Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

"Epic"

The usage of Epic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:epic poetry -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope it's an epic discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

IMDB and short films

An administrator suggested all references to IMDB should be removed from Wikipedia, due to their alleged lack of reliability--is that true? Moreover, editors have removed short films from a page I created, and it has not been added back. Is there consensus that short films should be censored on Wikipedia? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true. IMDb (not IMDbPro) is all user-submitted content, so it's basically equivalent to sourcing another Wikipedia article. It can change on a whim, and often isn't fact-checked. Also, can you link the page? It's likely that the short film does not have an article of its own, or the participant is not sourced as having participated in the short film. Sock (tock talk) 15:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It depends on the context. The consensus is against citing IMDb as a reliable source to reference in a Wikipedia article, but IMDb is fine to have as an external link. If you are talking about listing a person's filmography, IMDb is just a convenient look-up of something that is generally not controversial. However, if the person is fairly obscure, it would be ideal to confirm the person's filmography elsewhere since such minor persons' IMDb pages are less scrutinized than those of famous actors and filmmakers. For individual films, shorts and otherwise, notability needs to be established per WP:GNG and WP:NF since IMDb indiscriminately lists films, many which would not have any independent coverage from secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That "administrator" is clearly an idiot. Give me their name and address and I'll send the boys round. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to wait until they return from Beyond My Ken's. It should be pointed out that the IMDB is reliable for WGA credits though. Betty Logan (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My question really is: If I feel welcome and comfortable again to create and improve pages on Wikipedia one day, should I not mention the short films of specific actors/producers, because they are censored? Or because they are on IMDB?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as the film (short or otherwise) meets WP:GNG, then there's no problem. Using IMDB to "cite" the director/producer, etc is usually fine, but as Erik pointed out, other sources are useful too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There are some clues on my talkpage about short films which have been censored from an article, but I have agreed not to edit that page again for reasons unknown; I am still not sure after this discussion about the official stance for future articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is generally not worth getting into arguments about sources: you can usually find an alternative source in less than the time it would take. WP:WikiProject Film/Resources is a good starting point for sources. If IMDB is the only place listing something then someone at the Film Project may know of another source. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Short films are sometimes subject to discrimination, but, as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, there isn't really any difference between feature length and short films. Few editors create articles for short films, and this can cause issues when one adds to them to lists. Having an article is one way many editors quickly ascertain due weight. The second obvious way is through a citation to a reliable source, and the IMDB is generally not a reliable source. It certainly can't do anything to indicate notability or due weight, as it's a comprehensive database. Variety, Screen International, and other film magazines can generally tell you anything that the IMDB can, and they will establish both due weight and notability. For more obscure films, check out specialty magazines or websites, such as Fangoria or SFX. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre for A Clockwork Orange

A Clockwork Orange (film) has gone without a genre in its lead for some time. Seems to me it actually needs it more than most, and it is not really that controversial. I started a thread at Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)#Genre - crime drama and science fiction. People here may want to weigh in, as this should be settled. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Help requested

I'm helping an American and international film history class. I'm working on showing them how to edit, but she would also like "advice on locating early film history articles that need to be expanded, as well as areas that haven't been covered so the students can start doing research for the articles they will write."

Being the film people, do you have any ideas, suggestions, and/or know of a page that lists a bunch of open tasks? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Would this help? The template {{WPFILM Announcements}} also has "open tasks" under certain task forces, but I don't know if these have been maintained at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The main page for this project also has a to do list, which includes WPFILM Announcements. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I recommend "stub" class articles: Category:Stub-Class film articles. It will be relatively easy to expand such articles, and no-one is going to enforce the MOS too rigorously on stubs. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice re: RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding uncredited actors to She Wore a Yellow Ribbon

Some additional opinions are requested at Talk:She_Wore_a_Yellow_Ribbon to discuss adding uncredited actors to the cast list or even to find WP:RS for some of those uncredited actors to include "future stars". Thanks.AbramTerger (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Already posted on the film's talk page, but will repost here: WP:FILMCAST doesn't seem to say what you state it says. An encyclopedic article should contain information without it being trivia. Cast members, particularly those which have their own pages, are not trivial additions.Onel5969 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not about "trivial", it is about being a notable appearance. The roles are trivial in the sense they are uncredited bit parts. Some of the pages are only stubs and the roles are not even notable enough to list on their own pages.AbramTerger (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not having an article does not equate to being non-notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree Lugnuts, and the fact that they do have an article, however brief, argues to the positive for their notability. Case in point was Rita La Roy, a popular actress of the 1930s, who had no article. Especially in these early films, when writing an article is more difficult since there are so few online resources which are user friendly. The fact that some of these pages are "stubs" simply might mean that no editor has taken the time to expand the article. There are literally dozens of articles that need to be written about this era. And classifying these actors as "uncredited" is incorrect. They may be "unbilled" (not receiving screen credit), but they were certainly credited, as the AFI database signifies ("offscreen credit"). Again, especially in these older films where credit space was very limited, sometimes to a either one or two cards at the end of the film, many of the character roles were not included. As the adage goes, there are no bit parts, only bit actors. Some of the actors who were cut, I'm reinstating as while their roles may not have been large, they had a significant moment in the film (e.g. Trooper Smith). I also deleted Fix, as he's not cited in the reference. Oh, I also like adding the fact regarding Ford's brother.Onel5969 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone agreed to adding Francis Ford. But just to note - roles that were uncredited need to be labelled as such. The AFI is unusual because it uses the term "Offscreen Credit", but that means the same thing - there's no onscreen credit for that person. (Hitchcock, by his own choice, never took a producer credit, so it's usually noted that he was the uncredited producer on his last two dozen films.) That doesn't mean an uncredited person is blocked from being mentioned in the article. Not at all. The same standard of notability applies. Smaller credited roles well down the Cast list are usually not included on WP articles for more recent releases. It's true that older films credited less actors, often leaving out the smallest roles, so you're more likely to include uncredited roles from them, as we see in the case of Yellow Ribbon. I'm also posting this on the Talk:She Wore a Yellow Ribbon page, so if anyone feels the need to reply please do so there to keep the discussion in one place. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lucy (2014 film) becomes the third highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lucy (2014 film)#"Lucy" becomes the first highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Plainlist

I am getting into the habit of implementing the {{Plainlist}} template in articles. Reviewing the template documentation, it seems like it is an improvement of accessibility on film articles. Is there a reason to use <br /> instead of this template? If not, do we want to standardize this practice, by updating the film infobox guidelines and perhaps finding a way to automatically update the current infoboxes? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film guidelines already says to use {{Plainlist}} for items. I have been changing if and when I update them, but having a bot do it could save some time...AbramTerger (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now, I was looking for "Plainlist" and not "Plain list". Yes, a bot would be beneficial. Just wanted to ask if there was any reason not to take that approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been using Plainlist in the articles I work on for quite some time. When ever a "break" would be added, I just convert them over to Plainlist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Contagion

For the film Contagion, there is a discussion about the appropriate length of the plot summary here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Release year for upcoming films

I just created Eye in the Sky (2015 film), which is verified to come out sometime in 2015. Bovineboy2008 removed the year from the infobox and excluded the category Category:2015 films. This is not the first time a scheduled release year has been removed like this; it is being removed because it is too vague of a projection compared to a mm/dd/yy projection. I do not think this is sound logic because projected specific release dates still change anyway. What do other editors think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this here Erik. I started a conversation at Talk:Eye in the Sky (2015 film). My view on the issue is that there is a significant difference in having a studio claim a release date for a film and having it claim it is "aiming for a 2015 release", as the quote says. The former has a level of certainty that the latter does not, and I have a concern about categorizing something as a 2015 film when such certainty is not met. I believe there were concerns at one point with WP:CRYSTAL and such categorization and I had thought that there was a consensus met that categorization came with a full, verifiable release date. BOVINEBOY2008 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the level of certainty can be disputed, especially considering that specific release dates do change based on what happens in production or distribution. Whether or not it is just a year or a specific date, it is a verifiable piece of information that is sufficient until there is an update. If anything, a specific release date can be over-precise, but I am okay with that because we always use the language "scheduled to be released" in these articles. Anyway, that's my take. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with including a year category in a case like this. It will be changed if it becomes necessary, as the article will be updated as more info is put out, including for the upcoming release date. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue with WP:CRYSTAL. The current sources indicate a 2015 release, so we record it here as a 2015 film (both in title and via the categories). If things change, then the article can be updated as needed. 2015 isn't that far away either. I see no problem in adding the 2015 category for something that could be released in three months time. How is this any different for a 2014 film article created on 1 Jan, but not scheduled for release until Christmas of the same year? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

List of films by release date

Any opinions on the idea to create a chronological order of all world films by release date with an article on each month of release? A 2014 in film-like list but for every release in a given month worldwide since the beginning of cinema like List of films released in September 2014 sort of thing. Rather than listing the studio though, a column for Country of release. Obviously some release dates are unknown but it would be for all notable films which have a documented release date. I began a list but baled out, realizing the scope of the task!! I just think it would be a good thing in addressing systematic bias as the main lists by year are heavily Anglo centric. It would just be a massive undertaking and I think priority should be going into developing certain films. I do think it would be a valuable group of lists in documenting the history of film though as when they were released many other releases worldwide wouldn't have been known in other countries so having something universal would be great I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but it will probably only work if there's a way to have bots do most of tracking down and listing of films. If that's all done manually, it will take a very long time...--Cattus ^talk 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Online Film Critics Society Awards at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Outro"

The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Internet Movie Database (IMDB)

Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Production banner

I am trying to find reliable sources defining a production banner, which seems to be a small brand-name company usually formed by a film producer (e.g., Nolan and Syncopy). I can only find sources saying whether or not a company is a production banner and am wondering if anyone can find better sources. I'm not sure if it is different from an independent film production company either. In addition, would it be worth creating a Wikipedia article, or is it best kept as a Wiktionary term? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say "production banner" is just an informal term for a production company run by a known individual (filmmaker or star), as opposed to a studio or an independent company that was publicly owned. This could be mentioned in the production company article if it could be sourced. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I will redirect the term to production company if I can find a source for that definition. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems like Variety uses "shingle" as a slang term for production banner as seen here, here, and here. According to the trade paper's "slanguage" (lol) dictionary here, a shingle is "a small business, often set up by an actor or established player at a larger company". It seems that "shingle" is pure Variety, so would it work to apply this definition to "production banner" since they are treated as synonymous? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

They're very close, but a "production banner" isn't necessarily set up by an established player within a larger company (e.g. Nolan and Syncopy - his "banner" goes with him on every project he does, wherever he does it. However, I suppose a "shingle" could be moved as well, though Variety may be less inclined to then use the term.) In any event, these are both informal slang terms, so their definitions are mutable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The English Patient (film)

Hi. I don't edit here much anymore, but I took a whack at cleaning up The English Patient (film) article a couple of weeks ago, as it was shockingly full of original research, interpretation, and even whole paragraphs about biplanes. I didn't realize at the time that the main person invested in the article was Ring Cinema, a notorious edit-warrer who was going to fight me to the death to keep his "insights" in the article. I took out all such "insights," which included descriptions of scenes that do not exist in the film, and made the plot summary a typical matter-of-fact recitation of the main events, without lots of attributions of character motivation and certainly without the inclusion of things that never happen, e.g. this: "When Geoffrey discovers the affair, he lures Katherine aboard their plane and pilots it into the camp in a crash aimed at Almásy. The husband is killed instantly, she is seriously injured, but Almásy narrowly hit." [1] I maintain that, as there is no scene showing Geoffrey and Katherine getting into the plane, the idea that he lures her into it constitutes original research--I guess it's what Ring Cinema believes happened, but I'm not sure as he hasn't defended it, simply reverted me multiple times. Further, Almasy runs and the plane misses him, so he's not narrowly hit (and I re-watched the film to be sure). Yesterday I again corrected this, as you can see if you follow the link, and instead of reverting me this time, he changed the first sentence to this: [2] which is much less egregious but still describes something that is his own idea, i.e., that Geoffrey discovered the affair. In the film itself, Katherine says she thinks he must have known, but it is not a fact. I'm here asking for help because the problem, as far as I can tell, is the Ring Cinema believes that he "understands" and "comprehends" the film and I don't, and my position is that "understanding" and "comprehending" the film is not necessary and is usually detrimental to a film summary because it becomes all about interpretation, which is not what we're supposed to do here.

My understanding of writing plot summaries is that we are absolutely not supposed to be writing about what we think character motivations or feelings are, or what may have "really" happened off-screen, but instead sticking to a simple recitation of facts (well-written, one hopes). This is the article as it was when I decided to re-write it: [3], and this is it now: [4]. It is much, much better than it was, and most of my changes ended up being left in (even if re-written, which is okay--I don't need to be the "author"), but I am asking if someone will address the problem of editors' interpretations of a film as being beside the point. I wrote at length on the talk page about this, but I don't think Ring Cinema understands the issue. And maybe things have changed here at WP and now we want colorful essays instead of simple plot summaries, in which case, please tell me that and I'll stop insisting on my point.

I tried several times to eliminate the following sentence, too, which sounds to me like a press release: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds in World War II Italy through the story of a burn victim, a once-handsome explorer whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." It's a little better (it used to say "once-dashing"!). First of all, this is an entirely subjective description of the film that few people would even agree with. I don't know why the Patient's supposed handsomeness is relevant (and is it a fact? I'm sure there are people who don't think Ralph Fiennes is handsome, and there's no plot element related to the character's looks, so ???), and I have no idea what "sacrifice" this refers to. In the film I've seen, there is no act that I would describe as a "self-sacrifice," and I don't even know what to do with "spell his end." I took that sentence out, but he has refused to let the article stand without it. All his arguments boil down to: "I understand the film and you don't." I've heard many editors say that people who think they "understand" a film or book can be difficult to deal with because they are very attached to their ideas about those things. I think that is part of what is happening here.

After every edit, I left detailed explanations, and then discussed them on the talk page, often point-by-point. I don't think I substituted my interpretations for his, I think I left out ALL interpretation. Any feedback would be welcome, and help dealing with the Handsome Man Sacrifices Himself sentence would be especially great. Thank you.--TEHodson 21:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"My understanding of writing plot summaries is that we are absolutely not supposed to be writing about what we think character motivations or feelings are, or what may have "really" happened off-screen, but instead sticking to a simple recitation of facts (well-written, one hopes). " This is correct. We only report what happens, not what the viewer is allowed to believe might of happened. RC is very close to being blocked for a long time following a recent report at WP:3RR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts. Do you have suggestions about the silly sentence I mentioned above, or should I just go ahead and take it out? I feel in need of some support, should I do so. Do you agree it sounds more like a sentence from a movie poster than an encyclopedia?--TEHodson 09:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems redudant at best and WP:OR at worst. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts: Well, I rewrote the plot summary again, removing all OR, references to offscreen stuff, character motivations and secret feelings, etc., and took out that sentence altogether. I also left RC a message on the talk page, stating that I was about to do this and would report him if he started in again on the previous knee-jerk reverts (he did them without even noticing, for example, that I'd moved a paragraph to the appropriate section so every time he reverted me, the paragraph was in there twice). We'll see what happens. Every time anyone tries to tell him anything, including the facts regarding edit-warring, he merely blithely says that they're wrong and he's right (learning doesn't seem to be happening), so I don't have great hopes that this version of the article will stand. Thanks.--TEHodson 09:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no problem with OR here. This article has seen many editors and TEHodson is the first to miss some very basic plot points. For example, he denies that Almasy is jealous of Katharine. The scene in question is here. For some reason, he denies that the husband learned of the affair, that he intentionally crashed the plane to attack his rival, that Hana was going to Florence to be near Kip, that the Count was referred to as the Count, that Katharine was worried about her husband's reaction if he learned of the affair, and on and on. These are elementary plot points. So the problem is not OR. The problem is stating what happens in the film. Hodson also denies that the lede should contain a brief summary of the film, so he repeatedly removes it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To Lugnuts or anyone else who cares to weigh in: This is, indeed, all about Ring Cinema, and probably ownership issues, too. But rather than reverting RC's latest reversion, I have left a message on the talk page asking him/her to take it point-by-point to explain how several instances of OR are, in fact, NOT OR. I will wait for a response before going further on this. On both The Godfather and A Serious Man articles, RC has reverted others for doing "interpretation" so I believe this editor knows very well the definition of OR but is, in the usual fashion, reverting and fighting out of habit. As you can see from RC's paragraph above, he/she is still insisting that I just don't understand what happens in the movie. My point is that we must stick to what we see onscreen, not what we think happens off-screen, or what we think the implications are regarding what happens onscreen. I do not think there should be no summary of the film (though I do think one is not required when the plot section follows immediately), but I do believe that that brief summary should not include OR. And by the way, I am not a "he."--TEHodson 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A brief follow-up: The scene linked to YouTube in RC's paragraph above happens well after the event it is being used as a citation for, i.e. the break-up. I suggest RC view the film in its entirety, in order, to refresh his/her memory before working again on the plot summary.--TEHodson 17:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting thought. This important discussion should be on the film's Talk page so it can be evaluated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is on the talk page! In fact, all of what I've said here I've been saying on the talk page since the 21st of September.--TEHodson 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts I am just letting you know that I have given up. I asked RC to please explain, in detail on the talk page, how his OR is not OR and he simply repeated again and again "that's what happens in the film" as though that is, in itself, proof that he is correct--he did not answer one single question. He's an idiot, not intelligent enough to argue with or to learn, and insulting and condescending to boot. Life is too short; I give up. My life will not be measurably improved by making The English Patient article better, or even accurate (which is all I was striving for), so I am done. I hope someone else will take this on, as it is always better when WP articles are improved, but it will have to be someone with the stomach and fortitude to fight to the death for the simple goal of, for example, removing a description of a scene that does not occur in the film. Over and out.--TEHodson 21:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• TEHodson, I think you are going about this the wrong way. It doesn't seem that the editor is willing to follow WP guidelines or listen to them, and it seems that he is edit-warring. What you need to do then is warn him about edit-warring on his Talk page (using the appropriate template[s] at WP:WARN), enlist help from users here who know the guidelines, such as WP:FILMPLOT and WP:OR, and proceed according to WP policies, which include WP:AN3 and/or WP:ANI if the edit-warring continues. If you don't want to file the report, ask someone else who is trying to fix the article to do so or to help you. Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. Thank you. You're right, of course, and Ring Cinema is a notorious edit-warrer who has had multiple complaints and warnings from many users, all of which he completely ignores and could care less about (he usually demands an apology from those who have reported him, too). Not until he is outright blocked or banned will he, maybe, get it. I stopped editing here because it is so difficult to resolve problems, and I probably wouldn't have touched the article had I realized it was "owned" for all intents and purposes by someone like RC, but I had spent a few hours on it by the time I realized that and was willing to stand up for those changes because they weren't of the sort that are terribly debatable, but rather pretty damn straightforward. I had never run into someone who fights to keep in things like a scene that isn't in the movie before, and I just don't have the time or the stamina to deal with the whole process you outline, and I did ask for help but no one else looked at the article, so I just can't. If you checked the talk page, you can see I did take him at his word and ask for explanations, but if you checked the talk page, you also know that he didn't deign to give them, just kept up a snide, sarcastic tone as he repeated his assertion that he's right and I'm an idiot. I lost it at the end of that, having really tried--again--to work with him, but he just won't and I foresee a long, exhausting fight over just a couple of sentences. I did get most of my earlier changes left intact, though I'm not really sure how that happened, but I'm not up to doing more. I have never been accused of edit-warring in all my years here nor been reported for any violations, I worked well with lots of people, got lots of good stuff done, but I'm very busy now and really just can't. Editors who treat other editors like shit really shouldn't be allowed to work here, but they are, you have to go through an arduous process to prove your case, and those people don't care anyway--they just come back after they've been blocked and start all over again. And I think they like having a "bad reputation" because it's a form of validation and it makes them feel big and strong and reinforces their belief in themselves as the only ones who know what is going on. I can't deal with those sorts of headcases, so I have to walk away. --TEHodson 23:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi TEHodson, another problem is your extremely overlong posts. I didn't read your reply just above because it's too long, and your initial post at the top is many times longer than that. I suggest following the guidelines I gave above, and if you need to enlist the help of others, explain the situation in 60 words or less. Like this. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have an excellent record of getting the facts right. It's true, Softlavender, many false accusations have been made against me. When it happens, I ask for an apology. Perhaps you are unaware that several of Hodson's suggestions are in the article right now. We agreed on them, like normal editors. True, like anyone here, he was edited. He didn't like it. So, the fact is, I suggested compromises, not Hodson. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dates on National Film Board documentaries

My only concern, once again, is that you may run afoul of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Categories, which specifically says that categories for films by year are for films "that came out in" a given year, not produced in such a year. I think the logic is WP:V. While the NFB maintains a well organized database that lists films by year of production, most private producers do not, and so the decision was made, years ago, to categorize by year of release -- a much more easily verifiable attribute. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think that using dating that is at variance with the NFB record, makes it more difficult for the user/viewer/researcher to find this film, especially if looking by year of release. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a practical problem. People don't tend to search for individual films by browsing the film by year category -- it's massive. They use the search window, or more likely find it by Google. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The example I started with is The Defender which is such a commonly used title that it is hard to differentiate which one except by release date, then you run across The Defender (1988 film) which is found on various sites as The Defender (1990), The Defender (1989) and so on, only to realize the best source of information is the NFB website, with the Wikipedia article falling closely behind. That's why I am struggling with the whole dating conundrum for National Film Board productions. It's an interesting enough issue to actually ask for a discussion to occur and possibly to create an "exception to the rule" stipulation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Then by all means you should open a discussion at the Categorization project, if you want. However, I don't expect you'll have much success: the NFB is but a tiny speck in the global film production scene, and regardless of the reliability of their website, I think you'll have an uphill battle trying to get Wikipedia to move away from year of release, based on your concerns over a handful of articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not actually proposing a change in categorization or in how films are titled by release date, only to recognize that the National Film Board which has somewhat of middling size collection of films, from shorts to feature length productions, and most if not, nearly all have no problem in being identified by the "official" date of release, includes some exceptions, two of which I have "bumped" into: The Defender (1988 film) and Bush Pilot: Reflections on a Canadian Myth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a simpler solution, is to more accurately title the production; I have just moved The Defender (1988 film) to The Defender (documentary film), which may solve the conundrum for at least this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you shouldn't have done that. I speak from experience, as I used to name documentary articles that way, and they were all changed. The Defender (documentary film) violates film article naming guidelines, and certainly will be reverted by someone. My advice to you is to slow down and let a discussion happen. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I believe this discussion might best take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, not here, as categorization has specific guidelines. Anyway, Bzuk can you please leave a note on the article talk, directing editors here, so the discussion is happening in one place? (I've removed this thread from my user talk page, as well). thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Star rating

If somebody goes on an article about a music album, there is a small infobox titled "Professional ratings". Seeing as films are rated in a similar fashion (star ratings, score out of 10, positive/negative reviews) I'm just curious if there is any reason why articles for films don't have a Ratings infobox. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed this a few times before, and the general consensus is not in favor of one. We already reference aggregate scoring systems to report what critics collectively thought, so individual scores are less important, being very interchangeable. When we sample individual reviews, we do it to flesh out the consensus (or lack thereof). To use an example, if a summary statement mentions praise for the cinematography, we can expound on that and reference a critic that details the cinematography further. That's my understanding on how we want to approach critical reception sections, anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the aggregator scores are much more neutral and comply with WP:WEIGHT much better than those star rating boxes. If you have the aggregator scores you don't need the individual critic scores because these have already been aggregated. We only source individual reviews for the critical commentary these days. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that "star ratings" are not consistent from one paper/TV station/etc to another. While 4 stars is usually an "excellent" rating I have seen 1 star mean anything from "good" to "poor" to worse. MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no worries guys. Cheers for the speedy response too. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ratings

I understand why articles on individual films do not normally include their ratings. The policy is clearly explained at WP:FILMRATING. But how, then, is one supposed to find the rating of a film? What other sources of this information are there? I know that boxofficemojo.com lists the MPAA ratings, but I would like to know the BBFC ratings for films going back decades. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 11:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What about BBFC's website here? As for the MPAA, they have their own website here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon

Hi,

I was thinking about cleaning up List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon and started a discussion on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon regarding options. If someone could weigh-in, that would be wonderful! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Award sources

I'm working on List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon‎ and cannot find a nice sources with lists of awards or a database for:

• Teen Choice
• ShoWest Convention
• Producers Guild of America
• Broadcast Film Critics
• Blockbuster Entertainment
• Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films

Can I use IMDb in this case? Or, is there another good source of award info?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IMDb is good for looking up awards, but we eschew it in favor of sources that have a greater consensus for being reliable. I think for a given film, you should be able to search for the film title and the award and find sources in periodicals that report the nominations and wins at the time. If you have any difficulty with a particular film and award, let me know, and I can help. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Regional awards

Last question regarding List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon: Do you generally include regional awards, like:

• Central Ohio Film Critics Association Award for Actor of the Year
• Phoenix Film Critics Society Award for Best Supporting Actor
• etc.?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If the award has its own article, then yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If an awards organization is notable per Wikipedia's standards, nominations and wins can be listed for a given film. An organization's notability can be challenged if necessary, and if successful, it would not be included in individual film articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film is one particular case. I recreated Central Ohio Film Critics Association as a notable topic per the references shown. Looking at Phoenix Film Critics Society, its notability is not evident, but Variety reports the organization's recognitions here, so I think it is acceptable. The point of having notability as a rule of thumb is to know that reliable sources have found an organization's recognitions worth noting, and Wikipedia can follow suit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense Erik and Lugnuts. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anybody want to make head or tails of these unsourced additions?

A bunch of these seem to have sprung up. Not sure what to make of these unsourced list contributions. [5][6][7][8][9] Dude just submitted a ton of these, all unsourced. Who are these "exhibitors", exactly? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

They are the Quigley star lists. They poll US exhibitors to rank the best-selling stars i.e. the drawing power. They are quite a respected industry metric and I have no objection to some of the more notable rankings, but plowing through articles adding entire lists may be a tad WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Betty Logan! There was no context, so I couldn't glean the purpose or utility. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User cited them in one article: [10]. But if we're going to use that metric I think the year rankings should just be in a single sentence rather than laid out as a list in a separate heading. Someone needs to talk to the editor about citing and about using more of a wiki style. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need whole charts either. Spencer Tracy could be summarised in a single sentence: "Tracy was ranked by Quigley Publishing on their annual chart of top-ten money-making stars on ten occasions between 1938 and 1951, his highest placing coming in 1940 when he was ranked second." We don't need his position for each year, but the charts are a useful measure for qualifying his drawing power as a star. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Input request

Editor input is welcome here Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Celebrity reactions in order to form a consensus regarding a possible addition of new information. MarnetteD|Talk 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Walken filmography FLRC

I have nominated Christopher Walken filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Cinema Museum

This Saturday the 11th October we have an editathon and backstage pass at the Cinema Museum in London some places still available Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Help at Draft:Shooting Clerks (Kevin Smith Biopic, Film)?

Appears to be an upcoming film; does this appear to merit an article? My concern is it's an IP author, who tend to wander off and not come back, so if this is worthwhile it'd be great for someone to do a 10m cleanup and Approve it. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we permit articles about films in production as long as the general notability guidelines are met. The draft page lists references that validate the topic's notability. If 66.38.129.125 desires, the draft page can be moved to the mainspace at Shooting Clerks (no need for disambiguating). If the editor is responsive, I can help them revise the article per MOS:FILM. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"The time allocated for running scripts has expired."

Some of you might see this error message, "The time allocated for running scripts has expired," in the "References" section of film articles (not sure about other kinds of articles). I saw it this morning at Walking with Dinosaurs (film) when someone tried to add a random template to it. I removed the template, thinking that was the cause somehow, but then I saw someone complain at Talk:Rabbit-Proof Fence (film)‎ about the same error appearing. I thought it had to do with the review aggregator templates being used in the article body, since their references had no error message (see this), but now I think just editing the article itself in some way will make the problem go away. It may be an issue with the general referencing code, which is beyond our reach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo

Everyone, all Box Office Mojo links now redirect to http://www.imdb.com/chart?ref_=mojo. This means a lot of broken links, and I'm not sure how many will be resolved. The external link template will be the most impacted as useless for the time being. Any details about this change, we can discuss in this thread. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Goddammit. What about the news articles? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

son of a mother-fudging biscuit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Though I'm sure we're all too sensible to go stripping links to BOM from our articles willy-nilly, it's worth mentioning that the site was apparently hosting a "down for maintenance" notice earlier today, so there's a chance that this is just a temporary measure until some unspecified problem is resolved. I hope we'll avoid acting rashly until official word comes in regarding the site's fate. Steve ^T • C 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo Absorbed into imdb.com Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course that "news" article seems to be just a website reporting on what we've observed. Amazon and IMDB are remaining mum on this situation. Elizium23 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, I saw that, and Variety's article proclaiming the same. Seems to me, they're both jumping the gun somewhat, seeing as there's yet been no official word. Of course, both will have their sources to draw upon and may know more than they're letting on, but for now it seems little more than speculation. We can only hope that—if BOM's closure is a fact—that the current redirect situation is itself a placeholder until something within IMDB itself is made live. Steve ^T • C 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I tested 5 url's and they had all been archived by the Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web/. As a temporary measure until we know more, how about automatically adding an undated archive.org link to {{Mojo title}}, or replace the existing link? For example, the useless http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=matrix.htm could become https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=matrix.htm. It might also be considered whether {{cite web}} and others should check for Box Office Mojo url's and do similar, but that may be more controversial. I don't know whether such a procedure has been discussed before. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this merge with IMDb or IMDb Pro? I ask because the wording at our current WP:RS/IMDB guideline may need updating and/or changing. What I am trying to get at is we have used BOM as a reliable source and IMDb as unreliable until now. Does this merger alter this? If it would be preferable to put this question into a separate thread please feel free to move it. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, we still have The Numbers. It's not the end of the world. For example, see their weekend box office chart. It sometimes has info that's missing from Box Office Mojo. I agree that we shouldn't make any rash actions; we should wait until official word from Amazon. If we start taking the IMDb's word for budget and gross, I'll have to take back a lot of {{citation needed}} templates that I've placed over the years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also Boxoffice.com (the web version of Boxoffice (magazine)). I suggest we give it a week (if the site is just down for maintenance if should be back up in a few days), and if it is permanent then PrimeHunter's idea of appending Wayback to the url (where it isn't already in use) is a smart idea. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I was essentially thinking the same thing, and it seems that NinjaRobotPirate was as well: If this Box Office Mojo matter is permanent, does this mean that use of IMDb is fine for the matters we used to use Box Office Mojo for? For example, this recent discussion that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started at the WP:Reliable sources talk page would then be somewhat moot. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the RS noticeboard thread Flyer22. Since my post both NinjaRobotPirate and Betty Logan have mentioned other sites that we will be able to use as well as using the Wayback (gosh I enjoy that reference to Peabody and Sherman and their WABAC machine) so we might not have to worry about the RS/IMDb that I mentioned. I guess we will see how things shake out in a week or so. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. But it is a link to the guideline talk page, not to the WP:Reliable source noticeboard. And regarding your indenting of my post, I previously changed the indenting because I was not replying to Betty Logan; see WP:Indent. That stated, I know that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors don't indent the way that I did. And it's not too long ago that I didn't use to indent that way either. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies on both counts. I did not mean to offend. As to the indent I have never seen that essay before. In my nine+ years I have always seen each new post indented and I find a conversation hard to follow without the indenting. We could probably remove or collapse these last two posts as they are off topic. Again, my apologies to you F. MarnetteD|Talk 04:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I took no offense to anything above. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This article [11] says BOM mentioned, on their Twitter page, that the holiday box office prediction article will be out in 3 weeks, just a couple of days before this happened, it might mean that they are just adjusting some technical difficulties or that the merge with IMDb came as a surprise for them too. DCF94 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is loading properly again. Data is updated to 10/09/14. I'm not sure if this is temporary or permanent. RS (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There's still a couple of broken pages on their website, so I'd still be careful for the moment if you really want to avoid that IMDB page. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's still recovering, But it's better to check numbers again.--Chamith (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's now fixed and the URLs are going to the right places. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Film awards by category

I'm thinking of splitting the entries in Category:Film awards by category section into two sub categories for easier searching as it seems they are two distinct groups there atm. One is more technical or craft with awards for acting, directing, editing, music, custom design, etc. The other is more genre based with awards for animation, adult industry, anime, LGBT, documentary, short film, etc. Currently I have no good name for either category and was hoping for some help from the taskforce. --Gonnym (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The category doesn't look that cluttered to me. If there were hundreds of sub-cats, then maybe split them down by person, genre, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Language linking

There is a discussion on the film infobox's talk page about automatically linking the language. You can find it here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes at Iron Man

May I please get some experienced editors' eyes over at Iron Man (2008 film)? I honestly don't know how to best describe this apparent issue, so please just look at the recent edit history, this talk page discussion, this and this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor should be blocked per WP:NLT for threatening legal consequences. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There was also another user 176.67.82.202 claiming that they were from Marvel decided to remove the info in question wholesale due to complaints the company allegedly received. I think it's worth checking if there is a connection.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The interesting thing here is that the edits appear to have been made from an anonomysing VPN. If anyone wants me to reach out via email and check if they exist, I'm willing to do so. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to related and now-archived ANI discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:I Like It Like That

Discussion of page move ongoing; join in. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive editor at the The Maze Runner (film) article

Others and I are dealing with an editor who continues to act disruptively at the The Maze Runner (film) article, and input from other WP:Film editors would be helpful on these matters. See Talk:The Maze Runner (film)#overly positive review summary and Talk:The Maze Runner (film)#Changes to article. WP:Permalinks to those sections are here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Film articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• Diary of a Camper
• Machinima

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Film's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify to editors about this, the subpages mentioned are Talk:Diary of a Camper/Comments and Talk:Machinima/Comments. I'm fine with doing the shifting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I overreacting to the problems in this older Featured article?

I was summoned by LegoBot to an RFC, and, after poking around the article a bit, I found a linked film, Lord of the Universe. The grammar is a bit wonky, the infobox a bit barren, and there's a big old "credits" wikitable at the end. I figured, "OK, I'll just fix this up." Then I realized that it's a Featured article. Whoa. OK, so maybe I won't do any sweeping, bold edits. What do you guys think? Am I overreacting here when I think this should be delisted? I've contributed to a Featured article review or two, but usually in a minor capacity, and never as the person who initiates it. I could clean up this article to the point at which it would probably pass a particularly generous GAN, but there's a pretty big gulf between this article and Prometheus (2012 film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It was reviewed six years ago. While standards in schools go down ours seem to go up. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lord of the Universe does seem slim on scrutiny. Cirt was the primary contributor to the article. I'm sure you can talk to them. It is not comparable to Prometheus, though. One is a pre-Internet television documentary of minor note, and the other is a science fiction blockbuster, by a famous director and derived from a famous franchise, in the Internet age. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hoo-ray for Bollywood...

I don't know if I can con any of you to weigh in on this, but I've started a conversation at the Indian cinema task force as it relates to the inclusion of statements such as "XYZ film achieved Blockbuster verdict" or "XYZ was a Super-hit". Here are some examples of the usage: [12][13][14] If anyone has a hankering, some more input would be appreciated, since these films do still fall within the scope of WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Budgeting

I took a look at some big movies, mostly ones that grossed over $500 Million at the World-Wide Box Office, and I noticed that everything was there, except for film Budgeting, and not Budget as in how much it took to make the film, I mean how much money does a Director, Actor, Studio and more gets paid, [Budgeting Page] shows some examples, but for all films, they should be. We do need to find sources, but that only might be the biggest problem, but I think that we should include that there. --Editor49 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about covering how the budget is broken down? I do not think such a breakdown is readily available for most films. I've seen salaries for directors and starring actors occasionally, along with the costs of reshoots if they happen, but usually not beyond that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The only budget breakdown I have seen for a recent film is this one for Sahara (2005 film). The only reason that became available is because it was subpoenaed in a court case. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Helga – Vom Werden des menschlichen Lebens

Page move proposal is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Category discussion at CfD

This discussion may be of interest. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film)

Hi. It's me again. Midnight Rider (film) was recently the subject of POV edits that neutered a ongoing controversy. Interested, I checked out the article and was astounded to find that it's a 5000-word memorial to a dead crew person. By comparison, Twilight Zone tragedy is 1080 words, and that's an entire article dedicated to the topic. My concerns are, I think, obvious: WP:UNDUE and WP:MEMORIAL. Besides the usual resistance to my more minimalist vision for Wikipedia articles, the article's talk page is understandably a bit skeptical of new editors who want to make sweeping changes. Comments would be quite welcome at Talk:Midnight Rider (film)#Memorial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I think WP:SPA also applies here too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Grossly excessive. I have chimed in. Lugnuts and I appear to be on the same wavelength in our responses. :) Lately I've run into some resistance when citing Undue. The policy's text suggests that Undue refers more to elevating minority/fringe viewpoints to the status of majority viewpoints, but I've also heard people cite Undue as an argument against taking something like this accident and using it to completely distract from the article's subject--although I haven't been in enough Undue discussions to know if this is the appropriate usage of the policy. Ninja, if you can better explain your stance on Undue to the other editor, that might help them understand why the excessive content isn't appropriate. (It might also help me understand Undue better.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read through the article, this is a very unique case. The film has been halted with multiple attempts to restart, creating a lof of very public controversy. It differs from Twighlight Zone in many ways. That was one criminal case and the film continued. And yes there is a separate article Twilight Zone tragedy. It was also in 1982, long before the internet and modern media. In this case there have been a huge number of lawsuits and multiple county and federal agencies investigating, all of which had interesting information realted to whether or not the production would continue, which is relevant to the film. All of this is very significant to the film production industry in general, which is why there is so much media coverage. Does it make sense to break the article off into a separate "Midnight Rider tragedy" article as The Twighlight Zone did, since the film was halted while shooting the first scene on the first day? Wiki allows for much of this to tie together and to give a general overview of what has happened for those who want to research further. It begs to question, should this resource be available to the public to learn more about this series of events related to Midnight Rider? It is not just the noteriety of the many famous people involved, it is a very significant topic to the entire film production community.DFinmitre (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb You are giving a description of Undue that is not in the wiki definition. Undue weight is about major/minority opinions and not giving undue weight to minority opinions that are only held by a tiny group of people. The elements being discussed are heavily cited and quite mainstream opinion.DFinmitre (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I acknowledged quite clearly that I've seen Undue taken a few different forms in my experiences beyond the narrow confines of the policy's prose. Respectfully speaking, with <1000 edits under your belt, I'm not sure if your brief exposure to the semantics of the policy renders you an expert in the application of the policy in regular usage. I still have problems understanding the nuances, which I have also acknowledged. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This was at WP:ANI very recently too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Women Film Critics Circle

Is this an actual notable organization? It has no sources, no (real) update since 2004 and feels like another Chlotrudis Society to me. On top of that, the intro text is pretty much a copyvio from their website. I'm tempted to have it speedily deleted. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems notable. Mentioned a couple of times in Variety here and here. Also one of two organizations mentioned by The Hollywood Reporter here. Looks like Los Angeles Times covers it in depth here and also mentions the Alliance of Women Film Journalists as a break-off faction. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

R U Professional peer review

I've started a peer review for the WP:GA quality article, R U Professional.

Comments to help further improve quality would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/R U Professional/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, would it be okay to add this song article to WikiProject Film? It references several films in a creative manner in the song. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Crew positions

As a union member iof Local600 and someone who has worked in the film industry for several years I came across the Template:Film_crew this evening and made some minor edits. I also posted some lengthy notes on the template talk page with ways in which this can be significantly improved if anyone wants to work on it. For example there are a plethora of articles that have not even been created yet if you want to truly list all possible jobs. In the relevant talk page I also linked several quality references which can be used in this endeavor. Anyone interested in working with me on it? David Condrey ^{log talk} 08:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tamil film categories by year

Please see this discussion. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Academy Special Achievement Award winners cfr

The title of this Category:Academy Special Achievement Award winners is awkward and not accurate. The actual award is called the Special Achievement Award. It should be changed to Category:Special Achievement Academy Award winners to match the article name Special Achievement Academy Award. Thread started here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Page views

Editors may be interested in this traffic report that talks about mobile page views now being included in overall page views. A previous report (seen here) revealed that the overall page views were being understated without the mobile views. You can now view WP:5000 with the mobile page views included (and the percentages are revealed). For film articles, it looks like mobile page views make up 40-60%, which is quite a lot to me. Just wanted to share! Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the WP:5000 report includes mobile views, it is unclear to me whether stats.grok.se includes mobile views.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not appear to, but one can now assume for a film (at least a current/upcoming one), the views should be roughly doubled. (For some strange reason, The Jungle Book (1967 film) at #2,537 has 77.36% mobile page views.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources question as per MOS

Hi! I have a question. I had another editor mention on my page that he was an experienced film editor, and as such I should listen to what he says is right, rather than what is stated on MOS:Film. In particular it had to do with the aggregate site, Rotten Tomatoes. At MOS:Film#Critical response, it says, "review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews." The only reference it makes to using quotes is NOT to use "user" quotes. There is something called a "Critics Consensus" quote. While the MOS doesn't clearly state NOT to use this quote, neither does it say that it is acceptable. The way it is written would seem to indicate that ONLY the statistics from the site should be used. Not sure the consensus quote should be used. In the particular example that was under discussion that quote did not seem to correlate to the score, so not sure where the quote comes from. Thanks.Onel5969 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to use that quote, but it is worth noting that the quote appears after a certain threshold of reviews. So for example, if a film gets 40 reviews, a quote is set, and then if it winds up having 250+ reviews, the quote will remain unchanged. (Someone said the quote changes, but I don't know in what instance that occurred.) However, summary statements in general are more useful than not because they are commentary that assess the broad strokes across individual reviews, something that we cannot do ourselves as Wikipedia editors. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried to explain to Onel5969 that it is standard practice and perfectly acceptable to include the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus in the Wikipedia article about whatever film in question (well, often except for very old films or films without enough reviews for a consensus). He did not believe me, and pointed to MOS:FILM to try to discredit my statements (after I pointed him to MOS:FILM), and so now we're here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm female, by the way, for those that don't already know that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate here what I said on Onel5969's talk page: FilmProject editors have had numerous discussions across multiple film articles regarding neutrality in the "Critical reception" section, and two of the standard elements to avoid contentiousness or POV interpretation is to use the RT stat and consensus published there, and the Metacritic stat and the label MC gives that stat. That MOS:FILM neither demands nor prohibits the RT consensus is of no import: RT can quoted as a Reliable Source. I'm not sure why this should be controversial: Having a neutral, reputable, third-party consensus has saved us from a lot of arguments. It's become a standard practice, and for good reason.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae and others, take note that Onel5969 has twice removed my latest posts from his talk page as nonsensical, despite the fact that they echo what you and Erik have stated above. Sure, one of those posts go into the fact that Onel5969 cannot face/admit when he's wrong. But the truth hurts; yup. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, alright... let's keep cool heads. Onel5969, do you have any concerns about using the Critics Consensus quote from Rotten Tomatoes? If you need more evidence of its value, Tim Ryan of Rotten Tomatoes has an online column in The Wall Street Journal (Review Revue or something) in which he basically reiterates the related quote for the given film. EDIT: Example here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erik! At first there was only a single issue having to do with MOS:Film. When an editor goes to that page and looks at the guidelines there, those guidelines currently make it appear that only the statistics from aggregate pages should be used. Tenebrae makes a cogent argument, but an argument that is not reflected in the guidelines. Since apparently there have been multiple discussions resulting in a consensus, that consensus should be reflected in the guidelines, since not all editors have taken part in any/some of those discussions.

However, in looking at this particular instance, I think there should be some thought as to whether this particular comment should be utilized in this particular article. When you look at the quote, it does not seem to indicate the statistical ranking of the film. How can a film which rates a "C" grade, have a quote which makes it appear to be an "A+"? Onel5969 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To address your first point, I think if MOS:FILM does not forbid a given approach and other guidelines do not forbid it, then it is acceptable. I suspect that the way it is worded to focus on statistics means that we should avoid coming up with wording to reflect the score. For example, if a film has 62% of RT, we would not be allowed to write "mildly positive" or something like that. The summary statement is a separate matter. Commentary is not going to be perfect; a journalist may just take a cursory look at RT and MC, where others may actually read through some reviews (though not every single one of them). Wikipedia reports what is on record, so if a major publication says the film is generally received a certain way, we go with that. If there are conflicting reports, then we attribute all the publications together. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Which poster to use for The Imitation Game...

The UK poster (with credits) for this primarily British film, or some old teaser poster? Hard decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Imitation_Game#Argument_over_which_teaser_poster_to_use. Film Fan 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Film label "Sound Engineer"

I recently made a request to edit template:infobox film to include a label for "Sound Engineer" which would allow this position to be given credit where it was due in articles about black-and-white films in the early 20th century. This position seems to have been highly regarded by the film makers of those days, appearing in the opening credits above both Music and Lyrics, and Film Editor. My request was denied very quickly by BOVINEBOY on Template_talk:Infobox_film#Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2014, suggesting I get support first before making the request, so am here asking for support for my proposal. Jodosma (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem a common credit. Could you give some examples of films with that credit and prominently cited sound engineers? I don't see that credit in many contemporary films (I did not do an exhaustive search). For older films I looked at a few: 1927's Jazz Singer does not have the credit, Bogart's Maltese Falcon and Citizen Kane do not have the credit. If there is only a few, mentioning it in the article would seem more appropriate than changing the template for a handful of filmsAbramTerger (talk)

I thought it would be a trivial change. Clearly I was mistaken. I'm sure I can manage without by using the basic infobox template. I suspect most of the films I'm referring to will be permanent stubs anyway so won't require the complete infobox film template. Jodosma (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The film infobox also performas categorization, so even stubs should carry it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Disney short films at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a real award?

Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor - real award, or an elaborate hoax? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot verify that the topic exists. I suggest putting this and Golden Star Award for Best Actress up for deletion. (Not sure if we can speedy-delete it as a hoax since it may not be blatant enough.) Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Cirt already did it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I've also reported the issue to WP:BLPN at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Possible_unreferenced_HOAX_pages_on_BLPs. — Cirt (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Indian films

I recently updated the categories for some of the articles in Category:Upcoming films, and diffused them in to the sub-category of Category:Upcoming Indian films. However, User:Bovineboy2008 has been adding "Upcoming films" back to these articles, because he believes it to be a non-diffusing category. I believe that it is redundant for those articles to be in both the parent category and the diffused sub-category, since "Upcoming films" does not contain {{Allincluded}} like Category:Indian films does. Can we get some additional input, so that we can come to a consensus on this issue? Fortdj33 (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that all upcoming films fell under Category:Upcoming films because it does not seem that large of a category and because the {{film date}} template will automatically categorize the film as upcoming if the date is after today. Redundancy is bound to happen and is not necessarily a bad thing; it would depend on the nature of the categories, I guess. What do others think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Separating entries in Category:Upcoming films by country is not a proper diffusing. The category properly works as the year category as described at WP:FILMCAT and as decided, the year category should not be removed. BOVINEBOY2008 21:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To say nothing of the neverending "what constitutes the country that a film is from" debates. As to the "year category" that works as long is there is WP:RSed info in the article about a films release date. MarnetteD|Talk 21:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to break it down by country. It's not that big of a category and it's easier to keep an eye on recent changes to one rather than more than one category too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect to consider here is that year-films categories (e.g., "2014 films") are not diffused. Considering that "Upcoming films" is the same type of category as these (in the temporal sense), I think it does not need to be, either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)}

It appears to me that maybe Category:Upcoming Indian films is simply not needed, and all of those articles could just be included in Category:Upcoming films. Anyone else think that "Upcoming Indian films" should be nominated for deletion? Fortdj33 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I would so proceed with your CFD idea @Fortdj33: MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The nomination is here, if anoyone would like to add their opinion. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Ovguide website and copy-paste

Dear film experts: I was working on a draft article, Draft:Gerard Lough, but I didn't notice that in the meantime someone else had created a mainspace article Gerard Lough. Since most of what I did was to add references, I could just copy them over to there, but I find the exact same text at http://www.ovguide.com/gerard-lough-9202a8c04000641f8000000028c19198 . I am not familiar with this website. I don't want to add supporting material to a copyright violation, and also the text in the mainspace article is rather promotional. Is Ovguide one of those sites where filmmakers add their own material, and, if so, is there a way to find out whether the text predates its appearance in Wikipedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You can replace the current article by adding the {{histmerge}} template so the draft article is merged into it. If the material is indeed a copyright violation, you'd do a service by replacing it. I see that the submission was declined by Timtrent, but I am seeing numerous interviews with the director in search results that seems to indicate the person as notable, even in a minor way. Timtrent, could we not do a histmerge? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do so Mine was a technical decline because the other article exists. Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Anne, are you up to do this? If you need a hand, let me know. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can do a merge, BUT, before doing so I want to make sure that the mainspace article is not a copyright violation, which is why I was asking about Ovguide. Is anyone here familiar with the workings of this website? Is it user-contributed? I guess I could just rewrite the whole thing to be sure... —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems better to overwrite the current version with yours because it currently sounds like a puff piece anyway. You can go ahead with the overwrite and perhaps salvage parts of the filmography that is not in your draft. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Erik, it's done. Because the draft was not all written by me and also because of the overlapping edit dates, I had to do a content merge instead of a history merge. I moved the draft to Gerard Lough (director) and redirected it to the main article to keep the attribution. I removed a section that was all about advertising for the videos, but it can be restored if anyone thinks its appropriate. Thanks for looking into it. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN

At the reliable sources noticeboard, there's a discussion as to whether all reviewers listed at Rotten Tomatoes are automatically reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish to avoid going to WP:ANI

Being involved, I do not wish to do an unnecessary block, so I seek other eyes under WP:THIRD. There is an editor who continues to wish a plot section removed from a film article because it is unreferenced. I have repeatedly pointed him to MOS:FILM and WP:FILMPLOT, but he still wants it removed, and appears to wish me state that I understand the Kannada language and to state that I personally saw this Kannada film before I returned the plot section first placed there by the article's author. Ongoing discussion is HERE. While he seems unduly fixated on this one film, if he's correct we'll have to remove unreferenced plot sections from all film articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

IMDB title template

I don't know if anyone else has spotted this, but the template works without any parameters whatsoever. Spotted it with this edit on Pride. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What sorcery is this?! That's really neat. Looking at its wikidata page (which can be reached via "Edit links" at the bottom of the left sidebar), I see how it works. Wikidata pages have Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes IDs too; maybe these templates could copy whatever {{IMDb title}} does for the same effect? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed it looks impressive. Not sure how it works with newly created content though. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the IMDb identifier is Property #345, which has to be added to the wikidata page. However, looking at Fight Club as an example, it was added by a bot, so the process may be partially automated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"? that you may be interested in. 11:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Interstellar discussions

There are a couple of Interstellar discussions underway:

• Changing the film poster (discussion)
• Grouping release and reception content into sections (discussion)

Editors are invited to weigh in at either discussion. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving the Set It Off page

Opinion are needed on the following matter: Talk:Set It Off#Requested move. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

Note: Notifying here due to similarities between topic of prior TFA at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film) and this one at: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Filmographies

Should filmographies of lesser known actors include uncredited roles? This has come up in Charles C. Wilson (actor)‎. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. The person was in the film, albeit, without a credit. WP:FILMOGRAPHY hints at this with the notes column in tables. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also say yes. Sometimes we confuse the terms (and they still do in industry publications as well) "uncredited" with "unbilled". AFI gives the best explanation, calling them "offscreen credits". As long as there is a reputable source indicating their participation in a film, I think they should be included. Especially in older films, when the title cards at the end were very limited (sometimes not even including the producer, etc). Onel5969 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur as well, and I agree with Onel5969 about using reliable sources to note such roles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, and especially when Onel5969 is using WP:RS references to back up such information. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Without Nets

Should Fishing Without Nets (2012 film) and Fishing Without Nets (2014 film) be merged, or kept separate? They are both by the same director, the difference is that the 2012 film is a short, while the 2014 film is a feature film. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are distinct films, each notable in their own right. I think they are appropriate in their stand-alone articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Erik's comment makes sense here, and I agree they can be kept separate. However, the 2012 film can be discussed in a potential Background section or in an Inspiration type section of a Production section, in the 2014 film article. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Woody Allen filmography FLRC

I have nominated Woody Allen filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added my two cents to the topic, would love to have other voices provide their input. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Silence (2015 film) and WP:NFF

I recently reverted an edit by Rusted AutoParts on the film and restored the redirect. However, this might be a case where WP:NFF may not apply due to sourcing. Here is the article before I reverted. Could other people chime in and say if the article should be restored or redirect kept in place. Bgwhite (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have made a logical decision, Bgwhite, as it looks like it's quite borderline, but principal photography has not yet begun. Could almost go either way on this one, actually. Unfortunately from the looks of it, it seems this film went through a period of development hell. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe Rusted AutoParts sought a stand-alone article because it is the kind of project with historical noteworthiness (as opposed to artistic noteworthiness). We've had exceptions to WP:NFF where such articles would be more historical than filmic in structure. It looks like this has been a project in gestation since 1991, so an article tracing the project's development history could be appropriate. In such cases, I prefer such articles to not be formatted like a film article (in other words, don't pretend that a film is going to happen -- exclude the infobox and the cast list and film-related categories). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say Silence's production cycle is notable enough for that. Aside from a few little development steps throughout the years, it's not like Jurassic World or Watchmen. I think once filming is announced I'll just undo the revert and go from there. Rusted AutoParts 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Audience response

There is a discussion to move the "Audience response" section out from under the "Critical response" section at MOS:FILM. See the discussion here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Blowup

Hey everyone. There's a relevant discussion at Talk:Blowup#Requested_move_2014 if any of you want to chime in. I just wrote a comment about how I (and evidently the Wikiproject) believe the film to be one of the core (most vital and significant) film articles for an encyclopedia, but I think a lot of you are probably more knowledgable on the subject than I am so if you get a chance please feel free to tell me that I am overstating my point. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nationality of The Book Of Life (Film)

I am proposing that the film The Book of Life is a Mexican film. I am based this on the following premises: 1. The director is Mexican 2. The main writer is Mexican 3. The main producer is Mexican 4. The film was released in several languages, including English and Spanish, so it is not predominately an English film.

The Dallas company Reel FX co-produced the film, but I do not consider this as enough reason to call it a USA Movie. 20th Century Fox distributed the film, but I do not see how the distribution company controls the nationality of a film.

Several actors are either Mexican or American, but I do not consider this a factor for nationality.

The book of life website reads : "From producer Guillermo del Toro and director Jorge Gutierrez comes an animated comedy with a unique visual style. THE BOOK OF LIFE is the journey of Manolo, a young man who is torn between fulfilling the expectations of his family and following his heart."

Here are some discussions about how to determine the nationality of a film. I want to stress the point that the main producer is Del Toro, from Guadalajara, no Reel F/X, who co-produced the film: http://www.filmspotting.net/forum/index.php?topic=4395.0 https://mubi.com/topics/determining-the-nationality-of-a-film-for-list-making-purposes-help-wanted

What do you think? M cyclops (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For other editors' reference, the discussion can be seen here: Talk:The Book of Life (2014 film)#Nationality of the film. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eric! I forgot the reference for the talk :) M cyclops (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. :) Other editors, since this is a specific-film matter, let's focus discussion on the article's talk page. I'm posting a link there to help understand the film's background. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New article on viral video - From The Doctor to my son Thomas

• From The Doctor to my son Thomas

I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Update: I'm not seeking support, however I'd appreciate feedback and additional input from others at Talk:From_The_Doctor_to_my_son_Thomas#Why_is_this_subject_suitable_for_inclusion.3F. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've responded there. His question is fine, but I think he is "reaching" a bit in his conclusions. For a simple 42 second clip this has an incredible amount of coverage, but would overwhelm Peter Capaldi were it to be written of in the creator's article. Best, it definitely has the WP:SIGCOV to support a separate stand-alone article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

New Star Wars title

Please find a discussion regarding what the title of the new Star Wars film actually is at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Is the episode number in the film's title? and how it should be mentioned in the lead and infobox. I personally feel this is easy to discern, based on sources available, and hope this does not turn in to Star Trek Into Darkness 2.0. Thank you in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:What do the vast preponderance of WP:V and WP:RS secondary sources say? — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Force Awakens. As seen from this Variety article and this Hollywood Reporter article, which both imbed the Walt Disney Pictures tweet announcing the title, the logo, and the official Star Wars site. Additionally, TheForce.Net received confirmation from LucasFilms that it is not part of the title. I think agreement has been reached that the article title should be Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Now it is how to mention it in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it's full-protected now. Hilarious. I guess it is a rehash of Star Trek Into Darkness, only perhaps the editors discussing come from a slightly different fan base. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like we have two titles here, the one with "Episode VII" appearing only in the opening crawl. That one will be less visible since the film will not be seen for over a year. It seems very likely per WP:COMMONNAME that the simpler title will be the one more frequently used in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Erik, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nymphomaniac

IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, etc. all present Nymphomaniac as two films rather than one. Shouldn't Wikipedia follow suit? Can someone reading this please kindly construct two articles out of the existing one? Thanks! 85.250.155.74 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to raise it on the article's talkpage. It seems that both parts were released at the same time, and it would be pointless to split the article, IMO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article's talk page is pretty dead but I'll raise it there as a question. 85.250.155.74 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. You might want to also look at WP:RFC to get more input too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I wasn't even aware of this option! If you are interested, you can see my request here. 85.250.155.74 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Town That Dreaded Sundown

There is conversation whether the content on the film The Town That Dreaded Sundown requires sources or not for the The_Town_That_Dreaded_Sundown#In_popular_culture section. If anyone can contribute, it would be useful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her

At America: Imagine the World Without Her, there is a discussion underway about whether or not to include demographic breakdown. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The CinemaScore details (grade, demographic breakdown) as printed by TheWrap is now quoted at length in the discussion. Editors are invited to comment about including or excluding part of the details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A separate discussion is also underway about the film's critical reception: the number of reviews to use in the section, and whether or not one particular review should be used. See that discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me

Could I have some help in fleshing out Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me? I haven't seen the film and don't know much about film writing overall, so I'd appreciate if someone with better chops could flesh it out more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Cult film needs a reviewer for GAN

If anyone is up to performing a GA review, Cult film needs a reviewer knowledgeable about film-related topics. Normally, I wouldn't bother the WikiProject with requests like this, but it's been almost three months since I listed it. The article is admittedly a bit long and complex, but it shouldn't take too much effort. I'm familiar with the Good Article Criteria and have attempted to write it accordingly. There shouldn't really be any major hurdles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There's also a host of film articles awaiting GA reviews at WP:GAN#FILM. From Gravity to Pulp Fiction to, erm, The Inbetweeners 2... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Olive Kitteridge (TV miniseries)

There is a situation with one editor who is repeatedly adding a parenthetical to the lead calling this mini-series a film, without discussion. Thread started at Talk:Olive Kitteridge (TV miniseries)#Lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Horror Films

I think there should be a article titled "HIGHEST GROSSING HORROR FILMS WORLDWIDE", I can do it, but it would be put in this category ?(WIKI PROJECT: FILM), ill get the correct sources, and if you want I can do it. Editor49 (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. There's List of highest-grossing films and List of highest-grossing animated films, to name just two. Starting an article for List of highest-grossing horror films would work, providing it's all sourced, of course. Maybe draft it in your sandbox first. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm already on it!, and I'm kind of new at this, but I'm a good editor at HTML, but I'm horrible at citing sources the correct way, I have the sources, but I do to know hoe to cite them. Editor49 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor49, you can use the {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} templates. Both of these should cover the majority of sources. You can copy and paste each template's most commonly used parameters. For example, for news, you can put {{cite news | last = | first = | date = | title = | url = | work = | accessdate = }} at the top of your sandbox page so you can copy it and paste it where you want to use it and fill it out. Let us know if you have any questions! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Post at Teahouse that members of this project may be able to help with

An editor just posted this question Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What if there.27s no movie poster.3F at the Teahouse. I thought some of you may be able to provide an answer if you have the time. Thanks ahead of time for any help you can provide. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Article title

I just want to make absolutely certain that the year in the article title refers to the release date before I rename The Captain from Köpenick (1941 film). According to the article, it was finished in 1941, and there's a release date in the infobox of November of that year (what's up with that?), but it later goes on to say it wasn't actually shown until 1945. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the date at which it is first viewable by the public. AFI is kind of vague about the release date. They list 1941 as the release date, but later in the entry say that it might not have been shown until 1946. The IMDb lists 1945, which is where the "release" info in our article seems to originate. I did a few Google searches, but I didn't find anything useful, and, in fact, turned up even fewer hits than listed in the AFI entry. The Google News Archive does have a few mentions, however. Since AFI officially lists 1941 as the release date, I might just leave it alone, as there's no real evidence for any specific release date. For what it's worth, TCM also lists 1941. It should be easy enough to update a few of the details appropriately so that we're no longer quoting IMDb trivia. I'll do that now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saptaswa Basu

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saptaswa Basu for deletion discussion related to a film director.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism or useful?

Hiya, I'm having trouble with an IP who keeps adding odd Cast of Characters lists to VeggieTales articles, for example The Star of Christmas, where we find such content as "Mr. Nezzer as Ebenezer Nezzer", "Unnmaned England Girl as Herself", "England Woman with Tan Colored Dress as Herself". Now currently the IP adding to this list appears to be 50.77.15.126, but I feel like I've seen this sort of thing frequently at VeggieTales articles. I find it problematic because it looks like a lot of OR, plus it's written from an in-universe perspective, as Larry the Cucumber, for instance, isn't a real human being. I've been treating it as vandalism, but I thought I'd get some more feedback in case I'm nuts. At the article in question it appears the Cast of Characters content was first added by user Poolio in this edit, although they seem to write coherently, whereas the IPs typically don't write, or use talk pages. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Children vs Family film

At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_17#Category:Children.27s_films there's a discussion going on debating whether it should be "Children's films", "Family films" or something else. Feel free to join the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Plot sections and the WP:BLP policy; discussion about All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story#Removed plot per WP:BLP. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element at FAC

The article for The Fifth Element, which is under the scope of this project, has been nominated for featured status for some time now. The only thing currently standing in the way of it being passed is that another user has requested it receive a reference check from someone who has experience with film referencing, so as to check whether the sources are reliable. If someone could give the article a reference check and then comment at the FAC nomination I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Cosby 77

• Bill Cosby 77

I've created an article about the stand-up comedy film, Bill Cosby 77.

Feel free to help out with expansion from secondary sources, or engage in collaboration at Talk:Bill Cosby 77.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Titan (film)

Hello. There's a discussion going on at Attack on Titan regarding the film article's possible creation. The discussion can be found at Talk:Attack on Titan#Create film article?. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Monk With A Camera

This is the first film article I have created completely from scratch, so I wanted to ask: I have a small low-res copy of the film's poster from IMDb. Can I upload this under Fair Use? If so is there anything I need to know first about how to do that as I take it through the Upload Wizard? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Short answer - yes. I've uploaded it - please take a look at the image file for all the necessary info. And thanks for starting the article too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Centaur Film Company

Badly needs cleanup, it's an absolute shambles. Hollywood Film Enterprises which made films like Tarzan of the Apes (1918 film) should probably have its own article; I just redirected it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nikos Nikolaidis

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.

---

Can anyone reading this please kindly upload the following poster images of Morning Patrol, The Loser Takes It All, Sweet Gang, and Singapore Sling as well as this photo from the Italian Wikipedia when having the time into their respective entries? Thanks! 85.250.155.74 (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you register an account you would be able to do it yourself. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion but I don't have the time to actively maintain a registered Wikipedia acount. I'll leave the request here and hopefully someone will find the time to upload these photos (PS: I have marked a section here, visible only via edit mode, where I beleive the photo from the Italian Wiki should go). This is 85.250.155.74 here. 85.250.135.134 (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Posters uploaded. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Now the only thing left is the photo from the Italian Wiki. This is 85.250.155.74 here. 89.139.184.183 (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have marked a section of the plot section (visible in edit mode only) where I want the picture. It reads: "[[Image:|thumb|As Singapore Sling’'s confinement wears on he regains his strength and takes a more active role in the games]]." Many film articles (see, e.g., Persona) use such frames for mere illustration, but if you believe it doesn't pass fair use then I guess no significant harm is done. Many thanks again for your invaluable assistance! 89.139.184.183 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this mark for the time being until we'll see whether or not adding another picture is possible with regards to fair use regulations. 89.139.184.183 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think two non-free pictures may be acceptable, if you can get a proper rationale for the second. You can check if the community accepts the provisional rationale for the Italian Wikipedia screenshot. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll be happy to see what people here have to say about the rationale I've posted above. Please share your thoughts. 89.139.184.183 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is 85.250.155.74 here once again. People reading this with some time on their hands might be interested in the article requests I recently made regarding the four remaining Nikolaidis features. 109.186.254.192 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) My current IP is: 85.250.146.10 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2014 (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.

The Man from O.R.G.Y.

• The Man from O.R.G.Y.

I've created a new article on the 1970 film The Man from O.R.G.Y.

Please help expand with additional secondary sources, or feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Galaxis new article

Started new article on 1995 film Galaxis, help with expansion from secondary sources would be appreciated, or feel free to suggest some on the article's talk page.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup

Nighthawks (film) needs a patient editor to engage in a bit of cleanup. It's quickly turning into a gigantic, embedded fansite. Normally, I'd do it myself, but... ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! I'll have a look at some quick wins. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't really bring myself to read through all the indiscriminate trivia that was added to the article, but more of it than is initially apparent seems to be sourced. The problem is that it lacks inline citations for much of the information, and there isn't much thought to tone or conciseness. Normally, for such a headache of a job, I'd just revert it and leave a polite note, but I think this can be salvaged with a few hours of work. I really don't want to be the one who invests all that time, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Guerrilla filmmaking

Someone will more patience than me needs to look at Guerrilla filmmaking. There's been a massive expansion to the article recently. I don't want to be overly critical of other editors' work, but... I think it needs a bit of cleanup. From the use of guillemets, I suspect the author is a native Francophone. The same editor has been adding links to that article from the leads of many other film articles. These additions are unsourced, and I don't really think it's appropriate to label films as such without a citation. Most of them aren't too controversial (Pi, El Mariachi, etc), but I'm still not entirely sure that these films should be labeled as guerrilla films in the opening sentence as if it is the defining characteristic. I dunno. I left a message at User talk:Tertulius#Guerrilla filmmaking asking for consensus before further changes are made to more articles, so hopefully we'll see a discussion here soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As for the article itself I'm not sure, but definitely one shouldn't make unsourced editions, and per WP:LEAD certainly intro sections should only be a summary of the article body -- so if it isn't in the body you should remove the additions from the lede. — Cirt (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw a few of these on my watchlist and didn't think much of them TBH. Good spot and WP:V to the rescue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope this does get not messy. JJ98 (Talk) 03:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Most of the edits by Tertulius (talk · contribs) to Guerrilla filmmaking involved violations of WP:RS including using IMDB to source quotes from WP:BLPs. Also: Based on a look at contribs and Articles created, it seems likely the user is here to promote Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there's an SPA currently edit warring to include information about a director in no budget film. If someone else could look at the addition, that would be good. I rejected the edit as too promotional and not really related to the article, but I got reverted. I started a talk page discussion, but I doubt there will be a discussion. Amusingly, the SPA thinks "worldwide acclaim" is not promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that the edits by NeoSurya (talk · contribs) seem to violation WP:PROMO and WP:ADVERT. — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not resolved. Tertulius (talk · contribs) went right back to same disruption right after block expired. Adding unsourced info to BLP page and adding poorly sourced info, IMDB links, etc. Need admin to look into this behavior pattern, again. — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, Jj98, and Lugnuts: and/or any other helpful people from WP:FILM, could use some assistance over at Talk:Guerrilla_filmmaking#Expanded_article_reverted_to_stub explaining the violations of WP:V and WP:RS over there. Appears to be an issue of willful WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it may be worse than that. A google check of several of the sources he allegedly added shows little if any difference between the material added here and the material over there - in short, copyright violations. I've asked a pro to look into this, but in the mean time I've reblocked the editor to keep the contributions out of the article. Further bulletin as events warrant. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Historical period drama film list page move discussion

Please see this page. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A related issue: doc films by year

I'd like to raise a related topic, which User:Fayenatic london has suggested I take here. Last month, User:Piotrus created by-year categories for Category:2010s documentary films. User:Fortdj33 nominated them for speedy deletion as empty categories, but they have sat the undeleted because they have not always been entirely empty. In fact, I had added two articles to this category tree today, until Fayenatic removed them. So I my question is: should we populate and retain these categories? If you look at Category:2013 films as an example, we do have a wealth of sibling categories for such subgroups as 2013 animated films, 2013 computer-animated films‎, 2013 American animated films, 2013 anime films‎, 2013 drama films, 2013 horror films, 2013 short films -- and more. Is this WP:OC? If not, I can't think of a good reason not to establish the doc category as well. your thoughts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Category:2013 American animated films somehow does seem like overcategorization. That surprised me, seeing a by-year film category so narrow. And yet we seem to be doing down a road where there are ever-more-narrow subcats of the massive "films by year" cat. I truly do not know how to proceed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe there's been resistance to these "genre by year" categories in the past. There are craploads of horror films released every single year, so it makes sense to categorize them by year. Other film genres? I dunno. Maybe? By decade seems to work well enough for most of them, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As NinjaRobotPirate has stated, Category:Horror films by decade is the only genre within the year categories in Category:Films by date that currently goes down to year-level sub-cats before 2010. If this project thinks (i) that is the right balance and (ii) it should be continued into the 2010s, we could redirect every year-and-genre category page (apart from horror) to the decade categories, with a link to this discussion. (Note: If we implement this, we should first check that each page in the category is individually categorised by year.) – Fayenatic London 21:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And no sooner do I post this, but I see that all the remaining doc films by year categories have indeed been "speedily" deleted, having lingered with those tags for weeks. So really this is about all those other categories I guess, all the variations of the animated film by years, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to have the year and genre category breakdown. It's obviously started by some horror film fanboy who thought it was needed, and others have started to copy for some of the other categories. Suggest they're all upmerged and deleted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Cattus (talk · contribs) and Lachlan Foley (talk · contribs) created the horror film categories. I've been using them. Like I said, there are dozens of horror films released every year; the 2009 category has over 200 entries alone. By decade might be too cumbersome. I don't really care, though. They can be categorized by decade if people want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand why these are being deleted. How is this overcategorization? They are easier to navigate than huge categories by decade and as long as there are enough articles they're ok.--Cattus ^talk 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They're not being deleted, without a Cfd. This is just a discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly oppose any attempt to have them deleted. They are useful and encyclopedic. For film students and scholars, categorizing films by genra and region is quite useful. As a sociologist, I can imagine wanting to show my students a list of documentaries by region and year (or more likely, decade). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, the speedied doc categories have been deleted. But they had been tagged for some time. For me, it seems to be an issue if a films by genre by year structure is overcategorization or not. If any splitting of, say, 2013 films along genre lines is acceptable. There are some folks here who seem to reject such a split, outright. I must say, I don't understand why (yet) because it does seem to me to aid navigation to break up that vast films by year pool of articles into something more useful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Audience response stats

On the talk page of MOS:FILM, there is an ongoing discussion about including audience response stats (e.g., audience score from Rotten Tomatoes) in film articles. The discussion, which started on 11/23/14, can be found here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Film date template

For info, this is now used on 50,000 articles, with the latest addition being placed on The Nevada Buckaroo. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get the count for {{film date}}? I used this and saw 49,714, which is close enough. For comparison, there is a count of 93,664 for {{Infobox film}} seen here, so the film date template is being used in 53% of film infoboxes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The 50k total comes from the number of articles in the category ("The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 50,003 total...") Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, got it! I was looking at "What links here" for the template page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, no probs! I know that MarnetteD and Aspects have done a lot of work adding the template, and thanks to Bovineboy2008 for creating it in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Boiling Point (1993 film)

Hello, the Plot section of this article needs serious reviewing, it's full of mistakes and misunderstandings. --Pagony (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Film series

Let's diffuse/depopulate Category:Film series. Most of the films listed in there are already members of child categories, such as Category:Science fiction films by series. Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Page move - Filmmaker as disambiguation

I just discovered there have been some page moves that didn't attract any attention from the Film project here, or much of anywhere else. There have been discussions here which concluded that the term filmmaker should be avoided in article titles. The purpose of disambiguation in a WP page title is to differentiate, not give a complete or specific description of the role a person does. That should be done in the article. This is not always the perfect solution to DAB issues, but it seems to be what consensus has arrived at. Walter Hill (director) was moved to Walter Hill (filmmaker), then eventually back again. This can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 8#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?. More recently John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) was moved to John Waters (director born 1893), as discussed at length at Talk:John Waters (director born 1893).

I started a new thread at Talk:Andrew Adams (filmmaker)#Page move - Filmmaker as disambiguation, under the closed (very brief) discussion involving four page moves of this type. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Filmmaker" seems alright to me. It might reduce or even prevent further debate over the title. It's not terribly important, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Filmmaker" didn't prevent further debate over the title on the Walter Hill article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Filmmaker redirects to, surprise, surprise, Filmmaking. That article states "Filmmaking involves a number of discrete stages including an initial story, idea, or commission, through scriptwriting, casting, shooting, editing, and screening the finished product before an audience that may result in a film release and exhibition." So if an individual is known for writing, shooting, producing and editing his/her films AND directing them, then I'd use the dab of (filmmaker), otherwise (director) should be used. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Most writer-directors do not meet that definition, and that's a good reason why "filmmaker" should not be used as DAB (at least not in most cases). You might post this on the linked discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Writing, shooting, producing and editing his/her films AND directing them" is of course a small group. The use of "filmmaker" always seemed to me to be useful when dealing with people who were director/producers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, one thing I've never understood is that Director itself is merely a disambiguation page, for the term is widely used and ambiguous, on its own. There are so many kinds of "directors." So really think the disambiguation should be "film director." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That would only be necessary if there are two directors with the same name but only one is a film director. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

True. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Years in cinema categories

Just seen these categories (and sub-cats):

• Category:Years in British cinema
• Category:Years in Canadian cinema
• Category:Years in Indian cinema

Thoughts? The sub-cat Category:2014 in British cinema seems to have a mis-match of award ceremonies, lists and films. What's the inclusion criteria? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of quite wide inclusion criteria similar to category:2014 in British television. Tim! (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I vote to bin them. We have Category:2014 in film, Category:British films and Category:2014 films, and I don't think this extra level of refinement is necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While I can see some advantage to these categories (Category:2009 in Canadian cinema is an example of the proper usage), I agree with Betty that they seem to be redundant. They definitely should not be used on individual film articles, given the other categories listed above. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy-ish about them staying, as long as individual films aren't put in these categories. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that if it is used to group together a bunch of disparate articles per Fortdj33's Canada example. I mainly opposed on the grounds that I don't think we need an extra level of categorization for the films themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll remove the individual films from the 2014 in British cinema etc cats at least then it will be similar to the Indian and Canadian cats. Tim! (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh it's already been done, thanks whoever did it ;) Tim! (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Marianne Edwards

Marianne Edwards is a less-known child actress of the 1930s and according to some sources of lesser quality, including IMDb, she has died in November 2013. So shall we add the information with a remark of the uncertainy or shall we leave it out completely? --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources to confirm her death, then we shouldn't add it. Note that IMDB is not a WP:RS for death details of possibly living people. I've had a search and can't find anything reliable to back up the death info provided on IMDB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This states that there is an Our Gang historian named Bob Satterfield who said she died on that date. Maybe WP:VRT can be used to get confirmation from him if her death was not published anywhere online? (I searched too and could not find anything.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the website I found when searching. Who Bob is and how reliable his source(s) are, are another matter. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

He was probably in contact with the family of Marianne Edwards, when I read the informations from these websites right: http://www.catsafterme.com/blog/archives/3069 and http://littlerascals.proboards.com/thread/943?page=9 --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this matter further, I think WP:OTRS/N could be used where the OTRS team can get confirmation (even if it is non-public) of the date of Marianne Edwards's death so it can be included in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And also have a read of WP:3RR. Your next revert on that article will probably get you blocked too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which is worse: edit warring with an admin over content that violates BLP or arguing with Lugnuts. One will definitely get you blocked, but the other is sheer lunacy. I have learned the hard way not to argue with Lugnuts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That rascal! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns with edits to the article Difret

Please see this discussion at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Film editors and civility

I posted a comment about film editors and civility last year, and I believe it should be reiterated. My original comment can be seen here. Even if certain situations are frustrating, it is important to have a respectful and considerate attitude. Everyone has a part in making Wikipedia a hospitable environment for editing. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

recent film article edits

Just noticed that Yesgoanimate (talk · contribs) added production company categories to a bunch of film articles today. Some seem legitimate, some do not, at first glance, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Can someone take a look and determine whether these are valid or not? --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed they added Warner Bros. as a category to Looper. Tagged them for that as I didn't see anything in the article to indicate that Warner Bros. had anything to do with the film. If WB was involved with the film, the article may need to be expanded to indicate that more clearly. DonIago (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There may be some WP:POINTy backlash behaviour now on his part -- not sure. For example, see this edit where he removed a production company that is listed in IMDb as a co-producer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's fine: he's also adding that category Film4 Productions elsewhere, along with other films by producer cats based on IMDb production credits. Seems fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not so fine. I've given them a warning based on this edit, which was also unsupported by the article. DonIago (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think you're being a little WP:BITEy with the warnings. That film is listed in IMDb as being co-produced by Channel Four Films. The category he added was for Film4 Productions, which is a production company owned by Channel 4. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not that's the case, but the article doesn't say that and there's no way for a casual reader to know the two are related; categories should generally only be applied to an article where the categorzation can be verified by material within the article.

That said, you're welcome to undo my edit and even my warning if you'd like, but I'm still unsure of what WB had to do with Looper. DonIago (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Channel Four Films is listed in the infobox -- and the lead for Film4 Productions clearly states what it is. I think a casual, careful reader would have realized that the edit was right. And I do think it's up to each of us to clean up our own mistakes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to B movie, a featured article, plus merger discussion

I'm not sure if anyone besides me is watching the featured article B movie. Someone has made a few changes to the article and started a talk page discussion about a possible merger. Mostly, I'd like someone else to look at the edits and see what they think. I'm skeptical of any undiscussed changes to a featured article, but I'm trying to back off on my habit of reverting every change to that article; I don't want to get a bad reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) edit: Come to think of it, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, as I've made plenty of undiscussed changes to featured articles. Maybe just forget I mentioned anything about the changes, as I'm probably just being paranoid. On a second glance, they look fine. I'm too used to people vandalizing the article. The merger discussion still needs input, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oldboy tables

There's a discussion here and I'd like the community input. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oscar nominated individuals up for deletion

Tchaliburton has nominated a ton of Oscar nominated individuals for deletion. These are people who were nominated in the minor categories (Visual Effects, Sound, etc). The full list is everything south of here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Grand Budapest Hotel article split

There is an article split discussion at Talk:The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel#Article_split, to discuss whether the "accolades" section should be spun out into its own article. The article isn't that important on its own terms but it could set a precedent for carving up small film articles. I also disagree with how the split has been carried out too, which has been pushed through without discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP adding categories

176.250.192.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just went through a whole lot of film articles adding them to categories which seems to be at best unsourced, at worst completely incorrect. I don't have time at the moment to go through their contributions, but I've blocked them for 24 hours after several editors asked them to stop. If anyone can help go through their contributions and revert as needed, I would appreciate it. --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the editor on Walking with Dinosaurs (film). From what I saw, it looks like most edits have to do with Entertainment One, based on their distributing the film in Canada. I would say that if none of the film's countries are Canadian and Entertainment One is not a producer, we should not include it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. There's another one today: 31.53.106.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Laser brain (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with this, Laser brain. I've spent the last ten minutes combing through my watchlist and reverting the IP. Sock (tock talk) 12:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Slither

Regarding the "Controversy" section at Slither (2006 film), there is a discussion on the article's talk page. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Listing film recommendations in the "see also"

Resolved

 – Appropriate "in popular culture" list article located and linked.

A while ago, I pruned a cluttered list of film recommendations from The Man from Earth. A few days ago, I returned and saw the list had regrown. I again pruned it down, but this time I got reverted. I started a talk page discussion if anyone wants to chime in. As far as I'm aware, we generally don't give out film recommendations, but I can't really point to any specific guideline that says not to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Bit late to the party, but I did this similar edit on the film I Origins, using WP:COATRACK as the rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox runtimes

I have started a discussion on the inclusion of runtimes in film infoboxes. The discussion can be found here. Sock (tock talk) 13:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Sony Pictures email hacking

I know there is section regarding this topic at The Interview (2014 film) but I am surprised that there isn't a stand-alone article for it. There is tons of coverage, which should easily meet WP:GNG and its scope seems to have out grown its relevancy to this particular film; how it has affected Sony Pictures, its staff, and the larger journalistic debate of releasing such information for starters. Besides the coverage in the film article also seems to be outweighing the rest of the content. I guess I am calling for WP:BOLD editor, who has more time than me to get things going.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I looked a few days ago for a Wikipedia article that could summarize the major items so far since the news articles out there seem to do it piecemeal or focus only on certain areas. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This article already exists, just under a different title. Sock (tock talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah-ha, there it is! :) I think we should move it to TriiipleThreat's article title. Maybe do an RM discussion to hammer out a consensus? And we now have this article as a starting point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

this story just crossed my twitter feed, which should help w/ notability of the overall Sony hack. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The articles appears to be orphaned with not much linking to it. Some hatenotes and redirects would be helpful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Erik, I'm up for moving the page to Triiiple's title. I don't think we need a consensus to move it to the standard formatting for event articles, but I suppose it'd be good to have one. Also, that news bit is certainly interesting. Is it bad that I want to go see the film even more now? Shame that it's bound to get pulled from theatres pretty soon, I'm sure. Sock (tock talk) 21:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm open to suggestions about the title but agree its better than the current one. I am more interested in helping readers find it. If it wasn't for Sock, I wouldn't have.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I aim to please. As far as I can tell, the title suggested meets all the necessary points. It specifies what happened and when. It was 2014, and Sony's email got hacked. I know all of that before I click, so I think this covers it very nicely. Any alternate suggestions? Sock (tock talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking about the word "email" should be removed as films were also stolen, not just emails. So perhaps 2014 Sony Pictures hacking, 2014 Sony Pictures hack, 2014 hacking of Sony Pictures or some alliteration thereof.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would drop the "2014" from the title, unless Sony has been hacked in another year prior to this one. Why not simply Sony hack: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I think "sony hack" is the phrase most likely to be typed into a search engine. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation Network outage was a Sony hack too. Maybe Sony hack can be a disambiguation page for both of these articles. I can see why we don't need the year, though. Something with "Sony Pictures" and "hack", I guess. Maybe just Sony Pictures hacking? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Though there hasn't been another hack, I think the 2014 adds some much needed context to when it all began. Also it should be Sony Pictures as not to be confused with Sony Corporation but not Sony Pictures Entertainment, which is overly formal (infact Sony Pictures Entertainment should be relocated to Sony Pictures per WP:COMMONNAME).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Romantic mystery films

Overkill or underpopulated? Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Generic award pictures within film articles

Any point to these images in the article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should exclude them to keep a neutral presentation. It is too reminiscent of sprucing up film advertisements with award imagery. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it could be the start of a downward slope. Thanks Erik. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They are principally decorative so let's nip it in the bud. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Box office

Dear all,

There are concerns regarding the box-office section of Guardians of the Galaxy. The main points are that the section has a historical rather than retrospective approach. In some cases, only the estimates are mentioned instead of the actual figures. Also, there are mentions of countries in which the film's gross is not notable in any way. The article is written with a considerable degree of recentism, since it is mentioning aspect of the bix-office run highlighted in the media, although these aspects are, in retrospect and in comparison to other aspects of its run, not notable at all.

Please contribute to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)#Box_office:_changes_needed

Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing. I would appreciate it if you had a look at the changes after consensus was established (i.e. see posts from December 16 onwards). Thank you.Spinc5 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

New-fangled bot taggings

Could someone please explain all the cats at Talk:I Have Tourette's but Tourette's Doesn't Have Me? There are no missing references or citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Those are in reference to the "B" status criteria. As the page is only a start class, against B class criteria, it has the reference issues, structure issues, etc. I hope that clarifies your question. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the recent bot taggings for documentary films have caused a gazillion new cats to show; there now seem to three or four of same. And I found the B-stuff you mention here. There are no citation/referencing issues, and there are no grammatical issues. So I switched those from no to yes. It looks like a drive-by assessment. I have no interest in expanding the article, but if anyone can point out referencing or grammar problems, I'd be happy to address those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

More info here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New task forces

Per WP:FILM, this is a general inquiry as to who is interested in helping to create and maintain task forces, for a few areas that are not currently covered by the {{WikiProject Film}} banner. Specifically, in classifying film articles I have noticed a need for project parameters that would cover silent films (General), documentary films (Genre), and Mexican films (National). All three categories have a large number of articles, which in most cases are not covered by any other task forces, and all three also have enough stubs to warrant division by decade. Once created, I would be happy to help these task forces tag any relevant articles. Please help me form a consensus, as to whether or not there is a significant number of participants to organize these task forces. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know it has only been a week, but I'm surprised that no one has expressed any interest in these task forces. Even just looking at stubs, Silent films has over 4500 articles that would qualify, and documentary films has over 4000! Mexican films only has a little over 1000, but over 800 of those are stubs, and it's the only category of film stubs by country that has been broken down by decade and does not have its own task force. I know that there are members of this project who specialize in silent films and/or documentary films. Wouldn't it be helpful to classify those films on the talk page, in order to better improve those articles? Like I said, I will be happy to help create the task forces and tag any relevant articles, if we can form a consensus that they are needed. Anybody else? Fortdj33 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe I missed this post. Yes, agree that these would be good to setup and support them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I missed this, too. I seem to be mainly working in the doc area. I have often wondered about the lack of a documentary project would definitely join it and help out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The task forces have been created! Please join me in welcoming:

• The Documentary films task force. Articles may be added to this task force by adding the parameter |Documentary-film-task-force=yes (or "Documentary=yes") to the {{WikiProject Film}} banner.
• The Silent films task force. Articles may be added to this task force by adding the parameter |Silent-film-task-force=yes (or "Silent=yes") to the {{WikiProject Film}} banner.
• The Mexican cinema task force. Articles may be added to this task force by adding the parameter |Mexican-task-force=yes (or "Mexican=yes") to the {{WikiProject Film}} banner.

Be sure to add yourself to the list of participants for the task forces that you're interested in, and please spread the word! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice one! Maybe worth heading to WP:BOTREQ and getting a bot to tag all the articles in the sub-cats of Category:Mexican films, Category:Documentary films and Category:Silent films with the relevant tags. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've been bold and requested it here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The tagging should start later this week. Brace your watchlists. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize that's how it works. I'd been tagging manually. I'll take a break. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's fine to do it manually - I'd chip in myself if there was a few hundred or fewer, but I thought I'd get a bot to tag them with there being so many, and three new task forces too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. This is my first time involved in a wikiproject from scratch. Looking forward to seeing how this may help improve the doc films articles, over time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for making the bot request. I have been tagging articles manually too, but I may also take a break until they are all tagged, as there will probably be some cleanup necessary afterwards. Hopefully the bot will recognize those articles that have already been tagged. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm certain that the bot already checks if it's tagged for that project, and adds it if it's not. We'll soon see! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, the bot has started. It's first cleaning up the tags on the talkpage, then it'll add the relevant taskforce(s). Any problems, drop a note on the bot-owner's talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am adding the parameters to already existing templates to avoid problems with pages that the wikiproject community does not want them to be tagged and problems with false category tree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Interview disambiguation discussion

Interested project members can comment at Talk:The Interview (2014 film)#Requested move 24 December 2014. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion input

A discussion regarding the A Christmas Story#Dating the story section for the film has begun here Talk:A Christmas Story#1940 decoder pin. Any and all input is welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Eastmancolor "article"

I've created a semi-article/semi-dab-page for Eastmancolor, as it seemed very unsatisfying that there wasn't a single place, let alone article, to find out about it, despite its importance.

In particular, I didn't like that Eastmancolor and Eastman color themselves (formerly) redirected to a section *within* the Technicolor article. That is, of course, a nice overview of Eastmancolor in itself- but it's within the context of Technicolor, and limits scope for expansion or links to other Eastmancolor-related material (since the Technicolor article should only be covering Eastmancolor as far as the latter is relevant to the main subject).

On the other hand, I haven't rushed into creating a proper article. I don't want to risk duplicating content elsewhere and/or reorganising or removing it from its existing context (e.g. within Technicolor).

There's a lot of information scattered across several articles, and I think this dab-esque page is still an improvement in that it provides a context for them to be found, but it could probably be better.

Ubcule (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Film MOS page move

Hi. The MOS page was recently moved from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Films by Baqeri. I moved it back to the current title, as I believe this requires more input. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pending AfDs

Tobi (1978 film) was posted for deletion on December 10th, and the discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to evaluate and comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle, which has been open since December 14th. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disney Legends at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Japanese box office

An editor has been restructuring List of highest-grossing films in Japan by converting dollar earnings at Box Office Mojo (which were converted from Japanese yen at different conversion rates in different years) and converting them back to Japanese yen at 2014 rates, and thereby changing the amounts and order of the chart. The upshot is that by converting the dollar amounts back to Japanese yen using a different conversion rate to the original you get a completely fictious number. The editor isn't backing down so I would appreciate a couple of opinions at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Japan#Alterations_to_the_chart. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who chipped in. It seems to have done the trick! Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD for North Carolina Film Critics Association

I have nominated North Carolina Film Critics Association for deletion. Please comment on the nomination here. Sock (tock talk) 17:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Awards organizations' notability

I have started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about adding a guideline about including recognitions only from notable (in the Wikipedia sense) awards organizations to the "Accolades" section of MOS:FILM. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Research request

I'll state upfront that this is a busy time of year so I know that you may not have the time to research this anymore than I do. An edit request has been made here Talk:Fantasia (1940 film)/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014. It sticks in my memory that this word was used by Walt in describing the sequence on TWWoD but I couldn't get google to turn up anything. Maybe some of you who are better at these kinds of searches then I am can find something and add it to the talk page and the article. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone already closed the edit request, but I posted a few sources on the talk page anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Free McFarland film e-books available through Wikipedia Library

Hello fellow film fans, just letting you all know that McFarland & Company has offered free e-book versions of its titles to experienced Wikipedians. The publisher has quite a few film studies titles (Film, film noir, silent cinema). See Wikipedia:McFarland for instructions. Best, The Interior (Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External link discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:The Thing (1982 film)#eBook about whether a self-published fan analysis should be included in the external links. Note that it is not proposed as a reliable source but only as an external link. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Scope of the "See also" section for Boyhood (film)

I have started a discussion about the scope of the "See also" section for Boyhood (film) on the film's talk page. Given the items listed in that section I don't see what any film series or TV series featuring child characters would not also qualify, but that seems silly. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. 99.192.56.139 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 99.192. See also (chuckle) this recent discussion on the same topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts, WP:NOTREPOSITORY may also be cited. --Lapadite (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This could be the catalyst for a new list article. Maybe List of films shot over several years or something like that. That title doesn't sound very good, but you get the gist. Sock (tock talk) 20:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Complete agree with this. A list/category is best, as all films with a similar scope/approach are only collectively relevant or related to Boyhood; A 'list of' article should be linked in the See also section, but not each individual film. I think that list tile is fine (succinct). --Lapadite (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Gone Girl

I think that the Gone Girl needs a page split. And a new page containing the list of accolades received by the film needs to exist. DtwipzBTalk 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of interracial romance films at AfD

Please find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

Does WP:NCTV beat WP:NCF for a TV film? Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Interstellar (film) article

Other than myself, the only longtime WP:Film editor that I see in the most recent edit history of that article is Sock. I would think that more regular WP:Film editors would be actively editing that article. Right now, it's mostly edited by this IP; while the IP does some okay work at the article, he sometimes calls edits he disagrees with "vandalism." The IP, while familiar with some of Wikipedia's rules, does not appear familiar with guidelines such as WP:Said and so on. I'm not sure which registered editor the IP is, but I'm certain that the IP has a registered account. More eyes from this WikiProject would certainly be beneficial to that article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and parts of the Critical response section are needlessly redundant. I don't want to cut anything if I'm simply going to be reverted by the IP. Flyer22 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I know that Erik was significantly editing the article; because of that fact (knowing that Erik was taking care of the article), and because of the constant debates I saw going on there, I'd decided that I didn't need to put the article on my WP:Watchlist. I also didn't want to have aspects of the film spoiled for me. I finished watching it for the first time earlier this hour, however. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I worked on the article but have not paid much attention to it for a while now. I'll review the situation, but I agree that the IP editor is throwing around the vandalism smear way too easily. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

First, it's awesome to be considered a long-time contributor. Gotta enjoy the little things about this place.

Second, and on-topic, I haven't been keeping up with my watchlist very well for the past few days so I missed a lot of this. However, I'll kick back into editing the article a bit, and hopefully we can get the IP to stop repeatedly crying "vandalism". Sock (tock talk) 12:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll also help with the article from time to time. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)