Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FILMS)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Terminator production companies[edit]

Yesterday, I added two production companies to the infobox for The Terminator, based on information from IMDb. Andrzejbanas reverted, saying not to add unreferenced information to the article, and saying essentially the same thing on the talk page. As I responded to him, production companies in infoboxes are rarely sourced nor are they explicitly listed or discussed in body of articles. Then, looking back at a discussion that took place in November 2015, I noticed that this same issue had been discussed and Andrzejbanas had admitted that Hemdale was one of the studios involved in the production. So, I want this sorted out, both in regard to this particular film, but also in general. Yes, anything that is in the infobox should be sourced, but do we need a ref. for every production company, and is IMDb considered reliable for such information? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It may have been labeled in here, but if we can't specifically point out sources that describe it as a source (which we have not, especially using IMDb as a source (per WP:RS/IMDb), we have not established any source specifically describing production companies outside the one which is currently provided. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Production companies are rarely cited, but I've come to think they should be. There's too much misinformation, hoaxing, and good-faith guesswork involved in the majority of cases. But, no, the IMDb isn't a reliable source. It's user-generated. The best sources are subscription-only, unfortunately. National film databases are often a good place to start. For mainstream Hollywood films, there's the American Film Institute, which catalogs everything that got a wide release in the US. Other free-access film databases include and AllMovie. Trade magazines are also a good source. Just make sure they're not licensing their data from the IMDb – Film Journal International does this, if I remember correctly. So does Metacritic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'd heard along the way here is that IMDb is generally considered acceptable for production companies – obviously, I'd heard wrong. I will keep that in mind. Thanks, NRP.
Andrzejbanas, what you said above is not true. You yourself admitted on the talk page, in the November 2015 discussion, that Hemdale was one of the production companies and cited an article that said so. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents. IMDB is not reliable for anything with the exception of writing credits issued by the SWG. Finding sources for Hemdale isn't very difficult and the AFI has it listed: That said I don't think sources are always necessary for production companies if they are clearly listed as such in the film credits; however if there is a dispute over exactly what function the company performed then it needs to be cited to secondary sources as all challenged claims do. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
In 2015 I was using different information to go by what I knew at the time. Since then I had found information that was written close to release of the film with very specific production company information. So yes, in 2015 I didn't have access to it. I'm going with the Monthly Film Bulletin write-up for now until we get more reliable and specific information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a close on this? One user is insisting on dragging this out and putting a tag claiming an ongoing problem in the film's infobox. Discussion at Talk:The Terminator#Production companies, continued. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Revived dispute[edit]

Andrzejbanas is insisting on tagging the lead of the article with an ongoing discussion tag. Can we get a close on this? Discussion at Talk:The Terminator#Executive producers in lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's actually not to do with the production company, which has been established. It has to do with the whether or not it is important to list the executive producers with three citations in the lead. Which i've pinged you at on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason it has multiple cites is because of your relentless challenges. It's connected to the production company (which you first challenged). I'm actually for removing the cites from the lead, as the same info is sourced in the article. But the link I provided just above makes it clear what this is in regard to. I do not believe one editor who fails to get consensus for his demand of removing sourced information from the lead should be able to endlessly tag an article claiming there's an ongoing discussion. So let's get this closed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What consensus? It's only been you and me discussing if these items are worth having in the lead or not...Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Dose anyone want to Help with Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States82.38.157.176 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern Academy ratio films[edit]

Because I was looking for such a list and was sure it would be here, I was surprised to find out that there wasn't. We have a List of black-and-white films produced since 1970 but no List of films filmed in the Academy ratio since 1952 or something of that nature. It seems this is becoming more and more of a trend in film-making (check out this article just after a very quick googling), so it would be nice to reflect that in an article. A few recent examples are noted in the Academy ratio article itself, but it would be nice to have an actual list. I would be happy to help with research but perhaps someone more knowledgeable would take the project on? Thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No one's interested? I would take this on, but I don't normally edit many film-related articles and wouldn't know how to properly research this. Jmj713 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability of a vehicle in a film[edit]

Where would I find the specific notability policy for vehicles in films? Is there such a thing? I ask because I recently redirected the article for EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle to the Stripes article, arguing that the vehicle is not notable enough for its own article. Take a look at the article and you can see that it doesn't say much more than the film article says, and there is no basis for notability apart from the film. My edit was reverted, though, and my first thought was just to let the matter rest. On reflection, though, I really do not think it needs a separate article, and so would like to make a case for merging it. None of the refs in the article make a case for notability. I'd appreciate some thoughts from other FilmProject editors. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It would fall under how we look for notability in fictional characters: there should be something more than just it appeared in the film, but sources that describe how the concept of the vehicle was created, and its reception/legacy. Eg DeLorean time machine, TARDIS. Or if it actually is that important as a prop that has been trading hands for sometime, discussion of that can be made eg General Lee (car). I agree that the EM-50 is nowhere near those cases and should be merged/redirected to the film. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't feel it's notable, take it to WP:AFD and see if a consensus can be reached to a) restore the redirect or b) delete it altogether. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you'd be yelled out of town taking that to AFD - its a reasonable search term and the content is completely valid within Stripes and you want to retain that contribution history, so AFD is not the way to go. You'd have to argue the merge on the talk page. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Doing a quick search engine test, I do not think there is sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. It may make sense to have a stand-alone article for a vehicle that has multiple appearances (across movies or TV episodes) since no one movie/TV episode article can adequately discuss it. Here, WP:PAGEDECIDE seems applicable where the vehicle article would likely be a permanent stub and is more suitable under the film article that provides the best context for the vehicle's role. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for these responses. I thought about AfD, but decided against it, for the same reasons mentioned by Masem. In a past discussion on the EM-50 talk page, it was argued that the vehicle is the equivalent of the DeLorean or other film vehicles; subsequent responses said that this claim was without merit, as Erik's search verifies. A merge and redirect seems the best course of action. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion of EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle is now underway at Talk:Stripes (film) § Merger proposal. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone[edit]

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for reviewers for GA: The Seventh Victim[edit]

Hello all, I've done considerable work on the article for The Seventh Victim, the 1943 horror film directed by Mark Robson, and am looking to get reviewers in order to help it pass a GA review. If anyone is interested, I would much appreciate it! –Drown Soda (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Views wanted on The Russian Bride[edit]

Hi, I'd like some opinions regarding The Russian Bride, preferably on its talk page. This is an upcoming movie right before production with notable cast and crew members. I've bumped into a user who wants it deleted and hits both the article and myself with various templates. Thanks, Lyrda (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

English-language label[edit]

Per WP:FILMLEAD, if the nationality of a film is singular, then we include it in the opening sentence of the lead section. If there are multiple countries involved, we do not do a nationality mash-up and instead explain the role of each country later in the lead section. In the absence of a nationality, should we state the language upfront instead as an alternative characteristic? To use an example, Wolf Totem (film) involved China and France, but it is a Chinese-language film (and I labeled it as such). For films like UK-US productions, I've preferred to put in "English-language" even though it is not supported or opposed by policies or guidelines. It seems to make sense to do this for foreign-language co-productions, so I argue that this should also be done for English-language co-productions. Otherwise, the opening sentence would lack mention of a nationality or language, which seems to imply a default of being English-language (or even American in some cases, due to the focus on American films). While this is the English Wikipedia, is not having the "English-language" label implicating of systemic bias or not? The example I had in mind here was Dunkirk (2017 film), which is a production between France, UK, and US. If it was French-language, wouldn't we state that? So doesn't that mean we should state that it is English-language? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

For films with multiple countries, I've always gone for "X is an internationally co-produced film" or words to that affect. I'm sure it's in the MOS, but I can't find it right now. I've never stated the language of the film in the lead. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion about specifying languages in film leads a while ago at MOS:FILM. It didn't discuss international co-productions in depth, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I think your examples at that discussion for Drishyam, Buried, and The Terminator are pretty sound. If a film is American or British, then the English-language inference is there. However, if it is a UK-US co-production, we tend to mention that later, so there's nothing upfront to infer from. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I think both solutions are acceptable. There is an obvious distinction in my mind between a Brit-American film and a Brit-American co-production. For example, the James Bond films are undeniably British films but since the mid-70s when United Artists bought out Harry Saltzman they have been British-American co-productions, although London based Eon still undertake all the creative decisions. Same for Star Wars: undeniably American films but the last couple have had British investment and have been regarded as British-American co-productions, even though American based Lucasfilm take all the creative decisions. One is about national identity and the other is about production origin. Both approaches have their strengths: for example, The White Ribbon was a co-production between several European countries but its principal language is German and it was also the German submission at the Oscars so I think "German-language" is an elegant solution there. On the other hand I think Lugnuts' solution would probably work better at something like Paddington (film) since it is arguably a film produced within the sphere of the British film industry (making it more British than anything else) but in reality is a co-production with France. That is covered in the third sentence of the lead so it is not strictly necessary to call it a "British-American film" in the opening sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Budget figure guidelines[edit]

Template:Infobox_film offers the following guidance on budget information:

Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, with the latter usually listing a mainstream website as the main source of the budget, such as the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. Such websites are preferred to cite as a reference, if possible. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range. Do not use primary sources to corroborate budget figures. When applicable, add "gross" and "net" parenthetically beside the figure(s), using the {{Plainlist}} template.

Does anyone have a problem with me removing the "Such websites are preferred to cite as a reference, if possible" bit? It seems to be encouraging cherry-picking, with some editors removing sources that give a more thorough coverage of the financials and replacing them with Box Office Mojo figures. I don't think the guidelines should be encouraging source supremacy, that is what WP:RS is for. Basically, the guideline is just trying to be helpful and offering advice on where to find the information but some editors are clearly interpreting the guideline as a an instruction. Ultimately if we have a better source—one that is more thorough or up to date we should use that—but if there is no reason to discriminate between sources we shouldn't defer to just what one single source says. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that was added back in 2009 by MikeAllen as seen here. I think it was intended to mean that instead of using The Numbers, to go straight to the source and use Los Angeles Times or Variety instead. Do we want to take out the sentence completely, or clear up that intent? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we should just take it out. I think it is helpful to tell editors where they can find the information, it is just counter-productive to suggest there is a preferential hierarchy beyond WP:RS. Betty Logan (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with removing that sentence, but perhaps we should modify the previous one since they were added together. We can just say that budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. and leave it at that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with Erik's proposed rewording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with removing it, esp. the "if possible" bit. It's almost giving a green light to saying "well I checked, it wasn't possible, so I didn't bother getting a decent source." Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Enough sources for a new list article?[edit]

I'm thinking here of films and TV shows like The X-Files episode Roadrunners (2000), The Village (2004), Population 436 (2006), or Wayward Pines (ongoing since 2015). Are there reliable sources on this new genre yet so that at least an own WP list could be started for this new genre where usually a lone person involuntarily ends up in a remote, isolated village or small town (usually by means of a car accident or by having been given wrong directions on purpose when they were in the middle of nowhere) that is ruled by a sect that intends to make them a permanent resident of the community for the rest of their life, violently preventing them and all of the residents from ever leaving the place or even just contacting the outside world and just as violently trying to make them forsake and forget their old life? -- (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You would need to observe WP:NOTESAL here. It says, "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, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." That means there need to be preexisting lists that can be consolidated into a list on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if there is a term or genre name for what you're describing (which means it is not likely that a list is warranted at this point). To broaden the scope a little bit, perhaps a list of films featuring cults would work. I do see search engine results for that at least. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess my brain just works this way that I particularly tend to see or group fiction works within particular genres or sub-genres when they seem to become a trend, but I know that external sources would be required hence I've asked for them, as I thought it likely enough the above kind of films and shows may have been reviewed as a group already. Thank you kindly for looking into this.
Another case (though I'm afraid less likely to have been grouped or seen as similar to each other like this before by reliable or reputable sources) would be this new 'genre' of either fantasy action-style or purely action-style peplum aka sword-and-sandal film that is set in the ancient world (usually Greece, Rome, or Egypt), as a major genre feature has a cinematography, editing, pacing, lighting, and sets extremely influenced by 300 (2006) (which is basically a 300-originated, daunting and awe-inspiring stylistic mix of action-centered cinematography and editing based upon the iconic styles of Leni Riefenstahl, Sergio Leone, and especially with a heavy use of speed ramping particularly in relation to physical impacts), and many of them are released by either Village Roadshow Pictures and/or Legendary Pictures. Examples include the 2010-12 Clash of the Titans mini-franchise (where a third part was cancelled; I know it's narratively a remake of an early-80s franchise, but stylistically, it belongs entirely into this list of 300-style films), Immortals (2011), 300: Rise of an Empire (2014), Pompeii (2014), and Gods of Egypt (2016). -- (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that that grouping is less likely too. :) I think that the films inspired by 300 would still fall under fantasy film. The list would include these more recent films, and the prose could certainly cover the revival that has influences from 300 (as supported by sources, of course). The challenge with Wikipedia is that we cannot be a vanguard for topics. We have to follow what has already been written and summarize it. However, there is space for film-related articles not about individual films. I've done some list-making in the past. There is also the possibility of prose (e.g., alcoholism in film), but that requires a more invested approach. In any case, if you need a second pair of eyes to research anything, let me know. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
These types of films are basically a subset of dystopian films. The list primarily deals with dystopian societies, but there is no reason why a section can't be added to the list that covers dystopian communities. Films such as The Wicker Man (1973 film) is already in the category so arguably should also be in the list too. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether we're talking about the same thing. Dystopia is usually defined by two things for me: a.) It's a sci-fi genre, which the cult thing I've mentioned not necessarily is, and b.) dystopia concerns entire countries and societies, not small towns or villages with a small community that is isolated from the rest of the world. While both genres may deal with oppression and tyranny, dystopias deal with large groups such as countries and societies, while the rural cult thing I'm thinking of is defined by a small, closely-knit community where the small size of the community is part of the reason why they have to hide their doings from the world at large within the confinement and rural isolation of their community and have to prevent those they draw in by force from contacting the outside world where their community's madness is not accepted. -- (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You are confusing dystopian fiction with speculative science-fiction. Dystopian fiction is basically "bad place" fiction: they can be post-apocalyptic worlds like Mad Max or alternative history fiction like SS-GB where the Nazis run Britain. They can be totalitarian futuristic cities like in Logan's Run or small rural communities as in The Wicker Man, and the famous novel Lord of the Flies. The underlying theme of this type of fiction is that there is an inherent threat in the way the society/community operates or is governed. To Population 436 and The Wicker Man, you can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and The Spring (the Kyle McLachlan version). All I am suggesting is that List of dystopian films could be organized by type, which would include a section for small-town/island/community dystopias. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'm seeing at dystopia appears to mainly corroborate the common definition I've been trying to give above: a.) It's concerned with the fate of large groups such as societies, states, and countries, and b.) Just like utopias have always been a proposal for a better future, dystopias have always been a warning as to where societies may be heading in the future. Hence, the article gives as most closely related genres (or rather genres where dystopia is usually counted as a sub-genre thereof) social science fiction, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, alternate history (another genre commonly categorized as a sub-genre of sci-fi, SS-GB being an example here), and New World Order (conspiracy theory) as well as New world order (politics). -- (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Look, I was just offering a potential solution. If you don't what to do it that way then it's not a big deal, but there is nothing about the definition of a Dystopia that bars villages, small towns, and island communities from being considered dystopias. In fact there are plenty of scholarly sources discussing dystopian (and utopian) literature that hold up work such as The Wicker Man, Lord of the Flies and The Lottery as examples. A dystopia is simply a "bad place" with malevolent social norms, and nothing more than that. In fact the most famous dystopic fiction ever written is set on a farm. Betty Logan (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit late to this discussion, but I would question the definition of "societies, states, and countries" as being necessarily more extensive in scope that an isolated community. :

  • We define "society" as "a group of people involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations." The size of the group is not part of the definition. Later in the article there is mention of an anthropological classification system where human societies are divided into 1) "Hunter-gatherer bands (categorization of duties and responsibilities)." 2) "Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige." 3) "Stratified structures led by chieftains." 4) "Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments."
  • The definition of a state has always included the "city-state", "a sovereign state that consists of a city and its dependent territories." We have historical examples in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Mesoamerica. We have currently existing city-states such as Singapore, Monaco, and Vatican City. And they are a relatively common trope in fiction. Our List of fictional city-states in literature includes everything from ancient city-states like Umbar to the various massive mega-cities in the Judge Dredd series. For example, Brit-Cit covers much of modern England and has a population of 160 million people.
  • The definition of "country" includes both sovereign states and various current or former political divisions. Our List of countries and dependencies by population contains 196 sovereign states and a large number of dependencies. Some are decisively small in population numbers. At the bottom of the list we have the Pitcairn Islands, a British Overseas Territory with an estimated population of 57 people. It is currently "the least populous national jurisdiction in the world".

As for dystopia, while it may be a recognizable genre in science fiction, the definition does not tie in it to either the size of the community depicted, nor necessarily to futuristic settings. A dystopia is "a community or society that is undesirable or frightening." Our article provides various definitions and examples. :

  • Dystopias are based on political principles and/or utopian ideals which have negative consequences for their inhabitants, "because of at least one fatal flaw."
  • Dystopias are based on flawed and oppressive economic systems. Typical depictions include either planned economies where the state controls the system or worlds where extensive privatization and corporatism have allowed unaccountable large corporations to function as governments in their own right.
  • Dystopias are based on rather rigid systems of social stratification. Worlds where a privileged ruling class dominates the working classes and/or abuses them.
  • Dystopias are based on systems which have either eradicated the family as a social institution or are hostile to it.
  • Dystopias are based on religious ideas and consequent oppression or persecution. Typical depictions feature atheists or a dominant religious group which are persecuting religious minorities or shaping society to match their own views.
  • Dystopias are based on societies which expect everyone to conform to their social norms and do not tolerate deviants.
  • Dystopias are based on societies which experience violence on a regular basis. Societies which are at war, societies where crime is rampant, urban crime is a norm, and criminal gangs operate more or less freely, societies where blood sports play a role in the regulation of society.
  • Dystopias are defined by their relations to nature. Their societies are "urban and frequently isolate their characters from all contact with the natural world". They often try to control or to eliminate nature and human nature alike. Conversely other dystopias are nature-loving, but they have either lost access to a few millennia worth of technololical evolution or actively suppress such access.
  • Dystopias are based on their misuse of technology or on the negative consequences of technological developments.
  • Our List of dystopian literature includes examples from the 16th century onwards. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a very thorough anaylsis, Dimadick, and while I personally appreciate your contribution I seem to have unwittingly "trolled" the thread and changed the subject under discussion. I was simply trying to find a way to accommodate the IP's request but obviously he hasn't embraced the suggestion, and that's fair enough—after all Wikipedia is not a dystopian community! He simply wants to create a list about a particular trope, and no more than that. As Erik points out above, unless reliable sources identify the trope and the media that exhibit it then he's going to have a problem. As for whether or not The Wicker Man et al are dystopian fiction, well that's really down to reliable sources to determine I guess. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Actors' filmographies[edit]

You may be interested in this discussion about including directors in these tables/articles or not. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Genre bloat?[edit]

Can someone look over the edits of (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and see if I'm overreacting? I don't want to edit war over this stuff, but the IP editor seems to be adding unnecessary, unsourced genres to leads. This continues the same behavior from (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I tried leaving what I hope was a friendly message on both editors' talk pages, but I've yet to get any response. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

First IP is now blocked. Speaking of genre bloat, what do people think of the genres listed in the lead of The Great Wall (film)? Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 09:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oof, "epic historical fiction action-adventure monster film". It feels like an attempt to explain the film in one breath. If sources support it, I would just call it a fantasy film and convey the premise right after, which can establish that it is a historical period and setting in which monsters have to be fought. That would unpack the genre bloat. Also, that's another thing that bugs me about some lead sections; the least important information is upfront. People aren't going to see the movie because of the six writers involved. It seems better to mention the director and the star more upfront and to save the other names to be mentioned later. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that opening sentence is a mouthful. I agree with Erik on each of his points. Enthusiastic fans seem to be using "epic film" indiscriminately lately as a generic form of puffery. I've come to think that it should be removed out-of-hand if it's unsourced. Stuffing as much information as humanly possible into the lead sentence also seems to be gaining popularity. I try to fix that when I see it, but there are a few IP editors who try to compress the entire infobox into the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Erik, fantasy film sounds about right. Also remember that WP:FILMLEAD states: " At minimum, the opening sentence should identify... the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", not genres or sub-genres.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it seems like "monster film" edges out "fantasy film". I posted my findings on the talk page: Talk:The Great Wall (film) § Genre in opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
A general interpretation of the guideline suggests there should be no more than two genre labels in there i.e. "horror film" or "romantic comedy". Any lead that lists three genres or more should be scaled back IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor adding film not in production to filmographies[edit]

An editor is adding the film Fighting with My Family to filmographies, and edit-warring to keep it there, even though the film is not yet in production and this violates WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, that article itself is not entirely reliably sourced. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I told you in numerous instances production begins today on the film. You ignored me each and every time. And how is it not reliably sourced? Rusted AutoParts 06:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The film is not yet in production. When it is in production, and this is confirmed by an independent reliable source, then can add it. See WP:CRYSTAL. Discussions of article content need to stay on article talk pages, not on usertalk pages. A forecast posted on Instagram is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Social media post from people involved with the production is very much reliable and have been used on various articles site wide. Johnson is an actor and producer on the film, him posting on Instagram production starts today is very much reliable, in fact the most reliable it can get.
And I was directly asking the question to you. Your talk page was the most appropriate place to ask you a direct question. Rusted AutoParts 06:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. When the film is in production, and this is confirmed by a reliable source, can add it. Discussions of article content need to stay on article talk pages, not on usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly you're not interested in corresponding with me as you're just regurgitating the same thing over and over again. Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a good answer since I do understand where both of you are coming from. On one hand, we could ignore all rules and accept the social media update since there is so little reason to question it. On the other hand, there is no deadline. Even if article creation and link proliferation is not verifiably warranted, it will be very soon. If Johnson posted an update, can we not find a secondary source that acknowledges this, and go with it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Secondary source GameSpot here independently recognizes the start of production. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a slippery slope though. Once you start accepting social media as evidence then would we accept a Facebook post by somebody claiming to be an extra? I think having a reliable source confirm principal photography has begun is a good line in the sand. After all our core policy WP:V states that something "must be verifiable before you can add it", and that requires a reliable source. To invoke IAR you have to be able to demonstrate that following a policy or guideline prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia and since there is WP:NODEADLINE I don't accept that IAR is applicable in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Although this particular case has been rendered moot by the GameSpot article, I agree with Betty. Once an announcement like that is made these days, it will be parroted soon by RS anyway if the film is of any notability at all. There is no rush. DaßWölf 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reading WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I'm not seeing why Instagram cannot be referenced. Dwayne Johnson is involved with this film, the claim is not exceptional, and there is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity (since Johnson's Instagram is verifiably official). In any case, GameSpot probably refers to the Instagram post, and if they clear it, then we can clear it too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In this particular case it is probably ok, but I think instances where social media can and should be used are in the minority so it creates a poor precedent. A reputable source usually picks up these things within a few days so I don't see the harm in waiting. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that the GameSpot mention merely parrots the Instagram comment. Please also note that the Instagram comment was not even that filming had started, but that filming would start. Please also note that the film is still listed as being in pre-production on IMDB: [1]. Please also remember that there is no rush. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a load of crap. The point of an independent source is parroting other people's words. A secondary source talking info from a primary. Johnson has since also posted again, and has stated starts today. What more do you want? Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
And once again IMDB is not a reliable source. Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you do not fully understand the meaning of "independent source"; it does not include "parroting other people's words". "Production starts today" is still future tense; we need reliable proof that filming has in fact begun. IMDB is indeed definitely reliable for (and is the industry standard for) production status; the only parts of IMDB that are not fully reliable are those that are user-generated. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel you don't fully understand. An independent source first needs to gather info from another source. In this case they are getting first hand production info from Johnson himself, the film's producer and actor. He has very clearly established a production start, so when you say "parroting", they're actually just reporting what their source of information is saying. Him saying that "production starts tomorrow", which then was reiterated in another post a day later stating "production starts today, lets shoot" is their top off that filming began that day. Therefore the production start was confirmed and therefore IMDB is not needed to verify it. Rusted AutoParts 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion[edit]

There's a requested move discussion at Talk:Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World. This could impact WP:NCF and cause changes to other article titles, including Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Anyone Out There?[edit]

I see that WikiProject Film has a very impressive number of members. Perhaps someone could take a look at the Requests for Assessment, which hasn't been touched since 6 August 2016. There are 21 articles waiting. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's quite a backlog. We should all take one each this weekend and clear it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

St. Louis Film Critics Association[edit]

I noticed that our articles for St. Louis Film Critics Association awards are titled e.g. St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association Awards 2005 (with "Gateway"). The website and every source I'm seeing just calls it "St. Louis Film Critics Association", so I moved the main association article to that location. Before I move the rest to omit "Gateway" I thought I'd drop a line here, first, to minimize headaches in case I'm overlooking something? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"Plot" sections tagged as too long[edit]

I don't know what to do about plot sections of films tagged with "{{long plot}}" (or "{{plot}}"). Seems that we can do nothing about the tag or the sections themselves. Maybe another edit-a-thon to fix "Plot" summaries or remove the tag from those sections? If not, what else to do about the film plot sections? --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well for films you haven't seen, one thing you can do is look at the page history and click on several revisions before, or look at edit summaries with "Plot" in them. Often times you can find a more succinct version of the plot that way. It's usually just the results of one editor and the previous versions can be just fine. (for featured and good articles, you can click on the talk page to find the revisions where they were reviewed and just default to those) In my experience it's usually harder to cut down a bloated plot than to write a good one from scratch because often the former is structured too much to focus on play-by-plays and you have to work within that. Otherwise yeah, an editathon is an idea but would hinge on having participants who are familiar with the works in question. Opencooper (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... there is WP:edit-a-thon, which says a "thon" can be either online, offline, or both. Someone must organize a "thon"; has anyone done a thon on plots before? I am not the right person to organize it. --George Ho (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it can be a lot of work (Churchill once apologised for writing a long letter, because he didn't have time to write a short one!). It is possible to copyedit a summary for a film you haven't seen (just removing the padding and finding succinct ways to say things often save a lot of text). The tags presumably direct to a list somewhere and the project could point interested editors towards it and encourage them to get stuck in? IanB2 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Another hmm... what if we spoil surprises of those who never have seen a film? Can they still edit the plot summary in spite of spoilers? George Ho (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 10:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
yes, WP has a clear policy on spoilers (i.e. not excluding them), see WP:SPOILER. Someone who comes to an encyclopedia and starts reading a section headed "plot" shouldn't be surprised to find that the section describes what happens in the film! IanB2 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know that guideline. Speaking of which, someone created Template:Spoiler Reminder recently just for one talk page. What to do with it? George Ho (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. And I wasn't particularly recommending that people who haven't seen the film do the editing (and certainly they can't write the summary!) - simply that if an article is too long it is usually possible to make a big improvement just from judicious copy-writing of the existing content, without actually needing to go away, watch the film, and start from scratch. IanB2 (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride[edit]

The user proposing deletion failed to notify this WikiProject. I would really appreciate input from some project members as the article seems in better shape than many in this category, and the users discussing the proposal now appear unfamiliar with concepts like reliability and independence when it comes to sources within the scope of this project. Lyrda (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Lyrda, please be aware of canvassing. You can post a neutral notice to the AfD discussion to invite editors to comment, but you cannot encourage a particular outcome. For what it is worth, even if it is deleted, you can request for the page to be put in draft space; see Wikipedia:Drafts. The best indicator of a film's notability is independent reviews. If the film is reviewed by multiple reliable sources, the article can ultimately be restored to the mainspace. Before a film's release, we have to be aware of mere reprints or summaries of press releases. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an upcoming film, so at the moment there are no reviews. The article references previews, however, as well as other independent sources that relate to verifiability and notability. The discussion should be, I think, about how much weight they carry, rather than about the article's creator. Lyrda (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know it is an upcoming film. :) My point is that there is no deadline. If the film is notable enough upon release to be reviewed by multiple reliable sources, then there will be a Wikipedia article for it forever. Before a film's release, we have to look closely at the coverage to determine if a topic is notable enough, before any reception of it, to warrant inclusion. As I mentioned, we have to be aware of mere reprints or summaries of press releases. I am mentioning the draft option because if the article is deleted, you can restore when there is new evidence of the film's notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but so far there has been little discussion about coverage or reliability. That's why I am asking for project members to get involved. Lyrda (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

O.J.: Made in America - Film or Miniseries?[edit]

There is currently a dispute at O.J.: Made in America whether it should be listed as a single documentary film, or a five-part miniseries. This project and WP:TV have been notified to the discussion, which can be found on its talk page, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike Zoss Productions[edit]

I just restored a redirect on the article Mike Zoss Productions, arguing, as I did back in November, that this article, about the Coen brothers' production company, doesn't say anything not already said in the Coen Bros. article. Is there any reason for this article to exist? To my mind, it is simply redundant, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Review bloat[edit]

Can someone please give me some pointers on what to do on this article with regards to reviews. It seems that one editor wants to list pretty much every review ever written for this film. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it is structured as huge soundbites by critics, so it encourages never-ending bloat. I always try to structure review sections around opinion rather than critics which curbs bloat because once an opinion has been covered we don't need to keep quoting every single critic who repeats it. This reminds me of an edit-war at The Boy (2015 film) (the problem there was a SPA attempting to promote the film) but the section had the same structural problems i.e. it was just a bunch of soundbites one after another. You can compare the two versions here:
My approach is always the same: start of with the aggregator stats if they are available and then try to collect together an overall critical consensus. I then try group together opinions that discuss the same aspects such as the direction or the acting, or the pacing etc, so the section has a sort of rhythm to it to avoid the choppy "He said...she said...he said" format. Betty Logan (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Betty - much appreciated. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the "Critical reception" section is way too detailed. I would keep the reviews to those from the most authoritative sources like The New York Times and Variety (basically those on Metacritic or in Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics). Reviews that can be removed are Under the Radar, Exclaim Canada, No More Workhorse, The College View, Letterboxd, Geek Ireland, The Leaky Cauldron, The NYC Movie Guru, and MuggleNet. I would also suggest grouping Irish reviews in their own subsection and see if we can find a consensus among Irish film critics about the country's consensus for the film (especially compared to the general one). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. I'll take a look at this article in the near future. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you all here. People try to their their favorite films' articles into fan sites. And, yes, as my colleagues here do, I try to find quotes that make a specific, concrete point and illustrate a critical detail, rather than just, "Terrific movie! Great acting!" --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)