Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

The Change-Up

I'm not sure this film is worth the effort but can someone have a look at the Change-Up and give an opinion? A user is adding that there is major "dissent" growing towards the film because it uses the word "retard" and cites 4 sources, all of which, IMO, have a special interest in that particular area and/or are blogs. It doesn't seem to me to be any kind of notable complaint any more than most other films receive and certainly not something that is getting the kind of coverage the user claims it to have. But I don't live in America so maybe it is more notable there.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Two of the sources look self-published so aren't RS, but About.com is owned by The New York Times and Parents.com looks like an online presence for a bunch of baby/child magazines. The point of WP:NPOV is to make sure that opinion is balanced, but also that all notable opinions are included, even if those opinions are in the minority. It is the 'stature' of the opinion (i.e who says it/who publishes it) which determines its significance not the amount of weight behind it. It's probably a bit too much too refer to it as major "dissent", but it's an angle the critical reception can probably cover. Both About/Parents.com writers seem fairly established in these areas so I'd give a couple of lines over to it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm reading it wrong though, both About.com and Parents.com are just advocating joining the protest called for by the blog linked and another blog. From what I can gather they haven't even seen the film, they're just reacting to what these blogs are reacting to Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
And I think About.com authors are paid per article view... —Mike Allen 23:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well that won't help. At the moment at least it seems to be two regular civilian blogs and two-three sites giving them hits. It's hardly the backlash that hit The Dilemma over calling electric cars gay. Even though the Simpsons did it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, if they haven't seen the film and are not directly addressing that then no, they shouldn't be included. It is the critical reception section for the film after all. For the record I do think both sources are reliable sources, but if they are only commenting on someone else's comments then it's not a critical evaluation of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I had a proper read through. The About.com one actually asks readers what the context is because she flat out hasn't seen it. The rest are asking readers to join a crusade started elsewhere. The user claims that they've seen it burning through social media -_- and one of the blogs sourced says "Many" who have seen it have been offended by the word. I have to imagine "many" people generally don't care or they wouldn't be watching an R-rated comedy. So yeah, I think this user is in the wrong, I've told them to find more suitable sources. Thanks for the input.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing dates in infoboxes

A relatively new editor has taken on a task to change all the celebrity and film infobox dates to a shortened form. Warnings seem to be ignored, what else to do? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism report him/her there and they will block him if he is ignoring warnings Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Direct him to the appropriate MOS policy if there is one. If he then continues then AIV him. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems the shortened format is the preferred style: WP:YEAR. Years only need to be written out in full if it's a BC date. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What happens if you were born in 1899 and died in 2001?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently if the year range spans a century then you use the full years. Betty Logan (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dodgy GA Review

Can you just de-list an erroneously awarded GA, or does it have to be reviewed again to be delisted? Transformers: Dark of the Moon was recently rated GA by a new user account set up less than a week ago. Some concerns have been expressed and the article was delisted; but an editor has challenged the delisting, stating the article should be reviewed again before being delisted. Considering that the review was a complete farce, does anyone know if we are indeed prohibited from stripping its GA rank in such a situation? Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no ieda but I know the review you're talking about, I just mentioned it to User:Boycool42. The system is really broken if a one-week old user can just pass a GA for review and I have to question if this is sockpuppetry as it seems incredibly convenient timing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Usually it's polite to the nominator if it is first listed at WP:GAR instead of immediately delisting it. Usually for something like this with a new editor taking on a review without being familiar with the criteria, the review could be nullified and the article returned to its prior position in the queue to wait for another review. However, due to the large backlog, it may be even faster for getting the article reviewed by having it go through GAR instead, although there will be more eyes looking it over (which is still better for the article itself). I wouldn't call the system broken as GAR does exist for situation such as this. Although it only takes one person to review, only one person is needed to re-review it or nominate it for a community assessment. GA is meant to be simple to attain and simple to revoke if necessary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Trailers

Does anyone know the policy on including a trailer ona page? I wanted to include (http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2265750041/) on Fast Five near the accolades section as this trailer received an award. It's not a big deal I just thought it'd be a nice idea but I wasn't sure it'd really pass under NFC.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can upload it to Wikipedia (well you could, but you would be limited to uploading 10% of it under FUR); the alternative is to include the trailer link in a citation or as an external link. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I'll leave it then. I thought it would work well just as a video include, it's not too important I just thought it would help illustrate what kind of thing wins awards in the Golden Trailers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm no authority on this, I'm going off what it says here: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. That applies specifically to songs though, so there may be a different criteria. It may be worth asking here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks Betty Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Starship Troopers - Differences from the Book

Additional opinions are requested concerning a difference of opinion at Talk:Starship Troopers (film). Thanks for your help. Doniago (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Help

Despite me having no interest in the subject, I am trying to get S&Man to Good Article Status. Why? The film is notable and Wikipedia's coverage comes first. I need to know what more work I should put into it. Asking a particular Good Article contributor doesn't seem to be a good idea. I asked one of them and despite working with Good Articles, he said that he doesn't edit film articles. This WikiProject is broad and many editors view this board so I posted this here. On a related note - I asked the original article creator if he wanted to help expand the article, but he obviously didn't like my suggestion so much that he removed my comment from his talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot sections in documentaries

Inside Job (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP wrote a very long, detailed plot summary of this documentary. I tagged it as too long per WP:FILMPLOT. Since that time, there have been ongoing battles about wikilinks of common terms, as well as discussion about the level of detail necessary for the plot section. My view is a documentary plot section is no different from any other film's plot section. The article is about the film, not about the subject of the documentary itself. I realize that film documentary articles are sometimes treated differently when there is outside criticism about the subject matter, but that would be handled in a different section, not in the Plot section.

I would like to dramatically reduce the length of the section, but I know I'm going to get a lot of argument from some editors, so I thought I'd get some advance feedback from the project first. Also, if you read some of the comments by editors in favor of detail, you'll note that many seem to believe that the subject must be discussed on WP because of the importance of the topic and the reluctance of the U.S. media to discuss it. Of course, that is NOT a valid reason for putting it in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing that jumped out at me was the runtime in the infobox (1:48:49 minutes). Does it have to be that precise? I think 108 (or 109) minutes would be better. Lugnuts (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Excessive retelling of any published work is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, even if it is non-fiction. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless it is too complex to convey in 700 words or less, it should be 700 words or less. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
According to Word, the current word count is 1,564. In any event, the issue really is whether there is an exception for documentaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The summary is too long right now, and it's on the nose to say that the plot section shouldn't be about the subject of the film: it should say what happens in the film. Elsewhere in the article the other elements can be added, and they belong if the article is going to be complete. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "other elements", and how would their inclusion make the article "complete"?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I think he means information about the documentary's reception and significance. WP:PLOT was revised to cover works of nonfiction too: "Articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents." For example, there could be a so-called "fact check" section of secondary sources responding to the primary source's claims. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but the plot section itself should be dramatically reduced. The article already has some information about its reception (reviews). If more legitimate, reliably sourced information can be found about the film's "significance", then it can be added to the article in the appropriate section. I also have no problem with a "fact check" section per se, but it has to be balanced and based on sources, not the original research of editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I agree with you and others that the length needs to be reduced. And that fact checks should come from secondary sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

AFI templates

What are other people's thoughs on these AFI templates:

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That we have too many of these templates and that they will propagate like rabbits into all the "relevant" articles and that you should nominate them for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Seconded... I'd be tempted to say "Make the list articles", but that would be copying AFI's work. Even in navbox format it strikes real close to copyvio and promotion. - J Greb (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a copyvio issue. There was a similar discussion related to AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, and there was confirmation via OTRS that the list is public domain. I assume these similar lists are also in the public domain. I don't think they should be templated, though. The relationship between the films is not strong enough. Films on such lists should have that fact identified in their articles, and readers can follow links to see what other films are on the list. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Be aware this discussion only applies to the AFI lists, as as noted there's OTRS to allow their reproduction. Any other top 100 lists that isn't based on established facts (like top grossing films or academy winners) will be a copyvio of the original publisher and will have the list removed. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
By established facts, I assume you mean objective facts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Box-office sections

There is a conversation that might interest some editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film) about what should or should not be mentioned in a box-office section. Spinc5 (talk) 8:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - List of Scream characters FLC

I put this up for FLC a few weeks ago but comments have been slim. I've addressed the complaints from those who have commented but if anyone has any interest in the series and would like to comment it would be appreciated. Oppose or Support I'm not bothered, I just hate the waiting about. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A Useful Life

Recent edits to this article have included some information which I think is spammy in nature (esp. the Global Lens 2011 Series info, IMO). I've placed all of this on the talkpage, as some of it could be useful. If anyone is familar with this Uruguayan film, please help to improve the article where possible. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also the recent edits by this user (Eholderm (talk · contribs · count) seem a bit spammy too. For example, this new article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bergman filmography split

Please see this discussion for more. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging history

So is there a way to merge the history of a userdraft to a main article? Where/how would I request this when I'm ready? —Mike Allen 22:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves has some instructions on history merging, but I don't know about the technical feasibility of merging histories in cases where it involves 2 different versions of the article that probably have overlapping timespans. Really, though, you shouldn't need to: You're the only contributor to the userspace draft, so you can just copy/paste it into the main article and the content will still be properly attributed to you. I do that kind of thing all the time. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's what I've done in the past, but I thought instead of dropping one huge edit to the article, my individual edits could be merged in the history. I guess it doesn't matter as I'm sure no one will reject to the changes anyway. Now I can stop using edit summaries in the draft.. lol —Mike Allen 23:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, your individual edits don't have to be merged into the history in this case, as it's a userspace draft and you're the only contributor. You can just drop it in as one huge edit. That's what I'm going to do with User:IllaZilla/Darby Crash when I'm done with it. It's the same as if you'd written it in an external program (like MS Word) and then pasted it in from there; you don't have to preserve the entire history, as long as the finished product (the chunk of content added into the actual mainspace article) is properly attributed to you, it can be treated as one big edit. It's a lot easier this way, and yeah you don't have to use edit summaries (you don't really need to use them in userdrafts even if you're eventually going to be using the "move" feature to move it into article space). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering: What happens if someone swoops in and copy/pastes someone's userdraft into an article? It would be attributed to them, not the person who actually wrote it. —Mike Allen 00:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldnt imagine there would be much you could do except get an admin to delete teh article then recreate it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that would definitely be misattribution, but it could potentially be fixed via Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. An admin could also delete the offending edits, if caught early enough. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
That's reassuring. Thanks for the replies. —Mike Allen 08:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Should film director templates have actors in them?

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · count) insists on having actors in the template for {{Preston Sturges}} (see the vandalism in the edit history). I cited this previous consensus, but he seems to ignore it. Thoughts? Lugnuts (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole template looks like a convoluted mess to me. —Mike Allen 13:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There's just too much information there. It's like someone has tried to squeeze an entire filmography article into a navbox. It should principally show the films he directed, with links to other films if necessary. How about Template:Bergman as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I just spotted that there is no Preston Sturges filmography page. Maybe this article can be created and the information added there, then the navbox can be trimmed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
But, that's not even your point, is it! D'oh! Sorry - have now looked at a previous version. Definitely previous consensus is not to have actors in navboxes. It's not really pertinent here - a link to Preston Sturges Unofficial Stock Company Actors in the navbox is more than sufficient. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that we should not have actor information in such templates. A person's involvement with a film will range in noteworthiness, may they be an actor, writer, or a producer. WP:CLT#Disadvantages of templates has applicable reasons including, "Simple boxes can often be replaced with a category. It also can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large," "Take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related," "Include the full list of links in every article, even though often many of the links are not useful in some of the articles," and "Sometimes do not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant or important." Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and Preston Sturges Unofficial Stock Company Actors needs to be moved. How about List of actors who have frequently worked with Preston Sturges? Too clumsy? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Page Ratings is a fail

Readers do understand (or either don't care) that the new Page Ratings at the bottom of articles is to rate the content, not the subject. For example, The Smurfs (film) has all "1" ratings and I know damn well that the page is not bias, pretty well written and of course it's not "complete" but it's complete enough given the film just released and I have already added the reviews. The Page Ratings is a total fail. I don't really have that much interest in the Smurfs, but I've worked on the article for over a year now and I know what type of editors/IPs these articles attract (fanboys) and I'm not going to let it take a nose dive like the others (Garfield: The Movie, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed, etc). Anyways I hope the Page Ratings flops system wide and is discontinued because it is not helpful at all for us at the film project when readers are treating it like it's an IMDb rating system (by rating the film itself). —Mike Allen 01:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I've turned it off so I don't have to see it every time I look at an article. I agree with you, but I thought the project was ill-conceived from the get-go. Unfortunately, my guess is it will take quite a bit to kill it. These kinds of things, once they get going, are hard to eliminate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It's doing pretty well by me on Fast Five :P . But I agree, the list of Fast and Furious characters has a max rating and its terrible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah because most people enjoyed the film! LOL God this is so flawed. Like this really helps the main editors.. Look here. —Mike Allen 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I also think we need to get rid of this. It's a mess.--TravisBernard (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Your header for this section is well said Mike. I was there with Bbb23 about this being ill-conceived. While this is discussing the nonsensical positive rating just wait until a blocked/banned editor starts dumping negative rating on a given article. MarnetteD | Talk 22:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Jimmy Wales is not well liked! He has all ONE ratings (from 1001 voters). See screenshot. Also here's an article about this system. —Mike Allen 07:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The idea is nice in theory, a good form of feedback to major article contributors, but like IMDb, its easily abused and misused.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I switched it off too - pointless and annoying as fuck. Lugnuts (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There is basically just one supporter for its use. —Mike Allen 07:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that users are rating films based purely upon what they think of the film rather than the article itself, after all, The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is largely hated for being one of the most terrible things ever inflicted upon mankind, and yet the rather good wikipedia article (ok I'm a bit biased here) has a lovely high average 4.5 score from 28 or so readers. Woo! Coolug (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
WHen I think I'm supporting it because my articles are doing well, I then go over to A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas which has a plot synopsis and a cast list. Despite this it has in some cases 40 reviews with average scores above 2.5. Yeah, system be broken homies. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Before I expanded Contagion (film) a little, this is what it looked like before, and the page ratings (3.9 to 4.7) pretty much reflect that revision. :) No worries, we don't have to use the "results". For those who do not like it and are not sure how to turn it off, you can go to "My preferences", "Appearance", and check off "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" at the bottom. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I know we don't have to use it but it was a nice visual feedback. I figured at 40+ reviewers it was more accurate until I came across the above article. Pity. Doesn't mean they weren't actually liking the article but means it is impossible to tell Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Cinematic history"

Has anyone else noticed this phrase popping up more and more? For instance, the new Transformers article had the statement: "Dark of the Moon grossed $1.085 billion worldwide, being the the 10th film in cinematic history to cross the $1 billion mark". Is it just me who finds it terribly peacocky (apart from cases where it actually refers to cinematic history)? First of all, the phrase can be omitted and it still essentially means the same thing. Secondly, it could be misinterpreted by readers that by putting the gross in a historical context that this record is in adjusted dollars. I've seen it in a couple of other articles in recent weeks, I don't know if it's one editor doing it all or if it's going viral. Anyone else think it needs stamping out, or are we ok with this? Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I did add "in unadjusted dollars" to it, so if someone has removed that they're trying to make the film seem a lot better than it is. But it isn't a true statement anyway because it IS in unadjusted dollars and there are films that probably lack appropriate information to even say. Bignole will tell you that he can't find foreign numbers for the Friday the 13th films for instance. Not that they would be in the top 10 highest grossing films but just saying, information will be lacking. So saying "cinematic history" is definitely embiggening the film with a cromulent stance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on state of Manhunter (film)

Everyone's favourite straw-man debater has found a new target. After edit summaries and user talk messages failed, a discussion has been started here to reach consensus on the validity of opinion-based content removal on the article Manhunter (film). I would appreciate it if anyone here could make their opinions known on the page. GRAPPLE X 23:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack guidelines

I provided a preliminary writeup for the "Soundtrack" section in the film article guidelines as seen here. I requested feedback here. Please weigh in! (Also, please take a look at the newsletter thread above if you have not already.) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Erik, overall I think it looks great. Should we address film tribute albums in this section? For example, the new film The Muppets has a tribute album called The Green Album. The tracks are not being used in the film, but the album is being used as a part of the marketing. Each track is a cover of a classic Muppets song, and I think it is a noteworthy part of the marketing. Maybe you could add language like this:
A soundtrack may refer to the film score, collection of prerecorded songs, or tribute music compiled for the film.
Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines are meant to cover sub-topics found in the majority of film articles. I'm not sure if tribute music is a common element in such articles. That does not mean it cannot follow the general soundtrack guidelines or even take a different approach. After all, articles about experimental films could stray from the guidelines a little, considering how unconventional they are. Are there other examples of tribute albums, especially related to film? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of any other film off the top of my head, but I'll post something if I think of one. I think you're right, the majority of articles will fall into the guidelines, so I think it's good to go. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Any stub class/vandalized animated movie articles I can fix?

Are there any stub or vandalized animated film articles I can fix? I'm currently working on several Barbie movies and Pixar films, but i want to know if there are any more. Cheers, SailorSonic —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Hi, SailorSonic! Check out Category:Animated film stubs. Any questions about editing film articles, feel free to ask. By the way, you can provide a full signature by writing four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
See Barbie (film series), most are stubs and unsourced. —Mike Allen 01:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Direct-to-iTunes

Should I create a new article for Direct-to-iTunes or should I have it redirect to Direct-to-video.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say redirect to a section of Direct-to-video. It's the same phenomenon, isn't it? Just with a different outlet. GRAPPLE X 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Grapple X's suggestion makes sense. You could also add a Category for Direct-to-iTunes to give a separate place for films that get that kind of release. MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec)From what I can tell, it is a little different. Both avoid theatre distribution, but Dti is virtually costless, because there are no DVD production and distribution costs. I think it is a different model. See this video to understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
They still fall under that low-budget-release umbrella. Explaining the differences would make for a good meaty section in the parent article, which could perhaps be renamed to be more catch-all sounding. GRAPPLE X 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is also the book variant where people who own the digital publishing rights publish Dti.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
If one is more common than the other, then redirect Direct-to-iTunes to that with a hatnote pointing to the other; if it's less obvious which is the most predominant, then perhaps Direct-to-iTunes could disambiguate between relevant sections of Direct-to-video and e-book? GRAPPLE X 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't give that kind of prominence to a particular commercial product, it's just free marketing. I doubt there is need for a general Direct-to-Internet article either. Smetanahue (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
What about redirecting to iTunes and having a blurb there? After all, it's pretty much a feature of the computer program. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure where the book publishing variant should redirect. Probably not to iTunes because the digital book landscape is so competitive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, that I have added the content, I think it really should be a distinct article. Have a look. Maybe it should be called Direct-to-digital, but that subject would also include direct to video on demand, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Crom requests your aid for Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

Crom! Conan the Barbarian, previously languishing in such a state, has been rewritten to this. The article is huge and would need your help to see if it can be further refined it to a Featured article. Please take up your trusty sword, read the article, and proceed to Wikipedia:Peer review/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1 for the slaughter. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

—Erik (talk | contribs) 01:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
My reaction also. Great job on this. I wish some of the films I work on had this much coverage.  :( I'm sure this just needs some copyedits before a FA nomination. I've went in and changed "movie" to "film" (where appropriate) per the Film's MOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeAllen (talk • contribs) 23:04, August 29, 2011
It'd be nice if all films had that much information available to write articles with. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for the positive comments. The subject is is lucky to be a controversial cult classic: hardcore Howard fans hated it, critics then were split roughly 2:1 as haters-lovers, the emerging young male population who want to be macho loved it, Poledouris's score was really great, and Ahnuld captured attention from everyone there. That combination warranted the sources. On a side note, would it be fine for me to change the article's quality scale to B-class? I think it is certainly at least that now (but that is me as the author speaking). Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Pssh, yeah! Go for it. I still would like a chance to sit down and read it. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination for Up (2009 film)

Greeting, WikiProject film. I have reviewed a nomination for classifying Up (2009 film) as a good article, but I have put it on hold as there are some issues. Since the nominator has retired, if any members of this Wikiproject are willing to address the issues, please see the nomination and review here. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

As my time continues to get more limited for the number of projects I work on, I no longer will be editor of the monthly newsletter. After writing and sending out the newsletter since late 2006 with multiple other editors, I'd like to invite all interested members of the project to consider contributing to future issues. As WP:FILM's newsletter is one of Wikipedia's oldest that has been consistently issued, it would be great for it continue to be sent out every month. I'll be available for helping with the next issue or for answering any questions. I created some instructions for how to develop the newsletter, but encourage anyone to take it in a new direction if desired. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the newsletter in the past or has provided feedback for changes over the years. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the newsletter! I started the draft for the August 2011 newsletter, to be distributed on September 1. I've added the September releases, and I ask other editors to help out with it. Nehrams provided instructions above, so check them out! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to do what I can to help. Instead of repeating "Opening next weekend", shouldn't it just say "Other August releases"? —Mike Allen 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I had listed them that way, but I had included twice as many (16 vs. 8), so it seemed better to continue grouping by weekend. Do you disagree? Or is there another way to present it? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Opening the weekend of 9/16:? —Mike Allen 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd be willing to chip in in a small way (like proofreading or text polish or something). If I commit to anything major I'd be worried that I'd run into a scheduling problem with real life stuff but I'd totally be down to massage some text or something.
I suggestion I threw at Nehrams some months back (he reacted positively but I don't know what came of it): consider adding a small list of impending home media releases. You know how we get flurries of activity that has to be QC checked when a film is first released? Well it happens for home media releases too (particularly those pesky plot summaries). I know that I'm not the only editor on the project who will sometimes add new releases to their watchlist just to help keep an eye on potential problem edits. I would do the same for dvd releases and assume others might as well. Millahnna (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we could figure out a way to have a two-column table inside the right framed column? We'd need to widen the rightmost column, but we could then have a "Coming to theaters" column and a "Coming to DVD and Blu-Ray" column within it. Do you think that could work? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Tables aren't my strong suit but that sounds viable. I've been meaning to play with teach myself some table markup (beyond tweaking existing markup), but like so many things I got distracted by... oh look a shiny! Millahnna (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea but how would we know films are being released on DVD/Blu ray every month? Is there a website for this? —Mike Allen 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
DVD and Blu-ray. We should stick to the ones that were released in theaters before; there's too many direct-to-DVD releases. Today's September 1, so let's not forget to get the newsletter out! Erik (talk | contribs) 11:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DVD and Blue Ray Releases I'd suggest mentioning (don't know how the formatting is going to work so I didn't add myself):

  • X-Men First Class - Sept 9
  • Thor - Sept 13
  • Trainspotting - Sept 13 (cultish classic with drug sequences that are semi-open to interpretation = 12 year olds on a rampage on wikipedia)
  • Dumbo (70th Anniversary Edition) - Sept 20 (children's films with anthropomorphic animals are prone to a nightmare of specific problems)
  • C.H.U.D. - Sept 27 (and also YAY!)
  • Footloose (Deluxe Edition) - Sept 27 (this film will likely see some spurious editing as the remake gets closer to completion)

The comic book flicks probably have a lot of page watchers already so they may not be a big deal, really. Maybe roll a D20 and pick five or six you've never heard of at random? Millahnna (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Maybe we could mention the existence of Category:Film_articles_using_infobox_succession for any editors who'd like to help clean up the deprecated parameters? Probably should point them to the infobox template's talk page and make it clear that they need to make sequels are in the article somewhere (I've been doing the lead and franchise links where possible). Maybe that cleanup items isn't the best idea but if we have anything beyond the lists of unassessed articles that's a bit of a priority right now we might want to drop a project or two in there.Millahnna (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pointless plot tag?

Anyone feel like taking a look at The Dark Crystal? The plot section is 1300 words so I tagged it, for now. I'm hoping to give it a trim sometime soon but am not in front of the PC I would normally do that sort of thing on. I think it's likely that the film will stretch past the usual 700 words a bit but 1300 seems out of hand to me (/understatement). But someone is removing the tag as "pointless" stating that the plot is a reasonable length in proportion to the rest of the article. I know that this latter concept has been discussed before in regards to articles that might warrant an "allplot" tag (e.g. a film with a 600 word, under guidelines plot but no other sections). But I never thought of it as meaning that it's perfectly ok to have 1000+ word plot summaries in most cases, no matter how long the other sections were in total. In any case, it's going to go into edit war mode soon (you know that gut feeling you get) so I thought I'd ask for more input. I noticed over the last month or two, the same editor has removed the plot tag on this film several times and I just don't know what to make of it. It's not super critical but it makes me hesitant to even bother trying to trim that one up, if you know what I mean. Millahnna (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at it, and there are definitely things that can be cut from that plot to shorten it (starting with the quoted "prophecy", which is not necessary for a reader to understand the film's plot). Tagging the article is the right thing to do, especially if you don't have the time to attempt the trim; it categorizes the article into Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention, so other editors--who may have more time--are aware that the plot section needs attention. I'm sure you know this, though; perhaps the other editor is not aware of the advantages of using maintenance tags.  Chickenmonkey  02:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@chickenmonkey Sounds like you're spotting the same stuff to cut as I am; there is, I think, some "film does this" language that is adding unneeded padding, as well (and is generally a peeve of mine). The other editor says that no one has ever trimmed a plot because of those categories before. And he ain't wrong that it doesn't happen as often as it should. But I use the maint. categories to find projects when I have the time to do so so clearly someone does it. And he's not cutting the tag out of other film articles. I don't really get it but I have been on the outskirts of another snafu involving the same editor and would rather other editors provide input. Frankly, the whole situation is weird and kind of stupid in just the right way to make me annoyed. I'm at my 3 reverts to restore the tag and I won't be able to get to that plot for at least a few days. Millahnna (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Any plot over 1000 words should definitely be tagged, unless there are valid reasons given on the talk page; 700 words is supposed to be the upper limit. I can understand why some editors don't like tags, but they are a necessary evil to highlight various problems with an article; when someone comes along to work on it they can focus their energies on problems that have already been identified. You should direct your nemesis to WP:FILMPLOT if you haven't done so, he may not be familiar with the guidelines. In plot length cases where I haven't see the film I try a search through the edit history in six month steps to see if there is a plot summary of a more suitable length that I can restore. Plots tend to become bloated over time, so there might be a perfectly good plot from a revious version of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Betty I thought I noted filmplot in my edit summary but I see now that I did not. In any case, since I'd rather not run into some bizarro interpretation of 3rr that gets me banned for restoring perfectly valid and obvious maintenance tags (which I've seen more than I'd like), I'll hold off for now. I do the same thing, though, dig through history for shorter plot summaries (and in one freak instance, a longer plot summary). Fortunately, I rewatched this one recently enough that I should be able to trim within the framework of the bloat that's there now. Millahnna (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, Medeis (talk · contribs) has been edit warring by removing the plot tag and adding a back story section to it. I have already begun trimming the plot section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I've decided I just don't care. I'll just store that page in a different todo list than how I usually grab my plot summaries to work on (I use tags I place myself unless I'm brave enough to slog through the backlog to find film articles, since the category doesn't differentiate between tv, film, books, etc.). It's not worth this level of tude over a simple tag (that helps me do stuff better whatever). That was pretty much my decision the last time I ran into this guy. Not frelling worth the effort. The pointless pissery and mucking up how I deal with my wikijunk probably bugs me more than the actual tag removal itself. Whatever. Millahnna (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the plot is trimmed to around 738 words. Would that work? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Shorter than I expected it to turn out. I was going to shoot for around 800. You're nifty. I'm still annoyed though (totally not your fault). It's the silly little things that bug me. Note to self; fix that part of brain. Millahnna (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You do a great job with the plot summaries. (That goes to the rest of you who have also trimmed bloated summaries.) I think there is a difference of opinion about what the plot summary is for. Some readers like lengthy plot summaries because it may be the only thing they read in film articles. However, there are certain things that do not belong on an encyclopedia, one of them being summary-only descriptions of works (per WP:PLOT). Such descriptions need to be concise too. Essentially, a summary description of the work (a primary source) is in service of coverage from secondary sources about that work. It is useful to understand what happens in a film so the reader has context for the rest of the article. Maybe this should be articulated at WP:FILMPLOT? One idea I've had on occasion is to have a Film Wikia where there could be extensive plot descriptions of films. I think it seems to have helped a lot with articles about fictional universes; maybe the same approach could be applied here? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There's already IMDb, where anyone can click "add full plot" and write as long and detailed of a plot description as their heart desires (in fact I think they encourage that). FILMPLOT could point there as an alternative site for plot-happy editors and plot-hungry readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked it up and see what you mean. I didn't realize that IMDb had more than plot outlines for films. I agree that we could point there. The only drawback that I see is that someone who wants to add or edit a full plot has to be a registered IMDb user and that additional authentication of the person's account is required. Otherwise, it could help IMDb and us to focus plot detail there. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the full plot thing is something they added in the last year or 2. We could also point to Wikia, where anyone can create a wiki about anything and fill it with as much content as they want that would never fly on Wikipedia (plot-only descriptions, boatloads of non-free content). I think something like "For those interested in more detailed plot descriptions, Wikia and the Internet Movie Database may be better alternatives, as they do not have the same restrictions on plot length and detail as Wikipedia." --IllaZilla (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
One thing to consider in that language is that it is not that WP's goal is concise plot summaries, but that it is to focus on the importance, reception, development, and other analysis and commentary on the work than to enumerate the primary work as to develop good encyclopedic articles. The primary reason we employ plot conciseness is to aid in making editors focus on adding these secondary-source materials than to spend hours on trying to elaborate on every scene and plot point. And to that end, the 700 word limit is basically to give editors an idea of a metric they need to shoot for. Thus, when writing the advice to suggest Wikia or IMDB, it should be clear this is because WP's job is not to enumerate in depth on fictional concepts when only backed by primary sources, but to provide a high level summary to make the rest of the article's discussion clear. (short answer: I agree with all of the above statements, just to clarify more). --MASEM (t) 15:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should point to Wikias in general when we could take the lead and centralize the effort. It's an off-Wikipedia task, but it would benefit everyone to know where the Movies Wikia or Plot Wikia is located. Plus, if someone trims a lengthy plot summary, they could create a quick wikia page that contains that original plot summary of the film, which would otherwise be considered bloated on Wikipedia. We could see how Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki could help with this? Or we could stick to just pointing to IMDb's full plot pages. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the IMDB plots may be a very good alternative. Do they vet plots, or can anyone stick one up? I'm kind of reluctant to direct a reader to any old crap, but if they're checked through first I think it would be a good solution. Betty Logan (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless they've changed something fairly recently and the articles there haven't caught up yet, I find it unlikely they vet their plots. They are the very definition of "any old crap", though you'll find some good ones in the mix. When you've seen a really bad and/or overly long plot go up here repeatedly, it will quite often match whatever the longest plot is there (or the most recent, or only, etc.). Still, some of the plot bloaters I've seen are pretty good writers who just do things differently than we do here (more interpretation), so directing them there would keep our efforts focused and maybe send some of the good ones IMDB's way (or any other website that has the similar coverage that would match that style of plot summary). A few months back I whacked a 3500 word summary down to size on an old Pinnochio cartoon. Whoever wrote that summary did a great job but went outside of several of our guidelines. Their efforts might be welcomed someplace that has a longer word cap. Millahnna (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with using IMDb is that we cannot just copy over lengthy plot summaries. Whoever wrote the 3,500-word summary would need to write a new one because IMDb is not designed to have a notice about the content being Creative Commons-licensed and to point to the original source (the Wikipedia article). I think (I'm not 100% sure) that if we had a Wikia, we could copy the longer summaries over without changing anything. Having dealt with a super-long synopsis at Inside Job (film), I'm more and more inclined to start a Wikia. While I understand that some readers are gung-ho for long plot summaries, they do not have a place on this encyclopedia. It would be a very long-term goal to start it up and raise awareness about where to go for lots of plot detail, but I think that with numerous editors helping trim plot summaries, it could be one extra step—copying the lengthy summary to the Wikia as they provide their trimmed encyclopedic revision—in their approach. Any takers on that? It does not seem like we have a general Movie Wikia, and I think one could take off pretty easily. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get your news from?

I was thinking it may be useful to members of the project if we shared the sites from where we gather at least some of the information we use in articles. I use quite a few but they're not always updated often and some offer more coverage of certain topics than others and some are just difficult to search for anything older than a few days. I thought combining our resources might help yield better results. I know myself in particular, I only use the same few sites you probably already know but here they are all the same:

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I follow a few RSS feeds: ComingSoon.net, The Hollywood Reporter (film), Variety (film), Heat Vision, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, 24 Frames, and Hero Complex. I check AWN.com occasionally for visual effects articles about recent films. Good question! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I only really search for what I need at a given time, but I've always found Entertainment Weekly quite useful. It goes back a fair bit and is relatively easy to search through compared to a lot of sites. GRAPPLE X 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If we're also talking about older articles (like maybe around last year), university libraries have electronic databases that can be searched. Through my friend's account, I search a very useful database called Access World News, which helped me expand Contagion (film) a little. If you're a college student, it's worth checking to see what your university has. Key databases are Lexis Nexis Academic and EBSCO Host. I think you can access similar databases at public libraries, but I don't have much experience with that. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Lots of good sites there guys. I mostly run into road blocks with older news. Like recently I have worked on Horrible Bosses, A Good Old Fashioned Orgy and I was trying to develop Tower Heist but struggled to find stuff for it. Google really sucks unless you know what you are searching for and sorting by date doesn't help so having access to sites that may have picked up news others didn't or didn't cover much would be useful to someone covering a different film. But already lots of sites posted I haven't thought of checking. Good contributions. EDIT: By older I mean like a year or two where casting tends to come up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried the "Custom range" feature in Google News Search? I like to go by year. For example, for Tower Heist, I checked for 2008 to 2008 (which is 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2008) then 2009 to 2009 then 2010 to 2010. When I saw headlines at last in 2010 to 2010, I changed it to 1/2010 to 6/2010 (which is 1/1/2010 to 6/30/2010) to see if there was anything useful in the first half of the year. The right keywords help too; the ones that go back the furthest are going to be the studio, director, or screenwriter (especially when it comes to picking up rights and starting development). Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I also recommend doing a regular Google search for site:reuters.com with actors' names. Reuters tends to reprint The Hollywood Reporter, the latter which winds up behind a paywall. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah Reuters, I've heard that before. ANother good suggestions. I haven't tried date range but I will give it a go. The problem seems partially to be that it lists sites by age of wehn they were last crawled, so I tended to see stories I saw weeks ago near the top of the list. Sometimes it just seems to be because there is no info though. Like I cannot find an official cast listing for Piranha 3DD or Tower Heist that features character names. Another good site that was given to me by MikeAllen is http://visualhollywood.com which has production notes for a lot of films which have helped me develop behind the scenes info immensely. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Consider taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. Many of the above sources are already listed there. If you find other reliable ones that could be included, feel free to add them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it also depends on what type of film you are trying to find information on. Your first three sources are good for mainstream films (like with big stars). For horror films, sites would be Bloody Disgusting, DredCentral, Shock Til You Drop -- I know the site names make it sound not reliable, but they are. For superhero movies, sites like [www.superherohype.com Super Hero Hype] Comic Book Movie are used. I find that ComingSoon.net is very reliable on release dates and use it on List of Lionsgate films for that purpose (they also post press releases from studios). Like Nehrams said, the Film Resources page has a lot of good sites to use. Though I think we should add some site for different genres. Any disagreements with adding the reliable horror news sites? @Erik, I use Newsbank (which is Access World News) through my college.. though it can be hard to find specific articles (their search engine is about useless). Another way to get news for a specific films, find out where the film is or did shoot at and use that cities newspaper to gather production details. I have found the most success with films shooting in Georgia, like American Reunion, The Three Stooges and Footloose. (Make sure you WebCite online newspaper articles, they tend to not stay online forever) —Mike Allen 02:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the way their search engine works is that they look for how often a word appears in an article. You're best off using surnames or shorthand titles for films. The only problem with this approach is that so-called "blurbs" (e.g., this film coming soon, blah blah) are some of the "best" results since the keywords are a big proportion of the blurb's word count. If I know the timeline of development to filming, I go month by month (looking for best results in each search). Also, some articles will not necessarily mention the director more than once, so in some cases, a film's shorthand title is more useful. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mike and Nehrams. I did check the Project page but didn't notice the Resources link, could do with having more attention being drawn toward it. Agree with Mike that we could add those genre specific sites also. A good chunk of the info for Piranha 3DD has had to come from local news sources in Carolina, official info has been weak. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I made a discussion about this a while ago here, but I guess it went noticed. I added sites to get filming dates from. Here they are:

I think that this database is quite useful for newcomers, and for more experienced editors to publish the best sources they are using. However, the page does not seem to have any link to itself within this WikiProject. Maybe we can put it onto the project's main page and banner?--Lionratz (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the resources page? There is a link but the user had to point it out to me so it could do with being more prominent displayed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC for film franchise versus film series

I am requesting some third party opinions at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Lord_of_the_Rings_SERIES_has_3_movies_-_not_4. The crux of the argument is concerning the listing of the four Lord of the Rings films in this chart List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series. This has come up multiple times on the talk page; the reason the table lists four LOTR films is the same reason it lists seven Batman films, and seven Star Wars films: the Box Office Mojo franchise index (used to source the chart) lists all the films in the franchise and doesn't differentiate between the series.

Several editors want to break up the chart to list film series as opposed to franchises, so I guess we would have three Batman entries, two LOTR entries, two Spiderman entries when the new film comes out, two Halloween series etc. Anyway I would appreciate some further input at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Lord_of_the_Rings_SERIES_has_3_movies_-_not_4, in terms of whether we should drop the chart as it currently stands and replace it with a new one. Whatever we do it has to be consistent i.e. if you list all films in one franchise you have to list all films in every franchise; if you break franchises down by series then you have to break every franchise down by series. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A Trip to the Moon on the frontpage today (on this day)

Nice to see a silent film in the On This Day section. However, I was a bit stunned to see it listed as a Good Article but only containing seven references. I'm not that familar with the GA process, but it seems a little lite to me. Lugnuts (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too light on references. I would support delisting it after today (as I assume we can't post articles for review when they're being presented). It has too long of a way to go for easy fixes. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

William Hope and Submerged recurrent IP vandal

Hey all. If you're one of the small number of people who watches my talk page, you may have noticed I have a "fan". Dude has been hitting up William Hope (actor) and Submerged (and sometimes Hellraiser 2 or any other films Hope has been in, along with a random Olympics athlete) of and on for months. Lately, he swings by my talk page to let me know he has a new IP. I was wondering if any of you would be willing to add William Hope and Submerged to your watchlists just to help keep an eye out for this guy since those are almost always targets (Hope's article and the Hellraiser one are currently protected but this guy has been at it for over a year)? I can usually spot him real quick because of my talk page (and I specifically requested it not be protected for that reason). But I though some extra eyeballs wouldn't hurt. Millahnna (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No sweat; added them to my watchlist. Let us know if there are other articles to add too. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I also recommend reading WP:DENY. It particularly applies to writing edit summaries. So instead of this, just say in the revert that the plot summary should not be lengthened and reference WP:FILMPLOT—no names or identities mentioned. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I used to think this was two people (Said such to Reaper Eternal yesterday) until I started looking up the edits from when I first caught wind of all of this last year. I'm not totally convinced of that anymore. Kyra Gracie a martial artist and her uncle (he has a page blanking on name), often gets hit as well (she and Hope may have dated) but it's not universal. The lead actress from the first Hellraiser film used to get hit a lot last year but I haven't seen it in a while. That's why I always just start with Hope, Hellraiser 2 and Submerged.

If what I thought was two people is actually one, he's the guy who used to be responsible for a series of Deliverance related vandal edits on both that film's article and Ned Beatty's page last year. Haven't seen those edits in a long while. This is completely OCD and ridiculous... but if you go to the list of pages that link to William Hope (there aren't actually all that many, less than 100 I think) and check the editor talk pages listed (and those editors' histories), you'll find the related pages that sometimes get hit. Honestly, I have Hope's entire filmography on on my watchlist. It's not that many pages and most of them aren't edited very heavily most of the time. I seriously don't imagine anyone else would be that weird about the whole mess, though. I've had a raging case of insomnia for the last few days so I'm extra "twitchy" at the moment. And frankly, I'm a little off in exactly this way under the best of circumstances (pattern watching is fun).

Regarding that edit summary, I do stuff like that sometimes when it's a recurring problem editor(s) that I know other editors have seen frequently (like the gunspotting guy if you remember him, check Sin City film history). That way other editors I know watch out for them will see them and know to watch for related problems. I've always been kind of torn on how effective it is though. Think I shouldn't bother? Millahnna (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I definitely know the feeling of trying to figure out if it's the same person! Anyway, this link can be used to watch for changes in articles that link to the actor. As for the edit summaries, it's hard to tell how much a vandal like that gets off on having a reputation, but I'd say play it safe and keep the summaries simple. If you see another editor who could help, you can leave them a message on their talk page directly. That would be more low-key than the edit summaries. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good thanks. Nifty link; that's something I can get to in the toolbox that I've never noticed before isn't it (don't tell me I'll find it)? An offwiki friend who wikis anon sometimes suggested that a more subtle summary might also be "revert [whatever problem] from repeat problem editor". He said that since it's less specific it gives them less acknowledgment. It's similar to the "revert blocked user" summaries I see sometimes so I'm guessing that's where he got the idea. I think I started doing that around the same time I found this guy and the gun guy (found around same time along with another problem child). Beats me; sometimes I don't even understand the spazz in my brain. Thanks for all your help (and thanks to anyone else who added a page or two to look out for the guy. Millahnna (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's the "Related changes" tool but with "Show changes to pages linked to the given page instead" checked off. :) The check box option is easy to miss. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Middle-earth films

I'm requesting input at a dispute over whether Category:Middle-earth films should be categorised as Category:British fantasy films. Related conversation can be found at User talk:Carl Sixsmith, but should probably continue at the category talk page. Thanks. --88.104.46.22 (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IMDB 1000

I just had a play with a database dump from IMDB and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Movies. It lists every film that has received at least 1000 votes at IMDB which should give some level of notability. Most of them are blue links, perhaps some being false positives, but there are a few that are missing. violet/riga [talk] 20:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting list. Most of the red links are foreign films, unsurprisingly. Gary King (talk · scripts) 23:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice work. I'll certainly look at some of those. Lugnuts (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Most of them appear to be just case formatting issues, or where a foreign-language film was missing its original langugae redirect to the English-title. Lugnuts (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That's good then, proving our coverage to be quite good. Do you think that 1000 votes is a good minimum or would those films with say 500 or more votes be potentially notable? violet/riga [talk] 09:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the 1,000 is good threshold. How many more titles would fall between the 500-999 range? Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Just slightly over 6000. A few random examples (I wonder how many will redlink...):
violet/riga [talk] 10:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a good list; at a glance there are quite a few links pointing to disambiguation pages or unrelated articles. Fixing them may reveal some more missing ones.--BelovedFreak 09:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just looking through the 600mb actor list which details every actor and every movie or episode they have been in. I was thinking of going through it and pulling out all the actors who have been in at least n films, perhaps a threshold of 40 to begin with. violet/riga [talk] 10:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now created Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Actors which includes every actor who has appeared in at least 100 films. There are quite a few redlinks but some won't be notable. Brooks Benedict, for example, has appeared in 305 films but looking at the IMDB page most are uncredited so I expect that he's something of a regular extra rather than a notable actor. violet/riga [talk] 11:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm - I hadn't spotted this... IMDB separates "actors" from "actresses" so those lists do not yet include any ladies! I'll get onto that later. violet/riga [talk] 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There's also now Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Directors for people who have directed at least 50 films. violet/riga [talk] 12:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In summary

There are now lists of:

This does not necessarily mean that the people are all worthy of articles but it's a hint at notability. The films should all in theory be notable - if 1000 people vote for it then there is a good chance that it's quite well known. violet/riga [talk] 12:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's some good stuff there. I usually feel inclined to create an actor/director article if they've done 30+ films (subject to other sources, obviously). These are really hand lists and a great starting point for filling in some of the more notable missing films, actors and directors. Lugnuts (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Takes over a month for a Good Article review?

An editor told me that film articles normally take over a month to be reviewed. What is the average time for a film article to be reviewed for Good Article status? I do understand if it is that long because there is currently 263 articles in all waiting to be reviewed. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Took me 2-3 months to get Scream reviewed. Generally it will get done faster if someone has an interest in the topic. It's a pain in the ass process so people don't jump into doing it. I'd love to rate articles but it requires too much time I don't have sadly. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

rfc on Final Destination 5 and spoilers (fair warning this post will contain spoilers)

Could some folks drop by the talk page for Final Destination 5 and comment on an interesting spoiler issue that's come up? There have been a few edits/requests to remove a sentence from the lead as it is a pretty large spoiler for the film's conclusion. I've left the most recent edit for now until we can get some consensusy goodness going. Specifically, the whole film is ultimately revealed to be a prequel to the first movie. The lead is rather short at the moment and the info keeps jumping out at folks, as it were. Normally, yeah WP:SPOILER and all. And I'm inclined just a bit to leave the sentence in, myself. But since, if the statement is kept, it's likely to keep coming up, I thought it best to establish a record of discussion on the talk page. And since it's kind of unusual for just "prequel" to be a major spoiler, I figure there's actually a fair chance that this instance could be an exception. Thanks for anyone who can pop in over there for comment. Millahnna (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll see the talk there as well, but my inclination would be to leave spoilers out of the lead, and confine them to the plot section and any relevant discussion on the plot (for example, the plot for Watchmen is going to end up being discussed in its other sections due to the reception and critique of it), but the lead is going to be the first thing anyone reads and if they're avoiding spoilers by skipping the plot section then it's going to annoy them. I generally summarise the plot in the lead as though it's a teaser, not a full recap. GRAPPLE X 00:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
To me it is simple common sense that spoilers should never be in the lead. No exceptions. I learned quickly not to read the plot section of films I hadn't yet seen. If people realize they have to avoid the lead paragraph as well then WP will lose a lot of readers, and deservedly so. Gothicfilm (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actor ref quality

I'm working on List_of_entertainers_from_Montana, hoping to get it to FL soon. I'm having trouble with lots of those listed, especially the lesser known people, in that they don't seem to have quality refs for every point in the list (year born/died, Montana connection, notability). What sources are considered suitable for a FL/FA? Some of the ones I often come across are filmreference, Rovi/All Movie Guide (which I've seen used by NYT), TV.com, TV Guide, imdb, fandango, classicreels, ovguide, starpulse, etc. What sources could I use and probably not have to worry about them getting beat up at FLC? Thanks PumpkinSky talk 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So much for asking a question and trying to get help at WP:FILM. PumpkinSky talk 01:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Pumpkin. I don't know what sources are best for biographies, but this WikiProject is for films and similar topics. There is a WikiProject for actors and filmmakers. Perhaps you could ask at WT:ACTOR? Erik (talk | contribs) 02:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd expect actors would be related to film. PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem! And I think the change happened some time ago. WP:FILM says, "The project generally considers all articles directly related to film to be within its scope. However, for present organizational reasons (as of October 2007), the project does not include articles about actors, directors and filmmakers; those are in the scope of the Biography WikiProject, most especially the Actors and Filmmakers and Screenwriters projects thereof." Erik (talk | contribs) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In my experience Rovi and TV Guide are all safe to use for biographies. The others... I would not use. —Mike Allen 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)

Please participate here: Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)#Requested move. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is a Featured Article Candidate (yet again)

Hi there. I thought I would just give a quick heads up that The Human Centipede is a featured article candidate. Yes I know it's a horrible horrible film and Tom Six should be sent to a gulag for inflicting it upon the world, but myself and Papa November have put far more time than we should have into trying to get this article to as high a standard as possible and it would be really cool if anyone with a bit of spare time could throw any comments up on the review. The review is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/archive3, think of helping me to get this up to an FA as sort of a charitable act, as you will be allowing me to move on from this thing and do something more productive with my time. :) cya Coolug (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there again, I've done a tonne of work on this article, so it would be nice to get some comments, anyone got any spare time to have a look at the article? Coolug (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. There have been a few comments and some supports which is cool. No opposes so far which is encouraging. At the moment the page also seems to have an average rating of about 4.8 which is ridiculously high but nice for the time being :) Anyway, more comments would really help to make sure this finally gets promoted. It's really great honest! Come and have a look! cya Coolug (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Reception when there aren't many reviews

Hello again (I got some sleep, yay!). So an anon just got in touch with me because he wants some help figuring out how to flesh out the reception section of a film he directed, An American Crime. The section needs a lot of work and I have some places to start but there's one thing I can't figure out; how to call the mixed/negative/positive statement when Metacritic has no info up. My instinct was just not to mention that phrase at all; I've seen this done (and done it myself) on films where there was edit warring over mixed vs. positive. Then the section just jumps straight to RT's percentage usually, if you see what I mean. But in this case RT only has 13 reviews and lists the film as "no consensus yet". So would I note that when reporting Rt's numbers? Note that there aren't many reviews at all (that feels a little close to OR to me)? I was wondering if anyone who's edited older films that don't have a strong presence on RT and Metacritic had some tips, since they probably have dealt with the same thing. Millahnna (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For me, if there isn't a significant sample size from RT then I don't quote them at all. I just use the few reviews they have for the page and leave the percentage out of it because it's not an accurate representation because of the low sample size.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole. With such a low count of reviews, I would omit RT and use them as a starting point for further research into reviews from the top publications, and present them without the RT score, which was based on a very small sample size. In doing so, I would also be careful as to not violate NPOV as well. DrNegative (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I've dropped a few links onto the article's talk page to start (I'm thinking weekend project). One is positive, one is negative, most of the RT reviews are mixed bags leaning on the "rotten" side. I told the director to watch out for COI issues when editing stuff he's connect to. When he first got in touch with me he said he felt mixed was more accurate than either positive or negative so I think he's inclined to edit appropriately on the film's article. Millahnna (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the links I mentioned putting on the talk page... could someone who's done a lot of reception stuff take a look at my list there? The reviews I've listed made specific points about pros and cons of the film but some of them I'm not sure I can use as actual refs for reliable source reasons. If anyone has the time, I'd love it if someone could take a look at my list and strikeout anything I definitely shouldn't use. I put the links I was unsure of under a separate heading to that effect here. I won't be able to do the full rewrite (been reading and taking notes as I go) for "real life is interrupting my nerd" reasons for another day or two so no rush. I'll either be tackling this project on Thursday or Friday, most likely. Millahnna (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with sources from an email

Hi. User:Adtran has done some amazing work with the lists of countries and ceremonies for Best Foreign Language Film. Part of the research has come from the Margaret Herrick Library. From emails from the MHL to Adtran (an now sent to me), they have provided him with a complete list of all the countries & films who've been submitted as an entry, by each year, for the Best Foreign Language Film. This data pre-dates the age of the internet (IE these lists aren't online, well, not to the best of my knowledge/seaching), so my question is: how can I cite an email as a reliable source? Is this even possible? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Are they submissions for the Academy Awards in that category? I was going to say that WP:OTRS could be an option, but reviewing the page, I can't tell if they could actually help in that matter. If they did, you could put together the relevant details for a reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erik - yes they are the lists of submissions for the Academy Awards going right back to the first time the award was introduced. Lugnuts (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, looking through the Helpdesk archives, I've seen this question raised before (about emails as sources, not the Academy Awards...) and it just seems to fail WP:V everytime. Bugger. Lugnuts (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you find out from Adtran if the Margaret Herrick Library has an official document listing them? Maybe you could do an unconventional citation of the document. There has to be a way, I'm sure. The list is scholastic in nature. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that the email itself is not the source, so doesn't fail verifiability. For instance, there would be nothing to prevent the contact at the library to add this content to Wikipedia citing the records at the library, provided the records used are accessible to the general public. I remember reading somewhere that verifiability doesn't preclude sources that are difficult to check, provided they can be checked. So the way I would handle this would be to cite the records themselves i.e. provide enough reference information for someone to be able to go to the library and check the records themselves. Archived material doesn't have to be online, it doesn't have to be mass-published, it just has to be accessible which it seems to be in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Chrome users

We're constructing an expandable table at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Table, but someone with Chrome seems to have a problem with it. I don't have Chrome myself so will the Chrome users on here please check to see if they have a problem with it. It is the "Shrek" and "LOTR" entries that need to be checked Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The yellow box doesn't go all the way along unless there is info in it. Is that the problem? EDIT Looks like this: http://i52.tinypic.com/2uqnjwh.gif Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks like what it is supposed to do. Obviously we don't need the "total" and "average" for the single films entries which is why I greyed it out, but if editors would like the yellow to go across completely that can probably be sorted out, but the gist I got on the talk page was that something wasn't opening up, but obviously that doesn't seem to be the case for you. Thanks for looking anyway, and thanks for posting up the cap. From that it doesn't seem to be an inherent problem with chrome, so it could be down to the user's browser settings. Betty Logan (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think if its grey, then it easier communicates that there's no average and stuff because its only one film. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately we'll be losing the grey in the template version because I can't stipulate the color of variables that don't exist. However, the grey will be replaced by plain white so there will still be a distinction (the default color of something that isn't there). Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Future release date in infobox

I removed a future release date from the infobox. Another editor reverted, and I reverted back (although I'm not going to do it again). Assume for the purpose of this discussion that the date is sourced (although it was sourced as an earlier date once before and then moved further in the future). The article is What's Your Number?.

It seems totally wrong to me to say a film has been released on a date that hasn't yet occurred, but I've noticed in other entertainment articles, that people like this sort of thing, and I'm often in a minority.

So, what do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that future release dates are useful for the readers', so long as the dates are confirmed and verified by reliable sources. This allows readers to know roughly when the film will be released, so that if they are interested, they can go and catch the film. And if the release date changes, it should be due to some major reason and that reason should be detailed in the film's "release" section.--Lionratz (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As someone who frequently edits articles about upcoming films, I support including release dates because Wikipedia is dynamic enough to be updated if the dates do change. It's verifiable and does not go against WP:CRYSTAL. I cannot imagine an article that would be mum on the release date until the film actually comes out. However, in the article body, we do try to write "is scheduled to be released on so-and-so-date" as opposed to "will be released". We verify that it's scheduled for then; just that the infobox does not have room for full context. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
My view is that precisely because we can't explain in the infobox, there should be no release date until it's been released. The article can - and in this case does so in the lead - explain what's going on with the scheduled release. To me, the infobox should be binary. It either has been released or it hasn't, and it shouldn't give a date until it's actually happened. I don't think it's "useful" to readers to give out future dates. These things are often very fluid. What's the rush anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Release dates are source-able and often well defined. While I do agree that a release year or just a future month and year shouldn't be in the infobox as that is more likely a prediction than a scheduled event, a full month-and-day date is, more often than not, unlikely to change. And I think leaving off a release date just because it hasn't happened yet is not serving the project, nor our readers, as well as it could. BOVINEBOY2008 04:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Release dates change all the time; they changed for this very film under discussion, in fact. Including mention of a projected release in context in the article body makes it clear to the reader that this is a scheduled date by the studio for its commercial release. Seeing a date in an infobox, without that context, misleads the reader into thinking it's as set in stone as birth dates and death dates in infoboxes. People take information in an encyclopedia very seriously, and data without context can be misinformation.
Additionally, RE: "This allows readers to know roughly when the film will be released, so that if they are interested, they can go and catch the film." That is absolutely not Wikipedia's purpose. WP:FILM articles are in no way, shape or form designed to be promotional vehicles.
Aside from the above two considerations, many films are released first in film festivals, and some U.S. films, say, are released first in overseas markets — so whether a film will be released first on its announced U.S. commercial release date is WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not WP:CRYSTAL because a scheduled release date is verifiable. Sometimes it is a specific date and sometimes it is just the year. If there is no specified date, and we had done this much better than IMDb for years, we do not mention a date or a year. IMDb used to have a release year no matter what, and we've had to explain to new editors that IMDb approximates the years. Nowadays, IMDb has "????" in place of "2014". Bbb23, I think you have a reasonable point, but remember that WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If a studio announces a release date and multiple reliable sources print that detail, then it is verifiable whether or not the film will truly be released. We go with it until there is a change, and even if it is a change, whatever context in the article body is also affected. So it is not like having an explanation in the body protects it forever. We can afford to be dynamic. If it doesn't change, great. If it does, even new editors are good about updating the date. At the end of the day, release dates past and future (and present on this Friday, I suppose) are part of the infobox as long as they are verifiable. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
We've had this discussion somewhere else before but the release dates changing close to release, even in the year of release, is very rare and generally only done under exceptional reasons since it requires messing with any awareness generated by the film marketing. The only thing I can think of in recent times to have a changed release date is Piranha 3DD which changed from September to November, but it changed that at the start of the year, so at least 6 months of validity to the current date. It would be wrong, for instance, to give any real credence to the release date given to The Amazing SPider-MAn 2, since the new movie isn't out, it could bomb hard, the sequel could never come and the date for the sequel is two years in the future. At the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I added a (Proposed) to the date for Iron Man 3, since it is the date given but it could change. EDIT Though it looks like someone has taken it upon themselves to remove that since.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As long as it is sourced, there's no problem. When would you include it otherwise? 6 months before release? 6 weeks? 1 day? 1 minute to midnight? 30 seconds before the cinema opens? It's no real difference to the 10s of thousands of film articles with release dates in the past. How do you know x film was released on the 2nd September 1931? Or the 1st July 1952? Lugnuts (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that's not really the best argument though, Lugnuts. The past and the future have different standards of verifiability, different means, different reliability. In this case, we are looking at a future date, so we have to put it under that light. Most movies have their release date changed at some point in the process of coming through production into distribution. So there is a greater degree of uncertainty along with the chance that we are turning into a promotional site, which we should bend over backward to avoid. It might be worth considering to wait until a movie is at least completely shot before we anticipate its release date here. Or is that more or less what we do? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
My experience is that if a release date is verifiable, it will be included in the article body (usually the lead section, and I usually have to start "Release" sections with that information as a starting point for such a section) and in the infobox. If the release date is verified to have changed, then the article is changed to reflect that. Sometimes the older date is retained as part of the film's so-called release history. If the information is out there, it will be added. People don't really make up specific dates. If someone adds a release date without a reference, it's an easy Google search to find a source that reports the film's release date, may it be the first one or a changed one. I don't think putting a barrier between the parameter and that effort helps anyone. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What about adding scheduled_release_date to {{Infobox film}}? This would make a clear distinction between actually released film and scheduled releases, thus solving many of the issues mentioned here. jonkerz♠ 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢: It would seem that this is only a problem because the field displays as "released" (past tense), which I think it because "release date" would cause it to wrap to 2 lines. This makes sense, as the vast majority of our articles are about films whose release dates are in the past, and those with future dates will eventually be released and then the date will be in the past. Articles about future films are in a constant state of development anyway, and can't reasonably be expected to be complete until well after the film's release, so I don't see the point in getting upset about a single item of tense that the simple passage of time will render moot anyway. I really don't thing we need a scheduled_release_date, because any sensible person reading the infobox will realize that the date is in the future and thus the film is not "out" yet. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
To both Jonkerz and Illa. The field doesn't display in the past tense. It displays as: "Release date(s)". I think Jonkerz's idea is a good one. We fill in the scheduled release date field (assuming it's reliably sourced) until after the release date and then fill in the release date field. Other than a bit of coding to the template, why should there be any argument against that suggestion? It takes care of some of the editors' "useful to the reader argument" but doesn't mislead literal people (like me). :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of a future release date in the info box, if the date has any reliable sources and is notable enough to be included in articles itself. However, if there is a world premiere, we should add a source for that too. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, seeing as I was incorrect and it actually displays as "Release date(s)" (I was probably confusing this with the similar field in the album infobox; I work on a lot of album articles), then I don't see what the problem is. As long as prospective release date is reliably sourced in the article, there should be no problem with that date going in the "Release date(s)" parameter of the infobox. I don't see why a separate field for "Scheduled release date" is necessary; If the date is in the future then common sense says that it's a scheduled date. If the prospective date changes, just make the correction...this happens all the time with upcoming works. I don't see why we need a separate field just to indicate that something is tentative. Anything scheduled in the future is tentative. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I think the wording emphasizes to the readers that it's scheduled, not set in concrete. I don't see why that should be objectionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should put this to editors: if you are viewing a website about a film, will you expect it to show that film's release date? If Wikipedia is to be a reliable source of information for films, the release date of the film is a basic information that cannot be excluded because readers would want to know it. And anyway, readers of the page will understand if you say the film's release date is September 9, 2011. The readers will know that the date refers to the Friday next week, not the one that has past or the one one month later. Even if the editor is really worried, put this into the lead section "(the film title) will be released in (name of country/countries) on (date of release). There really should not be any confusion after that, right? Then after the release date changes, just change this sentence. As for changes of date, that should not pose a problem, right?--Lionratz (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you just repeating your position?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but adding more viewpoints. --Lionratz (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, a magazine or a newspaper each a reliable source of information, too. An encyclopedia is a source of information that is supposed to be take-it-to-tbe-bank, concrete gospel, at least optimally. News sources are often called "the first draft of history" because new facts come out that add to, change the context of, of change nuances in the narrative. There are different kinds of reliable sources of information. Encyclopedia and news sources are different animals.
That said, I think User:Jonkerz's idea of "Scheduled release" or "Scheduled release date" addresses the concerns of both viewpoints here. It add context — it signals to the reader that this is not as set-in-stone as "Release date" implies, and which, for the thousands of movies that have been released, are set in stone.
What do we all think of User:Jonkerz's suggestion? Is it a middle ground on which we all can walk? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that maybe a 'scheduled release' part of the infobox could be effective in addressing these concerns. I wanted to come into this discussion however to stress that I think it is vital that future release dates are included in articles. I think wikipedia editors need to remember (and I'm not suggesting that any of you guys don't realise this) that 99% of people reading articles aren't going to be active editors who care about wikipedias crystal ball policy or whether something is a bit too promotional, but simply readers who came here to find something out. In this case it's going to be to find out when a film is going to be released. Of course those of us who do work on the articles need to pay attention to these policies because they're here to make sure we're developing the project to a high standard, but by following every rule to the letter in this sort of way I think we risk driving our audience away. As Eric said earlier, if a scheduled date changes then it's not really a problem, we can just amend the article. cya Coolug (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Another parameter for the infobox will not benefit readers nor editors. Readers can already surmise that a release date is in the future, and a "scheduled" parameter makes no distinction between a film that will come out next week and a film that is aimed for release in late 2012. For it to work, a better threshold (like the onset of the promotional cycle) needs to be defined. This just leads to more red tape for editors when all that matters is that a release date is verifiable. I can't see the point of complicating matters of what is a non-issue. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like the current field name is ambiguous. And we don't want to proliferate fields. I think the issue is reliability: speculative release dates are unreliable by definition so we should avoid them. This is probably a matter for individual editors to address on their own. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of film festival sections

I recently removed a section on film festivals from Transcendent Man.[3] Is this best practice, or should they be mentioned in the article? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Festivals are important for independent films. We should probably have guidelines for that section and make it standard. What is the reason to exclude it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Ring Cinema. Information about festivals should not be removed. —Mike Allen 02:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Restored. There's little to no secondary source coverage here, if that matters. Project guidelines on sections devoted to film festivals would be helpful. This hardly seems notable, but I can envision an argument for inclusion, however weak. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Info about premieres and major festival screenings is definitely relevant, but there is no need for a separate section. Merge it with the normal release section and remove anything that is minor. Smetanahue (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The festival releases can be important -- easily as significant as "Controversies" for example. I can see that in some cases a separate section would be justified. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you give some examples from the encyclopedia? Which B-Class film articles and above use film festival sections, or show their importance? Controversies are, for the most part, created by the media to attract an audience, so that's not the best example. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot notice?

I came across {{Plot notice}} and I'm puzzled as to why such a tag is needed. It seems entirely unhelpful, there's really no useful information it provides and its purpose is unclear. Can someone explain? Swarm u | t 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot summaries receive more activity to any other part of a film article. This notice was created to add on articles of just-released films in hopes to move activity to other, more important parts of the article. But of course like any other notice, it was ignored and is pretty much useless. —Mike Allen 04:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

RoboCop category move discussion.

Anyone want to add anything here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Added my two cents, which were remarkably similar to your two cents :) Coolug (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Third Man redirect

So, if you search "third man" it redirects here. I suggest a better place for this redirect might be here... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps a disambiguation page? —Mike Allen 04:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
How common of a cricket term is it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's only mentioned once in the fielding article under a smaller section, and most of the guys over at WikiProject Cricket agree that it should redirect to the film, so I think it's okay. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the redirect should probably be deleted and maybe Third Man (disambiguation) should be moved to Third Man. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think redirecting to the Third Man film page is better (you can then follow the link to the disambiguation page), but I guess I'm okay with redirecting straight to the disambiguation page. Also, as I mentioned before, this is also being discussed here, and they've basically reached the same conclusion. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that Third Man should redirect to the film article since it is titlecase. Not sure where third man could redirect. Maybe that could become the disambiguation page instead? For example, we have Panic Room vs. panic room, Pulp Fiction vs. pulp fiction, Source Code vs. source code, etc. We should take the casing into consideration, especially when it seems that the film is the primary topic for the titlecase at least. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I didn't know that case would affect the search... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lifted (upcoming film)

The article Lifted (upcoming film) was not given a title designed to stand the test of time! The film is no longer upcoming -- it is out on DVD. Can someone who knows how get the name of the article changed to Lifted (2011 film)? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved it for you! If you look at the upper right corner of Wikipedia, to the left of the search box, there is a downward arrow. If you hover your pointer over it, there will be a small drop-down menu that has the word "Move". You can choose that and on the new web page type in the new article title you want to move to. Keep that in mind! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dog Days.. ugh

Can I get some extra voices here. An editor is claiming that IMDB is a reliable source for cast list of unreleased films. The article has been bombarded with IPs/New users for weeks now with adding any type of unverified claim you can think of. I've source it with the New York Times (All Media Guide) and AllRovi, but this user insists that I'm an idiot for not using IMDb. —Mike Allen 22:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

Everyone, there are several film articles that are featured article candidates right now. They are listed below in the order they were posted, from oldest to newest.

Please review these articles and comment on the FAC pages! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As the nominator of the human centipede can I say thanks for sticking this request up. I myself have made comments on the chain saw massacre and the kings speech and will try and have a proper look at dr no as soon as I get a chance. cya Coolug (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Any editors fancy getting in on this and giving the human centipede a quick look? Yes it is a terrible film about something awful, but it's a pretty good article and I really don't want to have to put this through to FAC yet again - yes I am going to keep banging this one up until it's promoted :)
At the moment it has two supports, but I fear without any more it'll just stall and the nomination will end up getting archived without being promoted. And any constructive criticism from some fresh eyes would also be very much appreciated. cya Coolug (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
anybody out there fancy a look at this? Coolug (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to be coming here yet again begging for help, but this FAC seems to be sitting there attracting no interest whatsoever beyond the kind support of an incredibly helpful editor and my real life friend who knows how much of an effort I've put into this damn article. I know the human centipede is an absolutely awful idea of a film and is terrible, but I've worked really hard to write a top class, well sourced and comprehensive article and it's quite demoralising to have such little interest from the rest of the community. Whether it's a good thing or not, the human centipede is a high traffic article on wikipedia and I would love for it to be a demonstration of how good wikipedia can be for it's readers. But without any comments or support it's not going to get there. I try and give comments or support where it's due on other articles when I feel qualified to do so, and I'd have thought someone at wikiproject film would be interested in this. Even, as I said earlier, if the film is absolutely awful. Anyway, as I keep asking, is anyone interested in having a look at this? Coolug (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind

There is a request at Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) to move Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) to Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, which is currently a disambiguation page. One of the WP:RM admins relisted the discussion, so additional input is welcome to bring a conclusion to the discussion. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't this just have a move discussion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not see another recent discussion; this one was relisted, which means that the admin thinks there needs to be further discussion and input before determining a consensus. Right now, there are two editors going back and forth, and I think their stances are clear. So there needs to be input from editors new to the discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
He's referring to the note above, #Requested move of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
That would be it, knew I'd seen this name before. Disregard my comment then, appears it is the same discussion Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about country templates

I notice that we have templates for countries that have ceased to exist like {{Film USSR}} and {{Film Yugoslavia}} but we don't seem to have ones for East and West Germany. Now it is possible that I am missing them. Also, while they are probably easy to make, I have not made them before so I thought that I would ask those of you who are versed in these to create them so that I don't mess them up. Of course, if there is an objection to creating them that needs to be determined also. Thanks in advance for you time and input into this. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like {{Cinema of Germany}} has the East/West groupings, plus Weimar and Nazi groupings. Do you think it needs to be broken down further? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. There might be some pros/cons for breaking it down further but I'm not really looking to complicate things. I realize that I wasn't thorough in my first post. I wasn't thinking about the "Cinema of" navbox templates. I was wondering about the fact that when the template {{Film USSR}} is added to the country field in the infobox it automatically adds "Soviet Films" to the categories at the bottom of the article. There is a difference between films made in countries behind the Iron Curtain and those that come after its fall. Thus, is there any desire to have "West German Film"/"East German Films" as categories that are automatically added when these templates {{Film West Germany}} and {{Films East Germany}} would be used in the country field? As I said, if this makes things too complicated lets not worry about it. I was just curious what other editors might think. MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good approach to categorize these kinds of films! We can copy the code from Template:Film Germany and just insert "West" or "East" wherever applicable and create the templates and use them. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Film articles

Just put some tags on this talk page and noticed it is now in the above category. I can't see what has triggered this - any help? Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow what exactly is the problem? The categories in the bottom appeared because you added the taskforce templates? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it because you've added the template class parameter, and the page is not in the template space? --BelovedFreak 13:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
D'oh - that's the one! Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Another way of determining a film's country?

I am wondering if we can determine if a film is Canadian when the Directors Guild of Canada is listed in the film's credits, such as with Saw III (very bottom)? —Mike Allen 08:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought, in the case of Saw, that it would be about who owns the franchise, which I think is Lionsgate. And Lionsgate is American/Canadian isn't it? But more Canadian than American. EDIT Nevermind, apparently LG just distribute.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
What does it matter who owns the franchise or if the guild stamp is on it? I don't see a clear reason to privilege these aspects over the important aspects of filmmaking. Please explain. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I said "I was wondering" not that we could. However the end credits do say "This motion picture is protected under the laws of Canada, the United States and other countries." and that it was "Produced with the assistance of Ontario Production Services Tax Credit" and the fact that the British Film Institute calls it a "USA/Canada" production. I see that as a clear reason. I think we should go on a case-by-case basic on determining a film's "country", since there's obviously no universal decision. Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a clear reason? That kind of boilerplate legal language is just about irrelevant. As AO Scott lays it out, there are some things to keep in mind: the nationality of the director, the home country of the production company, the nationality of the cast and crew, the language, the locations of the shooting, the locations of the events of the film. But it's not for us to decide anyway. If reliable sources cover a film's "country" then we have it. Otherwise, we don't. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well we have it for this article, thanks again. —Mike Allen 08:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Rose Dawson Calvert

We have an article on Rose Dawson Calvert, a character from Titanic. I'm thinking of taking it to WP:AFD because I can't see that there is any notability independent of the film. The article's in pretty bad shape but of course that's not necessarily relevant at AFD, only the notability and verifiability of the topic. I'm not really experienced with fictional character articles so I just wanted to ask here in case anyone thinks this can be saved. --BelovedFreak 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said it was worth keeping, there are no references and a quick google didn't return anything of particular note. Anything that could be said about the character could probably be covered on the film page. It doesn't seem like a viable or high traffic search term either. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not find much coverage explicitly about the character either. However, if Titanic (1997 film) was expanded to include critical analysis, then I could see a case for a kind of sub-article that focuses more on the character instead of a specific theme. It would have somewhat redundant content, just tooled to have a different focus. But right now, I'd be fine with a redirect. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing "Fooian" films statements

Something of a corollary to a few of the above threads:

Do we have an idea of which sources or which type of sources fit Wikipedia standards as reliable for supporting "This is a Fooian film"?

Right now we've had the following mentioned:

  • IMDb [4] - Which to my understanding is generally not considered reliable as it is based on user provided content. Is it acceptable for this piece of information?
  • Allmovie [5] - Which currently appears to be a Netflix like site under Rovi.
  • New York Times [6]
  • British Film Institute [7]

So... Are these generally acceptable? And are there other sources to add to this?

- J Greb (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Realistically, all the links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources should be reliable, it even mentions IMDb at the bottom as questionable.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Even though the method IMDB uses is transparent, it is a contentious source so using it probably isn't the best way of settling a contentious dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Some I often use: Screenbase (registration needed but it's free), Cineuropa, Cinémathèque française, Danish Film Institute, Swedish Film Institute, Berlin Film Festival, Cannes Film Festival Smetanahue (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How to determine the year

In case of a film like Death Defying Acts, which took part in the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival, but was not commercially released till 2008 (see IMDb releaseinfo), should we call it a 2007 or 2008 film? Debresser (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

2007, as per Template:Infobox_film#Release_dates - "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release" Lugnuts (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I would've said the widest, earliest release year. Festivals and such are limited and if not for Wikipedia itself, most people wouldn't even know such an event took place, nevermind why it says Film Title (2010 film) when it was shown on posters as "In theaters July 9, 2011". Festivals are like test-screenings as far as I'm aware and a means to find distributors but not really a release date, just a date on which it was shown to people not involved in its production. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
That is certainly not always true. Many films get most of their publicity from festival screenings, even if they eventually do get nationwide distribution somewhere. If you follow a major festival it's usually only the biggest hits you ever hear of again. Smetanahue (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
But then you have films like A Good Old Fashioned Orgy, where it was completed sometime in about 2008. I don't know if it was shown at any festivals or not but if it was, would we class it as a 2008 film even though it only came out, limited, this year? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Other fun examples: The Fall (2006 film) (earliest festival 2006, public release 2008) and The Hurt Locker (Venice and public Italian release 2008, public US release 2009). Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
In the Hurt Locker's case, wouldn't it have to be classed as a 2009 film to have qualified for the oscars? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Only under Academy rules, which means it has play in one public theater in the US in 2009 to qualify. Some nominated films game the system and are only released in the weeks leading up to the ceremony when their exposure is at a maximum. Sometimes, a foreign film can be released a year or two earlier in its own country, but qualifies much later through its US release. This is why films are sometimes separated by a year at the Oscars and BAFTAs. Betty Logan (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If it really did play somewhere in 2008, sure, though it doesn't say so in the article. Another example is Killer of Sheep which played at festivals in 1981, and got a lot of publicity for that, but didn't get distribution until 2007. I surely wouldn't categorize it as a 2007 film - most that has been written about it is probably from the 80s. Though we're talking about categories now, in the lead I think it should be explained in prose if the release is complicated. Something like "The film premiered at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival and was released in Australia on xxx 2008". Smetanahue (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be one like the country discussion above. ie It keep popping up every couple of years. The one verifiable criteria is the copyright date used in the films credits. Everything else - festivals, specific country release, general release, when it qualified for an award - is subjective and always leaves the potential for endless arguing and edit warring. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but there is also the practical aspect of having the film in a category. The country dispute is essentially about what we mean by film country. For film year I though there was a pretty broad consensus that we mean year of release. Smetanahue (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So I see three opinions: 1. year of copyright 2. year of earliest release including festivals 3. year of theatrical release. Lugnuts has brought from Template:Infobox_film#Release_dates - "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release" proof for the latter. All agree that that instruction reflects Wikipedia's present consensus? Debresser (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably best to use the year that is most commonly cited in the coverage. For instance, The Hurt Locker is categorized as a 2008 film on IMDB, Allmovie and the NYTimes database. Why we would deviate from that is beyond me. The only time this might be a problem is with foreign films, since American sources might use the American release date rather than that of the home country. Betty Logan (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What about having the decade in the lead sentence? E.g., "The Hurt Locker is a 2000s film..." Obviously, specific years are clarified later in the lead section, and we can show the festival and public releases in the infobox. Categories would be tough, being so restrictive. Is using the decade too clumsy or not? I just wonder if it's more useful as a film gets older and older. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Highest grossing horror franchises

I'm revamping the Saw franchise page and am using other horror franchises' pages as a guide but am noticing that on all the top grossing horror film series pages they have, "When comparing A Nightmare on Elm Street with the other top-grossing horror franchises—Child's Play, Friday the 13th, Halloween, the Hannibal Lecter series, Psycho, Saw, Scream, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre—and adjusting for the 2010 inflation,[8] A Nightmare on Elm Street is the second highest grossing horror franchise, in the United States, at approximately $583.4 million.[9]"

It's written like this for the others too. Why do we have to go another site (that requires Java, ugh) and put in numbers for the 2010 inflation dollars. If we go by the source that is cited, Box Office Mojo, the Saw franchise is the highest grossing with Friday being second.[10][11] Is there a reliable website that we can cite that has the adjusted figures? This just seems very complicated and sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS. —Mike Allen 04:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo does not adjust for inflation, they go by basic figures. Because of that, it's not accurate to say that Saw is the higher grossing franchise, because it doesn't take into consideration what the dollar was worth 30 years ago. SYNTHESIS is when you take 2 sources and create a new opinion that isn't actually supported by either source. That isn't the case here, because simple mathematics is not considered original research if anyone can do it. Anyone can go to an inflation adjustment website, put in figures and then add them up. You'll get the same result no matter who is doing it, and that's why it is not considered original research. If you find a website that will accurately measure for adjusted dollars, then use it. Otherwise, you just have to do the math yourself. Speaking of, those figures probably need to be adjusted again to the 2011 inflation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
What year would I put in for the starting year (since all the films are not released in one year)? Or do I have to calculate each film's gross separately and then add up the totals? —Mike Allen 05:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You have to do each film individually and put the starting year for that film. I typically do it that way and get my computer's calculator to tally up each film as I'm going through. You could also just grab any of those paragraphs you were just looking at, as I just updated all of them with the 2011 figures. I'm pretty confident in my number crunching, so you could save yourself the time and just rearrange the order to reflect a focus on Saw. Additionally, there is nothing that says you cannot also add a statement in there discussing how, in unadjusted dollars, Saw is the top grossing franchise. Just so long as you use accurate words (i.e. adjusted, unadjusted), it's fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Attack the Block issue

Can anyone with more knowledge weigh in on this? A user is saying that it's country is Uk AND France because one of the four companies financing it is French. I've tried to explain that, that in no way means it is a French film or that it's country of origin is French anymore than we'd call Die Hard a German film if Uwe Boll financed it. The user User:Nbdelboy is not having it though and keeps reverting it. Maybe I am wrong but I can't see how it could be called a French film at all. Template Infobox seems to imply that the country is the one identified in the lead. Though if that is the case someone may want to take a look at On Stranger Tides as that lists UK and US.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Best way to solve this is probably to write a proper production section. It's not unusual for European films to be funded almost entirely by a major studio in another country, and if so that should be reflected. In this case Screenbase only says Nationality: UK though. Smetanahue (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I thought the current determining factor was the production company/companies not the financiers. Category:Films by country though muddies it since it's definition is "Films by country of production, shooting location or setting." And there seems to be nada in the MoS.
- J Greb (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know enough about the film to write a production section, I just saw the film the other day and become involved in the article to rewrite the plot section. Following the StudioCanal link (the French company) they seem to own the UK distribution arm involved in the film. Again the infobox is lacking enough clarity to make these issues easily fixed. IMPO, the director/writer is British, the cast is British, the film is set in Britain, it's quite clearly a British film that has received partial funding from a French company that operates in the movie industry in the UK. I'm fairly sure I've seen Studio Canal show up in a few British films. But that hasn't made them French. Alternatively, Saw is Australian, written by an Australian and a Malaysian, directed by a Malaysian, but it was made in America, with an American cast, american financing exclusively, a plot that takes place in America and it is classed as an American film. Leon on the other hand is very much a French film that takes place in America. I find it hard to argue that Attack the Block is not a British film and I think it sets a confusing precedent if we decide a film's country by the location of their studio HQ.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I added a ref to the production section that hopefully will clear some things out. It appears as the confusion mainly is a result of a financier changing their company name while the film was in production. It's actually an all-UK production. Smetanahue (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
To be honest, pigeon holing films by country can be on the arbitrary side. I do think the production company is the easiest way to do it, but that's me. Relying on the country of origin of the cast, writer(s), and/or director(s) seems problematic since these are not necessarily homogenous groups. Set locations are similar and in-film locations are worse. And "intended 'home' audience" is laughable.
Maybe the long and short of it is finding a consensus of what is used to determine this. Which reliable source(s) to turn to first and which indicators to look at if the source(s) doesn't cover the film in question.
- J Greb (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you. There was a big fight about this though at, I think, template:infobox film some time ago, so I'm glad this one was easily solved. Smetanahue (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the guy just undid your edit Smetanahue, like I said he doesn't get it. Now apparently Hot Fuzz is a French film as well. The guidelines aren't super clear but they do say that the country section is for the country identified in the lead and with Attac and Fuzz, they're cited as British films and any source Iv'e been able to find has said they are UK/English/British films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Understandably though. It turned out to be really intricate with name changes and sneaky subsidiaries with different names. Anyway it proves that research is the best dispute resolver. Smetanahue (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Lol, doesn't seem to have solved his dispute. I can't really get involved anymore at the moment or I'd violate 3RR which he has done....twice now I think. Note: I'm not disputing StudioCanal is a french company, but the guidelines provided for the infobox (which I have linked him to) say it should be how it is identified in the lead, and I can't see any justification for calling it a French film because that is not likely to be where the money came from, it came from a UK branch of a French company. Might as well call it a German film because our banks do lots of business there and our money has at one point passed through Germany.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually Darkwarriorblake, you weren't in danger of 3RR as Smetanahue is.
ATM Nbdelboy has been warned on a number of points including 3RR and the article is locked for 2 days to allow the talk page to be used. And if this repeats when the protection ends and they still ignore the talk page, the article gets punted back to the 8th and locked at that point.
- J Greb (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I might start a topic on the infobox and link it to this discussion so we can get a more binding consensus that can be added to the guidelines. Three people's opinions aren't great for working things out as none of us know what to actually base the national identity of the film upon, there are too many aspects to consider. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The single best index of a film's country is the nationality of the director. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

But then that would mean TDK is a British film.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
And Hellboy is Mexican... - J Greb (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The single best index is not the final word, although I have no problem with either of those designations because films don't have a nationality, people do. This is a little like discussing the color of infinity: just because the words make a sentence doesn't mean you're talking about something. Check AO Scott on 1/31/2011 discussing the Academy's designations: "[W]hat determines the nationality of a film in any case? Why is Rachid Bouchareb’s “Outside the Law” an Algerian rather than a French film, given that its director is a French citizen and that it was made with mostly French financing and therefore within that country’s extensive legal statutes governing cinematic production? And what makes “Biutiful,” shot in Barcelona with a Spanish cast, a Mexican film?" I understand him to say that the director's nationality is the prima facie case, with the source of the funding, the locations, the nationalities of the cast, all getting some weight. I don't think we could do better and he is a reliable source. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema, it's standard that films made by directors who work outside their main country not to be films based on their country. For example, Chinese-born director John Woo made Hard Target, but it's an American film with strict American production backgrounds. Hell, he's born in China but his films are referred to Hong Kong films. It should be based on the production countries, which is easy to cite. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
We are going to have a set of films that will not have a particular national identity, and it will grow with all the different kinds of international collaboration. For these films, I prefer to go by the language and try to explain different countries' involvement in the proper context. The problem is, the "Country" field in the infobox and the categories are too simple to explain the distinctions. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
This debate is an old favorite on the Film project. The outcome of the last attempt to resolve this was to treat it as a sourcable claim just like any other claim, since there are so many different ways to define a film's nationality i.e. production companies, funding, the copyright country, the director's nationality etc—it all depends on the context. When you think about it, an editor deriving such a claim from a company's or director's nationality is original research anyway, because you are drawing a conclusion that doesn't directly follow, so the recommendation at the Infobox guidelines for non clear-cut cases was to find a source explicitly proclaiming a film's nationality. I think the obvious solution here is to ask the editor to provide a reference to back up claims that the actual film itself (as opposed to its financiers) is considered a French film in published sources. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Betty. I forgot that this is where we always end up. Reliable sources, of course! Everyone's point is very well taken as relevant aspects of the issue. The country field would be a good one to expel for incorrigibility so that readers can draw their own conclusions about the source, target, culture, money, sensibility, conventions, cast or language of each film. It's not captured in a country designation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If this is old ground then it is likely that:
  • It needs inclusion some where that an a assertion of a film being Fooian needs a reference or tagged with {{cn}}. Will this fit within the MoS?
  • The ref gets stuck in the lead. This is where the assertions are normally first made and then later expanded on in the body of the article.
  • The ref get repeated in the infobox and the 'boxes are held to the current doc instruction for nationality.
  • The requirements get spelled out in the "Films by nation" categories.
- J Greb (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion took place last time at the Infobox discussion page, and is covered in a bit more depth in the film infobox guidelines. We probably should cover this subject in the MOS though. I mean, as you can see here we don't all agree on what constitute's a film's nationality so no wonder these disputes pop up. Basically if you have sources that claim it is a British film, and some that claim it it is a French film, then if you look upon the nationality as a cultural statement—and what else is it really, since films don't carry passports—rather than an irrefutable fact then DUEWEIGHT compels us to cover both viewpoints. The infobox guideline does actually have a catch-all clause: If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in. This was an attempt to recognize that while some films are clearly regarded as belonging to a country (who would contest that Casablanca is American for instance?) there are many others that are multi-national efforts that have no clear link to a country, and that the field is best not used in such instances, and the roles the different countries play are best covered by the prose. Maybe this film is one of those instances. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at your argument - and it is a good one - I'm tempted to say we chuck the entire premise of "Films by country" categorization and identification. If it boils down to editor preference or not trusting sources we'd be better off with just "Film shot in..." and "Films set in..." And I don't see that having a lot of support.
Without that, clarity in the MoS is a must. I'm comfortable with the idea of having a ref in the lead and I'm very comfortable given this broad topic for the guideline to state "Adding a nationality (ie British film, American comedy, Japanese fantasy) in the lead must be supported with a reference from a reliable source also in the lead. Lacking this the, the nationality should be removed. If multiple reliable sources provide differing nationalities that would be convoluted or lengthy to cover, this information does not belong within the lead but in the body of the article."
- J Greb (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Betty, can you give an example of an encyclopedia, database or similar that identifies nationality based on anything other than production country? Smetanahue (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much all the ones we generally use on here! Take Dr Zhivago for instance, which is to all intents and purposes your standard overblown MGM production. The IMDB identifies it as US/Italian [12] (the Italian bit presumably due to the fact it was produced by Carlo Ponti), which fits in with your view. Allmovie seems to regard it as US/UK production [13], presumably taking account of David Lean's participation; there certainly aren't any British production companies credited. On that note, the NYTimes film database goes one step further and categorizes completely it as a British film: [14]. However, the British Film Institute doesn't concur with that view, instead crediting it as US/Italian/Liechtenstein production: [15]. It's easy to see where the US and Italy come fom, but I haven't the foggiest idea why they think it's partly a Liechtenstein production, it wasn't even filmed there! There is similar inconsistency about 2001:A Space Odyssey, a film made by American Stanley Kubrick (albeit, a story conceived by and scripted by a Brit) and produced by MGM but filmed in Britain. IMDB and Allmovie consider it a UK/US production, while the NYTimes and the BFI consider it a solely British film, despite the fact that it was produced by an American studio. There is a pretty high level of inconsistency there, and with the exception of IMDB (which is probably closest to your view in this matter) they are all reliable sources dedicated to film coverage. If all the sources we generally use agree then there obviously isn't a problem, but when you have this level of inconsistency I don't think it's right to go ahead and just pick the source that backs up our own personal view. WP:DUE WEIGHT would compel us to include all the countries listed by these sources, which wouldn't be so bad in the case of something like 2001, but we would end up with four countries for DrZhivago, which I don't think is particularly helpful. Betty Logan (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Betty - Where does BFI say 2001 is a British film? I've searched BFI's site and they don't list it anywhere in their database. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm unclear on why you bring up IMDB and Allmovie having relevance to nationality when the infobox instructions for "Country" read: Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The BFI country can be found here: [16]. In regards to Allmovie, the inference isn't that it's an unreliable source, since it does meet the criteria for being a reliable source. These are only infobox guidelines, and the basic thrust of the discussion that set those guidelines was that we don't really want editors going to a site like IMDB or Allmovie, or BFI or NYTimes for that matter and just copying the countries into the infobox, which I think is a common practice. The requirements of the infobox are different to prose, because you can't provide a context, so everything should be clear and intuitive. Basically if it's not clear cut from either the prose or the source, then it shouldn't go in the infobox, and it should be left to the prose to explain the various national interests. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Your spelling mistake forever preserved in Wiki history. We could do with figuring out some way to do it, I never thought it was this much of an issue TBH, I don't know who produced Ghostbusters but I would never have said it was anything other than an American film, Fast Five was released in Australia first and filmed mostly in South America but I wouldn't have said it was anything other than an American film. Now someone has changed one of the LOTR films to New Zealand from US. I honestly don't know enough about those films to say but I would've thought they were american films filmed in New Zealand. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
In this particular case, all the sources (Allmovie/NYTImes/IMDB/Screendaily) agree that "Attack the Block" is a UK film, not a single source I can find proclaims it to be a French co-production. In that sense, there is no contention among the sources that it is anything other than a UK film, so it looks clear-cut to me; I don't actually see a basis for a dispute over this particular film. I think you should remove France from the lead and infobox, and add some sources for the UK since the claim is being challenged. If the other editor changes it again, revert him and request that he provide sources that recognize it as a French film. If he then removes those, take it to ANI, because replacing sourced content with your own judgments isn't really acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Request was made for a source that indexed film nationality on anything other than production company and there is one above that I will repeat here. A O Scott in the New York Times: "[W]hat determines the nationality of a film in any case? Why is Rachid Bouchareb’s “Outside the Law” an Algerian rather than a French film, given that its director is a French citizen and that it was made with mostly French financing and therefore within that country’s extensive legal statutes governing cinematic production? And what makes “Biutiful,” shot in Barcelona with a Spanish cast, a Mexican film?" --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Well what was the answer because I can't see them just randomly attributing a film as Mexican if Mexico had no involvement at all. What is the Mexican connection? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps some research on that question would reveal the criteria used. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
As to LoTR mentioned earlier, as far as I know, NZ had more to do with it than the filming location. It was directed by Peter Jackson (NZ), and co-produced by the studios, WingNut films (Jackson's company), and The Saul Zaentz Company (American). And I think Weta (NZ) did the Special Effects (LoTR was their claim to fame, and now they're pretty big). So, I think its nationality should be listed as New Zealand, or if not, as a combined American-New Zealandish effort. As to the general problem, I totally agree that each case needs to rely on what sources state, but when sources list other nationalities, I think that to a certain extent, I don't have a problem with more than one nationality being listed. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Or just leave out the nationality altogether. There is no necessity to apply this category. Infinity has no color. Color has no weight. Rocks have no species. Films do not have a nationality. We are deceived because it is meaningful to talk about, say, the Spanish film industry or the Chinese cinema. One can observe things happening within the borders of a country and by its citizens. In that regard, Truffaut's films are tokens of French cinema (e.g.) and Bollywood is an Indian phenomenon. But the next step, that assigns a nationality to a film, is specious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it is specious, damn hard or neigh impossible with the current state of the global film industry maybe but not specious. Discussing works - and not just films - within the context of the culture or society that produced them is valid and reasonable. What we're tripping over is how or to what extent Wikipedia frames that. Most of it, if not all if there is differing sources, should be done in the "Reception" section of the article. In cases where it is crystal clear, then noting it in the lead and infobox, with a ref, isn't a problem.
- J Greb (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you make a good point. (And similarly above as well so I won't repeat it.) I guess my response is that even when it's "crystal clear" we are employing metaphor. One might say that maroon feels heavier than yellow so we might talk about it that way, but the weight of colors is a perfectly clear psychological metaphor that we wouldn't likely bring into an encyclopedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No of fence ring cinema but your analogy crap is getting kind of old. It really isn't hard to find the production companies when they are easily citable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken! When you can't counter a good argument, throw some mud on it. We all get that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's fatuous concept when applied literally, and only really exists in terms of critical analysis, but for that matter so do genres: they're just a set tropes that groups of work conform to. But like genres, they can serve as a form of identification, and we include genres in the lead too (although not in the infobox incidentally, and I would regard a genre as a more imperative piece of information about the film). Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The analogy to genre is a good one; in both cases there is a family resemblance. But that too reinforces the idea that a single criterion is not definitive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Betty Logan's post about BFI, Allrovi and New York Times

  • BFI list a company from Liechtenstein for Dr Zhivago, and MGM is only credited as "©/Presents" for 2001. So while what they credit as production companies is inconsistent, the correlation between credited production companies and countries is not.
  • Allrovi seem to go by the companies in the "produced by" field, though sometimes it's incomplete or missing entirely, and then the country field lacks consistency. But when it's filled out it's what determines the nationality.
  • NYT seem to be as random as you say, although many notoriously hard-to-determine-the-nationality-of movies go by production countries. For example Paris, Texas, Lars von Trier's movies and Ring Cinema's favourite, Rachid Bouchareb's Outside the Law. There is no consistency though in whether minor co-producers are included or not. In general both Allrovi and NYT appear to be more consistent (and reliable?) when it comes to recent movies.

One thing they all definitely have in common is that the country always is given a prominent position, while many of the other parameters in our infobox only are available on special pages with detailed credits. To be honest the inconsistency and lack of important credits at these sites only makes me more convinced that it's best to base the country field on what is sourced in the production section. I agree with Erik's notion that it's preferable to explain international productions later in the lead than sticking on a bunch of nationalities in the opening sentence. But to me that issue is about good prose, not factual accuracy. I don't see why it would be problematic to list multiple production countries in the infobox (granted that it's clear what they are, rename the field if necessary). In extreme cases when there really are a lot of them it could be motivated to leave them out, but that's not unique for the country field, we also do that in cases like the directors of To Each His Own Cinema. Smetanahue (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that's not how Wikipedia operates and that's not what the sources say. We cite reliable sources instead of our research, right? This is no different. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if that is the case, they obviously still use different criteria for deciding which companies to use. For instance, by that method the BFI doesn't accept a copyright holder as a "production company" whereas IMDB does. I wonder how long it will be before that debate starts? Allmovie has Avatar down as completely American while IMDB lists it as US/UK; Avatar has a British financier, so IMDB obviously regards financiers as a production partner, whereas Allmovie seemingly doesn't. It just shifts the debate, it doesn't really resolve it. We still have a situation where these sources use different criteria in establishing a film's nationality, because they introduce distinctions between the methods of production. By that same token, I'd still rather go with the NY Times or British Film Institute setting the criteria rather than it being contrived by Wikipedia editors. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if BFI actually have different criteria for company credits. Won't be surprised if it's just them being inconsistent or lazy, copying the credits from some promotional material or similar that might vary. But we seem to both be tired of this for now. See you next year when it breaks loose again? :) Smetanahue (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Film Nationalities... again...

LotR was mentioned earlier in discusisons about film nationalities, and an issue has come up on the Two Towers page about listing the nationality of the film. Questions are: What nationality is the film? (Director, Studio, Place of filming are all NZ, however, an American Studio co-produced it, and it is also distributed by an American company). If there is a conflict, is it an issue to list both? (or should neither be mentioned?) And does anyone have a source stating the nationality of the film? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

These films have come up pretty frequently in terms of country identification. Is there not a consensus for any of the films that could be applied to the others? It may also help to determine an overall consensus to point to in the future. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW...
  1. What do the reliable sources use? Not on the nationality of the director, production companies, producers, or filming locations, but in actually classifying the film.
  2. Are all of them consistant?
If the reliable sources all use the same thing - ie American fantasy film, New Zealand film, or the like - thne that can be in the header with a ref and in the 'box. And the nationality template used in the 'box wil give the base categorization.
If the sources use something, but are inconsistent, then it is inappropriate for the lead or the infobox. Though it is something that should be touched on in the production or reception sections. Categories can be added manually based on the information in those two sections.
If none of them add a nation/nationality to it, we shouldn't be indulging in guessing based on other criteria. And that means no nationality categories should be added to the article.
- J Greb (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The infobox parameter should only be used if the nationality is given in the lead, that's basically what we have in the infobox guidelines. The reason for this is because the infobox cannot provide any context whatsoever. The guidelines for the lead state that the nationality should be given, but if it's not straightforward, it should be elaborated on. So the question is whether this is straightforward or not. The NY Times (US), BFI (Germany/NZ/US) and Allmovie (NZ/US) all have differing opinions on what countries are involved. It made the AFI 100 years of "greatest American films", and contextual references are superior because we are using the nationality in a descriptive capacity. I think the sources lean towards describing it as American, although I wouldn't have any problem with it being presented as a US/NZ co-production, but I think this is probably a case of where adding in a country for the sake of it doesn't offer much encylopedic value. Betty Logan (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally, without looking at the sources, it looks to me as though it leans towards NZ more than the US (I think it was really the Weta Workshop's (from NZ) big break- and now they're pretty huge, and with Jackson and WingNut Films, I think NZ had a lot to do with it- and they're a small-ish country and deserve at least some credit). But I don't mind it being listed as just US. I don't really have the time to delve into this, and I don't mind whatever you guys come up with, so long as it is consistent over the three films. This was the problem as Fellowship and Return had New Zealand as the country, but Towers had nothing. If someone could implement something similar across the three pages, it would be great. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Betty, IIUC, a film with "American" along with other nationalities can still wind up on a "Top X American films" list. Just being on such a list does not make it "only American" and is not a strong argument for ignoring other sources. - J Greb (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
From what I've read, these films are an important part of the history of NZ cinema. My reading is that it is so clearly kiwi that it goes unmentioned at times. Thus, both or neither US and NZ seems likely to raise the least hackles, which unfortunately is a consideration. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I was just hoping for some guidance on appropriate external links. The Human centipede (First Sequence) currently has externals links to the official sites in the UK and USA, IMDB, Allrovi, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. An editor on the Featured Article Review has suggested though that this violates WP:EL, my reading of WP:EL however is that it doesn't, official sites are certainly Ok, and neutral info sites such as IMDB, RT and Metacritic seem to fit into the criteria of what is allowed too. I've looked at American Beauty (film) for a bit of inspiration and that has these links too. I know American Beauty isn't necessarily the be all and end all, but it's certainly a good example of what a great film article should look like. Does anyone have any advice on this? cya Coolug (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cross-posting from the FAC page: "Regarding external links, the redundancy is incidental. In the article body, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are referenced for their aggregate scores. In the external links, they are included to give the reader access to multiple reviews (since the guidelines discourage including individual reviews). The URLs in both cases happen to be the same one used. It is hard to point to these websites as providing "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" when they are deep in the "References" section. AllRovi used to be Allmovie. I don't find it the greatest external link since it is hardly a unique resource, so it can be removed. As for IMDb, it can be a unique resource in providing complete cast and crew information, plus other elements as a major film website." I also wanted to add, if the article is a stub, then RT and MC are probably not needed as external links if they make up two of the four references used. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't there an initiative at some point to use Allmovie/Allrovi just as a source, since most of the content is replicated by IMDb which offers more? I certainly think there is case for saying "pick one". As for RT and Metacritic, they often have a significant overlap and RT tends to have more reviews, so I'm not convinced Metacritic offers a reader anything RT doesn't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
How much overlap is there between RT and MC? Would all of the reviews at MC also be at RT? As for AllRovi, I don't think it has a place in external links. I put the external link template up for deletion, but it was not deleted obviously. I'm fine with it as a reference, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
All of the reviews on MC appear on RT. MC seems to only use the reviews that would normally pop up in RT's "Topic Critic" section. The only real difference is how MC calculates their ratings, and those ratings are usually based on just the 20 or so critics that they use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Dog Day Afternoon 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Roman War

A book referred to "Roman War (Luoma dazhan), most likely the two-part 1968–69 joint German-Italian- Romanian production"

But Roman War is blank. What is the actual title of the movie? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That could well be the title of the film. There's still articles missing here on Wikipedia, this could well be one of them. If you have sources for it, feel free to start it up. GRAPPLE X 02:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The book mentions director Robert Siodmak. In the "Filmography" section, there is Kampf um Rom I (1968), which apparently means "The Last Roman", and Kampf um Rom II (1969), which has the subtitle "Der Verrat". I don't know what the subtitle translates to. It might be that "Roman War" refers to the pairing of these two films, so it may be better to use these titles. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the more direct translation of "Kampf um Rom" is "The Fight for Rome", so I guess two fights make a war? :) There are Google Books Search results here. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The English title used in the book I mentioned may have been based on the Chinese title of the films - Usually films in two parts share the same title - i.e. Death Note (film) and Kill Bill - Should the "Kampf um Rom" films be consolidated too? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

New discussion of navboxes and succession boxes at the Village pump

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using navboxes where succession boxes would suffice. A discussion is going on to look at the use of succession boxes vs. navboxes. The initial example being used is Al Pacino and the outcome may drive changes to how things like Oscars, Golden Globes, etc. appear on articles. Please chime in if you have an interest on either side of the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for category help

At new article Cinereach, a film funding non-profit organization, I could use a bit of help with categories. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I could only come up with Category:Film organizations in the United States and Category:Organizations established in 2006. Maybe you can find something in Category:Film organizations? jonkerz♠ 01:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

AllRovi (again)

I know this has been discussed before, but I want to ask a more specific question regarding AllRovi's reliability as a source. I started a discussion at RSN here, which I should have made people here aware of from the beginning. It is established that AllRovi (and before it, AllMovie) is considered a reliable source for most film information, but I am particularly interested in whether we consider that site reliable for defining film genres. In the case of Delicatessen, for example, AllRovi calls it a Surrealist film, which is highly debatable. Could someone use AllRovi as a source, though, if they add Delicatessen to the Surrealist film category? Has there been discussion of AllRovi's genre classifications? Are they considered reliable? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had a problem with them on genre definition, in the past. I can't think of any specific examples right now but I know a few times I've seen them define a film with a genre that did not match up with the genre it was getting listed as in nearly all other sources I looked at. I remember thinking, "OK I can see how someone would think of this movie as that type of film, but it's sure not how it's getting billed." When we occasionally get those unsourced genre content warriors, if a film could be interpreted as the genre of a new edit (say an action movie with horror elements and someone changes the genre to horror, as a hypothetical example), I almost never use AllRovi as a source to verify. I tend to look up reviews or how it's getting listed at theatres (the various Fandango type sites). I don't know if that is acceptable in terms of sourcing a genre to begin with but it works ok for a quick check against a dubious edit. Millahnna (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
AllRovi is a database, and I think databases' genre identifications can be indiscriminate. It's better to see what multiple sources call it. Sometimes there's no suitable genre. For Fight Club, all sorts of databases and other sources have called the film all kinds of genres. I don't think AllRovi would be authoritative enough to overrule contradictory sources, but their genre identifications can be used to see if other sources say the same thing. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Erik. Allmovie is fine for reporting factual content, but genres can be subjective. It's not wrong to use it, but it's unwise to use it just on its own. The AFI site and NY Times movie database also lists the genre too, and there are probably plenty of other sites, so I would just use the genre that is common to all of them. WP:Due Weight compels us to take account of multiple sources anyway, to stop us from cherry-picking since you can probably always find a source that supports your view on something that is subjective. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate all of these comments, and I agree with your reasoning. So, this brings me to another question: what are we to say about the List of avant-garde films of the 1990s article, in which AllRovi is the only source used? To be more specific, Delicatessen is listed in the article, with the note that it is, according to AllRovi, a "Surrealist film," and thus avant-garde. If AllRovi is the source for all of these films, is it not worth questioning whether these are, in fact, all avant-garde? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there are inherent problems with that list. "Avant-garde" isn't a genre like "action" is, for instance. There is going to be a lot of variation between critics as to what is "avant-garde" and what is not. The Interior (Talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. In the truest sense, avant-garde is not a genre at all, it has to do with an approach to filmmaking. There could, at least potentially, be an avant-garde action film, but the genre would still be action. In general, though not in all cases, avant-garde films are made by people associated with an avant-garde movement, i.e., Surrealist films or the films made by Guy Debord. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In general I would strongly advice against labelling works as avant-garde. It's fine to quote critics who do it, but it is by definition a subjective and floating term. Things which were widely considered avant-garde once tend to lose the status when something earlier which used the same ideas becomes known. It's not really any better than to call a movie old-fashioned. Smetanahue (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
So, what do we do about these list articles, of which there are several? Take them all to AfD? Or, remove the AllRovi refs, mark the articles as unreferenced, and search for legitimate sources? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the lists need to be reworded? Something like "List of 1990s films considered avant-garde"? After all, we have these lists of films considered the best or the worst. That would move the avant-garde lists away from seeming to be genre classification. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Re-worded and re-sourced it seems. If we want to try to avoid calling a film avant-guard unless a reviewer (or perhaps a film's director/cast) calls it such, it seems to me that every film in that list needs a source doing that. Millahnna (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
A good list of relevant books on avant-garde cinema is available here. It's too bad, actually, that more of them are not used to reference that very article. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing Film Poster

Recently, when editing certain film pages, I had discovered that there are some films which had their posters "updated" by the film company.(eg:From Up on Poppy Hill had its poster updated to this version by Studio Ghibli). I cannot find any guidelines as to whether the original poster or the "updated" one should be included in the article. Can someone enlighten me on which poster should be used in this event? Thanks!--Lionratz (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, Template:Infobox_film#Image is a bit vague. Lugnuts (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Per that section, the "original theatrical release poster" is appropriate. The wording is intended to encourage posters instead of DVD covers; I think it came about because DVD covers are poor representative images for the films. (Especially for quite a few classics!) Another piece of logic I've seen is to choose the poster out of a set that represents the film best. For example, we would not choose a character poster for the infobox; we would choose a poster showing all the characters together or something that is more thematic overall. In this case, it seems like either poster is representative of the film. What was the reason the studio updated the poster? If the original one is what most people saw, then it might be more representative. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
See that's what I thought but the poster for Pirates 4 was changed to the one featuring only Jack rather than the one with all 4 characters on it Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I assume you mean this poster. It seems like JACK5555 thought that poster was fan-made (as evidenced here), but I'm not sure why he thought that. Nothing at the source link seems to suggest that. Maybe he thought IMP Awards was for fan-submitted posters? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why that would be a fanmade poster, but I did believe it was the more appropriate poster as it compensated for 4 NFC images by representing all the major characters, while the Jackonly one could be used for any of the films as it is completely generic in that regard. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In fact the image is used on the DVD covers, including the one listed on Disney's site, though it isn't as clear. http://hmv.com/hmvweb/navigate.do?pPageID=5356&WT.mc_id=102292 / http://www.disney.co.uk/pirates-of-the-caribbean/shop/movies/dvd-and-bluray/potc4_dvd.jsp Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_37&oldid=1137384256"