Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Malavika Nair[edit]


Malavika Nair is born on Malavika Nair is an indian actress made her debut in Malayalam movie Perariyapoovu directed by P Sreenivas. She is Primarily working with Malayalam Movie industry


Anybody cares to comment on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#An_article_on_a_movie_before_release.? AnupMehra 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple DVD releases?[edit]

I'm involved with an AfD that I launched and one of the arguments that someone brought up was that the film had multiple DVD releases over the years. Now while this isn't currently anything that would count towards notability, part of me does have to argue that this should be a criteria towards notability. If a film continues to get re-released over the years, then that must attest to its notability in some shape or fashion, right? I wouldn't argue for it to be something that would give absolute notability ala a film getting shown at a film festival or a commercial theatrical re-release five years after its initial showing, but I do think that it should count at least towards partial notability. I'm aware that many films will eventually hit public domain and get released by no-name film distribution companies or get self-published, but we also get a lot of films that get released by rather mainstream film distributors such as Viacom/Paramount and the like. Shouldn't that at least count towards partial notability and get included in our official film GNG as well? It'd take some tweaking to ensure that self-published films and ones published through Darryl's DVD Dungeon (ie, very no-name, fly-by-night distribution companies) wouldn't really count, but I think that there is some merit in this person's argument. (The film in question is Nightmare Circus, if anyone's interested in helping to dig for sources, and while it is getting republished by some indie publishes, it also got a DVD release through Media Blasters, which is considered to be a fairly well-known known distributer.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I mean basically, that someone in a relatively mainstream distribution company would consider a movie to be worth re-releasing on DVD years after its initial release should count for something. We can argue that the article would still require other sourcing and it wouldn't keep on that alone, but this would really help give some articles a much needed boost, as we have a lot of films that are very underground cult classics that are known but either didn't get an overly large amount of coverage or had coverage that never made it onto the internet. It's just that I've had multiple instances where I've come across movies, books, etc that are incredibly well known but fall just shy of actually passing film notability guidelines - yet are continually re-released onto the various home film media formats because there is obviously a market out there that values the film. This isn't WP:POPULAR really, just saying that repeated releases onto home media does and should show some notability for the film akin to how a review through a RS would help count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Do DVD releases not count under point 2: The film was given a commercial re-release [...] at least five years after initial release? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've always been under the impression that commercial re-release was intended to mean a theatrical re-release, but I'd love it if this meant that this could also count a DVD (or respective current media format) re-release for a film released earlier in time. Of course we'd have to word this carefully. If say, a film released today and continued to get distributed for the next 6 years through one distribution company, that might not necessarily count towards notability. I think that the time period should be lengthened a little to say, 10 years after its initial theatrical release and the distribution must be done through a relatively mainstream company. That would help whittle down the criteria some. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 01:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Multiple "commercial releases" indicates releases that a film generates "commercial profit" for the filmmakers or distributors. In this modern world where more and more folks choose to rent DVDs or download films rather than spend their money at theaters, this means that restricting notability to "theatrical release" only does not serve the encyclopedia. In the case of the film discussed at that AFD, we might better consider repeated successful releases as an acknowledgement of a cult following. Our issue become one of how to define a cult following, as reviews in multiple "cult" or "genre" sources do not meet the strict definitions of RS, but "might be" considered as non-rs support of otherwise verifiable existence of the film. Reviews are opinion, and as opinion we may consider use-by-others and expertise of reviewers as long as we are not dealing with a WP:BLP. And while WP:GNG is the easiest tool for determining notability, it is not the only tool. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (television shows)[edit]

Don't we have a guidelines for television shows (episodes, seasons, etc.)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a question to ask WT:TV. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can reviews through Film Threat's paid "Submission for Review system" be considered an independent source for determining notability?[edit]

There is consensus that Film Threat is considered a reliable source, but should reviews of films submitted through their paid "Submission for Review system", in which the creator/distributor of the film pays Film Threat to review the film, be considered an independent source for determining notability? --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I have no issues at all with Film Threat reviews being cited in articles, per consensus that their reviewers are well respected in their field and that they hold that the reviews themselves maintain editorial independence. I also have no issues with reviews that they consider "solicited", in that the editorial staff chooses and seeks out the films, being used to determine notability.
However, I do have an issue with the reviews that have a disclaimer that the films were submitted through their paid "Submission for Review system", in which the creator/distributor of the film pays Film Threat to review the film, being used to determine notability. Film Threat maintains that even the paid reviews are unbiased, and that paying for a review doesn't guarantee a positive review, and I have no reason to doubt that (and I have no problem using even paid reviews as reliable sources for facts within the article). However, the fact that the film was included because of payment by those involved with the film indicates to me that the existence of the review can NOT be used as evidence of notability. The only thing the existence of the review indicates is that a) the movie really exists and isn't a hoax and b) that the creators of the film paid Film Threat. It does not indicate an independent assessment on the notability of the film. Yes, Film Threat has the right to refuse submissions (usually if there are legal issues involved), but per their own FAQ such refusals are "very rare". It doesn't matter that they don't guarantee good reviews, as the notability standard requires "full-length reviews", not good reviews.
Such situations (paid independent reviews) are somewhat rare in the film world, but are much more common in the biographical world, and WP:BIO specifically calls out similar situations: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability. Film Threat accepts self-nominations, so it should not prove notability. --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously we cannot use it as an indicator of notability, as the site's FAQ says the review essentially every film submitted and paid for, though they do place an appropriate notice at the bottom of each review if it is a paid review. My own felling is that a policy such as that casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the site as a while, or on all their reviews. There's a similar case with books: Midwestern Book Review, which I consequently no longer consider reliable for any purpose, even though they apparently only charge for ebooks and for pre-publication reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Director's cuts[edit]

What's our policy regarding films that are recut and then rereleased as their own films? I notice that both Apocalypse Now Redux and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut have their own articles, and there are articles on the different versions of Blade Runner and Star Wars. When is it appropriate for a director's cut to have its own article? Is there a specific inclusion criteria for this, or is it simply WP:GNG? Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors, we do not have any guidelines about director's cuts. I think it should depend on the amount of related content. Some director's cuts are easily covered in the primary film article, but if there is a great deal of commentary from reliable sources about the cut, the content can be split into a kind of sub-article (with a section at the primary film article providing a high-level summary of the content). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability Should be Expanded to Allow More Room for Niche Independent Films[edit]

I understand that we don't want every youtube video to be eligible for inclusion as a Wikipedia page. But I think any independent film which meets a minimum length requirement (say 30 minutes) and involves a minimum number of actors and production people (say, for example, 20), should be allowed into this "encyclopedia of all human knowledge," and has had at least one or more public showings to a minimum number of people (say, one hundred) should be eligible for an article if someone (excluding the actors, producers, financiers or others having some form of ownership of the film) cares enough to write up a description of the film.

One of the key valued of Wikipedia is that it is not limited by printed pages and the need to be brief.

Related to this is that it allows the creation of articles about minor topics that would never be notable enough for Encyclopedia Britannica but might be notable enough for a small niche of a few thousand people interested in a topic.

So, while I understand the desire to have guidelines that seeks to prevent self-promoters from turning Wikipedia into a free advertising vehicle (and also recognize that to some extent, that remains inevitable), I don't think the "notability" issue should become an obstacle to the fan(s) of a low budget independent film creating and maintaining an article about it.

If it is "notable" enough to a fan who saw the film at one of it's few public showings, or even it's only public airing, then it is likely notable enough to at least a few thousand potential readers out there that they may a appreciate that Wikipedia has a reference to it. This is especially true if the film is directed toward a niche audience that supports it's own niche, topic oriented news media. Just because the film is not notable to mainstream media doesn't mean it's not notable to thousands, perhaps millions, of readers/viewers in that topic niche.

As indicated above, absent the criteria that are already identified as making a film notable, I think one public showing to at least 100 people, and a production crew of over 20, and length over 30 minutes (or similar criteria) indicates that the effort to produce the film was at least serious enough to be notable enough in Wikipedia. At least it's not just a funny cat video.

I like the idea of Wikipedia being the equivalent of Captain Kirk's computer which held the entirety of human knowledge. Even very small, independent films which fail to get coverage in the "mainstream press" are part of our human knowledge and human creative effort. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GodBlessYou2, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, which generally means if there is not independent commentary about the film, we would not have an article for it. Wikipedia is not intended to be trailblazing in writing about films that no one else has. We are summarizing existing content about these films. The policy at WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." What can we write about a film if no reliable sources are covering it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the OP is referring to "films" like 22 Weeks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an editor must be able to cite other sources. The question regards avoiding a limitation of sources to "main stream media" -- especially when there are so many other sources of information and third party reviews and reporting, often in niches, as I indicated, which clearly indicate that a film was "notable" enough to niche media sources.

I didn't have a particular example, but ArtifexMayhem has suggested 22 Weeks as an example of a disputed entry. A quick glance shows he/she "combined refs" in a December edit on that article so I assume he/she has an opinion on this subject. What are your recommendations, Artifex? (May I call you Artifex?) GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD for Leatherface[edit]

Leatherface (film) has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it fails the notability criteria, contains unreliable sources, and it is not clear if the name of the article will actually be the name of the film. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The name and topic of the film being considered, crewed up, cast and filming has been confirmed in multiple reliable sources, thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems inappropriate to reply to a notification with an argument… suggest moving this comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film). — (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Not an "argument" but a neutral statement of facts, as both sides of the viewpoint have been written of there. As the notification contained some erroneous comments toward film name and reliability of accepted RS, it is appropriate to address them here. Making incorrect statements and then inviting folks to go to the AFD with a set of mistaken preconceptions could possibly be construed as canvassing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Questions have arisen in this discussion about what exactly WP:NFF means, whether notable pre-production means notable production. I figured it was worth cross-posting here. If elements of a film’s pre-production (such as who’s been casted and what parts they’ll be playing) are notable, does that make its production notable? There’s no indication that “production” is being used here to encompass pre- and post-, but was it intended? — (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, I have not seen this particular sentence referenced in an AfD before. It looks like it dates back to the very first version of this page. It mentions "factors to consider" (that no longer exist here) that I think Leatherface would meet. It seems to be a vestige that could be re-worded. Maybe just change "production" to "film"? Pre-filming coverage counts toward notability because it reflects sources showing attention toward a topic before it has even started filming, which usually has to do with some aspect of the film being previously notable (the source material, the director, the actors). One may say that "obviously" Leatherface is notable on the face of it, being the latest in a franchise, but that by itself would not suffice as an argument on Wikipedia. However, the pre-filming coverage is what establishes that for us outside our personal opinions. It's reasonable to surmise that the reporting was done because of the nature of the franchise. If it was an indie film starring Stephen Dorff, it would not get this kind of coverage. But that is beside the point; the point is that independent sources found the topic worthy of note to report on, and Wikipedia can summarize that coverage, especially now that we have verified that filming has begun. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree fully. Under MOS:FILM#Production, "production" is an inclusive term not an exclusive one. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, the term "production" does not restrict article content to or mean "only stuff dealing directly with the actual filming"... which is why many film articles in Wikipedia contain sections dealing with the creation, planning, writing, casting, and the eventual making of those films... information included under MOS:FILM to increase our reader's understanding-in-depth of the overall film topic. All the many aspects of the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of a film fall under the "production" processes. Since the topic of the plans for production of a potential film Texas Chainsaw 4 (now confirmed as Leatherface), had been discussed directly and in detail for many years, its coverage meant it could (and was) spoken about somewhere per policy... IE: it was "mentioned" (although very poorly and very briefly) in a suggested redirect target. As no film is 100% until the box office opens and folks actually watch it, what is restricted by WP:NFF is that we should probably (not a hard rule) not have a separate article until we have confirmation of filming, and we now have such confirmation. But since the topic meets WP:GNG and filming has commenced a separate article is now merited under WP:NFF (paragraph 3)... an article which informs readers of all the aspects surrounding the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of this film. It's what we are here to do. And yes, in this unfinished encyclopedia which admits it is imperfect, the article is far from complete... but being incomplete is not a deletion criteria. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Any objections to changing WP:NFF to read: “should generally not have their own articles unless the film is notable per the notability guidelines”? — (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As an established editor in good standing and a coordinator of WikiProject Film I object, specially as the topic of preparation for a film can easily meet inclusion criteria before or even if never made. Indeed, we he had a long debate several years ago about perhaps titling pre-filming projects with the dab "(film project)". WP:NFF's current wording resulted after many years of discussion, and the community consensus for its current wording reflects our acknowledgement of the GNG being the primary inclusion criteria. Per Policy and guideline, the topic of this project being discussed in detail in reliable sources from 2012 to 2015 (even before it began filming last May) means it is notable per our primary inclusion criteria. You'd have to modify WP:GNG and WP:V to say that even if enduring and ongoing, coverage of project's preparation and pre-production can be completely ignored... and then you'd have to greatly narrow MOS:FILM's definition of the term "production", specially as a problem with your end-run here is that 1) MOS:FILM considers a film's prep-work worth including, 2) this one has begun filming, and 3) per WP:GNG and WP:V its prep-work coverage counts toward notability. However, anon IPs are always welcome to begin WP:RFCs in order to gain wider input, as one voice here asking to change existing guideline contrary to existing community standards is not consensus. Erik?? Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    Then can we clarify NFF’s use of “production”? Perhaps, “unless the production itself (including pre-production) is notable”? If this needs to go to an RFC, I’d prefer to have a specific wording to propose, and I can’t do that without knowing the intended meaning of the existing wording. Would this convey it? — (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The word and its application in film articles is already well defined by community consensus at MOS:FILM as pointed out above, so go and read it and ask for education there. I need not cut and paste that entire guideline page for you here. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
      Again I direct your attention to Filmmaking#Production. Either that needs to be rewritten a bit, or it’s not quite as clear-cut as you believe. — (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You're welcome to go edit that user article to have it say anything you wish... Face-smile.svg I'd rather stick with understanding and use of applicable guideline. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    Wait, no, I’ve got it. RFC to follow. — (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF[edit]

It seems as if there is some support for MQS's proposed linkage, but I'd rather hammer nails through Lugnuts's balls than read this a third time. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Only if they're Nine Inch Nails. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to WP:NFF, films that haven’t yet been released “should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.” The word “production” is ambiguous here; it’s not clear whether it refers to the phase of production as distinct from pre-production and post-production, as per Filmmaking#Production, or to all aspects of the film’s creation, as per MOS:FILM#Production. So I propose that the word be linked to whichever of these two is more appropriate; that should remove any ambiguity without any rewriting. (Note: User:MichaelQSchmidt has added a link to MOS:FILM#Production.) — (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, but did you read Filmmaking#Stages of Production before coming here? Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Only enough to see that it uses multiple senses of the word. In the subsection I linked, though, the word refers to a particular phase of production, “production,” which occurs after the pre-production phase of production. MOS:FILM#Production also refers to the production phase of production. So I stand by my claim of ambiguity. — (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Actually it is not ambiguous as both suggested links give us usage. The "word" and its application and usage in film topics is already well-described at guideline MOS:FILM, and refers to the many aspects of a film's production ... addressing conception, planning, scripting, crewing-up, casting, actual filming, and post-production. And yes, at Filmmaking#Stages of Production we have also have an expanded "definition" of the word and its various aspects relating to a film's production... but it is NOT a guideline. It is in the guide MOS:FILM where we have a detailed and well-considered explanation of how editors are to consider and deal with production information, as how we edit these pages is determined by following its long-existing policies and guides. I do agree that it would be helpful to add a wiki-link to the misunderstood NFF sentence. IE: "...films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The "underscoring" is simply my way to show share the link should be put. As NFF "knows" that coverage of the background of the planning of a film could meet the primary inclusion guideline even before filming has begun, that sentence was set to let us know that we need to wait until a film's principle photography is confirmed before consider the creation of a separate article about the film. Adding the link to MOS:FILM would lead worrisome or unknowing editors to the guide for handling such information and so improve the project. So as this RFC essentially breaks down to the question of which link best supports article creation and editing.
My response is that while linking to the article on filmmaking#Stages of Production is fine, if needed for clarification by the uninitiated, a linking instead to MOS:FILM as the specific guide for dealing with such information, is far better and more appropriate. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: A given unfinished film may only be notable for its pre-production, e.g. for casting announcements and the like. This may be particularly true if the film has just finished pre-production and begun shooting; or perhaps the film is entirely non-notable except for pre-production details like the people involved, and reliable sources will dry up indefinitely. Whatever the case may be, is it appropriate to create an article at this point?
  • If so, then we should link to MOS:FILM#Production to indicate that we’re using the term in the sense of making a film, of which pre-production is one aspect.
  • If not, then we should link to Filmmaking#Production to indicate that we’re using it in the sense of filming, distinct from pre-production. — (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Response: Yes the topic of a film in development could and sometimes does meet WP:GNG, which is why policy tells it that if spoken of within these pages it must must be well and carefully sourced... which is why we have mentions in sections in related articles. It is because setbacks can occur even with an otherwise demonstrably notable film topic, WP:NFF begins by telling us that setbacks happen and a film should not have a separate article article until after filming is confirmed, and concludes by stressing that even after filming is confirmed and before a film's release, a separate article could be created only if its production efforts are determinable as notable through existence of multiple sources speaking toward the topic directly and in detail. To address any personal sense that there might be ambiguity, we must look beyond the narrow subsections of an "article" to read how a term is dealt with in its entirety by applicable guideline. So, if a link must be made, linking to MOS:FILM#Production is the proper choice, as it is a guideline created through consensus of experienced editors, rather than just an article created by random editors who may or may not understand our policies and guideline. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    You talk like film production has a unique meaning in a Wikipedia context…my concern is that an editor reading this page may not know which meaning of the word is intended (especially in proximity to “pre-production”), because in the real world it is used to mean both. Saying “production efforts” instead would also be a solution, I think. — (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Response You are beginning to argue over minutiae. If you are so very worried about what might happen in the future, go ahead BE BOLD and make a linked change and refer to this RFC in your summary... but remember the advice of WP:KUDZU and that Wikipedia is not a grammar lexicon. Certainly linking to Filmmaking#Stages of Production could explain to the ignorant that the term "production" involves many related stages when creating a film but... if to be done, a link to the existing applicable guideline (built over time and reflecting community consensus) is far better in this case.... far far better than sending readers to an unsourced and rambling article section which being unsourced and edited by random users may contain WP:OR. If a link is required , it's Best if an ignorant and curious editor reading that term in WP:NFF could then find himself sent to the applicable guideline which educates that the term "film's production" speaks toward the entire process and not just one small part of it. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Opinion Erik II ? Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      Project space (including MOS) isn’t any more immune to the negative effects of open collaborative editing than article space. But you’re missing my point, I think… I’m saying the term “production” also means the stage in between pre-production and post-production. MOS:FILM corroborates this. I don’t care which meaning is intended by NFF; I simply want it to be made clear, so that we don’t have disagreements caused by the ambiguity as in the Leatherface AFD. Wikilinking the term seemed like the least intrusive way to do that. Or we could rewrite the sentence to avoid the term or to explicitly clarify. — (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      Sorry, I did not join Wikipedia 7-1/2 years ago to teach those who so not listen about WP:CREEP. I have wasted a lot of time explaining to you that the term is just as wide as guideline shares, and you have exhausted me. Someone else can help you re-write the project's guidelines to meet your preferences for extremes clarity in a project that is a Work in progress and admittedly imperfect. Bye. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      How in the world is it WP:CREEP to clarify a word with multiple meanings? Just add a link, or just replace the word with another. No creep. — (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      WP:CREEP is WP:CREEP. and a link to the applicable guideline has been added at WP:NFF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      WP:NOTCREEP. And I don’t see careful diction (word choice) discouraged there or anywhere in project space. — (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:CREEP is a padding of the existing guidelines so well accepted and understood and created through consensus of the Wikipedia community with unnecessary verbiage to make some point. WP:NOTCREEP cold apply if the extra verbiage has been shown as accepted through consensus. But I do not expect you to accept that, and fully expect another defensive response. Give yourself a user name and go edit the rules. Bye. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
        Again, changing one word to another or adding a link to existing text is not extra verbiage or CREEP in any sense. Please stop misrepresenting my request… which, if you hold to your “bye” this time, you will. Also: WP:NOTCREEP could apply if the extra verbiage has been shown as accepted through consensus”… isn’t that precisely why we’re here? Assuming it’s deemed a better solution than linking, that is. And it would have been more accurate to say: “NOTCREEP could apply if the extra verbiage reflects consensus more clearly and accurately.” Which it would. (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC) edited 03:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
        As the link has been made, it really does not matter any longer that you personally do not believe adding unnecessarily verbiage without a clear consensus is CREEP. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
        If that were the case, I would have added unnecessary verbiage without consensus. I haven’t; I’m seeking consensus, and my primary proposal avoids changing let alone adding any words. So, again, please stop blatantly misrepresenting my position. — (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a non-discussion, as the IP editor can't create new articles. And in any case, I'd rather hammer nails into my balls than go round in circles with this guy. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not having a username was a choice this anon IP made March May 16, 2014 when he began editing like a pro. I have no idea just who this very experienced IP from Florida really is, but I definitely agree... WP:IDHT is not how we create consensus. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    May, actually, not March. I appreciate the compliment to my editing ability, but I’m not clear on what I supposedly haven’t been hearing. You keep telling me what you think the sentence means. Fine; let’s make that clear, because it wasn’t. And (if you’re right) you’ve done so by adding a link, so, thanks. — (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Not what I "think", but an application of knowledge acquired through years of experience on Wikipedia since early 2008, being a coordinator of project film, and an understanding of industry knowledge. Your start date as a very experienced anon IP is corrected. So whoever you are, fine. Bye. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    No, you still have it listed as March… doesn’t matter, though. But fine, you’ve told me your expert opinion of what it means. IDHT doesn’t apply there, because I’ve long past accepted your opinion or I wouldn’t have started this RFC. — (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Folks seeing your incessant WP:BLUDing hints that you might not get much response. Face-smile.svg No matter as the matter has been dealt with. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    I really don’t think that’s what I’m doing by responding to direct attacks on my argument or person, and with only two of us here in good faith so far. In fact there’s more of your text here than mine by half. — (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes... I'm sure there is... as my (repeated) explanations require a longer response than a short question. And my noting WP:BLUD is not an attack on you personally, but a reminder that you have been responding and asking the same questions over and over even after after explanations, and that others might see that tenacity and decide not to engage. You've read Lugnuts response, yes? Sometimes patient silence after a question will brings answers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    I welcome reasonable disagreement, but not denials of fact; I’ve responded to your explanations with my own because yours have seemed to deny the very existence of multiple valid meanings to a word. That reasoning was what I had a problem with, not your position itself. Maybe that’s not what you meant, maybe I misinterpreted you, I don’t know, you haven’t said. (I’ll feel really silly if all of this has been over a simple misunderstanding.) But hopefully, what you saw as bludgeoning makes a little more sense now. — (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
When was I asking about creating new articles? If you’re saying I’m barred from suggesting improvements to guidance simply because that guidance doesn’t directly apply to me, I respectfully disagree. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is an issue of confusing use of language that you can see evidenced in the AFD linked in the above section. You have just as much of a right to suggest improvements, if you like. — (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Support. It might seem like minutiae, but you'd be surprised at the amount of submissions we get at AfC where submittors quibble about the exact wording of policies and guidelines, demanding their drafts be accepted into mainspace. A simple link might solve such trivial discussions, whereafter we might unequivocally state to said submittors exactly why their current production is non-notable. A simple link that describes what precisely constitutes a notable Production might go a long way. Anyway, let this veer the discussion back on track. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Box office results.[edit]

Unsure where to ask such a question but why in film infoboxes is only the US Box office take in listed. Seems odd not to have the worldwide gross listed so i'm assuming there must be a reason for this? Subtlemammoth (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Subtlemammoth, the documentation at Template:Infobox film says, "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film in its theatrical run." If you see that only the US box office take is included, it may be because an editor added that incorrectly, or it may be because that is the only information available (which can be the case for older films). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)