Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 45


Disambiguation between feature films and TV films

In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) how would you disambiguate between feature and television films of the same title? The guidelines don't clearly differentiate between a feature film and TV film, so there are several options:

  • Title (film)
Title (television film)
  • Title (1982 film)
Title (television film)
  • Title (1982 film)
Title (2002 television film)

The way I read it, the guidelines seem to recommend the third option. However, while Title (film) could in theory refer to either work, Title (television film) can't refer to a feature film, so it seems to me that the second option is also free of ambiguity. I was wondering if there is definitive view on this? Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd only add the word "television" to the title if there were two films with the same name released in the same year. Afterall, a film is a film, regardless of the way it was released (cinema or TV). Lugnuts (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd tend to use (film) and (television film) if neither is the primary topic and there are only 2. This is due to a general perception that the two are distinct things. If there is a singular film that isn't the main topic, then (film) [I'm not going to step into the OAV thing...]. I'd only add the date if there are multiple uses of the title in the same context. ie:
  • 2 theatrical and 1 television version would be:
    • Title (1950 film)
    • Title (2001 film)
    • Title (television film)
  • 1 theatrical and 2 television version would be:
    • Title (film)
    • Title (1970 television film)
    • Title (2009 television film)
- J Greb (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Lugnuts. Whether it's a theatrical film or a TV film, it's still a film, and I'd only use "television" as an additional disambiguator. The Hobbit (1977 film) and The Hobbit (2013 film) is an example where one of the films is a TV film. I'd only use "television film" if there was another film called the Hobbit released in 1977, but even then it isn't ideal, as what would you call the theatrical one? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I see the logic of that, and it makes perfect sense, but that approach does seem to be at odds with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Non-episodic_television which advocates the distinction. If that's how everyone feels then we possibly need the guidelines adjusting, because it's not very clear as it stands. I'll drop a note at the television project and see how they feel Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes - I see what you mean - we need a co-ordinated discussion on this! --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


This article is a recent recreation of an article deleted per discussion last year. I am bringing this here to solicit opinions from the members of this project (and any interested editors that watch this page) as to the notability of the subject. It was only after I had worked on the article for a couple of hours that I noticed there were 106 deleted edits. The recreated article is much different than the previous versions and offers better references. However, I know that verifiability does not equal notability. Any input here or the article's talk page regarding improvements or the lack of viability as an article would be welcome. Thanks for your time. Tiderolls 23:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi All. Note that I am totally biased in this instance. Several months ago, I voted "Delete" at the AfD for this article. When someone recreated it, I was going to nominate it for speedy deletion, but I did a quick news search on it, and found out that it has been getting some press from major media outlets such as Forbes and the Boston Globe. All the media coverage centers around just how horrifically bad the movie is, but that is a form of notability in and of itself, as in "it's so bad it's funny." At this point, I think the film passes WP:NOTABILITY, but I am open to other opinions. And, of course, I would like to see the article improved by experts such as yourselves. Many thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Paradise Lost (2013 film)

This film currently in the stages of pre-production recently survived an AFD, but given new information that the film is now on hold[1][2], would suggest a redirect to Paradise Lost#Films is more appropriate as per WP:NFF. Would appreciate input at Talk:Paradise Lost (2013 film)#Redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OH! But everyone was so sure it was going to be made! —Mike Allen 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Ha! Yeah - it does concern me the increasing disregard for WP:NFF and the number of "votes" saying nothing more than "this film is notable it will be made" or "look - it has a cast and everything". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Similar arguments are being used at WP:Articles for deletion/Burt Wonderstone too! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest adding this and similar cases to WP:FUTFILM as examples to illustrate why the guidelines should be followed. Smetanahue (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Consensus - IMDb in Ext Links for Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

I know many of you have a problem with the "unreliable" source that is the IMDb, but we do seem to have a consensus that it is to be included on WP film pages under External Links. A user is persistently deleting the IMDb link off this page and replacing it with a NY Times database page which is disorganized, misnames several crew categories and is missing others. The combined credits IMDb page is more complete, comprehensive, and much better organized. It is indisputably more useful for anyone who wants a listing of all a film's credits, which is what you're supposed to get from an external link to a database page. There's a reason the IMDb is used on virtually every other WP film page.

I invite you to come over to Talk:Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)#Combined credits IMDb vs. NYT Production Credits page for comment and hopefully reaching consensus. Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to point out a biased statement above. Gothicfilm claims the NYT database "misnames several crew categories and is missing others" then claims IMDb is "more complete, comprehensive", but has yet to show evidence of this. Please read the arguments given in the linked thread properly before commenting. As far as it goes, the argument is for including a user-edited site in every article (so are we to become a linkfarm for IMDb?) rather than ensuring readers are given a reliable site to gain additional information. Jappalang (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In addressing that point, I am myself in MANY projects that have no equivalent listing through New York Times' InBaseline. It IS incomplete and not at all comprehensive. By comparison, NYT lists me in only TWO projects, AllRovi lists me in TWO others and IMDB shows up as being far more comprehensive in its listing 171 productions. As an EL, IMDB is preferrable for its leading readers to information not found in other ELs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, the issue is about IMDb and NYT pages of Conan the Barbarian. I believe Michael Q Schmidt was not involved in its making and I fail to see how his exclusion in other filmography is relevant to considering the value of NYT's page on the film... Jappalang (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

On a related issue

I asked this over at MOS:FILM and ask that editors reading here offer their input THERE.

In studying the manual of style, the only references to how to handle crew is found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Cast... where that section concerntrates more on cast and less on crew, and at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production which more specifically states how to handle the most important artists (cast and crew). I have come across a quite diligent editor improving Cinema of India articles, and I strongly applaud his efforts.[3] However, I wish to get wider input here about whether or not WP:MOSFILM should be tweaked to more specifically address the use or not of bulleted crew lists.
Myself, I think that the more important members of production who are not already part of the infobox template, such as executive producer, project consultant, script doctor, production designer, music director, sound designer, graphics supervisor, casting director, make-up artist, and costume designer (example [4]) should be best treated as sourced and informative prose... and not be simply a bullet list.
My suggested change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production is that a sentence be added that states "When including the more important members of production who are not already part of the infobox template, the information should be offered as sourced and informative prose and not as a list".
Again, the editor who used them at Dam 999 is doing some terrific work and I do not wish to discourage him in any way. So I'm hoping that MOSFILM can be tweaked to more specically instruct that lessor major crew may be included as prose and to discourage lessor major crew in less inciteful bullet lists. As so, as this talk page at WikiProject Film seems a decent place to notify editors interested in film about my suggstion, I am requesting that interested editors go THERE to offer their insights. Thanks all, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Fugitive (1993 film)

It would be helpful if some other editors would take a look at this, and this anonymous editor's edits in general, and offer their thoughts. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Starring roles in infobox

In my experience, editors seem to use the film poster to determine who the stars of a film are for purposes of listing in the infobox. Has this ever been codified as a guideline, is it simply something editors have done on their own, or has there been discussion on this in the past? It seems to be a decent rule of thumb, even if it is not consistently used by all editors, as nonstarring roles are not listed on film posters. I ask, in part, because of recent edits on the Dark City article, in which what I believe is a nonstarring role has been repeatedly added to the lede and infobox. It seems to me that the four actors listed at the top of the poster are the stars, all others are supporting. Any thoughts on this? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 06:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a centralized discussion, but I do know that we generally follow the poster as guidance so as to remain objective. With regard to Dark City, O'Brien is in the poster, along with a 6th individual when they poster identifies "starring". Just because they are not at the top part of the poster doesn't mean that they are listed as "starring". In the credits at the bottom of the poster, that is where you will see it list starring roles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Posters are a good thing to be able to point to as it stops people just adding everyone in the film or people they think had a starring role purely because they like the actor/actress in question. Without the poster it's purely based on the editors own judgement, which means every editor will have a different opinion Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed repeatedly and at great length. The production poster is the authority as it matches the film credits. There may be a question at times about how many actors to include, but the original production poster is the most reliable source. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The infobox instructions call for listing actors with "major roles" in the film, while WP:FILMLEAD merely asks for "star or stars" in the lead. Personally, I'd go with the actors who are featured most prominently on the poster as being the "stars". (In DC's case, that would be: Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly and William Hurt.) Shirtwaist 23:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the infobox instructions and FILMLEAD need to be updated to take into account current consensus on best source for the list. That said, there is still going to be the possibility that there will be exceptions, but those need to be hashed out on the various article talk pages, and if challenged, need to show consensus that it is an exception to the general guidelines.
- J Greb (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The reason we follow the production poster is so that we are not engaging in OR. "Most prominently" on a poster is a matter of judgement and uses an unreliable source (the publicist) instead of the reliable source of the production. This has already been covered ad nauseum in discussion on the infobox page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I strong disagree with that characterization, Ring Cinema. It is not OR to look at the film poster, featured as it is at the top of the infobox, and list those actors featured most prominently, as Shirtwaist put it, on it. I also see no reason to regard that source as any less reliable. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
While I agree about using the poster as a guideline, how do we approach films without a theatrical one-sheet? For example, The Avengers (2012 film) only has a teaser poster, and it does not include the credits. I think what's currently included in the infobox for the article is on point, but we don't have a guideline for it. It's simply community consensus. How do we approach films in their earlier stages? --TravisBernard (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Use the simplest solution: Alphabetic in the article text with a note that it gets resorted one the film is released and there is a credits list. None in the infobox until an official poster with credits is released. As a guideline this give crystal clear direction, an indication of when the content should change, and keeps the focus on neutrality of presentation. - J Greb (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the longstanding infobox editors' consensus, the production is the best basis for determining which actors to include. They should be listed in the infobox in the same order that they are listed in the film credits or on the production poster. This is the most reliable sourcing, and substituting the unreliable source of the publicist would not comport with good sourcing. There are countless examples of posters that include an image that does not reflect the film or its content. On the other hand, the names listed by the production (in the credits or the poster) conform to negotiated agreements made at the time of the production, are easily verified, and do not change. Again, this was discussed at great length on the infobox page, so if you are interested in doing something different, you should take it up there and make your case. You will find many of the above points have appeared there and that is where your interest in a new consensus belongs. There is as always room to bring in well-sourced material if it exists on this subject, but a movie poster would not qualify. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema - I don't understand the distinction you're making between the "production poster" and the "movie poster", and how one is reliable while the other is not. Also, isn't a "publicist" involved in all advertising for a movie, including all the posters? Shirtwaist 23:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I think (Ring Cinema feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that the difference is the text/credits in smallish print at the bottom of the poster. That text will have "Staring:... With:..." and so on. That is a better indicator that looking at the art or call out to catch the eye of the casual person walking past - or under - the poster. - J Greb (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────First - In case I wasn't clear before, let me just say that I was talking about the stars names appearing most prominently on the poster, not their images, as in this example. You'll notice that three of the names at the top are the first three names listed at the bottom, and the fourth appears farther back in the bottom list. Apparently whoever finalized the poster layout thought William Hurt was more worth displaying at the top than Richard O'Brien, but if they think those are the four "major roles", who am I to say they're not? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the order of the bottom credits also determined by a "publicist" or their equivalent?
I think the more common form of that "fine print" text at the bottom is to either list the "star/s" above the title with all other main actors below it, or list all actors below the title in descending order of importance to the film. You may be right, but I don't recall seeing "starring" and "with" used very often. In any case, the issue is putting the actors with "major roles" in the infobox, and I'd think that the "star's" names appearing in the artwork, and those listed first in the lower text usually coincide, don't they(except for my example)? The only question is how many of the other supporting stars deserve a place in the infobox and why. Shirtwaist 09:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cast section

Is there a guideline for how to list the cast in this section? I assumed it was by order of "importance". Thus, I would list the cast in the same order as the infobox, after which it becomes harder to decide who is more important. In any event, another editor says it should be alphabetical irrespective of relative importance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would go alphabetically in a section where the cast list is longer than the infobox's listing, as then you're going beyond things like the film posters which are usually used for billing order. You could use the film's credit sequence to follow their order, but that's a bit needless. To be frankly honest, anything other than alphabetical does actually annoy me. GRAPPLE X 01:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Alphabetical?! Heck no! It should (and does, in my experience) go by billing order. IMDb is pretty good about listing them that way. The ghost of John Wayne would hunt you down, pilgrim, if you tried it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Billing tends to extend only to a smaller subset of the total cast, though - if there's confusion over how to list a number of actors beyond those billed in the film's marketing, then alphabetical is a way to sidestep that entirely. Worth noting for vanity projects or those with a large supporting cast (Saving Private Ryan comes to mind. Four billed stars, and a vast cast of noteworthy roles to list). And given how easy it is to get into petty disputes over how to present these things (see Heat (1995 film) for a clusterfuck of an example), something objective is a good fallback when there's no obvious ordering. And I could totally take on a man called Marion, pssh. GRAPPLE X 01:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
What about a hybrid? You first list all the cast from the infobox (starring) in the same order. Then, the remainder alphabetically.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The credits are listed on screen in a particular order. Why would you change that? Uncredited actors should only rarely be included. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
FWIW, most discussions I've seen have started with and stuck to the closing cast list as attached to the theatrical release. Some augment it with the actor listing from the "opening" credits. But this uses an existing list, all be it from the primary source, and doesn't require us to engaging in OR to rank importance to order the list. We are likely to still do it based on prominence in the film - prominent characters wind up in the ~700 word synopsis - and cited commentary about the film, production, and so on. - J Greb (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Closing credits cast lists are inconsistent. Many are in order of appearance. Plus, there's no way to easily verify it unless one has the DVD of the movie. Sounds hard to me, and I hate hard. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Consistency between films is not an issue. Sorry - it's only an issue if we are forcing conformity as a result of research and active editorial discretion.
Yes, a number of post-film credits are in appearance order. Others are alphabetic order. That's why I pointed out the "opening" credits are some times used to augment the section. The "opening" being the actors the film presents as "important" and the "closing" for anyone else needed based on the content of the article.
I'm sorry you find the use of non-on-line sources "hard". They are used and are acceptable and in some cases even preferable to some on-line ones. If an editor is unable or unwilling to check non-on-line sources, then they should AGF and move on.
- J Greb (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's not just the non-online verifiability but the entire concept you present to be "hard". That doesn't mean it's bad, just hard to deal with and to enforce. Too many disputes, which I could just as soon live without over something not that important.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't like cast lists at all. I prefer well-written prose "casting" sections. But failing that, it seems appropriate to list the actors that appear in the plot summary first, followed by the supporting cast as they appear in the credits - opening or closing. Shirtwaist 13:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
If the film's credits are used there is not a problem with sourcing or reliability. The same information appears on the "one-sheet" so it's not difficult. The preference for a prose casting section seems pretty good, too, although perhaps readers would like something easier to reference. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Die Hard (franchise)

I would like to dicuss an endeavor about the possibility to create the list of characters of the Die Hard franchise. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's all discuss that endeavor about the possible creation of the list of characters of the Die Hard franchise. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why such a list is necessary, there is only one consistent character throughout the series and a handful of other notable ones, the rest are background terrorists without any kind of lengthy plot that needs detailing. Unless you mean just a flat out list? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it will be just a flat-out list like the List of Splinter Cell characters page. Other than that, if it is not necessary, that would be okay. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe that we should only do the McClanes and some notable characters and notable terrorists in proposed List of characters in the Die Hard franchise. I mean, if it is possible. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Golden Globes

God, has anyone seen these awful nominations yet? Not so much film, but television as well. Boss was nominated over Breaking Bad! The Ides of March over Drive! Cars 2 for Best Animated Feature! RAP (talk) 14:58 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to treat them like every other awards show and ignore the ever loving tits out of them. GRAPPLE X 15:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I like Boss but nothing should ever come before Breaking Bad. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Historically Breaking Bad has been appreciated by the Emmy folks and not the GG folks. This is nothing new. I have not seen the criteria for either Award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Film critic association templates

At Julia Roberts, I just notices my first instance of seeing a template for a film critics association award when I saw this edit. Template WP:CRUFT is going gangbusters. We now have a full complement of first (Oscar, Emmy, Tony, Grammy) and second tier (Golden Globe, SAG, BAFTA, Drama Desk, Olivier) award templates. I see we even have many third tier (Saturn, MTV) awards templates. Do we want to go down the road of adding template cruft for film critics associations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titanic on film and TV

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Titanic on film and TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

BTOE (Best Things on Earth)

A newbie has been adding entries from [5] to many film-related articles. Is this considered a reliable site? Comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Jud Süß (1940 film) is a Featured Article Candidate

Please review the article and leave your comments here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:WikiProject Films Header.png

File:WikiProject Films Header.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disneynature's Chimpanzee

Currently there isn't an article for the 2012 Disneynature film Chimpanzee. A number of reliable sources have reported on the film, including SlashFilm and Collider. It's not too early to create this page, is it? Also, which article title would work better Chimpanzee (film) or Chimpanzee (2012 film)? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I started a draft of this article, which can be found here. It's pretty bare right now, but I plan on building it over the course of the next few weeks. Because I work in the film/entertainment industry, I have a potential conflict of interest working on this page. Despite the potential for a natural bias, I'll do my best to abide by Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View and Reliable Sources. I'll be sure to get feedback before making it live, and I appreciate any help with the article along the way. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like someone has now created the page, so I will abandon the draft and work directly on the existing page. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of gross figures for Indian films

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

Ok, the main reason for this discussion was the heated argument taking place here. The question arises : For Indian films, should we use independent, third party sources for gross figures or rely more on the distributor's information taken from other reliable sources like newspapers? If we lack updated sources, should we wait till one party releases the required report, or use whatever we have and wait? Please post your opinions here and before you do, please take a look at this guideline. Thank you! X.One SOS 13:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • To my comfort, I usually look at the distributor values because they know the best; after all, that's why they are the distributors. However, I do not object to third-party sources, provide the source includes all possible streams of revenue. I know that this discussion is coming up due to all the problems regarding Ra.One, but I feel taking the distributors' word is better since they include all the theatrical revenue, including multiple languages and/or 3D. AnkitBhattWDF 14:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Infobox can include the reports from box office sites like Box office Mojo and and if conflicting views exist, we can put it all in the "Box office" section, without violating Wp:CHERRY. X.One SOS 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
See also this releated AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The only consideration is whether the sources are RS or not. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources as per WP:RS, and I would say that a distributor qualifies as a primary source. The distributor may "know best" but that doesn't necessarily translate into accurate reporting of the figures. If two reliables sources conflict, then both figures should be included, possibly using a range like we do with budgets on some articles. Editors "choosing" which reliable source to go with violates WP:CHERRY and WP:NPOV, and even if there is a consensus for a particular source, policy trumps consensus. But the bottom line is that reliable secondary sources should take precedence over primary sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you suggest for inclusion in the Infobox if primary and secondary sources conflict? X.One SOS 15:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Well looking further at the sources I'm not sure Box Office India qualifies as a reliable source. According to their about page their figures aren't actually audited submissions from exhibitors, so I don't think you can elevate estimated data above data from a primary source. If Box Office India are estimating their data rather than reporting it, then that technically makes them a primary source too. I would be reluctant to include either set of data unless it is subsequently reported in secondary sources. Given the primary nature of both sets of data either both should be included or none at all. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • BOI must be made a standard site for box office figures of Bollywood sites, esp. when independent and third-party sources should be used on Wikipedia and distributors like Kamal Jain who inflate (and sometimes reduce) data to their own benefit (see the relevant talk pages for clarification); just like BOM is being used for Hollywood. 'Nuff Said! Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    That's not how sourcing works on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Box Office Mojo reports real data for the most part, whereas Box Office India estimates its data as I pointed out above, so there isn't a direct comparison; BOI is not an independent third-party source because it is creating the data, not reporting it, so its status as a reliable source needs to be established. Can you provide reliable secondary sources that cite Box Office India to establish it as a reliable source? Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Betty. I didn't really mean direct comparisons, but BOI is the most reliable third-party (something other than the principals directly involved in an agreement) and independent (not controlled by an official party or an interest group, and with editorial insight) resource we could get. I agree it doesn't report real data but its reliability has been extensively discussed time and again. Regarding the sources, here are just a few: Times of India, Economic Times and Hindustan Times. I'm done with this, and I hope I made myself clear. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest that editors comment here to understand exactly why this discussion came up in the first place. AnkitBhattWDF 09:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment here by Secret of Success. As far as Bollywood box-office records are concerned, "BOI" must be made a standard one to represent gross figures in infobox or whatever. It is also more likely that the distributors might inflate the figures for their benefit as pointed out by Scieberking. So in such cases we normally go for Independent third party sources, which in this case would be BOI. Commander (Ping me) 14:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    Have you read my comments above? Box Office India is not "third party" if it estimates its own data, which it admits to doing. It is a primary source for the figures not a secondary source, because it isn't reporting data from elsewhere, it is estimating its own data and publishing that. If you publish your own data that makes you a primary source, just in the same way the distributor is. Choosing one primary source over another is cherry-picking; to be compliant with [[WP::NPOV]] BOTH primary source figures should included or none at all. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    Well, BOI is a Box office site, just like Box office Mojo and being a primary source is a different issue. Compared to the producer's information, it is more likely to be reliable, because as I said the distributors have had cases of quoting different budgets to different media for self-benefit. Unlike so, there has been no direct accusation on BOI. Hence, I suggest that we put up BOI's records in the "Infobox" whilst restricting all other opinions from different media in the "Box office" section, phrasing it like "...The box office reports for the film have been conflicting, with sources claiming that the film has grossed..." as BOI is generally agreed for usage on Indian films. X.One SOS 11:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    We have been through this with budgets on American film articles; some editors tried to "push" Box Office Mojo as an authority, but since BOM estimates budget amounts it is a primary source for that data, which makes it no more or less valid than other primary source claims, such as the producers. In such cases we have numerical ranges to be neutral, and I think the same approach would be best here if there is uncertainty about how much the film has grossed. At the end of the day, there is nothing to say the distributor is wrong and BOI is right, so we shouldn't be making judgments as editors. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    A similar issue was brought up for the film Taare Zameen Par, which is an FA article. BOI in infobox, rest in BO section. X.One SOS 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not post both with the appropriate citations, or list as a range? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that one of the sources (the more trusted one) covers only part of the gross while the other gives the full gross. Anyway, with this I think we have a consensus of 3:2 for this RFC, while in the Ra.One Talk, it goes upto 1:4. The final decision is to keep the distributor's value till BOI releases their accounts. Thank you! X.One SOS 08:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move at Colombiana (film).

Further opinion would be welcome at Talk:Colombiana (film). Big Bird (talkcontribs) 14:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actor filmography templates

Can somebody please tell what the situation on these type of templates is? I know Template:Bruce Campbell has been deleted and there was a similar problem with Template:Chris Rock, but I'm having problems over this at Template:50 Cent and was wondering what the consensus was as I'm pretty sure they are not allowed. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You're right, they are not allowed. Please see the following discussions, etc:

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with 50 Cent having a template, but for it not to include his films. I've done the same in the past for Mel Gibson and Lindsay Lohan. Lugnuts (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


I have nominated this article for deletion per WP:NFF. Require more opinions here. Please post your views. X.One SOS 12:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Budget/gross question

For this field in the infobox, which currency should be used? For example, The Artist has recently been changed to Euros from Dollars, as the IP editor (correctly) states it is a French film. However, Box Office Mojo has all the figures in U$Dollars. What currency should it be in? Is converting Dollars to Euros WP:OR? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

On one hand, it should be in Euro as the film's production was in a Euro-using nation - just as, for example, Kes would use Sterling. On the other hand, the source used gives the figure in US Dollars, and the temptation would be to simply quote that. I would stick with Euro. I don't think it's OR to convert them, but if a source could be used that already gave the figure in Euro it would be a lot simpler overall. GRAPPLE X 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
In the case of an unambiguously French film, the budget and gross should ideally be expressed in euros since it is the currency of the country. However, while the euro amount is the preferred currency, it should really be sourced in euros; if the article is using a source that expresses the sum in US dollars then the amounts should be expressed in US dollars (to avoid OR issues) with possibly a conversion in brackets next to it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both. And now for my next discussion about this film (see below). Lugnuts (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move for The Artist (film)

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Got a bit of a situation at the Muppets film article (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently vandalizing The Muppets (film) article by removing Disney references with The Jim Henson Company, which are deliberate factual errors (see this edit). I already reported the IP at WP:AIV, but the IP has unfortunately continued to vandalize the article. Can anyone voice their opinions on this matter? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems the IP has been blocked? Though might be easier to request the article is locked incase he decides to come back under another one.
Yes, the IP has been blocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR Notification

I have nominated Superman 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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominated vs. pending

I'm pretty sure I've asked this question before, but I can't rememeber in what forum, and, worse, I can't remember if there was a good answer. What is the difference between marking a film/role as "nominated" and "pending"? I just changed pending to nominated in the Ryan Gosling article and stuck my question (mostly from exasperation) in the edit summary. Right after I saved the change, a possible explanation occurred to me. Is it that pending means that no one has been selected a winner yet and nominated means the person/whatever lost and it's over? If that's true, is this explained anywhere? And doesn't that create a certain amount of extra work for us because we would always have to change pending to nominated or won later, whereas if it was marked nominated from the outset, we'd only have to change it to won if the person/thing won?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All the awards lists I've seen with pending results have either "nominated" or "won", not "pending". It would seem logical to put "nominated", then when the outcome is known, either change it to "won" or just leave it as "nominated". Shirtwaist 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I see pendings quite a bit. Just now at Vanessa Redgrave.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Pending is for when no winner has been announced, nominated is for after if they have lost. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Pending makes much more sense for upcoming awards, as it is clearly a forward-looking status - should someone encounter an article with past awards still listed as "pending", it prompts them to update the article; with "nominated", they will just assume it did not lead to a win when in fact it might have and was never updated. GRAPPLE X 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That was my speculation, but, first, where is that stated anywhere, and, second, how is the reader supposed to know that?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm a little confused... I've always seen "Nominated for X award" used after the list of candidates was announced but before the results of the voting were determined and announced. Before the list is announced though it has been "rumored", "likely to be", "should be" etc. - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If I saw rumored or some such thing, I'd remove it. I don't believe "pending" is intended to indicate that the person hasn't actually been nominated, just that the winner has not yet been announced.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Stating "The results are pending the televised gala event." makes sense, but only with regard to an article on the awards. With regard to the people up for the awards there are two states: "X has been/was nominated for Y award." and "Z won Y award." "Pending" makes no sense in those cases. - J Greb (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but "nominated for" is completely independent of a timeframe, and can be dated very easily - and could then appear wrong if an award winner's article is not edited to reflect the win. It will then read as though they were nominated and lost. "Pending" easily counteracts this by being completely reliant on time. GRAPPLE X 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"Pending", if not edited to reflect the outcome, would also be wrong after a certain point, and might conceivably (although unlikely) be confused with "Pending nomination" instead of "pending final outcome". "Nominated" is a statement of fact, and will remain so if the person doesn't win, in which case no action is needed. "Pending", OTOH, will always have to be amended eventually one way or the other. Anyway, I seriously doubt there will be any significant lag time between an artist winning an award and the "nominated" being updated, as there's always some fan itching to do that for their favorite artist(me included). Shirtwaist 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:TABLES talks about awards tables in general, but doesn't cover this particular aspect of awards on individual BLPs. I don't see any other guidelines covering this either. Shirtwaist 06:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Pending nomination? If they haven't been nominated and someone used it for pending nomination then that would just be Crystal Balling it and it would go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about how the reader might interpret "pending", not how an editor might use it. Shirtwaist 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Good discussion. Reminds me of this article close to my heart. In this context, I think pending is apt with regards to the heading "result". Change it, and I will edit war you until I die. Lugnuts (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
All the more reason to reach consensus here about whether "nominated" or "pending" is appropriate when filling in the "result" column in this circumstance. Shirtwaist 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Lugnuts, I don't understand your point unless it's just intended to be facetious.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
My point is that of the 60 or so on that list, only five will become nominated. You can't have a one-size fits all approach to this. Lugnuts (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What does that list have to do with what we're talking about - which is lists of awards and nominations on individual BLPs? Shirtwaist 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Pending" does seem to conflict with WP:RECENT, and places an immediacy on the updating of information, and "Pending" actually becomes incorrect once the winners are announced, while "Nominated" still remains correct even after the subject goes on to win. However, I can see the logic in allowing the reader to know that the winners have not yet been announced, so would there be any value in using the {{show by date}} template?
    Example one: {{show by date|2011|12|11|Pending|Nominated}} produces Nominated
    Example two: {{show by date|2012|12|11|Pending|Nominated}} produces Nominated
This would mean only the winner's nomination would have to be addressed and all others would be updated automatically. The winner would also be updated too if not addressed straight away, but since a winner is still "nominated" then it would just become out of date, not actually incorrect. Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't completely follow, no doubt due to my thickheadedness. Perhaps you could give a concrete example of the nomination process (with dates) and how the template would help. By giving two date examples above, you've confused me as we'd have only one template, I assume, in any given entry. I can't figure out when you want it to say pending as opposed to nominated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You only need one template; once the current date reaches the date in the template, then the text will change from "Pending" to "Nominated". So if you set the date to the day after the Oscars for example, then the day after the oscars all the "Pending"s will be updated to "Nominated". The only one we as editors will have to change will be the person who has won, which we would have to do anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
A couple of comments. First, during the pending part, how would the reader know what pending means? Frankly, I don't like the use of a word that means something other than what actually happened. Not that I'm crazy about it, but one way around this would be to use "Nominated (pending accouncement of winner)", which would then change to just "Nominated" after the date specified in the template. Second, it puts a burden on us to not only know that the person was nominated but when the announcement will be made as to the winner. This may be relatively easy for major awards like Oscars, but not as easy for lesser-known awards. It also puts the burden on patrollers (like me) to verify not only that the person was in fact nominated (it's rarely sourced directly), but also that the date in the template is correct. All in all, although an interesting (and clever) proposal, doesn't it strike you as a bit of overkill?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It possibly is "overkill", I was mainly trying to offer a compromise between the two camps. Using "pending" is really an argument for not adding the information at all until the winner is announced, but then if the nominations are still notable then there is no reason why the nominations can't be added straight away. Like I said above, documenting a subject as "nominated" is true even if the winner has not yet been announced, since a winner doesn't stop being nominated, so documenting all the nominess as "nominated" and then just updating the winner probably sits best with the policies. But that said, I still think there is some value in letting readers know that the nominee could still win the award, it's an issue of clarity as well as factual accuracy. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me we haven't established a consensus on how to handle the issue, which means in real life we will continue to have some editors use pending and some editors using nominated. And at least some readers won't have any idea what pending means.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Betty - I don't understand why both of your example temps produce "nominated". Did you mean the first temp produces "pending"? If they both make "nominated", what's the point? Shirtwaist 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol, yes, I've corrected it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying. That would save a lot of effort, wouldn't it. If there are 5 nominees, only the winner needs updating, thus cutting the work by 4/5ths, right? Sounds good to me! Now, if we could just devise a template that automatically detects winners...;} Another option would be:
  • {{show by date|2011|12|11|Nominated pending outcome|Nominated}} producing Nominated and
  • {{show by date|2012|12|11|Nominated pending outcome|Nominated}} producing Nominated. Shirtwaist 05:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If an awards event is not notable enough that you know it happened, it probably shouldn't be being paid attention to in an article Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good in theory, but in practice, it's hard to know where to draw the line. I figure if the award has a Wikipedia article, it's good enough. If it doesn't, I (sometimes) look for any secondary coverage about the award. More frequently, I just throw up my hands because of the amount of work involved. There are LOTS of editors that update awards sections for actors and films all the time, and it's a thankless task to patrol their edits for sourcing and for notability of the award.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick comment: I saw "pending" used in some articles the other day, but it was under the column header of "result". So, in that context, pending makes sense, right? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It'd be a nice to see an example, but how does that make sense? Not to literal ole me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't remember which article it was, but after having a look around, they all seem to have the column header of "result". My bad. But anyway, it does make sense, doesn't it? It's saying X was nominated for Y award, and the result of that nomination is pending. But because you asked for an example, here's one: Captain America: The First Avenger#Accolades. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. At least I now understand what you're saying, but I still think that for many readers the meaning of pending would be unclear.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm fine with getting rid of "pending" and just saying "nominated", because after all they are nominated anyway, but pending does make sense, and I don't think readers should be treated as stupid... And if they don't know what pending means, they can look it up anyway. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not that readers are "stupid" or that they don't know the definition of the word "pending"; it's that many readers will not know what pending means in this context. I actually ran this by a couple of friends, and before I even finished, they said what do you mean by pending? Not a scientific study, of course, but still ... --Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
What is there to get? The context is shown by the column header, which is "Result". So if it says "won", the result is that they won. If it says "nominated", the result is just a nomination. If it says "pending", the result is pending. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
'Pending' presents a problem that 'nominated' does not, as every award is in a sense pending even before nominations are announced. The nomination, too, is pending its announcement, and that could be sourced ("Hugo will be nominated for best picture"). My opinion is that 'Nominated' gives the information and seems to do the job without the confusion of 'pending'. I would like to see 'Nominated' wikilinked to the relevant awards page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I can understand wanting to avoid that confusion, but the tables list individual nominations, and if it says "pending" under result, the result of that nomination is pending. Not "the nomination is pending". "Result" is key here, which is why it is the column header. Furthermore, I doubt that sources claiming "Hugo will be nominated" before the official announcement should be used. And also, "nominated" presents a problem that "pending" doesn't. It implies that, just like any past awards that would show up alongside it in a table, it is just a nomination, and they didn't win, when that is not the case, as the result of the nomination is pending. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Nominated is confusing because while the votes are being counted someone might think Scorsese didn't win for Hugo? And for that we want to say 'Pending', which is a made up category that isn't used in the real world? On your plan, the day after the Oscar nominations are announced, readers will see 'Pending' and they'll say "Pending? I thought Scorsese was nominated! I guess I'm wrong, it's pending. I wonder what the problem is with that nomination?" --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe another option would be to use a different type style i.e. "Nominated" and "Nominated", and add a note at the bottom of the table explaining the difference. That way, the actual nomination is recorded but there is distinction between historical and live nominations. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema, that would be misreading the table. And it's not the fault of the table if readers completely ignore column headers, as you suggest they will. We don't expect readers to ignore column headers of other tables. For example, a table of cars and their top speeds would take up two columns, with the first listing car types, and the second listing the speed (in km/h or something...). So if 'Car A' has a top speed of 200, we don't say that 'Car A' is 200, we say 'Car A' has a top speed of 200.
Similarly, my answer to your reader would be, "Scorsese was nominated, which is why his nomination appears in the the table of nominations for awards. There's no problem with the nomination. The problem is with the result of the nomination. There is no result yet. The result is pending."
There needs to be some differentiation between historical and live nominations, and 'pending' fits perfectly. It's not an official term used by award ceremonies, but that's because award ceremonies don't offer nominations, wons, and pendings. It's an actual term used in the real world specifically for situations like this. Having said that, I'm open to a compromise such as one suggested by Betty Logan. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Betty's on the right track, but wouldn't adding a note like "Nominated <ref>did not win</ref>" to the historical ones make it even clearer? Shirtwaist 04:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A simpler option would be to bold Nominated if the outcome is to be decided, and, like Betty said, leave an explanatory note. Shirtwaist 10:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be misreading the table and you want to blame the reader? No, a table that can be misread is a confusing table. The reader just wants to know who was nominated. Again, this is not normally how these things are discussed, so it will not be clear. If we note "Nominated", there are other ways to let readers know that the awards show is coming. How about a footnote? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that people are over-concerned with coddling the reader. WIthout any foreknowledge I saw tables, saw "pending" and understood that it meant that it hadn't been decided yet. That may be because I have loose knowledge that the event shouldn't have happened yet but still, anything that wins an award, people will be swarming all over those articles to update it. Realistically, anything even nominated for an award has someone watching the article out of interest and will update it accordingly. Does this mean Hugo will be updated almost immediately? Yes. Does it mean if Jack and Jill wins Best Picture at the Oscars it will be updated almost immediately? Probably not.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema, I am only blaming the reader if they are ignoring column headers (which is an acceptable reason for blame). There's no doubt that sometimes tables can be confusing, if not set out well. But this isn't one of those cases, and so long as readers actually read the column headers (something that is actually expected of readers, if they are to understand these tables - or any table for that matter), there shouldn't be any confusion. If you look at my Car example again, you can see that it is possible to misread the very simple table as "Car A is 200", and that is not the fault of the hypothetical table. So, aside from ignoring column headers and not knowing the definition of pending, I can't think of any other reasons for a reader to be confused.
But yeah, I agree with you, Darkwarriorblake. And Shirtwaist, if we did go with Betty's compromise, I think that would make it clearer. However, I am leaning further away from that option, as "pending" makes sense. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, actually, 'pending' doesn't make sense if it doesn't also say 'nominated'. Is someone in the pending category nominated or not? Why doesn't it say nominated if they're nominated? The proposal is trying to let the reader know that the nominee could still win (not a very big deal, but okay it's something) but I don't see why we are not telling the reader that there is a nomination. This is completely new usage; I never heard anyone anywhere refer to an award as pending and mean it in just this way. 'Pending' might refer to a doctorate that is earned but not yet awarded, say. The nomination is awarded and the table should say that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've resisted commenting for a while and have just been watching. My strong preference is to eliminate pending and to say nominated or won, nothing more. It's simple and it's accurate. However, if I were forced to compromise, I would go with something like Betty's suggestion and eliminate pending as a description. The only objection I have to the precise proposal by Betty is I think formatting is too subtle as a cue to the reader. I would also lean in favor of a template that would do the work for us (and for consistency).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think it needs to say "nominated" as well as "pending", as all of the entries in the table are nominations. We don't say "nominated (won)" for those that won awards, because you have to be nominated for the result of the nomination to be a win. And similarly you have to be nominated for the result of the nomination to be pending. If you think it is necessary, perhaps the titles of the tables could contain the word "nomination". Otherwise, I don't think it is necessary in the Result column alongside either "won" or "pending". Furthermore, it's not completely new usage. The word exists for purposes such as this. And the doctorate may be earned, but unlike currently unawarded (but earned) doctorates, in this case there is an undecided winner. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with ProfessorKilroy. "Pending" makes absolute sense, if the column header is "result", then the result is "pending" or "awaiting a conclusion". If the contention is that we do not wish to use "pending" because it is some kind of hassle, then that is a different issue and one that I am not concerned with--meaning the elimination of "pending" would not bother me. The reason to not use "pending" should have nothing to do with it being understood, however, because it is being used properly and within the correct context.  Chickenmonkey  00:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just posted this in the Dragon Tattoo talk page, but I realize it may make more sense here, having seen this conversation:
Pending? Does that mean that it is pending whether or not it has secured the nomination? I don't understand why it can't be Nominated. It will always be at least a nomination, and it is far easier to maintain these articles by simply changing the winner from Nominated to Won and leaving the others alone than to change ALL of them after the fact. Plus, as I mentioned, it gives an ambiguous notion as to whether it has actually secured a nomination. A nominated film will ALWAYS be nominated; a win is simply an upgrade - it doesn't nullify the fact that it was also nominated. It seems to me that it would make more sense to make note of a pending and potential award by changing the font type to something like italics, or to add an asterisk. Any thoughts? (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, this completely new usage is confusing because it is inaccurate. Today the nominations for the Academy awards are pending; on the day after their announcement, the nominated films should be described as nominated for the astonishing reason that they are actually nominated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema, "As has been mentioned", the column header is "result". Therefore, for nominations with pending results, the result of the nomination is pending. Not "The nominations for the academy awards are pending". "The result of the nominations for the academy awards are pending". "'Car A' has a top speed of 200", not "'Car A' is 200". It is not completely new usage, it is not confusing, (unless the reader does not know the definition of the word), and it is not inaccurate.
It may be true that "a nominated film will always be nominated". However, if the result of the nomination is a "win", we don't say that the result of the nomination was "nominated", even though the film was nominated. That's because you have to be nominated for the result of the nomination to be a "win". Similarly, if the result of the nomination is pending, we don't say that the result of the nomination was "nominated", even though the film was nominated. That's because you have to be nominated for the result of the nomination to be "pending".
"Nominated" as a result of a nomination, is very different to the results, "Won" and "Pending". By using the logic that says the nominations with pending results should say "Nominated" in the "result" column, nominations with a result of "Won" should also say "Nominated" in the "result" column.
As Chickenmonkey said, "The reason to not use 'pending' should have nothing to do with it being understood, however, because it is being used properly and within the correct context". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The Elephant Man at FLC

List of accolades received by The Elephant Man is currently a WP:FLC candidate. It's not received a lot of attention, currently having one support, one set of addressed concerns with no follow-up, and a drive-by oppose. It's an older nom so it'll probably be closed soon - if anyone could add their opinions or advice to the nom, it would definitely help, regardless of the outcome - there's more like it in the pipeline so any concerns I can scope out and address with this will save me a lot of effort in the future. Thanks to anyone taking the time to look it over. GRAPPLE X 22:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I can't see anything wrong with it, I've added a minor comment. Good luck with getting the FL with this and the other David Lynch articles you've worked on. Lugnuts (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Girls with guns

This sub-genre is up for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Character infobox template changes

Just wanted to notify people of a discussion taking place here about changes to the template mainly about the removal of the last appearance field. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

German Film templates

How is it with the templates {{Film Germany}} and {{Film West Germany}}? Should the West German template be used for all films that were released in the time when Germany was divided in two parts and Germany for all after this? Because I've seen inconsistencies in the usage of these. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The West Germany one was only created (by me) back in September of this year. Thus, at least some, of the inconsistencies will be because it wasn't around when people were adding country templates to the infoboxes. I also created {{Film East Germany}} so anyone who wants to can go back and apply the appropriate country tag to the articles that need it. I don't know how many articles could use this update but I will be happy to help if someone knows how to make the search for the articles any easier. MarnetteD | Talk 01:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is the brief conversation that brought them into being Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 37#Question about country templates. MarnetteD | Talk 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Just found this cat Category:East German films that will be of help. MarnetteD | Talk 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's just a simple case of Germany being used instead of West Germany. I know I've been guilty of doing that in the past. Should be easy enough to change the infobox for the films made in the East/West days. Lugnuts (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the answers. I think the category German films could be a good starting point. Difficult may be those films that were released when one of the former German countries ended (e.g. 1933, 1945, 1990). --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I created {{Film Nazi Germany}} and {{Film Weimar Republic}} so all film templates are now in line with the {{Country data Germany}} templates (except the German Empire, but I'm not sure this is actually needed). --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Kill Bill 2 talk page

It seems this talk page, Talk:Kill Bill Volume 2, was left a redirect in an oversight. The requested move was to be spelled "vol." and someone moved the talk page but later Erik (I wish he was around) moved the article page to "volume". I imagine the redirect was leftover from when the article was created before it started filming. My suggestion is to move the original talk page to overwrite the redirect and possibly leave a note about checking the Talk:Kill Bill Volume 1 page before posting? --Peppageಠ_ಠ 18:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Green check.svg Non-controversial CNR cleanup. Page moved. Redirect overwritten, and new redirect created "Talk:Kill Bill Vol.2" to "Talk:Kill Bill Volume 2". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of the Past

There's a disagreement between User:Gunbirddriver and me about what's appropriate for the synopsis. Other opinions would be appreciated. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Using Plainlist in Infobox film

It seems that the documentation to {{Infobox film}} has been changed to advocate the use of {{Plainlist}} over <br /> [6]. I personally think it adds a level of complication to editing the infobox. Is there anyone else who takes issue with this? BOVINEBOY2008 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why an editor can't choose which format to use? The documentation should offer guidance on both conventions unless there is a clear reason for choosing one over the other. I'm not a fan of forcing style conventions on editors unless there is a clear editorial consensus or a solid technical argument for doing so. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"it adds a level of complication to editing the infobox". All of the parameters in the infobox add complication (film date, writer/based on, etc). The infobox adds complications (for new editors) fullstop. However, this looks like a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. I agree with Betty - unless there's a very good reason to adopt it, then it doesn't need to be used. Lugnuts (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the plainlist docs, there is one advantage - the list can be entries as a bulleted list instead of having the html markup. Alson there is a comment there about it being "...more standards-complaint and more accessible then separating list items with <br />." It may be worth following up on the accessibility issue with using the "br".
- J Greb (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't see the advantage with using html over bullets. Using the "br" allows a list to stay inline, while using plainlist takes up the same number of lines as the list plus one. Why exactly is using wikimarkup over html more standard compliant and more accesible? Perhaps I just don't understand the technical aspect of it. BOVINEBOY2008 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've got little clue as far as standards go save WP:Deviations. As far as accessibility, there have been a number of editors working in regard to WP:ACCESS to prevent apps for the hearing impaired spouting gibberish when Wikipedia pages are run through them. One of the more recent issues was to eliminate {{*}} and the like from navboxes since they audibly render as "This dot that dot next dot other dor etc". It may be worth asking those on that drive if BR causes a similar issue. - J Greb (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Bovineboy2008: This has been explained to you recently on the talk page of {{Infobox television}}. To what do you refer when you say "using html over bullets"?
Betty: offering new and inexperienced editors two methods will confuse them; so they're only offered the more advantageous method. while more experienced editors will find that the old method will still work, they're nor encouraged to use it for the reasons explained below.
All: The MoS tells us to use wikimarkup in preference to raw HTML (<br /> is raw HTML). Plainlist, as its documentation explains, emits proper HTML list markup, instead of lines of text that have the visual appearance, but not the semantic markup, of lists. This is more compliant with web standards and accessibility guidelines (which mandate the use of HTML list markup). It also simplifies the job of any parsers or screen0scrapers which are extracting data from infoboxes. There is no visual change for our regular readers. This is part of an improvement in our handling of lists which is being rolled out to all infoboxes, navboxes and other uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Btw, the usage of {{Plainlist}}'s format is not so uncommon. We also have the similar templates {{Ref begin}} and {{Ref end}}, {{Multicol}} and {{Multicol-end}} (probably some more) so the usage isn't that difficult to learn for new users. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "Country" in Infobox film?

I have a general question regarding the "Country" field in the {{Infobox film}} template. Is this intended to be the nation where the film was developed, or does it include where it was produced, financed, or filmed? As a particular example, Rollerball (1975 film) was produced in Britain, filmed in Britain and Germany, and is considered a British film by a number of sources. However, other sources list it as a US film because it was apparently "made" by Krim Studios and United Artists. Your clarification would be appreciated. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What sources exactly are calling it "British"? I notice IMDB does, but we can take that out of the equation I think because we don't generally consider it a reliable source. Both the American Film Institute and British Film Institute agree it is American, and I would say they are perhaps respectively the most authoritative resources on American and British film production. In short, the nationality of a film is very murky, it often takes account of production, financing and where it was filmed, and sometimes where the talent comes from. There have been tons of discussions on the film project about this since there really is no legal definition of what constitutes the nationality of the film so it's best to go with what reputable sources say. In this case, even a reputable British source says it's American so I'm not sure there is much of a disagreement. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Cinema. I've had some issues with a frustratingly disruptive anon. editor who seems pretty adamant that it is a British production (as per this edit), so I was hoping for some useful clarification. RJH (talk)
It has to be said, that is a pretty compelling source; the author has specifically researched British science fiction and is Professor of English at the University of Arkansas, so this is a proper academic reference. In this case I would go down the co-production route and list it as a production of both countries, since there is no compelling reason to discount any of the sources listed here. The BFI, AFI and an academic text by a university professor are all strong reliable sources IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit

User:2nyte recently made some BOLD edits consisting of copy/paste page moves and redirects without discussion across four namespaces; The Hobbit (2012 film), The Hobbit (film series), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again. I reverted these pages back to their previous states and while we can attribute 2nyte's edits to good faith intentions of an inexperienced editor, it does bring up the fact that we may need to revisit the naming issue. I suggest we do something along the lines of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 with shared sub-article like Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We were getting close to consensus here a while back, and it seems that this user had pretty much followed this pattern. I'd have preferred to see it as a move, but I think the changes were along the right lines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think so too but it was the wrong way to go about it. Since the previous measure failed, this surely would be a contested move, but perhaps its time to bring it up again.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we should revert these back to the state that 2nyte had them. No point in getting bogged down in a problem that doesn't really exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The pages were never properly moved in the first place just copied and pasted. The page histories were left at the original namespaces. Also I am not sure about the move to The Hobbit (film series), the only given info is about the 2012 film, there is an additional 1977 film that is not discussed. Also The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again were identical except for the title and release date. If the second part is not yet notable in its own right per WP:GNG then perhaps keeping them together for now is best.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that they should be moved properly, but the structure was pretty much the consensus back in July. With the advent of the trailer for An Unexpected Journey it may be appropriate to start developing the individual pages as stubs (well the first film at least). And the 1977 film can be dealt with (as per that discussion) with an umbrella article of Middle Earth in film (as also discussed). Maybe The Hobbit (film series) isn't the 100% ideal title for the two-film umbrella article (as it's not common to have "film series" articles for a series of two), but I don't know what would be more appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
As I stated in my opening comments, I agree that the Deathly Hollows model would be ideal but I am not sure if we are there just yet. We are still missing some key unique information for each part, for instance do we know where the plot of part 1 ends and part 2 begins or which actors will be part one or two or both. I do not see the point in having two identical articles as 2nyte created. Perhaps a single article is best until the unique features of each part are revealed. Also once the articles for each part are created I dont see the point in having an umbrella article for both parts, but as you suggest an umbrella article like Middle Earth in film for all the film adaptations would be nice.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's any question that the pages need to be moved in the proper way so as not to delete the original article history; that's simply basic procedure.
Additionally, given the unknown variables still in play, we should remember there is no deadline in Wikipedia; the safest and most authoritative course is to wait until a truly sufficient amount of reliable information exists. We need to remember we're an encyclopedia and not a film magazine. Encyclopedias movie slowly and carefully since, theoretically, people want us to be the last and most authoritative word. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess there's no rush! The individual articles would be barely notable as standalone articles. I'm usually a big advocate of WP:NFF! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My two cents, I think overall if the consensus is in the favor to split it an administrator mostly should be the most responsible editor to do it. Although if an ordinary editor moves it the wrong way with copy and pasting and you still favor the idea of it being splitted use {{Template:Db-histmerge}} for the article to be moved the right way. Not much of a big deal really. Jhenderson 777 15:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, I am a deletionist, and a big supporter of WP:NFF and other such policies that restrict the massive flow of cruft articles we have. That being said, this/these movies have received a MASSIVE amount of press, for many years, and there should clearly be enough for a non stub article that passes all relevant policies. I think for now a single article for both movies should suffice, which avoid all the problems with series, 1977, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on teh problem here, aren't those subtitles official? Why can't they be used? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
They are and I imagine they will be used at some point but the question is based on the information available is the article ready to be split?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the articles satisy notability, they're currently filming and we know there will be two films, but maybe that sidetracks the debate. The real issue is whether we're at the stage that two articles can be independently developed; looking at The Hobbit article there isn't a clear split is there? The Harry Potter articles weren't split until after the first film came out. The way that one was handled was that it became very clear that the article would be much better if it were split because it started to look like two articles spliced together, so the process was fairly organic. With The Hobbit article I would say there is no compelling reason to split at this point, everything is still best documented as one piece of work. That said, it will have to be split eventually, so if you can finalise the split structure and names of articles then that will make the process quick and decisive when it has to be done. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that we should eventually split the article according to what we've (almost) agreed upon. Maybe now is not the right time, but I think that it is going to happen within the next 6 months or less. I just think that when we do it, there should be consensus and not one editor taking it upon him/herself to do it. But I am sure that this was all in good faith.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I would, however, like to add that I've never been a fan of the title The Hobbit (2012 film) because it seems (at least to me) to be inaccurate. It almost implies that both films are being released in 2012, which they are not. However, I don't know what else we could call it other than The Hobbit (film). I don't see why we can't use that until we do the split. And yes, I am aware that there is a 1977 film, but I personally think that it would be appropriate considering that the 2 films aren't going to be released in 2012, only the first one.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

This just a notice that the issue has been brought up at Talk:The Hobbit (2012 film)#Requested move IV for all those who wish to comment.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Category: Male actors

Discussion at CfD can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Footer Movies Gautham Menon

What does Template:Footer Movies Gautham Menon even mean? What is a footer movie? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case a "footer" is something to be applied to the bottom of the page. The term is common in page layout and in word processing programs. - J Greb (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
OHHHHHH!!!!! Heh. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Renamed to Template:Gautham Menon movies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Run time, lack of mention in MOS, muddy infobox docs

This is in direct reference to Talk:The Green Hornet (2011 film)#Running time but more broadly in regard to the back and forth these times get in general.

WP:MOSFILM is mute of the topic, leaving the default impression that this is subject to needing a ref to a reliable secondary source.

The infobox docs - "Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute." - don't touch it either.

We do need something inserted to either out-lining where this information can come from and which version of the film it should pertain to.

- J Greb (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBFC. BBFC rarely cuts anything so a runtime should be an accurate representation of the original work and I've used it accurately on multiple articles. It only fails where there is a significant time gap between film releases because then the UK version won't be submitted to the organization until well after the US film has been released. BBFC times it by actual frames present in the work and has it down to the second so I think sticking that in the MOS as a first resort would be a satisfactory idea.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good.
It does leave what looks like 3 areas where The Green Hornet debate is stuck on:
  • Times cited in reviews. Ostensibly reliable secondary sources which may conflict.
  • Times cited on home media packaging. Primary sourcing.
  • Times derived from timers/counted of playback machines.
FWIW, I can see each having a use, but there really needs to be a Project wide consensus on if they should be used. Especially since the infoboxes are primarily focused on the original theatrical releases.
- J Greb (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
For the Infobox home media wouldn't really be applicable as far as I understand it since anything could have happened to it between theatrical and home release, even if it is just trimming or padding by 30 seconds. Reviewer times I don't think are particularly reliable either since I've seen them vary to some degree on things like Fast Five. Playback machines would probably vary depending on how they are designed to track the passage of time and display it so I wouldn't consider them reliable at all. For instance the BBFC lists the video version of Green Hornet as 9 seconds longer. Not a difference that would matter here but there are differences for whatever reason if only due to framerates on international televisions and systems and media setups. Unless it was grossly out of line with what the BBFC says, (so like it says Green Hornet is 118 minutes 44 seconds) and a few reviews said 125 minutes, I would be inclined to go with the independent organization over the critic to whom it is not of the same importance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We generally go with the original theatrical running time because it is a standardised 24fps, whereas with home media you get PAL speed-up so the times are territory dependent. The BBFC actually measures the print of the film they are classifying to the nearest foot and frame, so they have the most thorough method; sources like the New York Times and Allmovie while reliable sources may not measure to that precision, and in the case of older films lift the running times from home media which may be different. The only exception I can think of where we might have to look beyond the BBFC is if they have cut the work; however they clearly state if they have cut the work so such cases would be easy to identify. The bottom line is we know the methodology for the BBFC and it is a sound one, while we don't know the methodology for other reliable sources. If there are different running times due to censorship, we should go with the most "complete" version. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah it isn't infallible (I belive we had this problem with Terminator 2 as it was subjected to cuts and as such the time isn't correct) but it is a pretty solid source and probably the strongest argument against anyone who is attempting to add differing times from things like home media or reviewers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
One point we need to consider is that media outlets don't stopwatch the films to get running times, but use running times supplied by the studios themselves. Since the studios are the sources of the films, those reported running times reflect the studio's official measurement. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible overcat with film directors

Happy New Year all. Please see this discussion about a possible overcat issue. Input welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WordGirl critics

Lately there has been some issues with film articles (i.e. The Smurfs (film), Rango (film), Arthur Christmas and Spy Kids 4). An IP hopper insists that the characters in May I Have a Word? segment of WordGirl is a notable critic, but others, including MikeAllen and myself, feel that it's not. Should we remove all mentions of WordGirl in film articles or not? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, heavens, yes. There are about 100 major publications and websites one could name that are infinity more notable and important. Plus, it sounds lik elinkspamming. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh wow, this person is still doing this? I haven't noticed it on the Smurfs article in a while. Remove. Remove. Remove. If they keep it up, a blacklist may be warranted. —Mike Allen 02:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion about sources

On a related note to the above, the WikiProject Video games group has some lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List that can be pretty useful in assessing whether a source is reliable or not. It might be similarly useful to have a comparable set of lists for this Wiki project. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We have that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so you do... it's just well hidden on the infobox. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Joyful Noise (film)

This edit seems to be a COI edit adding information about non-notable actors. If others agree, kindly revert or revise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

AFI catalog

The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures is sort of like IMDB but vastly more reliable. They have paid editorial staff writing entries with citations and references. Here's a sample entry for Dixania. It's been called the Oxford Dictionary of Biography of American films. Why aren't we using it? Green Cardamom (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new AFI template Template:AFI film, and added AFI to the database section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. Use this resource, it should be in every American film article with priority over IMDB. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty impressive. I guess no-one was aware of it before. I did a random search on a fairly obscure documentary I started and was amazed by the coverage. Fully support the template you've created and the inclusion in US film articles. Lugnuts (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree it should take precedence over the IMDB. The AFI database is closer in content to Allmovie; I believe the AFI database is actually developed in conjunction with academia too so I think it is a highly reliable source, and its usage should be encouraged in articles as a source. However, IMDB isn't used as a source, its primary purpose is as an external link and I think in that capacity the IMDB is still superior to the AFI in terms of offering more extensive information. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "priority over" has any real meaning. While I like the AFI info and the way it is presented I can tell you that, having been through 1000's of film articles in my time here, there is no one pattern followed in the order of items linked in the "External links" section. Many put IMDb first but just as many don't. I don't know if we even have a guideline recommending an order for IMDb, Allrovi, Metacritic etc etc but I can tell that the order is entirely random (or perhaps I should say it depends on what a given editor did as they added ELs) as things stand now. On a connected note there are 1000's (if not 10s of 1000's) of articles that do use IMDb as a reference and I would suggest that they be replaced with this AFI database wherever possible. MarnetteD | Talk 21:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Might it be beneficial to have a field in the {{Infobox film}} template to include the AFI film link as a reference? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If it's being used as a reference I would prefer to see it used as an inline citation, otherwise it isn't clear what is being sourced by it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Betty, on this and the point just above. The IMDb gives a much more extensive database of below-the-line credits. This is even true with the 1930 film listed in the first entry above, Dixiana:. --Gothicfilm (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The AFI catalog is by far the most reliable source for filmographic information on American cinema. Any film historian or scholar will tell you that. The AFI researchers spent literally decades researching and creating this, with layers and layers of cross and double checking. It is the pinnacle of filmographic research and a model for others (I wish they'd do something like that for Japan). Because it was first published on paper, and thus had to limit some credit information, it may look less informative than the IMDb, but it is very reliable and IMDb is not. You can rest assured with AFI-based information which you cannot be with IMDb. Given our emphasis on RS, the AFI is better than the IMDb any day. Michitaro (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not either/or. Everyone should use the AFI as a source if they find it useful. But the IMDb should continue to be listed as an external link on every WP film page for the reason I gave above. --Gothicfilm (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. But I would think it unfortunate if such an excellent resource was only referred to in inline citations when the occasion necessitates it. It also should be listed as an external link on every WP page for an American film. Michitaro (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


Sometimes, AFI Catalog is not accurate at all. Look at Storm in a Teacup (film). I have inserted the release date, according to 1977 bio of Vivien Leigh, and added notes to compare the release and copyright dates. --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case you don't really know because maybe it was released on the AFI date but not shown in theaters general release until the later date, and sometimes copyrights are not registered until long afterwards (you had 28 years to register after release). Green Cardamom (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that would not be possible if 28 years pass. Under the Copyright Act of 1909, the claimant would have had three months after the copyright date (or first publication date)[7] within the official states of the United States. If from overseas, six months. Failure to send best copies within deadline would nullify and void the copyright and would be severely punishable at $100 plus twice the retail price of the deposit copy. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, do make sure the Vivien Leigh bio is correct. As with any resource, there are mistakes, but to the vast majority of scholars the AFI catalog is more accurate than any other, though not infallible. Here is a fair assessment by Luke McKernan, film historian and curator at the British Library, who points out the strengths and weaknesses of the AFI Catalog. As for Storm in a Teacup, the best way to confirm whether the AFI is right or wrong is to go to its sources, which it does provide. I went to the NY Times and did find one possible mistake: the AFI listing reports the NYT review as Mar 22 1937, when it is listed in the NYT database as 1938. At the same time, a Jan 31, 1937, NYT article reports that the film had already been completed and was "ready to be shown." This looks like a film that requires more digging instead of trusting any one source. That sometimes happens. But that is no reason to disparage a widely praised resource. Michitaro (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Or possibly, AFI must have misued the book with same title, written by Gus March-Phillips.[8] Are you referring 1937 article as this?[9] --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the 1937 NYT article I found. It is an interesting coincidence that both the book and the film (according to the AFI) have a correspondence with regard to the month, but since the NYT rarely gives release dates in their reviews of this era, I would doubt the AFI scholar used that to get the release date. There is likely another source, and that requires checking the other sources they list. In the end, it could be a mistake. As McKernan says, there are the "inevitable small errors". But I quote the British Film Institute cataloger reacting to McKernan's review: "I can hardly describe the mixture of admiration and envy with which we viewed the AFI catalogues, which were used constantly (especially for the wonderful subject indexing). They also taunted us because there was no official British film catalogue of comparable range and depth. There still isn’t one." Michitaro (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is the BFI film and tv database, which as catalogues go isn't too bad: [10]. I think the AFI one is better, but if you need an equivalent for British films it is worth checking out. Betty Logan (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Furious Six (film) and Undisputed 4: King of the Ring

Articles for these were recently created. They appear problematic because:

a) Furious Six has only been announced, and is tentatively to be released in 2013
b) Undisputed 4 does not show up on IMDb at all, and what little I can find on the Net indicates it may come out in 2015

I proposed they be deleted, but perhaps other eyes could look and see if that was the appropriate course of action. Thanks. --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering I wrote the Fast Five article, I can tell you flat out there isn't enough info to warrant an article. Delete. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
And it isn't called Furious Six either. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alien running time - is the BBFC the most reliable source - Looking for consensus

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

IllaZilla is insisting on listing a running time of 119 minutes because his favored source, a book by David McIntee called Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films, apparently makes that claim. My real objection to what he's is doing here is not so much listing a runtime that's a few minutes off what even IllaZilla admits everyone else agrees on -- no, my real problem is having the first reference in this otherwise very good article say something which is false - namely The cinematic release of the film ran 119 minutes, while later video and DVD versions ran 116 minutes due to the different frame rates between film and video. That's obviously not true. According to BBFC figures I've checked on several films, including Alien, there's only a difference of around 10 seconds, if that. So rounded up to the nearest minute, for our purposes on WP, theatrical and video/DVD running times are going to be the same if the film hasn't been re-edited. Please take a look at Talk:Alien (film)#Alien running time and give your comment. Thanks. --Gothicfilm (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is the exact type of game I wanted to avoid when I brought this here when it was going on with The Green Hornet.
- J Greb (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This is different. Here even IllaZilla admits the sources WP normally use agree on one runtime - yet he wants to dismiss all of them in favor of a book that makes a claim that is false and doesn't explain where it got its theory. A direct transfer of a two-hour feature to video, without editing, is not going to be three minutes shorter. --Gothicfilm (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That is one terrible drawing of a facepalm, btw.--Remurmur (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
We should probably look up the Variety, Hollywood Reporter and NY Times reviews' running times. Also the AFI catalog, which I'm not sure includes running times but may. Relying on a single unofficial source is, of course, problematic. (Also, needless to say, the BBFC running time for UK release always has to be checked for whether it was cut or passed without cuts, which it'll say; this may be the case with some gory scenes by 1979 UK standards.) --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The BBFC clearly state they passed it without cuts. I gave links to several sources: Rotten Tomatoes [11] the New York Times [12], IMDb [13], and the AFI [14], as well as the BBFC [15]. There's plenty more. They all agree on 117. The AFI page lists a number of original print 1979 reviews and articles, several of which give the running time of 116/117. It's actually at 116m 35sec, according to the BBFC. IllaZilla admits this, yet dismisses all of them in favor of his book. Please comment on the film's talk page: Talk:Alien (film)#Alien running time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't disjoint the discussion by spreading it across multiple talk pages. It's one thing to notify other editors of a discussion, it's another to place a blatantly biased notice and to make the same argument in multiple places, making it difficult for participants to keep track of the discussion. The discussion is at Talk:Alien (film)#Alien running time. Please make all subsequent replies there. Gothicfilm, I have deliberately taken a break from the discussion but will formulate a reply in the next day or so. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying to get people to go to the talk page, as anyone can see by reading the above. I only answered what others posted here. I have posted nowhere else about this and it is offensive that you claim I am making the same argument in multiple places. This is at least the second time you've misrepresented what I'm trying to do, and how I'm doing it. Again, I urge people to go to the talk page: Talk:Alien (film)#Alien running time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You most certainly did make the same argument in multiple places. You made the same arguments here in your initial post that you made at Talk:Alien (film), in a very biased notice. It would have been perfectly acceptable to say "there's a discussion about conflicting sources regarding the film's runtime; additional input is requested", and left it at that. But instead you re-presented your entire argument, biased heavily in favor of your position. You in effect started the same discussion in a new location. If you are looking to attract additional opinions, that's perfectly fine, but the notice needs to be neutral. I'm certainly not misrepresenting what you're trying to do, I'm calling you out on it. This is precisely why I closed this thread...we are now having the same debate in 2 different places, which does no one any good. In order to reach consensus we need to keep the discussion where it started and was already going on, not start a simultaneous discussion on the same topic in another place. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You're the one who chose to come here now. If you don't want me to respond here, don't post something here that I have to respond to. Like You most certainly did make the same argument in multiple places. Anyone seeing that is going to think I put this in at least three different places. Multiple means more than two. I cannot let that go unanswered. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Now you're inventing new definitions for words. Wonderful. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

A request for help from those that remember previous discussions

In the many threads about sourcing that have occurred here I know why we don't use IMDb but I can't remember if Box Office Mojo is preferable. Thus, if any of you who have the time and knowledge about the subject can add to the thread here Talk:The Shining (film)#Note.2Fquery on the Budget it would be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 film anniversaries

In case anyone is interested, these films are celebrating their anniversaries this year:

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Metropolis could do with some cleaning, esp. in the external links section! Lugnuts (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just now I noticed Aladdin is turning 20... man, time flies. (I like that movie enough to be responsible for its GA status) And don't forget Dr. No (also 50). igordebraga 13:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Metropolis is on the front page today (on this day) section. Lugnuts (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun/Little Fatty debate

Hi! There is a debate over whether Qian Zhijun is now notable enough for Wikipedia,. Please see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Qian_Zhijun Especially for people who know Chinese, it is appreciated if you review the noticeboard post! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know how I can find the box office numbers of "The University Days of a Dog" (一只狗的大学时光)? Official DVD sales would be good too!

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Now it's at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 12 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek articles

I am planning to get Star Trek (film) to FA status since this was made into a GA and Star Trek: Nemesis to GA status. The relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Star Trek (film)#FA Push concerning the Star Trek film article, and Talk:Star Trek Nemesis#Preparation for GAC for the Nemesis article. Anyone interested, feel free to help out. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say hold off on Star Trek as it just got to GA today. But yeah, Nemesis deserves the same treatment as the other articles (even if it did suck). RAP (talk) 20:02 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well. As for Nemesis, we must find sources with regards to its entire production as well as its releases (both theatrically and for home releases) as well as critical reviews. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have Star Trek: The Original Series under peer review, yet I have not seen one review from someone else. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

Who is interested in cutting down the plot section of Three_Kingdoms:_Resurrection_of_the_Dragon#Plot? I haven't seen the movie personally, and I'm not sure exactly which details are the most pertinent. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


An article is undergoing AfD here. Kindly post your comments and views. X.One SOS 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film)#Request for comment

This section discusses a dispute of including the claims about the copyright status of Storm in a Teacup. Peter Rodgers Organization website lists this film as public domain, while the copyright claimant filed the Notice of Intent to Enforce a Copyright Restored under URAA. The film was copyrighted in August 10, 1937, and released in November 1937, not February 1937 as AFI and IMDB claim. --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Animation as genre? again...

So, pages such as 2013 and beyond in film, 2012 in film, 2011 in film, etc all list films with "animated" or "animation" as a genre, but I would have said that animation was a medium rather than a genre.

I know the film genre template contains animation (under the "by format or production" section), but the animation page certainly doesn't mention anything about it being a genre, aside from having the film genre template at the bottom. Also, the film genre page notes that some argue that animation is a "non-genre-based" categorisation.

I know I've brought this point up here before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 38#Animation as genre?). I've also brought it up here, here, and here, with varied (but overall little) progress, and there is no clear consensus as to where to go with this.

I originally proposed we remove "animation" from the genre column, because all films that use it should (or already do) list another genre that is more descriptive, and the inclusion of "animation" as a genre is not of any benefit. However, some editors who have weighed in feel that animated films still need to be recogniseable somehow as animated, but not using the genre column.

Ultimately, there's three ways for going about this:

  • Leave things the way they are, and include "animation" in the genre column.
  • Remove animation from the genre column and the page altogether as it is unnecessary.
  • Find another way of displaying that a film is animated without placing "animation" in the genre column.

So, which is the best way to go? And if it's the third option, how should we go about it? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously "animation" isn't a genre, because animated films can belong to different genres i.e. Manga, Titan AE is science fiction etc, so there needs to be some differentiation. I think it is useful to note whether a film is animated or live action though, so I would just add highlighting to animated films. For example, the 2013 article would look like:
<font-size=100%> Opening <font-size=100%> Title <font-size=100%> Studio <font-size=100%> Cast and crew <font-size=100%> Genre <font-size=100%> Ref.
18 Broken City 20th Century Fox Allen Hughes (director); Brian Tucker (screenplay); Mark Wahlberg, Russell Crowe, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Barry Pepper, Kyle Chandler Drama
The Last Stand Lionsgate Kim Jee-Woon (director); Andrew Knauer, Jeffrey Nachmanoff, George Nolfi (screenplay); Arnold Schwarzenegger, Forest Whitaker, Peter Stormare, Rodrigo Santoro, Johnny Knoxville, Zach Gilford, Jaimie Alexander, Eduardo Noriega, Harry Dean Stanton, Luis Guzman Action
Monsters, Inc. 3D Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar Studios Pete Docter, David Silverman, Lee Unkrich (directors); Andrew Stanton, Daniel Gerson, Robert L. Baird (screenplay); Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Mary Gibbs, Steve Buscemi, James Coburn, Jennifer Tilly Family
If I were you I would just go ahead and implement it on one article. If editors revert you then they have to engage in discussion over it. Give it a week, and if no-one reverts you then you can implement the changes on other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about going with the highlighted option. It's almost like it shoves "animated" in your face a bit, where I don't think it's necessary. Having said that, I can't think of a better way to illustrate it. No, actually it's growing on me a little... I don't know. I'd like some more opinions. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Another option would be to add an extra column called "type" or something along those lines, where can you note if the film is live-action/animation/3D etc. Betty Logan (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm against the coloring, very in your face. The column is better, it would only be used for animated films. Is it really that important if the film is animated or not? --Peppageಠ_ಠ 15:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Just put it in brackets after the genre, eg Drama (animated). Lugnuts (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather leave animation totally out of the genre column though, and really, I'm not sure that it is that important for a new column. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with this line of logic. The definition of a genre is "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content". It is my understanding that it is the physical elements of a work that determine its medium. Therefore, animation is not a separate medium from traditional film, as both end up on the same physical medium of film stock (or a digital video file). --Remurmur (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. Physical aspects "medium" would also cover materials and processes needed to get to that final spool of film/tape/data. Films that are primarily animation uses a certain set of materials and methods that are different than a film that is primarily live action. And yes, there is a caveat there due to special effects which have incorporated animation in some manner into films almost day one. - J Greb (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
But there are many different materials and processes used to create live-action films as well. A Hollywood blockbuster with sets, models, and green screens is created completely differently from a dogme 95 film. Nor is all animation created equally: cell animation and stop-motion animation are made in entirely different ways. You can even complicate things further with live-action animation techniques such as silhouette animation. And then you've got the real oddballs like La jetée or Mothlight.--Remurmur (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, the medium of "film" can be broken down by style, stock size, camera type, technology, etc. With that, the question becomes "Where are we splitting at the moment?" and "Are these also genres?" Second one first: I'd say "No" for our purposes. At best they are "sub-media" and should be separated from genre. As for the first... I'd prefer to start by keeping it simple with live action and animation, possibly with black & white and silent. - J Greb (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we add another column after "Genre" called "Medium" or something? I think I can go with that. Betty Logan suggested this a little earlier, but I've warmed to it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The "sub-medium" idea seems alright. Noting animation, black & white, and silent movies makes sense to me.--Remurmur (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I went ahead and added a "Medium" column on 2013 and beyond in film about a week ago, and I've now implemented it on 2012 in film. Currently it only has "Live action" and "Animation" as mediums listed, so do people think we should go further into "sub-media" to differentiate Stop-motion from regular CG or Hand-drawn animation, etc? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think one column is sufficient. Editors can always specify in the same column i.e. Animation (CGI) or Animation (hand-drawn) if they feel that level of distinction is necessary. It's not crossing definitions in the way that genre/animation was. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Also, if anyone feels inclined to add these columns to a couple of the pages, it would be very welcome. It's a pretty big job, and my availability to use wikipedia is decreasing. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright claimant data

I'm new here, but has there ever been a discussion or previous consensus about including copyright claimant information in articles? For example the AFI Catalog entry for Dixania includes the copyright claimants. I believe this information is notable as part of the film history - we say who made and produced it, why not also who officially claims ownership. Note: "copyright claimant" means someone(s) have claimed ownership in the Copyright Office database. It doesn't mean they actually own the film nor would it be an endorsement of ownership, that's why you say "claimant", it just reflects who claims ownership in the US Gov Copyright Office records. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think most people see that as unnecessary in a WP film article. For what it's worth, IMDb often does list the "Copyright Holder" near the bottom of their Box office/business page for a given film. I see they don't have it for Dixiana, though. --Gothicfilm (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
IMDB is unreliable and user-submitted. Are there any other sources? --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
People usually say that about the IMDb trivia section. No source is infallible, but I have found their Box office/business pages to be quite reliable and surprisingly detailed, especially with more recent films. The biggest drawback is it's often missing some foreign countries. Their "Copyright Holder" listing, if it's there, has always been accurate, every time I've checked. --Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to me. The IMDB pages fail to reveal the sources. I don't consider them reliable, as far as I believe. There must be records of box office somewhere in offline sources. --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Gothicfilm, maybe not every film but certain classes of films (made between 1923 and 1963). In the era of the Internet where films are copied and downloaded, and certain types of films are in the PD (though not always clear which ones), copyright impacts millions of people daily. It's exactly the type of information that would be notable to many people. I'm surprised there has not been an effort to document the copyright claimant status, at least of that class of (American) films made 1923-63. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see far too many problems that this opens up to make it worthwhile. First, as you note, "claimant" refers to just that, a claim, and isn't definitive. Second, IMDb is riddled with errors everywhere, from birth dates to cast lists. Nobody's perfect, but it's essentially a wiki that, unlike Wikipedia, doesn't footnote its sources; a huge amount of it appears to be uncited original research. Third, it would open Wikipedia up to all sorts of accusations and possible legal action if we were somehow to be seen as encouraging downloading of films whose copyright status is unclear. And finally, also apropos of downloading, Wikipedia isn't a consumer guide, and in that respect, whether a film is legally downloadable or not isn't within our purview. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
that something might have pitfalls doesn't make it undesirable: IMDB is not the only source for such info, which is indeed within our purview; and reporting such info in good faith would ABSOLUTELY NOT make us vulnerable to legal actionWran (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You may well be right; I'm afraid I find copyright law too complex and studio copyright lawyers too litigious and unpredictable to make any sort of absolutist statement. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just listing the information - who, when, number (based on the example in the OP) - seems like trivial indexing. The flip side is that the same can be said for run-times, genres, production companies, years, etc.
  • There is a difference between Wikipedia just stating "Foo claimed copyright in 19XX" and pointing that out with a reliable reference. And the is a big difference between "Bar is in public domain as Foo claimed the copyright in 19XX" and leaving it up to a reader to do the work based on their review of copyright law, the reliable ref provided, and anything else they can get their hands on.
  • Has anything cropped up within a film article that would benefit from having this information? You know, a notable documented controversy over ownership or a film being marketed as PD on home video? It would seem that those are the places this factoid could most relevantly be included with a source.
- J Greb (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes there are some articles that discuss copyright cases that are well known such as Night of the Living Dead. This is in regards to making notice of the official copyright claimant in certain entire classes of articles due to a perceived need to know given the amount of confusion surrounding the copyright claimants of these works (1923-63). I can point to endless discussions on Internet Archive for example as people there try to determine if a film is PD or not - these people obviously need access to copyright claimant information. They can of course get it elsewhere, but the point being, there are people who regularly need and use this information and it thus would be notable to include on Wikipedia for films 1923-63. The Internet Archive is just one example, I can find many others of people looking for copyright information. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good analysis and suggestions. Perhaps I'm thinking too cautiously. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have category:Public domain films under deletion review. You can join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Betty, categories won't work because you have to prove or show a film is in the PD with reliable sources. Many films which claim to be PD are in fact not at all. They're just pirates saying so to avoid being hassled when uploading to sites. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't Go in the Woods (2010)


I just created the article for the 2010/11/12 Vincent D'Onofrio directorial debut.

Can someone please add the necessary talk page banners and assess it - as I am not a member of the project, and I did most of the work, I cannot assess it myself.

The film was released across the US in 2010-2011 in various one-off theatre locations (for example Joe's Pub at The Public Theater theatre, NYC, 28 May 2010; through to the Tribeca Film Festival on the Road, Chicago, 14 October - 12 November 2011), released in 2011 on VOD, before a more publicised release in 2012. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work and welcome to the Film Project! I've done some work on the article, added categories and moved it to the correct naming standard (see WP:NCF). Thanks for starting the article. Lugnuts (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Film anniversaries

Just in case anyone's interested, these films celebrate anniversaries during the remainder of the year

- Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:35 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fiddler actually turns 40 in two days, FYI. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:38 1 November 2011 (UTC)
And Monsters is 10 today. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:18 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt for admin

To show your support (or opposition), make your voice heard here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:31 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 13 awards table

Would anyone be willing to create an awards table for Apollo 13? The article needs to meet WP:MOS before i can renomiante for GA, but i don't have the expertice quite yet. It would be appreciated. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:34 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 13 GA

I need some help with some reference improvements and overall sentence re-wordings. This is a good article, but just needs some touch ups. RAP (talk) 19:56 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Hi guys, I'm looking for for assistance with getting Terminator 2: Judgment Day to GA. At the moment the article's "Production" section is very deprived of information; if anybody has any book, specifically Terminator 2: judgment day : the book of the film, an illustrated screenplay, that can help out with the section please tell me. Or am I the only Wikipedian Resistance? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions

Pulp Fiction

The plot sction needs some adjustment as alot of it is told in story form ("television time for young Butch is interrupted" for example). I think this and the awards table at the bottom is all that stands in the way of GA for this. RAP (talk) 16:57 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Western film task force

I'm a fanatic of old War & Western films and I would love to have a task force focused on Westerns just like the War films task force. I would like to create the new task, but I'm not sure on what to do and what I need to create it. Ltlane777 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I think it needs support from a few users (you have mine, BTW). I'm sure it's not too difficult to create. I know we had a Christian film task-force setup fairly recently. Lugnuts (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I see a Romanian task-force has sneeked in. Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Manhunter at FAC

I've just nominated Manhunter (film) for its third FAC attempt. Previous nominations have been light on reviews, so if anyone has the time to comb over even a section of the article to add their concerns then I'd be immensely grateful. I should be readily available for most of the new few weeks to respond to anything. GRAPPLE X 21:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Beyond My Ken

User:Beyond My Ken seems to have become angry at what he sees as pointless edits made by me, and consequently has been going through my recent edit history and reverting me whenever he can. I fully accept that some of my edits probably should be reverted - their merits may be debatable. Unfortunately, Beyond My Ken has absolutely no idea what he is doing and is reverting me even when doing so violates relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:MOSFILM. He has restored date linking and 'year in film' piped links, for example, as well as restoring trivia sections to articles. I'd appreciate it if FilmProject members could keep track of this situation, and tell Beyond My Ken to be more careful. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Err, if he is doing that kind of thing that is beyond us and should be reported to the Administrators since he is just being detrimental to WIkipedia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose I shall have to report him if he persists, but I would prefer not to have to. This started apparently because I told him it was fine to revert me - I honestly didn't expect that he'd start doing that with absolutely no regard for what my edits were and whether they were in accord with style guidelines or not. It seems purely vindictive, frankly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I asked him for an explanation but he just reverted my request: [16]. You have no option but to take it to ANI. If any editor isn't even willing to discuss why he's doing something there is not much the Film project can do. Betty Logan (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Please see this I was invited by PoC to revert edits he made which made no difference in the redering of a page, but which made editing the page a little more difficult. It was my intention to only delete those edits, but perhaps I made mistakes -- without any assitance from PoC, such things will happen. I've now been warned twice by PoC about those edits, when the timestamps on the edits will show that they were all made at one time, and all before his first warning.

In short, this is a tempest in a teapot. PoC should stop making edits which make no different in rendering a page, and I won't have to delete such edits. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Betty Logan, you know full well you're not welcome on my talk page, and that I will revert your messages on sight. Ever since I filed an SPI on you, you've made it a point to plant digs at me at many opportunities. Please stop trying to stir up trouble and keep out of something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
If they genuinely make no difference, then there is no valid reason to exhaustively revert every single one of them. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
They don't make a difference in rendering., but they make it a bit harder in editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No they don't. Additional white space doesn't make editing any harder whatsoever. Edit warring over it does, however. GRAPPLE X 00:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that actually, but thanks for telling me. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Lest anyone here believe Beyond My Ken when he claims to have just made a few innocent "mistakes" in reverting me, please see the revision history of A Fish in the Bathtub, where he edit warred with me over formatting (and was wrong about the issue). From now on, I'm treating that kind of shit as plain vandalism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, check the timestamps. I was working through your edits at the same time you reverted one of them, I didn't notice and accidentally did it again. I suggest you take a look at WP:AGF, as well as WP:VANDAL and WP:CIVIL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing improvements to articles in the WikiProject, and is not the proper forum to bring complaints about user behavior. Try WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If someone's behavior disrupts film articles, it obviously has implications for the project. You're trying to make a distinction that has no basis in reality. Don't try to intimidate discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Your behavior is disrupting the WikiProject film talk page, which has implications regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM, not to mention my watchlist. If I remove this page from it, then who has intimidated whom? Elizium23 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
How is my behavior disruptive? I mentioned an issue that affects a number of film articles. It is both a behavior and a content issue. I may not have been perfectly civil, so you have a point there, but WP:NOTFORUM has nothing to do with it. Nothing I have done is using the page as a forum. How I could possibly be intimidating you, I have no idea. I find that suggestion uncivil in itself. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, we've got editors on here telling PoC to take it to ANI and admins over there telling him to keep on here. The issue belongs in both places; ANI should look into the conduct of BMK to determine whether there is any legitimacy to the complaint, and the Film project should look through the reverts and see if anything resulted in a MOS violation and that will cover both angles IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
All I'd like from Beyond My Ken is a promise not to revert me simply because I make an edit. Because it sure as hell looks like that is what he has done, and he should know perfectly well how aggravating it is. As for the formatting issue - white space or not - I'm happy to go with whatever the community thinks best. BMK has no more business imposing his personal views on that than I do. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

Heads up I figured that I would let you know that I have tagged several articles with {{WikiProject Film}} and consequently added them to Category:Unassessed film articles. I'll stop for now in case you want to go through the backlog. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Pile them all in anyway, as all our co-ordinators have gone AWOL. Lugnuts (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Welsh, Scottish, English, and Northern Irish films

At the risk of making everyone sigh with despair, would anyone care to discuss how we might introduce some consistency into the matter of Welsh, Scottish, English, and Northern Irish films? Calling them all "British" appeals to some people, but is rather unsatisfactory. While some films certainly seem best described as originating in the UK, it seems reasonable that Welsh-language films made in Wales, funded by Welsh money, and described as Welsh by the British Film Council, are better described as Welsh than British on Wikipedia. And so on. It would be good if we could set up some semi-formal criteria for this sort of thing. garik (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you have the British Film Institute identifying a film as a "Welsh" film, or being from "Wales" then I would say we don't need any additional criteria. Nationalities should be sourced like all other claims, and the British Film Institute is probably the most reputable source on British film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
PS. Your source is the BFI by the way, the UK film council was just a funding body which has since closed down. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sorry! I meant to write "Insititute", not "Council"! garik (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Toki o Kakeru Shōjo

The naming of Toki o Kakeru Shōjo is under discussion, please see Talk:Toki o Kakeru Shōjo. (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed and the title has been moved to The Girl Who Leapt Through Time. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Flash Gordon (film)

I've tried my best to cut the plot of this movie down to size, but despite my efforts, it's still over 900 words, and rather longer than the ideal size (about 700 words, I understand). I'm not sure how to compress it further. If anyone could help and finish what I've started there, it would be greatly appreciated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GORDON'S ALIVE!!!! - Nice work on this - I'll have a look at it later. The Citizen Kane of the 1980s. Lugnuts (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

MGM or Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

There is an editor that is changing each instance of MGM (mainly in infoboxes) to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - Now I'm wondering if that is right.Rain the 1 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is fairly active, so can anyone spare a minute for a reply?Rain the 1 02:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. GRAPPLE X 02:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The production arm is generally credited as "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" but the distribution arm was credited as MGM/UA after the merger with United Artists, so if the changes are limited to the 'studio' field they're probably correct, if they are being made to the distributor field then it depends on whether the film was pre or post merger. It would probably help if you could list a few articles that have had these changes. Betty Logan (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah right, well the editor who was doing it has been disruptive elsewhere. Just wanted to see if this was unhelpful too. Looks like it is helpful then. Just a few are Ivanhoe (1952 film), Igby Goes Down, Her Twelve Men, Homecoming (1948 film), The Helicopter Spies, The Haunting (1963 film), Harum Scarum, The Guns of Navarone (film), The Great Waltz (film), The Great Debaters and about 100 more.Rain the 1 02:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well he's just replacing plain "MGM" which I think is okay, because we generally bypass redirect abbreviations. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer MGM. Un-acronyming names can get awkward. I wouldn't want to see something like Columbia Broadcasting System Films to start popping up.--Remurmur (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


The season is upon us. Last year we did a bunch of cleanup on all the Oscar nominated films before the awards show. I thought this was an awesome idea, and I'm proposing we do the same thing again this year. To kick it off, here's a list of all the films nominated this year:

Some of the articles might take precedent over others (ie The Artist, Hugo, Moneyball, War Horse, etc.), but what does everyone think? Is this too ambitious? --TravisBernard (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. First thing is to ensure that each article has a reference to the nomination. Lots of IP editors just adding it without backing it up. Lugnuts (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Good call. Once the article has been checked for a reference to the nomination, I'll make the text a wiki link. Seems like the easiest way to do this. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The only film that deserved to be nominated was Oscar Gold, and it was just snubbed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Shailene Woodley protraying an emotionally distanct daughter is beaten out by Melissa McCarthy, who portrays a charatcer who doesn't know if she farted or queefed. *cough demographic pandering cough*. RAP (talk) 19:48 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Review on Night of the Living Dead

I have nominated Night of the Living Dead 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. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are some people here being payed by the commerical film review sites?

That's a rhetorical question, but I'm seriously wondering what has brought this project to device an MoS which in its guidelines for writing the lede section completely omits what most people would be looking for when looking up a movie, i.e. a brief summary of what the film is about. Instead readers are thrust into an exhaustive plot section, no spoilers barred. For weeks now, after opening a title here on Wikipedia I've had to jump immediately on to IMDB for any useful information that can tell me if this is a film I might like to watch. __meco (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Beside the fact that WP is not meant to be a film recommendation site for you or anyone else, what changes do you suggest to improve WP:MOSFILM (which includes this sentence: "If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise")? Shirtwaist 11:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, replace "If possible" with "In one or two sentences". __meco (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any improvement in doing that, since film leads usually contain one or two sentences that convey the general premise already. Do you have any specific examples of what you're talking about?. Shirtwaist 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't recite the films I've looked up recently. It just appears to me that very few if any had any mention whatsoever of what the film was about in the lede section. And I think that is something that should always be in that section. __meco (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a tag that can be added to pages where the lede is insufficient or too short to represent the article. While it should contain a brief idea of what the film about, it takes someone to actually write it for it to be there.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jocular sub-section

Jimbo pays me for each article I start. Lugnuts (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
RottenTomatoes pays better. Just sayin'. ;-}Shirtwaist 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if you have been spoiled on a film, to compensate may I recommend you see THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, A RIP ROARING RIDE OF EXCELLENCE WHERE THE GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATTOO INVESTIGATES STUFF AND IT TURNS OUT THE BUTLER DID IT.I'm jokingDarkwarriorblake (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create a new Category - Films that people might want to watch? Doniago (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be easier to just delete articles for bad films. I nominate Jack and Jill. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC) a 2011 comedy film starring Adam Sandler... Dear god, make it stop. Lugnuts (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I say delete 'em all...let Ebert sort 'em out! If anyone knows which movies we should watch, He does. Shirtwaist 20:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable blogs in top ten lists

I've removed reference to the blog NothingButFilm in several top-ten lists in articles (The Artist, Hugo, that George Clooney one, you know the one I mean), as I don't believe the blog is notable. Infact, it feels as if the owner is trying hard to promote their blog via WP. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral language in critical reception

There is a debate at Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2#.22Universal_critical_acclaim.22 about descriptors we can legitimately use to neutrally describe the critical recepetion of a film. The debate specifically focuses on how to interpret the scores of aggregator sites such as Rotten Tomatoes. In this particular case, some editors make the case that since Harry Potter got something like 96/97% then that denotes "critical acclaim", and accurately summarises the reception of the film. The counter-argument is that since Rotten Tomatoes primarily only counts positive reviews and averages ratings, it does not make qualitative assessments of the reviews i.e a good review does not equate to acclaim, so terminology such as "reviewed well" or "received many positive reviews" is more neutral wording. The issue obviously extends beyond Harry Potter, since it is essentially how we qualify data from aggregator, so I think the discussion would benefit from the input of other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't acclaim akin to accolades and so inappropriate unless it has won recognized awards? Ideally not a People's Choice award. or a Golden Globe really but I guess we have to accept that. Unless it has won more than one award I would think acclaim is inappropriate and the proper way to address it would be positive or generally positive since I can guarantee those reviews didn't like something to do with those films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Just read the article, people actually listed it as #2 on their list of films? Did they only watch 2 films? I am not a Harry Potter fan if you are not guessing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact I may be wrong but isn't acclaim reserved for things that kind of sweep the awards like The Social Network or the King's Speech? Where it's critical success is unquestionable? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing with Ralph Fiennes in it can ever be good. That withstanding, "acclaim" is not a measure of trophies won, but of esteem and opinion. If the average reviews are exceptionally positive (compare Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes - Metacritic seems a fairer judge, Rotten Tomatoes is a more sweeping net, so together you get a good picture), then "critically acclaimed" is warranted. Perhaps spelling it out more basically would work better, phrasing it as "The film was met with positive reviews" and then leading into several high-profile ones as a good set of examples. GRAPPLE X 19:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We could do with perhaps having this discussion and then adding a list of accepted terms and accepted definitions to the Film MOS. A problem with places like MC and RT is that they just say "It was positive", they don't say that the reviewer felt it was positive "Because you're able to switch your brain off and enjoy it for the mindless popcorn pap it is" for instance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I was thinking a more bare bones approach, rather than using words like "acclaim" might work. I guess we could maybe implement a "checklist" kind of guideline, whereby a certain number of recognised accolades, be they awards nominations/wins, or retrospective esteem (as opposed to the"popular at the time" kind of regard that films tend to get - I've seen glowing reviews for Michael Bay's work as it's released, followed by vitriol months and years later, for instance) would be needed in order to justify certain phrases used in a film's lead. In the article body I'd let things go more readily as there's going to be a bunch of examples and citations to verify things more readily, and the section as a whole would need to stand up to attention rather than focussing on certain specific words here or there. GRAPPLE X 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think some sources will refer to works as "critically acclaimed" which may make the term more acceptable. As it is, especially with Harry Potter, it seems more like fans just wanting to make it sound awesome. We could use guidelines in general really, there has been a lot of incidents of people changing mixed to positive for instance, especially on the latest Pirates of the Caribbean, which is far from mixed or negative and the newest Sherlock Holmes which between MC and RT offers mixed leaning positive, but users keep removing the positive. Obviously a few cases as well where MC can offer low mixed and RT will offer low positives (say 60-70%) but others just latch onto RT and call it positive. I admit I do this as well because they offer broader coverage than MC but their system is questionable. While working on Tower Heist pretty much every review was mixed, complaining about pretty much everything but the acting and Eddie Murphy, yet these reviews were being classed as positive (although the average score was lower, I think about 6 so incorporating that average score might help as well. I think agreeing on a standard would be good so we could stop teh constant back and forth between the impartial editor and the fan. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Personally, I only use the statistics from RT or Metacritic. You're bordering on original research when you try and identify a qualitative value from a percentage like that. I get tired of seeing "critical acclaim" or "universally panned" because, for one, we don't have near enough sample sizes from RT to make those statements. Secondly, it comes across like we're either favoring a film or trying to crush it. To me, it's more neutral to just stick to the facts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Grapple, are you saying Schindler's List is terrible? ;) Also, do you think that Pearl Harbor or Transformers would have gotten 96% on RT and 87 on MC? I don't think so. Besides, I don't think awards should be looked at for critical reception. There are plenty of films that have gotten great reviews that are overlooked for some reason at award ceremonies (specifically if it is foreign). Besides, what about War Horse or The Reader? The former got favorable (not "great") reviews and is nominated for many awards, while the other got "meh" reviews and got nominated for freaking Best Picture! I think it is early to go saying that it is doing crappy at award ceremonies, as by the end of the year I think it will be nominated for plenty of awards. But I do think critical reception should be looked at more to see if it is neutral. Guy546(Talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Schindler's was the worst Rumble Fish rip-off I ever saw. :P
On a more serious note, I'm not going solely by awards (for example, I doubt we'd argue much over the currently high esteem films like The Thing or Blade Runner, which both fared modestly in terms of awards), but by a sense of establishment beyond what's currently "popular" at the time. Reviews for something with a large fanbase might be initially high, especially with franchises, but we can always work in a degree of retrospective reviewing to either balance or reaffirm something—home media releases offer a good opportunity for this. Awards alone are a terrible indicator of quality. The King's Speech was a glittering turd, Titanic was an embarrassment to Irishmen everywhere and I still don't exactly understand the whole deal about Silence of the Lambs. GRAPPLE X 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well then we should probably wait a few years to see what people say about it, since it came out a few months ago? Guy546(Talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with  BIGNOLE  , Darkwarriorblake, GRAPPLE, Betty Logan and others who favor a standardized approach with neutral language, avoiding WP:PEACOCK terms like "praise" and "acclaim," which are vaguer and more undefined than "positive reviews" or "favorable reviews."
Darkwarriorblake makes a particularly good point about popcorn movies getting reviewed well for what they are. A good horror-thriller, fantasy film or modest little indie, for example, may get great reviews by the majority of critics for what it is, but are they really comparing it with High Noon or Raging Bull? Does the 100 percent for the Harry Potter movie here mean that it's as good as or better than Citizen Kane? So short of saying "universally positive reviews for the kind of movie it is," saying "positive reviews" is both neutral and accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it should have peacock terms, but where does it say "it got better reviews than The Godfather"? Nowhere! It just says that it got really good reviews! You guys are trying to turn this into something its not for some reason. Just sayin'. Guy546(Talk) 19:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Also Agree with Bignole. Positive, favorable (favourable for UK films), mixed, negative reviews is the preferred wording. The word "universal" is always dodgy and inaccurate as the reviewers from the Horsehead Nebula usually detest films from the planet Earth. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Even the Horse Whisperer? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Bignole's approach is to let the data speak for itself, and I fully advocate that approach. The thing about RT and MC is that they present the data to us in its most neutral form i.e. a statistic. I mean, a 97% score in its most literal sense means that 97% of the critics gave it a positive review, so do we really need to interpret the score beyond that? What does "critical acclaim" or "rave reviews" actually add to that statement? Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My point earlier though was that it is questionable how they define a positive review. I've seen Negative reviews on there which have been downright praising and positive which are ambivalent at best. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well exactly, RT scores don't get handed down to us on stone tablets, they are still just another point of view at the end of the day, somebody's interpretation of a critical opinion. When we use RT and MC data it is best to keep it within their respective contexts. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that RT and Metacritic, or at least RT (I don't use the latter that much) are not saying a film has 90% really positive reviews. It just means that 90% of the critics they sampled wrote a favorable review that was considered "approving" of the film. Harry Potter was not necessarily "critically acclaimed", so much as the majority of critics simply liked the film. You can like a film and still find a lot of faults with it. So, don't mistaken a high approval rating for critical acclaim or any other qualifier (or that they got "really good reviews", because you're attributing quality to someone that doesn't actually depict quality).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Perfectly put. I've often bemoaned that RT has no "average" category: it's all either positive or negative, when many reviews are mixed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
One can work from the other end, e.g.: there were few negative reviews for Harry Potter. It's not peacock and it may be a good compromise. -- (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
But you cannot say that "there were few negative reviews" or that "there were mostly positive reviews" without adding, "in the sample size collected by Rotten Tomatoes". That's rather a mouthful for something that is also irrelevant. If you just stick there, "Harry Potter received a 90% approval ratings from critics at Rotten Tomatoes", or something like that, then that is as objective as it gets.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that I'm actually somewhat opposed to all of this striving for cold, sterile language in relation to reception sections. It's as though we want to make every article just say "some people liked it; some people hated it". Overly technical and neutral language reveals nothing. Instead of bickering on what the overall opinion among opinions is, we should be focusing on what got praised or derided. --Remurmur (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The reception section SHOULD focus on what was praised and derided, by when it comes to summarizing reviews it isn't our place to take a couple of examples and generalize that back on the whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It certainly would solve a lot of debates and edit-warring if the Reception section eschewed entirely such comments as "The film received mixed reviews" or "The film received highly favorable reviews", etc., and just said some variant of "The film received 67 percent positive reviews from the film-critic aggregate site Rotten Tomaotes and 55 percent from the aggregate site Metacritic" and just leave it to the reader to interpret what that means. (Then, of course, we give a hopefully representative sampling of explanatory critics' quotes.) There might be a bit of a danger in attributing too much to RT and Metacritic terminology, since they only have positive and negative and no "mixed" category, but the explanatory-quotes sampling may counter that. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It's similar to plastering "overwhelmigly" or "universally" for awful films. This problem i have seen mostly on New Year's Eve, when even though they are told not to, they do anyway. Talking to an IP may as well be talking to a wall. Films like Bridesmaids (which in my opinion is the biggest piece of shit of 2011) can get 90% on that Tomatometer, but it really gets 75% approval on Metascore and from general critics. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:45 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The RT numbers are not so easy to put in context. 95% positive is clearly something good, but many films do better. A neutral point of view is our policy, so it's not obvious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That's just it, it's not "95% positive", it's "95% approval" in 95% of critics liked the film overall. That doesn't denote that they wrote a really positive review, just that in the end they found that it was worth a viewing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Most people here probably already know this, but Metacritic assigns descriptors to its weighted average scores (see here, under "What's with these green, yellow, and red colors?"). These generally appear next to the "Metascore" on a film's MC page, for example Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol has a score of 73 out of 100, summarized as "generally favorable reviews". When there is debate about how to summarize a film's reception, I generally default to the language used by Metacritic (ie. "Ghost Protocol receved generally favorable reviews") and cite Metacritic. The scores from both MC and RT then follow. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The issue with that is MetaCritic only uses a handful of reviews, akin to Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics" (which we do not cite anymore because there is usually only like 15 of them). RT's general lists usually (for at least most new films) garners closer to 100 reviews, but doesn't do anything but summarize key statements in random reviews (and doesn't change that after new reviews arrive).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with IllaZilla, as for most of the other comments they aren't very germane to the topic we were discussing. I think we can work with Metacritics wording and cite it as the source...I find a really good solution. RT tries to summarize many critics' points of views in one sentence. I think to state such a thing with a maximum of 20 words, RT does a great job. And in many cases the consensus does reflect what other critics are saying. -Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Re Bignole "The issue with that is MetaCritic only uses a handful of reviews, akin to Rotten Tomatoes' 'Top Critics'" — That's not true. In my experience Metacritic uses as many reviews as they can find from reliable sources, though they do give more weight to the more notable ones. For example the Ghost Protocol score is based on 38 critics' reviews, significantly more than a handful. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I like [User:Eddyghazaley|Eddyghazaley]]'s suggestion, which also seems along the lines of where  BIGNOLE  is going. I think it's a wonderful idea that we simply quote the Metacritic and RT encapsulating language and cite it. (I would use both since we don't want to have a single, unified, "official" site.) This would be concrete and verifiable, and it would completely end the edit-warring and back-and-forth over different editors' subjective interpretations of "positive, negative, mixed-to-favorable vs. mixed" etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with citing the summaries, and this is actually done in the Harry Potter article. We actual quote the Metacritic score with the "universal acclaim" comment, and that's not a problem, and no-one has challenged that because it is in context. The problem is when you take the MC summary and use it to to introduce the whole of the critical reception section. The MC and RT summariers don't really speak for anyone but themselves. Basically this how the HP section is worderd now:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received many positive reviews; as of January 2012 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an overall approval rating of 96% based on 269 reviews and an average score of 8.4/10. The site's consensus describes the film as "Thrilling, powerfully acted, and visually dazzling, Deathly Hallows Part II brings the Harry Potter franchise to a satisfying – and suitably magical – conclusion."[44] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 based on individual reviews, the film achieved an average of 87 based on 41 reviews, signifying "universal acclaim".[45] The film received a score of 93 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association; it is their highest rated Harry Potter film.
The point of contention is the first sentence, with some editors believing that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received many positive reviews should be changed to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received universal acclaim. As you can see, the Metacritic summary works fine in the context of the Metacritic score since it summarises MC's position, but it's the first sentence that is causing the problem . MC saying something is "universally acclaimed" doesn't make it so, they can only speak for themselves. Converting the first sentence doesn't add anything to the section in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Acclaim is unwarranted, acclaim is defined as " an overwhelming affirmative vote by cheers, shouts, or applause rather than by ballot" and this is not the case. It has as BigNole pointed out, approval, but it is not universally, overwhelmingly affirmed by all walks of life, professional and otherwise and acclaim is apparently not by ballot which by its loosest definition would probably apply to RT. No one is going to say with a straight face that it is a life changing, cinema changing, history making film and it is unlikely to be preserved in the Library of Congress as culturally significant. Your quoted text seems more appropriate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Darkwarriorblake — not least because Metacritic calling 87 percent "universal" is self-contradictory. So two things: 1) What is the most accurate, neutral way to summarize things here, and 2) in order to avoid this kind of debate, which hinges on subjective interpretations of statistics, shall we, as a group, make a move to formally change MOS on the "Reception" section? I would be in favor of that, for reasons I (and others) have given above. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Critical acclaim seems to be something that wouldn't be measurable until well after the fact when it has had years of after thought. I mean I like Star Wars but it was probably not thought it would get put in the archives when it first came out (if there were archives then). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for universal critical acclaim. And it definitely should be up for Best Picture at this years Oscars. Even if it isn't it still is one of the best reviewed films of the year, a true testament to J.K. Rowling's amazing series and equal to The Lord of the Rings in terms of an action-packed, terrifically acted, emotional and satisfying conclusion to one of the best film series ever put to film. It's really a film that defines a generation of not just fans but audiences in general, because I'm sure everyone, all over the world, has heard of the Harry Potter book and film series'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talkcontribs) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And acclaimed means to be highly praised which this film was. Watch this if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talkcontribs) 03:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Here's more.,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talkcontribs) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Fluffymoose is a big fan of the film, and his unbridled enthusiasm is not shared by anyone else in this discussion. It is a fringe opinion expressed with exceedingly non-neutral language and a clear fan's bias. No one else in the discussion agrees with "acclaim", and so I believe the issue has reached WP:SNOWBALL. I propose that we close this issue and movie on. I am assuming Fluffymoose disagrees, and will note his objection in advance. What do the rest of you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we should definitely avoid using words such as "acclaim" (especially "universal acclaim"- LOL to MarnetteD and Darkwarriorblake), and stick with terms such as "positive", "favourable", etc. However, if it is quoting a source, using the term "critical acclaim" is fine. I see no problem in including that statement in quotation marks, to show that it is the source's opinion, rather than an actual reality. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone want to draft a proposal to make the Reception guideline more specific, which we can then do as an RfC here? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest this:

95%-100%-Critical acclaim
50%-70%-Generally positive
0%-10%-Panned (or something more toned). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:40 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that won't do. The film was acclaimed, and if it wasn't, wikipedia wouldn't have said it in the first place. It was stupid to change it, just leave it the way it originally was. And fine, if your going to change Harry Potter's critical recpetion then do it for every other film too because that isn't fair to change just one film's reception based off of some idiot editors opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talkcontribs) 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That will do. No need to start namecalling and getting emotionally attached. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:16 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the big deal with Harry Potter and it's "non-neutral" reception? It's not fair to change this films reception when there are plenty of other films that say critical or universal acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talkcontribs) 16:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To say it received universal acclaim is to say every single film critic in the world gave it a high grade. That isn't the case whatsoever. And please try to sign your comments, poor Signbot is probably breaking his back chasing you around.Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:29 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter is just an example. If we establish a guideline the other films will be adapted appropriately. As it is however, Fluffymoose is a perfect example of why we require a guideline to compensate for obvious bias. That you like Harry Potter is not a crime (it should be) but it has not received universal acclaim, even ignoring the folks of the Horsehead Nebula, not everyone loved it. As we have established Rotten Tomatoes represents approval of any kind not overwhelming approval, just that they would not tell you not to watch it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And the film received a 96% so that indicates critical acclaim. And acclaim means (like i've said) to be highly praised and that's what this film received. You can go on pretty much any film critics website and their review for the final HP film will have been positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talkcontribs) 16:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I did, I picked Peter Travers at random from some experience with his work where he is listed on the Harry Potter article as listing it as his number 10 film. Following the reference it reveals it was tied for number 10 with War Horse and the Help and his only comment on it was that it ends the franchise on a high note. So straight away with the first ref I picked, there was a bias in not listing the other two films it shared the spot with.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Your [Fluffymoose] opinion has been noted — several times. Repeating the same things over and over isn't helpful. Editors have answered "what is the big deal" several times — indeed, that's what this entire discussion is about. The consensus here by a wide margin is that "universal acclaim" is not agreed upon and that it is inappropriate WP:TONE. If other Wikipedia film articles likewise are violating tone with this hyperbolic, non-neutral phrase, you should change the wording there.
I'm not going to respond to this anymore. There is no consensus to use the phrase "universal acclaim" in this article, and if you make that change without consensus, an admin will be asked to intervene. The discussion has now turned to the larger issue of finding standard language for WP:FILM's Reception guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Basically "universal acclaim" sounds like a studio buzzword or tagline. I struggle to think off the top of my head of any film that has gained something comparable to universal acclaim; there will be some but there are few enough I can't think of them. I loved The Dark Knight, people loved it and it made a bajillion dollars but got fairly snubbed as well, and as much as I love it I wouldn't say it gained universal acclaim. Widespread positive reception maybe. EDIT: Funnily enough it does say Universal acclaim. Maybe any guideline we create should advocate against the use of "universal".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we should follow the Metascore. Anything else is opinion. And also for Rotten Tomatoes you can Google search it and it has five stars. Nobody is saying it's the next Citizen Kane or The Godfather with all the positive reviews but critical acclaim seems to be accurate for the last Harry Potter movie. The only thing different between Metascore is I think we should say "critical acclaim" instead of "universal acclaim". Jhenderson 777 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
With all props to my good colleague Jhenderson, I'm not sure "acclaim" says anything different than the more specific phrase "primarily favorable reviews", which has, I'm sure we'll agree, a more blandly neutral WP:TONE. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I like Rusted AutoParts (talk) proposition since it was somewhat similar to mine and it allows editors to an all applicable format for the critical reception. I had to make some edits since it was rather illogical to have 95% at the same time positive or critical acclaim.

95%-100%-Critical acclaim or critical praise or strong word of mouth
70%-94%-Positive or favorable reviews or critical approval
50%-69%-Generally positive or generally favorable if at 50 you can say mixed to positive etc..
0%-9%-Panned (unsure of the word and tone)

Anyhow, another interesting option was citing Meta critic and using the sites terminology in wikis. However, I was thinking why not mix both of them like if both Meta critics and rotten tomatoes agree on acclaim then use that term. A simple table can be formed for the use of words akin to the one above but with Meta critics point of view on top.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical question: Since RT and Meta give (generally) two different percentage figures (which sometimes change as more reviews come in) is there a mechanism we can use to arrived at a percentage for something like the table above?
Another question: Is there compelling reason we need to say "got positive/mixed/negative reviews" at all? I think someone might have suggested earlier not to spin gravel and just go straight to the numbers, so that all these interpretation issues just go away. This would also be a much simpler thing to propose as a guidelines change that coming up with tables and percentage mechanisms, come to think.
And that might be a good compromise, since when we quote RT and Meta, following their numbers, then if RT or Meta say acclaim or whatever, we keep that (within the quoted context, without saying it ourselves). That way everybody's happy! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose your right about the "universal" acclaim thing. I guess even saying critical acclaim or NEAR-universal acclaim would be more appropriate. I don't think favourable or postive reviews would quite sum it all up though. Because every film critic site you go on has either given an enjoyable review or has highly praised the film. ( Fluffymoose (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) )

I prefer the pure statistical fact approach, with allowance for "generally/mostly favorable", "mixed", etc. I do not support use of "critically acclaimed" based purely on a MC/RT score. I think that would require actual analysis of the reviews to state, which unfortunately leads to OR. "panned" I would more easily support on the basis of the statistics, as I think that is just a rephrasing of "mostly negative reviews", and does not carry nearly the OR "weight" of "critically acclaimed". Significant awards such as oscars, etc, or specific reviews saying "the best movie of the decade" or whatnot are acclaim worthy imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea Eddyghazaley has proposed. Would we average the RT and MC scores and use that new score, or would we just use either the RT or MC score? My understanding of the way the Tomatometer works is that if nine out of ten critics give a film a 61 (or above) score, then the RT score will be 90%, because 90% of the critics liked it. There's a big difference between a critic giving a film a score of 61 versus 95, but both count as "approving" of the film. Receiving a 61 from nine critics is pretty far from "acclaimed," yet under your proposition the film would merit being called so.
I suggest we avoid using acclaimed at all, unless it is a direct quote. We're having a hard time deciding when a film is deserving of being called "acclaimed," so I think it's best to forget about using the word altogether, and stick with "positive, mixed, and negative" reviews. Murmuration (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My response to Tenebrae I understand your reasoning nobody is saying the reviews aren't favorable. According to Metacritic those are different comparisons though. Compare part one's review with part two's. So it depends on what site and when it comes to this site we are debating it according to our opinion when I think we need to be closer to what our sources say it is. Follow the source that's always been Wikipedia's policy. By the way Rusted Auto Part's opinion on how it should be done is nice but the problem is it's still a opinion. Plus according to Rotten Tomatoes 50% to 59% is rotten on Rotten Tomatoes so that wouldn't be considered positive to the source material. That is most likely considered mixed. Also critical acclaim is better than universal acclaim because we are determining reviews by proffesional critics not by average moviegoers whose opinions might differ. We have IMDb, Flixster and Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes user reviews to see what average moviegoers think. Jhenderson 777

Tenebrae...your sum-up of the compromise is really good,...I was merely providing other alternatives for this situation and if any of you find it silly then that is fine with me(we are here to discuss). And the way many of the editors and you proposed is very good and seems logical. It is simply quoting from the article verbatim without actually 'deneutralizing' the terms or adding any bias.I am with that compromise all-the way, it is equal and fair.And in response to Jhenderson777, I do agree with him, but if as a community we decide on the wording than it wouldn't be a single opinion but a group opinion for a critical scheme. IF that doesn't sound appealing then the compromise is again a really good way to go -Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally think this neutral language thing is stupid. Just leave thingas the way they were, it was better this way and more descriptive rather than just saying positive, mixed or negative. (Fluffymoose (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

To Eddie I agree with you. This discussion is for a consensus debate on what some people agree/disagree with. I also agree with Tenebrae that saying how positive and negative isn't necessary. For Rotten Tomatoes all we need to say is the score (and if it's ripe or rotten) and sometimes the consensus if it has one. As for Metacritic we state the score and quote the score significance instead of saying it in our own words. Jhenderson 777 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please editors, consider using universal critical acclaim, NEAR-universal acclaim or just critical acclaim. I like using that term better. I feel it's more descriptive than just saying the film received positive reviews. Because postive reviews can really range from anywhere, whereas universal acclaim gives a very solid description of the overall reception for the movie. (Fluffymoose (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

I appreciate your constructive response, but we must only quote from metacritic, so the use of the word is allowed on the condition that it is cited.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This really is one of the calmest, most collegial debates I've seen in a while. I think we should take a moment to give ourselves a small "attaboy!"
We seem mostly agreed to propose quoting RT and Metacritic consensus, each following their respective percentage figure, and opening with an interpretation, which as we can see is subject to time-consuming debate. Aside from Fluffymoose, who I acknowledge disagrees, are we ready to draft something here that we can propose to WP:FILM as an RfC to the effect of "Proposal to address recurring interpretation issue in Reception sections"? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather not turn the reception section into a form to fill. Perhaps we can avoid that if we think about it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
We do need to do something. I believe it's time we brought this to {{WP:FILM]]. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:00 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Im open to the RFC, but I have a problem with if a film having 100% of its reviews as 6/10 or 7/10, saying it has "critical acclaim" - I think you need 9/10 10/10 consistently for that. The most I think we can reliably WP:CALC based on the summary statistics is "generally positive", "mixed", "generally negative". I would be ok with more detailed interpretation, but only if people dig into the underlying reviews, and that is OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
For example, check RT for any recent year, sorting all films by high score. My observation is that 95s are relatively common and 100s are pretty rare. Also, we have to account for the different number of critics that are polled for each picture. If only one critic disagrees on a lightly reviewed film, I would put less weight on that outlier than I would for the many critics that lower a widely reviewed film to 95. In other words, sample size matters. And, the way these things go, if we put it in the guidelines it will be used as a club even where a little nuance is called for. So, acclaim is not a word I would associate with a new release at 95, while for an older film that has been marked for preservation there is a different way to talk about it. Does anyone else feel this way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest that we encourage editors to find summaries of reception in sources. For example, end of year lists often say something about a film's reception. Isn't that more the Wikipedia way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely - if some newspaper says it had critical acclaim, then you are golden. everything else is OR/SYNTH/CALC, and I think we are just debating how much we can get away with without a firm source. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So sources similiar to this an this are what we should be looking for. Not sure if reliable but this one actually uses the phrase "critical acclaim. Jhenderson 777 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can quote that type of source, assuming they are considered reliable. obviously the more mainstream a source is, the more weight it will carry. Things like major international newspapers or magazines would obviously be best, and industry websites perhaps giving a bit less weight in my opinion (and blogs not counted at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, we're always supposed to quote reliable film critics. No one wants to affect that part whatsoever. I'm a little concerned that the relatively simple issue is getting unclear, so howzabout I offer this draft statement for a proposed RfC and let's see how everyone feels. Modeling this on a couple of Good Article pages:
"Proposal to reduce POV interpretation in Reception sections"
"Due to frequent edit-warring, disagreements and time-consuming debates over editors' subjective terms in the first line of the Reception section ("favorable reviews" "highly favorable reviews" "universal acclaim" "mixed" "mixed-to-positive" etc.), it is proposed we dispense with editors' POV interpretation of film-critic aggregate figures and instead go straight to the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic figures and summations we already quote.
"For example: The film received an 85% approval rating based on 117 reviews listed at the film-critics aggregate site, which summarized them as 'A meandering script and uneven acting, but lush cinematography and a director to watch for.' [footnote] Metacritic calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews, and said, "Accents go in and out but this jewel box of a film captures the eye and never lets it go.' [footnote] CinemaScore polls reported that audiences gave the film was "B" average on an A+ to F scale, and that audiences skewed slightly male and older. [footnote].
"The remainder of the Reception section would remain as is, with critics' quotes, etc."
Let the tweaking begin! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Support – I'm ok with that draft; that's the direction I'd like it to go in. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak support - I'm fine with it. I don't care for the quoting of RT or Metacritic, because I think their "summaries" are nothing more than hot words from random critics, but it's better than the awfulness of trying to decide what constitutes "critical acclaim". Though, I don't like the "remainder should be critics' quotes", because I think that a lot of articles I've come across are just that, big blocks of quotes. To me, I statement saying that is only going to reinforce that type of reporting, when we should be summarizing a critic's entire review, instead of picking snippets here and there that we like (though, some quoting is necessary, I just don't like the idea of saying just quote them because it implies that's all that should be done).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I hadn't realized that was an issue with some articles. I've struck that last part. What do you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we probably need to start looking at articles and possible (re)visit the notion of summarizing critics, because a lot of newer films (usually those popcorn films like Thor or Sherlock Holmes...not necessarily saying those, just films like them) are receiving more of that block quote from critics. It makes them read more like the back of a DVD box, or that we're unable to summarize information with any degree of skill (which I know is not the case, because we have a lot of good writers in the Film Project). I think, after this discussion, we probably need to work on working the MOS to push editors to summarize critics more instead of relying on copy and paste jobs from the reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Support - I think it covers everything nicely. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is my personal thoughts. When you read the newspaper or check the back of a DVD box it will say that a film has received 5 stars and is the most 'acclaimed film of the year'. Critically panned films however might just get four out of five stars by movie reviewers from stupid newspapers.

But myself and everyone else I know, when they look up a film they would like to look to see how the critics view it, even if its not just the critics the audiences view too. For example The Butterfly Effect received mixed to negative reviews from critics but was a favourite film and earned a cult following by the audience (it did say something similar on the actual page for the film, not sure about it now). But if films are just going to be 'positive' and 'negative', well thats kind of stupid. When you look at the analyses of certain parts of the world and the people there you don't just say 'they are poor' or 'they are rich'. There are different 'classes'. So why can't there be different classes for films? There are about 7/8 classes of 'reviews' when you think about it; Universal Acclaim, Critical Acclaim, Positive, Mixed, Negative, Critically Panned. There are films more famous and greater than others aren't there? For example The Reader got good reviews, but the Godfather is more famous and more adored, they can't go into the same category as they are different in their 'acclaim'.

Infact, I don't even know why this discussion is going on. It seems like a stupid discussion for something that has always been around for years and is just stupid guidelines for Wikipedia to distance themselves from any other website. People come here to look things up, not to look at 'guidelines'. Critically acclaimed films, generally positive reviews, negative reviews and panned films have been around for the past 100 years and even when reviews added up for a film 50 years ago there still would have been an average. Lets say there is just 'positive', 'mixed' and 'negative'. You calculate how many positives, mixed and negatives there are and then if there are mostly all positives then you can say its 'acclaimed', if its more negatives it will be 'panned'.

But if there is only just 'positive' and 'negative' reviewed films, then there aren't ever going to be 'acclaimed' films and The Godfather would be as good as Splice according to the 'reviews'. --Charlr6 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is just saying you can't interpret the critic scores to say that. If it gets a sweep of the oscars, or someone writes an article talking about the "critical acclaim", then thats fine, but you need to independently source that. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
'or someone writes an article talking about the "critical acclaim", then thats fine, but you need to independently source that.'. This is a discussion, not an article that needs references for everything. But Wikipedia could be a modern day example/reference like that as depending on how many good reviews it gets, then it could say 'very positive reviews'. If it gets many bad reviews it could be 'generally negative'. But I have seen old articles that have said that, but I'm not going to spend hours on the internet finding a 50 year old article from a newspaper that was scanned in, just to prove a point. I could find a bad review of a film, go onto that page on Wiki and paste it in and say 'this film is bad, and this is why' and a link to the critic explaining why he doesn't like it.Charlr6 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also (to Charlr6), right now we're just working on wording to take to an RfC. Everyone will have a chance to debate the merits of the proposal itself when it goes up. Right now we're just tweaking the wording so that it's just right. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

support I think the objective standard is best, unless individual sourcing to a RS quoting "Acclaim" or "panned" etc can be found. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK: It's been a week now that we've had proposed wording up for an RfC (above at 00:40, 5 January 2012), and everyone's had a chance to make tweaks. I guess we're ready to put it up as a formal RfC. Would someone else like to do the honors, so it's that much more of a community thing? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would love to. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I meant to start an RfC with the wording we've all worked on. I'm not sure we can go ahead and change WP:FILM without that, and we were also envisioning something more detailed than the sentence you added in good faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Oops! My mistake. I am going to post it on the RfC now. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Darth. I went to look for the RfC notice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All but couldn't find it. Might it be somewhere else? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Request board

An RFC has been posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Neutral_language_in_critical_reception. Please comment there. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Broken City". Retrieved 2011-10-27. 
  2. ^ "The Last Stand". Retrieved 2011-07-20. 
  3. ^ "Monsters, Inc. 3D". Retrieved 2011-10-05.