Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 229: Line 229:


Please refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maestro_(2023_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1191269929 this recent example] on the 2023 film Maestro, where someone is choosing to mention the director in the second sentence, after the film's synopsis. And then a string of six producers, before mentioning the lead cast, which includes the director. [[User:Lapadite|Lapadite]] ([[User talk:Lapadite|talk]]) 06:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Please refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maestro_(2023_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1191269929 this recent example] on the 2023 film Maestro, where someone is choosing to mention the director in the second sentence, after the film's synopsis. And then a string of six producers, before mentioning the lead cast, which includes the director. [[User:Lapadite|Lapadite]] ([[User talk:Lapadite|talk]]) 06:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

== Fresh eyes requested at Blade Runner ==

Hi everyone. There's been a back and forth of additions and reversions for the last month or so in the lead at Blade Runner. Outside opinions would be greatly appreciated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blade_Runner#Tech_noir here] [[User:Scribolt|Scribolt]] ([[User talk:Scribolt|talk]]) 11:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:28, 24 December 2023

WikiProject iconFilm Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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

(8 more...)

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
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Nomination of Spider-Man: Lotus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spider-Man: Lotus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Spider-Man: Lotus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Discussion about the function of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and similar Metacritic template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute in Falling from Grace (film) article

Since May of last year, I have had a dispute with Fourthords (talk · contribs) over the content on the Falling from Grace (film) article. It went from looking like this on September 20, 2020, to its current status today, it's almost a stub article. Granted, the September 2020 iteration of the article had its issues: the plot summary is a little long, the table for the cast is unnecessary, along with the character descriptions and there are entire paragraphs that were unreferenced in the reception section. But to completely revamp the article to its current status is a bit much. What's even more frustrating is that Fourthords hardly allows any constructive edits on the article. Even when I tried adding information from the film's own poster, he removes it because of "verifiability", even though adding such information like that is not controversial. Fourthords cites a rule here and a rule there, to justify his actions skating on WP:OWN territory. His dominance on the article says it all in the revision history, hardly any edits outside of his own are allowed. If any administrator sees this request, mediate it, please. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuasyBoy: if you need administrator intervention, this is not the place for it. Take your concerns to WP:ANI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will do that. QuasyBoy (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about concert films

Could editors weigh in on my question regarding synopsis of concert films at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Synopsis_for_concert_films? Thanks! starship.paint (RUN) 03:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Film draft notice}}

Should this template be edited to include a message that articles with it should be given dummy edits to prevent G13 deletion, and a new tracking category? I want to remove articles with this from Category:Promising draft articles, since they aren't meant to be taken to mainspace. Mach61 (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor believes it has promise, they should use this template and {{Promising draft}}. The film draft notice is just meant to alter editors to WP:NFF and why a yet-to-begin-filming film is not yet eligible for the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I take this as support for my proposal? Or, alternatively, make the new tracking category a subcat of Promising draft articles. Mach61 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't actually understand what you're trying to accomplish. {{Film draft notice}} has its purpose, {{Promising draft}} has its. Not all film drafts require them to be promising drafts. The distinction should be made by active editors to the drafts if need be, by adding {{Promising draft}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not My Life Featured article review

I have nominated Not My Life for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation in titles, period.

For years various editors have been asserting that the film "Crazy, Stupid, Love" should strictly be written as "Crazy, Stupid, Love." and include a period at the end (or full stop for non-American readers). There have been several discussions about this, including a failed page move proposal. Recently User:InfiniteNexus changed the article to include the period in the title and throughout the article(diff). As this was a contentious change (and included multiple errors such as changing quoted text) I restored the status quo, and believe there should at least a discussion and preferably consensus. If this is in fact the "official name" I can understand including the full punctuation maybe once in an article, but repeating it over and over again is completely contrary to what real life publications and reviews actually do and the period is almost always omitted. (Examples, review from Roger Ebert[1] Review from Variety[2]) It seems contrary to proper English grammar and punctuation to include a period mid sentence. Do this encyclopedia prioritize strict use of the official title or does good writing standard punctuation come first.

This might also apply to films like Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (film) but again even if the title does include the period, in normal usage reviewers like trade journal Variety do not repeat the period over and over again.[3] The film Emma (2020 film) was stylized as "Emma." to that version of the title including the period is used only once in the article. Emma. Talk:Emma_(2020_film)#Title_of_film,_styled_as_Emma._with_a_fullstop. discussion points to a few other examples.

It seems incorrect for this encyclopedia to repeat the period at the end of a film title throughout an entire article.
Am. I. wrong.? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shouldn't slavishly reproduce unusual stylizations or other quirks in names. Attempting to reproduce stylization produces inconsistent and illogical text, and as you identify, there is rarely consistency in how these names are reproduced in sources (even primary sources like posters, press releases etc). Popcornfud (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other editor believes that this is more than mere stylization and that the "official title" somehow carries more importance. I try to think about the ordinary reader, imagine what a screenreader would do to this kind of over-punctuation. Is there perhaps an existing guideline that already encapsulates this? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CONFORMTITLE Generally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works, including normalization of dashes and quotation marks, conversion of various emphasis techniques, cleanup of punctuation, and use of italics for things like scientific names of species.
"But it's the official name!" is a common mistake. Wikipedia doesn't necessarily care what the "official name" is. We factor in lots of considerations, such as stylization and common use. Popcornfud (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over the official title, so we prefer what reliable secondary sources use to refer to a film over whatever the official title is. —El Millo (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More at WP:NCFILM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at Talk:Crazy, Stupid, Love, AT and COMMONNAME only govern article titles, which are independent from the actual contents of an article. The RM for that page, as well as any RMs that may occur in the future, are irrelevant and have no bearing on this discussion. The core concern being raised is that a period in the middle of a sentence is somehow grammatically incorrect or confusing. Periods may be rare for titles of works, but plenty of them end with other terminal punctuation marks, specifically an exclamation point or a question mark. And yet we don't omit the punctuation from those titles, whether in the article title or in the body. Why should periods be treated differently? If it were something like a comma or a colon, then I would perhaps agree with its omission, but a period (or question mark or exclamation point) at the end of a phrase is grammatically correct. What "other sources" use is also irrelevant to this conversation, as again, this is a matter of styling rather than naming. Other sources have their own manuals of style; we have ours, and nothing in WP:MOS, MOS:TITLES, or MOS:TM states that we should omit terminal punctuation from titles of works. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TM does say "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., "♥" used for "love", "!" used for "i") or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name." The trailing period is "normal punctuation", and in this case we can see that the majority of reliable source do drop the period when discussing the film and using the title as part of a paragraph of other text. Including the full precise official title once might make sense, repeating it though the article seems to contradict that section of MOS:TM. -- 109.76.192.204 (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would point to the many, many articles that end with an exclamation point or question mark: Jeopardy!, Airplane!, What If...? (TV series), Where's Wally?, Mamma Mia! (musical), Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (film), Tick, Tick... Boom! (film), etc. And what about periods in the cases of Super Mario Bros. (film), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Love, Inc. (TV series), etc.? Claiming that a period attached to a title creates confusion does not seem like a convincing argument. To reiterate, what "other sources" use is irrelevant — Wikipedia follows our in-house manual of style; other publishers have their own. We look at sources to determine what to use as an article's title, not how to refer to the article subject in prose. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus said "what "other sources" use is irrelevant" but the guideline MOS:TM I quoted already clearly say otherwise "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name" and in the case of Crazy Stupid Love most sources do not include the period. Mario Bros. is an abbreviation, Bros being short for Brothers, including the period is normal usage, Love Inc. is again an abbreviation. In general when the title is an acronym like S.H.I.E.L.D. the periods do seem to be included in normal writing by most external sources (although in that particular case it frequently gets written as SHIELD for simplicity, after the first usage). When titles include exclamation points or question marks it seems to vary, but leans towards inclusion more often than not.) As usual, the Wikipedia rules aren't particularly clear or definitive, leaving things wide open for exceptions and deciding things on a case by case basis. While I understand the desire for consistency (see below, about rounding numbers consistently) it isn't clear to me that being strict and including the extra period in Crazy, Stupid, Love does anything to actually improve the article for ordinary readers (and seems like it would make it worse for people using screen readers). -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be reasonably assumed that the "special characters" at MOS:TM is referring to characters other than common punctuation. Per WP:TSC, the only special characters we should actively avoid in article titles are Characters not on a standard keyboard, Quotation marks, Symbols, and Characters not supported on all browsers. MOS:TITLEPUNCT specifically lists O Brother, Where Art Thou? as an example; it does not call for the question mark to be removed. And what about Anderson .Paak? There are no grounds for truncating a name or title in prose simply because it would "break" punctuation rules. The fact that the period is directly attached to the title should tell the reader that it is part of the title. There is no risk of confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus has pointed to contractions, acronyms, and question marks. That does not seem a like-for-like comparison. InfiniteNexus has pointed to the guideline WP:TSC but that guideline specifically applies to article titles but (based on the inciting edit (diff)) I thought this discussion was about usage throughout the article, not the page name or title. The example of musician "Anderson .Paak" doesn't seem an appropriate comparison, as he is referred by that stage name in the article title and once at the start of the article, the rest of the article refers to him as "Anderson".) If you propose to include the "official" (or stylized) title only once that does not seem unreasonable, but repeating it throughout an article would seem to contradict the recommendation of MOS:TM to follow how "a significant majority of reliable sources" use the films name within prose. -- 109.76.201.96 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TM does not say that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be interpreting the same guidelines quite differently, the greentext was quoted directly. It is as if we reliving old arguments asking of WP:PRECISION trumps WP:TRADEMARK (For example Archived discussion from 2012 over the band Fun.). I'm still not seeing anything in the guidelines or past discussion that convinces me that the full official title should be included more than once. InfiniteNexus remains unconvinced by the guidelines we have pointed to or opinions of other editors such as User:Popcornfud or El Millo. So what next? -- 109.76.201.77 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We should not be looking for a guideline that says to keep the period; we should be looking for a guideline that says to omit it. MOS:TM does not say anything about removing terminal punctuation at the end of titles of works; on the contrary, MOS:TITLEPUNCT explicitly lists O Brother, Where Art Thou? as an example while retaining the question mark. MOS:TM says choose the style that most closely resembles standard English; a period after a phrase is 100% normal English. A significant majority of reliable sources is being used in reference to symbols and other characters not found on a keyboard, not common punctuation marks. If it were considered best practice to omit "confusing" punctuation marks from article titles, then Airplane! and Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? would have long dropped theirs; there is no reason periods should be given a special exemption. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus, you keep trying to refute the IPs reasons for not including the period, but what are the actual arguments in favor of its inclusion? The period is a stylization that isn't consistently used by secondary reliable sources, and not even its current official website ([4]) uses it. Those examples that end in periods you previously brought up aren't comparable, because those come up after either abbreviations or acronyms, where ommitting them would actually be grammatically incorrect, and thus could not cause said confusion. Including sentence-ending periods in titles is non-standard, so there should be a good justification for its inclusion, with its exclusion being the default position given it's already been decided the article is titled that way and that neither official nor secondary reliable sources use the period consistently. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the period is commonly used in sources is not relevant as WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT and only governs the article title, which I am not contesting. I think it is perfectly reasonable to omit the period in the article title, but there is no justification for excluding it in prose. I'm not seeing how the period would create confusion, as it is clearly attached to an italicized title, coforms to MOS:TITLEPUNCT, and is consistent with other articles where the title ends with terminal punctuation. And it's a period, not an unusually long deviation from the common name that would not make sense to be repeated across the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you don't cite any good reason in favor of including it. Why should it be included? Is it part of the official title? Because the official Warner Bros. page doesn't use it. Is it consistently used by reliable sources? It doesn't seem like it is. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't function as real-life laws, something not being prohibited by policies and guidelines isn't justification enough for doing it. —El Millo (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no reason to include it in running text. Also the italicized "?" and "!" in other titles with terminal punctuation are fairly obvious that they are part of the title whereas an italicized "." does not appear any differently from a non-italicized ".". Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, it is the official title and not merely something the marketing department came up with as a means of stylization. See the billing block, the MPAA certificate, etc. And I should note that there are sources that include the period: EW, Collider, Huffington Post, Decider, Slant Magazine, etc. The period is also present on Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, IMDb (not a reliable source, but still useful to look at), and the BFI catalog. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all that being said, since consensus seems to be leaning toward omitting the period, at the very least, I think it is appropriate to include the period once in the first sentence of the lead. This conforms to MOS:FIRST: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against including it in its first occurrence, perhaps we could add a source next to it that corroborates it being the official title. —El Millo (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including the full official title with punctuation once does seem to be within existing Wikipedia policies. At the start of the discussion I did not exclude that possibility. -- 109.79.64.252 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normal rounding of numbers and inconsistency

I am seeing a lot of recurring problems with box office grosses in film articles. This project decided it was best for readability to round the box office gross figures, but this is either being done inconsistently or editors are truncating instead of rounding for reasons that are unclear.

  1. Can we clarify that MOS:LARGENUM also applies to Wikipedia film articles? Numbers should be rounded in the normal way (ie the numbers 0...4 round down to 0 and the numbers 5...9 round up to 1)
  2. Can we agree with the guideline WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE? the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose
  3. Can we agree that MOS:LEAD should "usually repeat information that is in the body"

1. It would be easy to simply use the same box office gross figure consistently in all three places, the Infobox, the lead section and the box office section in article body, but some editors do not do this. Doing so would help avoid mistakes occurring when editors seem to have difficulty with rounding numbers in the normal way. Some editors are inconsistently rounding or truncating box office gross figures (e.g. truncating $150.5 million to $150 million which is misleading and inaccurate), including different figures in the lead section compared to the Infobox and box office section of the very same article. Also MOS:LARGENUM states Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled. but despite this warning some editors persist in using the qualifier "over" instead of rounding in the normal way (e.g. over $150 million), a qualifier that wouldn't even be necessary if they used the same level of decimal place precision for the box office gross in all three places. 2. MOS:LARGENUM is fundamentally the most important point but I also mention WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE for emphasis. Most editors normally make sure that the Infobox box office gross figures do match the article body. I understand editors sometimes forget to update the figures in all three places but I do not understand when editors who have updated in all three places deliberately choose not to use the same figures and the same level of rounding consistently and seem to be truncating the figure for no apparent reason. (There are some older articles that used the full and exact box office gross figures in the article body but a rounded figure in the edit summary, but I am specifically talking editors using rounded figures in the article body but truncating or using a different level of decimal precision in the lead section.) 3. Again it would seem as if there is no good reason for the WP:LEAD not to match the article body and Infobox.

Unless editors have particular disagreements with the existing rules and guidelines, or there is something exceptional about film articles, I hope that we can agree to follow the simple normal rounding of numbers and avoid inconsistently truncating figures. The easiest way to do that is to please use the same box office gross figures consistently throughout the article. Maybe MOS:FILMBOXOFFICE the style guideline should specifically mention normal rounding of numbers and consistency with the Infobox and lead sections? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box office figures should not be rounded up uncritically, for the same reason that times in races should not be rounded down – it exaggerates the accomplishment. This is particularly inappropriate when it comes to records and milestones. A rather unlikely but hopefully illustrative example is that a film that has grossed $999,999,999 has not in fact grossed $1 billion. If consistency is given primacy, consistently rounding down/truncating is the preferable option. Records must never be rounded to a more impressive figure. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that is a little different from what I was saying. I am not saying editors shouldn't use discretion in exceptional cases, but that normally, the normal rules of rounding should apply the same way in the Infobox, the lead section and the article body. If there is an exceptional case as in your example, and editors think $999.9 million is the most appropriate rounding level then that same level of rounding and precision should continue to be used consistently through the article and not truncated to "over $999 million" in some places but not others. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A specific example from October ([5]) in case reading diff makes it clearer to anyone. This isn't about any one editor, there seem to several editors doing this sort of thing. It is not clear how intentional or deliberate the behavior is, or if people are just in good faith following the style of the most prolific and active editors. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was responding mainly to your point #1 above, in particular the Numbers should be rounded in the normal way (ie the numbers 0...4 round down to 0 and the numbers 5...9 round up to 1) part. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discounting that there are a few rare exceptions, but that is not the normal case. I don't think anyone has at any point disagreed that there will be occasional exceptions and those edge cases were considered from the start when project film moved to using rounded figures more often. Here is another example from today ([6]) of an editor putting $136.6 million in the Infobox (and article body) but for no apparent reason truncating that figure to $136 million in the lead section, instead of using either $136.6 million or $137 million consistently in all three places. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's self-evident that different levels of precision being used in different places in the same article is necessarily a problem, even if I do agree that it is somewhat peculiar. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is bizarre, just using the same number 3 times would be easier! Why overcomplicate it? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiments of the point. Obviously the handling of figures certainly in prose should conform to standard rounding practices, unless of course the level of precision is material to the setting of a notable record. There may also be an issue when presenting composite amounts e.g. 40.6 + 50.6 million = 91.2 million, but a rounded version would look like 41 + 51 million = 91 million which looks numerically incorrect, so an editor may opt for the more precise version to avoid the appearance of numerical error, but that perhaps should not preclude rounding to $91 million in the lead or infobox. Is this related to a specific issue? Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above I pointed to an example from October and from December, this is definitely an ongoing and recurring issue across multiple different film articles, and by different editors. Editing the article The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes an aggressive editor accused me[7] of disruptive editing merely for following the rules, my edit (diff) rounded the numbers correctly and consistently (as the article had done only days before). There seem to be several different editors who put one box office gross figure in the Infobox and change the lead section to inaccurately truncate the box office gross by another decimal place and insist on using the unnecessary qualifier "over" (in this case[8] deliberately truncating $206.8 million to "over $206 million"). I have no issue with editors rounding to 3 significant figures or 4 significant figures so long as they do so consistently. I do think writing "over" is silly (we never say "under" and) MOS:LARGENUM says to avoid similar qualifiers when numbers are rounded in the normal way. Either way it seems easier to write the same number three times than to do it differently in the lead section. It is confusing to me that people seem to be actively ignoring the guidelines choosing to make things more difficult for themselves and deliberately inconsistent and misleading by truncating when normal rounding would be expected. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This inconsistency and truncating of figures is resulting in errors, some editors do not seem to understand normal rounding of numbers. I think it is strange to truncate the figure and write "over" but it seems instead of correcting and using numbers rounded in the normal way editors think it is appropriate to write that film a has "grossed under $252 million" (diff) C'mon! Seriously? -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have been reverted by MULTIPLE editors. You kept going instead of opening a discussion and waiting for any response in the first place. The page you cite as the basis for your argument, MOS:LARGENUM, states: $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63), and therefore the film gross (right now $246,612,890) should be $246.6 million, not $247 million. Try to make constructive contributions, do not focus on editors. ภץאคгöร 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edits have not been reverted by multiple editors, and if that was actually true Nyxaros/Sebastien would provide specific diffs, but he isn't going to do that because he is persistently hostile and WP:UNCIVIL. (User Legobro99 WP:HOUNDING me was not a good faith revert BTW.) Nyxaros/Sebastien aggressively asserts that the guidelines mean exactly 1 decimal place is absolutely required, but also chooses to ignore that the same guidelines say nothing about truncating instead of rounding, and clearly advise against using qualifiers (similar to "over"). There are certainly editors have made updates to the box office gross and changed things to their preferred style, (which Nyxaros/Sebastien did in this diff) but this broad claim that my edits were reverted is inaccurate. Nyxaros/Sebastien is also arguing at cross purposes, if an editor believes it is appropriate to use the figures to another decimal place consistently that is one thing, but that is not what he did. (Please do look at the diff.) In the Infobox he updated the figure to $206.8 million, and change the lead section to "over $206 million" which misleading truncates the figure instead of rounding in the normal way or matching the same level of decimal precision as the Infobox. If he had written either $207 million or $206.8 million in consistently cases I would not have had a problem with it, but there is no apparent reason for deliberately writing the same figure two different ways. "Try to make constructive contributions, do not focus on editors" That is entirely disingenuous, I am not the one making this personal, I have no interest about making this about one particular editor, the examples diffs I provided above were from three separate editors all doing this for no apparent reason (only one of whom thought it appropriate to threaten me over it). I have not made it about one person, I have asked for an explanation of why people have been doing this. Using the same figures consistently should be the easy option, why actively change an article to use a misleadingly truncated figure? It would be constructive if someone could actually explain why they believe this inconsistency is necessary or beneficial. -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nxyaros formerly known as User:Sebastian James (see the rename request log on that page) is literally making it personal and instead of simply answering the question of why round inconsistently? He follows me to another page (User talk:BusterD to complain diff and deny he used to go by a different username) and to make it personal. Admins can check his unpleasant track record (that has just about managed to stay within the rules). I have no interest in making this personal but when faced by an aggressive editor who persistently tries to make a straw-man argument I'm not going to pretend he hasn't been doing this sort of thing for years now. If anyone is actually willing to explain or discuss why there might be some reason to truncate the numbers instead of rounding in the normal way I would be interested to learn why they think this is better, and discuss further.
-- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with writing $206.8 million. Instead of "over $206 million" in the text, why not just write "$206.8 million" there as well? I don't think it makes a difference personally, but it would make it consistent. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the situation is about whether it is "over" or not. I think both "over $206" and "$206.8" are fine. There is clearly an IP who is trying to attack other editors who don't even care about them and distort what MOS:LARGENUM states. As I wrote above, it explicitly mentions $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63), which is not the IP wants to use. It's also written "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms", which the IP twists "similar terms" as "under" or "over" instead of "about, approximately, approximately about, around, roughly, roughly about". I see nothing else to discuss in this discussion except an IP attacking users and trying to discredit them by lying and making false accusations. ภץאคгöร 19:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, thanks. That's what I've been trying to say, I'd be happy with just a little more consistency. Truncating "$206.8 million" down to $206 million seems misleading to me. (Or possibly it is a rounding error, but if it is an error then it would be better to present the numbers in a way that avoids an unnecessary error occurring.) I have tried to make this discussion impersonal, my examples came from three different editors (at least two different films). Should I try and bring other specific editors into this discussion? -- 109.76.201.96 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last week I invited User:Evope to comment on this discussion, as someone I noticed changing articles to do this on occasion, but my impression is that they mostly follow update box office gross figures in whatever way the article is using. There seems to only be a few prolific editor that seem to be truncating or rounding inconsistently (and writing "over"). Again I thought existing guidelines essentially already covered this. Besides the one user who has made their opinion abundantly clear already (I find it difficult to understand how someone would take pointing to a guideline as a personal attack) do any other editors really think my reading of MOS:LARGENUM "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms" is wrong, inaccurate? I did not think it was a stretch to say qualifiers like over and under were similarly unnecessary for numbers rounded in the normal way. Anyway when a film finishes at the box office the figures generally do seem to settle down to something more consistent (some editors favor different levels of decimal precision when it is all finished, but my point was always about consistency not to insist on any specific level of decimal places just that whatever an editor felt was appropriate was used in all three places).
From this discussion I hope it is reasonable to conclude that most editors accept that keeping the box office gross figures is generally preferable. -- 109.79.64.252 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off-site plagiarism of film theory articles

Hey everyone. It's my first time here, as I'm not currently very involved in the film side of Wikipedia. It recently came to my attention that (at least) three of our articles on film theory have been plagiarised by a YouTube video essayist. Specifically, these were the articles on Formalist, Marxist and Structuralist film theory. (See this video by Hbomberguy, who uncovered this, section starts at 2:34:24) This is concerning not only because of the plagiarism itself, but because many of the passages that were plagiarised were unsourced or poorly-sourced. I've already gone ahead and tagged the areas of the articles where citations are needed and have added a couple reliable sources I already know about to the article on Marxist film theory. I just wanted to highlight this here in case anyone involved in the project knows of further reliable sources on the matter that we can direct our readers to, or if anyone here would be interested in helping improve these articles. I may give a wee rewrite of Marxist film theory a go, if I can find the time for it. In any case, hope everyone here is doing well and all the best wishes for your continued editing. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Films in the public domain

Hi, Category:Films in the public domain was deleted. Now there isn't a single place here to list the films in the public domain, and that's a problem. Any solution? Yann (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category can be problematic, because a film in the public domain in one country is not necessarily in the public domain in others. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but this is quite a common occurrence with books e.g. the James Bond novels are in the PD in Canada, but not in the UK. I personally think lists are a better option for public domain films. For example, there is the List of films in the public domain in the United States. Betty Logan (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

busts of mock variety (1)

(asking again because last time, it was archived with no answer)

i'd like to add an image to the article on mockbusters because it not having one is boring

to keep it from copyright violation issues, which one would be better?

  • the cover of a mockbuster that already has its own article
  • a side-by-side of a movie and its mockbuster
  • keeping it boring and image-deprived for now
  • a possible... other option i'm forgetting about, perhaps?

cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The process of trying to get an image accepted is difficult. To meet the requirements of WP:NFCC it would probably be best to try two images side-by-side, as "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." best of luck. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, i'll make a quick side-by-side of the little panda fighter and its inferior bootleg, since they both already have covers here
thanks cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 11:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than making a whole new image I would advise using Template:Multiple image to put the two existing images side by side. If I recall correctly you will also need to edit each of the image pages File:The_Little_Panda_Fighter_(2008)_DVD_cover.jpg and File:Kungfupanda.jpg and add a second "Non-free use rationale" table/template to explain specifically that per WP:NFCC8 there is a specific need to allow this non free image usage. It's a byzantine process, it may take a while and repeated effort to get through the bureaucracy and pass all the necessary requirements. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan Since the movie-posters probably can't be used, you could take, for example, the picture of Jeanne Carmen, with a caption like "Jeanna Carmen starred in The Monster of Piedras Blancas, an early mockbuster." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
probably can't be used that remains to be seen. It is a huge hassle to get a non-free image approved and I don't envy anyone trying to struggle through that process, but this really is a case where a picture (or two) would be worth a thousand words and give users an immediate understanding of the fraudulently similar visual presentation used by mockbusters to trick people into renting their titles. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
after a few instances of hardware issues (it seems paint 3d is too much for my work pc to handle) and a few edits to disambiguation pages, i finally got the side-by-side ready, since i believe it would be fair use
to be 100% sure before i fuck something up, can the image be uploaded from here, or does it have to be done from commons? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 19:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is done from WP:FUW, "Upload a non-free file". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, i committed the action cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{Multiple image}} should be used in this instance since both these images already exist on Wikipedia as uploaded images, with added NFU templates for their use on Mockbuster. Don't use a wholly new image of the exact same things. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(didn't see the notification before, sorry)
then i may or may not have done a little fucky wucky
i'll see if i can get that dealt with this night, when i'm on a pc that doesn't burn when i look at the time too hard cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Just use {{Multiple images}} with File:The_Little_Panda_Fighter_(2008)_DVD_cover.jpg and File:Kungfupanda.jpg and put additional {{Non-free use rationale}} templates at both those files for their use on Mockbuster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Yaarukku Theriyum#Requested move 30 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yaarukku Theriyum#Requested move 30 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Fred Berner page (Maestro producer)

This is my first Wikipedia submission. Fred is listed as a producer on the Maestro page, as well as several other film, television, and theater pages.

The entry has been in review for some time, and I’m unclear how to proceed. If anyone else is interested in moving this submission forward, please let me know if you have any advice for how to strengthen this submission and make it Wikipedia-quality.

Draft:Fred Berner Danielromeroprobstmcswain (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What preposition goes after "spin-off"?

"To"? "From"? "Of"? All of the above? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "from" is best, but I probably wouldn't make a point of changing "of". "To" sounds incorrect to me, though might be appropriate in certain contexts. DonIago (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, "to" has always seemed wrong to me. "from" is my preference but I wouldn't necessarily change "of" if I came across it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a noun or a verb? I'm not sure, but I would probably use "from" when it's used as a verb and "of" when it's used as a noun—"X was spun off from Y" and "X is a spin-off of Y"—though I wouldn't change either to the other if I came across it. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster discussion

There is a discussion on the use of film posters over newspaper ads here that I think any members of this community may want to add their two cents too. Could potentially effect how we have images in the Infobox in the future. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-mobile link here: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 December 13#File:Les-levres-rouges.jpg. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to be more involved in film Featured Article nominations

Surely the goal of this project is to get all notable film articles elevated but I never see much involvement from film project people which makes it take longer to get comments on the nominations and support or oppose them. If people nominate films let me know and I'm happy to take a look. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World of Reel

This site World of Reel is being used as a source for budget figures (the original source appears to have originated from here in July 2023; who got the budget for Beau is Afraid wrong). The website is owned by Jordan Ruimy and the about me page says he has written for The Playlist (last post in 2020), Awards Daily (2018), IndieWire (2019), and The Film Stage (2017?). This site seems similar to WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED, which they have also written for. What are other editors thoughts on this website being a reliable source (and even for reviews)? Mike Allen 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it falls into WP:BLOGS territory. If he is just harvesting budgets from third-party sources without any form of independent corroboration, I would say the site is emphatically not reliable. World of Reel came up at Talk:List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs#The_Flash, whereby an article on the site had simply reproduced a box-office loss figure from a box-office hobbyist on Twitter. There was no corroboration, and the figure was likely wrong in any case. Essentially, the site is using sources that do not meet Wikipedia's WP:Reliable source threshold, so it's a thumbs down from me. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major film navboxes up for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies templates is attempting to delete these two informational navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Other Girl"

There is a discussion here about whether or not to move The Other Girl (song) to The Other Girl. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and TV miniseries

Hello, WikiProject Film,

I was just looking at a category that is nominated at CFD and came upon World War III (miniseries) that is in this particular category and was surprised to see that it is categorized in all of these "Film" categories even though it was a TV miniseries. These seem like two different category trees so I was wondering if you could help me understand whether or not this is typical. I'm not even sure if TV movies should be in a Film category, much less miniseries. Thanks for any insight you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award Shortlist

Like Here Many users are adding Academy award entries to "Awards and Nominations/Accolades" section after the announcement of Shortlists of some categories By Academy. They look like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and we generally add only Wins and nominations. Are these notable for inclusion. Sid95Q (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content in the lead intro

I remember several discussions here about providing the most important info to readers first in the lead intro, which, for most films, is the genre(s), director, writer and cast. If a director or writer also produced, that's typically mentioned in the intro too. There are certain types of films, such as Marvel and DC films, whose production companies carry more weight than who the hired director is, so the studio is mentioned first. I don't believe this made it to a guideline or suggestion on WP:FILMLEAD or WP:FILM. Is there a discussion or consensus on this that can be pointed to?

Please refer to this recent example on the 2023 film Maestro, where someone is choosing to mention the director in the second sentence, after the film's synopsis. And then a string of six producers, before mentioning the lead cast, which includes the director. Lapadite (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh eyes requested at Blade Runner

Hi everyone. There's been a back and forth of additions and reversions for the last month or so in the lead at Blade Runner. Outside opinions would be greatly appreciated here Scribolt (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1191582063"