Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

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

Studio Ghibli portal is live[edit]

Feel free to expand it, add it to your watch list, and so on. Portal:Studio Ghibli ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Tony Gardner SPA[edit]

There's an SPA, FilmFXMan (talk · contribs), bulk-adding links to Tony Gardner (designer) and Alterian, Inc. to articles. Not sure what to do. Could use some discussion as to whether these mentions are being shoehorned inappropriately. Left a message on the user's talk page, but he doesn't seem to be in a talkative mood. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how to reply using the talk page - I'm just tired of seeing Tony Gardner not receive credit for work done, especially after watching a documentary that devalued his work on a film, and I was trying to give credit where credit was due. If I'm going about it all wrong, I apologize. Best, FilmFXMan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmFXMan (talkcontribs) 22:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to shoehorn Tony Gardner into articles, like having a "Production" section at The Craft (film) that only mentions Gardner. Per WP:NPOV, there needs to be due weight especially in regard to the level of detail. I could be wrong, but I don't think Gardner's contribution to The Craft is so important to mention without covering any other aspect of production. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@FilmFXMan: thank you for responding, but it's still concerning. Doniago reverted two of the edits as unsourced, but I agree with Erik that the primary concern here is that we should be working toward due weight. There are several articles that prominently mention Gardner and no other crew members at all. I don't see how this is giving credit where credit is due, or else you'd have been adding other people's names, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Billion vs 1,000 million[edit]

On the talk page for Skyfall, there has been a lengthy, but largely unproductive discussion regarding the box office total in the infobox. It's currently listed as $1,109 million. The discussion follows multiple requests to change it to $1.109 billion. At issue here is the "short" billion (109), currently used widely around the world and across Wikipedia, and the outdated "long" billion (1012), that was used in the UK until the 1970's. A small group of editors contend that using "billion" can lead to "confusion" and insist on using "1,000 million", claiming it's supported by the article being written in British English (the film is a joint American-British production). The current form was first added 17 months ago, and in that time has been changed literally dozens upon dozens of times (perhaps hundreds) from "million" to "billion". It would seem that if anything, the current form is causing "confusion". These changes are being made by numerous users, both registered and IP, in both English and non-English speaking countries from around the world, including from across the UK.

There are currently 23 film articles with box office totals exceeding a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and among them, only Skyfall uses this form. My understanding is that there has been no "confusion" reported on any of those other pages (including Harry Potter 7 pt. II, which is a British film). There have been no complaints of "confusion" (that I'm aware of) on the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Wikipedia articles that use the short billion (topics such as math, physics, astrology, cosmology, finance, etc., etc.). Thus far there has been no explanation as to how anyone might "confuse" Skyfall's box office as being a "Trillion Dollars" ($1,000,000,000,000). Wiki-policy states that the short form is to used on in the project, but claims has been made that it is not definitive enough. The number one "goal" of the film project is to "standardize the film articles in Wikipedia", so I fail see why we need this one glaring difference that has thus far proved to be quite problematic. Below, is a table of the 23 films mentioned above (including the aberration that is Skyfall), with their current box office totals as they are written in their respective infoboxes.

  • WP:NUMERAL states: "billion" and "trillion" are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively
  • WP:CENTURY also states that the short billion is to be used (when representing time).
  • Long and short scales states: Most English-language countries and regions use the short scale.
  • Oxford English Dictionary states: British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.
  • 1,000,000,000 states: The alternative term "one thousand million" is rare and is used primarily to ease understanding among non-native speakers of English...
  • Virtually all the sources we rely on for this project, including sources from the UK and the sources used for the Skyfall article, use the short billion.
  • In the UK, the short billion has been officially in use now for over 40 years.

In summary, Skyfall's box office total should be listed as "billion" like everywhere else. This issue is not at all likely to go away as more and more people continue to edit the total to read "billion" for this film and the same handful of editors continue to revert. Also, there are certainly going to be more and more films added to the 'billion dollar club'. I would like input from the community on this issue. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 07:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest an RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If words are at the heart of the problem, use numerals. 1,109,000,000 is unmistakeable. For what it's worth, I grew up in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) well after the 1970s and was stil taught that a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 in school (and a trillion was a million times that, etc). So it's not quite as clear cut as calling it "outdated". GRAPPLE X 09:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm British and in my 40s, and I've only ever heard of "billion" to mean 1,000,000,000, from grade school right through to university. I don't have a problem with using full numerals (but others editors are against it). It would also solve the continuing debates about rounding off (and up and down). But "billion" is being used on twenty-two other films articles, and hundreds, if not thousands of other Wikipedia pages without a problem, so how is it that it's a problem for this one page? The current "$1000, million" is a proven problem as it's constantly edited to read a "billion" and then reverted back. So obviously "$1000, million" is causing confusion and something needs to be done. If not using "billion", then I'm open to other suggestions. - theWOLFchild 10:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
My preferred solution to anything that's being constantly edited back and forth, be it formatting, genres, subjective terms, whatever, is just the excise the problem. Even if every editor currently involved agrees to word it one way or another, there will inevitably come along another new editor who would prefer it the "other" way and it'll happen again. So since the problem is with the word being used, don't use words. GRAPPLE X 10:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't have a problem with that as a alternative solution. But I think it would be an uphill battle for you to gain consensus on it. It would probably have to be applied to every film article. Right now, I'm just trying to fix one. But let me ask you, if Skyfall was changed to "billion", would you object? - theWOLFchild 10:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I would, but not because it's confusing; it's clearly a bone of contention that need not be there. And it certainly wouldn't have to be applied across the board, consistency is only of great importance within each article, not across them all. GRAPPLE X 11:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the number one stated goal of the Wiki Film Project is "To standardize the film articles in Wikipedia". But anyway, I will say this; it would be interesting if all the involved editors here agreed to use "billion" on Skyfall for say... 90 days. Then watch and see how many times it's changed to "million" by any non-involved editor or user, or see how many complaints the page gets from aged Britons about "confusion" over the amount. None of the anti-billion crew seems to want to address these points. - theWOLFchild 13:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ping, ping, ping, ping, ping!!! All in a higher place now. Come join the party. Betty Logan, Cassianto, Buzzard, Martinevans123, SchroCat, SonOfThornhill, Stphnpn. Charlr6 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
ooo, neat vid. lol Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Should totally just use $1,108,561,013 instead. If one party wants a 1000 million and the other a billion, surely they can all agree upon simply stating the full gross? There is no harm whatsoever in that. The world wouldn't end. Charlr6 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you really talking sense here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I was taught a billion to be a thousand million, and as practically the entire world in media uses 'billion' to refer to box office, just you know Wolf Child, then we should reflect that.
Or, I'm open for what GrappleX posted about about just using numerals. Nothing wrong with that, and the readers can then read it how they like. Charlr6 (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Short billion (10 9) is the one everybody uses nowadays - it's all over the WP:POLICY pages - and I speak as a Brit who is old enough to have used the long billion way back when. There really should be no content issue here. If Wikipedians are constantly digging up my grave, that's a behaviour issue not a content issue any more, I'm still dead. I don't accept that long strings of zeroes are a good idea, for many of not most folks, they don't digest easily. HTH. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NUMERAL states, "'Billion' and 'trillion' are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively." Was there a counter-argument to this? Also, are there any reliable sources that report Skyfall‍ '​s box office gross as a long-scale value? I was surprised to see that the BBC reported Skyfall‍ '​s gross as a short-scale value. This case is reminding me of Star Trek Into Darkness where lowercase "into" was argued for based on principle despite sources overwhelmingly writing "Into". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    To add on, if WP:NUMERAL says that "billion" used in article text is understood to represent the short-scale value, then to treat Skyfall‍ '​s use of "billion" as problematic contravenes this understanding. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The counter-argument is on the article talk page where all article discussions should be. After a 200KB discussion I very much doubt editors want to restart the discussion over from somehwere else. A summary of the arguments are as follows though:
  • The primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary states "1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions."
  • The British government did indeed adopt the short scale definition in 1974. Nobody disputes this, but even a parliamentary publication concedes that the word still sometimes causes confusion.
  • MOSNUMERAL compels us to use the short-scale, it doesn't compel us to actually use the word "billion": 1,000 million means the same thing on both the short and long scales.
  • The argument that "standardization" is the "primary goal" of Wikipedia articles is again founded on false logic: if that were the case then all articls would use one variety of English. As it stands, out of the film articles listed above only Skyfall and the Harry Potter articles are written in British English.
  • Grapple's point cuts to the heart of the debate: language is inherently outdated. Some words have been around hundreds of years and their meanings have changed over those years. Since British education did not start adopting the short scale until the mid-70s then there are plenty of people alive who have been educated before this time. The word has had two distinct meanings in the last half century. The argument that the article is pandering to the "minority" is fallacious: anyone who knows what a billion is on either scale will not be confused by "1,000 million", and it is unambiguous.
  • To quote 1,000,000,000: "Previously in British English (but not in American English), the word "billion" referred to a million millions (1,000,000,000,000). However, this is no longer common, and the word has been used to mean one thousand million (1,000,000,000) for some time.[2][3] The alternative term "one thousand million" is rare and is used primarily to ease understanding among non-native speakers of English, as many other languages use words similar to "billion" (e.g. Spanish billón, or Finnish Biljoona) to mean one trillion (1,000,000,000,000 or a million millions)." Less than 50% of the viewings of the English Wikipedia originate from native English-speaking countries (US/UK/Ireland/Australia/New Zealand) with majority of viewings originating in non-English speaking countries, some of which "billion" translates to "1,000,000 million" in their language. Not exactly in the spirit of WP:WORLDVIEW is it, if we write something in a way that can be easily misinterpreted.
Those are the main reasons for dropping a "billion" from the article. If editors want to further comment on this issue it would be better if they did so at the main discussion. It is unreasonable to expect everyone that participated in a 200KB debate to re-start the discussion here. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Who said anything about restarting? Only come and join. It would be better for it to happen here, in a more higher place than one films talk page. Going from local council to country government. Can't hide there forever. This page can help decide how to do it for possibly entire future.
Thewolfchild I remember you coming up on the original post loads of good 'summaries' which practically no one on the opposite side really delved into an actual response, as much as what you researched into it. Charlr6 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Betty Logan. Yes, unfortunately the discussion on the other page was quite long, but it was also completely derailed by large amounts of off-topic silliness. This is the more appropriate venue anyway, as this issue affects multiple film related articles. That said, there are still some outstanding questions that need to be addressed, despite the "200KB discussion";
  • How do you account for the lack of "confusion" and so-called "ambiguity" on the twenty-two other film articles that use "billion" in the infobox for box office? Or the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Wikipedia articles that use "billion"?
  • Why is it that this one particular article must! be different?
  • Also, how do account for the almost daily edits to Skyfall changing "million" to "billion" by users from all over the world, including the UK?
  • Do you recognize that in point of fact, the current "$1,000 million" is clearly causing confusion for many, many people?
Thanks. - theWOLFchild 23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I am reasonably sure that if the editors that Charl6 canvassed had been in favor of using the "billion" you would not regard the main discussion as "silliness". If you want "fresh eyes" by all means notify wikiprojects of the existing discussion but WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
First off, I didn't "canvass" anyone. If you have a problem with 'Charl6', please take it up with him. Don't lower yourself to the level of others here with off-topic comments and accusations. Now, that said, I again have asked you to address a few simple and straight forward points, and again you refuse. Why? I am asking as plainly and respectfully as I can. Why do you refuse to address any of the points brought forward, (on either page). Thank you. - theWOLFchild 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't accused you of canvassing anyone. To quote WP:FORUMSHOPPING: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. I think that policy makes it very clear that starting a new discussion when another one on the exact same issue is already in the advanced stages is generally unhelpful. Also, your discussion opener is in no way a neutral description of the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Betty Logan - Here is the very problem. You have posted yet another lengthy comment, quoting an entire section of policy no less (wouldn't a link suffice?), adding more and more "KBs" to the page, (when you yourself seem to ignore policy when it suits you) and yet nowhere in your post did you address the actual on-topic questions I have repeatedly put to you. This is exactly what happened on the Skyfall talk page. You and Scrho et al., bloating up the page with constant off-topic and/or non-responsive posts. Of course no one is going to join in there... no one wants to wade through paragraph after paragraph of endless nonsense. Now, I will ask again, will you kindly respond to the questions I addressed to you on this issue? Please? - theWOLFchild 09:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
As I have already said, there is an existing discussion in the advanced stages at the actual article itself which is where all article decisions should be made so I am not prepared to restart the same discussion here. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, Betty Logan the problem is that you weren't "prepared" to discuss the issue there either. I put forth over a dozen different points, repeatedly, and you continually refused to address them. That discussion has now been closed, with a note directing people here, where this is now being discussed. The use of "$1,000 million" is too problematic and confusing and needs to be changed. There are a dozen reasons why. If you care to address any of them, I'm sure we would all value your input. - theWOLFchild 16:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


At this point, is anyone refuting the complete lack of ambiguity in pure numerals? Much of what's been said still repeats points, often purely subjective, on words with regionally-different meanings, and it doesn't seem that one side or another will convince the other. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Exact numerals have the benefit of preciseness, but then you run into MOS:LARGENUM. We could just bin that guideline on Brit English articles, but I think it would need a strong consensus here to withstand the MOS fanatics. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused about whether replying to this debate here is helping, but put me down in favour of using "billion". I think the cost of writing it out in long form, which looks weird and is hard to read, is higher than the cost of a vanishingly small number of people being confused, which frankly I think is unlikely anyway. (Speaking as a professional copy editor and style guide fetishist, I'm in favour of Wikipedia's style leaning more towards popular contemporary language generally than increasingly archaic, stuffy language, but that's another debate.) Popcornduff (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Billion vs 1,000 million (cont'd)[edit]

Trying to be as objective as possible, here are my observations:

  • The Oxford Dictionaries Online (UK English) states this for the primary definition of billion: "The number equivalent to the product of a thousand and a million; 1,000,000,000 or 109". Unlike the OED which lists the earliest recorded meaning first, Oxford Dictionaries lists the meanings in the order in which they predominantly appear in written and verbal language today. It would seem that even from a British-English perspective, the short scale form is the most common based on this information. Here's an article that analyzes this in more detail.
  • Per MOS:TIES, we should use the common form of English from the nation the article has strong ties to. Reliable sources, such as this BBC article, use billion in the short scale form. Other sources cited in the Skyfall article also use that form. That's in addition to the previous point above. Some arguments have attempted to point out that worldwide usage has not conformed to the short scale, but according to this guideline, that's irrelevant here.

Honestly to me, what should matter the most at this point is how the sources are reporting the box office figure. Clearly they favor the short scale. So far, none of the arguments have been able to present any substantial evidence showing that the short scale's "billion" is an ambiguous term in the UK today. Without that evidence, we should bank on what the sources are saying to settle the dispute. My 2 cents. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have moved your post above the discussion on how to write the short billion in an article, as logically your conclusion comes first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
A well-thought-out argument. I'm on board with this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I stated same about sources on original page, but editors claimed BBC and other websites aren't better and more reliable than Oxford. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing short billions[edit]

Policy says use short billions, the problem is how to write that in an article. Can I suggest that we write say "2 billion (short billions)" the first time the word is used in an article, and just "5 billion" for repeats? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Or we could link "billion" in the infobox to short billion. I'm open to suggestions. - theWOLFchild 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Just say "billion" without qualification throughout: it's obvious from context and common usage. No film ever has grossed a long billion, or is ever likely to do so in the foreseeable future. See also WP:NUMERAL for our standard convention. -- The Anome (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes... thank you. That point has been raised repeatedly. Just who is going to become so "confused" that they'll actually think this film made a Trillion Dollars? Or any film for that matter? The anti-"billion" crew here refuse to address that point. (and all others). - theWOLFchild 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the short-billion lobby would have to accept this as a compromise to pacify the long-billion-disambig lobby. At the same time the long-billion-disambig lobby would similarly have to accept it as a compromise to pacify the short-billion lobby. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
We could avoid "billions" entirely and just start using the Indian system of lakh and crore for our numbering. "The film grossed US$100 crore and was declared all-time blockbuster status!" That's your new billion. "Jem and the Holograms grossed $22.6 lakh and was given failure verdict." That's your new 2.26 million. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well done Cyphoidbomb—you have managed to completely miss the point. This is all about what our average reader understands from accessing the article. An admin too; really!
And you don't practice what you preach here. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It was a joke, man. C'mon, "all-time blockbuster status"? You don't make it to admin by writing crap like that. That lakh and crore stuff makes my head spin. And my indentation was appropriate as I was responding to the OP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb - All joking aside, do you have an opinion on this, on way or the other? - theWOLFchild 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha! Thank you for restoring my faith in you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If anything, wouldn't the pre-existence of Indian films using the lakh and crore numbering be evidence that localised differences to the "norm" are perfectly fine? GRAPPLE X 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? Who (and how) is this taken up? The public at large could never tolerate it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Just as it seems the public at large have no tolerance for "$1,000 million", considering the way it is constantly being changed to "billion" by sooo many people, on an almost daily basis. Just sayin'... - theWOLFchild 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


It is clear the use of "$1,000 million" in the infobox instead of "billion" is problematic and causing a great deal of confusion. Since it was added over a year ago, there have been numerous edits made, changing it to "billion", only to be quickly reverted by a small group of editors. I have repeatedly brought this point to the attention of a pair of these editors only to have them continually refuse to even acknowledge it. Now I learn that one of them has alleged that these changes are the result of "socking", and have gone so far as to request page protection, further alleging that these edits are "vandalism", and are a result of this very discussion. This tactic is tantamount to "sweeping the problem under the rug" and is at best, misleading. People from all over the world, both registered editors and IP users alike, have been constantly changing this item to "billion" is what can only be described as a well-intentioned attempt to address a perceived problem, to 'fix a typo', as people are obviously quite used to seeing "billion" used in the short sense, through-out the project on numerous articles. Except on this one, of course. - theWOLFchild 15:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I for one would never use sock puppetry (and I'm not saying anyone has or would accuse me). But it is clearly all over the world. I am quite surprised it was only about a month ago I discovered that it said 1,000 million. Surely for sock puppetry there would have to be some proof advanced editors could research their IPs with actual editors? Otherwise, it is just a misleading distraction saying so, from the obvious. I wonder if Spectre receives a billion if these 'editors' will be quick to change it to a 1,000 million on there? But of course, that is irrelevant at this point. Charlr6 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you please point out where I alleged that the edits were "vandalism"? There indisputably has been a surge in unregistered editors changing the wording from "million" to "billion" and it was another editor at the Skyfall talk page who suggested that it could be a case of sockpuppetry so I don't think my request misrepresents that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You specifically stated "socking" in your edit summary. You are the that requested the protection, and lo and behold, the page is now protected due to "vandalism". These edits are not vandalism. They are people trying to fix an obvious problem with the article. You claim that this is only a "recent upsurge", but a simple search shows that this has been taking place since the "1,000 million" term was added almost a year and a half ago.
I also find it odd, if not troubling, that you are willing to go to all the trouble of posting requests and related comments on other talk pages. yet you refuse to simply respond to any of the multiple points put forth on this issue, either on this page or the Skyfall talk page. I have on numerous times stated that I both recognize and respect the work you put into film related pages here. But I can't for the life of me figure out why you are being to obstinate and uncooperative about this very minor issue. Will you please respond the questions addressed to you about this issue? Thanks - theWOLFchild 21:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I will say that regardless if the sock accusation was a good one to make or not, protecting the page was a good decision. IP editors with no clue that a discussion is taking place will randomly visit the page and continue to edit war in the meantime, which is a distraction we'd rather not have right now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Socking is not vandalism so quit trying to twist my words. Also, I was not the editor that brought up the socking accusations. I raised them at the protection page ONLY after they were raised on the Skyfall talk page by someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think protecting the page was a good idea too. Charlr6 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
As long as we're clear that when I present the argument that all these edits are evidence that "1,000 million" is both confusing and problematic, no one shrugs and says "what edits?". This problem has not been solved by the protection, just hidden. - theWOLFchild 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not to drag this on any longer, but the protection isn't meant to solve the problem. Its purpose here was to stop edit warring dead in its tracks. All editors involved (IPs as well) need to discuss the dispute and establish a consensus before the protection is lifted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
But not everyone who comes to Wikipedia, especially new and first time users are aware of these steps. Wouldn't the simpler and more obvious solution be to remove the problem, instead of protecting it? If we change it to "billion", it would put an end to the "edit warring" and there would be no further need to protect the page. - theWOLFchild 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem isn't protected from the outcome of this discussion, which is where the focus needs to be. Leaving the page unprotected is a distraction, because editors, especially IP editors, who aren't aware of the discussion will continue to edit war. The protection directs the focus to this discussion, and in that respect, I think it's helpful for now. Keep in mind that there is now a "discuss" notice in that infobox that links here, so even newer users will be aware of what's going on, even if they choose not to participate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree with you on this. However, there has been a note for quite some time now about not changing it and to see the discussion, that has been largely ignored. Again, many people just don't know any better (and others just don't care). But that said, hopefully this gets resolved soon, through discussion. - theWOLFchild 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no hurry. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and our visitors know that. Let's have a nice cup of tea and a sit down while this blows itself out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

I think that a straw poll on say three options for the wording would help to focus this debate and draw out some durable consensus. Given that some editors are using the present location of this discussion against it, I don't want to start it here only to have it ignored by one camp because it's on the "wrong" talk page, this is about resolution not wikilawyering. Would Talk:Skyfall be a better venue for it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't an active discussion on the article's talk page, so here makes more sense. If someone really wants it to be on the article's talk page at some point, we can simply move it over. By the way, if you decide to present more than 2 options, it will be more difficult to determine whether or not you have a clear consensus. I would stick with two if possible (the third was pretty much shot down above anyway). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The Skyfall talk page is the appropriate place for it. That is where the bulk of the debate has ocurred. Also, specific article decisions should be taken actually at the article and not at a Wikiporject per Wikipedia:WikiProject. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Right, I was looking at this as a general question of whether or not we should use the term billion in articles that have strong ties to the UK. That discussion can really take place anywhere. If we would like to move everything over to Skyfall, there's certainly no harm in that, but I'm not sure I'd treat that as a requirement. This kind of issue is likely to come up again at some point for a different film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue has not been discussed in general terms though so we shouldn't draw general conclusions. What is appropriate in American English is not necessarily right for a Brit English article. What is appropriate for a Western numbering system is maybe not appropriate for an Indian/Chinese film article. The debate has centered mostly on Skyfall so we should limit the poll to that particular film, or at most Brit English articles where the arguments are genrally the same. Either way, a poll is supposed to take stock of all the arguments put forward and most of them are at the Skyfall talk page so I have taken the liberty of starting a poll at Talk:Skyfall#Straw_poll:_billion_vs_millions, and presented all three options that have been put forward in the discussions. If I have missed an option feel welcome to add it to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That's fine by me. FYI I have just taken a survey of all contributors to these discussions and posted it there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I really don't care where this is resolved... as long as it gets resolved. The only "argument" put forth by the 'anti-billion camp' is that "billion" is "ambiguous" and "confusing to Britons over age 50". These arguments have been addressed ad nauseum and arguably disproved. Meanwhile, there are a dozen or so counter-arguments and facts, (not to mention wiki-policy) that have also been put forth that have been completely ignored. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion anywhere when one party refuses to engage in that discussion. - theWOLFchild 21:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes for film score composers?[edit]

Additional opinions welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Navboxes for film score composers? and related deletion discussion --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC) a reliable source?[edit]

Does anyone know if the Silnet Era website is considered reliable? The copyright notice states "Copyright © 1999-2015 by Carl Bennett and the Silent Era Company", which suggests some background that may provide oversight. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Ever heard of it? - theWOLFchild 15:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's come up before. It uses a mix of sources to get its data, one of which being IMDB. Therefore some people want to burn it with fire, some (like myself) use it a fair bit. Each film article on its site has a list of sources at the foot of the page, so you can make a judgement about the "quality" of those sources. (example). They do use lots of other good places to get their info IMO. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's great - thanks Lugnuts, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra[edit]

FYI, I've nominated The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra for GA, if anyone is interested in looking at it. — Hunter Kahn 06:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed over it. Looks pretty good. I'd give it another round of copy editing, though. You've got several possible violations of WP:CLAIM (WP:GACR criterion #1b). Unless the sources express doubt, you shouldn't. I personally would work on the grammar a little more, but that's just being picky. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Interested in helping?[edit]

Would anyone be willing to work on an article about hybrid films? By this I mean an article on the concept of films that are part animation and part live action. The idea for the article stems from Draft:Highest grossing hybrid films, which wanted to list the idea of high grossing hybrid films. However I think that it'd be best to have an article on the concept, especially since some of the films in the list aren't typically thought of as animation, since they're CGI. However at the same time, the title would be inclusive of this difference. I want to avoid making this original research, so that's why I want to get people in to help find sourcing to where the article would pass GNG and would make the title valid. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The draft article is at Draft:Hybrids Films. I'm going to try to do what I can, but my time online has been in short supply lately due to school taking precedent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if it'd be worth making into its own article rather than just a list article, plus I'm concerned that the current article is more oriented towards the more common idea of animation. Still, if we can expand that it would likely be quicker/easier than creating a new one from scratch. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The common idea of animation? You mean like Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Mary Poppins? I don't think "Film with..." is specifically limited to cartoons. It seems like there's an informal consensus that CGI sfx spectacles don't belong in that article, as Avatar and Transformers are missing. However, it does have The Gate and Better Off Dead. Neither of those had cartoon animation in them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


For the last several months, I've been updating the Alien (franchise) page, to accommodate the current continuity, which separates from AvP and includes 20th Century Fox's newly-announced prequel trilogy. Yesterday, I took the liberty of implementing a vector-based adaptation of the Alien logo that is most commonly utilized by the franchise, with the works being the 1979 film, the Alien Anthology box set and the video game Alien: Isolation. Most every other component of the Alien franchise utilizes its own individual logo, so my reasoning has been that the original and most common logo should be utilized.

However... Alien: Covenant was formally announced the other day and it utilizes a new logo that is somewhat reminiscent of the original logo, but is obviously updated. Could I receive some input on whether I should keep the original logotype, or implement the logo as used by Alien: Covenant and call it the current one? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 03:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest change it, due to extreme likeness of original logo. But obviously write underneath "From Alien: Covenant". Although I'm sure some will argue as the film hasn't even started filming yet, it might change. But I say, as we are a constantly updating wikipedia, trying to keep-up-to-date. Go for it. Charlr6 (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I thread[edit]

This thread has just gotten underway Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikiBriefed is on a crusade to establish as the one and only reliable source for Bollywood movies. As it is related to this Wikiproject I thought I would post a link here so that - if any of you are so inclined - you can comment there. I know that this subject has become a bit of a editwarring morass over the last few months so it might be worth creating a WP:CONSENSUS regarding these and posting it to WP:MOSFILM to try and reduce (hopefully) the editwarring. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of films featuring whitewashed roles[edit]

Regarding List of films featuring whitewashed roles, there is an ongoing discussion about the entry of Noah (2014 film) and whether or not to mention actors' Jewish backgrounds as a counterpoint. There is also a related issue about having a {{POV}} template at the top of the article. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the ethnicity of the characters in the film Noah, and which ethnic group would be best suited to play them, if not Jews? Jennifer Connelly's mother was Jewish and Logan Lerman's parents are both Jewish. I'm not saying this absolves the film of all the whitewashing accusations, but these facts should at least be stated in the article (for example, in the way that I wrote it). No, the Noah characters are not, strictly speaking, Jewish, but the story stems from Jewish culture. It's just one sentence and it's definitely relevant. It's how we would mention that actors in a film about Vikings are of Norwegian or Swedish descent, even though the Vikings were not strictly speaking Norwegian or Swedish nationals. Obtrisgo (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Torrent litigation[edit]

I've seen this crop up on a few articles. Worth mentioning? I don't think it is. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources per WP:PSTS, and does not appear to be that kind of source, much less reliable. If a lawsuit is discussed in reliable sources, not just listed on some website, then that can warrant inclusion. I see that The Guardian mentioned it in passing, but the focus is more on Voltage Pictures. I would probably advocate for a section at the company's article about lawsuits, and Killer Joe can have a "See also" section linking to that article and section. The coverage seems too light for each individual film to disseminate on each of their articles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that, too, but I'm getting a bit exhausted in dealing with POV-pushers and SPAs. I agree with Erik and Lugnuts. I think the current spate of "the producers sued torrent users" additions don't really belong in film articles. There certainly are a few times when it's worth mentioning, but I think this is too routine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL[edit]

Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements regarding consensus for WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation errors at list of cult films and AWB help wanted[edit]

Can someone with access to AWB look at list of cult films and maybe solve the massive citation errors there? Also, there's 600+ citations there now. I hesitate to imagine how many actual films that is – probably close 800. I'll support any proposal that makes it more manageable. I suspect we're going to have to split it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty seems to have fixed all the citation errors by hand. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates[edit]

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw(talk) 01:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Production companies[edit]

There is currently a discussion about whether or not the production companies of The Terminator should be sourced in the infobox. I am of the opinion that the production companies have no need to be sourced because these production companies already listed in the film credits, the primary source. Similarly, the cast and crew don't need to be listed with sources in the infobox as they are already in the film credits. On the other hand, another editor is of the opinion that the film credits are unreliable/original research. Discussion is here. -- Wrath X (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Titanic (1943 film)[edit]

This article, about the flop propaganda "blockbuster" commissioned by Nazi Germany's Josef Goebbels, has just been through a pretty nasty patch of edit warring, which included personal attacks and the use of sock IPs. The editor responsible has been blocked fo 2 weeks, but it might be a good idea if folks were to add it to their watchlists to make sure things don't start up again when the block is over. BMK (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)