Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35


Critics Consensus at Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes has several news columns, one of which is the "Critics Consensus" column. It describes consensus toward a film in a little more detail than a film would have on its main RT page. I use Rotten Tomatoes (and Metacritic) pretty frequently in articles about recent films. I hate to look like a shill for the website, so I'm wondering if anyone thinks there is an issue with citing this column? I'm not aware of many reliable sources that can provide a well-rounded idea of what critics thought, though Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are a good way to cite a general consensus from actual print sources. (And I do try to use these where they can fit.) Thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the Tomatometer only provides a quantitative analysis, which is just a number unless it is put into context. There is a legitimate argument that perhaps we shouldn't be putting numbers into the articles unless they're accompanied by some form of qualitative assessment, so I'm all for anything that explains what the percentage score actually means. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
My only issue is, "When are they compliling the consensus?" For example, the reason that I don't use the "summary" that appears on a film's main page is because it is often compiled right at the start and I rarely see it evolve after more numerous reviews are released. It's typically cherry-picked one-liners from critics and if a film starts out strong or weak then the summary typically reflects that, even after more reviews come in and the percentage levels off. So, if you think that the "Critics consensus" is a more well-rounded summary of actual consensus, then I would be for the additional explaination of the percentage (though, we'd probably have to emphasize the importance of paraphrasing that consensus and not just copy and pasting).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I'm skeptical to use RT for anything other than statistics. Comments on consensus should preferably be attributed to a notable author, and it's better to do that by citing actual reviews. As I see it the consensus(es) is basically what the selection of reviews should reflect anyway. RT's consensus could be a good guide though for making those selections. Smetanahue (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bignole, you make a good point about the early nature of the consensus report. Some films may be highly praised or widely panned upon their opening, then the critics soften up, either saying "it's not that great" or "it's not that bad". So it may be worth noting that the report is not retrospective enough and that it should be replaced by something retrospective, like around the film's DVD release date.
Smetanahue, when you say "notable author", do you mean critics themselves that have their own Wikipedia articles? Or do you mean notable such journalists? Even journalism about a film in retrospect will probably be authored by someone unknown, even if they work for a notable periodical. The person who writes that RT column is Tim Ryan, apparently. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." I think it's safe to say that Rotten Tomatoes is reliably published, but we've never really discussed authorship of the website's articles. Do we know if Ryan is appropriately authoritative as part of the Rotten Tomatoes staff, as a journalist would be appropriately authoritative as part of a newspaper staff? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I mean a person with some form of authority. I have absolutely nothing against Tim Ryan, but being the Critics Consensus writer for Rotten Tomatoes isn't exactly a top position in film journalism, so it would be inappropriate to give him (and the site) too much relevance, even in the context of summarizing what other critics have written. My point is also that the reception sections on Wikipedia in many regards are the same things as those columns, just more elaborate and with the statements better attributed to individual critics. So I don't really see the need to quote RT: even if it's for an article you don't plan to develop beyond start class, it's not that much harder to add a few references to reviews that convey the same things. RT isn't an unreliable source and there could be reasons to use it in some cases for more than the fresh/rotten stats, but in general I just think it's more serious to stick to actual reviews. Smetanahue (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If we use only individual reviews, how do we balance them accordingly? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic help strike that balance for this century's films, though the previous century's films are better off with more retrospective coverage. If we lived in a world where there was abundant coverage of how critics responded to every film, then we probably would not need to cite individual reviews much, if at all. We sample individual reviews to give readers an idea of what critics thought of the film. If we only have bird's-eye view coverage saying the film was highly acclaimed, we sample the reviews for specific examples of what was liked. The difference between Ryan's column and a film critic's review is that the column determines what the reviews had most in common. I'd prefer a film historian reporting in retrospect on how every single film was received, but we don't have that. I think this column is a step toward the aforementioned hypothetical world. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence grammar: "A..." followed by "A..." in same sentence

Please see [1] followed again by same user with revert [2]. This is poor grammar: "A..." followed by "A..." in same sentence. The 2nd "A..." is unnecessary. It can simply be removed. Can another editor help to address this? Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Without the second a, the sentence would call the award "Razzie", rather than "a Razzie," which would be incorrect. The sentence is also not grammatically incorrect as the user accused. See the first sentence of Academy Award for a similar example. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Lose the word "called" and Cirt may have a point. As is, it seems grammatically correct. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What about replacing "called" with "or"? —Mike Allen 03:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Category III films

List of Category III films has been nominated for deletion. (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute at Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Over at Transformers: Dark of the Moon there's an edit dispute as to whether a particular character appears. I wanted to call you all in as the experts on the subject, as I don't belong to this WikiProject and so don't feel totally comfortable on how this would be handled. The discussion is at Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Unicron in the RotF Transformers 3 preview. I have WP:BRD'd the discussion and it's close to the third revert, so I don't want to be much more involved than trying to state policy. I feel that the conclusion the editor is coming to is definitely WP:SYNTHESIS. Can a few of you jump in and clear things up? Thanks. --Teancum (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Being the other side of the dispute, I'd like to make some introduction to the issue for whoever would like to participate. Since as early as November 2009 (see here), the Revenge of the Fallen article had a paragraph with a quote by Roberto Orci (one of the second movie's writers) that said the character named Unicron had been for consideration for the third film, and mentioned that Unicron had coincidentally appeared in a Transformers 3 preview featurette in the Revenge of the Fallen Blu-ray disc. That content was then happily carried on to the Transformers 3 article and later to Transformers: Dark of the Moon, living there happily for a year and a half, until about a month ago, when the first teaser for Dark of the Moon was released. In that trailer there is a certain unknown robot some fanboys have speculated to be Unicron, which I agree is totally baseless. I NEVER EVER tried to make any guesswork about who that is as I couldn't care less. Problem is, all of a sudden, these other people pop up who think the statement I described before, about this feature in the Revenge of the Fallen disc (that has been in the article since late 2009), is somehow about the new trailer (that came out in early 2011) and have the unstoppable urge to delete it, no matter how hard you try to explain the situation to them. Film articles always have and always will have, information on people who were considered for a particular role, scenes meant to be but weren't, or characters that were considered but later dropped. So this is the case. I don't care whether it's Unicron or not in the recent teaser, or if Unicron will end up being in the film. All the article should reflect is that the production team once had him in consideration to be included. That's it. --uKER (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Yaksar at List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards

Update, continued disruption by Yaksar (talk · contribs), decision to drop the page
  1. Summary of disruption by Yaksar (talk · contribs), at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_accepted_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#Comments_by_Cirt
  2. Further ongoing disruption by Yaksar (talk · contribs), at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_accepted_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#.22Though.....22_in_lede
  3. Yaksar (talk · contribs) has shown a determined intention to engage in disruption and continue to revert and edit-war non-stop, before attempting to seek out consensus on the talk page through discussion.
  4. I am going to back away from this page (which I had previously created from scratch) List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Films based on comics task force

Everyone, I would like to propose a task force to work on articles about films based on comics. The task force would be a collaboration between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Comics. The benefit of the task force would be to pursue goals specific to this set of films, which I think will have more in common than the national cinema task forces. I have created a draft of the possible task force, linked above, which lists the goals that the task force can pursue, though they can be further revised if the force is launched. I ask editors here if they endorse such a task force and/or would like to be a part of it. Such films have been an industry trend and will continue to be one, and based on traffic statistics, such articles are enormously popular. With this kind of focus, we can fine-tune such articles into Good and Featured Articles, and we can use this organized collaboration to invite new editors to be involved with the task force, with either WikiProject, and with Wikipedia at large. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, just wanted to state my support behind the formation of this task force. The task force would be to provide some cohesiveness between films based on comic articles as well as a great resource for editors seeking aid and support for developing these articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I love the idea as you can see why I signed up for it. I also think we need to include this on Template:WikiProject Comics and Template:WikiProject Film as a related work group (and if not have a template about this topic on it's own). Any ideas on that? Jhenderson 777 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great. I'm in.Luminum (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: With seven editors having signed up, it is safe to say that there is interest in having this task force. I will go ahead and launch it. Girolamo launched a Christian films task force on others' behalf in April 2009, so I'll be copying his actions. TriiipleThreat suggested alternatives to the current name of "Films based on comics task force". He recommended on "Comic book film". I think other possibilities are "Comic book films" (due to the task force primarily covering individual films) or "Comics-based films". Any preference? Would help to determine this now so we don't have to fix all the related categories and templates later. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    "Comic book films task force" seems clearest to me. I'm sure we'll see further membership beyond the current seven, especially as Dark Knight Rises draws nearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Transporter (film series)

This article recently survived an AfD, where the decision was to convert it from an article on the lead character, to an overall article on the series. I was wondering if one or two regulars here could help me bring it up to scratch? Regards, —WFC— 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Latter Days FAR

I have nominated Latter Days for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - Kollision (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Differences between novel and film. Again

Hello all. I have seen the discussion many times over the appropriacy of sections that merely list the differences between a novel and film. I have created User:The JPS/Differences from the novel as a one-stop explanation for removal of these sections. There is no evidence of experienced editors (not anons or newbies) advocating these sections in the discussions I have researched. I'm fairly sure that between this corpus of discussion, the MOS and policy, we have a consensus to remove sections with no potential. I'd be interested if anyone has any suggestions or improvements to the page I'm developing. The JPStalk to me 19:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it definitely looks good. You may consider saying something about WP:IN-U and WP:INDISCRIMINATE although that is in the MOS already. BOVINEBOY2008 19:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say that it is not imperative to have real-world context for every difference. I think that there should be real-world context as a basis, and mentions of differences can help shape the big picture. We do this with production, piecing together all the writing and filming details. An example of what I mean is Apt Pupil (film)#Differences between novella and film, all details backed by secondary sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. Erik -- the wording in your message could be potentially interpreted as 'some real world context justifies other unreferenced material'? Which I guess is not what you're saying, looking at the very good Apt Pupil section? The JPStalk to me 20:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As the editor who asked The JPS to stop the wholesale deletion of these sections which they had embarked on, I have a number of concerns. I have examined the discussions cited in The JPS's essay, which he added when I prompted him for a consensus discussion which authorized such a "clean-up" drive, and I have to say that none of them is sufficiently extensive enoough to fill that role. They are all, basically, very short discussions of under a half-dozen entries, each involving only a handful of editors, some of whom participated in more than one. This is far from sufficient to establish that there is a community consensus to delete these sections. A far larger number of editors have contributed to the sections by adding to them or editing their content, and the fact that such a significant number of articles include such sections is establishes a de facto presumption that the community thinks they have value. I suggest that if The JPS feels strongly that these sections are not encyclopedic or informative, the proper thing to do is to open a general RFC to establish a consensus that the community agrees with that estimation. Until that is done, such a "clean-up" is improper.

My own feeling about "Difference" sections is that they are useful, and that the information in them is not required to be sourced to third parties if what they provide is straight-forward description and not analysis or interpretation. This is precisely the same standard by which "Plot" sections and entries in "In popular culture" are allowed, since they are sourced by the media items themselves (i.e. the book and the film) and do not require additional sourcing. An entry in a "Difference between..." section should be dealt with in exactly the same way: The book has X and the film has Y. That's not "original research" it's reportage. If, however, the entry attempts to explain why the changes were made, or what the meaning of the changes are, then a third-party citation is required, just as with "popcult" entries. These rules seem to be serving us well for plots and popular culture sections, and provide a definite framework for controlling then so they do not start to become OR, which is a proper concern.

In any case, that's my opinion, but it is not controlling, nor is the opinion of The JPS. We need a consensus discussion involving the entire community for that, since this question is general for adaptations of all kinds, and not just book to film adaptaations. I urge The JPS to start one, to which I would be happy to contribute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that you tread a fine line. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Meaning, we don't just put stuff in articles because we can. There needs to be some form of encyclopedic value. If you were to do a "differences" section with no third-party sources, then the reality is that you'd have to include every minor detail that was different, from a change in wallpaper to the spelling of a character's name. Neither of which have any real bearing on the value of the translated material. You cannot cherry pick differences for the "biggest" and eliminate the miniscule, because then you're placing a personal importance to the material you've selected, which is borderline (if not completely) original research. Thus, the only way we know if something is important about the differences is when we have the filmmakers or some other professional provide reasoning for why they made changes. A filmmaker stating that there were too many characters from a book to film in the movie, so they merged Character X and Character Y into a single Character Z. That is relevant, that has context, and that is valuable. Anything else would simply be indiscriminate, or possibly original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Bignole. These sections, if not cited to film/lit criticism or to the author themselves, do involve a certain amount of analysis and interpretation. In my experience, very few of these sections have been written without a certain amount of original research - editor watches film, reads book, then interprets the differences. That said, I have not deleted these sections in the past in the absence of a strong consensus. It may be worthwhile to hash this issue out in a larger forum. The Interior(Talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Film has long had guidelines on making sure that covering differences between a film adaptation and its source material is relevant. To me, it is not a matter of original research, but a matter of being indiscriminate. There will be countless differences between a film adaptation and its source material. I think it is a reasonable threshold to record differences that are noted by secondary sources. If the source material is obscure, coverage of the film adaptation is not going to encompass the differences. If the source material is not obscure, like the Harry Potter books for example, then the differences will be part of the coverage. I think what Bignole is trying to say is that a given difference is not original research, but the sub-topic as a whole, especially not following any kind of narrative, is awfully analytical with usage of primary sources for an encyclopedia that should be mainly based on secondary sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Erik: You're right that it's a concern that these sections, like plots & popcult sections, not "grow like Topsy", which they certainly have a tendency to do, but there's no need to impose an additional WP:V burden on them, considering that they are already supported by primary sources. Ordinary editorial diligence and judgment is sufficient to keep them in check. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
How would one "keep them in check"? How are you to assess which should be kept? What would happen if you used your "editorial judgment" to trim a long list, while a new editor (who, in theory, would have equal authority in the community) used their judgment to keep a mention of a difference in a character's address? We already have an objective determiner: the presence of secondary sources. This cuts multiple discussions about trivial snippets of pseudo-information that, as Bob says below, would not pass any GA, A-list or FA review. Do you want to spend your time arguing with an editor about whether or not it's important (a WP:OR issue) to list a minor difference that would surely be exorcised at any subsequent formal candidature for GA or FA? The JPStalk to me 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim that this is based in policy is bogus. WP:V requires just that -- verifiability; and this content is directly verifiable from the primary sources. WP:PSTS expands on that in more detail. It is legitimate to use primary sources to describe the content of those sources (which is what these article sections are doing). What is precluded is interpretation, or claims in the article about significance.

The question of whether particular verifiable information is significant enough or not to include in an article is a question that potentially any article must address -- but it is a question for discussion on the talk page, a decision requiring the balance of editorial judgement, not external sourcing. (WP:V explicitly applies to article text, not talk page discussions).

The indiscriminate removal being proposed here is throwing out the baby with the bath water. It makes our articles less useful than they should be. And it should therefore be rejected. Jheald (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bignole et. al. have given a good overview of policy. Most of the ten or so articles I looked at this evening followed a similar format: a mere bullet point list of differences, some as pathetic as a character's house name and street number (if the article explained why' it was changed...?)
Editors need to assess the material before indiscriminately removing material. Does a paragraph show promise? A couple of article's sections could be developed, but in the large majority of cases the existing material is useless, and those wishing to develop the material would need to start again, using the secondary material.
In most cases, a separate talk page discussion is not necessary if consensus is established elsewhere. I have not located a discussion on this topic with experienced editors that condones these sections.
Sorry, Jheald, but the views of many here, which informs the page I created, are based on policy (WP:OR and WP:RS) and the Manual of Style. Fiction-related projects, especially film, have been actively working to reduce the amount of in-universe material. Plot sections should be limited to around 600 words, for example. We can't compromise this limit by creating a new section. You are correct that the 'information' is verifiable, but a consensus has been established on plot. Indiscriminate removal is never good; it is incongruous to suggest that I was doing so.
Editors should also be careful not to indiscriminately undo others' edits. How can any experienced editor believe that my removal of this was wrong?
Would you expect Britannica to have such a section? I would expect a popular magazine, or a picture book available in a discount book store to have these. It is simply beneath us, and keeping them is encouraging poor standards, devaluing the entire project's work. It looks especially shameful in articles about significant films such as The Godfather -- advertising to readers that Wikipedia can not be bothered to give readers an informed overview of how the film was developed. I'm not a fan of that particular film, but I would be surprised if there wasn't adequate material to cover this. It looks very bad to the reader that a film of this stature should have a poorly-considered section.
Beyond My Ken: FYI, "In Pop Culture" sections are also frowned upon. You make a number of assertions in your message, amongst the ad hominem, but none are supported by policy or any reference to previous discussion. The argument that we should retain these sections because someone has created them is not strong. It is easier to add substandard content than it is to research and write properly, or to edit the content. Inexperienced users can add dubious content; it is the responsibility of experienced users to edit that content.
Wikipedia is not the IMDb. It is not some Geocities site. We strive for professionalism and integrity, and everything that obstructs that ambition should be attacked. The JPStalk to me 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Ad hominems? Where? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, let's concentrate on the issues. If you took offense at anything I wrote, I apologize, it was not meant to be defamatory, simply a description of what happened. It would be better if the discussion not get sidetracked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"It is simply beneath us" ? What self-aggrandising crap. Our aim here should be to ask what serves our readers, not just to ape some existing off-line authority. Part of what has made our material on popular culture a go-to resource is that this is an area that has not generally been so well served - and certainly not so reliably. You condemn the unreliability of Geocities pages (R.I.P.) -- and you're right, the world needs something better. We provide that, because our articles have the strength of many sets of eyes and collaborative wiki editing, which knocks them into shape. We should therefore think twice before we withdraw information from the world which is not so well provided elsewhere.
What should be the test here is whether the differences are consequential, in the context of the movie or the underlying source material, because it is interest in those which will likely have led the reader to our article. This is quite different from the test a reviewer will apply when deciding what to include in their 300 words or usually much less -- so there is no reason to think that applying that test will set the bar in the right place for us: in my view doing that will lead us to losing far too much that is readily verifiable, and of value to our reader.
Case in point: a few days ago we happened to be watching the mini-series adaptation of Terry Pratchett's Going Postal which my girlfriend had given me as part of a box-set for Christmas. Having watched it, it was a fair time since I'd read the book, so I was curious to be reminded how the book had been different. Where does one go to look up the answer to that? First choice: Wikipedia, because WP is well-organised, strong on popular culture, and that is the kind of thing one would expect to find as part of the 360° overall view of a topic WP aims to provide. But what did I find? The very information that I had come to WP looking for had actually been officiously removed four minutes after being added (diff).
Now the mini-series wasn't widely reviewed; there wasn't a "Making Of" featurette; and the production team hasn't this time given much in the way of interviews, as far as I can see. Here's a piece in The Independent but it doesn't go into much detail. Yet framed in the context of the topic of the article, that non-coverage doesn't make the question irrelevant or insignificant. The assertion that "if it hasn't been covered elsewhere, it can't be relevant" is plainly false.
As far as I can see the material that was removed so quickly was entirely accurate. It's not particularly well-written or well organised, but then it was only a first edit-in of the material; so, if it hadn't been deleted so promptly, I expect it would quickly enough have been knocked into place. Content that I found particularly valuable, in the context of a mostly fairly faithful adaptation, was the discussion as to how the action at the end of the Part 1 cliffhanger had been rearranged with the removal of the Post Office Mail Sorter; and the telling detail that the film (but not the book) has written in at its ending Miss Dearhart, the principal female character, announcing that she will give up the habitual chain-smoking that has been a defining motif for her throughout the story. There's also the useful plot point that in the book the backlog of mail (which hangs over the whole first half of the book/film as a defining element) is actually shown to all be delivered, whereas this is not established in the film. Those, it seems to me, are all quite valuable points for the article to convey. Yes, the original diff had its problems: the information came over as too much of an arbitrary list; it would have been better organised by presenting the more significant changes first, and then some of the more small scale changes as "other changes include... " -- essentially presenting the material as organised prose, rather than a more-or-less haphazard list. But that is essentially presentation, and the kind of thing that does get ground smooth by the wiki editing process. Is the reader better served by having the information in an imperfect state, but at least still having it; or by not finding it at all? I have no doubt that the answer should be the former; with the bonus that, with luck, and with time and with editing, it may become less imperfect.
Of course there may be some who question whether we should have an article on such a mini-series at all, when it's not covered in Britannica nor in any book by some heavy-hitting critic. It's a point of view; but I think the value of what we do here is more than just trying to replicate what can be found elsewhere, and that we should aspire to report on everything that we can reliably, verifiably and even-handedly report on.
Bottom line is that it should be our reader interest that we should make our test here, not whatever might be our producer interests. Jheald (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Jheald, but this is not an accurate understanding of Wikipedia policy. We are a tertiary source, and our role is to collect and present existing knowledge. If the knowledge is not available elsewhere, it should not exist on here. We can use existing knowledge (here, interviews with filmmakers, audio commentaries, biographies, reviews, academic work) to present a coherent article about a topic that, you correctly say, isn't available elsewhere. The constituent information must be available elsewhere. The Wikipedia:Five pillars insist on this. My comment about Geocities referred not so much about reliability, but its reputation for being poorly designed; some articles are treat like a scrapbook. The JPStalk to me 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The look of the article tends to be what is fixed most easily; and most quickly. We shouldn't be so shallow as to fix our policy just according to how we think our article might look. As for the 5 pillars, I don't see a problem. The material is readily verifiable for its factual accuracy (#2); and, as per the Pratchett examples above, I don't think you can rule it out necessarily as being unencyclopedic (#1). Per m:vision, our aim is the easy availability of knowledge; and per m:mission what we're here for is to collect and develop that content. There's also a question of institutionalising bias, if we're only prepared to discuss what the film-makers want to talk about. If something is of value to our readers, and this easily verifiable, we should tread carefully before excluding it. Jheald (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually this is not a WP:V issue, it is a WP:SYNTHESIS issue. You can use a book to document its content, and you can use a film as a primary source for its content, but a comparison between the two is a form of analysis. WP:SYNTHESIS states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." The observation of the difference between two works may be trivial in its nature, but it's a conclusion that cannot be derived from either work independently, therefore it is synthesis of the two sources. On that basis no difference between two works should be included in articles unless there is a singular source that also notes the difference. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think observing a difference necessarily runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. To use the example of a character's street number, writing "Book says Joe lives in #241. Film says Joe lives in #223" does not really combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion, except that the two are different, which is indisputably true. decltype (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    You're right that it is not actually synthesis. Would it not be a kind of extrapolation, however? An editor analyzes two works and states known facts from each to present a previously unknown conclusion. It strikes me as a kind of analysis, especially as a whole section of such conclusions. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    You are not presenting two independent pieces of information though, since you wouldn't include this information if the house numbers were the same. The contextual inference of such a statement (regardless of how you actually write it) is that you are saying they live at different house numbers, and since this cannot be sourced from either source independent of the other it qualifies as synthesis. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus that RfC is the appropriate location to obtain consensus? The JPStalk to me 10:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly the option that is going to attract the widest cross-section of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we also address historical and scientific accuracies in films in the RfC? The argument is that we can say that this event happened in history and that this event did not happen in the film, or vice versa. We can thus put together a miscellaneous list of such differences, and it apparently would not constitute original research, being side by side. It may be worth factoring this in now so we do not have to do yet another RfC down the road when the same kind disagreement arises. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, Erik, if you think that the discussion wouldn't get too unfocused? As you say, our arguments against are identical. The JPStalk to me 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The key difference I can see is that on one hand, two fictional primary sources are being compared. On the other hand, we have historical secondary sources and a fictional primary source. (One example is Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film), which does not always use historical secondary sources. It's not a pretty article.) One could argue there are different merits as a result, but I think the approach is the same. The pro-inclusion argument is that one can state a fact from the source material (may it be a fictional work or a historical event), and state a fact from the fictional work adapted from either origin, and as long as it's only side-by-side, it's not original research. I think Bob Castle below makes a good point about Featured Article quality. Technically speaking, one avoids explicit original research by not stating any interpretations. Even so, is it going to qualify as part of the best that Wikipedia has to offer on a topic, going through FAC review? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you think it is best to aim for a consensus on one issue? This should lay the a smooth path for any subsequent RfC about historical/scientific accuracy. The JPStalk to me 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The best way to gather what the consensus is is by looking at our best articles - the Good Articles and especially the film Featured Articles, especially those that are based on novels. Of a quick look at FA novel-adapted screenplay films such as Fight Club (film), Jurassic Park (film), The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) or Casino Royale (2006 film), none have lists of differences. Only Lord of the Rings mentions a few changes, but it backs those up with quotations explaining them. Essentially, I agree that lists of differences are just trivia, and that if there is a significant change, this can be mentioned in a production section. Bob talk 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In the case of Casino Royale it may be because we actually have a separate article Differences between James Bond novels and films. Arguably, because the film deliberately steered much closer to the original novel than had been the usual case for the series, not examining just how it does and does not do that in more detail is actually a significant hole in the main article. The attitude that how a film treats its source material is "just trivia" may be all of a piece with laughing at the "starlet who slept with the screenwriter", but it doesn't become us well. Jheald (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you advocating Differences between James Bond novels and films as a good example of how to cover differences? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The article gathers 5000 readers a month; it's readable, concise, essentially completely factual, and efficiently gives those readers exactly the information they've come looking for. I wouldn't like to see the sections in the article on each film any longer than this; but yes, I think this article does do something worth doing, and it does do it reasonably effectively. It's a useful addition to Wikipedia.
The article may not be particularly refined, but I think it shows that WP can cover this material without the roof falling in. I think that it is worth having. Where a film has a strong literary antecedent, I think it is of value to present how that antecedent has been modified for the screen. I'd certainly want to see it reviewed for any Agatha Christie adaptation, for example. And as for the latest suggestion, to ban information about the historical reality compared to what's shown on screen, that seems to me gratuitously going out to kneecap the usefulness of the encyclopedia to no good purpose. Jheald (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No one will find uncited material useful. They might find it interesting on a trivial level, but not useful. Anyone using Wikipedia for any useful purpose (school, academic, journalistic research, etc.) should be verifying sources themselves, and most certainly not be relying upon WP. Any lack of reference is useless. The JPStalk to me 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but who are you to tell me what I may or not find useful? If I want to know the answer to a question, and the answer is there, then that is useful; if the answer is not there because somebody with a citation complex has removed it, then that is not useful. Even those refined people whose purposes for using Wikipedia you do condescend to allow to be "useful" might find a checklist of such things handy that they then know exactly where to verify (emphasis added). Jheald (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Those articles were mentioned just as featured examples of novels turned into films, so I wasn't aware of that James Bond adaptation article. Looking at it, however, it doesn't really impress me - it has the slight feel of a spin-off article created by an editor just to get rid of sections elsewhere, a tactic I've used for lists of characters before. I think the issue here is that pointing out differences often ends up as a great big unverifiable list of dubious usefulness. Writing a few verified paragraphs about a screenwriter's adaptation can be good, perhaps noting an interview they may have had discussing their reasons, or maybe a critical opinion about additions/omissions. Just endlessly bullet listing differences between formats isn't the same, though - that's verging on original research. Bob talk 17:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The popularity of a page has no correlation to usefulness. Such a popular subject as James Bond is going to get the hits whether it's developed or not, which does not condone the under-researched state. I agree with Bob that the page looks like a dumping ground of material rejected from articles in preparation for or during GAN or FAC. Jheald, you write "I think it is of value to present how that antecedent has been modified for the screen." Yes! The key word there is 'how'? Not 'what' (leave that to the IMDb), but 'how' and 'why'. The JPStalk to me 18:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"What" is a good first start. And frankly IMDB doesn't cover this effectively. Jheald (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If I'm looking up a movie that purports to be historical, I want to know what's been changed. Similarly, if I'm looking up a movie that's trading on being an adaptation of a famous author's famous work, again I want to know what's been changed. "Why" is a bonus; but "what" is a prerequisite. Jheald (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You're saying that it is okay for editors to be armchair historians, that they can pick up history books and analyze the film and point out its inaccuracies as a creative work. Yet it's not original research? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If I'm looking up Garrow's Law and some editor has read up what really happened in Sir William Garrow: His Life, His Times and Fight for Justice (Waterside, 2010), and is able to say, on the basis of that book, that in fact what actually happened was in reality somewhat different, then yes, I think that is an entirely legitimate set of facts to bring to bear. And what's more (this for dear JPS) that information would be valuable to me; I would find it useful. Jheald (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
How is that not original research, though? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Even if that editor had read the book about Garrow, the biography is still an interpretation of fact, just as the TV series is. Something like The Tudors (TV series), for example, almost perversely gets widely-known historical evidence wrong. Pointing that out is fine as long as it's referenced from a source like this. I'm not saying the linked article is great, but it's not an anonymous Wiki editor's interpretation. It's the same with book-film adaptations. Bob talk 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously one should try to find every source one can (even a Grauniad blog ?). But you can push even the most important rules too far, to a point where they cease to be useful. It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that rules (even WP:OR) are not to be applied in an unthinking mechanical way, but should be tempered with common sense and an eye to the underlying good. WP:OR is there to stop people developing a thesis, implying causality, advancing a position. It's not there to prevent articles juxtaposing contradictions. (A says this, but B says that). WP:SYNTH even spells that out explicitly. The intention isn't to hamstring us by forbidding us from mentioning what can be reliably confirmed.
Arguably, this is even more relevant for something like Garrow, which presents an air of historicity, rather than The Tudors which patently doesn't. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The thesis, the original research that you are presenting, is that the text is historically inaccurate. Juxtaposing A with B is advancing a position through implication. The omission of the words to that effect does not mean that the discourse isn't there. The final sentence of your last message is analytical: you have observed the tone of a text. Unreferenced material is still useless at a practical level. How do you find it useful? Anyone researching a topic for any practical application (assignment, dissertation, article, etc.) should not be relying upon WP. A professional historian would not expect a film to be completely historically accurate. For instance, a History or Law lecturer would, hopefully, have read published books and articles about William Garrow and would be able to provide to his or her students any inaccuracies that they think is appropriate and relevant. A student would not base their knowledge of Garrow's legacy on a TV programme. If Garrow's Law, the TV show, is inaccurate -- that's not our problem. We have articles about the surrounding issues if people are interested in them. Basically, Garrow's Law is an article about the TV show.
Furthermore, differences/inaccuracies are original research because a mere Wikipedia editor thinks that they are important. Significance is determined through use of sources. You indicated that there is a concern that only a filmmaker's voice would be heard. There are many, many potential voices that could potentially comment upon a difference between novel and text: the multiple filmmakers in interviews/commentaries; author of the novel; film critics; academic critics; biographies. There are many ways in which a difference could be discussed in secondary sources, should a reliable source, and not us, consider that it is interesting.
IMDb is very good at lists of trivia. Some 'differences' sections have been summarily lifted from there. IMDb is useless in referencing; that's our domain. The JPStalk to me 10:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd like to point out that the fact that this discussion has gotten so deeply into fundamentals is, ultimately, the reason why the question needs to be discussed at a general RfC, and not simply on one project's talk page. It touches on concerns about the interpretation of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and the project's general attitude toward popular culture, and the answers are not as straightforward as sometimes portrayed. We need a wide variety of views from across the project before changes are made to a large number of articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be sensible to restrict a RfC to the 'differences from novel' issue rather than being distracted by the historical inaccuracies issue (which should be discussed separately). Otherwise the discussion will become messy. For the record, I don't have a snobbish attitude against popular culture. On the contrary, the ability to research and write about a topic that wouldn't be included in a traditional publication is one of WP's strongest democratic characteristics. However, we need to encourage the project's credibility: unreferenced trivia carelessly dumped into articles damages WP's reputation, and encourages inexperienced editors to 'dump and run'. The JPStalk to me 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a tightly focused RfC would be best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I have opened the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. I believe that I have set it up correctly.Of course, the problem with RfC is that it can encourage 'comment and run' -- ill-considered opinions from the community that aren't subject to examination. The JPStalk to me 13:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on film nationalities

There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Nationality about whether production country is a legitimate way to determine the nationality of a film. The outcome could have radical consequences for how film articles are presented and categorised, so it would be appreciated if more editors could join. Smetanahue (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Non Free Content Discussion

There is a discussion Here about the use of screens shots in character/live action articles, we need more views, to see what the consensus is.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 14:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC has been opened: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film

The request for comment has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. As many voices as possible are encouraged to be heard, even though you may repeat your comments above. The JPStalk to me 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Avant-garde and experiemental (and related categories) for discussion

The discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New article: The Mystery of a Hansom Cab

Book article, but there are at least three film versions:

  1. The Mystery of a Hansom Cab (1911 film)
  2. The Mystery of a Hansom Cab (1915 film)
  3. The Mystery of a Hansom Cab (1925 film)

Might be something members of this project are interested in creating as new articles. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This list

I think improving this article: List of suicides in fiction along with its current nomination for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination) would be relevant to this WikiProject. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Character list articles

Anyone know if there are style/notability guides for character list articles? There are a few such articles on my watchlist that have essentially been dumping grounds for plot & cruft since their creation, & I'm thinking about what can be done with them. If there are existing style guides for these sorts of articles, I'm unaware of them, so I'm looking for a point in the right direction. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bump. The specific articles I'm looking at are List of Alien characters, List of characters in the Predator series, and List of Alien vs. Predator characters. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote in some style guidelines for WP:MOSTV, which I modeled after the work I did at Characters of Smallville, and the work someone else did with Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Does any of this help?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Silverado (film)

There is currently a disagreement ongoing involving this article and I would like to get the opinions of some other editors before this gets worse. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The article also has an issue with overuse of non-free images. I removed them, but not sure if they will be restored. Will have to weigh in on the discussion later. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I was concerned about overuse myself, which is why I removed some of them in my recent edits. At least one of them, in the cast section, was subsequently restored. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, I see this article has a link to the film portal in the see also section. Should articles have that link there (or anywhere) in them, when it's on the talkpage? Lugnuts (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Not every reader browses the talk pages. —Mike Allen 10:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So on that logic, it should also link to the Film Project and the American task force too? Lugnuts (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have my doubts it should be there. The Film Portal is essentially meta wiki, and I don't think we should be mixing editing documentation with encyclopedic content. I recommend removing the link for now and having a full discussion about the purpose of having such links in the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why would a reader want to know about the Film Project or Task Force? The Film Portal is appropriate for readers. —Mike Allen 10:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why would a reader want to go to the portal more than a project or taskforce? Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Betty I would suggest leaving it in place until a traditional discussion begins and consensus can be reached. —Mike Allen 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Having a portal link in the article is not a requirement, but portals are generally aimed at readers, just a different way of presenting and navigating articles, like lists or books. How successful they are varies immensely. Wikiprojects on the other hand are for coordination of editors. Lots of articles have portal links, usually in the "see also" section.--BelovedFreak 14:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The major issues, as I see it, are: using the film as a reference in the plot section; the use of as a reference in the home media section; the overuse of images (which has now been handled); the repetition of the cast in the plot; the paragraph in the production section detailing the friendship between Glenn and Costner; and info about the DVD being included in the lede. There may be other issues that other editors may notice. My biggest concern is that DeWaine is showing signs of article ownership with his mass reverts. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I beg to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's assertion of article ownership with mass reverts. He didn't think someone would one day challenge his monopoly-type authority. He basically came in there, sort of did a whole bunch of mass reverts, giving unplausible reasons for doing so, and being proved wrong on virtually every count. He's attempted to use false reasoning as a poor excuse for being opinionated. The DVD version of the film can be used as a reference as has been done so in FA nominated articles like American Beauty. The overuse of images is complete nonsense. He was upset that an image for example, appeared in the Plot section. There's no Film Project rule that says you can't have a photo in that section to illustrate a character relationship. Other FA articles have had them in the past. All the photos include complete usage rationales. As an example, a similar photo/rationale is present on the Avatar film page: Yet it wasn't deleted. User Erik has decided to jump on Republican's bandwagon and sort of give an unplausible explanation for removing the pics saying they were not "compelling enough" reasons. User Erik is simply giving a double standard. I've placed the correct rationales: low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. I'm considering reverting that edit. Its completely unjustified. The friendship piece with Glenn and Costner details a character development relationship that occured during the filming of Silverado. It needs an expansion. Does that mean that this particular piece should be deleted in the meantime? I mentioned already the issue of the Blu-ray/DVD info regarding Amazon on the talk page. The reference is not being used for reasons of spam. It was used for one precise point: to note a particular release date. Websites like Amazon or Barnes & Noble are not user edited. Again, I don't believe there is a Film Project rule that asserts you can't use an ecommerce site just to simply reference a release date. And if I might add, Alien vs. Predator, another FA article does reference Amazon for a piece of content too. Cite number 39. DeWaine (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Since DeWaine wants to make ad hominem attacks, let's take my edits one at a time:
  • First, as my edit summary states, I copy-edited the lede. Amongst other things, I removed this terrible wording: "A joint collective effort to commit to the film's production was made by the film studios of Columbia Pictures and Delphi III Productions."
  • Next, I removed the table from the cast section, as my edit summary made clear.
  • My next two edits were further fixes to the cast, including putting the cast list in the same order as the film poster. Once again, as before, my edit summary made this clear.
  • I then edited the plot section, removing the image, which seemed questionable, the cast names, and the references to the film, which is primary, and unnecessary source. My edit summary explained all of this.
  • Next, I copy-edited the production section, including removing a paragraph that communicated nothing other than how much Scott Glenn enjoyed working with Kevin Costner, which says nothing about the production itself or the relationship between the characters they played. Obviously, the value of that paragraph is debatable, but simply reinserting with no explanation is not acceptable.
  • My next edit was removing the refs from the soundtrack section. I still contend that these offer nothing substantive and are tantamount to advertising. Surely there are other sources that can tell us when the soundtrack was released and what the tracks were.
  • My last edit in that first series was to readd some notable roles to the cast section which had been removed previously.
Those are all the edits I made in that first series on 5 February, spread over the course of nearly an hour. People can certainly take issue with some of the choices I made, but a nearly wholesale reversion was not justified, nor is the attitude DeWaine has evinced both here, on the article talk page, and in his edit summaries. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me make myself clear. You seem to have a Dr. Jekyll - Mr. Hyde type of personality. The reason for the rudeness directed at you, is because of your original statement towards me: My biggest concern is that DeWaine is showing signs of article ownership with his mass reverts. I think the facts speak for itself. Within the contributors list, you lead the edit count on the article. It would appear that you are the sole owner of the page. Basically, whenever another editor pops in to make constructive and helpful changes without your prior knowledge or approval, then it's a problem. Thats the reason this whole dispute erupted to begin with. You are paranoid when someone else attempts to make creative changes. Towards the end of your piece, maybe you summed it up best by saying: People can certainly take issue with some of the choices I made.... Well, you've certainly made alot of opinionated choices to the article, most of which I didn't revert. But to claim that your the only person who has the right to edit this article in your own stylistic way, is wrong. I've addressed all of the issues both here and on the talk page, and you really haven't had any responses to it. You just put forth your opininons and make it sound like no one else can challenge you. DeWaine (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking through those edits most of them seem reasonable: I believe policy states that two column tables should indeed be converted to lists. I'm not that familiar with the policies on image use, but if there is an inconsistency in the use of images betweeen this article and others then it needs to be addressed. I don't think the references should have been removed—if there is a concern about them being promotional links then they should be replaced, but they shouldn't be removed if they are sourcing content because it then makes the information non-verifiable. As for the ellaboration on the relationship between Costner and Glenn then I can see the cases for or against so that content should be discussed. If that section been part of the article for a long period of time it should be restored and its removal should be discussed, but if it's a recent addition to the article it should remain out and it inclusion should be discussed on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, in a nutshell we have two editors here who have a content dispute. Might I suggest you two take it to this area for further resolution, instead of wheel-warring with each other? It also looks like that you both violated WP:3RR, and that could lead to blocks on both of you if not stopped and discussed in a civil manner.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Two things: The other editors who have responded on the talk page, or who have edited the article, have disagreed with DeWaine's edits; I never violated 3RR. I would like someone to caution DeWaine against making personal attacks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Screen Actors Guild Award templates

Most of the new templates for 2010 have not been created yet. People just tacked on 2010 awards to the 1994-2009 templates for the most part. I have done Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleDrama 2010-2029.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason we split up the template that way? It's not having too many entries, after all. --Conti| 16:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It is the same 20 or 25 year convention used by the Emmy Awards, Oscars, and Golden Globes. I don't know why. When these templates were set up they were set up to be on the same 20 year cycle as many of the Golden Globe awards. The Emmys use a 25 year cycle and the BAFTA and Oscars use a 20 year cycle that is staggared by 10 years from the GGs and SAGs. See Category:Golden Globe Awards templates, Category:BAFTA Awards templates, and Category:Academy Award templates for further details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

New article: T. Arthur Cottam - film director

New article, created, at T. Arthur Cottam. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help with research

A user has made the astute observation that The Circus (1928) may have had two re-release dates, one in 1969 and another in 1970. There are probably several others subsequent to these dates (in the 1980s and 1990s), but this is not the issue. We have sources for the 1969 opening in New York, but our concern is with the 1970 date. Based on Google Books snippets, The Chaplin Encyclopedia (1997) may have the information that we need about the 1970 re-release, and it looks like there was an official premiere in London of that year. However, neither of us have access to the source. I would have contacted the British cinema task force, but the talk page hasn't been active since March 2010. Any help would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a hold on the book to be sent to my local library. Give me a few days and I'll add a citation for that film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Looking forward to your edits. I'll bet that book has some great information. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If only someone could travel back in time and find out... Lugnuts (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Back to 1970? Are you sure about that? Can you dig Earth toned rooms, shag carpets...on the walls, bell-bottom pants as wide as your arm, and the "warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air?" Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I managed to get back to 1928. For some reason, I dressed up as an old woman using a mobile phone. Lets hope nobody was filming it. Lugnuts (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Saturday Night Special (film)

Saturday Night Special (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Copied from my talk page:

Justin Evans and "Saturday Night Special" --
Hi -- I am trying to warn you that this entry is a selfpromotional by the same individual. And the awards the film has "won" have been received in a film festival created by the film's author. I am unfamiliar with the process here, but I'm a filmmaker who was taken by this scam. Please, check it out and clean the entry -- thank you. Mig (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could one of you specialists take a look at the issues raised here? Note that "Mig", Migdiachinea (talk · contribs), is the subject of the article Migdia Chinea Varela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- John of Reading (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on "preceded/followed by" infobox parameters

There is currently a discussion on whether to remove the "preceded/followed by" parameters from {{Infobox film}}. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#Preceded By/Followed By. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this is still going on, and the project would like more comments. There is a straw poll too. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A relevant AfD

While I'm certainly a biased participant, this does seem like a relevant discussion to this WikiProject. Any input is certainly appreciated.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move discussion on Dr. Strangelove

I've started a discussion here on the title of the film Dr. Strangelove. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion prompted me to start a similar one for Borat, whose article title is the long form. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Year in film" links

I'm involved in a conversation with a couple of other editors about "year in film" piped links in lead sentences. It was my impression that we'd moved away from these, just as we moved away from "cinema of country" piped links in the infobox. Millahnna seemed to recall a previous discussion on this topic either here or at the Style/Film MoS talk page, but I can't seem to find it. Does anyone recall such a discussion & can point me towards it? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A September 2008 discussion on WT:FILM can be found here. A July 2009 discussion on WT:FILM can be found here. A March 2010 discussion on WT:MOSFILM can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Director navigation templates

I recall a previous discussion consensus that a director's navigation footer should/could exist if he or she had directed 3 or more films. However, I can't find the discussion - can anyone help? It's in conjunction with this discussion at TfD. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Navigation implies that two is not enough for a template. It's based on this brief discussion (from March 2010) here. This is kind of related as well. I think there was another discussion involving an editor nominating a lot of director templates for deletion, and Dekkappai was involved in arguing against them since some of them covered articles he developed. I don't remember the timeframe, but I think that three films was the general consensus of all these discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, here we are. 2010 February 17 and 2010 February 18 have a lot of discussions about director and film series templates that preceded the addition to MOS:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. There's also another director's template directly above the nomination of Letterman's from the same nom. Lugnuts (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I see it. I wonder if part of the problem is the presentation? Breaking down by decade seems to make the template more useless than it actually is. When we put the set of films in one row, it looks more (appropriately) minimal. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Letterman one doesn't look all that great, and with only 3 films a better layout would be Film1 (year), Film2 (year), etc. Lugnuts (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New article = Richard Smith (Silent film director)

New article, created, at Richard Smith (Silent film director). Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Circus (film)

There's an RfC on the talk page on the long-running battle over the time traveler footage in the DVD, in case anyone is interested. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the project members do their best to avoid "time traveler" discussions on that talk page. Discussions on content improvement have long ago given way to highly charged personal battles spanning numerous notice boards and AN/I threads and there's not much to say that hasn't already been said many times over the last four months. There is no further advice that the WP:FILM community can offer to help resolve the situation. A recent related thread at AN/I has concluded with a warning that interaction bans and blocks are all but imminent for some editors already involved. My advice is to stay clear of the "time traveler" discussion lest newcomers be unwittingly drawn into the ongoing battle and find themselves sanctioned as well. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
What I'm trying to do is to resolve the endless, tiresome battles by getting more eyes on this issue, so as to finally put it to rest. No one is going to be sanctioned for offering an opinion on content. If someone tries to pick a fight, ignore it.
I'm hoping, too, to get this article expanded. I have the interest but not the access to source materials. I used to have the Robinson book on Chaplin but gave it away. I hope to retrieve it, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino filmography and awards in his films

I do not know if this new article has come to the attention of anyone involved with the film project, my guess is that it has not, but it needs work. For starters, it should be moved, because that title is not encyclopedic, and does not even make sense. This is somewhat outside my bailiwick, but do we usually combine filmographies with nominations and awards received? I do not believe I have ever seen it done this way. At any rate, someone with more experience ought to take a look. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We should be having a straightforward list of films that he wrote, directed, or produced, where there is an additional "Notes" column which may mention awards. The article Quentin Tarantino should have this list for navigation. Ultimately, that filmography/awards article really should be a List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino, like these articles. You may also want to place a notification at WT:ACTOR since they tend to work on these lists, getting some of them to Featured List status. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You should also contact Mr Hall of England (talk · contribs) about taking the standard list approach too. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I contacted the article's creator and WT:ACTOR. We will see what transpires. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Contact him and give him a barnstar for taking the time to start of the article in the first place. I've moved it to a better title, per other filmographies. Lugnuts (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for liking the article. Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Hall, thanks for starting the article! Is there any way you can make it similar to one of the lists of awards and nominations? I think that Tarantino's filmography is short enough to have on the main article, where we could have a separate list listing the awards (and mentioning the specific titles again). Erik (talk | contribs) 21:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


I have just come across an article called Mankurt.

The lead started: "The term mankurt in popular culture refers to a person who cannot recall his or her cultural roots and origin." as this term is almost unknown in English and as far as I can tell is in no reliable dictionary, this made it an article about a neologism and we have a policy WP:NOTNEO not to have articles on neologisms.

Looking on the web it appears that there was a Soviet era film with this title, so I have changed the start of the article to "Mankurt is a film directed by Khodzhakuli Narliyev in 1990 ..." could someone who often edits articles about films please have a look and improve it as I am sure there are much better sources available than I have used, and as I do not usually edit film articles I have not used the standard layout etc.

If on reviewing the sources, this film is not notable enough to have an article then let me know an we will speedily delete it. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Books Search does not show any hits whatsoever for Mankurt and Narliyev, so it may not be a notable film for a Wikipedia article. My brief research shows that the general term is used, but I cannot tell if there is a possible topic for it. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thor and the cast

With the comic book films task force newly launched, I started a discussion to prepare the first such film of 2011, Thor (film), for the release date. The discussion has some suggestions, one of which was a different presentation of the "Cast" section. We tend to have fat bulleted paragraphs, and I've felt that they are not so navigable. There is an interesting proposal to do an approach like a definition list, which would allow the names of actors and roles to stand out more strongly, and to follow with the background paragraph. With comic book films like these, we will have a lot of detail for each character, so if anyone is interested in discussing how to present, the discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Academy Award-nominated film quality

Hello all. With the Acadmey Awards nominations being announced, I've collected the qualities of all the films in a table on the right. As of now, We have one GA-class and two B-class articles. I would really like to see all of these film articles improved to at least B-class by the ceremonies. I don't have much experience in expanding articles with content, but I am willing to try and anyone who wishes to help or has advice, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 20:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the red articles be created? —Mike Allen 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I would assume so. The short films will probably have the least information about them, but at least a Start-class article should be attainable. They certainly meet point number 3 at WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 04:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Great idea! I considered doing something similar at the last Cannes festival but didn't get much response (though it was an unusually weak line-up, with, I think crucially, few American movies). I'll do what I can to bring the foreign language nominees up a few levels, already have a bunch of refs ready for In a Better World and the "Algerian" (French) movie. Smetanahue (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I started a page for Killing in the Name but it needs some improvement from someone who knows more than I do. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice work! Yes, all Oscar nominated film should have an article. I've had several short films nominated in the 50s and 60s taken to AfD, only to be met with a speedy keep. Really pleased to see Dogtooth make the final 5 - I'm looking for sources for reactions from the director, cast, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll probably create some more tomorrow if no one's gotten to it yet. On a totally unrelated side note, I just decided to join this WikiProject, making it my first. So, yay!--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No probs and welcome to the project - always good to see new people about. Every edit matters, from small minor corrections to creating new articles. Lugnuts (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I started Poster Girl and Sun Come Up, but they'll need a lot more work.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We've still got six short films left! I'm having trouble finding some good sources for them, but hopefully we can get them done soon.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I made an edit to the Accolades section on The Crush page, one of the Short Film (Live Action) nominees for this year. I'll try and make some more contributions to other short film pages during the week. Thanks! HipJorge (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I intend on making a concerted effort on The King's Speech over the next few days; help! there's lots of work to be done. I'm open to other suggestions for collaboration. This is an important initiative for the project. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The King's Speech has just recieved its greatest accolade yet, nomination for Good article status on wikipedia. Given the film's profile (30-40k page views per day) any comments would be greatly appreciated. Ktlynch (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Project input requested

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion at Talk:The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film) – Requested move. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Avatar usage under discussion again

See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism)#Requested_move_2 where it is requested that the move done by 2010 move request be undone, moving the Hindu concept to primary in place of the disambiguation page. (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cinematic depictions of Muslims at CfD

The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Film article titling

There is a real humdinger at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Empire_Strikes_Back_and_Return_of_the_Jedi, about which titles should be used i.e. the formal titles or the commonly used one at the time of release. Any decision made over there could have repercussions for the Film Project, so I think some input from the Film Project would be well advised. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a rather long discussion at this point; I'm not sure if additional opinions will help. WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors says one mistake is, "Too many cooks. Try not to attract too many editors into a discussion. Fruitful discussions usually contain less than ten active participants; more than that strains the limits of effective communication on an online forum of this sort. Where large-scale consensus is needed then it should be sought out, otherwise the input of one or two independent editors will give far better results." It might be better to summarize the discussion so far and make sure everybody agrees with the various points stated by others. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree for the most part with what you say, there is probably no point just chipping in with your own opinion for the sake of it. However, if anyone (i.e. editors who frequently work on the star Wars articles) knows of any previous discussions/outcomes/consensus that might be relevant to the discussion then it could help resolve it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry CfDs

Two can be found here (the second one is directly below this one). Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre category at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Great Gatsby

After reading some news about plans for Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby, I decided to create an incubated article about the film. The article can be seen at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Great Gatsby (2012 film). Filming is not planned to begin until August 2011, but with Australian media being pretty accessible online, I think it is a good opportunity to provide development detail. If the project peters out for whatever reason, we can figure out how to compress it and merge the summary to a broader article. In the meantime, feel free to add any more news coverage. The budget issue is interesting but could be further investigated and polished. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

With stars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire, I'm sure sources will be plentiful. I wished that a note was displayed so when editors tried to create the article it would point them to the incubated one. —Mike Allen 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I watchlisted The Great Gatsby (2012 film). We need a cleaner "Film adaptations" section at The Great Gatsby, so we could make a redirect and mention the incubated article on the redirect's talk page. I've mentioned the incubated article at the novel article's talk page and the disambiguation page's talk page already. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

National Screen Institute

I saw a few redlinks elsewhere and was surprised that one of the more influential film entities in Canada did not have its own article. So I began one in a userspace and just moved it to mainspace. I'd love to have members of WikiProject Film assist as able in further expansion and sourcing of National Screen Institute. Thanks to all, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! Google Books Search did not seem to show much at a quick glance. Consider posting the article for WP:DYK? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Give the DYK to me, now I've added the cats. ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Source improvement for Film articles

In particular, fictional characters. While not terrible, film characters are often lacking in sources. As such, the Fictional character WikiProject has proposed creating a search engine for reliable sources relating to films. It can be discussed here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like most articles in Category:Film characters tend to be characters that are previously known from other media, especially comics. Such articles' notability may need to be based on guidelines outside just film. If we are to focus on characters primarily known from film, I think that most coverage will mention characters as they cover films. It is a matter of how we should determine when a film characters get their own articles. If a character was only in one film, then probably not. If more than one film, possibly. Another criterion should be if the character is retrospectively iconic, for example Ellen Ripley, who has a book directly about her. Not to mention the horror film icons like Jason Voorhees. I would suggest a search engine that could use the character name fully or in part, in articles or book chapters. is a useful engine. Searching for Ellen Ripley, I see this, which can provide coverage for Sarah Connor (Terminator), which unfortunately looks in-universe at this point. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Terminator 5 (film) for deletion

The article Terminator 5 (film) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 5 (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ben and Arthur

An RFC was started on the Ben and Arthur talk page regarding content. If you have an opinion, please weigh in. (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes external link

Just a quick question about this. I notice a lot of articles that cite RT in the prose also have it as an external link too. Generally we don't "double up", so I was just wondering if this was sloppy editing or do we make an exception in this case? Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RT is usually added as a EL when the article is created. When the film is released and RT is added in the prose, apparently editors forget to remove it from ELs. —Mike Allen 04:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mike, I wrote a critical reception for an article and transferred the link into it as a cite, so just needed to make sure I wasn't supposed to leave the link where it was. Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I always remove "doubled up" links (ELs that are also linked in citations), though often I get a lot of flack for it. Some editors are just married to the idea that a film article's not complete without the "Big 4" at the bottom (RT, Metacritic, IMDb, & Allmovie). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Betty, it is redundant because links like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic provide immediate access to a group of reviews for readers. (The EL guidelines, after all, discourage individual reviews from the EL section.) The scores from each website happen to be on the same web page as these reviews. I do not think this would be brought up if the overall score was published on one web page at the site, while all the reviews were listed on another web page. I think that they are useful to highlight as external links especially when the "References" section is very large (and not easy to read through by itself). If an article uses about ten references, I can see a case for excluding them. As for the other ELs, IMDb is kind of a foregone staple. Allmovie, I would prefer to exclude, but there was no consensus for its exclusion last time I checked. Box Office Mojo provides access to a wealth of box office statistics outside of the highlights that we use in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Erik, the reason we put Rotten Tomatoes in the EL section is independent from when we use it as a ref. Box Office Mojo is a different story, but there I also think access plays in, I use those links myself all the time and it's much handier to have them in the EL section as well. Smetanahue (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Expendables 2

The editor who created Terminator 5 (film) also created The Expendables 2. The first film has a "Sequel" section which I tried to redirect to, but the editor reverted me. While there was some individual discussion about the guidelines and the options, it did not pan out. I started a wider discussion at Talk:The Expendables 2 – Notability guidelines for future films and ask others to weigh in. I would prefer not to do AFD, as there is a keep-versus-delete mentality in such discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Italicizing websites' names

Due to a situation at No Strings Attached (film), I wanted to ask the community about italicizing websites' names. WP:ITALICS does not list websites among books and periodicals. WP:CITEVAR lists examples of citations for each kind of source. While it says "title of the book in italics" or "name of the newspaper in italics" but just "name of the website", full stop. Unfortunately, the {{cite web}} template automatically italicizes anything in the "work" field. One workaround is to put the website's name in the "publisher" field since for notable newspapers, we do not include the publishers in the citation. For example, do we really need to state the publisher for Box Office Mojo or Rotten Tomatoes? One problem with that is that websites will change publishers more frequently than their names, to the point of being irrelevant. If we referenced Box Office Mojo a few years ago when IMDb was the owner, the content remains the same despite the owner now being (And we'd have to go back to update it, where an old website name could redirect to the new one and explain the history.) The drawback, though, are websites that do not have their own articles and may have publishers that help establish notability. Should we "hack" the "publisher" field? For example, " Animation World Network."? What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You can control the italicization in the cite templates by putting quotes around "Rotten Tomatoes", it reverses the action (click on edit to see the code, it's hard to explain but obvious when you see the code):

"Don't Look Now (1973)". Rotten Tomatoes. Flixster. Retrieved 22 February 2011. 
Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Betty that does work, but a bot will go through and change it. So I just gave up doing that! —Mike Allen 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well in that case I don't see any harm in "hacking" the publisher parameter if you want to get rid of the italics. After all there is nothing to stop you just writing the references out manually, so putting the work and publisher together is simpler than writing the references by hand. I used to write the refs out by hand because I preferred using the Harvard reference format, but it would just take too long. It might be worth bringing the issue up at the template talk page if the template itself is contravening referencing guidelines. As for whether the publisher is a requirement or not, it might be useful to know who is publishing the information (i.e. is the website an official website for an organization? Is there a possible conflict of interest?). Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Erna Lazarus

I've nominated this article for deletion, after a PROD notice was lifted. The article has been tagged for no having no sources on the article's page since 2007. WP:DEADLINE does not extend into infinity. The only source the editor who deleted the prior prod notice could find was evidently not sufficient to establish notability. Assuming good faith, if it we're, the editor would have put it into the article, instead of onto the talk page. I agree, but I've weaved his "source" into the article. Even in the best-case article I can construct, it's still not enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO. I can find no better. If (A) the tag has been there since 2007 and (B) the editor who opposes Prod can find no source that establishes notability, and (C) I can find none either, WP:DUCK.

However, at the AfD page, it was suggest I notify y'all. That was a good idea which, frankly, had not occurred to me. The article appears to have been created, without any citations, by an editor or editors because Ms. Lazarus lived past 100. The World's Oldest People Wikiproject is debating whether being a centenarian is inherently notable. This article was the worst case I'd seen recently created on that basis. None of its "facts were sourced. And no one had tried to insert sourcing for nigh unto four years.

If you can WP:RESCUE this article, I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. But as it stands, with the one bare UPI squib about a Daily Variety article, the article is not keepable, IMHO.

Another solution might be for y'all to userfy it until you can source it. At the AfD, it's been suggested that you might have off-line sources that do so. I sure can't find any online ones. David in DC (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to notify at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, too. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees

Members may wish to comment here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

List of teen films

The article List of teen films was posted for deletion; it can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teen films. I am working to verify the list's items; see my strategy at the AFD page. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My reliable source search engine might be of help to you in finding references.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That's really cool! Can we get you to design one for films, focusing on the online sources like the ones at WP:FILMRES? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I can work on it this week. Thanks for the link to WP:FILMRES, I wasn't aware of that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem! Another decent resource is, which for some reason is not at WP:FILMRES. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's now up and running. Wikipedia blocks custom search engines so I have to put a blank space in the middle of the URL. Just copy and paste the URL into your browser's address bar without the blank space: se/home?cx=010426977372765398405:wxgrrvga3na&hl=en The search engine will search all the URLs currently listed at WP:FILMRES. Please let me know if you get any false hits. For example, it will probably return hits from forum or message boards. I may be able to exclude them from the search results if you tell me the URL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the forums for Rotten Tomatoes, Film Maker Magazine and Total Film as well as the Rotten Tomatoes user pages from the search results. Hopefully, this makes searching for sources easier as it will eliminate sources which aren't considered reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Content removal at List of highest-grossing films

Will the regular editors of List of highest-grossing films or any editors interested in the box office article please contribute to the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Company_information_removal. A newish editor is repeatedly removing content on the basis "it doesn't meet the guidelines". While this isn't true, we don't actually have any explicit criteria for what information we do include so it's open to interpretation, so I would like to compile some. At the moment his actions are making the content inconsistent, and if we are going to tighten up the criteria it needs to apply to the whole article really so it would be best if we could get a few opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you open your eyes, and have a look at the content listed in the table, you will find all the movies only list the relevent movie companies, and if you read them, you would notice they are major and have more to do with the films, than the ones added by yourself. I am not dismissing your references, as I have checked them out, and know they are associated with Harry Potter, but they do not need to be on this list. And if they were, we should list every movie company that contributes to the films in the list, however, that would make the list long, untidy, and therefore go against the guidelines of a tidy page! The companies also have no page themeself to look up, so why should they even be on there!?!? Mjs2010 (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting peer review

I'm requesting a peer review of Friday the 13th (franchise). See Wikipedia:Peer review/Friday the 13th (franchise)/archive2 for the page. I'm looking for editors that have not significantly contributed to the page (so it's as neutral and independent as possible) to point out descrepancies or issues that need to be answered by another FAC. It's been through 2 copy edits by the League of Copy Editors so I'm hoping there are not any copy editing issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Followed By/Preceded By?

Just noticed this, but why have we removed the Followed by/Preceded by portions in the film article's infobox's?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see relevant discussions at Template talk:Infobox film#Preceded By/Followed By.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Using self-published sources in film articles

I've filed a reliable sources noticeboard report on behalf of User:City zen concerning the propsed use of SPS in the article Agora (film). All comments are welcome. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to take you to any page with the word "Agora" searchable within it. Might there be another link where this discussion resides? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was just archived. It can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


That list, you know the one, is back at AfD again. Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about those Awards

So there's a small discussion going on at:

regarding last night's awards. An editor feels it would be in poor taste to state that the articles did not win in the category they were nominated. I personally disagree, considering that

  • a. these films basically have all of their coverage due to the nomination, so it is logical that it they should be covered in some detail
    b. the information is all accurate, cited, and informative

Now, I could see how this is potentially providing UNDUE weight to this information, but that's more of an issue resulting from the article's short length than from the fact being overly mentioned. I could see the logic behind not specifically naming the film that won, although I feel that it is informative and will very likely be of interest to whoever is looking at the page (since it's very likely they'll be viewing it due to the nomination). I'd love for some input from the film community, and if consensus seems to be against my opinion I'll certainly back down. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either approach really goes against any policy or guideline. Assuming that we have an article about a film that was nominated for multiple awards but only won one or two, we would probably not name the winners, especially in retrospect. However, we only have one nomination in these films' cases, and it is probably pertinent information right now to mention the winner. A few months down the road, it would be less needed to be explicit about the actual winner. Could you please let the other editor know about this discussion? Maybe we can hammer out some kind of temporal or specific-redirect solution. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably a bit over the top to say its in "bad taste". Def. should say the films were nominated and which category. Lugnuts (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The nomination should certainly be mentioned, but on each article the eventual winner in the category is stated. Personally I wouldn't mention the evntual winner unless there is something worth saying about the eventual winner (like James Cameron getting his ass kicked by his ex-wife), but as far as I can see a policy based reason hasn't been put forward for not admitting the content to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. My logic was basically that, if someone comes to one of those articles, it is most likely because of the oscars (which is somewhat sad considering they are probably great for their own merit) and therefore knowing the result will be in their immediate interest. But regardless, it's certainly relevant, and the articles can really use all the info they can get considering they're so short, so I agree that barring some sort of policy they should stay included.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


I am asking for help on this article on maybe finding sources and/or cleanup. If you got good sources do please free to show me. I just rescued this article from a merge because I think this character has possibiilties so please help if you feel the same way. Jhenderson 777 14:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The main discussion is being moved here. Jhenderson 777 15:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional opinions are welcome at the discussion. It's an interesting question about when a character from one film should qualify for his or her own article, of course considering the coverage available. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Erik, since you did some work on the article, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the comments I've made over there. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Film infobox and tv film infobox

There's probably a really obvious answer, but why do we have two infoboxes - one for films and one for TV films? The latter {{Infobox television film}} seems to be horribly out of sync with the former. Is there a case for merging them together? Afterall, a film is a film. Lugnuts (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There was some talk here and here to merge all of the derivative infoboxes into the one. The Bond infobox has since been merged, but the television infobox and foreign-language infoboxes have stalled. BOVINEBOY2008 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cheers BB. No doubt someone will oppose the merge, and I guess all the other co-ordinators are busy with whatever the fuck it is they do. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Harsh, Lugnuts! :P Considering that the television film infobox also encompasses miniseries, I don't think it is appropriate to merge it. We would want to talk to WP:TV too, before we are to do anything. As for the foreign-language infoboxes, they are definitely getting left behind in our parameter changes. How about we get these out of the way? Let's start a discussion at the film infobox's talk page to provide a consensus there, request for the language-related fields to be added, then go about updating the infoboxes? Also, when we put it in documentation, we should have the parameters separate from the main set. I don't know about others, but I tend to copy and paste the infobox code from the documentation. I wouldn't want the parameters to be stuck into articles where they clearly don't belong. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the only diference in the Asian templates that they have a field for original title? I think that has been suggested a couple of times for the main infobox but always been rejected. Would be strange to only include original titles for Asian films, but not from the rest of the non-English speaking world. Smetanahue (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's just that discussion has always petered out. It starts up from time to time, and eventually discussion turns into action. Hopefully this will be the turning point. :) Reviewing the discussions Bovineboy2008 found, I like Girolamo's suggestion of a "vernacular parameter" but am not sure how it would look in reality. I assume something where both the field name and the field value are defined by the editor? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I do think the vernacular parameter will work. We may want to talk to WP:INFOBOX to see if they have some suggestions. Also, the only real issue we would have with the television film infobox is that miniseries are also using that infobox. I don't know if television miniseries are in the scope of this project. If they are, then we need to work out some more parameters, possibly. BOVINEBOY2008 13:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Harsh but fair! Probably worth having a TV mini-series infobox in that case, with TV films moved to the standard infobox. IE, move {{Infobox television film}} to {{Infobox television series}}. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves

There is a request to move Limitless (film) to Limitless. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also a request to move Inception (film) to Inception. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ides of March

Someone just created Ides of March (film), which started filming recently. I'm about to head to bed after a long day, so if any night owls are interested, the article could use a film treatment with some structuring and referencing. (In addition, I think the title needs to be "The Ides of March" with the same disambiguation; feel free to follow up on that.) Erik (talk | contribs) 03:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to let anyone know that I'm working on this. —Mike Allen 05:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Are plays in italics or quotations? —Mike Allen 05:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:ITALICS, plays are in italics. Nice job! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 11:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some film articles recently created by The Editor 155 (talk · contribs) that appear to be filming or have finished filming. The articles are in need of major cleanup and are seen below:

I'll see what I can do if I am free today, but feel free to beat me to the punch. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Would be great if someone who knows how the article incubator works could get Tinker, Tailor moved to the mainspace, and the history merged with the current version of the article. I added it to Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment, but I don't know if anyone ever checks that? Smetanahue (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts/Possible Section Rescue Requested - Skull Island

The section of the Skull Island article dealing with the 2005 remake of King Kong is IMO sorely lacking in real-world context and is currently little more than trivia. If folks could review this and offer their opinions, or edit the article to address the concerns raised, it would be very appreciated! Doniago (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine

I just moved Yellow Submarine (film) to Yellow Submarine (1968 film) since we have Yellow Submarine (2012 film), which is set to be released. Does anyone have a script that can automatically fix all instances of (film) to be (1968 film)? I've updated the disambiguation page and two major templates already, but it's hard to tell which articles are actually left (and it's no fun to do it manually). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you on that, but WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN seems to indicate it's not necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think these guidelines apply to redirects not considering acts of disambiguation. WP:FIXDABLINKS says to fix ambiguous links. Technically, Yellow Submarine (film) could be a disambiguation page for the two films, but it is better suited as a redirect to Yellow Submarine. This is what I intend to do, but I don't want readers to click on the (film) link and wind up at the disambiguation page instead of the 1968 film article. In addition, some people tend to add a (film) link without checking where it actually goes, and we generally avoid hatnotes on articles with fully disambiguated titles, leaving some readers at a dead end. I guess I would like to have everything directly linked to avoid any ambiguity. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, links to disambiguation pages should be fixed. I can do this with AWB later today. - Kollision (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Should be done now, the WhatLinksHere still shows a stack of pages still linking to Yellow Submarine (film), but I believe that's only because the changes take a while to flow through to WhatLinksHere. - Kollision (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Jumping on the back of this - can the same be done for Elephant (film) which has been recently moved to Elephant (2003 film)? Ta. Lugnuts (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. - Kollision (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Supporting roles and Cameron's intentions in the lead

Editors are needed to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, help is needed here. Others are definitely needed to weigh in on this matter so that it may be properly resolved and the editors of the article can move on. Consider reading the discussion and adding your two cents, even if brief. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion seems to be at an impasse, so it may be worth directly contacting editors who have made substantial edits to the article over the last few months and asking for their input. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There haven't been any substantial edits made by others over the last few months, unless you count the editor who nominated the article for FA in August 2010...but even then...that was more cleanup. I am the main editor of the article, the one who is largely responsible for the way the article is now, though the editor I am in dispute with over this has reformatted certain sections...mostly because we were threatened to do so. The editors who have been active with the article over the years clearly aren't as active with it now; it is GA, after all, and, other than not being too active on Wikipedia anymore, they likely don't see much more improvement that can be done. There is only one thing that needs to be done to get it to FA level, which was cited near the end of its August 2010 FA nomination.
Anyway, I see at least two editors at this WikiProject who have been a little active with the article in the past, but it seems they do not want to weigh in on this matter. And with as trivial as it is, and with the way one editor in particular debates, I cannot say I blame them. I am taking this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I would take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film), but that project isn't as active and the editor I'm in dispute with over this often weighs in there. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I weighed in with my thoughts. I did not do so yesterday because the discussion was long and also slightly heated. Sometimes it's worth giving the discussion time to settle. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Saw?

I haven't figured how how the Saw films are Canadian and American films? Because Saw II-3D was filmed in Canada? The first Saw says it's an Australian film, because I guess the director is Australian? Should the countries be excluded from the infobox and lead, similar to what happened with the Resident Evil films? —Mike Allen 02:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If the nationality is being challenged it needs to be sourced, but if the sources are inconsistent then the infobox guidelines advise that it should be omitted. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Incredible Melting Man GAR

My GAN of The Incredible Melting Man was recently quick-failed, and I was hoping members of WikiProject Film could weigh in at the article's reassessment if they have the time. The reviewer had also suggested WikiProject members provide feedback. If you agree that it's not GA-worthy, that's fine and I welcome that feedback as well. But, in my opinion, the article is very close to GA-ready and that any flaws are minor enough that they could (or could have been) addressed had the article been placed on hold. Any feedback one way or the other here would be appreciated. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC nomination needs editors...FAST

The FAC nomination for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is in desperate need of editors voicing opinions, supports, or opposes. This is the fifth nomination and again it's being ignored by reviewers. Previous attempts have failed because of inactivity and not enough people supporting or opposing the article. It's one thing for everyone to say "this is wrong and it needs to be fixed" and another when they don't even bother to show up for support period. User:TaerkastUA has put a lot of work into this article and it's only fair that we band together and do what we can to either support its promotion, or point out any issues that need to be addressed. Please visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive5 and help save this FAC from being closed because of inactivity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes AFD

Hi! I started an AfD on Sherlock Holmes (2009 film series), an article about the 2010 film and it's unreleased sequel (separate from the article of the film). Any input from Wikiproject members would be great. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed bot to change section headings from "Plot synopsis" to "Synopsis"

I have requested that a bot be built to change section headings "Plot synopsis" to "Synopsis". There are about 1,585 such articles. Since a synopsis is a summary of the plot of a movie, novel, etc., "plot synopsis" literally means "plot summary of a plot", making it a semantic pleonasm. "Synopsis" is quite clear enough, and many articles already have that section name, so this change will also increase uniformity among articles. Articles on novels and TV shows would also be affected, but the discussion needs to be held somewhere, and this looks like a sensible group, so this is the place for editors to point out any possible harm that might result from such a change. Details of the bot request are here. Chris the speller (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just go to "Plot". That is the standard section header across film articles (or at least what we strive for).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking at the articles that use "Plot synopsis" here, it does not seem like they are really synopses. A synopsis would be something like at Limitless (film). What about changing "Plot synopsis" to "Plot"? That's the far more common use in film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm already glad I opened this discussion. "Plot" would be fine with me. Chris the speller (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Stick with "plot", that's descriptive enough and the most commonly used. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Plot" is the most natural heading, and that "Plot synopsis" is redundant, and that a bot should be used to change "Plot synopsis" headings to "Plot" headings. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm liking "Plot" as well. Anyone opposed? —SW— talk 06:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes to "Plot". Honestly, I thought that was the standard and have frequently made the change manually myself. Millahnna (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ratings for Movies

Can we add ratings for films to the infobox? I don't know about other people, but I would love to see a uniform way of depicting a rating for a film with or without content descriptors. DanielDPeterson (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a recurring question on this project but the consensus has always been against including ratings. See WP:FILMRATING for summary of rationale against inclusion. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 16:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess I just don't see why we can't add ratings for multiple different systems, just like they do for video games. I'm not saying we should keep it to the MPAA, there are a number of rating systems we can use. DanielDPeterson (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but every country's rating system is different. What they would consider an "R" might not be what we would consider it and without context for why there is such a discrepancy then it's just a meaningless number. Even when, in the US, they say "Rated-R for graphic violence and nudity" that only tells us a basic idea. What was actually "too" graphic that it required an R? Was it not really the violence but the nudity that pushed it over? We don't know. Thus, it lessens the value of the figure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
With that argument it makes me want to remove all of the game ratings. DanielDPeterson (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about those ratings because I've never really worked on those articles (a part from removing images that fail fair use policy), so I really cannot say with what value those ratings actually have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you can imagine that it's a similar battle. Why was the game given this rating? Granted, it's typically for violence, but some games have nudity or drug use, etc. The ESRB is practically a mirror of the MPAA, but just for video games. And merely displaying the rating is something that we can do; giving reason behind the rating would be OR, because the MPAA just gives us content descriptors without any further reasoning. DanielDPeterson (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You can try bringing that up at the Video Game project. I agree that we don't need to add ratings to the film infobox, as it isn't really key info and each country has its own rating system, so it would unnecessarily bloat the (already long) infobox. Ratings can be discussed in the prose if there's something notable to say about them (ie. a film being toned down or gored up specifically to achieve a certain rating, or there being some controversy regarding it). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm in general agreement with Bignol and IllaZilla. Ratings are very peripheral information; look at it this way: if you were an Indian would you care what the MPAA rating is, and if you were American would you care what the BBFC rating is? The infobox should ideally only include information which will be of interest to anyone who is English literate. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. DanielDPeterson (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Jurassic Park move discussion

I've started a discussion on the talkpage of the book here that some of you may be interested in. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

City of God page move

Interesting discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability (films) and fan projects

WP:Notability (films) seems to say almost unilatirally that a project that was not released commerically is not notable. I wonder if this was created with fan/indie projects in mind. Under what circumstances would a fan film be notable enough for inclusion? I'm asking because I put Duality (Star Wars fan film) up for deletion, but now looking at WP:NF I'm not sure which position it supports. It would be great if WP:NF could be edited to reflect fan & indie productions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the origins of the project should necessarily matter, but I would hope there's significant and reliable sourcing. If not I can't see how the project meets the notability guidelines in any case. Doniago (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Where are you getting "not released commerically is not notable" from WP:NF? If a project has reliable referencing from legitimate publications and sources, its origins shouldn't matter. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)The guideline is written with the assumption that a film is intended to be released commercially. "Additionally, 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. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." If I am looking for a metric to measure against I have none, so it falls back to general notability, which is difficult with indie/fan productions. Especially fan films, because they inherit notability from the source material, so where is the line drawn? It would just be nice if WP:NF would at least acknowledge that some films aren't commercial. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In this particular case, the film only seems to be mentioned within the context of the proliferation of the Star Wars fan film. I would say the sources cited in the article establish the notability of this particular internet fueled phenomenon and the film can be mentioned within the context it is cited within the articles (perhaps as part of an "influences" sub-section on the main Star Wars films article), but I agree with your initial judgment that the film itself doesn't warrant a dedicated aricle. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Fan and indie productions sometimes become notable and other times they don't. Simple existence means nothing in terms of qualifying for a Wikipedia article. I exist. I think interpreting NF boils down to this: If the film is not widely released, does not receive reviews from nationally recognized critics, does not win awards for excellence and is not historically significant, why should we write about it? Wikipedia is an evolving project so if we come up with a good answer to that question we can include the answer as an additional criterion to NF. Otherwise, it's probably just not something worthy of an encyclopedia article, like myself. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of fanfilms have had articles deleted in the past - those that are still available generally meet all the notability guidelines, and have valid sourcing - and have survived AFDs as well. Duality has needed editing for some time, but it easily meets WP:GNG. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus needed at Talk:Vantage Point (film)

A debate seems to have sprung up over the use of the term Rashomon effect in the article. At the moment there's only three of us participating and while things aren't unfriendly right now, it feels to me that the conversation could become unstable quickly and there's some misunderstanding of statements going on. Anyone feel like dropping by to drop in their $.02? Millahnna (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeh Faasley

Could someone on this project take a look ast this article. It's being heavily edited by a newbie contributor but badly needs cleaning up. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 14:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They Live

Hey folks. Would a project representative please help out a new user over at Talk:They Live? I've left the user a welcome message, but could use some help. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Films from Georgia (country) or Georgian films

Discussion about the recent category rename can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And a related discussion. C'mon, all you people who can post 10 pages of arguements over countries in the infobox, wade in. Don't be shy. Lugnuts (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to prove how stupid this is, a bot has recently moved categories from Soviet-era Georgian films to Soviet-era films from Georgia (country). Lugnuts (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

List of drug films

In a similar vein to List of teen films, we have List of drug films, which runs the gamut in how drugs are featured in film. While we have appropriate candidates like Requiem for a Dream, we also have films in which drugs are only one element, such as Shrek 2 and The Social Network. Unfortunately, the "drug film" genre does not seem that prominent, and the references I found out there seem to use "pro-drug film" and "anti-drug film" examples. We have two courses of action here. We can move the list to List of films featuring drugs and determine criteria in that regard (which I think will be hard to accomplish), or we can determine explicit "drug film" criteria, which will result in a much, much shorter list. You can see on the list's talk page that there have been a number of concerns about the validity of the list's items, so what do you all think should be done? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need clarity about the inclusion criteria. There's a whole genre of stoner comedy films. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Richard, do you think that genre should be part of this list or kept separate? Anyone else, any thoughts on how to structure and reference the list and its contents? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:English-language films

Something very strange seems to be happening with this category - I've looked at the list of films in it and seem to be getting different results each time. Sometimes the films are out of their proper alphabetic order, sometimes many films that should appear don't appear at all. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. Can't figure out whether this is a problem with my browser or a Wiki-related problem. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed non-alpha sorting in categories recently, but it's not all the time, even within the same category. With that one being so big too, I guess there's a lag on the update of articles within it. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed it, too. In Category:2011 films, it is easier to see. In Firefox 4.0 beta, everything is under the correct letter, but the order is incorrect (it puts "All-Star Superman (film)" before "Aadu Puli", for example). Google Chrome 9.0 and Internet Explorer 8 is putting everything starting with "The" in a T section, but those sections are scattered throughout the category page. I think this is something screwy with the Wikipedia programming. BOVINEBOY2008 13:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
See this for more. Lugnuts (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

More requested moves

Related due to films' impact:

Requested moves for anyone interested in weighing in. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Another: Source Code (film)Source Code (discussion). Erik (talk | contribs) 23:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cinéma vérité

This page contains lists of filmmakers, films and TV shows. Many of the entries are very loosely associated with the genre, and some are just jokes. Wouldn't mind some help cleaning up the lists and maybe making some inclusion parameters to help out future editors. I'm starting a thread on the discussion page. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 01:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for link fix Marnette, didn't realize the accents effected the link. The Interior (Talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome :-) MarnetteD | Talk 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Source Code

The usage of Source Code is under discussion. It currently redirects to source code. The discussion is at Talk:Source Code (film) . (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

TCM Movie Database

The template {{Tcmdb title}} for linking to a page at the TCM Movie Database is not working. (I saw an editor complain about the same problem at the talk page for {{Tcmdb name}}.) I sampled some of the film links, and it appears that not only have the IDs changed completely (with some IDs staying the same, I think), the website's URLs now factor in the title. The old pages do not redirect to the new pages but the main page. So the TCM templates are systemically useless and do not appear fixable by bot. I'm not sure what can be done. Any thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This blog entry mentions complaining to TCM and also links to this forum thread. The thread appears to be about other complaints related to the overhaul. Their "contact us" page is here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

List of biggest box office bombs

There are multiple problems with List of biggest box office bombs:

  1. References "Indopedia" which uses Wikipedia as a source.
  2. Of the acceptable sources in use, it is not clear which figures they are sourcing.
  3. "Net loss" is not consistent: Marketing costs are included in some cases but not others, while in other cases the gross sometimes only lists domestic revenue.
  4. Uses US inflation to adjust worldwide grosses. This is an incorrect application of the inflation measure and the reason there isn't an inflation adjusted list of worldwide grosses on Box Office Mojo.

I was thinking of trying to do something with it, but there are so many problems with the list with no obvious solution it may be just better to delete the article. Could someone check it out and let me know what they think. Betty Logan (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is unrealistic to try to be so precise with the dollar figures. Maybe we could drop these columns altogether and just use what secondary sources report if they get that specific? Periodicals like to report lists of box office bombs. They don't have to be the "biggest", but they could be relatively well-known. We could cite a film and provide as much context as a source has. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Cases like Heaven's Gate and Zabriskie Point are pretty well documented, so there is scope for such an article. I think the idea of the chart is ok in principle, but the quantity you are ranking has to be consistent from film to film otherwise the whole thing becomes meaningless; if you are missing some foreign grosses, it would be better to limit it to "biggest flops at the US box office", and using US CPI to adjust for inflation would be legitimate if it were limited to US box office. I know we generally try to take a worldwide view on Wikipedia (and I'm a huge advocate of that), but it's detrimental to the cause here. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that it's tricky when a film "bombs" in a US (domestic) market then makes back its budget in residuals, other media releases and foreign sales. FWiW,Bzuk (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Just saw this today. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good find, the article also mentions that Guinness World Records has compiled there own list. It might be worth looking in to.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
All I can find is this mention in the Cutthroat Island article. "The film is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the biggest box office flop of all time.[4]" --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That is so freaky! The way Hollywood Reporter compile the list is how I suggested as well — they ignore the home video markets and international box office, and just offset US gross against budget. It wouldn't take much effort to incorporate US CPI for inflation since Wikipedia has an automated template for that. You have to move away from the idea of how much money a film has lost because there are so many revenue streams (apparently Cleopatra broke even in the long run, but while it isn't a money loser it is still regarded as a box office failure taking its budget into account). There are several approaches that can be taken: worldwide box office against budget, US box office against budget, and inflated US box office against budget, or possibly all three (quite a few lists have more than one chart). I'm happy to take a crack at it if we are agreed on a clear direction. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There might be some worldview issues if you choose to use US only figures.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
MOS:CURRENCY says, "In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars ($123), the dominant reserve currency of the world." Nonetheless, we should make effort to identify non-US box office bombs to enrich such a list. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse the confusion, what I meant is that we should use the worldwide box office over the domestic box office.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems like a great source to reference. I consider the website reliable (author has AMC's endorsement, after all). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Tim Dirk's site is pretty good, and generally a reliable source, but there are problems in that chart: some of his "budgets" incorporate marketing costs on top of the production budget while in other cases he doesn't so there is some inconsistency. The other problem is that sometimes he includes worldwide box office but in other cases he just uses domestic. Heaven's Gate for example, tanked in the US but fared much better internationally doubling its US gross but the chart ignores that. Our chart seems to have inherited a lot of its problems from the Filmsite chart. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
We have many domestic orientated charts on Wikipedia i.e. List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States, so the worldview doesn't actually prevent us from compiling national oriented lists. One of the problems is that with older films the international grosses just aren't available whereas the US box office data is fairly comprehensive. Maybe the best approach would be a worldwide chart and a US chart which would cover both bases. Sticking films into a worldwide chart when you only have domestic grosses available makes the chart grossly inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most tagged article

Can anyone beat this?! Lugnuts (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gross! Conti trimmed it a bit, but this is the old revision. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Manual of Style (film)

Other editors are needed to weigh in on this. Help us resolve this, please. It (obviously) has to do with whether or not the film style guideline should be violated in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film) and the incubator

Can someone help me with this situation? Last autumn, the article was moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film) since it was created before filming started. Now someone has started a new article for it, instead of restoring the incubated version. Is there any correct way to handle this? The easiest and fairest way would probably be to delete the new version and move the incubated version to its spot (the new version has no relevant info that isn't in the original, only the release dates of screenshots), but I really have no idea how these things work, I just want to start working on the article. Smetanahue (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This happened to me once (although in that case the new article was better than Article Incubator one). What I did was set the status in the Article Incubator template to "delete" with an edit summary noting that the article was recreated and that a history merge should be performed. While waiting for that to be deleted just edit the new article like you would normally, you can copy and paste content from the Article Incubator version if you need. - Kollision (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

reception in infobox

Most album articles have a standard template which is used for various reviews. Template:Album_reviews. Please do something similar for film. When I scroll down to reception and see "The film is currently 57% "rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes", it doesn't tell me a lot. Does that mean it's 43% fresh? Based on how many reviews? The RT rating is fine, and worth including, but the reception section itself should only exist if there was more than your average review level reception (positive or negative). That's just my two cents anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "if there was more than your average review level reception (positive or negative)"? When we reference Rotten Tomatoes (or Metacritic), we try to word it to explain what the score is. The essay WP:RTMC provides an example of doing this. I recall a reviews-based infobox being proposed a few times in the past, but I do not think there is precedent for it. It is mainly because we want to cover the reception in prose form; a number of stars from one film critic does not tell why the critic gave the rating. That's why a score like Rotten Tomatoes is used, to provide the overall score, then to sample reviews to indicate why critics liked or disliked a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
To me it just seems pointless to have a whole section that says "The film currently has a 63% rating on Rotten Tomatoes". I've read so many different version of "gives a normalized rating" or "based on 32 reviews", etc. I think an infobox would help to standardize the verbiage and provide a quick reference. Because they're the "most well-established of such websites" it makes even more sense to put the ratings in the infobox. As for my other comment; Avatar, Jurassic Park, Passion of the Christ, et al, garnered a more substantial reception than "You again", and IMHO deserve some prose, where maybe the latter does not. I know I'm just a random anon to you, I just wanted to share my two cents on the matter. My old lappy dies in the jquery hell of RT, so I come to WP to check up on movies. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the Albums Project determined some time back that ratings aren't the kind of summary information that belongs in the article's main infobox, and has been phasing out support for that parameter (it's been slow going, as there are hundreds of thousands of articles involved). I don't think we should put ratings in the film infobox either, although a separate template in the vein of {{Album ratings}} might be nice. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mfd notice for Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music

I have listed Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music for Miscellany for deletion. Please join the discussion here to share your thoughts. Please do not remove the {{mfd}} tag while the discussion is in progress. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk) 02:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Template discussion

{{FilmLinks}} has been put up for deletion here. Input would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 20:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For everyone's information, the template is a kind of shell template that would combine code from multiple websites' EL templates. The shell template would replace individual EL templates like those for IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and some less prominent websites. There are cases made for and against the use of the template, so editors are invited to weigh in at the discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that it has been kept, we need to decide what links to include in the template, and maybe a better name for it too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Everyone's gone strangely quiet! Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla (2012 film project)‎

I have redirected this to Godzilla (franchise)#American reboot as this article clearly fails WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks — there is no "sure thing" production."

All of the text has been preserved at the location of the redirect as per the WP:NFF guideline: "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available."

I see that this has been sent to AfD before, but i'm being bold, and reading through the discussion, consensus was split. However, this article should not exist under WP:NFF, and there is no reason, given the the length of the article, that it can't and shouldn't be included at Godzilla (franchise)#American reboot.

I have a feeling that this could be controversial, so would appreciate any input on the relevant talk page here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Any standards for movie review sources?

Heya, there's a particular upcoming movie of significant interest to a political faction; at this moment, there have so far been no "national critic" reviews (according to Rotten Tomatoes and my quick Googleing), but the producers held a private screening for some people who would be highly interested, due to their political views, and at least some of these people have written good-to-glowing reviews and published them (mostly in partisan media, but at least one is political columnist for Slate).

Someone's included selections of these reviews into the Wikipedia article on the film; I have twice removed them, so far. They seem to me to violate WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION, especially due to the private screening thing. (Besides the political columnist, quoted reviewers were a Federal judge and a biographer and one-time personal friend of the author of the book upon which the film was based).

I'm looking for any policies/guidelines/discussions about reviews and neutrality, particularly if there's anything about films with special appeal such as this one. Studerby (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your concern, and there do not appear to be any reviews by traditional film critics at this point. What we could do is analyze the existing reviews and see if the reviewers have reviewed any other media in the past. For example, it looks like the journalist has reviewed other media, and perhaps he could be included with the appropriate identifier. It looks like he is libertarian-leaning? Does anyone know the proper guidelines for using such political identifiers? In any case, I would keep a traditional "Reception" section limited, but maybe use a different heading for non-regular reviewers. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I know Erik and I discussed this sort of issue on the Mars Needs Moms article. A critical review section had been added before opening weekend. Although there are no set guidelines, I feel that in general critical review sections should be withheld until after a film's opening weekend. If someone wants to know how a film is being rated on the day after it comes out, they should just go to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I don't think Wikipedia should be a vehicle for early reviews. Instead it should serve as a consensus after numerous people have reviewed the film. I think an appropriate time to be able to determine this "consensus" is after opening weekend. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be that stringent. Most major films get screened for critics before their release dates, so reviews from some of the major sources (Ebert, NYT, etc.) are sometimes/often available before the film comes out. There's absolutely nothing wrong with starting a Reception section using what sources are already available. Naturally the section will grow, expand, and change as more and more reviews come in. Of course it's best to avoid making broad generalizations ("critical reception to the film was positive/negative/mixed") until a sufficient pool of sources are available, but as long as one simply states what the cited sources said about the film, I don't see a problem. This is a pretty common practice in articles about albums, films, video games, etc. as all of these things generally receive some critical attention before their widespread release. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Decision on whether to keep Foodfight!

There is a concern on whether to keep the article Foodfight! or not. See here. Thanks. —Mike Allen 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Need advice

If film-makers want to delete their film's article from Wikipedia, than is it allowed? although article doesn't violate any guideline of Wikipedia or more specifically WP Film. Please somebody advice me what should i do?, as I've to answer them, thanks.Bill william comptonTalk 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that I think can be deleted upon request would be an article on the filmmaker themselves, per WP:BLP. Other than that, I don't think they have any right to request that a film which they probably are not the sole owner of to begin with (but I could be wrong) to have its page deleted. If there are legitimate issues with the page, then they should be addressed, but merely disagreeing with its existence is enough to warrant it to be deleted if it is notable enough to have a page to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It can only be deleted if it's Alan Metter asking to remove this abortion. Lugnuts (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys for advice, well this article (Dear Friend Hitler) was also appeared at DYK on 25 March 2011 and get placed at DYKSTATS. Bill william comptonTalk 17:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

CFD notification

Please come comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_22#Category:Academy_Award_for_Best_Original_Screenplay_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Film projects category

I made a category for these: W:Category:Film projects. I tagged the three films I could find. Maybe this will be helpful to keep track of them. Barsoomian (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a better name would be "uncompleted film projects", since finished films also are film projects after all. But good idea to distinguish these films from upcoming films, I've been playing with the thought for a while to work on articles for some of the most famous cancelled films, like Jodorowsky's Dune and Kubrick's Napoleon. Smetanahue (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
And a question: do you think Dimension belongs in this category? The article doesn't explain this yet (I should expand it asap), but in short it's a project that was conceived as a feature film, but was abandoned, and eventually the footage that had been made was released as a short film. Granted that it gets expanded to cover this, should it be categorized as both a short film and a (uncompleted) film project? Smetanahue (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I intended this to list be those supposedly upcoming films, not actually filming, that had acquired articles in defiance of WP:NFF. As discussed in WP:FILMPROJECT. Uncompleted films are a different thing entirely, many of those started or even completed filming. But I realise that "film project" could have many meanings in the real world; I didn't invent the name, I just thought I'd document it, having seen it used in AfD debates. Barsoomian (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was the thinking the better name should be Category:Film project articles because the focus of the category is the type of article not the film itself. Also I created Category:Former film project articles for articles that have graduated from the process.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
After that, oddly enough now the only article in the category doesn't have "film project" in the title. Apparently the The Dark Knight Rises fanclub got their article as a "film project" but don't want to name it so. As for "film project articles", that isn't any clearer. Every category is actually a list of articles. Barsoomian (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The difference is subtle but significant. I think of it as being similar to Category:Articles in the Article Incubator.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Too subtle I think. I don't think it would deter articles from being mistagged any more than they will with the simpler title. Barsoomian (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason it's called "American films" and not "American film articles" is that it's a subcategory of Category:Articles, so it's simply not needed. And I don't see why we should separate projects that still might happen from those that definitely are cancelled. The very requirement for a film project article to exist, as I understand it, is that the project still would qualify for an article even if the film is cancelled the next second. So cancelled films and films in development are essentially the same kind of articles. Smetanahue (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, I didn't invent the concept or even believe it's legitimate. It's just to list articles were using this label to justify their existence, despite WP:NFF. Barsoomian (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Any film or potential film is technically a film project. What we are referring to here by the disambiguation (film project) is a type of Wikipedia article. We already have Category:Upcoming films, Category:Cancelled films, Category:Unfinished films, Category:Lost films, etc., to use in the manner as suggested here. This also might be clearer if the Category is added to the talk page rather than the article itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ratings in infobox

I was wondering why the ratings of movies (PG, R, etc.) are not displayed in the infobox at the top of the article. It seems like that would be useful information to some people. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are different ratings in every country. Not to mention different versions of the same movie with different ratings. Barsoomian (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:FILMRATING has pertinence here. There are also a number of prior discussions on this topic in the archives and the archives of Template talk:Infobox film. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New article, mostly Hollywood producer homes - Notable homes of the Beverly Hills area. Please participate with your knowledge.

New article, mostly Hollywood producer homes - Notable homes of the Beverly Hills area. Please participate with your knowledge. PPdd (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Comedy Awards

Hi! I've created an article at The Comedy Awards for the upcoming awards, and any help in improving it would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Superman (film project)

This is just a notice that Superman (film project) is being proposed for deletion. The discussion can be found here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

An AfD

Hi everyone! There's an ongoing AfD for the "Big Momma" film series (the series as a whole) going on, and any input is useful. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949 has been nominated for merging with Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1940-1960. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting additional opinions

There is a discussion at Jason Voorhees regarding continuity and other similar issues. I am not entirely sure what is being proposed, but please come to the page and read over the discussion and voice your opinions. See Talk: Jason Voorhees#Jason Goes to Hell/Freddy vs. Jason/Jason X Debates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Awards

I have been working on templates and list for awards such as Golden Globe Awards and Screen Actors Guild Awards. Is {{WikiProject Awards}} redundant with the {{Film|Awards-task-force=yes}}?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if they should have {{Film|Awards-task-force=yes}}, {{WikiProject Awards}} or both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's redundant - compare tagging film articles with the various task-forces, for example German films having both the German-task-force and WP Germany tags. Lugnuts (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't the Awards WikiProject independent of the film task force? Maybe they have their own agenda for awards articles. We can't assume redundancy in the case of independent projects. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There's likely some overlap but it's probably more of a joint effort. Similar to the war films task force being shared by both projects. I don't know how active their project is, but they also cover more awards beyond just film awards, so the project or the task force isn't redundant. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 23:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I am now able to resume the mundane work of tagging these lists and templates with the confidence of consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises is up for deletion

I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here for any concerns. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 09:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Opinions at Peer Review

I am putting Friday the 13th (2009 film) up for peer review, and I am soliciting as many opinions as possible. Please come to the peer review discussion page to voice your critiques.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bumping this. I've received one editor's comments. I would really appreciate a few more before the peer review is archived. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Blade Runner FAR

I have nominated Blade Runner for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 18 (film)

Just as a sanity check: does Apollo 18 (film) pass notability requirements? It's an unreleased film that seems more and more like vaporware. It was allegedly to be released in January 2011; then March 2011; them April 2011; now January 2012. I'm betting it's never going to see the light of day, and its release and notability sound pretty WP:CRYSTAL to me. It's gotten some news reporting, but WP:NOTNEWS. I was going to AFD it, but thought I'd touch base here first. TJRC (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pushing it back a year seems extreme. But it HAS certainly started, probably finished, principal photography -- trailers are available, there are reports of test screenings (which didn't go well). Maybe they're going to reshoot. I suspect there hasn't been publicity about the production because they plan a Blair Witch style "found footage/It could have happened" marketing campaign. So it passes, I think. Barsoomian (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw a trailer for it in theaters, and, even if it never does get released, I would think that alone makes it notable. DanielDPeterson (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

March film newsletter

Dead? Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

New computer, was moving files and programs around and didn't have time until the end of the weekend. I'm always looking for volunteers who would like to help out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 23:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success

Opinions are needed on whether or not the nominations and awards should be specifically mentioned for clarity and uniqueness of the film's success. Mind you, this comes after consensus was already reached for the lead, and so I understand if some of you would rather not weigh in on this too. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

I help out at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and occasionally there are questions related to sources for WP articles on film and DVDs. I'm unfamiliar with this area, and with this project, and would like to get a sense for what sorts of websites are acceptable. (I'm familiar with the proscription against user-generalted sites such as iMDB, and have sometimes cited that.) This thread[5] at RSN, in particular, inquires about the website DVD Bits. In RS gray areas, we tend to assess reliability by looking to see whether the website has editorial oversight. DVD Bits appears to. [6] Does the project have guidelines in this area (as does, for example, the video game project)? Or do you have some advice regarding assessing review websites as sources? DVD films, such as anime, aren't typically eviewed in mainstream media, necessitating a reliance on websites. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say DVD Bits falls into the category of SPS, in that it isn't professionally published; it seems to be run by volunteer staff, so while it may have editorial oversight I quesion whether it has editorial accountability. It isn't listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. I think the acid test comes down to whether it is referenced in other reliable sources. If it is then I think it probably qualifies as RS, but if not then I don't think it does. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks so much, Betty. I didn't know about the Film Resources page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Box office figures for "Don't Look Now"

I'm looking for box office figures for the Don't Look Now article, since currently there is no information about its commercial reception. It was released in New York on December 9, 1973 and went national in January 1974. If anyone has any copies of Variety from that period, or has access to box office figures from around that time would they do me a favor and look them up? Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You could also try WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. --BelovedFreak 09:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll give that a go next week if no-one gets back to me on here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

External links

I suppose links to videodetective ( currently on 47 film pages) are linkspam? The page just list trailers and some teaser videos per movie. Should those be removed -Koppapa (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Get rid of 'em. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This seems vaguely familiar. As in we had a thread stating that this link should not be added to articles. Might have been another one much like it though. In any event if you keep finding these you may want to report them to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and/or to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Thanks for your vigilance Koppapa. MarnetteD | Talk 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC) is listed on 15,000 sites ( and has mostly like 7 stills per film, or pics per actor or books listed. that plus a lot of google-ads. should be gone too? won'T do that manually though ;) -Koppapa (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Created an entry here: -Koppapa (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting additional opinions (again)

I'm requesting additional opinions at Talk:Jason Voorhees#Recent additions of new actor?. There is a disagreement as to whether someone deserves credit in the infobox for portraying a character in a single scene. One party says yes, and the other disagrees. Others are encouraged to come and weigh in so that we can have this matter settled because it's just turning into an edit war.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A little help at Submerged if you can

I gave the page a light clean the other day and discovered that the plot was a copy/paste (from just about everywhere). I've got an IP editor who keeps coming back in and re-adding the problem text (and all of the other problems I cleaned up like flag icons and egg links and missing CN tags). I don't suppose any of you have seen this recently enough to drop a quick and dirty plot in there so the section isn't blank? I'm hoping that will keep the other editor at bay. Millahnna (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Extra eyeballs - my first attempt at critical reception

So I just accidentally revamped the article for The Island (2005 film). Some of the details are on the talk page but the major thing is that I took my first stab at writing a critical reception section. I think it might be too long (particularly the Ebert review - not sure the pull quote I noted helps) or possibly imbalanced in some way. Anyone feel like taking a gander? Millahnna (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include the comparison with "Never Let Me Go", since the two works are unconnected anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Betty...that's exactly what I was wondering about. I tried it because I thought it helped exemplify the point of the film not taking the ethical stuff as serious as it could have. But I wasn't sure if it was too much a bit like bashing over the head with an anvil). Millahnna (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)