Jump to content

Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–2020)

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

The image File:Logo 20th century fox.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age 4 and 5

[edit]

fox hasnt confirmed this --201.172.177.34 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Musketeers

[edit]

I think the list is missing this one. Greetings --Jambornik (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"GoGos: Shapes & Sizes"

[edit]

Removed mention of this film. I searched on google, and wikipedia was the only reference I could find. If the movie is real, someone can add it back with a reference. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same for "U.B. Funkeys: The Inventions of Dr. Tinker - 2013" -Frazzydee|✍ 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same for "Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules" & "Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Sea of Monsters". No credible sources found. All four movies were, by the way, added by the same anonymous contributor. I have left a note on her/her talk page asking for a citation. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Fanfare Today

[edit]

The movies that 20th Century FOX are doing today is worst because they keep using the 1997 fanfare that was recorded by David Newman. When will they do an update of the 20th Century FOX fanfare? --Rod14 (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split list?

[edit]
There is a clear consesnus for splitting the article. (Which was already done BTW.) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The list is getting longer. Perhaps split 20th- and 21st-century films? relisted. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You might consider splitting it into three, but I'm not sure where the splitting points should be. Maybe 1910s to 1950s, 1960s to 1980s, and 1990-present. That would give you lots of room to grow the modern list before it got too long. Or you could split it at 1910s to 1960s/1970s to present, to align it with the death of the studio system. That might be seen as less arbitrary than a triple split at random places. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about The Rugrats Movie and Rugrats in Paris The Movie?

[edit]

These two films do not belong in this list because 20th Century Fox had no connection to either of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Co-production mean Distribution

[edit]

Hello,

Part of my job is noting down which films are distributed by certain companies, I note that in this list (and others like it e.g. Universal, Paramount, Disney) the list of films are pretty much either Co-production or Distribution only,

My question is just does Co-production also mean distributed by the company (Fox in this case)? And if not, is there a list for films that are distributed by a company?

Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.39.5.234 (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that you're using Wikipedia as a resource for your job? That's a little risky. Wikipedia is an excellent resource, but it's prone to false information and hoaxes by immature vandals. So is the IMDb. If your job depends on it, you'd probably want a commercial database. That said, I try to keep the Wikipedia articles clear of vandalism and hoaxes. Unfortunately, I don't know whether all these films have been distributed by the studio. I assume so, but it's not immediately obvious anywhere in the article. I've been using the American Film Institute's database to update these lists and correct errors. You might consider checking that site or the others at Category:Online film databases. Some are free, and some are subscription-only. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the haunted frights?

[edit]

What is the haunted frights and why is anubis taken off schedule? Jstar367 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did ferdinand change dates?

[edit]

Is there confirmation about ferdinand changing dates? Jstar367 (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed entries

[edit]

I removed some entries with sources that failed verification. The sources did not mention 20th Century Fox, and only were announcements of the films in question. We need sources that explicitly state 20th Century Fox will be producing, distributing, or both. If the source doesn't say this, it can't be used. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films in development

[edit]

Given WP:CRYSTAL, specifically:

  • Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.

and

  • Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors.

and that films "in development" aren't guaranteed to enter production, should such projects be included here if they have not entered production or have no scheduled release date? Trivialist (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MPedits: Do you have any comments, or will you just be reverting any attempts to remove the "Films in development" section? Trivialist (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because as long as they are being worked on in some form, it is worth mentioning them unless they are officially confirmed to be cancelled. MPedits (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you explain why a page titled "List of 20th Century Fox films" should combine both films that exist, and ideas for films that may not be realized? And can you explain how listing films in development doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL? Trivialist (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move to the proposed titles; see #Closing analysis & comment – wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– With the Disney purchase, the 1999-2000 distinction now seems somewhat arbitrary with only twenty years in the recent category before rebranding and sixty-five years in the older category. A much more logical break in the pages would be the purchase by News Corporation in 1985, reflecting the new management structure producing the films. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership changed Jkline16 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Paramount didn't radically change with the new owners. Trivialist (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While, yes, Paramount had no significant changes with Viacom’s control, I should note that it would still be helpful to have a guideline instead of going by decades, which is why my proposal for using Viacom as the splitting point is valid and should be considered as an option. Jkline16 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the pages are going to be arbitrarily split, it might as well be by decade, because most people don't know or care about who owned a studio at a particular time. Trivialist (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page move history

[edit]

List of Fox Film films

[edit]

This looks like y'all have been playing the Chinese whispers game...

This is how you end up with the oldest 69 edits of List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1999) being totally out-of-scope... that content belongs in the history of List of Fox Film films, where it originated.

edit: I've moved those edits back in scope. wbm1058 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films

[edit]

Hundreds of edits from 28 November 2013 and earlier are extremely out-of-scope for List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present) – they belong at List of 20th Century Fox films since they cover all the years from the 1910s to "future releases"

edit: And I've moved that edit history back in scope. wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists ("disambiguation"):

[edit]

— wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing analysis & comment

[edit]

This request has been difficult to close as evidenced by its remaining open for 76 days. Past moves (#Page move history) left the edit history in a rather disorganized mess, and I've made some hist-merge moves to get the history back on-topic for the title it's stored under. While longstanding guidance at Wikipedia:Moving a page § Reasons for moving a page says that a page may be moved when it's "an article at a descriptive name and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed", I think there should be limits on the allowable amount of scope creep. Changing "2000" to "1999", a reduction of one year, is probably OK but adding or removing decades from the scope is just too much. I've proposed a guidance change at Wikipedia talk:Moving a page#Article scope changes.

Wikipedia can probably support multiple overlapping lists of films if there is a consensus to do that, provided other guidance is followed (e.g. pages shouldn't be so long that they take too much time to load, or bump into technical limits). For example, the current two lists could coexist with another set of lists organized by decade. These would not be content forks because they have different scopes.

There is no need for a separate "disambiguation" page; Lists of 20th Century Fox films simply redirects to 20th Century Studios § Films where the first sub-section just lists the five current relevant lists. More lists may be added and linked from here, though one downside is that more lists perhaps means more maintenance burden.

There is a weak consensus to revive the List of 20th Century Fox films. Feel free to revert to the last version of that and update it. You may copy content from any of the other list pages; be sure to provide attribution when you do that. There is also significant desire to split by decade. Feel free to do that too, by starting new articles at the appropriate titles and copying in content from other lists. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename to List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–2020)

[edit]

Can we rename page to the above considering that no further films will be released under this label? Picsovina (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I was thinking the same thing. --XSMan2016 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, no more 20th Century Fox films. El Millo (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(2000–2020)&oldid=1204348300"