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 GoneIn60 (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 9 January 2016 (→‎Summaries of critical response - revisited - again - revisited: cmt). 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

(4 more...)

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Aviation film task force

Any interest in creating this task force? The following are examples of authoritative sources that can be exploited in writing articles on this genre.

  • Carlson, Mark. Flying on Film: A Century of Aviation in the Movies, 1912–2012. Duncan, Oklahoma: BearManor Media, 2012. ISBN 978-1-59393-219-0.
  • Dolan, Edward F. Jr. Hollywood Goes to War. London: Bison Books, 1985. ISBN 0-86124-229-7.
  • Farmer, James H. Broken Wings: Hollywood's Air Crashes. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Pub Co., 1984. ISBN 978-0-933126-46-6.
  • Farmer, James H. Celluloid Wings: The Impact of Movies on Aviation. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: Tab Books Inc., 1984. ISBN 978-0-83062-374-7.
  • Farmer, James H. "Filming the Right Stuff." Air Classics, Part One: Vol. 19, No. 12, December 1983, Part Two: Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1984.
  • Harwick, Jack and Ed Schnepf. "A Buff's Guide to Aviation Movies". Air Progress Aviation, Volume 7, No. 1, Spring 1983.
  • Mackenzie, S.P. British War Films, 1939-1945: The Cinema and the Services. London: Continuum, 2001. ISBN 978-1-85285-586-4.
  • Murphy, Robert. British Cinema and the Second World War. London: Continuum, 2000. ISBN 978-0-82645-139-2.
  • Orriss, Bruce W. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War I. Los Angeles: Aero Associates, 2013. ISBN 978-0-692-02004-3.
  • Orriss, Bruce. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War II. Hawthorne, California: Aero Associates Inc., 1984. ISBN 0-9613088-0-X.
  • Parish, James Robert. The Great Combat Pictures: Twentieth-Century Warfare on the Screen. Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1990. ISBN 978-0810823150.
  • Pendo, Stephen. Aviation in the Cinema. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1985. ISBN 0-8-1081-746-2.
  • Silke, James R. "Fists, Dames & Wings." Air Progress Aviation Review, Volume 4, No. 4, October 1980.
  • Wynne, H. Hugh. The Motion Picture Stunt Pilots and Hollywood's Classic Aviation Movies. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., 1987. ISBN 0-933126-85-9. FWiW Bzuk (talk)

YYYY in film

Hey all, I'm no expert on tables, but I don't believe that the "YYYY in film" articles (2015 in film, for instance) are in compliance with MOS:DTT as the large, multiple rowspans, and vertical text, do not facilitate accessibility for visually impaired users who employ screen readers. I've started converting some of the future articles (2020 in film, 2019 in film, 2018 in film) to a simpler format, which has two additional benefits: 1) They don't require casual editors to be savants at table formatting to add and subtract films. In my experience at the Indian equivalent (ex: List of Bollywood films of 2015), it was always a nightmare to fix other editors' rowspan errors, and I'm not very good at table formatting. Confuses the crap out of me. 2) By using {{DTS}}, all the tables can be made sortable, which is more useful if you're interested in listing by studio, or genre. I expect that my changes will ruffle some feathers, because "that's the way we've always done it, and what about the gorgeous colors?!" so I thought it wise to voice my perspective here before moving onto the beefier articles like 2016 and 2015. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a real world example of the clean-up required. IP editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to clean-up the rowspan crap. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fed 2015 in film through Fangs screenreader emulator (available as an add-on for Firefox) and I can confirm there are problems. The vertical "January" is spelt out in letters J-A-N-U-A-R-Y, rather than as the word "January". As for the row-spanning, this renders fine of a technical level, but because the rows haven't been "scoped" a screen reader does not know when each new row starts (this can be easily fixed though). On that note I think this is a general improvement. Date spanning in the first column should be ok provided each row is appropriately scoped. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My head is swimming a little, Betty. Tables make me woozy. Can I trouble you to provide me with a general formatting example for how to get the rows properly scoped, so that if I go through with the conversion it's in keeping with your vision? I'm also unclear if you think it's wise to go with the simpler formatting style. As noted, there are issues with people not knowing how to deal with rowspans when they add and subtract films, so the simpler version seems the no-brainer to me. Happy new year! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on "edit" at List of most expensive films you can see an example of "scoping" in the first table. That should address any potential problems for screen-readers. Whether you decide to rowspan something or not is a trade off between simplicity and redundancy, how active the article is etc. If you have to fix it every other day then it is probably not worth the hassle, but ultimately I think that is an editorial decision. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to look at what is best!!

The project needs to look at what is best for our readers... deleting all links/template to movies/actors and leaving 30 awards templates on actor pages does not help our readers. Project need sit down and fix the spam of templates without going out of there way to imped real navigation. Content editors keep bring this up again again again...they what to know why there work is being orphaned from templates. Dont be the project that people use as an example of what not to do WP:ADVICEPAGE!! Is this project sure that an article like Robert De Niro is better off with hundreds of links to unrelated articles over his films? Do our readers want to find related articles or unrelated articles...to most this setup seem backwards and counter productive. -- Moxy (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talkin' to me....? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've had a quick look at the De Niro article and I assume your concern is the dozen or more templates at the foot of the article. These are all collapsed by default, so the readers aren't drawn to them in the first place. Now the harsh truth is that templates are here to stay. They're part of WP's fabric, as are categories and lists. Maybe there is an excess of them on De Niro's page, but where to start? You could say that some of those awards aren't worthy of a template, but which one? I don't know how "good" the Boston Society of Film Critics is, for example, compared with other film awards. You could start an RfC on that template to remove it. But I'll tell you what will happen. You'll get some editors defending it to their grave. You'll get another set of editors wanting it to be deleted. This will drag on for at least 30 days. Everyone will waste vast amounts of time and an admin will come along and close it as no consensus. Don't believe me? Go ahead and see. And the salt in the wound that only half-a-dozen or so people will probably contribute to get a (non)-"consensus". On the other hand, as De Niro isn't a Film, maybe this is best raised with the actor project... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is being missed here...lets start over. We have editors and projects wondering why they cant link actors and film articles they work on in nav templates. Instead they see useless awards templates spammed all over. We have editors going out of there way orphaning 2 types of articles from navigational aids. Those that work on these article have the same right as anyone to have there articles seen by people in navboxes. Wikiprojects are here to help people ...not go out of there way to imped navigation in this manner. The project needs to sit down and tlak about there odd POV that films (and actors) can never be linked in navboxes....over spamming award templates all over. To use De Niro again as an example....no where on his page can someone find all his movies....yet we can find links to thousands of other actors. Does this sound like a good thing? Got to understand people navigate wiki in certain ways ....one of those ways is to skip to the bottom to find all the related links.....but this is not true for 2 types of articles...because all navigational links are being removed all over. Project is getting a bad rep!-- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those looking for a list of all of De Niro's movies could go to the Filmography section of his article, which would then direct the reader to Robert De Niro filmography. This seems pretty clear-cut to me. I'd like specific examples of what you see as a problem and what you would like changed, as this issue, at least, doesn't appear to me to be an issue. DonIago (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear here you think its best someone has to go to a secondary page to see the films...over a simple navboxe? Yet thousands of unrelated actors linked in navboxes is ok? -- Moxy (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you suggesting we should create filmography templates for actors and spam film articles with them? Because ultimately we would have dozens upon dozens of actor templates stacked up at the bottom of film articles. This is a hyperlinked encylopedia; readers are more than capable of following a link or two to get to the information they want without us shoving a ton of unwanted template code down their (possibly metered) internet connections. As for the award templates currently spamming De Niro's article, then yes they should go or at least be limited to award articles. Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not what i am saying....not suggesting making new ones ..wondering why all films are being orphaned in navigational aids even in templates by other projects that are not devoted to films. And fix the spamming of awards templates. -- Moxy (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"thousands of unrelated actors linked in navboxes" - Can you please provide an example of this? DonIago (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago: He's referring to the awards templates. If De Niro won a specific award, the template is like, see who else won this award! I find this unnecessary (too many "tangentially related" links) when it could just be kept to a link to the awards page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay; thanks for clarifying. Your approach makes sense to me. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Project is getting a bad rep!" - Can you supply some proof of this? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Love project members to join the conversations Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance -- Moxy (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a "no". Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Denial will not solve anything....this is the big problem ...this attitude that this project owns all templates and does not care about what other projects and editors think....thus is why we have a guideline for just this -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to see the problem here; although at times navboxes can seem over-loaded, they don't interfere with the article itself in any way; they don't affect or prevent any content or link usage throughout the article proper. Any other issue you feel the article, or any other, has is something separate and unrelated to how many navboxes it contains. GRAPPLE X 10:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So lets look at just one example....we have Template:Madonna that Wikipedia:WikiProject Madonna took the time to make...that is stable for a decade. Then out of the blue because of this projects odd POV we have an edit war removing any of the films she is in.....as seen on the talk page its a problem to those that work on these articles....why would anyone orphan articles from a template in this manner as its counter-productive. Dont want templates devoted to films fine....but dont go around removing every link all over.....its pissing people off!!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're still pissed off from going against consensus from May 2015? Well, as long as you don't hold a grudge... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good example of what we are dealing with...the fact a council members has to tell editors what is happening is the problem!....happens alot! I said this just recently (suggesting its best to just let it be) .....again a problem that simply should not be there. Could we get some more feed back here on any solutions or a way forward without being a smart aleck . Questions to consider - Does this project really think its a good idea to remove all films (now spread to cast and crew) from all navigational aids. Does this project think this type of interaction with other projects and editors is a good thing or detrimental? Should there be an RfC to see if the community agrees that a certain type of article can be banned from navboxes in this manner? - Moxy (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens

There is an RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding if a title including "Episode VII" should be considered an alternate title to the film. The RfC can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotten Tomatoes "Certified Fresh" designation at the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#"Certified Fresh" designation. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water director credit

Hey all, does anyone have any info about who was credited onscreen as the director of The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water? AFI says that Paul Tibbitt was the director, but the kids keep adding Mike Mitchell, who apparently directed the live-action sequences. Obviously we shouldn't be fabricating credits for people, and by comparison, we normally don't credit second unit directors. If Mitchell received an opening credit as one of the directors, that should be included. It's just not clear from my research whether that's the case or not. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, this was brought up last February here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 celebrity photo hack information at the Jennifer Lawrence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#Scandal. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has now become a WP:RfC; see Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#How best to include the material?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional editors requested

At Under Siege, we have a couple of IP editors adding material to the Plot that I don't think is particularly helpful, but so far I'm the only reverting editor. A Talk page discussion has been initiated. Thanks for the assist! DonIago (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review boxes

Why don't we use review boxes in film articles, collecting critical ratings, like we do for game and music articles? I'm not necessarily saying we should, just curious. Popcornduff (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... that's actually not a bad idea. I think that part of what could stand in the way of this is that some film review websites don't use ranking scales (star ratings, percentage scores, etc), but enough do that there could be a good justification for an infobox. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We used to have a template for such a thing, and it may still exist. I believe it fell out of favor because posting just a score does not give ample context and in reality is not saying much about the film. We generally prefer prose and having a review box encourages a gross abandonment of that. BOVINEBOY2008 12:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For video games, there are more universal reviewers that makes it easier to have a box. If the same applies for film articles, then that would be good. But each film is treated differently and will often have different reviewers. Lucia Black (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also because we try and steer people away from just putting in "3 out of 4 stars" or something similar. Many viewers don't give ratings period anyway. We want critical reception sections to focus on prose, summarized content, not grab and paste quotes to sensationalize films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
for films it's a different culture. I do know we want people to focus on prose over stats. But in the end Its there to give a general idea. Especially finding out which ones we're negative. And which ones were positive. A lot of other types of media do this. But I understand why film project doesn't do it. Lucia Black (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Cinema

Please see these AfD discussions - one and two. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award for Technical Achievement

Do we have list of all winners and nominees? --Jobu0101 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny gets a starring credit in Space Jam?

Anyone have a thought about this?. Every time Bugs Bunny's name is removed from the Starring parameter of the infobox at Space Jam, someone invariably re-adds it, so I'm going to temporarily assume the problem is my narrow thinking. Not sure if this is a legit poster to use, but here you go. I'm drawing the line at Daffy Duck though! He's not even on the frickin' poster! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Bugs is credited as an actor, rather than a character, in the film's credits, the sure, keep him in there. But if not, then don't. The Bugs Bunny name being used in advertising is no different than throwing a T-Rex into a trailer for The Lost World, but Mr. Rex doesn't get a credit for that one. GRAPPLE X 23:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only know what the poster says. No idea about the crawling credits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's fictional. He doesn't get listed. It's a marketing gimmick, not an actual credit. You cannot credit a fictional character in that way. It's not like he's part of the SAG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, crediting him is nonsense. Popcornduff (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BIGNOLE and Popcornduff. A cartoon character is not an actor. And Wikipedia pages on feature-length Disney movies like Fantasia or The Three Caballeros do not credit Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck as actors. - Xenxax (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, but on the other hand, we're suddenly gonna fault Bugs Bunny because Mickey and Donald didn't have the stones to find a great agent?! Just sayin'... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the history of this issue or this discussion before editing before removing Bugs. (The IP made a "mistake" (?) in arguing that "Donald Kaufman" was nominated for an Oscar for Adaptation. Not true, that was Donald Kaufman, not "Donald Kaufman".)

Anyway, yeah, it's a marketing gimmick. Bugs cannot perform, receive a paycheck, eat carrots, &ct., so it cannot be a featured "performer". - SummerPhDv2.0 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is also an issue at a few other articles (e.g. Looney Tunes: Back in Action). - SummerPhDv2.0 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a similar issue a while back about Mythbusters, and whether or not the inanimate crash test dummy they dubbed "Buster", should be listed as a cast member in the Wikipedia article, on the basis that The Discovery Channel website referred to Buster as a cast member. I was on the side of exclusion because inclusion seemed to defy common sense, but I could see where the inclusionists were coming from: that we should be going by what reliable sources say. Gah. Still seems silly to me for an encyclopedia to credit a cartoon rabbit as a star. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we want reliable sources. However, we prefer independent reliable sources. A couple of years back, we had an album being promoted as if it were a movie: "scenes" not "songs", "co-stars" not "featuring", etc. We decided (somewhere...) that no, it is an album with songs and such.
Dependent reliable sources will often state that a religious figure is still alive long after independent sources say they died. Dependent reliable sources will sometimes shave a few years to a decade off an actress's age compared to independent sources. Yes, kids' movies, TV shows, songs, books, etc. are often credited as being the work of fictional characters. Dependent reliable sources will say lots of things that independent reliable sources say simply are not so. How many self-proclaimed "innocent" murderers do we have? How about perpetual motion machines? Bugs Bunny is an idea. Ideas cannot act. Ideas cannot "star". - SummerPhDv2.0 03:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed similar credits at Looney Tunes: Back in Action, with an edit summary and talk page comment inviting discussion here. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete non-issue. Fictional characters have been being credited throughout the history of cinema. I also can't but notice that Summer "PhD" removes all of her ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments she made while presenting this argument here, all the while saying I'm an IP who made a mistake? What mistake? Or was the fictional Donald Kaufman not only not credited with co-writing Adaptation but also not nominated for a real Academy Award? (Spoiler alert: He was). There never has been a rule that fictional characters cannot be credited. Aside from the dispositive fact that Bugs Bunny is listed above the title on the official poster (where the stars of the movie go), there is a long history of other fake names being used and discussed like the real stars, writers, directors, or editors of films. Not just psuedonyms like Alan Smithee but full-fledged alter-egos and fake personae. They get nominated, they get accolades, they get credit and sometimes they get unioncards. Also how often are dogs, horses and bears credited? They're listed in the cast, lots of things are listed in the cast. Sergeant Murphy comes to mind as the horse is credited. The point is: Never has there ever been a rule that only living people can be credited, it's up to the producers or director of each film to distribute the credit and for Wikipedia to neutrally report it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What "ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments" are you talking about?
I see no personal attacks.
Wayne Knight is not a straw man. We credit him (the actor) not "Stanley 'Stan' Podolak" (the role). Similarly, the actor is Billy West. "Bugs Bunny" is a role, as independent reliable sources state. Bugs Bunny was not paid for performing ("starring" in this film). Billy West was, because he performed in the film.
Strawman arguments: We are talking about who we should credit as starring in a film. I say we credit actors, not roles, for films. You say the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences accepted a nomination for a writer. We credit actors. They nominate a writer. Which one discusses who we credit?
Yes, Terry (a real dog) played Toto in the Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Higgins (a real dog) played Benji in Benji (1974 film). Pal played Lassie, Bamboo Harvester played Mister Ed and Bruno the Bear played Gentle Ben. Real animals, not fictional ones.
Yes, primary sources sometimes say absurd things about themselves. Sometimes they are non-neutral or promotional. ("Billy West" on a poster doesn't sell tickets.) Wikipedia prefers independent reliable sources. (I hesitate to think what we would say about OxiClean if we preferred the company's statements over independent reliable sources.) - SummerPhDv2.0 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't know how blatantly you are making strawman arguments and false equivalencies is why I call you a "PhD". Textbook keyboard warrior tactic. JesseRafe (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the issue, not the editors, JesseRafe. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the film itself credit the character as a performer in its credit reel, or as a role being played? If it's the former, I'd be okay with it being listed as a credit with an inline ref explaining this; if the latter, then obviously it should only be treated as a character. For what it's worth, BFI list the film with plenty of "themselves" credits, but Bugs is just listed as a character played by Billy West (whose name, it should be said, would not sell as many tickets on a poster beside Jordan as his character's would). GRAPPLE X 14:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, independent reliable sources do not credit the fictional rabbit as an actor. Secondary sources contradict the primary source (the poster), tertiary sources agree with the secondary. Billy West was a performer in this film. Bugs Bunny is a character. "Stars" are principle performers. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're an encyclopedia, not a entertainment guide. It may be cute to credit a fictional character as a star of a film, but it is blatantly wrong to call that character an actor of the film, given that it is the voice artist (Billy West here) that gets paid to do that role. It can be mentioned in a marketing section that Bugs etc. were marketed as stars of the film, but from a fundamental basis, no, the film does not star a fictional character, regardless of what other sources say. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect targets

(Not sure if this is the best place for this discussion - please feel free to suggest an alternative venue). Following on from a recent question on WP:RD/E, would Double feature be a better redirect target than B movie for Supporting feature, Program picture, and Second feature? The double feature article contains more useful information on the basic concept of the "second feature" - the B movie article is more about B movies as a genre, rather than the structure of theatrical programmes in the twentieth century. Tevildo (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions needed on The Lobster

An editor and I disagree about The Lobster. Is it OK for a plot summary to incorporate details (names, settings etc) taken from a press release but not mentioned in the film itself? Check out the Talk page discussion. Popcornduff (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they would then require an inline reference to their source, and that source would independently need be considered reliable. A plot summary doesn't need to just recap what's seen in a linear fashion. GRAPPLE X 16:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I could definitely be wrong on this one, but hear me out. I'm OK with talking about other information/interpretations in other sections, when sourced. But it seems to me that the plot summary should only summarise the movie's plot as it is presented in the movie - rather than incorporate details given from outside the movie. Is that just me?
WP:FILMPLOT states: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." Does that not apply here? edit: oh, of course it doesn't, it's been pointed out to me that a press release itself qualifies as a primary source, not a secondary source. Still, I think there's something philosophically weird about reporting stuff that doesn't actually come up in the film itself...? Popcornduff (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if something is ambiguous it would be inappropriate to include it in the plot summary, but sometimes there are no differing perspectives and an event is strongly implied rather than shown literally on screen due to a censorship or time-saving issue. I accept it is not always clear cut but at the same time we don't need to deliberately obfuscate the plot out of some pedantic necessity; we are summarising the plot, not providing a screen captioning service. Sometimes secondary sources can be useful for clarifying a plot point provided it is not ambiguous and there are no differing interpretations. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using lower-case for the names of the characters and buildings unless they are proper nouns or explicitly named as such. For example, "David and the short-sighted woman conspire to escape and live in the city as a couple." but "David escapes the hotel and joins the Loners in the woods". This would be like Curious George and "The man with the yellow hat" which would be what the latter would have to use until the name is officially given for the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First release dates

Please see the film Honor Thy Father (film). This article is a magnet to Filipino fan-boys and sock accounts about the release date. I've had one sock blocked and another sock/SPA (User:Hollyckuhno) constantly remove/revise the release date. They have no fucking clue what they're doing. Can someone else help with this? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth pointing out WP:FILMRELEASE: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". So the domestic and festival dates both belong, though I'd favour the earliest overall if it needed to be narrowed down to one (which it doesn't). GRAPPLE X 13:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honor Thy Father was first screened in TIFF. That is true and I did not said that it isn't. But the guidelines clearly states that screenings and previews are excluded and only the earliest release date in the country the film originates (produced) should be listed in the infobox, any other release dates must be written elsewhere. Hollyckuhno (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sneak previews are excluded from the country that produced the film. Read the guidance again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're reading, because I only just above quoted your link, and it does not say that. It recommends listing (1) the earliest screening, wherever that is; and (2) the first domestic screening. That means the Toronto festival and the Philipine release. GRAPPLE X 14:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here - "...and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". IE, excluding sneak previews in the country that produced the film. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then I would not argue anymore. I clearly misread the guideline. But I can't figure out why Lugnuts is so pissed with me instead of actually helping other Wikipedians to be better. Thanks. Hollyckuhno (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe you are a sock puppet and treat your edits with the contempt they deserve. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent problem with leads

WP:LEAD It seems like the lead section in many film articles is as brief and cryptic as possible. I can't tell you how many times I have come across articles with leads like, "X is a 1995 film about a man with a car. Y starred as the man. It grossed $Z." This is barely an exaggeration. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just a product of trying to write many articles about many films in a short time but I figured I would alert members of this project. The one section that virtually every film article has is "Plot" and two to four sentences describing what happens is entirely appropriate for summarizing the article. I get the impression (although this is unfounded speculation) that these obscure leads are to avoid "spoilers" which is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's two types of editors - new article creators and those that add content to existing articles. I'm firmly in the former, and loathe writing plots for films. I can only think of two articles I've added the plot to out of the thousands of stubs I've started (one and two for those who care). I don't think it's an attempt to hide spoilers, just that there's not that many editors who spend that much time fleshing out plot sections (excluding the obvious blockbuster films, of course). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Writing accurate, guideline-appropriate plot sections is the worst; so doing it for any given article without having any real desire to greatly expand the whole article is a pain. This, coupled with the fact that most editors aren't overly concerned with an appropriate lead section (hence the fact that there's an ongoing contest to improve leads across the site), and you have your answer. GRAPPLE X 09:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise writing plot summaries was so loathed. Can't get enough of it, myself. Popcornduff (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of writing plot summaries myself. I see them re-written constantly because there are probably infinite ways to describe what happened in a film. In contrast, the other sections are not as heavily re-written. I used to avoid for a template that warned editors that the plot summary would be in flux and to focus on other sections, but I doubt that mattered.
Koavf, I think I know the kind of articles you mean, though I don't recall the last one I saw. I doubt that such light lead sections are on purpose. Any article that gets concerted effort means the key editors will summarize details into a lead section. If different editors contribute to an article over time (from being a stub), then someone may not necessarily have come by and said, we need to summarize all this upfront. Do you have an example to share? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: Sure. This revision of The Gallows only says "The Gallows is a 2015 American found footage supernatural horror film..." in terms of plot. Of course writing a well-formed article is a challenge for any subject but it seems positively rampant for films in particular. I agree that summarizing the plot of a film can be written several ways and for something even borderline experimental, you can magnify those options. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find writing a lead to be more tedious than a plot. If I already spent hours writing, summarizing, and copy editing an article, I generally don't want to restart that whole process for the lead. However, I've been trying to work on improving leads in film articles. I don't mind minimalist leads, but I agree they should have at least some kind of plot summary. I try to add this if it's missing. More often, it seems like I end up trimming trivia and synthesis from leads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "List of Chinese films"

The page List of Chinese films of 2015 writes:

...list of Chinese films first released in 2015.

However within the article, we seem to see the sub-condition "released in China" applied to the film listings. For example, "Our Times", a Chinese film that is not released in China (it's released in Taiwan) is not included in the film listings.

Should "list of Chinese films" be renamed to "list of films in China"?

I think the intro needs changing, rather than the list renaming. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than renaming it, I'd be of the opinion that we don't need lists of films by countries in which they were released. Especially if they're broken up by year, in which case we're looking at over a thousand lists per decade, for information that's not really useful. Even lists of films produced in a country seem redundant to me, given that they serve as little more than a glorified category page. GRAPPLE X 12:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions requested on Film Award Notability

A question has come up regarding the notability of a film reward. Please see Talk:List of accolades received by Inside Out section Movies for Grownups Awards.100.36.87.229 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries of critical response - revisited - again - revisited

The concept of summarizing critical response has been a thorn in my side for a while and I've bellyached publicly on the side of "don't" summarize, especially when the aggregators are summaries themselves. As I've whined before, I patrol Indian cinema articles a great deal, because they're so problematic and prone to POV fluff. Often I'll seen an article cite a single source like at Kaththi: "Kaththi opened to mostly positive reviews from critics.[1]" or Irandaam Ulagam: "The film received mixede [sic] reviews from critics.[2]" and perhaps each summary is supported by a few selected reviews. Is that all it takes to substantiate the general critical response of a film to satisfy MOS:FILM? One ref? Two refs? The MOS says: The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. If IBT is a reliable source (and it generally is considered such) do we post as fact this subjective evaluation? That seems like WP:UNDUE to me, especially when RT and Metacritic, sources that take a clear analytical approach to critical response are not always in alignment. How many subjective summaries are satisfactory to meet the MOS? Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting a summary statement with citations to individual reviews is synthesys/original research, so no number of citations is appropriate. It has to be cited to a reliable source that summarizes the film's reception (positive, acclaimed, mixed, etc), and it should be presented as such in the article; A summary statement of "opened to mostly positive reviews from critics" should be cited to a RS saying that the subject opened to "mostly positive" reviews. Lapadite (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple reliable sources say the same thing, then any of them can be referenced with the summary paraphrased and without the need for in-text attribution. If the sources are saying different things, then I have referenced different summaries, using in-text attribution to say who reported what. WP:DUE could be applied to go with one summary (without the need for in-text attribution) if most sources agree on how critics received the film, even though there may be one or two sources that digress. But how many sources to be considered is probably up to the editors. There could be more sources evaluated than actually referenced in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above as well. Summary statements can be used, but should always be referenced by a source that actually summarizes the overall reception – not an individual review or group of reviews. By the way, since this has been brought up in other recent discussions, I don't think we should summarize when RT and MC are the only sources. In those situations, the summary statement is probably best avoided altogether. In your example, when we do have one or two summary sources, in-text attribution should probably be used to help distinguish between an opinion and a fact. As Erik stated, the attribution can be optionally avoided when there is a significant number of summary sources in agreement with one another. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=699007074"