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 Ojmarson (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 1 February 2019 (→‎Merger Proposal : Merge Endemol into Endemol Shine). 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


Today's featured articles

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(5 more...)

Requests for comments

  • 03 Aug 2024 – RRR (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Robert McClenon (t · c); see discussion
  • 30 Jul 2024 – Twisters (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WeatherWriter (t · c); see discussion
  • 08 Aug 2024 – Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Crampsteed (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
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

There is some debate (between me and *Treker) about the propriety of categories such as Category:Animated film navigational boxes and Category:Children's film navigational boxes for templates about stories from books that have numerous film adaptations: {{The Little Mermaid}} and {{Chicken Little}} are currently at issue for incorrectly including such categories. Can people who work a lot on templates help me understand what is correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging: @Woodensuperman and Frietjes:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More input would be good.★Trekker (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Woodensuperman and Frietjes:, I know you guys are constantly opining on my editorial efforts in Template space. I am guessing that your silence may mean that you don't disagree with me since you never seem to comment in ways that agree with me. We have a major argument here that has very significant broad implications on all the templates that you two get involved in. As I understand the argument, I have been using categories to state that "This template includes these types of links" (Animated film, Children's film, etc.). *Treker believes categories should be used to describe the main subject of the template. I had hoped you guys would comment here, but I will take this conversation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates for further discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I typically use the title of the navbox to determine the category. in this case, the title is a book, so it would seem as though it would go in the literature category. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether you would also put it in a film-related category (e.g., see Template:Cinderella). in my opinion, the purpose of categories is to group "link things" to assist with finding things. so, if having the template in a film-related category is more helpful than hurtful, I would say why not. but, as I said before, I don't have a strong opinion. Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TonyTheTiger. No strong opinion here either. I think I'm pretty much agreement with Frietjes in that if these "secondary" categories, Children's films, etc, are "helpful" for people wanting to find the templates, then I don't see any real problem. I often find the category trees for navboxes to be somewhat lacking, but I'm not sure how much use these template categories are anyway. --woodensuperman 08:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am hearing that the categories were designed to be used based on the main subject of the template, but if they have evolved to an expanded use there are no issues. When I started doing these templates, I believe that I was building upon what was done before. Thus, if I have gone beyond the original intended use, it is because that is what I saw in other templates. Whatever way we go, it should be handled considering the broad spectrum of templates and not just the two I mentioned above. Certainly, others such as {{Cinderella}} are of concern.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Poppins film, song "I Love to Laugh" needs Refs

Expert help please

JoeHebda (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, The article I Love to Laugh was tagged in 2006 as needing References. Asking for help from WP Film members. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with high frame rates

Hi folks. My recent AFC submission Draft:List of films with high frame rates has been rejected. Reviewer User:AngusWOOF comments: "Please provide some sources that show that such a combined listing is notable. Otherwise this is original research to compile such a list." Perhaps someone from your WikiProject can shed their light on the situation. I feel like I've personally done enough for the subject, so I will most likely not try to alter or improve the article to get it accepted. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that it is "original research" to create such a list, but WP:NOTESAL has to be satisfied. This in particular, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." For example, I created List of films featuring eclipses (and a few similar lists), and if you look at the "References" section, you can see that numerous references discuss the films as a group or set. You could go back and review the current references to see if any film-specific reference also names other films. You can also search online for lists of films that have high frame rates. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik, we meet again. ;) I have to say it hurts that the reviewer stated in their edit summary that the "submission is improperly sourced and nn", which seems to imply it would be both improperly sourced and non-notable. As is the case with all my articles (not just from this IP address), it includes solid inline references. Also, at least one of the references, at The Hollywood Reporter here, discusses these HFR films as a group/set:

The next two Hobbit films—The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: There And Back Again—will both have an HFR release. James Cameron has been a vocal champion and plans to make his Avatar sequels with HFRs. Douglas Trumbull has also said he intends to make movies at HFRs.

Just 10 minutes passed between my submission and the rejection. I doubt the reviewer put in the effort to properly inspect any of the sources... --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I did not recognize the IP. I think that source is a good start. We'll have to find others like that. You can follow WP:REFNAME to repeat a reference. While it is not required, I think it helps to have overlapping references because it makes clearer how many times a film has been in a group or set. Another tip for searching is to put two or three film titles in the search query, and articles mentioning them collectively will appear more readily. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source. This also has a little background about it regarding "polarized audiences". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm going to personally leave it at this. If it's not enough as is, then so be it. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on my talk page: Are any of those citations showing that a list is being made of all HFR films? Those only cite that a particular film is verified to be HFR and will justify that it can be on the list, but what I'm looking for is whether lists of HFR films are being put together by news articles or film websites that aren't IMDb user-generated.
I am not rejecting that the individual entries are sourced improperly, those citations are fine. I'm questioning whether such a list has been attempted by a news source or has been discussed as a list as something noteworthy to share. If you want an example of someone else putting together a list, see http://4k.com/news/contentthe-full-list-of-all-4k-and-hdr-content-available-now-on-netflix-23127/ for a list of 4K and HDR films and shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, Wikipedia policy is that there must have been (ongoing) attempts outside of Wikipedia to create a list, or such a list must have already been created, before Wikipedia can publish such a list? That does not make any sense to me, in particular if we have already established the notability of the high frame rate subject. By the way, isn't Erik's example of films featuring eclipses an apples and oranges comparison, given that one is about an expression (content) while the other is about a characteristic (feature). Ugh. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit list sources are not required. If sources discuss films with similar characteristics while discussing one mainly, then that counts as discussing as a group or as a set. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. It's to prevent indiscriminate listings. WP:IINFO says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." So for example, making a list of films featuring pencils or crossword puzzles would be indiscriminate (as far as I know), even if an editor could technically find reviews and such mentioning these elements in passing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that, if I would not have gone through the AfC process and would've simply created the article from a registered account, not only would nobody have raised any objections, it would be among the lists whose notability is best verifiable. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of lists exist on Wikipedia that have no references whatsoever, making it impossible to verify their notability. Even if I limit myself to lists about films with certain technological characteristics, similar to my draft about HFR films, it's easy to find lists worse than my draft. Examples are List of VistaVision films, List of early wide-gauge films, List of Technirama films and List of Techniscope films. Looking at lists about films in general, I could give you too many to mention here. Some examples are List of Allied propaganda films of World War II, List of biker films, List of films about animals, List of punk films, List of films based on the Bible, Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships, List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps, List of LGBT-related films by storyline, List of films based on Greco-Roman mythology, List of character-based film series and List of Hindu mythological or devotional films. Of course, my draft should be evaluated on its own merit. But again, my draft with inline references aplenty is not about the content of films, such as this List of films about horses that has 0 references, but about films with a technical feature, high frame rate, whose notability has already been established. This is also why your recent example of films featuring pencils or crossword puzzles, like your example about films featuring eclipses, does not apply. Anyway, with your recent edit of the draft, is it ready for resubmission? Also, User:AngusWOOF, thoughts? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you on all these points. I do not think the AfC process was necessary, and my feedback above was only given in the confines of the process. But I agree that you could have created it and put it in the mainspace straightaway and not worry about the institutional bias you encountered in this process. I would support it being in the mainspace now. A few more sources about this as a group or set would not hurt, though. Even my fully-sourced list of films featuring eclipses got taken to AfD because some editor thought the list was ridiculous. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other lists, if they aren't sourced or meet notability, you can tag them for that, and if they haven't been improved in a while and there's no chance of them being listable then you can consider AFD on them. But thats WP:Other stuff exists for now. The Wired magazine listing is helpful; I think that's enough to demonstrate notability (people caring to make a list of such items). I just didn't want it to have to go through AFD like the eclipse one, but I also didn't want it to be a useless sub-classification like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most viewed kpop music videos That was a list that was put together strictly by original research by the Wikipedia editors. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the lists mentioned. The draft in question seems to meet notability to me too, and I hope it gets accepted. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've accepted the article; thank you. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Super: Broly - Box Office sourcing

Please see the discussion Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Broly#Box Office figures and request for third opinion regarding sourcing of box office gross estimate(s) for the film. What is the general practice?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on using the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, for review aggregators

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?. A permalink for it is seen here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment invitation

What are the criteria for including an award in a biographical article? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should Rotten Tomatoes scores go at the beginning or end of "reception" sections of older films?

I've noticed that some articles for 20th century films provide contemporary prose first and the Rotten scores at the end. Was there ever a discussion, or Wikipedia doctrine, that determined where Rotten should be placed when it comes to older films? Thanks. 151.231.110.243 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception (from reviews published around the time of initial release) and subsequent reception (from reviews made at later dates). Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today." As far as I know, there is no wider consensus on how exactly to approach this kind of thing. For example, for a film panned at the time and now critically acclaimed, it seems more appropriate to talk about the latter as a "current" status and to follow that up with context like, "At the time, it was not well-received."
However, there are probably many films simply in the middle. For 20th century films, I would probably prefer to lead with prose (on a summary level, either at the time or in retrospect) about the film's contemporary reception and perhaps follow with RT/MC if it is about the same. I would probably lean more toward putting it at the end if it is a bit different. It's possible that excluding RT/MC entirely would be appropriate, especially since the sample size is weaker and slanted more toward periodicals that successfully made their article archives available. These are my thoughts. In essence, it seems best treated on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROTTEN expands on this: "Commentary should... be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film. Such commentary should come before reporting aggregate scores because such sources are likely to be more authoritative and to provide descriptive prose. The aggregate scores can complement this commentary." There is a great degree of latitude in where the aggregator scores are placed, but for older films you have to consider adding them at all: "Aggregator scores are most effective and accurate for films released in the 2000s and beyond. This is because more reviews are available online and as a result contemporary critical reception is more clearly defined. Prior to the 2000s, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic did not exist, and reviews were typically not online. Sources besides Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be sought out for films released before the 2000s;" There could be too few reviews for the score to be effective, but in the case of many older films Rotten Tomatoes mixes up reviews over a large span of time so it's not clear whether the score reflects the contemporary opinion or the modern opinion. For the classics such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Gone with the Wind there are many other alternatives so it is not necessary to use RT in such cases. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

Hi!

How should we credit/gender the Wachowskis?

Please give us your input and help us decide. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening weekend discussion

Hi all, may I please trouble a couple of you to please contribute your thoughts to Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Highest-grossing opening weekends. I have a strong opinion, but it may not be correct and I wouldn't mind other thoughts on the matter. The short story is that List of highest-grossing Indian films has a ranked list of various films' opening weekend gross figures, only some of the ranked films have 4, 5, and 6 day gross totals, stretching the definition of "weekend". I'm curious how you'd deal with this. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal : Merge Endemol into Endemol Shine

I would like to make a proposal in merging two pages together. So this would mean merging the Endemol wiki page into the Endemol Shine Group wiki page, so that Endemol becomes apart of the Endemol Shine Group page.

These are the following pages I am referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol_Shine_Group

The reason I think this makes logical sense is because Endemol merged with Shine Group in 2015. So, I think doing a merger of these two pages makes a lot of sense because the Company itself went through a merger. You can already see on the description for Endemol Shine Group that it has incorporated this information. There is a section for Endemol in the History part of the Endemol Shine Group that shows this.

I think in the world of film and TV, this quite important because Endemol Shine make Peaky Blinders and Black Mirror. But if you type Endemol Shine into google, you see that Endemol comes up first. I think this is so confusing to people who are trying to understand the differece between endemol and endemol shine group. When I type it into google endemol is the first thing that seems to come up.

For this reason , I think we should merge the two so that it reflects the merger. 


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmarson (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a notice at WT:COMPANIES about this proposal, since this is in their scope too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=881281855"