better than does a redirect. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dot the I

Are we satisfied that the closing admin made the right decision on this move review? I don't think I am... Have left something on the closing admin's talk page... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Sorry to be a pain, but someone's created Mission: Impossible 5 (movie) and it needs serious work (possible deletion). Anyone have any views on what the best course of action. I'd move it to the correct location, but don't want to if we're just going to delete it.  drewmunn  talk  16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It fails notability so I have redirected it to Mission: Impossible 5 (movie)#Fifth film. Once principal photography begins it can be revived. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Giant genre discussion

Hi. There's a genre discussion regarding the use of The Iron Giant's lead section over at Talk:The Iron Giant#Genres in the lead. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it or Is it?

In the lead sentence for lost films (ones that we're sure are definitely lost because a reliable source says so), should the film be referred to in the present or past tense? WP:FILMLEAD only deals with a work that still (presumably) exists. Pinkadelica♣ 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it still is a film, just lost into the ether. Things that are lost still exist (or do they?), and can still be found; see the Doctor Who missing episodes, some of which have turned up even when BBC believe all copies to be lost. As such, I personally believe "is" to be technically correct.  drewmunn  talk  08:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TENSE. Films are works of fiction, and as per WP:TENSE - "Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, it doesn't cease being a work of fiction because they lose the reels...  drewmunn  talk  09:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To note, be careful to mix up the tense one would present the narrative, and the tense used in WP on the film itself. A film's plot should always be in the present tense, even if the film was cancelled (past tense in article) and we only have basic details of what that plot would have been (present tense). --MASEM (t) 13:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the part about tense regarding the plot (I rarely write those because I'm terrible at it) but I was under the assumption that if something no longer exists, we refer to it in past tense - work of fiction or not. The story/plot exists but the film itself is gone. Example - Saved from the Titanic - as a newbie editor, I changed "was" to "is" in the lead paragraph (because a film is always a film, yeah?) and was promptly reverted. It still says "was" and it's a GA soooo...WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I guess. Regardless, thanks for the insight. It's very much appreciated. I'm now off to undue five years worth of mistakes. Pinkadelica♣ 01:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say when talking about the film as a concept you would use "is", but the film as a physical product you should use "was". As in "Foo is John Smith's only lost film. The film was destroyed in a fire." Etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, perhaps better not to refer to the destruction of the film but the prints or negatives, to keep the distinction. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that keeps it simpler in practice. My example of usage was just for illustration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten tomatoes and adjusted scores

I don't know much about the RT site to be honest - what do others know about "adjusted scores"? I'm referencing this edit on the article Mud. Does anyone else think a score of 105.184% doesn't feel right, despite the source from their website? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is part of the website's Summer Movie Scorecard 2013 in which it compares movies with each other. Basically, Mud is a lot better than other recent summer films. I think it is just the website's way to re-publish the scores, kind of like their "Best <Genre> Movies" lists. I would say not to include it because it is not valuable comparing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be included. There are severe notability issues, and the score is scaled against whatever it is compared against: if you don't provide that context then the score is meaningless. It also goes against the spirit of our MOS to limit RT scores to just the "All critics" rating. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up on this, I'm one of several editors opposed to the prominent use (really, any use) of RT in 'Reception' sections. Because it's derivative of other RS, with no clear policy about scoring of unscored or ambiguous reviews, is authored anonymously, and is of low usability on films prior to 2000, it has always seemed to me to be a pretty useless source. Have a look at the Talk archives here for discussion of RT and Metacritic, some of it rather heated (grin). --Lexein (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lexein is referring to this discussion. I disagree with what he says about "several editors", though. tongue Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, but no thanks for the rest. There have been several discussions, and I'm not the only editor opposed to the prominent promotion of a commercial website presented as opinion leader for nearly all new movie release reception sections on Wikipedia. That's what putting RT and MC numbers first in reception sections does: promotes them. IMHO the practice is unseemly: such placement undermines the importance and analysis of individual reviewers, and implies that it is even possible that pretend-objective-but-really-quite-subjective numbers mean more than thoughtful essays on how well a film is done as judged by film criteria. The only time RT and MC are actually accurate and even agree are when critical opinion on a film is nearly unanimous. Back to my key point: this encyclopedia does not, and should not promote commercial ventures. WikiProject Film is no exception. Film reception sections should not deprecate insightful analysis, or promote sports-like obsession with "stats", especially when such "stats" are so deeply dubious. --Lexein (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lexein, what I mean is that there is no actual group of editors fighting to repeal the use of RT and MC in articles. We are not the only ones who reference either RT or MC when it comes to a film; various periodicals do the same. Any kind of promotion is incidental. I do agree that film reception sections should not leave out insightful analysis. Some films, like Apocalypse Now, can do without RT and MC because of both its age (preceding the Internet) and the amount of retrospective coverage. For run-of-the-mill films, though, RT and MC are considered appropriate channels for reporting the consensus. Additional context always helps; I try to reference the trade papers (Variety or The Hollywood Reporter) for how critics as a whole responded to a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the verbal summary, though? That is often picked up, yet its origin is just about unknown. I don't consider it reliable but it's often used even when there are critics to quote. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the Rotten Tomatoes staff writes the summary. Essentially, the same people who assess the accumulated reviews and determine scores. I've referenced such summaries myself (along with as much else I can). Such summaries are an attempt to report the general gist of the reviews, like some periodicals (the trade papers and Los Angeles Times comes to mind) try to do as well. Any kind of summarizing like that is bound to be subjective. Rotten Tomatoes probably derives more from their statistics than periodicals do. We can discuss summaries more in depth, though, to see what the consensus here is. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is every reliable source (newspaper, magazine, web site, etc) not a commercial venture? --SubSeven (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sources are commercial, sure. But the repeated deliberate, elaborate quoting and citing of one source (RT and/or MC) at the top of nearly every Reception section is IMHO grossly undue emphasis and promotional. A few IP and registered editors regularly push RT and MC to the top of every Reception section: I've ended up in revert wars over it, only to be shouted down by that minority. --Lexein (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

screenshots

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 10 where many screenshots are up for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox cast list

I know this has been discussed before, but recent edits indicate that this needs to be discussed again. Over at Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Corvoe altered the infobox cast list, with the edit summary "Changing infobox cast list per the infobox film template". He made similar changes in various other articles. SchroCat reverted, and Corvoe reverted back. Today, I reverted to the earlier version, my basic argument being that the actor's names are visible on the poster, even without enlarging it, and common sense seems to dictate that this is the main cast. The names Corvoe added are not even visible on the poster, even if enlarged, so their addition seems dubious to me. I fully believe that Corvoe is acting in good faith, I simply feel that these edits defy common sense, and can lead to confusion. If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list? I know, speaking only for myself, that this has been a source of confusion in the past. Do we need to consider altering the infobox film template? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This happened with Fight Club too. The editor added Jared Leto and Meat Loaf to the "Starring" field, where I think it is perfect to just mention Pitt, Norton, and Bonham Carter. It looks like the edits are based on the film infobox guidelines' recommendation to use the billing block. That may apply more to films with larger casts, but I agree that such application needs a dose of common sense. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the template. Truth be told, I agree that the idea of basing it on the billing block seems sort of off when it comes to cast members being listed above (or below) the title, but I've been reverted and told that I was wrong for the same things I'm now reverting. The names I added are visible on a higher resolution version of the same poster used in the article. I'm not trying to be a pig headed policy thumper, I'm just operating under the assumption that most people aren't aware that the billing block is where the cast list is technically supposed to originate from. I'll stop making these edits until this is resolved. I'm actually on your side in the matter, Jacobite. I think you said it best: "If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list?" I would definitely agree that that makes sense. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way back when, I think there was a suggestion that we include names above the title in the billing block unless there are no names above the title. Maybe that would be an improvement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion regarding Spider-Man (1977 film) in navbox

Does anyone have any input regarding the inclusion of Spider-Man (1977 film) in Template:Marvel Comics films‎ at Template talk:Marvel Comics films‎#1977 Spider-man film? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of film series articles

Is there a guideline for the notability of film series articles? In the past, I've heard there should be at least three films, but I cannot find anything to back that up. In particular I am referring to the notability of DC Cinematic Universe. To complicate things, I have only found a handful of sources that actually uses the term, and nothing official.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we generally only have "series" articles for three or more films, as there have been discussions in the past as to whether two films constitute a "series" or not, but we have had overview articles for Kill Bill, etc. However, "DC Cinematic Universe" would fail WP:GNG anyway - it seems to just be WP:SYNTHESIS based on there being a "Marvel Cinematic Universe". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a strange blur around the 2/3 mark, although I'm of the opinion that 2 films is more of a film/sequel than a straight out series. Anyway, no DC universe currently exists. The contents of that article just lists every single film ever to have any DC in it. A universe is when films take place in the same continuity. As it is, each film (or set thereof) currently exists in its own bubble, so the article's factually incorrect.  drewmunn  talk  14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My personal rule of thumb is three films, which is why I argued to "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Santa Clause (series) and to "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (film series). I would say it is too soon to have a DC Cinematic Universe article. The so-called fictional universe is not yet proven. We've already seen them try to make a Justice League movie a few years ago. What about having the coverage at DC Comics itself since it is involved with films, not just comic books? EDIT: Drew, that link redirects to a different article. See TriiipleThreat's referred article here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we actually try to create a guideline for film series articles? Maybe a minimum of three films but leave room for series with two films under special circumstances like those with an overabundance of reliable sources on the topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it warrants a sentence, but that's all - if a series of two is notable per WP:GNG, then we shouldn't be legislating against it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) so that whatever we add to the guidelines can be reviewed on its talk page. I've started a discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Feedback

I realize this isn't in regards to a film article, but I believe some of the same principles that were used as a basis for WP:FILMRATING may apply at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. I've asked for feedback at WT:TV and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television without results thus far. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film award "footer templates"

I notice that a lot of film awards have navigational succession templates (for want of a better word) that link to other templates.[7] I've nominated a few for deletion. Hopefully you'll see what I mean. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film editors and civility

All, I have been concerned about the conduct of Wikipedia editors of film articles, either toward each other or toward novices. I ask you to remember that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is, "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility." This is grounded in policy as seen at Wikipedia:Civility, and I reiterate the "nutshell" version here:

  • Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users.
  • Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.
  • Try to make coherent and concise arguments rather than simply attacking others, and encourage others to do the same.

Many of us here are well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially as they pertain to film. It can be a chore to reiterate our knowledge to new editors all the time, but in such exchanges we have the opportunity to educate or even recruit, however informally. Nor does our knowledge excuse hostile conduct toward others. I believe a lot of such interactions stem from edit warring, and edit warring is not restricted to one person. I encourage you to move slowly in such conflicts. Consider holding off on reverting even if the article is now on a "bad version" in your eyes. Try to prompt a discussion with the other editor. If that is a struggle, this talk page is always available as a place to post notifications about conflicts at individual articles. There are enough of us following this page that we can help weigh in, and I think our perspectives vary enough to avoid groupthink.

When talking to another editor, consider the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The main point for me is to "focus on content". Many of you know your policies and guidelines; reference them! Use examples. In discussions, consider a passive tone. Instead of saying "You're wrong because", say "I disagree because". Wikipedia is not a battleground; policy says, "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue." All this advice goes to editors old and new. I have seen behavior that is, quite frankly, dickish. I do not want to see new editors follow older ones in edit warring and hostile conduct. If you want to express, express positively. Tell others that you agree, or even commend them. If it is going to be negative, take a breath and re-frame your response. I hope you'll consider this. Make it part of your personal editing philosophy. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greed FA Review

Hello, I have nominated Greed for Featured Article consideration and it has been suggested to me that I notify this board about the nomination. A lot of work has gone into this article in the past year or so and I think that it is up to standards and would be great addition to the growing list of featured films (only one other silent film has been featured so far). Anyway, I am just following through on the suggestion to post a notice here. It was previously nominated a few months back but was denied based purely on no one commenting on it one way or another, which is what appears to be happening now.Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the review link. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli (2nd nomination)

Opinions are needed for the second James Berardinelli article deletion debate. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for films released in different years

Sometimes this has been an issue for page moves (Avatar, Titantic, etc), but WP:PDAB has recently become policy via this. Maybe our trusty WP:NCF should be updated to include this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we beat the village pump to the punch on this one, since we updated our guidelines to stipulate this last month. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a slight change of topic, but I've only just noticed this policy change. Would this apply to Iron Man (film), given the existence of Iron Man (1931 film) and Iron Man (1951 film)? I started a discussion about it on the article's talk page. (It is move-protected) -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. I was not sure before because I could barely find any information about Iron Man (1931 film) (other than the Grindon book I added). Since there's also Iron Man (1951 film) as well as the policy implementation, we should request a move. Someone's going to have to fix all the links, though... Erik (talk | contribs) 03:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think re-linking would be automated by now wouldn't you? It's a real disincentive to initiate page moves. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it to some other chump to fix. The main issue is that the redirects in the templates take forever to refresh once they're fixed. So currently Iron Man (film) looks like it has hundreds of pages still linking to it, despite all the templates on the 2008 article now linking to 2008. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged a requested move for the Iron Man article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes "audience interest" claims

The article for Atlas Shrugged: Part II includes the statement: "Despite not being screened to critics in advance, the film was noted for positive audience interest." The source given for the claim is an article on the Fox News website. That article reports, "despite its review moratorium, Part II has managed to pique the interest of the general public, with a 72 percent audience interest rating on Rotten Tomatoes." So since RT is the source of the claim that Fox reports, I removed it from the article noting in my edit summary that the RT "audience interest" information is not considered usable according to the Film MOS. Another editor reverted my edit saying that since Fox News is being used as the source, and not RT directly that it can be included. This makes no sense to me, so I posted on the talk page and mentioned I would ask here for input. Comments on the subject can be made here: Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part II. Thanks 99.192.73.242 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed. This would be the same if FOX News was stating that "According to IMDb, Russel Crow is set to star as Hercules in the new movie". We know that IMDb is not a reliable source, and the fact that the writer of the article doesn't care is not our problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, Bignole. Could you put your comment on Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part II? A second editor has already commented there supporting inclusion of the audience claim. Thanks. 99.192.73.242 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=560220708"