Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Citizen Kane article question

A lot of work has recently been going into the article Citizen Kane. It was already over 155k bytes a few weeks ago and I personally think it will be well over 200k bytes by the end of the month. I have suggested to another editor the idea of creating a new article entirely about the writing of the film's script and the debates and controversy about the script's authorship over the years, as well as historical sources used in the film. In other words taking section 3: Pre-production and section 4: Sources and creating a new article, perhaps titled Citizen Kane script, and then summarizing those two sections briefly in the Citizen Kane article. The other editor I've suggested this to, User:WFinch who has been working on this article longer than I have, disagrees that this would be necessary. Keeping that in mind, my question is how likely would it be for the article to be promoted to Featured status when leaving sections 3 and 4 intact? I can't imagine that there's any official rule of thumb regarding "how long is too long?", but I am just anticipating requests for a lot of cuts when and if the article is nominated for promotion. Thanks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIZE may have some answers. But more to the point, how do people know his last word was "Rosebud" when he dies alone...? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I've heard that one before. He also dies twice, once (symbolically) when the light in the window goes out, once when he drops the globe. I guess I'm just looking for a few people to chime in about this and make suggestions or just say yay or nay.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there — Can you add a section regarding this to the Citizen Kane talk page, as well? Other editors on the article might offer some suggestions, and it'd be helpful to get some consensus. — WFinch (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone?.........--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just measured the readable prose and it stands at 110k. It should be split per WP:SIZERULE, and for the guideline to be waived you would need to successfully argue that the article is indivisible. Personally I would not accept such an argument because section 4 ("Sources") can easily be split off into a sub-article without it detrimentally affecting the main article. At this point I would oppose splitting off section 3 ("pre-production") because it is much more integral to covering the film, and if section 4 was split off it would bring the readable prose down to 90k. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One thing that should be added is that the sub-section "Post-Production", some of the sub-sections in "Style", the section "Themes" and the sub-section "Influences" all need expansion, and I am personally gathering material to expand some of them. The article will probably be longer in a few weeks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And I believe User:WFinch has expressed interest in expanding the sub-section "News on the March'.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if it's still undergoing significant expansion perhaps it would be better to collect all the material first and then decide what needs to be split out. Generally I would consider a "themes" section as secondary to a "pre-production" section so I would be more tempted to split that out, but it's hard to say until we know how much content there is. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the matter; I'm persuaded that the Sources section can stand by itself. I created a Category:Citizen Kane with this in mind, and I'll contemplate how much to leave behind at the Citizen Kane article when I create another, named Citizen Kane sources. — WFinch (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I just ask, why is the citizen kane article not a featured article yet? Surely it would be the one film if not any other us in the film community would love see attain a featured article status? I think there should be a tasak force in itself that aims to write the Citizen Kane article in a way that makes it a featured article.Anyway, just my small thoughts!.--User:FilmLover91 — Preceding undated comment added 14:29, December 20, 2014

@FilmLover91: See Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage. Basically, you can't force volunteers to write (or expand) articles about which they are uninterested. We live in a postmodern world in which trashy, direct-to-video films and classy art-house films both potentially receive the same amount of coverage in Wikipedia. To some people, this is an abomination. To others, it is as it should be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to do some contributions yourself if you wish. Personally I'd like to see the article as Today's Featured Article on May 6th, Welles' 100th birthday. Hopefully it can get into shape by then, mostly through WFinch's great work.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Parveen Babi

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.

---

I don't see how more neutral I can be on this matter when I am dealing with an editor who has been overall disruptive. User:Johnmylove continues to disrupt this page and it has been already a couple of years that the editor is still edit warring. I don't think that we whitewash the infobox' fields, instead we only state the particular terms. Nor we distinguish between Indian actress and Indian movie actress.

Kindly watch, also it has been a long time that this article has received no significant changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The article has many major grammatical issues. First of all, You cannot include her occupation has "Model" the word model is term when applied has different interpretations. The correct word to be used is "Fashion Model" as it is widely used in western context. Coming to Addition of "Indian Movie actress" is to give a clear explanation that the actress has only acted in movies but not in theatre or any other field of art. To just include "actress" would not be appropriate. Actress means what? Did she act in movies or theatre or stage shows? The questions is What actress is she? She is an Indian "Movie" actress, as she appeared in movies and there is nothing wrong in adding that. The User:Bladesmulti due to previous edits I made on his disruptive editing on other articles has taken personal grudge on my articles calling me nonsensical and also threatening to block me when the user is not even an administrator. Kindly have a look into this matter and take a serious action against him. Johnmylove (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Quit exposing your deliberate incompetence. I have never said that "I will block you", I had only said that "you may be blocked." Now look at Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Rani Mukerji and others, you will see that the opening para describes them as "an Indian actress". Not the extended para that you are trying to introduce without knowing about the actual standards. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti and Johnmylove: While this content dispute seems quite trivial to me, and it is absolutely happening in the wrong place, I feel there is a much bigger issue at hand. Johnmylove, you are causing some serious problems outside of the content disagreements. You appear to be quite fond of personal attacks, given that you called Sitush, a respected editor, "a Hindu Fundamentalist, a garbage community of sort and Jobless man who edits Wikipedia pages 24 hours without any work" and claimed that "there is constant attack on Pages related to Christians of India by him". You appear to be so anti-Hindu that you removed sourced passages from notable scholars because you are "Not interested what a Hindoo thinks!" and remove notable Hindu critics from a Christian-based simply because you don't know "who the hell they are!" How your atrocious behaviour has not been brought to the forefront before now is baffling to me, and I believe that reporting you to WP:ANI would be an appropriate response. Sock (tock talk) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (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.

1920s silent film stubs

Please see the discussion here. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within at FAC

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within has been nominated for featured status. See here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within/archive1. All comments on the nomination are welcome. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary for Blue Ruin

There's a dispute over whether the plot summary of Blue Ruin should revert back to the old version (~670 words) or use a new, shorter version (~410 words). I've started a discussion at the talk page. Further input is needed to establish consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Dark Knight page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

When should "screenplay" credit be used?

Can someone please look at Halloween (1978 film) (specifically, this diff) and validate if I'm right? My contention is that "screenplay" credit should only be used when there's a "story" credit. Wrath X (talk · contribs) is insisting on using the "screenplay" credit against what appear to the be instructions on in {{infobox film}} to only use it when there's a "story" credit. I realize this is a trivial dispute, but I would really appreciate it if someone would humor my request. If Wrath X is correct, then it seems as though quite a few of us have been using the infobox improperly, and the documentation will probably need to be changed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Screenplay by" is an official credit attribution, so I am in favor of deferring to it if it is used, which is the case with Halloween (see [3]). I see "written by" as a sort of catch-all for dealing with atypical situations or films that don't use the official credit. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes like Betty said they are official credits and are usually located in the film's billing block. See this article from the New York Times about billings blocks. Items 29 and 32 are story and screenplay credits, respectively. "The credit Written By is used when the same author has written both the story and screenplay; it is not interchangeable with the Screenplay By credit." This appears to be the case here as reflect by the credits on File:Halloween cover.jpg.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to defer to the credits in the film, then the infobox documentation needs to be changed to reflect that. It currently says that screenplay should be used when there's a story credit: "Use this field instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers." By the way, the poster says "written by", for what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox says to use the poster billing block only for the "starring" field and nothing else. The film is the primary source and, as shown here [4], it uses a Screenplay by credit. The infobox also explicitly says to use the "writer" field "for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by""; to use the "writer" field when the writers are credited under "Screenplay by" would go against that. Moreover, if the "screenplay" field should be used only when there's a story credit, then where does that leave films based on novels? They almost always have a "Screenplay by" credit without a "Story by" credit. Also, what should be done about films with unconventional credits like Pulp Fiction? The safest option would be to use the credits the film officially uses. If the film uses a "Written by" credit then use the "writer" field, if it uses a "Screenplay by" credit then use the "screenplay" field, etc.. Wrath X (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should use the onscreen film credits. The poster's billing block is the best option when the film is not accessible. And yes, Screenplay is used when a novel is being adapted. Story is also used in the less common case of an additional Screen Story or Adaptation credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Film remakes by country

The country categories say for Category:French film remakes have only the one parent category Category:Film remakes. While remakes of French films are often not French films I suggest that the connection with France etc could be avknowledged by making linking it to the category Category:Cinema of France and similarly for remakes of films from other countries. Hugo999 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

87th Academy Awards

The nominees have been announced. It's an IP-editfest right now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There also seems to be some dispute on what should be covered in the Controversies section (esp. over The Lego Movie). Please see here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bird is the word. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Account hacking

I received an email from Wikimedia today that 96.246.139.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting the password reset process on my Wikipedia account. Obviously the IP hasn't succeeded, but should my account go on a sudden vandalising spree or start making highly irregular edits don't hesitate to get me temporarily blocked. Hopefully it won't come to that but I'm just giving the folks here a heads up. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Betty Logan. I've had this done to me at least a dozen times over the years. Nothing has ever happened and my understanding is that you are the only one who gets the email so there is no way the troll can start editing using your account. On the other hand should you start changing runtimes by 15 minutes or more per film we will drop Mjölnir on you :-) Thanks for all that you do here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with MarnetteD. I've gotten just as many of these kinds of emails over the years, and it has never been an issue. I'm surprised that you haven't gotten one till now! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is new to me, and I've been here for five years. I had no idea it was so common. I hope you don't get hacked! Sock (tock talk) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea it was so common either! It makes me feel a bit more comfortable now. That said I am not really a "vandal hunter" so there probably hasn't been that much incentive to hack me. I beg Lugnuts has had a million. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

20th Century Fox and predecessors

The 20th Century Fox article also covers the predecessor companies Fox Film and Twentieth Century Pictures (both those links are currently redirects). As Wikipedia's coverage of early film history slowly improves, it's increasingly tempting to undo the merge that resulted in this article. I think there's more than enough material to justify separate articles on Fox, Twentieth Century, and post-merger 20th Century Fox (not to mention that, for Fox at least, the current article isn't particularly accurate). As recently as 2012, however, efforts to unmerge the article have been rapidly reverted. I'd like to assess the WikiProject's opinions on the matter before engaging in wide-scale bold editing: more than a single article would be affected by an unmerge, with associated articles like List of 20th Century Fox films (1915–2000) (which is an incomplete dog of a list to boot) and the relevant categories also affected. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is enough information for a separate article, it's perfectly acceptable to create one. I recommend including a brief summary of the article information in the main 20th Century Fox article, with a link to the full article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Accessibility discussion on Awards articles

Hi all. Birdienest81 messaged me about a discussion that I think WikiProject Film should provide input on over in WikiProject Accessibility. It concerns whether we should change the table format of awards articles particularly the Academy Award articles as they may currently pose a difficulty to blind readers.

"There has been a dispute regarding the two column format for tables in awards articles. We would appreciate your input on how to resolve this issue. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Awards_arranged_in_two_columns_using_tables_for_layout for details. Thanks

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)"

Cowlibob (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Movie poster upload

Though I see movie posters in many WP entries, I can't find a way to load an image with the proper copyright/licensing info to Wikimedia Commons. Can someone point me to instructions or explain? For example I see posters at Walk East on Beacon and Repeat Performance. I have one for Lost Boundaries. Thx. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Movie posters, unless they are in the public domain, can not be uploaded to Commons. They have to be uploaded here (see the "Upload file" link under Tools). Make sure you include correct fair use and licensing tags. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Determining the correct fair use and licensing tags is exactly the problem I'm asking for help with. I don't see a way to generate the same tags as found in the other examples I offered above. I've given it a try, but I don't know if it will survive review. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:CILECT

There is an ongoing move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced info about BLPs

It seems a lot of film articles on this website have completely unsourced info about WP:BLPs, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V.

We should do some cleanup to remove wholly unreferenced info from film articles, if it's not properly cited to appropriate sources, in the article itself.

For example, several articles have awards sects, with zero sources whatsoever.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What Cirt is trying to say is he has removed vast amounts of linked information, because they are not inline sourcing, like Emmys, Oscars and the like from multiple articles basing the reasons on BLP violations. On going dicussion at BLP tp. Murry1975 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, of course awards sections and the like need sources, yet despite that I think some of your actions are inappropriate. If you see an article with an unsourced awards section, you shouldn't remove it, you should source it. For major awards like Academy Awards, it should be simple to find a good source. Removing the content rather than spending a minute or two to add a source is just ridiculous, and obviously isn't making Wikipedia better. Also, keep in mind that WP:BLP says to remove "contentious" material or material that might be challenged. Things like who won an award are generally not contentious, so there isn't a requirement to remove them immediately (though since they should be easy to source, the issue of whether it is alright to leave them unsourced should be moot - again just add a source). Calathan (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree strongly with this comment at BLPN, by admin Kww. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning that there's an admin on a power trip too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment WP:BURDEN is explicitly clear I guess. That said, both BAFTA and AMPAS have award databases (BAFTAs & Oscars) so those two especially are straightforward to source. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Explicitly clear" is, as usual, in the eye of the beholder. Here's what it says with some emphasis added:

In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, also on WP:PRESERVE:

Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tag it as necessary...Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

It may be disruptive and it's certainly unproductive to just go about blanking unreferenced but uncontentious and easily verifiable info; We're here to build an encyclopedia. As multiple guidelines and essays recommend, if you can source it do so; if it's not contentious or infringes copyright, tag it and/or find a source. If you tag something and it has not been addressed for some time then it should be removed. On another note, unless it's common knowledge, plot information and the like, 'linked information' does not really satisfy WP:V/WP:RS; potentially-challenged info should be sourced in every article regardless of how many articles, related or unrelated, might already cite it. --Lapadite (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Awards pages being redirected

Just a heads up. Due to this convoluted situation where awards are now considered contentious material likely to be challenged the articles for them are being redirected ala List of awards and nominations received by Nicolas Cage rather than giving editors a chance to source them. While this also violates WP:PRESERVE the more immediate problem is that the editors have been too lazy to remove the links to these article from the "Awards and nominations" from the main article (see Nicolas Cage for example) thus creating a WP:CIRCULAR link. So if anyone comes across them you may want to remove them - at least until sourcing has been added and the article restored. MarnetteD|Talk 04:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting reading at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-01-25/BLP madness. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Misleading statement; awards are not considered, by WP policy, 'contentious material'. --Lapadite (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, others disagree, DIFF, this is far from a non-contentious issue. "Awards" can be wrong, non-factual info, or used for self-promotion. There are many many ways they can be contentious in nature. Best to have cited sources for each factual assertion, as opposed to none whatsoever for claims of awards. — Cirt (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, vandalism, disruptive editing, etc, occurs, thus anything can be 'contentious'. That an actor or a film has won an Oscar isn't contentious content per se; it's easily verifiable and should be sourced. And that is a noticeboard not a WP guideline; one or 5 editors' opinion does not make community policy, so I'm don't know why you cite them as if they're arbitrator. --Lapadite (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• At this point I think this is more WP:ANI material than a simple project discussion. I've seen this sort of disruption multiple times, they almost regularly end in a block or a ban (last one was [5]). Using the letter of a rule to operate massive, rapidfire blanking of dozens of well-established and very long articles instead of tagging and giving the time to editors to fix the problems is disruptive and damages the encyclopedia. Too bad I see also some tag-team editing and abuse of power by an admin I used to appreciate. Cavarrone 08:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"...rapidfire blanking...instead of tagging and giving the time to editors to fix the problems is disruptive and damages the encyclopedia." - precisely the issue; against guidelines, and yes an abuse of power. Lapadite (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like someone is being a massive WP:DICK. This place is fucked if every unref'd page is redirected. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Per my response to advice given to me one day ago, I've already agreed to stop the removal of unsourced info from these pages for a while. So if others wish to clean up BLP pages by removing unsourced info or adding sources, that's fine. But for me, I'm going to sit this one out and just stick to commenting on talk pages and in discussions about this issue, and not take further actions editing the articles themselves for the time being. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww's disruptive vandalism

Now the recent edit(s) on List of awards and nominations received by Natalie Portman by Kww is equates to disruptive vandalism. Imagine if a newbie or IP editor had done that shit. They would have a talkpage of warning templates telling them that they'd be blocked if it continues. Once again, it's one rule for the an admin on a powertrip and one rule for regular editors. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material from an article related to a living person isn't vandalism, Lugnuts. I carefully removed it section by section so that anyone that finds supporting citations can easily restore information with a citation, and trimmed any section that was partially sourced instead of removing it completely. I do this periodically to some of our worst articles: never en-masse, and never so rapidly as to overwhelm editors that think the topic is interesting enough to justify the research necessary to find citations.—Kww(talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the content that you removed was challenged or likely to be challenged? Awards and nominations are some of the easiest details to look up. WP:CHALLENGE says, "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik, sadly, this WP:CHALLENGE as well as WP:PRESERVE been mentioned more than once and at several spots. It is being ignored and I am afraid that Lugnuts assessment may be correct. MarnetteD|Talk 18:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, spot checking several of these dodgy removals by Kww, you can easily see the cite for the award on the page to that award/ceremony. Very lazy editing at best, and at worse, vandalism. Kww - have a read of WP:ADMINACCT (Repeated or consistent poor judgment) before you go any further. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

While I don't call it vandalism, when I wrote above about the deep disappointment towards an admin I used to have great respect I was exactly referring to Kww. If s/he would had done such poor actions before filling her/his RfA, s/he would had exactly 0% chance of becoming an admin. --Cavarrone 18:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This first removal is a disgrace. Kww are you seriously telling me you couldn't find a source for an Academy Award nomintion? Is that in any way contentious? The correct answer to my second question is "NO", incase you didn't know. We're not dealing with BLP issues on the same scale as Portman's Israeli heritage, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is precisely how an article about a living person could consist of primarily uncited material. The problem is that the editors that create and maintain these articles do not source them properly. That problem is not repaired by other editors coming in and doing the unpleasant task of adding citations for them, it's repaired by these editors learning to provide citations themselves. And yes, historically, when I go through and check the veracity of these articles, I find them to be largely inaccurate. And yes, an inaccurate award credit is contentious: just ask the person that actually won it.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There are times that I agree with Kww, but not in this case. That stated, he feels strongly about WP:BLP and acts accordingly, and that, from what I have usually seen, is done in an effort to improve Wikipedia. I think that Viriditas might have some words of wisdom for us on this matter. He also edits film articles, recently getting the Edge of Tomorrow (film) article to WP:Good article status, and is not shy about speaking out on what he considers unbecoming WP:Administrator conduct. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Having dealt with admins like Kww and former admins like Cirt before, the best thing you can do is organize your response and argue your position using consensus reached in talk page discussions, project guidelines, RfCs, and other dispute resolution processes. Obsessive actions taken by Cirt and Kww can only be stopped by a strong community consensus. I would say the first thing to do is to get a community injunction on a noticeboard asking these editors to stop and use the talk page before continuing, as their editing can be viewed as a form of disruption. It's obvious that this project is open to the idea of making the sources more explicit. Another way this project can help is by either creating or updating a project list of sources that will allow editors to easily check the relevant sources. I had to do this recently and found that many of these awards sites are poorly designed and difficult to navigate so any attempt to make the verification process easier might help mitigate the current problem. In any case, this discussion alone is reason for Kww to stop what he is doing. We've seen admins do this kind of thing before, and the only thing that ever stops them is community consensus. You folks seem to have that here, but you'll need to condense your position and advertise it elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this topic was already taken to BLP/N, where similar removals were upheld by consensus. I object to describing this as editing "obsessively": we have thousands of improperly sourced articles like this one. Periodically, I choose one and strip it back down to only the correctly-sourced information. I do so in a series of little edits, one award at a time, precisely to make it easier for people that object to restore the information once they find a citation, rather than doing one massive removal of unsourced data. What I don't understand is exactly why people here think that having unsourced data isn't a problem, or, that if they believe the information is so easily found (it's not, especially when you get to obscure things like the Southeast Film Critics Award, which has an unsourced article that points to a dead link) they don't add it themselves. If someone thinks it's important to have a laundry-list of every time Natalie Portman has been noticed by some group of critics, then they should also think it would be important enough to provide a source for that information.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

These Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Is it okay to add back a completely unsourced awards sect about BLPs.3F, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Zero sources on .22awards.22 pages about BLPs are the threads at BLP and to claim that a consensus was reached is a vast overstatement. MarnetteD|Talk 19:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on BLP/N is only tenable when it involves a large sample of the community, hence my suggestion for a larger discussion. Otherwise, you end up with "obsessive" local denizens of extremity, with little recourse to centrism or moderation. That's why the boards should discourage locals and act instead as "feeders" from the project and article talk pages. Kww, looking at this discussion, you're dealing with a lot of experienced editors who only want the best for Wikipedia. It would help greatly if you would listen to what they are saying and find a way to work with them rather than against them. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I did: I left the article history with edit summaries that precisely identify the awarding agency, in a form that any editor that believes that he has found a sufficient citation need only hit "undo", provide the citation, and hit "save". I don't do this to thousands of articles a day, or generally any more than a one a week. It does work: see, for example, the difference between List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift today and last April, for example. What doesn't work is putting some notice on the top. No one gets motivated to repair these things based on a tag on the top of the article. The issue here is whether what's "best" for Wikipedia is to have large piles of unsourced material about living people or not, and that issue is largely settled.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift is a huge list; why do all of those awards need to be mentioned? That list needs cutting as soon as possible. Anyway, I care about things being unsourced, especially in WP:BLPs, but, unless it's something like the Golden Raspberry Awards, I generally disagree that awards information is contentious information; see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37#Are the Golden Raspberry Awards a BLP issue? for more opinions on that. As others have stated, WP:BLP is mainly about contentious information, which is why, unless the information is contentious, unsourced things are commonly allowed to remain in WP:BLP articles even by very experienced Wikipedia editors; see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading, where different opinions on the matter were expressed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The size of the list is an editorial decision: I agree it's too large, but I generally don't make edits to articles based on editorial concerns when I've taken administrative actions on the same article. Similarly, an article about a minor actress like Natalie Portman seemed massively oversized, but I didn't make any decisions about content based on editorial concerns when editing it for BLP concerns.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Just advising everyone here of WP:NEWBLPBAN and its provisions for discretionary sanctions on problematic edits relating to articles which broadly fall under WP:BLP. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there is now a WP:AE request about this issue. Feedback is welcome here.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Result of WP:AE request: "Cwobeel: Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists.". — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that seems OTT. Two or three editors on a witch-hunt get a good, if naive, editor blocked in the space of 24hrs. I bow to my new Insect Overlords. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Admins involved in the result of the AE decision included Kww, as well as Sandstein, EdJohnston, HJ Mitchell, and Guettarda. They are all capable of making their own decisions and coming to their own conclusions for themselves. Which they did. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And Kww is completly univolved, of course! Quick to get rid of someone who disagrees with him. Sickening. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry folks, but sourcing isn't optional—even ignoring the BLP concerns, it's two thirds of core policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Only 221,416 articles to delete now. Tally-ho! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are just the ones that have been tagged as unreferenced. I am willing to be that the number is three times that and probably even higher. MarnetteD|Talk 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking action

I've been busy this weekend, so I have not had the chance to review all the discussions related to this matter. I apologize in advance if I am retreading any particular point. First, I am sure that all editors would love it if we could have all material sourced. Policy says if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it should be removed. WP:CHALLENGE does say, "Whether and how quickly this [removal] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." I think a lot of editors of film articles here agree that awards and nominations should not be subject to quick removal. It is appropriate to raise concerns about this material lacking sources, but it has only been two days since WikiProject Film was notified about this concern. There has been tendentious editing in quickly removing this material and not demonstrating good faith to come up with community-driven solutions such as notifications, edit-streamlining, collaboration, and timetables.

I know it is frustrating to many of us here that these quick removals are being carried out seemingly abruptly and without community input. We know that awards and nominations are easy to look up and source. WikiProject Film has a number of Featured Lists of awards and nominations where we ensure sourcing for each item. In the aggregate sense, though, it is a lot of work for an individual editor. It's especially frustrating to see editors disruptively blank unchallenged articles wholesale and be technically "in the right" to do so. I saw the Natalie Portman blanking before I headed out yesterday, and I wish I could have frozen time to restore that content with all the easily-discovered sources. At the same time, it is insulting that doing that would essentially be rewarding that tendentious editing that did not demonstrate any good faith. What has happened has been the easiest solution, that of engaging in quick removal without previously engaging the community and exhausting all interim options. However, this solution fails to be community-driven. It is also detrimental in putting out of sight the material that could be easily plugged with references. In the Natalie Portman blanking, the content was not even migrated to the talk page for easy reinsertion. How many editors will know how to recover the content? How many will not realize that the blanking took place and instead spend valuable time putting details back in, perhaps still without sourcing?

We need to come up with community-driven solutions. We need to make it easier to address unsourced content. We all know that the sources are easy to find. Let's take this a step further and make the sources easy to add. Let's create a WikiProject Film page that lists the referencing for each award where an editor can quickly copy and paste the appropriate reference. I don't think the references need to be granular, especially with some awards sources being database-driven; they should point to the appropriate sources that fully connect Wikipedia to the various years and categories to establish that relationship of verifiability. Let's come up with other community-driven solutions as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Awards sourcing and have listed a few references to start us off. What do others think? There is more to add, obviously, and we could also list some steps on that page about recommended actions to take, such as giving the WikiProject Film community a heads-up to address sourcing within a particular timeframe. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. Please also create links to the relevant awards search indexes, so people can easily verify an award. I had to do this recently when I tracked down an Emmy Award for a Star Trek television article, and I was dismayed at how difficult it was. There are shortcuts to finding the awards on these types of sites that we can also inform editors about, while also providing links in the project tag drop-down box. This will give the film project the ability to put the WP:BEFORE burden on the editor challenging content. In other words, if an editor wants to remove uncontroversial awards material, they should first be able to easily visit the links we provide to confirm the award. Since this is best practice across the board for WP:V, I would suggest that some admins and arbs are out of step with the process. You can't simply remove uncontroversial award material because it's a BLP. That's a misuse of the policies and guidelines. There is little to no harm involving erroneous awards, and in the majority of cases, makes the BLP look better. So the appeal to BLP here is specious. That certain admins and arbs don't really understand how the editing process works is of no surprise. Former admins like Cirt and current admins like Kww don't really care how the community feels, they are just going to get a rubber stamp from the admin corps to keep disrupting Wikipedia. Again, the only thing that is going to stop them is running an RfC that combines elements of WP:V and WP:BLP in the request, since the BLP hardliners are the ones (once again) misinterpreting the policy in a heavy handed way. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a "Link" column to go beside the "Reference" column. Is that what you had in mind? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop describing enforcement of basic policies as disruption, Viriditas. It's not. The appeal to WP:BLP is not specious, as spot-checking these unsourced awards articles nearly invariably finds false information, and the standard for BLP (or even non-BLP data) has never been "controversial". People here seem to forget that it is not the obligation of anyone but the person who wishes to see the information included to research a source. I step through these things slowly specifically so as not to cause disruption. I remove information that is unsourced specifically so that people will provide sources for it. If people want the awards list for their favourite singer or actress to be exhaustive and sprawling, they need to provide sources at the time they make additions. They can't rely on other editors to come along later and clean up their mess. They can rely on administrators to enforce BLP policy and remove unsourced assertions about living people.

There are certainly ways that this could be done disruptively. It would be possible, for example, to tag all of these with {{Prod blp}} at a rate that would overwhelm Wikiprojects. Unsourced material could be removed from awards articles at the rates of hundreds a day. Nobody is proposing doing those things, because those things would be disruptive. One or two a week? Not disruptive at all.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You removed Natalie Portman's Academy Award and BAFTA Award details from the list because it was unsourced. Please demonstrate some good faith by contributing more positively. You're welcome to list a reference at the WikiProject page and to suggest a shortcut so we can link to it easily when approaching editors who are adding awards and nominations without sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I highly resent any description of my work as anything but positive. Defending the presence of piles of unsourced information would be what I consider to be a negative contribution. Second, give {{BaftaURL}} a whirl. {{BaftaURL|Natalie Portman}} expands to http://awards.bafta.org/keyword-search?keywords=Natalie+Portman, for example.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking about negative and positive as in removing and adding to Wikipedia. It helps to offset removing content by at least making an effort to add content or to work with others to do so. It is extremely easy to go around blanking material, but like you said, it is incredibly disruptive, and the scale of that is obviously debatable. I also do not appreciate that you threatened me with a block for accidentally restoring some unsourced Teen Choice Awards. You could have just stopped at asking me on my talk page, but you failed to assume good faith. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww is quick to threaten people with blocks to hide his bad-faith edits. That's the second time this weekend alone. Disgraceful behavior. Kww "resent(s) any description of (his) work as anything but positive", but these bad-faith bulk removals are anything but positive, as this discussion clearly shows. Is it desysopping season yet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again the bully goes silent. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You really think that your attacks are of sufficient importance that I should immediately respond to them all? As it is, I'm dealing with them at a higher priority than they deserve. All your behaviour is doing is illustrating exactly why being an admin is an unpleasant job: no matter how clear-cut policy is, someone will attack any administrator that makes an effort to enforce it.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice way to deflect your incompetence. You volunteered for "an unpleasant job" so deal with the shit that you create. I look forward to you hounding me on a random ANI thread, just as you've done today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times movie database is a good "catch-all". It's a bit English-language centric but Natalie Portman's entry lists all her major awards and nominations. It would save a lot of time by just adding that link than adding lots of different links. Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

List of upcoming Pakistani films up for deletion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I've added WikiProject Film to become a pilot tester so we can see what new tools and layouts can be used. I've also added my thoughts on the WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Stories#WikiProject Film. Others are welcome to comment about their experiences. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper genres

There is a thread at Talk:American Sniper (film)#Genre that editors here may want to comment at. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Director bibliographies

Can scholarly articles written on film directors be included in their respective bibliography pages? Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: It looks like you might be referring to Raj Kapoor. Sure, you can do that. You might consider using a standardized heading, such as "further reading", because "bibliography" makes it sound like he wrote the books. The best choice, of course, is to use the sources as citations and add information to the article. But if I can't figure out an easy way to integrate the information into the article (for example, it's too complex or long to be easily summarized), I list the sources in "further reading". Keep in mind that people do have limits to their attention span, and a very long list can cause people to lose interest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Can I add those journal articles to Raj Kapoor bibliography? Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Yes, I would think that it would be fine. I think that article title has the same problem as what I mentioned above, and it should probably be renamed to List of works about Raj Kapoor. The current name gives people the impression that it is a list of works written by Raj Kapoor. You might look at List of works about Friedrich Nietzsche for an idea of how other editors have created similar articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I have kept the title same as other pages in Category:Books about film directors. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Huh. That's funny. I should have known about that because I created one of the articles in that category. Well, I still think it's a bad idea, but it looks like there's an existing consensus for it. At any rate, I see nothing wrong with adding scholarly works. By the way, if you need access to JSTOR, you can request a free account at WP:JSTOR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dolby Surround 7.1 films at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Education programme

Heads up on this - several films have been added to the students' project, so will likely to pop-up on watchlists in the near future. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I've reached out to the instructor, who I have heard from in the past. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tin Tin Move Request

A Move request has been asked for by a user at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)/Archives/2021/December#Requested move 30 January 2015.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The lengthy talkpage discussions make me feel much better about myself. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

When I posted the same notice, User:Jojhutton had no problem accusing me of "WP:canvassing". And it's spelled "Tintin". Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bazinga. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Prhartcom, it's perfectly acceptable to leave messages at talk pages to inform other editors about discussions. What I thought you did was violate the section of WP:CAVASS at WP:VOTESTACKING. You left several seemingly random messages at various editors' talk pages, informing them of the move request. And they all, here's a shocker, agreed with not only your move request, but date issue as well. A little back tracking finds that the same editors whom you left messages for, also participated in a recent previous discussion with you, and again here's another shocker, they were on your side. It's okay to leave messages to inform editors about discussions, but not if your intent is to stack the vote in your favor, which it appears you did in this case. JOJ ^Hutton 16:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that this is not canvassing. The notification was posted to the relevant WikiProject and was neutrally worded, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Night Will Fall and German Concentration Camps Factual Survey

More eyes on these two articles are requested. The first is an HBO documentary about the second. I'm concerned about the length of the "synopsis" section of Night Will Fall and the use of Night Will Fall as a source in German Concentration Camps Factual Survey. Verification is hampered a bit by Night Will Fall being an HBO documentary of limited availability. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a fine line between comprehensive and excessive

For example, this. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not need ceremony location and date as it is pretty extraneous. I don't know about "Lost to". It's not a bad piece of information, but I don't think it is commonly shared in most awards tables. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. Those tables are a bit of a mess. This is a good example of an organized awards table. Lapadite (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the section on rates appropriate? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Erik, the "date" section is usually used to link to the specific ceremony, while the "Award" section is used for linking to the overall ceremony. For instance, take a look at the accolade pages for American Hustle and Her. Both featured lists, and both include the "Date of ceremony" to link to the specific one where applicable. Otherwise, yeah, trim the excess. Sock (tock talk) 10:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I don't find that stars and grades from reviews count as accolades. Sock, I'll admit I don't follow these list articles too closely. Still, it seems like the "Date of ceremony" links go against WP:EGG. I guess I would prefer a different way to link to a year-specific list, maybe like "(53rd)" being linked after whatever the award is. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, I would say that "rates" table is unnecessary.--Lapadite (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lapadite about "rates" tables being unnecessary. Opinion pieces by any and all critics and news sources are not that important. The only exception could be if the rating comes from a major industry source, but then significant awards and nominations should cover that. - Xenxax (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina Film Critics Association again

Another article with the same problems as the previous one has been created. Please comment on the AfD here. Sock (tock talk) 19:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to organise the "Controversies" section of "American Sniper"

There has been some back-and-forth partisan bickering over the "Controversies" section of the movie "American Sniper". The people who liked the film have wanted to defend it from criticism by either censoring it or, currently, allowing it extremely limited room, whereas one of the people who didn't like it has organised an entire Wikipedia page that likely goes into excessive detail, but which gained the consensus vote to be merged into the main section.

I am somewhere in the middle. I simply think that the more relevant criticism articles should be given more explanation, especially as the quoted counter-arguments from Clint Eastwood and Michelle Obama currently take up twice as much room as the criticism itself.

Other editors at the Talk page have stated that we should start categorising the Controversies section into different sentiments for a more coherent flow.

As a first step/draft, I have now read through all of the articles referenced within it, as well as a couple new ones, and attempted to briefly summarise the contents as best that I can within the Talk page. I would very much appreciate help from the community with compressing, structuring and organising the sentiments of the section into reading much better as an acceptable coherent text. As well as selecting which articles that are the most relevant and we should focus on.

Thank you very much for any assistance. David A (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal Tenenbaums on screen musicians not included in credits

My name is Gregor Kitzis. I was one of four musicians who appeared in the movie The Royal Tenenbaums but weren't listed in the credits even though we were seen and our music was heard for probably a full minute. I wrote to Wiki about this omission months ago but the article was never updated to include us. We all still get royalty checks and you can find enough photos of me on line that this is easily provable.

About ten minutes before the end of the movie a string quartet is seen and heard playing about a minute of The Hunt String Quartet by Mozart. Then a man crashes through a window landing at the feet of the musicians in a pile of broken glass. I was one of those musicians. That was me playing first violin, Adam Abeshouse playing second violin, a violist named Sasha something (I don't remember anymore) and a cellist named Karl Bennion. We were all members of the Orchestra of St. Luke's and were hired by Michael Feldman, who used to work for the orchestra.

We went to a beautiful old apartment in Harlem (New York City) to record the scene and Wes Anderson even coached our reaction scene. Our names were not listed in the credits, though oddly enough the studio musicians who played on the sound track (recorded in Los Angeles) but weren't on screen were listed. The first violinist in the sound track (Julie Gigante) and I both studied with the same violin teacher (Charlie Castleman) and I remember getting a phone call from him commenting on the fact that he recognized me in the movie but was surprised to see Julie's name in the credits rather than mine.

Please let me know if you can include our names in the article and if not then why.

Thank you, Gregor Kitzis gregor@gregorkitzis.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.124.186 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gregor. Wikipedia includes material that can be referenced from reliable and independent sources. In other words, if a reliable source highlights uncredited music in a film, that source can be referenced to mention that music. If there are no reliable sources that do this, then there is not a strong case to include that music. To avoid a conflict of interest here, any research done should try to identify all uncredited music for this film, not just this particular group. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Erik's comment about sources, there is an issue of undue weight. It is not unusual for a film to have dozens of actors who appear briefly in a film and have a line or two, but unless that person is otherwise notable, mentioning that appearance in a film article is mostly trivial. Lots of films involve scenes where music is heard on a radio, for example, but naming the song and performer in the article again is fairly trivial. So even if there were a reliable source available to support the information about the names of musicians and the music they played in a film it still might not be sufficiently significant to merit inclusion in an article. Whether this particular example of musical performance in the film is significant enough to include would ultimately be one that would be decided by discussion among Wikipedia editors who choose to become involved. My gut tells me that this would not pass that test, but I could be wrong. 99.192.59.202 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association redux

The recent AfD discussion was closed as delete, along with the associated sub-pages. Malcolmxl5 has removed all the links to the pages (check his edit history) and I've gone a step further and removed all mention of the award from pages that are on my watchlist (example). I think the previous consensus was to only list awards and festivals that are notable (have an article on WP), so any help removing the rest of them would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that AfD was from 2010. I recreated the article sometime last year or the year before with some details from Columbus Dispatch, Variety, and Time. It did strain to meet WP:ORGDEPTH, though, since while Columbus Dispatch had some coverage about the organization, it was not totally independent of it. Variety and Time had some award-specific commentary about the organization's awards on top of just listing them. Tenebrae proposed it for deletion, and because it had a previous AfD, the article was flagged as a potential speedy-deletion candidate. Verrai thus deleted it as such.

Since I wrote the article and based it on secondary sources as much as I could, I asked the admin how it compared to previous versions. They said, "The version deleted in the 2010 AfD was in fact significantly more in-depth than the most recent iteration. The version deleted in 2007 was similar but somewhat shorter. An article that has been deleted for non-notability at two separate AfDs, and deleted a total of five previous times, is not worth having yet another AfD discussion on when the new version covers the exact same substantive ground." I suspect that the so-called "in-depth" coverage was just details from the official website as well as the awards listing. I don't think I had WP:ORGDEPTH under consideration when I created it, but I have not recently found the kind of coverage to fit that. I searched online in Ohio newspapers, but nothing came up. A news database search may turn up something, or nothing at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical response summary - was consensus ever achieved?

Hi WikiProject Film. I've come by here a few times over the years over this subject: was consensus ever established on the inclusion/exclusion of summaries like "Critical response was generally favorable" and "Critical response was generally negative"? I know that there is an almost unanimous hatred for "mixed to negative" and "mixed to positive", but I can't tell if the community ever agreed or disagreed to summarize the aggregators. (This came up today and provoked this question). It would be very helpful to see something added to the MOS on this. Love, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's probably better to try to establish WP:LOCALCONCENSUS on the article's talk page rather than trying to establish a hard and fast rule across every article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Cyphoidbom, I thought that the matter was clear from our most recent discussion about this before now: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Summary statement for "Reception" section. The result is essentially the same every time this is discussed here at this talk page or at the MOS:Film talk page. As noted in that discussion, editors are free to add a summary statement if the matter is, or can be, sufficiently sourced. Others might not want a summary statement even if the matter is, or can be, sufficiently sourced. Like TriiipleThreat stated, it is a case-by-case matter. Except for agreement to generally not use "mixed to negative" type of wording, there will never be any WP:Consensus on this among film editors, or editors in general. As noted in that aforementioned discussion, I prefer a summary statement in the critical reception section of a film article; no editor can convince me otherwise on that matter, unless I feel that the section is truly better off without a summary statement. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly it weren't too clear for my easily distracted brain... I want to make sure I understand this: There is no consensus for whether or not we include a summary--this is a case-by-case thing. But if editors do add a summary statement like "Critical response was generally positive", are we using the aggregators as the reference for that conclusion, or do we need a new reference that supports this conclusion? Also, I assume that if the aggregators are not in alignment (ex: Hey Arnold! The Movie and Marvel's Avengers) we would not summarize? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I generally remove any unsourced statements about reception. It's original research to post your own analysis of the reception. If the Los Angeles Times or Variety say that reviewers were mixed, that's fine. But to draw your own conclusions based on the five reviews you saw from a Google search is not allowed by policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, for the first question in your "19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)" post, I quote Sock (then Corvoe) from the aforementioned discussion: "Myself and some others' personal rule of thumb is if a reliable source categorizes the reviews as something (mostly positive, universally negative, etc.), we use that reference and that specific wording. If one doesn't exist, the standard procedure is to adapt Metacritic's wording into our own. Many try to use the Tomatometer as a gauge for critical acclaim, which is why The Avengers doesn't even have a critical summary anymore. While a 92% is impressive, it had an average score of 68/100 according to Metacritic, which is far from critical acclaim. On the other hand, films like All Is Lost are damn near unanimously positive, and it says 'critical acclaim'. Personally, I think any form of 'acclaim' should be avoided unless explicitly sourced, and should be replaced with 'nearly unanimous positive reviews' (like when Metacritic says a film received 'universal acclaim'). It's hard to standardize this, though."

For the second question in your "19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)" post, it can be a matter like what Sock stated regarding The Avengers, or we will summarize even if the aggregators are not in alignment. If critical reviews in the general media are typically in alignment with one of the aggregators, then I would take that to mean that this alignment is the critical consensus about that film. There is also the option of WP:In-text attribution for a summary matter that is not clear-cut; we can state "According to [so and so]." Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the point, the aggregators are in themselves a summary so why summarize a summary. Also keep in mind that the aggregators only summarize the reviews that they count so it's WP:OR to say the film recieved generally positive or negative reviews based on them. In order to be accurate you'd have to say "According to RottenTomatoes" the film recieved generally positive reviews. I know we all would like a nice clean cut statement to cover everything but it's just not that simple. I thinks it's best to just let the aggregators speak for themselves. Besides that's their job.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to know why I feel that it is generally best to include a summary statement can look to the aforementioned discussion about this topic that I linked to above; I don't want to repeat myself on that yet again. As for the WP:Original research policy, it is clear that "[t]he phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It then clarifies with a reference-note beside that statement the following: "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

So the vast majority of these summary statement cases are not WP:OR. WP:OR does not simply mean "unsourced." And many WP:Reliable sources base their critical reception summary of a film on what Rotten Tomatoes has stated and/or shows with its aggregator. I just don't see the matter as WP:OR, not unless there is no WP:Reliable source out there for the matter or unless it is WP:Synthesis. I usually don't see the problem with summary statements for critical reception sections; from what I have seen, they usually help our readers gauge the critical reception, which is why some of them add summary statements themselves to our film articles. The Avengers 2012 film is judged as a well-received film by the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, or at least it looks that way, and yet it still does not have a summary statement for its Critical response section. Perhaps it does not need one, but I certainly don't see the problem with it having one. And it's widespread critical appeal is only made clear in the lead by the lead stating "The film garnered numerous critical awards and nominations." Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

For cases such as this one at the Jupiter Ascending article, I am perfectly fine with there not being a summary statement. When the Rotten Tomatoes score is that low, I don't see why the film's reception should simply be categorized as "mixed." The Metacritic score is not that different in this case, since the film barely has a mixed score on that site. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Mixed to negative - Taking a brief detour, the virus has spread to reliable sources! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I know. It's strange that the CS Monitor would explicitly state that the reviews have been negative, then hedge their bets a few inches below that with "mixed to negative". I'm guessing that this is a newsblog that didn't get edited. Even scarier are the fact that The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have used it. Regardless, we have our own manual of style, and they don't have to write an formal encyclopedia. Even if William Safire used the word "irregardless", I would still say that it's nonsensical. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, before this discussion (on the same day it began, however), I noticed a WP:Reliable source use "mixed to negative" type of wording. In cases where editors are arguing over whether or not to use that type of wording, as was the case with the Transformers: Dark of the Moon article, I would suggest that they look for a WP:Reliable source using that wording. When I was somewhat involved with the aforementioned Transformers: Dark of the Moon dispute, I didn't think to do that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the WP:Reliable sources got that wording, and similar wording, from Wikipedia; after several years editing this site, I've seen how very influential Wikipedia is (for example, via reports at WP:Med that WP:Reliable sources have copied Wikipedia material). Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Film External Link Templates

Hello. I am a new user to Wikipedia and I'm trying to figure out how to create a template similar to the templates on Category:Film external link templates. I would like our external links to be directed to the Margaret Herrick Library catalog. For example, for the Katharine Hepburn page, I would like to add the following under the 'External Links' section: Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This link will direct users to the Katharine Hepburn collection record in the Margaret Herrick Library catalog Katharine Hepburn papers, which notes that the library is the repository of her film and television papers. Ideally, the syntax for the template could be something along the lines of this: { {MHL catalog | Katharine Hepburn papers | bibID=xxxxx} }. Thank you.

Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lauren. I've given it a go. See this edit. The template is {{MHL catalog}}. I'll get round to adding the document sub-page later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you adjust the display of the external link so it says: 'Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' instead of 'Katharine Hepburn at the Margaret Herrick Library'? Thanks.

Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lauren that info is a bit to specific for the EL template to handle (though Lugnuts well correct me if I am wrong). You can pipe the link though like this {{MHL catalog|67192|Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences}}. IMO that is a bit long and unwieldy. I would be inclined to shorten it thus, {{MHL catalog|67192|Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, AMPASS}} but that it just me. Thanks for making all of this information available. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've kept the length of the text brief enough to give the reader an idea of what it relates to, and not too long that it over-whelms the link at the foot of the page. Compare the same length for the IMDB and TCM links on Hepburn's page, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the template to add the word "papers". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

This is a neutral request for comments regarding a dispute about whether or not Sony's planned Spider-Man film is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. All are welcome to discuss at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Spider-Man & Sinister Six. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Film industry

The Film industry article is in a pretty poor state, considering it's importance. I'll try to make some improvements, it'd be great if others joined in :)--Cattus ^talk 15:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Release dates, and silent era Fox films

Ah, release dates. A quick tour through the archives here and at the infobox reveals they've been the topic of a lot of debate over the years, and I'm sad to say I'm here to write another chapter of it. I've been recently specializing in writing about films of the silent era. Specifically, I'm focusing on early Fox Film features, at least for now. In one sense, I'm fortunate: every single Fox Film feature release—from the very first Box Office Attractions production to the last Fox-produced movies released after the merger—has a specific, documented, reliably-sourced release date, akin to the "general release" date in modern cinema terminology.

But our style guide says that using that release date as the "release date" is wrong.

You see, some of these films had showings of one sort or another prior to their official studio release date. Unfortunately, these showings were (generally speaking) not very well documented. Nor were they all the same sort of thing. Especially for the films in the 1910s, there's not even standardized terminology used; this is way, way before such luxuries as standardized credits (or, often, credits at all!). Variously, they are "premieres", "pre-releases", "previews", "advances", "debuts", or probably twice that many other terms. Some were what we think of as modern premieres: gala presentations with select audiences (and/or ludicrously-inflated tickets) at prestige locations. Some were ... entirely private events that I suspect are more akin to a modern press screening. Most, there's no concrete data about, except that they happened.

For a lucky few films of the era, it's possible to cite the exact date of ... whatever you want to call the first time it played in a theater. The very first Box Office film, for example, was shown 20 October 1914 at Academy of Music in New York, an old once-renowned opera house acquired by William Fox and turned into a movie theater; it's official release date was 19 November. For many others, all that can be conclusively said is that there was a premiere showing. For perhaps the majority, it's simply impossible to say when or whether they were viewed at all before their official release.

I'm not comfortable replacing a list of documented release dates at something like List of Fox Film films (and pardon the dust there; it's taking me a bit to build a stand-alone list of 1000+ films where we formerly had a list of about a dozen, merged into another article) with a miscellaneous assortment of official release dates (when nothing else is extant), uncertain showings that I can't pin to an exact day (March 1915, and the like) and the lucky ones with actual dated premieres. That doesn't allow for apples-to-apples comparisons and I think it does the readership a disservice. Obviously, I intend to fully document release information, as best as reliable sources permit, as I write the articles on the films themselves. But there, too, we should demand internal consistency: if the studio film list is dated in one manner, so should be the director's filmography and the article itself (albeit, again, with other information discussed). I'm not really interested in changing the rules for modern films, where the definitions and dates can be reliably documented, but as with other topics (run time in reels vs. minutes, for example), the general case isn't always an ideal fit for the early days of cinema. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd simply go with the "general release" date you mention in your opening paragraph, unless you find sources that indicate an earlier release to the contrary. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would go with the formal premiere and the date it begins its proper cinema run in the infobox. If there are any previews, advance screenings etc then save those for the release section. The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) deals with this quite well. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I ran into the same issue dealing with the early RKO pictures. Per all prior discussions, the consensus was to use the earliest date, whether that date was a special viewing (like at a festival), a premiere, or the general release. My understanding of the further consensus was that if there was an earlier, special showing, that date, and the general release date could be used, specifying them in the infobox. This is the format I've been using on the RKO films. You can go to List of RKO films, and see that the list is by earliest viewing, with the general release mentioned in the notes. An example of the format I used can be found at Laugh and Get Rich. I hope this helps. It would be nice if we could be consistent. Onel5969 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that's compliant with the current style guidelines (although the archives show that this wasn't always particularly unified consensus), but I'm going to be honest; I don't much like it. I don't think we should be mixing release types under a single "release date" heading. Maybe the whole idea of finding a single date to call the release date is fundamentally flawed; perhaps we should talk about "general release" vs. "earliest release" (or ... something like that). But I think our first priority should be displaying consistent data to the readers. The early Fox stuff just makes the problem worse, since there are quite a few films that had premieres (of one sort or another) but where the exact date is apparently no longer available (e.g. "March 1917"). I'm not comfortable presenting all of that in the same field as though it provided the reader with a single, consistent chronology. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea of a "general release" is a flawed concept for many older films anyway. Gone with the Wind, for example, was already the highest-grossing film by the time of its general release in 1941 due to its roadshow. Many silents never had a general release, and were mostly exhibited on a states rights basis. There are two fundamental ways to think of a release date: i) as a publication date, which usually coincides with the official premiere; ii) when it is released to the paying public i.e. the general public can purchase a ticket and watch the film, whether that is a festival, a limited release or a wide release. Generally I just take the earlier date in these cases to keep it simple. If you want a "one size fits all" solution then I don't think one exists because release patterns have changed down the years. We have a space for relevant dates in the infobox and it is mostly left to editors to determine the relevant dates within reason. It is not all that uncommon to see a couple of dates in the infobox where editors have include a premiere and a formal release date. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Child category definition

The instructions for Category:Child characters in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) state "As with real children, the term refers to characters who are understood to be biologically and/or chronologically under age 21 during the course of a film in which they are depicted." The age of 20 is far beyond the age of childhood for science and numerous religions. The sourced info in our article child states "is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty" and the sourced info in the puberty article gives the ages of 10-11 for girls and 11-12 for boys. I propose that we change the wording in the instructions to give the age of 12 as the cutoff for this category. Now if we want to use 13 or even 14 to error on the side of caution that would be okay but IMO this cat should not be in articles where the young characters are older than 14. Any and all input on this will be appreciated. When a consensus is reached we should add the new instructions to the cat page and to WP:MOSFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Age 20 is clearly too old to categorize as a child (well, unless there are significant competence issues). While the age of majority (legal adulthood) varies, legal adulthood is usually categorized as age 18. It's rare that a person is not considered an adult until age 20 or 21. As the Child article states, there is the biological definition of what it means to be a child, and there is the legal definition of what it means to be a child. I'm not sure which definition the aforementioned category should follow. Maybe we should have a teenage category for teenage characters? Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that MJBurrage has addressed the matter at Category talk:Child characters in film. Also, above I changed the title of the heading from "Category definition" to "Child category definition" to make it clearer as to what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea of adding a "teenagers in film" category is an excellent solution. That way the child cat could be birth to 12 and teen cat could be 13 to 19. This would address several of the issues raised by the current situation. MarnetteD|Talk 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the onset of puberty is variable—and the age of majority is not universally 18—I would support adding a "category:Teenage characters in film" category for age 13–19, and then making category:Child characters in film for age 12 and under. There should also probably be a note at each category, to the effect that most relevant articles should only be added to the category most relevant to the characters story arc. For example the Harry Potter characters are not quite teens when the series starts, but the story-arc is significantly more relevant to their teen years than to their pre-teen childhood. ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with all the above comments. "Child category": birth to 12 years old. 'Teenage category": 13 to 17 - but not to 19. IMHO, anyone 18 years old and above is an adult. - Xenxax (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the overall sentiments expressed so far, but I'm not sure we can have a practical hard cut-off age. It is not always clear how old a character is supposed to be and actors often play younger than they are. I agree with having two categories and we should have a "soft" split between children (defined as being pre-pubescent) and adolescents. Someone like Lolita, for example, could probably be added to both categories. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Betty, your comment makes good sense to me. - Xenxax (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks to all for the input. I understand what you are saying Xenxax but eighteen and nineteen year olds are still "teens" though they can be considered adults legally so I don't see a problem with using the cat. As to Betty Logan's point some leeway is always allowable per WP:IAR. We can also default to WP:CATDEF and make sure that any use of the categories is based on reliably sourced info in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, 18 to 19-year-olds are teenagers regardless of whether or not they are adults by the age of majority in their countries. By the way, I recently reverted MagicatthemovieS on a child category matter (see here) and pointed him to this discussion. Looking at his contributions, he has added that category to other articles about characters who were/are teenagers below the age of 18. His edit that I reverted at the Buffy Summers article was based on the fact that Buffy was originally below the age of 18. So while it might seem wise to argue that these categories need to be clear that they are about what the characters' current age is, fiction is in present tense. In other words, for example, Buffy Summers is age 16 to a person just beginning the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series or watching the show at that point in time. It's like what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries states: By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE). At any particular point in the story there is a "past" and a "future", but whether something is "past" or "future" changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous "present". So we are likely to end up with characters being placed in both categories. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:MagicatthemovieS here. I'm not sure about the idea that we should categorize a character's age based on what their "current" age is. This again creates confusion. For instance, Alice is clearly a child in the 1951 film Alice in Wonderland, but she is 19 years old in the 2010 film Alice in Wonderland. The two Alice's exist in different continuities, so should Alice be counted as a child character or not? I propose that a character be considered a "child character" as long as they appear in at least one film where they are under 18 for a significant portion of the film's run time. This would classify Buffy Summers as a child character, as she is a high schooler in the 1992 theatrically-released film which bears her name. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2015 ‎(UTC)

MagicatthemovieS, remember to sign your username for your comments; I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As usual, I agree with Flyer22. There's no reason why we can't put articles into multiple categories. One example is a film that fits into multiple, possibly conflicting genres, such as "romantic comedy" and "zombie film". You might have seen a British film like that in 2004. Another example is when a film is shot or set in both New York City and Los Angeles. We don't pick and choose between the locations; we source and list them all in the categories. Likewise, if a character is depicted as both a child and a teenager, we can list both categories. They do not cancel each other out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

MagicatthemovieS, why did you re-add the child category to the Buffy Summers article when this discussion is not yet resolved? There is general agreement in this section that the child category should not include teenagers. Once the teenager category is created, you can place Buffy in that category. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that there is now a Category:Teenage characters in film, and thought we might want to consider better defining that as part of this discussion. I.E. should it be renamed Category:Adolescent characters in film, and be focused on that stage of development—i.e from the onset of puberty (around age 13) though the age of majority (generally age 18)—rather than strictly just teenager (age 13–19).

I for one would favour the latter, and thus not include (for example) Sarah Connor (Terminator) in the category, since she is treated as an adult (despite being 18/19) in the original film.

―MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at MJB but IMO making decisions like that are subjective and can lead to all sorts of back and forth and even ecit warring over who is and isn't an adolescent. It is always worth remembering the instructions at WP:CATDEF. Since cats need verifiable sourced info and should be a defining characteristic I am not sure how often references to adolescence will be available. The given age of a character (most times) is much easier to define. MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Yes, MJBurrage, with this edit, I noticed that MagicatthemovieS created Category:Teenage characters in film and defined it. I think the Category:Teenage characters in film is a better title than Category:Adolescent characters in film; this is because, as noted by the Adolescence article, even scholars sometimes disagree on what adolescence is; it is not always interchangeable with the teenage years. The teenage years, however, are undoubtedly ages 13-19. With the way that MagicatthemovieS defined Category:Teenage characters in film, the Sarah Connor (Terminator) character certainly does not need to be in the category. MagicatthemovieS's definition states: "This is a category for film characters between the ages of 13 and 19. In the case of characters who mature to adulthood in the course of the story, articles should only be included in this category if the character's teenage experiences form a notable part of the story." There has never been an onscreen focus with regard to Sarah Connor being a teenager. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The catch that I see in have an age range first, and then a detailed explanation that uses the phrase "teenage years" or teenager, is examples like Sarah Connor, who is literally in her "teenage years" for the whole first film (18 at beginning of film, 19 when JC born), but is not an adolescent.

I think that we all agree that we want the category to be for those characters that are no longer "children", and are not yet adults. The problem is that in common usage "teenager" and "teen years" are equivalent to the more accurate term adolescent, while strictly speaking teen also includes some adults.

So no matter what we call it, and no matter how we parse the explanation, there will still have to be judgement calls for characters at either end of adolescence.

So we might as well name and define the category to explain the rational behind such judgement calls.

For example which category would you put a character, who is 12, in a story about the pressures from some peers to become sexually active? ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

MJBurrage, I just now read your reply; I don't understand what you mean by stating that Sarah Connor is a teenager but not an adolescent; she is both a teenager and adolescent. A teenager is an adolescent (unless one wants to state that a teenager must first be pubescent; either way, teenagers these days are usually pubescent). But not all adolescents are teenagers. Again, see what the Adolescence article states about defining adolescence. Adolescence does not automatically end at age 18; it's just that age 18 is a rough marker for when legal adulthood usually begins. Per what I stated above, I still prefer the title "Category:Teenage characters in film" to "Category:Adolescent characters in film"; it's cleaner and will not result in as much debate as "Category:Adolescent characters in film" would. I know that the term teenager is usually associated with adolescence; the Adolescence article is also clear about that. But I am still opposed to having Category:Adolescent characters in film. As to your question, I would place the 12-year-old in the child category even if the 12-year-old is adolescent. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In general usage, "teenager" is equated with adolescence, i.e. someone who is not yet an adult. The Sarah Connor character is already an adult at the start of the film. So while putting her in a "teenage" category is pedantically true, is not correct based on how people use and interpret "teenager". ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 08:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MJBurrage, I stated above, "With the way that MagicatthemovieS defined Category:Teenage characters in film, the Sarah Connor (Terminator) character certainly does not need to be in the category. MagicatthemovieS's definition states: 'This is a category for film characters between the ages of 13 and 19. In the case of characters who mature to adulthood in the course of the story, articles should only be included in this category if the character's teenage experiences form a notable part of the story.' There has never been an onscreen focus with regard to Sarah Connor being a teenager." So you can argue that Sarah Connor should not be placed in the teenager category. That stated, I don't see the problem with labeling Sarah Connor a teenager if one is judging her by the first film. People know that age 18 is both a teenager and an adult, usually anyway (going by the typical age of majority). When people think of "teenager," they may not automatically think of age 18, but they are quite aware that age 18 is a teenager. Furthermore, many older adults still consider late teenagers and early 20-somethings to be "kids."

Anyway, what do you and others think of Goustien adding Category:Child characters in film to Category:Teenage characters in film? Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see the age definition has changed at Category:Child characters in film. Would it be appropriate to add Category:Teens in fiction or Category:Teen films? Goustien (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

80, 000 Suspects

An IP editor is restoring speculation to the 80,000 Suspects article, as seen here. I think the material ("Despite the antiquity of the Film, and the fact that it was produced in monochrome, (black and white) there is a constant flow of old material appearing that relates to this production. Items for sale from various locations are mainly the "stills" (single frame image) posters used by distributors of this film in their quest to promote interest in it. Further research in this area may well uncover artifacts associated with this production left behind, and "recovered" by souvenir hunters at the various outdoor locations used") needs to stay out of the article as it is simply crystal-ball gazing speculation, not something that belongs in a reputable encyclopedia. I would be grateful if project members could comment on the talk page, or do whatever they see fit about this issue, as the IP is still edit warring to reinsert this original research, most recently here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New set of eyes on a discussion

Hello. This is a neutral notice to request some fresh eyes on a discussion over at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe. The discussion in question is trying to determine, based on all reliable sources available to us, if the recently announced deal between Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios for use of the Spider-Man character, unquestionably confirms or indicates that the upcoming 2017 Sony film is indeed a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

SpongeBob Movie 2 - Director

The infobox for our The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water article credits both Paul Tibbitt and Mike Mitchell. Although Mitchell directed the live-action sequences, I have seen no sources that credit both him and Tibbitt as co-directors. As such I think the infobox should just list Tibbitt's name. What do others think of this?Ryan Nohomersryan (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

At the official website, there is a "Credits" link that shows the billing block for the film. It says "Directed by Paul Tibbitt" at the end, and earlier it says "Live Action Direction Mike Mitchell". I think it is appropriate to say that Paul Tibbitt is the director in the infobox, but I think it is fine to mention Mike Mitchell in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Anal sex reference in Kingsman

Comments are welcome at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service#The anal sex gag at the end of the film as to whether a joke at the end of the film is worthy of inclusion in the plot summary of an grown up encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception section for Fifty Shades of Grey (film)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey (film)#critical reception. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh National Film Awards at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see the requested move discussion at Talk:Hobbiton film set. Ben MacDui 19:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Film about the sex and blood

Dear WikiProject! I seeking a movie, which was recently presented. A girl and boy make love and the girl dreams that all covered in blood. And the blood becomes a reality, the boy's muth is bloody. What is the title of the movie? Doncsecz^talk 16:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Project isn't meant to be a general forum for discussing movies like this. You are actually better served by going to IMDb and posting this on their forum. I have actually found their forum to be very helpful in identifying movies from small pieces of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Doppelganger? Maybe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment for questions like this. There are editors there that are pretty good at tracking things like this down. MarnetteD|Talk 20:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Shakespearean actor Category tagging

There has been a discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Shakespearean_actor_Category_tagging regarding the widespread Category insertion done by an IP Editor, Special:Contributions/121.54.54.44. Consensus seems to be that the Category has been mis-applied in several instances. The input of the members of this project would be appreciated. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Should Ted (character) be merged to Ted (film)?

Please see discussion at Talk:Ted_(film)#Proposed_merge_with_Ted_(character). Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Crossing page move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom thumb page move

Make a case for lower case or upper case here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Film poster and country of origin

I just wanted to confirm:

For foreign film articles, we use the original theatrical poster from the country of origin as the main picture. Not the American poster. Is this correct?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMPOSTER says to use the original theatrical release poster, so this would usually be the case. This is just the English-language Wikipedia, after all, not an American one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe WP:FILMPOSTER expresses a preference for a theatrical poster over a DVD cover, or a teaser poster or some other similar form of artwork. The principle being that we select the artwork that is most associated with a specific work, since we are using the image to identify the subject of the article. I do not believe it expresses a preference in regards to any one specific country. I imagine a poster bearing the WP:COMMONNAME title would be preferable to one that does not for instance, which may be the case if a foreign-language film is known by a different title in the English language. Betty Logan (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a good point about matching the film poster to the article title. Since the latter is based on the prevalence of a title in English-language sources, in the same vein, the poster should be recognizable on a similar basis. If English-language sources are writing an English-language title for a foreign-language film, it is likely because there has been a rename in advertising the film. To offer up an example, Wolf Totem (film) is premiering in China and France soon. When it is released in English-language territories, would we prefer the image to be changed to an English-language one? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's my view, although I am aware there are editors that don't agree with this. There are exceptions: sometimes an English language theatrical poster may not be available for whatever reason (and the DVD artwork could differ significantly), or if the film is listed under its native title then there is no harm in sticking with the native poster; generally though, I don't think it's really helpful to readers using a poster where the title doesn't match up. It's not a big deal really, it's just one of those things that niggles me whenever I come across it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingsman: release date question

The opening line of the Kingsman: The Secret Service article reads "Kingsman: The Secret Service is a 201X spy...". The film had its first showing on 13 December 2014 at Butt-Numb-A-Thon and then went on general release for the first time on 29 January 2015. Should this be described as "a 2014 or 2015 spy film"? - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that we consider BNAT a valid venue like other film festivals, it should be "2014". Since most readers may think it is a 2015 film based on its commercial release, the lead section should state that it screened at BNAT in December then had a commercial release the following month. We take the same approach with independent films that appear at film festivals one year but are commercially released the next year. I think we can stay with that logic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Erik. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A related move discussion here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments on Filmmaking / Film production

There is a proposal of merging Category:Filmmaking to Category:Film production. Discussion is at [[7]]. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 10:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think other Film editors should take a look at this. I am not sure I fully agree with the merge but the categories are a mess and it would solve a lot of the problems. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Should we include the critical opinions of organizations designated as hate groups

A user has raised a question at Talk:Shark Tale. Short story: The article contains a critical review from a group called the American Family Association, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as problematic. (I don't know for sure if the organization has been called a "hate" group.) The question: Should the critical opinions of such organizations be included in articles, or should they be removed? Comments welcome. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion: Talk:Shark Tale#Validity of the AfL. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

More Star Wars page moves

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How to evaluate films?

According to the current version of the article, Fifty Shades of Grey (film) "received mixed reviews from critics". Pearl Harbor (film) received, according to different versions and sections, "adverse", "mostly negative" or "very negative" reviews. Now what do these two things have to do with each other, and where is the problem? It is that the ratings on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are almost exactly the same for both films (e.g. 25% "fresh" tomatoes for both, and negative consensus), but they are interpreted in a subjective, and inconsistent way. If we want to beware POV, we seem to need guidelines how to read those collections of reviews - what is "mixed", "mixed to negative", "generally negative"? --KnightMove (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

KnightMove, there are guidelines at MOS:FILM#Critical response. If there are differing high-level assessments of how critics received a film, then per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we would say that one reliable source said this and that the other source said that. Readers can draw their own conclusions based on these attributed statements. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We recently had a discussion about this issue here – see Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Film#Critical response summary - was consensus ever achieved?. What I prefer to do is to flatly report the statistics from the aggregators without any interpretation from my end. Then, if the film got a wide release, I search Google for cliched phrases that lazy journalists use to describe a film's reception. For example, "won critical acclaim" gets over 350 hits at the Los Angeles Times. Entertainment Weekly is another good one to search, as they perform full coverage – everything from release to reception, and then they do a retrospective. See List of film periodicals for other good sites to check. Just be aware that Cineaste isn't going to write about a zombie film, and Total Film won't have much to say about obscure art-house films. Switch them around, and you might find some coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed at the Fifty Shades of Grey (film) article talk page; I've suggested that this is a case where we should do without a lead-in summary, or that we should go with one other option. That other option is noted in the Section break discussion there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think removing the lead-in would be for the best. I've just had to revert it yet again, and I don't see it stabilising. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was close to removing it, and the bit from the lead about mixed reviews, at least until I add the lead-in summary you suggested (the other option noted above). And by that, I of course mean a lead-in summary that does not mention "mixed" or "negative." But I can do without any lead-in summary in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else know there is an RFC on our naming conventions?

There is a proposal by an IP to abolish the (film series) disambiguator from the naming conventions. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Why parentheses?. Betty Logan (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the misleading claim above, there is now an RFC about whether Series subject (film series) is needed in addition to Series name (film series), and whether it’s even appropriate. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RFC: Series subject as a name —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A second RFC called on changing the MOS:FILM naming conventions

A second RFC on the naming conventions has been filed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RFC: Series subject as a name. The editor (who also filed the first RFC) is proposing Series subject (film series) is eliminated from the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Film series. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I had already posted about this at your previous notice. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, which is half way up the page and relates to an RFC which is now closed. How many editors do you think will notice that? Betty Logan (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Could have simply moved it down rather than posting a second notice of the same thing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring other editors' comments is not permitted. Betty Logan (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole section, I meant. But yes, it is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

About Last Night (2014 film) Movies featuring black actors section

Someone had the bright idea of adding a table of completely unrelated movies that happen to feature black people at the end of this article. I've removed it twice and Erik (talk · contribs) reverted me saying that the section is perfectly fine. Can someone either talk sense to one of us? I think this is the most ridiculous shoehorned section I've ever seen and he obviously likes it, so I need a 3rd opinion here. Feedback 20:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Feedback: Erik started a discussion on the talk page. You could respond there. Erik is very reasonable editor, and I think he'd be willing to listen to any arguments that you make. I dislike these sorts of film recommendation lists, but there's no real rule against them. As a compromise I've settle into adding "List of ..." wikilinks in place of specific films. You might try that. Maybe there's a list of African-American films that you could link to? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I never implied he was unreasonable. I said we differ in opinion and I wanted a 3rd one. I already started it here and you've already replied. I see no need to move the conversation elsewhere. "See Also" sections are fine at the end of articles, but this one isn't related at all. It's a list of films that happen to feature black actors. Not only is that a ridiculous notion, but it is severely incomplete. Almost every single Hollywood production features at least 1 black actor. Are we supposed to add a list of them all to every article? Christopher McDonald was also in the movie. Should we add a list of white actor films too? I think it's so preposterous that I can't understand how this idea even originated. However, if anyone is inclined to defend it and explain to me exactly why it should exist, I'm all ears. Feedback 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss it. I've outlined my reasons at the discussion. We can continue there since this is a specific topic. Other editors are welcome to weigh in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Citizen Kane GA nomination

Hello, Citizen Kane is currently a Good article nominee. It would be great if it received some attention and good suggestions for improvements. Its listed as number one on the WikiProject Film Core List and would be a great addition to the GAs, and the FAs in the future. Personally I would like to see it improved and possibly promoted to FA for Orson Welles' 100th birthday on May 6th. It would be great if regular Film board people took an interest in this article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap. That's almost 24,000 words. You need to split that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That was the suggestion a couple of months ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 55#Citizen Kane article question. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, don't be shy about pitching in and getting the ball rolling. You could coordinate with the articles primary contributor User:WFinch in regards to the best way of splitting it, so long as there's consensus about the split.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is more of a "Good Book" than a "Good Article." But were it to be split, how would that be done. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been a few suggestions. Mine was for the Pre-production and the Sources to be one separate article since they are directly related, and then summarize them in the main article, but you should ask the main editor WFinch what they would prefer. However, just for the record, I believe that rules for length can be amended for long articles, and if there was one film in the Film Project that ought to at least be considered for some exceptions, it seems to me it would be this one. There really is a lot to be said about it. But yes its long and its be a while since I've read it all the way through.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So, what's the best way to get this started?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ideally you need to begin a "split" discussion on the talk page to determine what should be spun-off into sub-articles. Betty Logan (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting users for peer reviews

Hi all! I am requesting some users to assist with the peer reviews of Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man. Both of these articles are within the scope of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and editors are currently nominating that to become a good topic. In order to proceed, the two previously mentioned articles need peer reviews. I know there is a backlog there, and normally wouldn't single out articles I have requested reviews of, but we are trying to get them reviewed before April 2015, at which point Captain America: Civil War will enter production, and we will have a third sub-GA article in the mainspace holding back the GT review. If we can get this done before that happens, any future MCU film article will have the standard grace period for GT retention applied to them to become a GA. Thank you for any help given. The peer review for Avengers: Age of Ultron can be found here and Ant-Man's here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Marathi films of 2000

This is at AfD. I'm not sure if it should be redirected or deleted (along with a whole bunch of other similar Marathi films of xxxx year articles. Please see the AfD for more. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at List of cult films needs input

Hi, everyone. I started a discussion that needs more input. For background: the list is being heavily expanded with poorly sourced examples, and my concern is that the list is turning indiscriminate. I could use help with setting better inclusion criteria and cleaning up the unreliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any article on an unnamed film series?

I’ve asked on WP:NCF, but no replies yet, so I’ll ask here as well: Do we have any article about a film series which has no name, official or COMMON? What do we call it? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, we have DC Comics' shared universe films, but I can't think of any others. What brings up the question? Sock (tock talk) 10:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It came from a discussion on WT:NCF regarding WP:NCF#Film series. That’s a good example, thanks, surprised I hadn’t thought of it. (There’s also the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is not the name for the movies set within it.) So then, the answer would be we use a descriptive title? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You should create it based on whatever data/info you have on the series is available. Given the two examples we already mentioned here, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is named that because Marvel and producer Kevin Feige have officially called it that. And thus the films in that universe are the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. However, for the DC films, many third party sources have dubbed it the "DC Cinematic Universe" most likely as a copy cat of Marvel's, but DC and Warner Bros. have not given us a name. So the best way us as editors could have described those films was with the title the article is currently at. Hope that logic/info made sense. Could you maybe provide us with the series you are looking to create an article for so we could help give naming suggestions? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the question came from a WP:Naming conventions (films) discussion (now closed). The current guidance there appears to be to determine a “series subject” and treat that as if it were an unqualified name for the series, in cases where reliable sources have not given the series an actual name; it would prefer, e.g., Marvel Cinematic Universe (film series) over List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. That seems entirely wrong to me in multiple ways, so I’ve been trying to determine whether that’s actual practice. Any help on either side of the question would be much appreciated. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a WP lede or fulfilling legal affiche obligations?

Looks like end titles, not a Wikipedia lede. this. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source for movie posters and their billing blocks?

Hi all, saw this edit where two more people were added to the infobox starring parameter. Anybody have a lead on a reliable source for movie posters so that we can scrape their precious billing blocks? I sometimes have trouble finding content, especially for animated films and foreign films. Spongebob 2 didn't have a well documented theatrical poster (for some reason), which makes conforming the Infobox contents to the guidelines a bit tricky. I'm seeing other problems, for instance at this Bollywood film Dil Dhadakne Do where there is no billing block on the poster but a selection of names across the top that keeps getting changed for one reason or another. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The single best source is http://www.impawards.com/, though it doesn't have a poster with a billing block for every film. One problem is posters for animated films rarely have full billing blocks. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Moviepilot.com

A discussion has been started at WP:RSN#Moviepilot.com regarding the reliability of this website. Those interested are welcome to participate. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Film crew navboxes

These deletion nominations may be of interest: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe film crew; Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 12#Template:Star Trek film crew. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Spider Man Reboot (2017 film)

Please see this article and the related AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor dispute over wording in the Gone Girl (film) Plot section

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Gone Girl (film)#"Interpreted by the media" vs. "misinterpreted by the media" in the Plot section. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. It's a minor dispute, but outside opinions on it will help. And, clearly, you should avoid reading the Plot section beyond the aforementioned wording that is in dispute if you want to avoid its spoilers. You might also want to avoid the wording that is in dispute. This is not a film people should be spoiled on. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

New Nickname

I've created a template {{WikiProject Movies}} since WP:MOVIES redirects to this project. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The template was created after I tried to tag a talkpage with a information box in regards to the project only to realise the project is called "FILM". I suggest the project have the "Movies" nickname as a template as well, but for clarity purposes "Movies" and "Film" are one WikiProject in the same. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't this just redirect to {{WikiProject Film}} like {{Film}} does? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It might quirk with substing. If you try a template through a redirect it may generate an error, just as image files will fail if you try to use a redirect nickname to an image.

(Ex: File:House1.jpg is a redirect to HOUSE.JPG. Attempting to insert "HOUSE.JPG" won't return an image but a link to the redirect.) VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would anyone subst it? Having two separate templates strikes me as a very bad idea. I really think this should either be redirected or deleted before people begin to use it. A redundant template like this causes confusion among editors (which one am I supposed to use?) and doesn't solve any problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 for a redirect. Two separate templates doing the same thing is unnecessary, and I don't see why anyone would need to subst it either. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If the Redirect and the Original work the exact same way, then redirecting would make sense. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting Featured Articles

I'd like to learn more about how to copyedit film FAs. Please drop a note on my talk page if you're interested in teaching me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Review aggregator scores on articles about older films?

If this concerns you, or even you think aggregators are the second coming I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#The_use_of_aggregators_on_articles_about_older_films. I know there is a spectrum of opinion on this and would like to see if there is aproject consensus one way or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Good Topic nomination

This is a neutral notice that the Marvel Cinematic Universe films is being nominated as a Good Topic. We hit a slight snag, due to having two non-GA class articles under the topic in the main space, but they have been peer reviewed, and we should be back on track. If you'd like to voice your opinion on supporting or declining, you can do so at the nomination page, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Love at First Sight (2012 film) deletion nomination

The film Love at First Sight (2012 film) is currently up for deletion. Issues seem to be non-notable awards added by a COI account/spammer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Dot the i vs. Dot the I redux

Please see Talk:Dot the i#‎Requested move 17 March 2015. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari GAN

FYI all, I have been working to improve The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and have just nominated it for GAN. I intend to get it to FA someday, although it's not quite there yet. This is one of the core films so I thought I'd bring the nomination to the WikiProject's attention. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You've done an amazing job. I've been watching from the sidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It looks fantastic! Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, much appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 12:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not any time in this month, but in the near future, I may go over it with a comb as I have the Masters of Cinema blu ray with a commentary from David Kalat. Kalat refutes some claims that have long been made or assumed since Janowitz's recollections on the film in the 1940s, as much of the history of the film is based on those notes. I'll listen to it later and give you a heads up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Internet Archive film

Template:Internet Archive film has been nominated for deletion. Because this template is within the scope of WikiProject Film, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard Choices, new article about crime film

I've created a new article about the crime film, Hard Choices (film).

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (film).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Mind Meld

The article about the film Mind Meld has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Film Threat

It looks like Film Threat is now redirecting to a Kickstarter page. It might be wise to start archiving articles before it disappears into a black hole like Fearnet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Jungle Book page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Re-clarification on IMDb usage

Hi WikiProject, I need clarification on IMDb's utility as a source. WP:RS/IMDB says unambiguously that it should not be used. The WikiProject Television FAQ doesn't consider it a reliable source either. Editor @Gothicfilm: has twice added it as a reference to Nighthawks (film) [8][9]. Ultimately I'm satisfied with his solution to use AFI's credits instead, however he and I seem to be differently opinionated on whether IMDb is suitable for this stuff otherwise. Gothic has stated on his talk page, "IMDb is not considered reliable for trivia. That is what WP:RS/IMDB is talking about ... Per several discussions, IMDb is considered reliable for credits, particularly below-the-line credits like stunt coordinators." If Gothic is correct and some clear consensus has been established for how and when to use IMDb, this should be added somewhere obvious, such as to the WikiProject Film Resources page, or something. For background, here is a link to our brief discussion on his talk page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I can state with absolute certainty that IMDb is often total bullshit and it should not be trusted for anything that comes from user editing and does not show reliable sourcing itself. IMDb is not a reliable source because of that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS specifically identifies the IMDb as unreliable. When the WGA signs off on the writing credits of a film, those specific credits are reliable. Otherwise, the IMDb is not reliable for credits, especially unreleased projects. It's a good resource to use as a starting point for further research, though. For example, I use it to tell me what to search for on Variety. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

IMDb's problems extend well beyond their trvia their trivia and quotes sections. They have incorrect actor and technical credits and, in one case, I have submitted a correction several times over the years and the item is still in error today. There is always better sourcing out there. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

How do we know when WGA signs off on the content? Is the page marked in some obvious way? Regarding my position that IMDb is user contributed and that "anyone can add that information", Gothic replied, "That is often stated, but it is untrue. User submissions have to be approved before they are added to an IMDb page." Does anyone have any insight into whether this is actually true? Maybe some other regulars here: Betty Logan, Lugnuts? I know that the few times I've submitted content at IMDb it doesn't get added right away and has to be approved. But I've never seen the discussion that says definitively that their approval process is the same thing as actually vetting the content. If they have the means of vetting the user-contributed content, why wouldn't they move the information from that database over to their IMDB database preemptively? Doesn't seem logical. And I doubt they're calling up Sony every time some yahoo adds a bloody gaffer credit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big IMDB fanboy. Always will be. For use on here, IMO it's fine as a starting point for basic info (director, cast, etc), but that's where it stops. It's pretty reliable for that basic info TBH. It's only when you start to step outside of the Anglo-centric world does coverage become less reliable. Same for early cinema releases. Did D W Griffith direct that film? Was that really Chaplin in an uncredited role? Maybe. Maybe not. But then you start to search other sources to find more info and build from there. Saying it's unreliable because it's user-generated content is laughable when you're editing WP! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

They do have people that look submissions, however, not all of them fact check those submissions. I am sure that some of them do but others do not. Also, they do not check new submissions against what is already there. Take a stroll through the "Quotes" section of a film and you can find the same line repeated two, three or more times. You can read this former article Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin. IMDb was happy to have a page for the person until the hoax was uncovered here. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival IMDb also had listings for this non-existant and that was used to add items to award sections in WikiP articles. As much as I like going to their website for info I wouldn't relax the current rules regarding its use here. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as the WGA credits go, it's indicated on the credits page on the IMDb. For example: this entry. Notice the (WGA) in the writing credits. Anyway, Col Needham insists that the IMDb is reliable, but there are just too many incorrect entries. The subject comes up often in interviews. I have a book here in front of me that has interviews with directors and producers who express confusion over where the imaginary numbers for their film budgets come from, and it's not rare for actor interviews to have at least one confused response where the actor says, "The IMDb is wrong; I was never in that." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually that is rare for a film that has onscreen credits. When it happens it's usually someone talking about a film in development or production - not yet released. It will be updated at some point. Thanks for explaining the WGA note which is visible as described. I was going to point that out myself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking the IMDB is not a reliable source as it at least partially works like a Wiki. However that does not necessarily mean you can't use it at all or at all in a footnote. It really depends what you want to use it for. You generally can use it for filmographies, cast, soundtrack (usually information you could in doubt get from the film as a primary source anyhow). However you certainly cannot use it for biographical information (other than maybe assembling an actor's/actress' filmography), budget infos/sales figures or reviews.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the complaints are not about the credit listing, but trivia and now budgets. Those are not like onscreen credits. The very fact MarnetteD says he submits corrections that don't show up on the site refutes the argument that anybody can add content to the IMDb. That is often stated, but it is untrue. User submissions have to be approved before they are added to an IMDb page. That doesn't mean it's always accurate, but it's a very good resource for below-the-line credits, and in my experience it has a very high percentage rate for credit accuracy. When I find a problem I submit corrections myself. Simply comparing a film's onscreen credits to its IMDb page shows its accuracy. Most trivia, of course, is not onscreen, so it is much harder for their staff to verify unless they were there on set. So apparently they relax their standards with trivia. The Trivia section being considered unreliable should not be used to disregard its usefulness for credits.

The biggest cause of credit problems is IMDb lists credits for films that are in production. Those are useful for those who want to know who is working on a currently shooting project, but sometimes the credits change by the time a film is released. Most of the corrections I do on recent films seems to come from this. But even these advance credits are overwhelmingly accurate. And no source is perfectly accurate.

The AFI is the single-best resource for representing onscreen credits, but unfortunately it doesn't have a page for every film. I would recommend using it when you can, and using other sources like TCM and even IMDb if necessary. In the case above I should have gone to the AFI first, but I didn't expect it to be a problem, and indeed the AFI backed up what the IMDb listed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on the IMDb is reliable – per WP:RS itself. There is longstanding consensus on this. If you want to source a filmography, use a different source, such as Variety. If you can't find it anywhere but the IMDb, then it's not worth mentioning. There are no situational exceptions for the IMDb. It's user-generated content, and we don't allow that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC) edit: Well, I lied. The WGA thing is reliable, as stated earlier. Besides that exception, there are no exceptions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about film credits, not filmographies. I have never used IMDb for filmographies. And I said above to start with the AFI, and other sources can usually be found beyond the IMDb. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would have to say that film credits are exactly what one uses to compile filmographies.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with NinjaRobotPirate. Many times, I've interviewed celebrities who say there are incorrect credits for them at IMDb and that no matter what they do or who they have contact the site, the errors remain online. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, from a purely logical standpoint, since everything at that user-generated site is supposed to come from some other, presumably verifiable source, then we should just go to the source that whoever made the IMDb edit used. And if we can't find such a source, then that's a red flag right there. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Who are these celebrities you're talking about? - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That would require outing myself. It's OK if you don't believe me — it does happen with journalists besides myself. I do know David Schwimmer's Wikipedia article makes this point. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Responding to Gothic's comment above: "Most of the complaints are not about the credit listing". That is simply not true, as evident by the responses above. Nobody's mentioned the trivia. You say "User submissions have to be approved before they are added to an IMDb page." I say that approval does not equal vetting. If you have evidence that actual vetting occurs, and can explain how that vetting is performed, then I'm interested in hearing about it. Keeping in mind too that we're talking not just about big budget projects, but small productions, non-union projects, foreign films, obscure TV shows etc. Implying that actual vetting occurs when we've all had spotty results is not the same as demonstrating that it occurs. I don't understand your statement "Simply comparing a film's onscreen credits to its IMDb page shows its accuracy". If I'm looking at the primary source, I don't need to use IMDb as a reference. If I match the credits of that film to the IMDb page and it comes out perfectly, that doesn't mean that the other million pages at IMDB are accurate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The second entry above looked like it was about trivia. If it was about credits, it was quite invalid. No source is perfectly accurate. And I'm all for using the onscreen credits as the primary source when you can. But people here usually want a source they can click on. The onscreen credits don't do that, unless it's been made into a clip on YouTube, such as with GWTW. But using that would probably be discouraged. In any event I've made my point here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, Gothicfilm I don't think you have. You attempted to convince me that there have been numerous discussions allowing IMDb as a source for "below-the-line" credits, but provided no examples of these numerous discussions. You challenged my interpretation that IMDB is excluded as being WP:USERGENERATED with the line "That is often stated, but it is untrue" (even though it is explicitly stated in the guideline). You claimed that WP:RS/IMDB was intended to cover trivia, and "It should be amended to make that clear" but you didn't substantiate that as well. It wasn't my intention to put you on blast, but the only reason why I'm here bothering the community for clarification is because I assumed good faith of your cocksure assertions. Got anything more definitive than "Uh huh!", or can we assume you're on board with the "IMDb is not considered a reliable source barring some clear 'Verified' exceptions" party line? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I'm somewhat irritated at the loss of time for no productive benefit. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: Yes, when you look at primary source, you strictly speaking don't need the IMDB as a "source" for that information. However many distributed forms of the primary source have that information clipped these days (if you see a movie on TV that information is usually clipped to safe time/make room for commercials) and in general the primary source is often rather hard for other editors to check/"verify" and here the IMDB is useful informal/inofficial "source" (note the quotes). Note that it is used used for assembling information that is commonly not explicitly sourced anyway (primarily filmographies and maybe things like cast or soundtrack) and based on the implicit assumption that you could retrieve from an original unedited/clipped version of the film itself (which in practice editors might not have access to).

One thing which irritating me is the suggestion to use "other" (better) sources like AFI for filmographies & co. While it is true that the AFI catalog is more reliable and should be preferred over the IMDB, one can hardly ignore the fact that it only covers a fraction of the materials of interest. It doesn't even lists all American movies nevermind all globally notable movies, which makes it often utterly useless for assembling the filmography for American actors even. The problem here is that (to my knowledge) there is simply no other "source" out there that comes even close to the coverage of the IMDB, hence to a degree we are simply stuck with it for certain tasks.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Year of release

I see SchroCat raised the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 55#Kingsman: release date question but I'm unconvinced that it is the right thing to do. The audience who saw the film in 2014 was extremely small. If it was commercially released in the US in Dec 2014 and then UK in 2015 for me it would be a 2014 film but the fact that it wasn't released commercially anywhere until 2015 it seems wrong to me to call it a 2014 film. Based on the current idea we would move a lot of films back a year purely because they happened to be pre screened somewhere or audience tested. I really think we should go by its official commercial release date, and I think that should apply to any film on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We know of at least one 2014 screening date, and it's possible that there are others; the same logic in reverse applies: how can it be a 2015 film when it was shown in 2014? I'm happier calling this a 2014 film than I am calling it a 2015 film, but happy to hear the opinions of others on this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Presumably it was shown to an extremely small percentage of people, not much more than a typical pre-screening. Well we know what Erik thinks, somebody else please..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal consensus states that a film is not considered published until it is made available for the viewing public through a distribution channel (like exchanges) so a private screening of the film would not count. Advance copies and advance screenings are not formally release dates... I've had a heck of a time with this recently, but not much has changed in the last hundred years. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The festival itself may have criteria for who can attend, but if the studio has relinquished control over who can view the film to a third party (as opposed to hosting the screening itself) then from a copyright perspective it has been published. Therefore a festival screening would be a "public" exhibition (albeit extremely limited) whereas a test screening/press screening would be "private". I think the lead of the article takes the correct approach from what we know: it identifies it as a 2014 film but acknowledges that to all intents and purposes it is a 2015 general release. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I have seen 100s (if not more) of film article where both a festival screening and a general release are mentioned in the "release date" field in the infobox or the lede or both. I am pretty sure there have been more than one discussion about this and I think (though I could be wrong) the consensus is to allow both. As long as they are sourced I don't see why there is a need to change that. Remember that these limited December showings are often done (though I don't know if that is the case for this specific film) to make a film eligible for the Academy Awards (as well as the 1000 other award shows) and that is a fairly significant bit of info of the films history. MarnetteD|Talk 15:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how big or small the auidence was for the first screening, as long as it was a "public" screening (as defined above). I was at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival and saw the documentary Pearl Jam Twenty. It was sold out, but one of the curators of the festival said it wasn't uncommon for documentaries and lots of small-budget world cinema titles to have next to no-one going to see them being screened. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, where's you main beef with this? Is it the opening line "K is a 2014...", or is it in the classifications at the bottom. If it's the opening line, then I have no problem taking the date out of there – we cover the year issue a few lines below, so it's not a major problem. If your concern is more around the classifications at the bottom, I'm not sure what to do about those, as it certainly needs something there, and the only thing I can think of is either to come up with a consensus one way or t'other, or to add both 2014 and 2015 classifications in there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I dunno it just doesn't feel right to me, not in cinemas for 99.99% of people in 2014 and only seen by 200 people. If the official premiere was at the Butt festival in 2014 though then I suppose we have to go with it. Personally I'd go with official commercial release date but I seem to be in the minority in thinking that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Would taking the date out of the first line work for you? It's not actually needed, as we cover the release dates in both the IB and lower down the lead... - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think it would be better. I noticed somebody on the dab page called it a 2015 film too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD a film's year of release belongs in the opening sentence, as can be seen on virtually every WP film page. Not mentioning the year until the second sentence of the second paragraph does not look right. I understand not wanting to say 2014 here, but that is what is done on other film pages with similar release patterns. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But we don't have to slavishly adhere to it – WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a good thing to listen to from time to time. Don't forget that FILMLEAD is a guide, and it doesn't have to be stuck to rigidly and unthinkingly just because "that is what is done on other film pages". – SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Having the year in the opening sentence is neither crap nor unthinking. Every other page where this situation exists I've seen lists the year in the opening sentence, and so should this one. There's no reason to bury the year until the second sentence of the second paragraph. To do something so unusual you should have more than one person here agree to it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But your sole rationale seems to be "because other pages do...", which just isn't good enough. Can you give any other good reason for not including it? (I've also tweaked it so the dates now appear in the first paragraph, not second, but even so, with two very short paras, it's not even close to say the information was "buried" anywhere). - SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Another good/bad example is Mud which was shown at Cannes in 2012, before getting a limited US release more than a year later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Producer / Executive producer navboxes

A couple of TFDs you may be interested in at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Eva Longoria and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 19#Template:Kent Smith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 23#Template:Rosemary Blight. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to mention documented brain storming sessions for films?

[10] I just read about the original script for Indiana Jones 2, which is mentioned in the article for temple of doom; however in a documented brain storming session for the first film, Spielberg and Lucas considered having Dr. Jones romantically involved with a 12 year old Marian? Are documented brainstorming sessions worth mentioning under production? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no place on Wikipedia for content from Cracked.com. That's not a reliable source. It's a humor site. If you found a citation from Variety or The New York Times, then, yeah, you could that in the production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Critical response section of the Cinderella (2015 film) article

I know that I just started a discussion concerning this article immediately above this section, but opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Cinderella (2015 film)#Reviews. The discussion concerns whether or not the Critical response section of the Cinderella (2015 film) article should only consist of positive reviews, including whether or not it should include only one negative review if any negativity concerning the film's reception is to be included. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Satyricon page moves

Please see the discussions for the Gian Luigi Polidoro film and the Federico Fellini film. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Variety Insight

Has anyone ever contacted contacted Variety Insight to ask about the possibility of free subscriptions through the Wikipedia Library? Per this article, a subscription costs $1000, which doesn't really seem feasible. However, it's a fact-checked database, which would make it very useful for Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Variety directly for a subscription (back in July 2013), but they declined. Not sure about doing it through the Wikipedia Library. Their email address is variety@pubservice.com, if you want to try to make that suggestion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Article for "The Death of 'Superman Lives'

Jon Schnepp's documentary documenting the failed attempt at bringing Superman Lives to life entitled "The Death of 'Superman Lives': What Happened?" is slated to be released on May 1, 2015. I'd like some help with creating an article based around the film. I wouldn't even know where to start. Some help would be awesome! Npamusic (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Films about women

I'm not sure how to deal with the scope of this category. It seems to be getting populated with any film that has a strong female lead, rather than films that are specifically women-centric. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If nothing in the article supports the intended categorization (which hopefully is made clear on the category page), then you'd be within your rights to revert and notify the editor who added the category. I might recommend Template:Uw-badcat.

Failing that it might be worth raising the question at categories for discussion. DonIago (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the issue - the category page isn't clear on what it's meant to be for. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wolf Song

Regarding title of the 1929 film, Wolf Song. There is no 'The' in the title. The word 'The' is listed as the title on the Wolf Song page. The title should be Wolf Song. How do I change the title, deleting 'The'? As long as it remains as is, unable to correct the title throughout.

For reference, look at the Wolf Song poster showcased on the page. That IMDB has it wrong, too, doesn't mean Wikipedia should.

Thanks,

Chrish65 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)chrish65Chrish65 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved. The Library of Congress has the title sans the "The". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing Before I Disappear

Would anybody be interested in taking up the editing of the page Before I Disappear? This IFC film won a good deal of awards and has plenty of reputable articles about it. I would make it fuller, but I have two issues impeding this- I am not very active on Wikipedia anymore and more critically, I've actually become a friend and collaborator of the film's director, Shawn Christensen, since I wrote the article, so I'm technically facing a COI. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)