Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:Epic films based on actual events[edit]

An editor has added Category:Epic films based on actual events to both Gone with the Wind (film) and Doctor Zhivago (film). They apply to some extent because the films are set during significant historical periods (i.e. the American Civil War and the Russian revolution) but the characters in both are fictional. They are not like Titanic when some of the key supporting cast have real-life counterparts. Using this rationale you could claim that every WW2 film is "based on real-life events" even if it has fictional characters undertaking a fictional mission/battle. So how should this category be interpreted? Do the "actual events" relate just to a setting, or should we interpret the events as being central to the plot with real-life character counterparts? Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

even if the actors portray real characters, they're still considered fictional characters in the fictional work. so this isn't about being fictional. if the film refers to a real event in history, it should be mentioned as "based on" that event. i support the categorization. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
If actors portray real people then they are based on real people, even if they are fictionalised representations. With Lawrence of Arabia for example, you are fictionally depicting a real person's participation in a real event and are able to judge the accuracy of the depiction from a historical perspective, but that's not true of Scarlett O'Hara and Gone with the Wind. What you basically have is a completely fictional story that is just "set" during a well known historical war. It's no more based on a real event than say Apocalypse Now or The Dear Hunter, so it seems to me if we add Gone with the Wind to the category then why not Apocalypse Now since the same logic applies? If we add every war film then it seems to me the category would lose its intended purpose, because I don't think it was established to categorize articles with just a historical setting. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure where exactly to draw the line, but the film should probably have real-life characters who experienced something akin to the events in the film. For example, Ordinary Decent Criminal is a mostly-fictionalized account of Martin Cahill, but it's recognizable as such. That was based on actual events, even if it takes creative liberties. I don't see how you could really justify it for a film full of fictional characters. The category would become enormous. Another thing to consider is WP:CATDEF. Articles should not have categories that are only marginally applicable to them. If you have to strain to come up with a justification, it's not defining. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the arguments made by Betty and NRP. Such categorization could very quickly become unwieldy. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Star Wars fan films[edit]

I see 37 articles in the Category:Fan films based on Star Wars, but there are many more. Not all of them are notable enough to have their own article, perhaps even most of them. I would even say that of the 37 existing articles, probably half of them don't pass our notability criteria. However that may be, perhaps it is a good idea to make a List of Star Wars fan films? Debresser (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't. I think Wikipedia has too many list articles. But if you can find sources that discuss the topic as a whole, it would pass WP:LISTN. Simply listing a group of articles, however, would probably cause it to end up at articles for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'd support the list. It would go hand-in-hand with the category, and every entry can be sourced. Maybe worth pruning the category first, to weed out the non-notable articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd support a list with an inclusion criteria of, like, non-trivial mention in an RS (maybe even require at least two). Even if it's not notable enough to support its own article, that could establish enough importance to warrant an entry? I don't think every entry needs to be article notable, just notable enough to not be too indiscriminate or too directory-like. I do think that it's probable there are sources talking about the article as a whole. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that if it exists, it can be in the list. Why should there be additional inclusion criteria? Please note that such a list is per definition not indiscriminate. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Indiscriminate wasn't the right word. I'm just a little worried about, like, attempts to add every single extremely minor Star Wars home movie made by a fan to the list, while still not restricting the list to "no article, no mention" type thing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll just say that this sounds like the kind of list that's going to need regular oversight to ensure that entries actually meet the inclusion criteria. I share TTP's concern that non-notable entries will be added by editors who either aren't aware of or don't care about the criteria for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why we have watchlists. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate categories and incredibly specific subcategories[edit]

I was about to tag Category:Films set in New York (state) for speedy deletion, but I guess this seems like a good time to discuss the matter of what to do with the New York categories instead. In short, we've got too many of them. If you look at Category:Films set in New York (note the lack of disambiguation), there are subcategories for about a dozen small NY counties. Each of those subcategories ultimately has between one and five films in it. I say "ultimately" because they're often subdivided into incredibly specific sub-sub-categories, such as Category:Films set in Hyde Park Town, Dutchess County, New York. I noticed this a while ago, but I didn't want to deal with it. Maybe we should bring all these tiny, ultra-specific categories to CfD. Any other ideas? Also, which should we use: NY or NY (state)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is WP:SMALLCAT for the example you use NRP and CFDs would be a good way to go for those of its ilk. As to your other question I can see a reason for "state" and "city" for the New York cats. Whether parentheses should be used or not I will be happy to go with whatever consensus is reached by others. MarnetteD|Talk 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, all the small categories have been nominated for merging. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 23#Category:Films set in Albany County, New York. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fifty Shades Darker (film)[edit]

I invite all active members on the WikiProject Film to participate on the discussion at Talk:Fifty Shades Darker (film)#Focus Features. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 10:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Departed: Trying to add filming location and budget spend info in production section[edit]

Trying to keep a couple of facts, supported by reliable sources in the production section. For some reason, another editor is saying they violate NPOV. The facts are these: 1. 90% of the film shot in New York; 2. Only $6 million of the film's budget was spent in Massachusetts. That's it. And these facts keep getting removed in borderline edit war. Any input would be appreciated. Depauldem (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

All, there has already been discussion on the talk page: Talk:The Departed#Filming location and budget. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ongoing with few participants. Depauldem (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film[edit]

At white savior narrative in film, there is an ongoing issue about where to locate detailed trope-related coverage about individual films: in their respective entries, in more general sections, or both.. Additional input is welcome. See the discussion here: Talk:White savior narrative in film#Merging "Classifications". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Skeleton films at CfD[edit]

Feel free to pick the bones out of this one, here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Films considered the best[edit]

Please see this page move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Row-spanning on the "List of XXXX box office number-one films in the United States" class of articles[edit]

Mariacer Cervantes has added row-spanning to this family of articles. If you compare the top table at List of 1993 box office number-one films in the United States for example, this is how it did look and this is how it looks now. I know some editors are fond of row-spanning, but in this case I consider it detrimental to to the article because it makes it more difficult to see which box office gross relates to which week. I propose reverting them back to the original format but I would like to know what the general sentiment is first. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Rowspans create complex tables. Sometimes, this is okay. Sometimes it is not. In this usage, it is not. If you want, you can cite WP:Accessibility, but I don't know if similar intent actually appears there or simply in the WCAG guidelines linked therein. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The rowspans in conjunction with the box office figures just looks weird. The formatting of the article is already a bit wonky with the "4-day weekend" notes wrapping to the second line (on my monitor). I don't see what we gain from the rowspans and aesthetically my brain prefers the absence of rowspans. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments at Indian cinema task force[edit]

Hi all, your comments are requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Need thoughts about how to communicate Kabali gross. Familiarity with Indian films is not a prerequisite. (I don't watch Indian films, I just help maintain the articles.)

The issue in a nutshell: The gross estimates for a Tamil-language film, Kabali, seem to be all over the map. Some estimates would make the movie the #2 highest-grossing Indian film (no small achievement considering Tamil is spoken by 60 million people, whereas Hindi is spoken by 422 million) whereas other estimates would put it around the #12 spot. There is also a strange lack of attention to this film by the various respected Indian newspapers. Anyhow, the issue is how to communicate the information effectively across the project, like at List of highest-grossing Indian films, which presents such data in tabular format.

If you are so inclined, please contribute your thoughts at at the Indian cinema task force. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Table changes for content ratings[edit]

Over the last day an anonymous editor has been initiating changes to the color scheme at articles such as Motion picture rating system, Video game rating system and Television content rating systems. They all deploy a long-standing consistent color scheme and IMO the changes are not an improvment and have some WP:ACCESSIBILITY implications. I have highlighted my concerns at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#Table_changes. I am not particularly precious about the color scheme, but it should be intuitive and contrasting. The biggest problem for me is the lack of contrast between red and brown, but if there are an editors who are color blind or have eyesight problems their input would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


The category Fantasy horror films is up for deletion. You can voice your opinion on this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 28. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)