Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:FILMWT:FILM

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89: 30 days

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [ view talk edit ]
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews

Today's featured articles 19 Dec 2025 – The Getaway (1972 film) (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 05 Dec 2025 – Auto-Vue Drive-In Theatre (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Kevmin (t · c); see discussion 04 Dec 2025 – Wicked (2024 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gommeh (t · c); see discussion 30 Nov 2025 – Elastigirl (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Launchballer (t · c); see discussion 29 Nov 2025 – Bright Sun Films (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by A.Classical-Futurist (t · c); see discussion 16 Nov 2025 – Bouchra (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Slgrandson (t · c); see discussion 15 Nov 2025 – Nobody (2025 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion 13 Nov 2025 – ...So Goes the Nation (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Olliefant (t · c); see discussion 27 Oct 2025 – My Choice (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Bookku (t · c); see discussion 20 Oct 2025 – The Little Hours (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Kingsif (t · c); see discussion 15 Oct 2025 – Winter Kept Us Warm (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion (1 more...) Featured article candidates 20 Nov 2025 – KPop Demon Hunters (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by ErnestKrause (t · c); see discussion 19 Oct 2025 – High and Low (1963 film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Plifal (t · c); see discussion 18 Oct 2025 – Hundreds of Beavers (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 03 Dec 2025 – Animal Crackers (1930 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Jm307 (t · c); see discussion 18 Nov 2025 – Peacemaker (character) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Pokelego999 (t · c); see discussion 09 Nov 2025 – Dersu Uzala (1975 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Plifal (t · c); start discussion 30 Oct 2025 – Golden Age of Argentine cinema (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bleff (t · c); start discussion 26 Oct 2025 – Beyond Dreams (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zzz plant (t · c); start discussion 18 Oct 2025 – A Better Tomorrow (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FrostFairBlade (t · c); start discussion 09 Oct 2025 – Rhapsody in August (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Plifal (t · c); start discussion 05 Oct 2025 – The Stuff (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Z. Patterson (t · c); start discussion 05 Oct 2025 – Aligarh (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DoctorWhoFan91 (t · c); start discussion 08 Sep 2025 – Hollywood Walk of Fame (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gb321 (t · c); start discussion (11 more...) Good article reassessments 30 Nov 2025 – Angel Heart (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Bgsu98 (t · c); see discussion 30 Nov 2025 – The Blues Brothers (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion 22 Nov 2025 – Willy Loman (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 14 Nov 2025 – The Age of Disclosure (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by ~2025-33471-28 (t · c); see discussion 04 Dec 2025 – Addams Family Values (talk · edit · hist) RfC by IAmNMFlores (t · c) was closed; see discussion Peer reviews 06 Nov 2025 – Spider-Man in film (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion 21 Sep 2025 – Golden Age of Argentine cinema (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Bleff (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

WikiProject Film

General information ( v t e )
Main project page	+ talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines	talk
→ Multimedia	talk
→ Naming conventions	talk
→ Copy-editing essentials	talk
Notability guidelines	talk
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles	talk
→ Nominations for deletion	talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests	talk
Spotlight	talk
Film portal	talk
Fiction noticeboard	talk

Project organization
Coordinators	talk
Participants	talk
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk

Departments
Assessment	talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization	talk
Core	talk
Outreach	talk
Resources	talk
Review	talk
Spotlight	talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop	talk

Task forces
General topics
Film awards	talk
Film festivals	talk
Film finance	talk
Filmmaking	talk
Silent films	talk
Genre
Animated films	talk
Christian films	talk
Comic book films	talk
Documentary films	talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe	talk
Skydance Media	talk
War films	talk
Avant-garde and experimental films	talk
National and regional
American cinema	talk
Argentine cinema	talk
Australian cinema	talk
Baltic cinema	talk
Belgian cinema	talk
British cinema	talk
Canadian cinema	talk
Chinese cinema	talk
French cinema	talk
German cinema	talk
Indian cinema	talk
Israeli cinema	talk
Italian cinema	talk
Japanese cinema	talk
Korean cinema	talk
Mexican cinema	talk
New Zealand cinema	talk
Nordic cinema	talk
Pakistani cinema	talk
Persian cinema	talk
Southeast Asian cinema	talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema	talk
Spanish cinema	talk
Uruguayan cinema	talk
Venezuelan cinema	talk

Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 6.

RFC: Naming conventions for franchise character lists

NO DECISION

This RFC reduces to two questions. Firstly, should there be a standard naming convention for lists of characters in media franchises? And secondly, if so, what should it be?

Of the participants, TheGnome, Gonnym, StarTrekker, Betty Logan, Halbared, Pickalittletalkalittle, Graham11, Spintheer, and Ladtrack do not explicitly answer the first question, although Graham11 and Pickalittletalkalittle's contributions are if-then statements which tends to imply that they think not. TompaDompa, Erik, and Adamstom.97 all say no. My assessment is that there is no consensus to implement a standard naming convention for lists of characters in media franchises.

Unfortunately this conflicts with our usual guidance, which is set out in several paragraphs at WP:CONDAB, but boils down to "Use consistent article titles, but don't add needless disambiguators for consistency, and where there's a choice, use the shortest unambiguous title". Ideally we would come up with a single consistent way of doing things. But harmonizing this would involve changing the titles of many, many articles, which is significant and disruptive enough to need a strong consensus --- stronger than is to be found here.

Because we haven't decided that there ought to be a standard naming convention, there is no need to decide what the standard naming convention should be.

In practice the outcome of this RfC is not to make a change for the time being.

Because there is no consensus, editors are free to re-run this RfC, optionally with a re-phrased question, and optionally listed in a more visible place (such as at WP:CENT), if this is desired.—S Marshall T/C 14:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § RFC: Naming conventions for franchise character lists

What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:

A: List of Cars characters
B: List of Cars (franchise) characters
C: List of characters in the Cars franchise

Should any of these be adopted as a standard naming convention rather than the other two? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of using the English language simply and correctly, option C stands out. -The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For TV, we have an established guideline at WP:NCTV##List articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So B or A depending on the need to disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at that link and it seems to like A as accepted, discourages B, and makes no mention of C (nor the context which requires it). Am I missing something? Tduk (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It does not discourage "B". "B" should be used if the title needs to be disambiguated. See the 4th example. And not mentioning C means that it isn't supported. The guideline shows what to use, not a list of what not to use. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants some examples here they are:

The formats seem to be used interchangeably. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support B for consistency.★Trekker (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option C Seems the most organic and descriptive. Option A is imprecise, while Option B looks like malformed disambiguation. Whichever one is chosen, the title e.g. Cars needs to be italicised. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that this necessarily needs to be consistent across articles, but option C feels the most natural to me. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should depend on the topic, especially because these terms are not likely to be real-world search terms. For Cars specifically, List of Cars characters suffices because there is no other list of characters in some other topic called Cars possible. So that would be both as natural and as concise as possible (especially with "Cars" being in italics). Thinking on it more, I think Option A may be better more generally unless there are two distinct branches of the same core topic.

Like let's say we have Foo book that is loosely adapted into a TV show to mean different enough characterizations, and that each of them have their own articles with their own "Characters" sections. If one of the sections is big enough to get split off, do we really need to specify in the list article title if it is from the book or TV show, if it's the only standalone list and not one actively searched out for (as lists of characters are not typically directly searched for)? The list article could have a hatnote linking to the other scope's section. If both sections have enough substance to have their own list of characters, then some form of Option C ("in the Foo book" vs. "in the Foo TV series") would be appropriate to disambiguate them from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a couple of possible alternative interpretations for "List of Cars characters"; it could just refer to the first film, or it could be taken to refer to any anthropomorphic cars. You can always redirect List of Cars characters to List of characters in the Cars franchise, but at least with the latter you have a fully descriptive title. Either way, I think it would useful to have some uniformity in the titles for these types of articles where we can. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point about just the first film vs. the franchise in general. Still, I think these terms are not typically directly searched for, so if there are not competing lists of characters from scopes of the same name, I don't think we have to get so granular. Whichever scope a list is split off from, readers are far more likely to get to it through the main article. Looking at MOS:LIST § List naming, it says, "Additionally, an overly precise list title can be less useful and can make the list difficult to find; the precise inclusion criteria for the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title." To me, that means we don't need to get so detailed with the list article title. So I think Option C is better only for competing lists. (As a side note, I don't favor Option B, as it looks clunky, when Option C is cleaner.)

Not sure if this reframing helps us think this through, but if we had just one standalone "Analysis" sub-article coming from either the novel or the film The Shining, would we want "Analysis of The Shining" or "Analysis of the novel/film The Shining"? Or same with "Production of" for an older film or its remake, what would we want? I suppose my general feeling is that we don't really have to carry over the disambiguation to the split if we don't have to. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Erik's thoughts, this should be determined on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration whether additional disambiguation is necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A Seems the most sensible and logical.Halbared (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Option A, B if needed. As it was already stated there is a system for naming list articles for Television that already follows this format, keeping it similar would follow WP:CONSISTENT. Also using option A will follow WP:PRECISION best. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 22:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Cars, I would go with option A, as the article's scope encompasses all topics called Cars that could conceivably have characters (namely the film and the broader franchise). If further disambiguation were required, I think I would lean towards option C as more natural. Graham11 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support B or C (include "franchise") – To avoid ambiguity, titles should explicitly indicate that it's a franchise. For example, a list for the Alien franchise titled "List of Alien characters" could be misread as "a list of alien (extraterrestrial) characters," not "characters from Alien." Per WP:PRECISION and WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, including "franchise" makes the topic clear without extra context. Between the two, I slightly prefer B ("List of X (franchise) characters") for concision and consistency with parenthetical disambiguation, but C ("List of characters in the X franchise") is also fine. spintheer (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option A unless there is an unrelated major work of the same title with characters that would not be on the list of characters page. For example, every character in the film The Lion King should be in List of The Lion King (franchise) characters, so that article should just be called List of The Lion King characters. Anybody that wants to see characters in the movie will want the franchise character list, and the franchise characters page is inherently also a film characters page, so there is no benefit for disambiguation. The only instance in which I could see any benefit to a disambiguator is if there is an unrelated major media of the same name in which someone could expect a character list, in which case I would probably prefer option C. However, I cannot think of a single example in which that would be the case. Ladtrack (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've filed a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request: Draft and article creation for LA Jesus

Hello,

I am closely connected to the film LA Jesus (2024) and therefore cannot create the article directly. I am requesting help from volunteer editors to create either Draft:LA Jesus or an article in mainspace. The film has coverage in reliable sources, festival awards, and published reviews.

Here is a working draft written in encyclopedic style:

Requested move at Talk:Kay Adams-Corleone#Requested move 15 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kay Adams-Corleone#Requested move 15 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Z E T A³ 19:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest WP articles on films

...according to PetScan. (Release year listed in parentheses, followed by page-creation date and page ID; drop me a line if we somehow missed anything extra.)

Spain in Flames (1937) (2001-02-02, 9433)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) (2001-02-21, 29781)
The Big Lebowski (1998) (2001-02-22, 29782)
Dune (1984) (2001-02-22, 71415)
Destry Rides Again (1939) (2001-02-25, 7906)
The Rock (1996) (2001-02-25, 29785)
The Blair Witch Project (1999) (2001-03-01, 18841979)
The Doors (1991) (2001-03-04, 604150)
The Birth of a Nation (1915) (2001-03-07, 3333)
Natural Born Killers (1994) (2001-03-26, 21180)
The Breakfast Club (1985) (2001-03-30, 29943)
The Graduate (1967) (2001-03-30, 29942)

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disney musical films

Since this pertains to some relevant Disney musical film such as the Frozen films and Moana, I've been thinking: should we consider including a footnote where we can mention the songwriters while we list the primary score composer(s) in the infobox to prevent any potential infobox clutter? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed. That isn't a footnote, but a complete piece of information. If the infobox does not have a parameter for that, then it's not meant to go there. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example, other FA/GA articles such as those in the Jurassic Park series (i.e. Jurassic Park III, which is a GA, lists Don Davis as the composer and has a footnote that lists John Williams as the composer of its original themes in the infobox). sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Inspector Palmu's Mistake (film)#Requested move 24 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Inspector Palmu's Mistake (film)#Requested move 24 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Goofy Movie

A concern regarding the GA quality on A Goofy Movie has been raised at Talk:A Goofy Movie#Article needs cleaned up. Any input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Entertainment AfD

More discussion is needed over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domain Entertainment. Thanks. Mike Allen 11:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anemone Plot

I've added a plot to the Anemone (film) article. But it can be improved. If anyone would like to take it up. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure Point (2001 film)

I found the article Pressure Point (2001 film), which at the time was cited solely to a personal review on Blogspot. Please see here for my attempts at finding sources. I'm not as well versed in film, so I would appreciate any possible help in locating something I might have missed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:List of films considered the worst#Requested move 9 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of films considered the worst#Requested move 9 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 09:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The Garden of Sinners/Archives/2025/November#Requested move 12 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Garden of Sinners/Archives/2025/November#Requested move 12 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 19:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice for plot summaries?

Does anyone think it would be worth creating an editnotice for film plot summaries, that would advise editors when editing such plot summaries that they generally shouldn't exceed 700 words, and that if their changes cause the summary to exceed 700 words that they may reverted without warning? I think this may save editors (and those reverting their edits) a bit of time and frustration? DonIago (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This idea feels very familiar as something brought up in the past but ultimately didn't get enough steam to see it to the finish line. I'd have to do an archives search to see if I'm right. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem as though it would be that complicated from a technical perspective, and I figure if it kept even one person from wasting their time making plot summary edits that were just going to end up being summarily reverted then it might be a worthy pursuit. It seems the biggest 'annoyance' may be that editnotices don't appear to be able to be section-specific, so it would appear whenever any portion of a film article was edited, not just the plot summary...though that would mean that if someone was editing the summary without targeting the section specifically that they'd still see the notice. I'm willing to make the effort to build it if you or anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a top-notch idea. Barry Wom (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I started looking into this, but it turns out I don't have the permissions to create an editnotice template. Assuming nobody here with that permission would be willing to just go to bat for us (I don't know how many people even have the permissions), we could request the creation of a template easily enough, but at that point we should probably agree on wording beforehand. Left to my own devices, I might borrow from the wording for Template:Uw-plotsum1, with the goal of making an editnotice that could be used more universally rather than just for film articles. If anyone else wants to take a swing at this, I'd sure appreciate that. Otherwise, if anyone wants me to take a swing at it, reply here and I'll do so as time permits (next week I'll be broadly unavailable). DonIago (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> Request for feedback: draft article “Giorgio Rayzacher”

> Hello! I’ve prepared a new draft article about film director and writer Giorgio Rayzacher, an Italian–French–Polish filmmaker and author. Here is the link to my sandbox: User:Belliricchiperfidi/sandbox.

I would appreciate feedback regarding its notability and sources before publishing. Thank you! Belliricchiperfidi (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> Hello! I’ve prepared a new draft article about film director and writer Giorgio Rayzacher, an Italian–French–Polish filmmaker and author. Here is the link to my sandbox: User:Belliricchiperfidi/sandbox. I would appreciate feedback regarding its notability and sources before publishing. Thank you!

Hello everyone!

I’ve prepared a new draft article about film director, actor, and writer **Giorgio Rayzacher**, an Italian–French–Polish filmmaker and author.

Here is the link to my sandbox: 👉 [User:Belliricchiperfidi/sandbox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Belliricchiperfidi/sandbox)

The draft includes verified biographical details, sources from Onet Kultura, Wirtualna Polska, IMDb, and Filmweb, and has been carefully formatted to match the encyclopedia’s standards.

I would appreciate any feedback regarding **notability, structure, or sources** before moving it to mainspace.

Thank you very much for your time and help! — **Belliricchiperfidi** Belliricchiperfidi (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers: Doomsday cast in lead section

There is a discussion about the cast in the lead section of Avengers: Doomsday (permalink). The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 14:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and everyday life § Add The Act of Killing

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and everyday life § Add The Act of Killing. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 18:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)— 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 18:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Tic Code

The Tic Code has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wuthering Heights

There is a discussion at Wuthering Heights (2026 film) about mentioning in the first sentence the film's title being stylized with quotation marks. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 20:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page move discussion of Interstellar (film)

There is a discussion of a potential page move of the article Interstellar (film) on its talk page here that is relevant to this WikiProject. Shocksingularity (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input on AfD for actor, comedian and peace advocate Cliff Divine

Hello, I am reaching out for outside input on an AfD discussion related to the article about Cliff Divine. There appear to be several misunderstandings in the discussion, so I am hoping that editors from this project can help review the notability question with a clear look at the sources. First, it is important to note that Cliff Divine and Andrew Cliff Tisba are the same person. This can be verified through interviews, festival programs, public nonprofit documents, and media profiles. Some news outlets use one name while others use the other, but they all refer to the same individual. This clarification is important because it affects how the sources are interpreted. The article includes a large number of independent secondary sources from established news organizations. These include ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Orlando Sentinel, KHON2, KTVB, KUTV, Q2 Billings, and several international outlets. In these reports he is not mentioned briefly. He appears on camera and is the central focus of the stories. Film festivals and award committees have also published material that covers his work in a principal role. A link was provided that contains more than thirty broadcast news segments from major networks where Cliff Divine is clearly identified by name on air. These are public, independent broadcasts, and they show significant coverage that meets the expectations of WP:BIO. Most of the sources cited in the article come from established newsrooms with full editorial oversight. They are not self published and not produced or controlled by the subject. They meet the requirements for independent and reliable sourcing in a biographical article. There is also reporting on his acting awards, his film appearances, and a multistate public initiative that drew repeated coverage. This combination of sources shows significant independent attention over time, which satisfies the criteria for biographical notability. For clarity, I am not the subject of the article. I am participating only to correct factual misunderstandings and to help ensure the discussion stays focused on source quality and policy rather than assumptions about editors. In short, the subject has extensive coverage from reliable independent sources, including dozens of television news reports and multiple print and online publications. These appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, and I believe that additional input from this project would be valuable in assessing the article. The AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Divine Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budget discussion at Blade (1998 film)

A discussion about mentioning the budget in the article body of Blade (1998 film) is taking place at Talk:Blade (1998 film)#Budget should not be deleted from article body. Input from project members would be appreciated. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "starring" field for Scarface (1983 film)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding which actors should be included in the infobox for Scarface. Further input would be welcome. Talk:Scarface_(1983_film)#Poster_and_credits Barry Wom (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False information in the article Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Comic Role?

Hi. I'm a user with pl.wiki (so my English is what it is). I'm not entirely familiar with the rules in Your language version, so I decided to report a problem here. I wanted to use Your sources to improve the article about Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Comic Role in our language version. It turns out that some of the information in the article is not consistent with the sources. F.e. the source in the article does not list the prizes for the winners in 1972 and 1973. The official awards website provides the following information: NOT AWARDED. So where does the information in the article come from? Not to mention the nominations, because these sources do not mention them at all. But the rewards seem to be a hoax. Kajtus von Rzywiec (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same lack of winners for 1972/1973 in the sources. I would say it's OK to remove/replace those years with "not awarded". That information was first added in 2008 by an IP, then expanded this year with the bad citation. Maybe User:Thefallguy2025 has something to add? Iiii I I I (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 1981 ones also are not correct. I'm currently correcting that entry on the pl.wiki. If I discover anything else, I'll let you know. Kajtus von Rzywiec (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on FAC

Hello, this FAC for Hundreds of Beavers might be of interest to people in this project. Any comments are welcomed. Jon698 (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New editor from Pakistan – focus on Pakistani cinema biographies

Hello WikiProject Film members!

My name is Danish Rehman, and I am a new editor from Pakistan (username: User:Danishrehman-writer). As a writer specializing in screenwriting and biographical content, I am passionate about contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of the Pakistani film and television industry. My user page has more details: User:Danishrehman-writer.

I am particularly interested in expanding and improving articles on notable figures in Pakistani entertainment. For example, the existing article on Humayun Saeed is well-established but could benefit from updates on his recent projects, additional reliable sources, and enhanced sections on his production work with Six Sigma Plus.

Could anyone offer advice on:

Best practices for improving existing biographies (e.g., adding infobox images from free sources)?
Reliable sources for Pakistani cinema?
Any ongoing tasks or collaborations related to South Asian or Pakistani cinema?

I am committed to Wikipedia's core policies (WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) and would appreciate any mentorship or feedback.

Looking forward to collaborating!

Best regards, Danish Rehman (talk) Danishrehman-writer (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden (Huntr/x song) RM discussion

There is a request to move Golden (Huntr/x song). The discussion can be found here: Talk:Golden (Huntr/x song) § Requested move 19 November 2025. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 15:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Update Budget & Box Office for The Taj Story (2025) – Reliable Source Provided

Hello WikiProject Film members,

I’m requesting assistance in updating the Budget and Box Office figures for the article The Taj Story (2025). I previously submitted an edit request on the article’s Talk page, but since it has not been reviewed yet, I’m reaching out here for help from active film-related editors.

The information comes from a reliable source: The Times of India, where actor Paresh Rawal himself confirmed both the film’s budget and updated box office.

Requested Updates

1. Budget

Current: ₹25 crore

Proposed: ₹7–8 crore

Reason: Paresh Rawal confirmed the film was made on a budget of ₹7–8 crore.

2. Box Office

Current: ₹10.10 crore

Proposed: ₹19.31 crore

Reason: The Times of India reports the film’s box office earnings as ₹19.31 crore.

Source (Reliable):

Paresh Rawal’s The Taj Story mints Rs 1.60 crore in 3rd weekend The Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/box-office/paresh-rawals-the-taj-story-mints-rs-1-60-crore-in-3rd-weekend/articleshow/125378210.cms

^[1]

Because the article is currently semi-protected and I cannot edit the infobox myself, I kindly request that an editor update these values using the above source.

Thank you very much! — Shubham Prasad Shubham Prasad (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would like to clarify one point in my earlier request:

The budget and box office numbers are confirmed by The Times of India, which is the reliable, published source for verifiable data.

The article includes Paresh Rawal’s statements as quoted and reported by TOI, which is why TOI is the primary citation for these figures — not the actor individually.

So to confirm:

Budget (₹7–8 crore) — reported by The Times of India

Box office (₹19.31 crore) — reported by The Times of India

This makes the information fully compliant with Wikipedia’s verifiability and reliable sourcing guidelines.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Shubham Prasad (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

See WP:ICTFSOURCES, The Times of India is considered unreliable forcbox office figures. Sid95Q (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Paresh Rawal's 'The Taj Story' mints Rs 1.60 crore in 3rd weekend". The Times of India. 10 November 2025. Retrieved 21 November 2025.

Good article reassessment for Willy Loman

Willy Loman has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality on The Super Mario Galaxy Movie

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the nationality on The Super Mario Galaxy Movie article over at Talk:The Super Mario Galaxy Movie#nationality issue. Input from interested project members would be appreciated. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Legend of Zelda (film) § American and Japanese film, and not only American

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Legend of Zelda (film) § American and Japanese film, and not only American, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Angel Heart

Angel Heart has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to include song titles in plots of musicals?

I didn't understand what was going on when I saw the plot summary of Wicked (2024 film). I finally realized that what I was seeing were song titles shown where the songs are performed.

If I didn't understand what was happening, surely others would not.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they shouldn't be there. Now removed. Barry Wom (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed there was a disagreement in edit summaries in the history about how to do it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of musical film and TV articles use this format, I wouldn't be surprised if there is pushback to you just removing them like that. I agree that it is not always clear what this format means, but when discussion of the songs is part of the production/reception sections I do think it makes sense to note in the plot summary where they come, so a new reader who hasn't seen the film/show can understand where the songs fit into the plot and what they mean in context. This issue was raised in the GA review of Subspace Rhapsody, and the solution we came up with was to say "singing the song XX" in the first instance so new readers would understand what the titles in parentheses indicate. I think that was a good compromise, clarifying the format while keeping the benefits of having them. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why a reader who hasn't seen the film would want to see song titles in a plot summary. Surely if the content of the songs is important to an understanding of the plot, we should describe that content in prose? A song title alone is of no use and introduces clutter. Barry Wom (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the plot summary is to provide context to readers who have not seen the film, so you don't need to keep describing the plot throughout the rest of the article. The music/songs section is not the place to be describing plot details to a new reader when there is already a plot section. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my point, which is that if the content of any of the songs contain plot points, they should be described in prose in the plot section, not the music section. Song titles are not a part of the plot, and including them is obviously cause for confusion. Barry Wom (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it before. It's already in the musical numbers section. Adding to plot is bloat. Mike Allen 23:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to comment and say it probably shouldn't be used like that, but after Adam's comment I checked a film I was sure had many eyes throughout it's cycle, La La Land which is a GA and it also does this. Do we have a FA musical film that we can check what it does? For musicals this might actually be a plot-defining moment just as any important story-bit we'd add to an article, and not some trivia information. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this yet, but the MoS should probably reflect whatever consensus is on this, as this is quite a unique style. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding La La Land, if this is the point at which it reached GA status, it didn't have the song titles included in the plot.

Regarding "For musicals this might actually be a plot-defining moment just as any important story-bit we'd add to an article, and not some trivia information.". As I mentioned above, if the song includes plot points, we should include those points in prose, not by simply inserting a song title.

As an example of a musical which contains a song title in the plot justifiably, there's this from Cabaret (1972 film):

The rise of the Nazis in the 1930s is also demonstrated towards the end of the film in a rural beer garden scene. There, a blond boy sings to an audience of all ages ("Tomorrow Belongs to Me") about the beauties of nature and youth. It is eventually revealed that the boy is wearing a Hitlerjugend uniform. The ballad then transforms into a militant Nazi anthem, and by the song's end, one by one nearly all of the adults and young people rise and join in the singing.

That's a case where the song contents (and delivery) are applicable to the plot. No other song titles are included in the summary. Barry Wom (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICAL's article structure guidance at WP:WPMT/AS#NUMBERS says to incorporate songs where they appear in the plot summary. This is likely where users are getting this notion to do this. I feel if a film is fully a musical adaptation (as with Wicked), this style could be followed. Though depending on what ever is determined here, some updates should be made at the WP:MUSICALS bit to clarify that film musicals should or should not follow that formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the source for this. For starters, I'd strongly disagree with the opening statement "The story of a musical is told through the songs within it." No, generally speaking, it's the spoken word parts. But I guess this isn't the place to argue about it. Barry Wom (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPMT/AS#NUMBERS is currently not more than an essay so that shouldn't be the bases for any MoS decision. Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

Hey, I want some input on Draft:Solstice (1993 film). The draft had some major issues with sourcing, as it was using Film Freeway and IMDb as sources to back up claims, particularly claims of it winning various awards. They was also some definite issues with WP:PUFFERY in that there were multiple sections for various releases (TV, DVD, etc) and there was a repeated claim of it being the first Lifetime Original Christmas movie. I did some cleanup and I have a lengthy section on the talk page about what I removed and why.

The big issue here is this: the sourcing is pretty bad. The first movie claim is unverifiable. The only places saying this are either primary or generally unreliable. The source that was used for this is Reel Chicago News, which looks to sell article space as part of their advertising. The reviews are also pretty questionable. We have two reviews, one from Blu-Ray.com and one from Film Threat. I don't think that the B-R.c staff reviews have been outright deemed unusable, however they're still reviews on a site that is otherwise unusable for even the most basic of details. There's been no consensus as of yet to deem Film Threat reviews as unusable, however people have pointed out at AfD that they sell pay-to-play reviews and articles, plus they don't mark which ones are paid and which ones aren't. The film festival awards are pretty much entirely unusable. They all appear to be either minor, non-notable film festivals or they're outright vanity award mills. In other words, the coverage for this is very light and I suspect that almost all of it was paid for, but have no absolute proof of this. It's just one of those 'if it quacks' type situations. I'm not trying to say that the article creator was paid to create it, mind you - just that they're an infrequent editor and as such wouldn't know the discussions and so on about all of this as a result.

Very technically this could probably pass NFILM based on the two reviews, despite them being seen as fairly dubious and low quality sources on Wikipedia nowadays. If anyone feels strongly that it does pass I won't fight the acceptance, but I am very worried about its chances of surviving if it was nominated for AfD. What do you guys think? I feel kind of bad for the article, admittedly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've reverted a lot of the changes I've made. They're also now trying to argue for it being the first based on searchable TV records, rather than news articles stating it was the first or Lifetime itself saying that it was. I can see that they're trying, but it just makes me even more worried.

Can someone help them out? I don't think they'll listen to me any. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An award is not notable for inclusion if the award giver is not notable. So that complete section can go. Another red flag for me is the lack of any blue links for personal involved with the film. A film can be notable without anyone involved being notable, but I'd say that is a rare situation. Gonnym (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're just relisting in the hopes that it'll get accepted if they keep at it. They're now trying to argue that airing on cable is enough to pass notability guidelines. Offhand I don't see where the part they're quoting is even in NFILM.

Can someone here step in? I doubt that they will listen to anything I say at this point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I see that you're involved with WP:TV as well - you may be able to help them on that end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that the article creator was paid to create it

They've admitted to a COI on their talk page [1] and resubmitted it, this time without a single secondary source, so it's very unlikely to be accepted. Barry Wom (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that - it absolutely wasn't there when I declined the article. At least they admitted it. I think at this rate it might end up needing to go to ANI if they keep resubmitting and saying that the decliner is wrong. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Input and c/e help request

Requesting inputs at Template:DYK nominations/My Choice (film) and c/e help at My Choice (film) as requested at the discussion. Bookku (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:M by Judi Dench.jpg relisted at FFD

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 November 27#File:M by Judi Dench.jpg. George Ho (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification regarding NFILM notability for Solstice (1993 film)

Hello WikiProject Film, and thank you to anyone willing to take a look at this.

A question was raised earlier about whether the 1993/1994 film Solstice would meet WP:NFILM if accepted through AfC, with specific concern about whether the Lifetime broadcast could be verified through reliable sources.

I wanted to provide clarification now that additional evidence has been located.

The film aired nationally on the Lifetime Television Network in December 1994 under the on-air branding “Lifetime World Premiere Movie.” This broadcast status is supported by:

• Surviving off-air Lifetime promos and title cards • A Wikimedia VRT ticket verifying the broadcast materials (Ticket #2025112710010755) • Multiple contemporaneous newspaper TV listings from December 1994

For reference, here are the publicly accessible Newspapers.com results:

https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?date=1994&keyword=%22Solstice%3A+A+Christmas+Story%22+Lifetime+1994

These listings independently confirm the title, network, and broadcast dates and serve as valid factual verification under WP:PRIMARY and WP:VERIFY.

This clarification is being shared to ensure that all editors reviewing the draft have access to the full set of verifiable sources, especially given that some earlier comments appeared to have been made without these listings in hand.

Per NFILM’s Criterion #1 — “A national broadcast on a major television or cable network” — the film satisfies Wikipedia’s notability requirements for films based on its national Lifetime premiere alone. No additional secondary critical coverage is required for films whose notability is established through national broadcast.

This post is not intended to dispute any prior reviewer personally, but simply to ensure that WikiProject Film members have access to the full set of verifiable sources and are aware that the broadcast-notability criterion is met. If there is any further guidance the project recommends for older, pre-digital television films with verifiable national broadcasts, I would appreciate it.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

BruceKing36 (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you already, television listings alone do not indicate notability. Barry Wom (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that is not criterion #1 - the actual wording is "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews in two or more GNG-worthy publications."

Being broadcast on TV isn't enough - it needs coverage. The issue here is that the reviews aren't in great locations. Film Threat openly sells reviews nowadays. Blu-Ray.com staff reviews are only very technically usable - the site is not considered to be a reliable source for even basic details, so a review from them isn't really the strongest possible source. Even if we consider that to be usable, there's still that major issue with the Film Threat source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Blues Brothers (film)

The Blues Brothers (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Release dates on list articles

I have created a few articles about films, and have not always added them to the various lists, and recently have looked to do so but been uncertain about whether to add them as released on the date of the film festival release, if it is not known if or when a cinema (or TV, or VOD) release will occur in the same year. The lists I've looked at recently - Australia and Mexico - do not give any guidance in the intro. Is there a rule about this somewhere? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The release date should ideally match up to what is in the infobox on the film article, which should follow WP:FILMRELEASE, unless the context of the list dictates a different date. If you can provide a couple of examples then we might be able to offer further assistance. Betty Logan (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Betty. Recent ones are Crocodiles and Songs Inside. The former doesn't have an infobox yet, and the latter doesn't yet have its own article, but it will do. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try and always include an infobox even if has basic information. Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Bengal Files

There is a discussion at Talk:The Bengal Files regarding a contentious genre classification in lead that may be of interest to this wikiproject. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Bad Lieutenant#Alternate theatrical poster

There is discussion if the film poster for Bad Lieutenant on terms of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #Wikipedia is not censored] and Wikipedia:Offensive material. Anyone who could weigh in on the discussion would be helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adoption – Draft:Sahil Mehta (actor)

Hi,

I'm seeking a neutral editor to review and adopt Draft:Sahil Mehta (actor).

The article cites coverage from Filmfare, India Today, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Koimoi, News18, Mid-Day, OTTPlay, Times of India, etc., and I believe it meets WP:ACTOR notability.

I am the article subject and therefore will not submit it myself due to COI.

If anyone is willing to review for tone/compliance and submit on my behalf, I would be extremely grateful. Isahilmehta (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Films of potentially unknown nationality

In MOS:FILM, it states that "The article should include categories at the bottom. At a minimum, year, country, language and genre categories should be included". Bearcat rightfully tagged the article as missing information in the outrageously titled A Virgin Among the Living Dead. I've been trying to clean up some Jesus Franco film articles recently and its proven to be difficult due to the nature of their productions. To summarize the problem, the Stephen Thrower in his overview of Franco says

The film is credited to a single production company, described by Franco biographer Stephen Thrower as the “notoriously untraceable” Prodif Ets. that was stated as being based in Liechtenstein. Franco had made other films for Prodif Ets such as Nightmares Come at Night (1973). As the company never made films for any other director, Franco biographer Stephen Thrower suggested that the company was set up as a tax haven, similar to how producer Harry Alan Towers had done.

Should the film be classified as being from this country? Thrower's book has the Lichtenstein credited, followed by France, Italy and Belgium in brackets. This is due to the film having several production countries added on in later releases of the film that usually have removed or added footage or other sources. I.e: J.K. Films (Italy) France (source: Centre national du cinéma et de l'image animée) or Italian censor certificates and so forth. There is little consistency.

Any thoughts on how this should/could be handled? I'm going to @Bearcat: as they added the tag initially and some countries and it might be good to weigh in on this here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Killing off#Requested move 9 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Killing off#Requested move 9 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict regarding "present(s)" credit

I need help settling a conflict with User:Barry Wom and User:Multiplivision over "present(s)" credits. They argue that "presents" is reserved exclusively for distributors, while I argue it's not exclusive and sometimes distributors don't even appear in "present(s)". IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Film credits are complicated. The term presents is used in several films and I wouldn't bank on it meaning "produced". For example, when Iron Monkey (1993) was released in the United States in the early 2000s, it was given a big "Quentin Tarntino Presents" banner, (as seen here and written about here). The film received a new score and got a "Golden Harvest and Quentin Tarantino present an L.S. Pictures Ltd., Film Work Shop production" credit. This United Press International article even states he is a producer on the film ( here), the Screen Daily review only credits the films original producer Tsui Hark, and Tarantino is only given the "presents" line. (here) while Hong Kong archival prints also (kind of obviously) that he had nothing to do with the original release (as seen here, via City University of Hong Kong). Similarly, as seen in the Back to the Future article, the poster says "Steven Spielberg Presents", but he's not a credited producer nor is he shown that way in the article or credits (per AFI). I'm presuming this is due to his relationship with the director or the films relationship with Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment.

TL;DR: we probably shouldn't "presume" presents means the same thing as a being a "producer" or that is used as the same term as a "production company" or "studio" for infobox details. In terms of the film I think you are talking about (Addams Family Values), the credits all state "A Scott Rudin Production. A Barry Sonnenfeld Film. A Paramount Pictures Presentation."(per AFI) While it does say Paramount produced (and distributed it), I think its too problematic to assume the term "presents" means "produced". It would be the best route to try to stick to more specific credits that say things like "producer" or "produced by" instead. I feel this is most inline with WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying "presents" means definitely being a producer either. I'm saying "presents" is a flexible term that could mean distribute and/or producing (or in rare cases, like with names of people, neither). You're right that it is complicated, but I don't think WP:STICKTOSOURCE means only listening to the billing block/credit ordering, which is a primary source and Wiki often likes secondary sources to back info up. Also, relegating "presents" as being "anything but a producer" contradicts such info as Marvel Studios producing their films, as they have simply appeared as "Marvel Studios presents" for over a decade. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source detailing that Paramount was very much part of Addams Family Values production. [2] Mike Allen 23:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin attention page?

At one point during the discussion at Talk:Batman & Robin (film)#Reception in the Lead back in 2023, Betty Logan mentioned:

"[...] Perhaps what the film project needs is an "admin attention" page where perhaps these types of issues can be picked up by admins who belong the project (provided they don't infringe WP:INVOLVED). Admins who belong a particular project generally have a better understanding of the various issues that arise (genre wars anybody?) and are more familiar with the MOS (i.e. FILMPLOT etc). Provided it doesn't descend into content protectionism for established editors that would be infinitely superior to the current system."

Any thoughts or ideas on this? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd basically agree. There are many long-standing editors like Erik or Betty themselves who are familiar with the specifics of WP:FILM that come up again and again. I'm not sure who would want this position but it would be handy for just quick re-assurance that we can have consistency with guidelines across articles in an easy format. We're all newbie editors once, so it could help. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Titra Studios

The article Titra Studios has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 16 years. Tagged for notability concerns for 6 years. Fails the relevant notability guidelines.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix and Warner Bros. Pictures

As many of us know by now, Warner Bros. Discovery has announced it will sell its film, television and streaming assets to Netflix, so I figured I would start up a discussion on this matter here.

For film articles regarding the distribution changes, should we consider using a footnote regarding the film distribution transfers from Warner Bros. to Netflix in an article, using the Thor article (a GA) where the rights from its former distributor Paramount Pictures were transferred to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures or is it unnecessary at this point? Thanks. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that no transaction has been finalized and the companies said it could be completed 12 to 18 months from now, it would be best to wait and see how this pans out, rather than taking a preemptive, reactive approach. At this very early stage, we have no idea how the distribution methods could change, if at all. My initial expectation is that this may be on a case-by-case basis, but any decision would be too soon and speculative. Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 06:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Paresh Rawal's 'The Taj Story' mints Rs 1.60 crore in 3rd weekend". The Times of India. 10 November 2025. Retrieved 21 November 2025.

[1]