Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Gods and Generals discussion

There is currently a discussion underway over at the Gods and Generals talk page regarding the inclusion of a quote from Constitution Party politician Chuck Baldwin, who praises the film. Display name 99 argues that NPOV requires that we include the quote to balance the negative reviews the film has received from noted historians. I argue that NPOV does not require that and furthermore the opinion of a nonnotable politician whose support of the film is based on his agreement with its politics, and not anything to do with its merits as a film, simply does not belong in the article. At any rate, I'd like some other opinions, please. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I personally agree with Baldwin on many things. I'm guessing you've seen my userpage. I disagree with him, somewhat, on the issue of the Civil War. I do not believe, as he says, that the Confederacy was "right" or that slavery is so often "misunderstood." The fact that I hold respect for those who fought for the Confederacy as well as the Union has led to criticism from some people both on and off Wikipedia. But I do not consider myself a supporter of the Confederacy or of slavery, which I believe was the primary cause for the war. You'll find my explanation of why I believe the quote should be included on the talk page.

Now that that's out of the way, I could say with equal justification your opposition to this quote being included in the article is due to your disagreement with its politics. We can play that game all day without getting anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you can't "say with equal justification". WP:SELFPUBLISH applies since the Baldwin source is self-published and not quoted anywhere elsewhere: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." As I mentioned on the film article's talk page, as a result of this, there is zero reason to allot weight in the Wikipedia article toward his opinion of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As I find multiple people opposing my position, and none joining me, I yield. Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Brad Pitt

Template:Brad Pitt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Nominated because both templates are for collections of works produced by a person, in clear contravention of WP:FILMNAV. Your opinions for or against deletion are welcome at the discussion page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking for a few comments

Hi. I've been working on the Bad Genius article, and would like to hear some comments on how well it's complying with MOSFILM, or any other advice you may have. (Not looking for a full peer review yet, seeing as its theatrical run is still ongoing.) Thanks in advance. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It's overall pretty good, but you've got a bit of puffery and synthesis going on there. Instead of telling us how successful it is and that we should feel overwhelmed by its critical acclaim, just report the bare numbers without editorializing. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Original research about box office and reception. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get the point. But how should cases such as this be approached though, where there's no Rotten Tomatoes consensus (or similar critical summaries) to cite? It seems weird to just drop a list of critics' quotes without any overview (and the Rotten Tomatoes tally doesn't cover the domestic response, which MOSFILM recommends including). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If the film truly received critical acclaim, it should be easy to find a reliable source (such as a newspaper article) that explicitly says so. If you can't find a reliable source that says this, it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article. Maybe it's not quite as acclaimed as you thought. Analyzing sources ourselves is forbidden by policy; let journalists (and review aggregators) do this. If they don't do it, maybe a consensus doesn't exist after all. I don't think it's weird at all to report the bare facts. It keeps Wikipedia clear of bias and original research. Instead of saying that a film is critically acclaimed, I list the awards it won. Instead of saying it was a box office success, I list what records it broke. Instead of coming up with my own interpretation of the critical consensus, I look for one in reliable sources. The information is still there – it's just that it's not filtered through my own opinions and original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed wording for a new production section

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed wording for a new production section. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What happened on the Palisades Tartan page?

As of August 2017, the Palisades Tartan page had a list of all their films, most all of them linked to the page for that film. I found this a rather handy tool, but sometime recently the entire list was removed. Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palisades_Tartan&oldid=799446687

It looks like it was removed as redundant to an already existing separate article with this edit, only for that list article to be deleted following this discussion. The close to that AfD, citing WP:NOTCATALOG, is also true for the company article. This is something that would be better served by a category, I think. oknazevad (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Horrible, terrible Lenzi filmography

Could someone fix the filmography at the Umberto Lenzi page? It is a complete mess, with titles without release dates and ordered alphabetically (there are also some missing titles, but given the situation, this is a minor issue). I would fix it myself but I am not familiar with that type of table. Thanks in advance. --151.53.22.232 (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure if Nightmare Beach is in the right order; the article only specifies the year of release, not the full date, and IMDb only gives the German release date. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Clarityfiend! Brilliant job! Nightmare Beach date seems a bit controversial, some books claim 1988, others 1989: https://www.google.it/search?q=Nightmare+Beach+lenzi&hl=it&dcr=0&tbm=bks&ei=GTv0Wc-ZBIqegAan3KS4CQ&start=0&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=608&dpr=1 (same with the websites). But it is a minor issue compared to the unbearable disaster that section was before your treatment.

Based on what by who?

Hasbro's My Little Pony toys were originally came from the idea of Bonnie Zacherle and others. But they left the team a while ago, and My Little Pony was relaunched several times by Hasbro. If, for example, an animated work is closely related to Hasbro's recent relaunch of the toy line, should it be credited as "Based on My Little Pony by Bonnie Zacherle" or "... by Hasbro"?

Also, Hasbro Studios' My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic has no clear creator, but Lauren Faust is credited as "Developed for television by". Should it be credited as "Based on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic by Lauren Faust" or "... by Hasbro Studios"? (For the record, I don't think Faust totally authored the series.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 18:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't even specify the "who" portion, I'd just go "based on My Little Pony" full stop or "based on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" full stop. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A good guide is to look to the credits of the show / reliable sources. If the credits outright state "Based on My Little Pony by Hasbro", then that is probably what the article should say. Also, the "Developed by" credit is generally an alternative to the "Created by" one (I don't know of an example of both being used at once), so if you were wanting to use the developer where we would generally note the creator, I wouldn't see a problem with that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between creating something and developing something, especially when someone was developing (rather than creating) a show related to an existing intellectual property backed by a toy company. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 18:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Choreography, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Nezha (2017 film)

Was wondering if someone from WP:FILM would mind taking a look at Nezha (2017 film) and trying to sort it out. A lot of questionable editing has been made adding unsourced content about the some issues the film's production have been added in the last month. I've reverted back to that last stable version before this all began. If I went back to far, then please re-add removed content accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

IMDb expert

Is there someone who knows the ins and outs of IMDb well enough to facilitate a merger between Chief Standing Bear and Luther Standing Bear in IMDb? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I will do it the merge for you. It could require one or two days to appear online. --151.53.22.232 (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Summer of '42

I have nominated Summer of '42 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Slightlymad 15:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

new account turning actress/actor award tables to bold

There is a new account, User:Michael 182, turining the content of tables of best actress/actor award articles in bold [1]. I find this not needed and I reverted this format in two Cannes articles, but this is also going on in Silver Bear, Golden Globe, Volpi Cup, and mostly in Emmi awards. Please comment here if bold letters should be the standard for such articles, or if it is better to keep it in normal weight and revert all the bold entries in the affected articlesHoverfish Talk 09:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC).

I think MOS:NOBOLD covers this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Permament semi-protection for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)

Does anybody here object to me requesting permament semi-protection for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). This page should not be altered at all without thorough discussion first (except for grammatical fixes and updating out-of-date examples), and if it reaches that stage a registered editor can undertake the edit. This page has been under sustained interference from a single IP for about 18 months now. The IP's subtle tactics include—but not confined to—assuming a consensus after people drop out of discussions, updating examples which subtly alter the interpretation of the guidelines, or re-writing parts of the guideline to mirror "real life practice", which or may not be a practice that is supported. The IP is now the top editor on this page. That in itself would not be a problem if he were enacting consensus based alterations but he is also most reverted editor on that page as well. I don't think we would lose anything by semi-protecting the page because unilateral edits should be discouraged anyway. I'm asking here because I think an admin would want to see some general support for the request first before even considering it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with said editor but others in the project may be. I think it might be a good idea to contact said editor first and confront them about their behaviour. If other's agree that the IPs edits are disruptive and must be dealth with maybe he/she would change their behaviour. If many agree that they are problematic and the problem continues then I would gladly support a protection of the page.★Trekker (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP has been warned in the past about their behavior at User_talk:67.14.236.50#April_2017, and unfortunately the situation doesn't seem to have improved. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree the IP's behavior is disruptive. Also, it looks like the other IP, editing from February 22 till May 6, is the same editor. I think page protection might encourage them to participate in discussions. Hoverfish Talk 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oftentimes I seem to be the only one interested in participating in discussion, even when I attempt to initiate WP:BRD. Editors would revert my bold edit, but ignore the post I’d made about it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case I support the protection.★Trekker (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Total support for this. The same IP has been causing more issues than any other editor about this page, and from what I can see, they don't really contribute much outside of lengthy talkpage discussions about naming conventions for films that need little, if any, modifications. Also there's the issue of the complete lack of transparency for these changes that transcend all the articles in scope of this very project. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment The page has been semi'd until January. I was hoping for indef protection but even a couple of months will be welcome relief. It won't stop the IP from posting on the talk page but if he wants to initiate changes to the guideline he will have to get a registered editor to make them, or even get an account himself! Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Good news. I guess we play the system and see what happens after January. My guess is that they'll return to some sort of editing of that page, and we either go to full protection (as it'll then be the third time), or better still, get the IP blocked for continued WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like some of you think I’m not acting in good faith. I respectfully disagree, but my talkpage is open to discuss any problems with my behavior or mindset, or even if you simply disagree with me. And if I truly am being problematic (which I hope I’m not), WP:ANI tends to be more effective than more roundabout methods like this, as far as I know. But again, please actually just have a conversation with me if there’s a problem; believe it or not, sometimes that works when hit-and-run templates or comments don’t. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Turner Classic Movies (rebranded as TCM) the primary topic of the TCM disambiguation page?

Two concurrent RMs (Talk:Turner Classic Movies#Requested move 1 November 2017 [Turner Classic Movies → TCM] and Talk:TCM#Requested move 1 November 2017 [TCM → TCM (disambiguation)]) may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting is ready for proposal to change manual of style wording

A couple days ago, a proposal was brought to the projects attention for discussion involving clarifying what we as editors want to see in a production section. Unfortunately that ran into a couple snags, with how things were worded and it resulted in several days of us trying to figure out what to do aboout it. Luckily the proposal seems to be at voiting stage now. I would encourage you to vote here, thanks. --Deathawk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So this is embarassing but I think we decided we're gonna do some light editing, and then submit it as a new proposal, as the discussion has gotten quite long and confusing I will update you when that's available for voting. --Deathawk (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Likely hoaxes

There are IP editors who have been adding Be Some (example) and Down Hard (example) to lists of films. I'm about 95% sure these are hoaxes. Just the same, could someone else see if they can find any evidence of these alleged Warner Bros. films? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if I go to the reference added for "Down Hard" and search for the phrase "Down Hard" I get nothing, and "Be Somebody" does not have any sources listed. Thus, I think we can be fairly sure they don't exist. Just to be thorough though, I checked IMDB, and nobody has added any info on such movies. Furthermore it's not on us to prove an movie does not exist, it's on the individual editor to prove that it does. --Deathawk (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

10-year-old biographical entry nominated for deletion

It may be of interest that an article for actress Cathy Shim, created almost exactly ten years ago, on November 6, 2007, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Shim. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Emmett James

Was wondering if someone from WP:FILM would mind taking a look at Emmett James, assessing it and trying to sort it out. The article has no inline citations for any of the article content, and most of the unsourced content looks as if it was added by IPs/WP:SPAs. James probably is Wikipedia notable, if most of what's in the article is true and can be supported by sources, but the article was created back in 2007 and seems to have been pretty much unsourced since then. The last stable version I found January 2017 is only supported by a citation to IMDb and that seems to be pretty the only source ever cited in the article. Anyway, I've done some minor cleanup, etc., but probably a lot more is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting is (Finally) ready at the manual of style for new production section wording.

We had a false start a couple weeks back, but I believe we all came to a consensus on what should be included. You can vote on it Here. Thank you. --Deathawk (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Box office bomb article

Recent expansions being made at Box office bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editors here might want to have a look at them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've had to remove most of it. A ton of OR and IMDB citations. Betty Logan (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll be there for backup if any of that content is restored. The article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that article for a long time, mostly because I see links to it in articles about films that, while they were box office disappointments, do not qualify as "bombs". My guess was that the term was being used more widely than was justified. A bomb has to be a film that did more than underperform – it has to have been a significant loss. Is there a reliable source that tracks box office bombs that can be consistently used? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a convenient "catch-all" source but if a film loses a crap load of money the trade press are usually all over it. The latest film to be held up as a "bomb" is the Blade Runner sequel, projected to lose around $80 million. Betty Logan (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I often compare box office results from Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, for personal research and not for Wikipedia. In some cases I noticed that a film may perform decently at the box office but still lose money due to high production costs or advertising expenses. For example 47 Ronin (2013) earned 152 million at the worldwide box office and was among only 68 films of that year to earn more than 100 million. But it still lost money because its production cost was estimated to 175 million and the marketing campaign supposedly cost 50 million.

Compare it to the low-budget Fruitvale Station (2013). It earned only 17 million at the box office, but that was about 15 times its production cost.

The concept that a film does not "sell" which I often find around the Internet, often overlooks that the loss may have to do with other factors.Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nightcrawler (film)

There is a slowly brewing edit war at this article as to whether it should be included in the "films about psychopaths" category. I have consistently argued that it should not, because nothing in the article supports that inclusion. Indeed, the only mention of the word in the article is when the screenwriter/director said his intent was to make a film about an antihero that did not involve the character devolving into a psychopath. Some critics have apparently referred to the character as a psychopath, but none of them are currently quoted in the article. Even if they were quoted, that wouldn't make it definitive, so the category is still doubtful. I'd like some other editor's thoughts on this. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You really need to start a discussion at the talk page of that article given the number of times you have reverted. The relevant guidelines are the following:

• WP:CATVER – "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."
• WP:NON-DEFINING – "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." (This link includes some helpful criteria)

I think certainly with thematic categories it needs to be clear from the prose why an article is in that particular category. At the moment the article states that the director aimed to make a film about a character who isn't a psychopath, so the category will befuddle readers. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion. The words "psychopath" and "sociopath" are vague and undefined words which are used in common language to refer to several different types of characteristics that often coincide with several real life mental/personlity disorders but are not actual medicaly defined terms, they are often used interchangably while other times seem to mean diferent things and the existence of a category like this just causes disputes. I say delete the category all together.★Trekker (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I would support that suggestion, Trekker. I think the words are used interchangeably and without consistent definitions. If the category is going to exist, it needs to be defined and monitored. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@SickBoy1995: I believe you're involved in the edit war that had occurred in the article. It appears that you've added some sources to support the category that OldJacobite disputes. Can anyone review the revision whether the references are acceptable? I, for, one don't have an opinion on the matter. Slightlymad 13:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"The words "psychopath" and "sociopath" are vague and undefined words which are used in common language to refer to several different types of characteristics that often coincide with several real life mental/personlity disorders but are not actual medicaly defined term"

This is a bit of an understatement. Psychopathy as a term was coined in the 1840s to describe mental illness. It was redefined in the 1890s, by Julius Ludwig August Koch during his research on so-called born criminals. Koch's theory caught on, and entered popular culture by the the 1930s and 1940s when propagated by the likes of George E. Partridge, David Henderson, and Hervey M. Cleckley. The concept of psychopathy was adopted by sociologists, criminologists, and various legal systems.

With psychologists and psychiatrists the concept eventually fell out of favor as there were many varying definitions and it had become an "infinitely elastic, catch-all category" for all sorts of people. Critics of the term also argued that psychopathy as a term "is little more than a moral judgment masquerading as a clinical diagnosis". It is currently not accepted as a medical term and several of the related concepts are at best outdated.

There is still in use a Psychopathy Checklist which dates to the 1970s. But it has been pointed out that the signs of psychopathy it includes could also fit other medical conditions. Among the so-called signs: "glibness/superficial charm, grandiosity, poor behavioral controls, promiscuous sexual behavior, and irresponsibility". Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"glibness/superficial charm, grandiosity, poor behavioral controls, promiscuous sexual behavior, and irresponsibility" — Speaking of which, happy anniversary Mr President! Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not fond of the man this comment seems rather of-topic and unnecessary for this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You are completely right, of course, but Dimadick set the joke up so beautifully it would have been a travesty to not deliver the punchline! Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced production companies

I'm having a lot of trouble with several articles, which are being repeatedly edited to add unsourced content:

• The Post (film)
• List of DreamWorks Pictures films
• List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)
• Amblin Partners

This is getting incredibly frustrating. I started a discussion at Talk:The Post (film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have recently been involved in similar dispute at Paddington (film). Just because a bunch of companies appears in the credits does not make them all "production companies". Sometimes we are able to apply common sense to the credits (nobody is going to dispute "A Lucasfilm production" for example) but mostly we need a secondary source to interpret the company's role. The {{Infobox film}} guidelines do stipulate to "Insert the company or companies that produced the film ... When possible, this should be cited to reliable secondary sources that explicitly identify the production companies." Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's still going on. Very, very frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted one of the edits and referred them to the discussion at Talk:The Post (film). I can't get too embroiled right now though because I have just been put on notice by an admin for reverting some very obvious socking. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I requested full protection for The Post, which will hopefully force discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Future film

Hi. I don't do that much work on upcoming films, but was wondering if this passes the WP:NFF threshold? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Manson Family Project. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking for reviewers for Natacha Rambova article

Hello all, I've recently done significant work on the Natacha Rambova article, and I frankly feel it is at Featured article status at this point. I am trying to get it there so that it can potentially make it to "Featured article of the day" for January 19 (her birthdate). It is currently unranked, but I have nominated it for GA status and would love it if anyone would be interested in doing a review. She is a fascinating topic whose earlier Wiki did not do her justice. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Justice League

Users Cgutierrezego and OhsalveelCesar have been repeating removing the budget cost of Justice League which was added by TropicAces a few days ago, saying the Collider source is unreliable because the budget hasn't officially been announced even through the $300 million budget was also reported by the likes of The Wall Street Journal. They were asked to discuss on the talk page, which they have not as of yet. Also there have been other disputes on the article such as if the current poster on the article is a teaser or theatrical poster and the placement of Amy Adams in the cast ordering. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: very, very  Likely to each other. Blocked for sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Action mystery thriller film

Hi all, so as a maintainer of Indian film articles, what do I do about an edit like this, where we wind up describing Mersal (film) as an "action mystery thriller film"? It's sourced. This describes it as all three things. Seems like obnoxious label bloat to me though. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mystery
• Mentions mystery, no mention of action or thrillerDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like bloat to me. Is it a mystery-thriller with some action or an action-thriller centered around a mystery? You can often cite multiple genres for certain films but it is the primary genre we are interested in as editors. You need to compile a list of sources that mention the genre and then judge the WP:WEIGHT of those genres. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Indian film articles get this stuff a lot. It's like these editors think you have to indicate every shade of storytelling employed... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Its definitely a bloat. My usual attempt is to mention either a primary genre and perhaps one that may not be obvious to a reader. If the brief plot summary in the introduction helps the user understand whats going on thematically, you can usually let them figure it out themselves from there. if it gets more complex, I'd create a section called style and find sources that discuss genre beyond a tag saying "Genre: Action" or whatever. Ones that go more into how the film fits a genre usually works better. I did this a while ago with the Drug War article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The sexual abuse scandal in Hollywood

Not sure how to best approach it but I feel like there should be an overall article documenting this event, because it is an event it seems. I believe it would be useful for future research to read about the events chronologically and what impact they had on the industry, especially with the upcoming Oscar season. Jmj713 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. This is clearly series of events inheretly related to each other.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources connecting the different accusations, and commenting on what's been happening, that can be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken up at Me Too (hashtag) and Weinstein effect, but from a more broader view, which is a good idea. But there is little structure and chronology of events. These articles don't seem to delve into details such as I Love You, Daddy being pulled from release and Kevin Spacey's scenes being reshot with a month out in All the Money in the World. Jmj713 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Cannes Film Market release

I was working on expanding the article on Lisa and the Devil. The earliest source I can find for a release in 1973 is at the Cannes Film Market. I do not know much about it, but these are not public screenings correct? If it isn't considered one, do we go by the next known earliest release date? What's the protocol here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about it either, but it doesn't look like Joe Public can just waltz in. By way of comparison we wouldn't use the date of a press screening as a release date. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Article split

I have started a discussion to split the article National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film). I hope you would spare some time to join the discussion. Regards.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Description of remakes

Many films are remade, sometimes in several languages. Such connections are now described in texts (if they are). Maybe some graphics:

Open Your Eyes (1997 film) -> Vanilla Sky

Adrushtavanthulu -> Thirudan

-> Himmat (1970 film)

Pathlaag (Chase) -> Idhaya Kamalam -> Mera Saaya

infoboxes or templates would help to describe the genealogy.

Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Is RT still viable as a source now that it's witholding scores for films made by studios that have a stake in it? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This is news to me. Can we have some more background on this please? Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

He's referring to Rotten Tomatoes withholding the score for Justice League. The score itself is still valid; it is the way of not sharing the score that has been deemed problematic. I think coverage about that can be put in the Justice League article and the Rotten Tomatoes article. If a RT score or the reporting of it, is scrutinized in the future, especially for another WB movie, then we can include that in the film's article and update the RT article as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The scores have always been weighted in a secret way though, now that we know they are actively obfuscating scores for business purposes, surely it's not something that can be trusted anymore. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The score and the reporting of it are distinct matters. I do not recall any criticism about the RT scores themselves being weighed, only criticism that a review was either positive or negative then got flipped the other way after a follow-up. Maybe there will be greater scrutiny now, but I don't think there's anything that suggests that we should disqualify the scores themselves across the board. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there evidence of RT weighing? This says, "Unlike Rotten Tomatoes, though, Metacritic weights some reviewers to have a greater influence on the score." This says, "I would not think that Rotten Tomatoes would ever manipulate a Tomatometer score or anything that extreme (not that they could, since anyone could manually calculate it), but WB nudging to say 'hey, maybe keep the score off the site for another 12-24 hours' does not seem out of the question." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"witholding" scores only means that some scores are revealed a day or so later in a show at https://www.facebook.com/SeeitSkipit instead of being published immediately at https://www.rottentomatoes.com. The Justice League score is now posted in the normal way at https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017. It's not publicly known how they select which film scores to reveal in their show. The first was A Bad Moms Christmas this month, not made by their owners. Some people speculate why they chose Justice League (by minority owner with negative to mixed reviews) as the first big film but so far I see no reason to stop using Rotten Tomatoes scores. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What sometimes concerns me is not that RT is considered an appropriate source to cite in reception sections, but that some editors appear to treat its verdict as the definitive judgement on a film, editing wording from its 'consensus' into both lead and reception sections not just as an RT citation, but as some sort of overall conclusion about a film. A good article should draw on a range of sources to give a balanced view of a film's good and bad points, and resist the temptation to mechanistically follow RT's scoring and wording as if it were the Holy Grail. Just my two pennies' worth MapReader (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a recurring problem with aggregators. The bottom line is that they only speak for the reviews they survey and they are not arbiters of consensus, as explained at WP:AGG. As for the main issue it seems that Warner is only in damage limitation mode by withholding the score, and there is no evidence of them actually manipulating it. If evidence of manipulation does materialise then obviously we would have to review its suitability as a source. It is still definitely a problem though because this suppression means that RT isn't operating independently of the corporate ownership. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, industry sources will probably be watching Rotten Tomatoes a bit more closely now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that Justice League (film) does not talk about the Rotten Tomatoes score-withholding at all, despite there being numerous articles about the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is fairly tangential to the critical response though, so perhaps it would be better to cover it at Rotten Tomatoes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It can be both places. Maybe a sentence or two at the film article that can link to a relevant section at the aggregator article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Is there currently a dispute over this? Sometimes, the reason something isn't in an article is simply because it hasn't been added. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted the 90% of the times when Rotten Tomatoes is used as a source it's to talk about the RT Score. This is different from something like New York Times, or The Guardian which are primarily secondary sources. Thus as long as there is a strong consensus among the public to know what the tomotometer said, it should be included, even if it is not seen as a perfect source. --Deathawk (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War

Regarding Avengers: Infinity War, there is a discussion regarding listing 29 names in a sentence. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of soundtrack information on Side Effects article

There's a discussion happening about whether to include soundtrack album art and tracklisting in the Side Effects (2013 film) article. Input appreciated. (Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to request comments; I think I've seen them here before, hope I wasn't imagining it.) Popcornduff (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Premiere date of Hunt the Man Down

AFI says February 16, 1951, but there are a number of semi-reliable sources that say December 26, 1950 (see discussion here). The AFI listing shows the December 27 issue of Variety as one of its sources. Does anybody have access to that issue by any chance? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Release dates can be confusing for older films, and the AFI generally goes with the LA date for roadshows or the general release date. In both cases a film can play prior to either of those dates. The AFI Catalog is a superb source but it is not infallible. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Max Mad Poster

If anyone is free, your participation in this discussion would be appreciated as there is only myself and Film Fan involved and we are opposed to each other so discussion goes nowhere and there is edit warring going on over the poster so input would help. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If he's edit-warring, note that he's under a 1RR restriction on all pages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Classification of TV movies

A filmography should only include films (duh), and TV work should have its own section, but where should made-for-TV movies go? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• One vote for filmography. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed that in many biographies TV films are placed in the TV table (if two exist), but I am not sure I agree with that approach. We don't really discriminate between feature films, short films and TV films here at the film project, so I would have no objection to grouping them all together in a filmography. The problem though is that it's not just down to the film project to decide because the TV project also has jurisdiction over these decisions. Still, my preference would be to group all the films together regardless of format. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Add them to the main filmography, and if it's in a table, add a note in the notes column to say "TV film" or something along those lines. If the person has a lot of TV films in their credits, then maybe split that out to its own section. This is a good example of the latter. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Producer categories on film articles

Has anyone seen any precedent regarding producer categories on film articles? I saw Category:Films produced by Bradley Fuller and Category:Films produced by Andrew Form today and was wondering if it qualified as overcategorization. Technically, their names are probably mentioned routinely in sources that recap credits, but they don't seem to be "household" names like Category:Films produced by Michael Bay. (Or should we even be categorizing Bay's producing credits?) Wanted to get some thoughts before deciding on doing WP:CFD or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAT suggests creating categories for any director with an article. I guess it follows that people would do the same for producers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is one of several issues that should be made clearer in WP:FILMCAT. It all depends on what we want categories for. But this is a more general categorization issue I plan to bring up for discussion (when external circumsatnces permit me to do so). In this case I think WP:OVERCAT applies. Just think of what would happen if such categories were added to ALL film articles... Hoverfish Talk 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

" Just think of what would happen if such categories were added to ALL film articles." Articles would be easier to locate. The same purpose as any other Wikipedia category. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue here as I see it is two fold, 1) Multiple producers are often attached to one film where with directors it's usually one, and 2) It's not always clear what producers bring to the table other than money. What this means is adding a category for every producer would quickly bloat the article, and not always for a good reason. --Deathawk (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Epic Sci-Fi film category at CfD

Please see this discusssion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Fictional film page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled Avengers film

A request has been made to move Untitled Avengers film. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Annual-overview articles: introductory sentence copyedit

At present the opening sentence of the annual-overview articles (e.g. 2016 in film) reads as follows:

2016 in film is an overview of events, including the highest-grossing films, award ceremonies, festivals, and a list of films released and deaths.

This is awkward—especially "…and deaths". I think better phrasing would be:

This article is an overview of the year 2016 in film, and includes a list of films released that year (along with a list of the highest-grossing among them), as well as relevant notable deaths, awards ceremonies, and festivals.

From my understanding of AWB, such mass-editing could be achieved relatively easily. Would there be concensus to make this change? — Hugh (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I had originally thought the 2017 article was the same as the rest, but it's different. I've discovered another change I think should be made: most articles seem to have "Award ceremonies" as a sub-heading of "Events". Correct grammar would be "Awards ceremonies". — Hugh (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Maybe give it a full seven days here, incase anyone (stongly) objects, or has a better wording. Thanks for looking at it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. I would just get on with it. If people object you soon find out when they revert you, and then we can have the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts and Betty Logan:Thanks for your support. I don't know how to use AWB, and haven't registered for it. Is there someone who can make these changes for me? Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably just as quick to copy & paste that paragraph into each year, working backwards, changing the year as you go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: there are more than 140 pages! Maybe I will apply for AWB access. — Hugh (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other film projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft help requested

There is a draft that falls within this projects purview that could use some assistance with the content and editing. The discussion can be found here. Thank you for your input. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Film

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 12:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the Re-release Matter?

I intend to nominate Dunkirk (2017 film) for GA, but I'm aware the film needs to be out of theatres to do so. According to Box Office Mojoi, it closed on 23 November, but on 1 December, they issued a re-release (presumably for the Oscars). Can I nominate the article, or does the re-release also prevent that from happening? Cognissonance (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Where does it state you can't nominate the article before it's out of theatres? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I don't know, but I asked the same question here a month or so ago, and was told that the film needs to be out of theatres. They didn't remember where they read it either. I can recall it was a user I trusted, and said I would wait. Cognissonance (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the criteria is specifically about being out of theaters. It is more about ensuring broad coverage, per Good Article criteria. For example, an unreleased film's article could not be a Good Article because it lacks coverage of arguably the most important part (for Wikipedia), the reception of the work, even if its production is very well-covered. Details of a film's re-release would be a small portion of the article body and not a big deal. However... I personally am not crazy about nominating films who will likely be covered more during awards season. The film may or may not win accolades, or the film may be written about more, meaning a potentially incomplete and unstable article. I admit I don't really do anything GA-related anymore, but I think it would be ideal to do this kind of nomination after all the awards are said and done for a given film. Most of everything will be settled by then, in terms of content and editing activity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Erik - that makes sense, esp. with regards to the award season. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The article covers all the main aspects of the film, considering awards are more ancillary information. I wrote the Production section from the book The Making of Dunkirk, which makes me doubt there is much more to add. Stability is the only thing that worries me. I must admit, after so long, I'm impatient. Cognissonance (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to listen to me. :) You could just go ahead with the nomination now and pay attention to additional coverage while the film is in the running and then nominate it as a Featured Article next year post-Oscars. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, go for the GA if you wish, and with the feedback and improvements to the article in the GA process, you can then push for a FA after the Oscars. The whole GA/FA does take a long time though. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for replying guys. I've never done a FA (from what I've seen, it's a pretty overwhelming process), but if you think it's good enough, I just might. For now I'll just brave the first hurdle. Cognissonance (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Use of the term "Soft reboot"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Once Upon a Time (season 7)#Use of the term soft reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand films by decade

Hi. Please see this discussion at WP:CFD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

PostTrak

I created a Wikipedia article for PostTrak since it is appearing more often in coverage about films. It is essentially a competitor to CinemaScore. (Created that article back in 2008... feeling quite old.) Leveraging both would be good for reporting audience response for a given film. I've also boldly updated MOS:FILM to mention PostTrak alongside CinemaScore. Any thoughts or comments about the article itself or general use, feel free to bring up here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is now a discussion about including PostTrak at MOS:FILM. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Regarding Spider-Man: Homecoming, there is a content dispute regarding the "See also" section. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The matter has now involved a 3RR report. Editors are invited to comment about the content dispute so we can resolve this already. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way that your post doesn't constitute canvassing? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

How so? The notification was made at one location, the message text is neutral, and recipients are not preselected. They could agree with one side or the other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

How is a 3RR report of interest to the Wikiproject, as it - by definition - addresses editor conduct, not content? Maybe the article discussion is worthy of noting here, but not the addendum of your 3RR report. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned it because I wanted swifter feedback from the community to lean the matter one way or another. The dispute was initially between two editors with no good room to compromise. You complained about the general notification, though, despite the best practices followed for it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, asking for eyes in the article is approriate. Asking for eyes on your Edit-warring complaint is not: its canvassing. You thought that if you told people here, everyone would jump to your defense. That's not okay. I'm frankly a lot surprised by your behavior here. My Dad (a former wiki editor) holds you in the highest esteem; I'm wondering where that version of Erik went. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it wasn't canvassing. Editors here are welcome to disagree with me (and have before). Notifications for film-related content disputes are posted here routinely. I know I've disagreed with the notifying editors in the actual discussions themselves. In any case, it's not even clear here what the dispute is; they still have to go and look for themselves. Do you want to post a notification at the talk page for WP:SEEALSO? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's immaterial at this point; you dodged a bullet (even the minor one of a warning). That said, the canvassing here for defenders in AN:EW was clearly fucked up. You are allowed to seek eyes on content issues. Not conduct defense canvassing. I respect you enough to expect that you will not do it again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability

User:Michael 182 is changing film award artiles by diasbling sortability and splitting the lists by decades.[2] I reverted once in Palme d'Or, User:Filmested has reverted them in Golden Bear and User:Brian W. Schaller has adviced them against doing this in Academy Awards. However they revert back and continue with this scheme. Any opinions? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 20:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe hold an RFC? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Since this is an issue spanning various award articles, where would the right place for an RfC be?

I guess this would probably be the best place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Splitting by decade is usually done when there is a need to split a list due to size issues, per Lists of horror films. I don't see much point in doing it within the article itself, especially if the table is sortable. It seems to me it is reducing the functionality and not gaining much in return by breaking up the table. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that multiple articles from important award categories, for example the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama have a division by decades within the article. This means that the table is in fact broken because of it. I thinl that these help people read through the article in a better way, as the information is presented in a more dinamic format. If this format is alreday being used in these articles, why can't they be used in the Golden Lion or the Golden Bear. 190.19.10.99 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

On the user's talk page I extended an invite to participate in the discussion here. AldezD (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The changes done to the article are necessary in order to achieve a better understanding of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 182 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael 182, your statement is contradictory to the comments by Betty Logan. Please explain how the article is not able to be understood as details are presented today, and what your revisions enhance or adjust in terms of understanding material. AldezD (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael 182: You really need to stop edit-warring on articles such as Academy Award for Best Picture and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited Series or Movie. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, and you are going to end up being blocked at this rate. You need to take it to the talk pages, lay down your arguments and win support before continuing with this campaign. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The format of the Academy Award for Best Picture that is being used in recent modifications is he one being used in articles of Golden Globe Award categories and International Film Festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 182 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The director of the film has no bearing on the recipient of the award. Please stop WP:DE edits to this article. AldezD (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:TwentySteps is reverting the sortable tables -against present consensus- to the versions by Michael 182. Hoverfish Talk 23:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked by Ponyo. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:IMDb title"

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:IMDb title#Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2017, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Film Chart at Star Wars

There is currently a discussion on how to organize the film chart at the Star Wars main article. See the discussion at Talk:Star Wars#Film chart ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for List of Columbia Pictures films

There have been several disputes over the inclusion criteria for List of Columbia Pictures films. I started a talk page discussion at Talk:List of Columbia Pictures films#Reliable sources, promotional material, and inclusion criteria. I think more input would probably be useful to see if I'm interpreting sources too strictly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The production section guidelines have been changed

For the past couple months there's been various discussions over at the Film MOS about giving more detailed instructions for production section of films. The proposed draft was approved unanimously through an RFC and the section now reads.

A production section should provide a clear and readable narrative of how the film was developed, setting out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia. Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. Focus on information about how plot elements or settings were decided and realized, rather than simply repetitively listing their dates. Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history.

We probably should get a clean up commision or something to work on cleaning up some of our more proseliney articles, however even before that now that we have guidelines it's something we can realistically all start working on ourselves. --Deathawk (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories again

Is it just me or are categories created by Jason elijah (talk · contribs) getting out of control? For example, Category:American children's animated adventure films, Category:Canadian children's animated adventure television series, Category:American children's animated fantasy films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I could swear that there was once a policy/guideline on not creating triple-intersection categories, but I can't find it. That aside, these do seem total overkill, esp. with the "Children's" part of the examples above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, these categories are a textbook violation of WP:NARROWCAT. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree such categories are way OVERCAT. The guideline -at least in WP:FILMCAT- should warn against creating triple intersections. Hoverfish Talk 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Haven't we discussed this same problem with this editor in the past? This all seems very familiar... ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Production section best example

Have any of you encountered a film article which, in your opinion, a best example of how a production section should be written? What are they? Slightlymad 03:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment we use Boys Don't Cry (film) and Inside Out (2015 film) as our FA and GA models, so it's good place to start. In truth, any film article added to Category:FA-Class film articles and Category:GA-Class film articles in the last couple of years should provide a pretty good template. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that it can depend on the film. Some of the more famous films have entire books about their productions, and that itself is a challenge to summarize into a section. (I would also argue that it would be possible to have a production sub-article as long as there are a variety of sources about the production.) Some other films may have very little coverage. Older films pose another challenge in finding sources, especially when they are not famous. And yet some films may be very well-known for certain aspects that warrant their own sections or sub-sections (e.g., one specifically for cinematography). Slightlymad, do you have a specific film in mind? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well Erik, I think the Leprechaun article, a GA, has a pretty concise and direct production coverage, but perhaps it could be expanded using the audio commentary from that movie's DVD. In any case, that article was my example in improving Shoot 'Em Up. Slightlymad 05:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

There is currently an edit war at this article between me and an IP-hopping editor – this same person has been warned and blocked multiple times for edit warring over the nationality of numerous films – over the nationality of this film. He has provided refs from the BFI saying this film is a British-American-Japanese film. But, the film has only one production company, which is British, so, by WP's standards, the film is British. I have no idea how the BFI makes its determination of nationality, but in a case like this, how do we make a determination? The BFI is clearly a reliable source, and is used in numerous film articles, but we seem to have a contradiction here between what they say and what our own standards define as correct. How can a determination be made? I have asked for page protection while this is sorted out, and I have not reverted the most recent edit by the anon. I would like some help here from other editors. ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The American Film Institute also has it down as UK/Jap/US as well. I don't know how they are making the determination but both the AFI and BFI are very credible sources, and the fact that they are consistent makes a compelling case. Interestingly the Lumiere database has it down as UK/US/Canadian. Ultimately though we shouldn't be determining the countries ourselves and should rely on sources. I would say that on the basis of those three sources per WP:WEIGHT both the UK and US should definitely be in the infobox. I am less sure about Japan due to the lack of consensus between the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty. I appreciate your thoughts and the sources you provided. Still, the question remains: the sources say one thing, but the article still lists one production company, so I want to know how we deal with this contradiction. This isn't about placing my judgement above that of these reputable sources, it is simply saying that the article now contradicts itself. ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not correct to say that WP's standard is that a production company singularly defines a film's nationality. The standard is to follow the sources, which can conflict. The film is likely partly categorized as US because Universal is the studio behind the film. A studio does not merely distribute a film; it is very much involved with its production. (Though a studio's independent-films branch could get distribution rights to a film after it was produced and then distribute it.) For this film, there is no specific nationality to put upfront. Since the sources conflict, perhaps the matter can be relegated to a "Notes" section that reports what each database (AFI, BFI, Lumiere) says are the countries behind the production? See Out of the Dark (2014 film) with its note as a potential example to copy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. It seems to me that most of the discussions/debates/arguments I have witnessed or been involved in have revolved around the notion (correct or not) that a film's production company defines its nationality. This is clearly a widely-held view, which is disturbing since you say that it is incorrect. I also feel that it is widely-held that a film's distributor is irrelevant to questions of nationality – is this also incorrect? In the end, all I want is for this article's information to be accurate, even if it is complex, and your idea of a note to explain the apparent contradictions in the sources would go a long way toward solving the problem.

Beyond that, I want the IP-hopping anonymous editor to stop pushing his POV on film nationalities. I also want a pony for Christmas. Which one seems more likely? ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It is worth reading "Lumiere – Country of Origin" for how they determine the nationality. Nationality clearly extends beyond just where the production company is based and can also take into account international co-production treaties, cultural tests and financing. If it were as straightforward as just stating where the production company was based then I doubt there would be so many inconsistencies between sources. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks, Betty. ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption Featured Article review is open

FYI Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I know it's Christmas people but if you get 20 minutes I'd really appreciate it. Don't care if it's knocked back for being bad but don't want it knocking back because people just didn't review it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning the National Film Registry in the lead of the Titanic (1997 film) article and other film articles

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#National Film Registry material in the lead? A permalink for it is here. Should we include National Film Registry material in the lead of this article and other film articles? If so, what about in cases where it's not noted lower in the article first? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Now addressed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#National Film Registry (NFR) in film article leads. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Little help with Little Gandhi

Please can someone look at the recent edits to Little Gandhi by User:Brianmetcalf. They're basically uploading a different version of the poster at a new filename and insist on addinf their name as an associate producer in the infobox. I've tried to explain on their talkpage what to do (or not to do), but they're not taking much notice of it. Apart from the WP:CIR issue, there is also a WP:COI issue too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I warned him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Reports" vs. "Reported"

How should the tense of the word "report" be written in the Rotten Tomatoes consensus: past or present? Had to ask because I have been reverted by Adamstom.97 in the Spider-Man: Homecoming article for changing it into the present tense. I even cited WP:ROTTEN's sample wording, which I presume to be correct, but Adam reasons out that no discussion was made for the change. Slightlymad 07:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My reasoning is that the information will not necessarily be current at all times: Rotten Tomatoes scores change all the time, so the score that is shown in an article is only definitely accurate for when it was added (which is why it is important to update the accessdate parametre of RT citations when you update the score). If you say that RT reports a specific score, then you are saying that a reader will find that same exact score if they go over to the RT site. Since we cannot guarantee that, it is more appropriate to say what RT reported as the score at a specific time (the date in the accessdate parametre). I brought up the fact that no discussion has taken place (that I could see) regarding this wording, because if there had and the consensus was against me then I would have gone there to add my thoughts to the discussion rather than reverting again. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Present tense is perfectly acceptable; it's correct as of the accessdate. You can use {{as of}} if you feel it necessary, but I don't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Is MOS:TENSE any help? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE rightfully says that we do not refer to past events in the present tense. The RT score that we are adding to the article was calculated and reported by the website in the past, and so is a past event. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's still being updated. It's not in the past. "In the past" would mean that it was done, completed, and is no longer happening. "I ate an apple" means that I am no longer eating the apple. "Reported" means that the score is final and will not be updated any further. Use {{as of}} if you want to indicate that it's possibly out of date. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Need help cleaning up production sections

I kind of alluded to this request earlier but I don't think it was given much traction so I thought I'd request help a bit more directly.

In early December an RFC was passed to change the film's manual of style to prevent long proseline filled production sections. It passed unanimously. You can view the discussion and the voting here. The problem is that we're now left with the task of cleaning up all the hundreds of proseliney production sections. So what's the best way to approach this task? I talked to @NinjaRobotPirate: about this, who suggested we probably should create a template specifically to address this issue, although I'm not sure of the exact wording that should be used. He also directed me to Wikipedia:Cleanup but the fact of the matter is that the task is so large that it may not fit within their criteria --Deathawk (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Aamir Khan

I have made a reversion to a 4 months older version of the lead, because the article has become fansite, citing opinion pieces and treating them as facts, like attributing a Forbes' opinion piece as representation of Forbes itself. Article needs attention of movie editors. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

List of American films of 2017

Surprised that nobody has created this. It's almost 2018!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zodiac (film)

I started the discussion at Talk:Zodiac (film)#Notability of Zodiac (soundtrack), where I invite you to discuss Zodiac (soundtrack). George Ho (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Backlog Solution: Review Trades

Though initially a selfish idea, Win-Win situations like Review Trades are just what we need to alleviate the list of nominations. If an experienced reviewer wants me to review one of their noms in exchange for Dunkirk (2017 film), hit me up. Others can make the same deal below if they're as impatient as me. Cognissonance (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Die Hard = Christmas Movie

Is this something that should be in the article or not?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In a word, no. That section should be binned. It's Christmas movie for some but not for others, depending on the criteria in use. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Its a pretty notable subject of debate which has surrounded this film for at least more than a decade since I can remember. There are tons of sources which discusses it's status as a holiday classic for a large portion of people.★Trekker (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject of debate is notable and worthy inclusion, but what is there right now is rather poorly written.★Trekker (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are sources that claim any movie which takes place around Christmas, even if it is not a theme, is a Christmas movie. This is a terrible definition but one sources seem to force on us :( --Masem (t) 18:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree or disagree, it's a subject which has been wildy discussed for years.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that in the case of Die Hard, putting the discussion of the debate, and otherwise not factually calling it a Christmas movie, is a good solution. --Masem (t) 18:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Trekker, it was released in July, it's not about Christmas in any way, it's just set on Christmas Eve. The date is the only connection to Christmas. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't need this pointed out to me. This is wikipedia we report on notable subjects. I don't care if any of you dislike that a huge amount of people have discussed it for years or that relibale sources have reported on the phenomemon, it has happened. Stop talking about it as if it's something that needs any of our personal input on the defention. To not mention that it has been considered a christmas movie by a lot of people or that the subject has been a debate becuse you don't personaly think it belongs in a vaguely defined category would be POV. The article does not say that it is a christmas movie, just that it's considered such by a bunch of people and others have disagreed with it. I have said it's a christmas movie? No, I have not, I said that the debate has been notable. Why does the plot of the film or the release date have to be brought up? It doesn't, it shouldn't.★Trekker (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Aye, we should report what the sources say. Popcornduff (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely worth pointing out however the heading right now is very poorly placed. The heading is "A Christmas Movie?" Which is just poorly worded for an encyclopedia.But it is worth pointing out the controversy. I would suggest adding a paragraph to the Legacy section, with a header "Status as a Christmas movie" or similar wording". --Deathawk (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the bad heading yesterday and moved the content to the legacy section, not sure if it should have it's own subheading.★Trekker (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is an always has been intended as a joke. It deserves one sentence at best. oknazevad (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on what?★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that even if it is a joke it's completely irrelevant, it's still a subject which has been discussed in major publications for years. Tongue-in-cheek or not. Also, considering what this discussion looks like right here on this page, I'd be willing to bet it's not as rare as you think to take it seriously.★Trekker (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Persistence of the discussion is something to mention, but that can be part of that sentence or two. One thing we should not do is spend too much space on something like this. Maybe something along the lines of "The film's Christmas time setting has lead to longstanding tongue-in-cheek fan discussions about whether it should be considered a Christmas movie." It definitely needs to be sourced to a third-party source that describes that the discussion exists, not part of the discussion itself. Where it should go in the article, that I can't say, but I'd lean towards the reception section. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel it belongs more in the legacy section. I think the reception section if more fit for reception for when a product came out.★Trekker (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That works better. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the content is relevant and is suitable in the "Legacy" section. No need for a separate section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel like it's worth giving it a little more weight than it currently has. The entire section is only about two sentences long which does not really, at least in my opinion, adequately address the issue at hand. It should at least be a paragraph and explain why there is so much degate over the film when compared to other movies that take place around the holidays. --Deathawk (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Italics for translations?

Hi all, a quick question that's not specific to one article, but for instance at Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani we see "Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (English: This Youth is Crazy)". What is the proper formatting for the translation, assuming the film does not have an official English title release? Is it:

1. (English: This Youth is Crazy)
2. (English: This Youth is Crazy)
3. (English: this youth is crazy)

Something else? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be: Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (English: This Youth is Crazy) per WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Thanks for the link to WP:NCF. Is helpful, but not sure if I still know exactly what to do. It says "If the film was released in the English-speaking world under its native title, use that throughout the article, but include an English translation in brackets after the first use. Do not put the English title in bold, as this is not an 'official' title." So it shouldn't be in bold, but it's not clear to me if it should be italicized, as it not an official English title, or capitalized using Title Case." There doesn't seem to be an example there that fits this particular shape. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically if something isn't a title it shouldn't be italicised, so if the translation has never been used as a title then it shouldn't be in italics. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I'm getting closer. Not bolded, and not italicized. So: (English: This Youth is Crazy) or (English: This youth is crazy)? Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but this is just so common and there's no clear explanation anywhere for how to deal with it as far as I can tell. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I would avoid title case for a straight translation and I would format it in quotes like in the Ran example at WP:NCF. That's just how I would do it i.e. I'm not speaking with authority on the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The format Dance of the Polar Bears (Danish: Lad isbjørnene danse)^Link is logical. But the "inverse" format where a foreign film has had no distribution with an English title, e.g. Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (English: This youth is crazy) is not logical, IMO, the "English" is obvious. Why not use {{Literal translation}} and write "Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (lit. 'This youth is crazy')"? What do you think? (Cyphoidbomb—Lugnuts—Betty Logan) –Sam Sailor 23:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Fine by me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An RfD request

The page Clarence Odbody, about the guardian angel from the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life and the 1990 film Clarence, is under discussion for deletion at this link if project members would like to make a comment or assist on improving the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan

Join discussion on Talk:Shah Rukh Khan#One of the highest paid. Main question is if we should make a claim like "As of 2017, he is the eighth highest-paid actor in the world, and the highest-paid actor in India" on this FA article's lead when the lead already says "In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful film stars in the world". Raymond3023 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User keeps adding actor categories to characters (and sometimes real people)

• BornonJune8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made abunch of categories and added them many article, I think quite a few of them have been rather poor. They got pretty upset when I pointed this out to them and told them to please stop doing this. But if I'm not mistaken an actors categroy should not be added to a charcters articel and vise versa. (I'm also not sure if some of these categories have reason to exist at all.) Not sure what to do about this without doing an ANI, but that seems like overkill and I'm tired of those for this week. Can someone give advice what should be done about this category problem?★Trekker (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OCEPON and WP:PERFCAT would be the relevant guidelines. @BornonJune8: we generally don't categorize stuff by performer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

uncredited authors of source material

V for Vendetta (film) is based on the comic V for Vendetta. The comic writer, Alan Moore, did not like the screenplay and had his name taken off of it. In the film article's infobox, he has been listed in the "Based on" parameter with uncredited next to his name in parenthesis. User:TheOldJacobite removed his name, saying it has been long standing practice at this project to omit uncredited roles from infoboxes. I reviewed Template:Infobox film, Template:Based on, and their talk pages, but the only specific mention of uncredited is for actors, which makes complete sense. I'm also aware of the practice to credit people according to the billing block, which is why the screenplay is credited to The Wachowski Brothers. However, I do not understand why this would extend to the creators of the source material. The billing block says the film is "based on characters appearing in magazines published by Vertigo". Could someone please provide a link to the rationale, or explain it here? Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not true that uncredited participation never belongs. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so even when someone is not "officially" credited, if the consensus among secondary sources is to recognize that person, then we should too. We can add notes explaining the matter since it is relatively rare for there to be that kind of conflict. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

One thing to consider with infoboxes is that the information included should be obvious and not require a great deal of "but...." type consideration. In the case of V, it does sound like how to explain why Moore is uncredited is a bit of a complicated issue, one appropriate for the body of the article, but the infobox has far too little space to explain all that, and in this situation, sounds like it is better to leave out. --Masem (t) 15:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's a requirement for infoboxes. It is incidental that most information is obvious. We are allowed to have notes to make clarifications where applicable, especially in a case where an author refuses the crediting (which rarely ever happens). We could either include his name with a note, or exclude his name and include a note. The note would then provide fuller context. Without any note, it makes it look like the current presentation is the final truth on who wrote V for Vendetta. Of course, we need to pull together the sources to see how much this mattered in coverage of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As a base reference for comparison, I tried to do some Google searches to see how often Moore is mentioned in connection with "removed" or "uncredited", but hit several snags - not least of which being that a television adaptation is apparently in development with a man named Steve Moore. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In the case of a "based on" credit... it's irrefutable that the movie is based on the comics by Moore, so whether he was involved in the screenplay or not, uncredited or not, how does it make sense to remove his name from the "based on" parameter? Doing so misrepresents the source material... it makes it seem like the artist was the only one who created the original work. Am I missing something? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Including fan reaction material at the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Fan reaction. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether and how to include fan reception material on this film. Reports of the critical reception are generally positive, but sources are reporting differently on fan reaction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The matter is now an RfC issue: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Should we include an Audience response section?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Immediate sequels

Main page: Category:Immediate sequels

This category was created today by BornonJune8 and has already been heavily populated. But, there is no explanatory text on the category page, no article for that term, and very little mention of it online, except for on TVTropes. Is this a legitimate term used in film criticism, or just something someone made up online? I've never seen the term before and have doubts about its veracity and the need for such a category. Any thoughts on this from other editors? ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. I see no use of the term outside TVTropes. The category should be put up for WP:CFD. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. It needs to go to CfD. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This made me think of Category:Interquel films, which was similarly deleted here. However, we still have Category:Interquels and Category:Direct-to-video interquel films... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I was young and reckless. —Flax5 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

...I may have already opened a CfD before seeing this discussion. Er...you're welcome? DonIago (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw "interquel" and immediately thought of Rogue One. Isn't that basically what that film is? Just my .02¢ - ^theWOLFchild 17:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

https://reelrundown.com/movies/Sequels-That-Begin-Immediately-After-the-First-Movie

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/596217-sequels-take-place-immediately-after-original-not-filmed-back-back.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2456bc/sequels_that_take_place_almost_right_after_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/33imy6/what_are_some_sequels_that_begin_in_a_scene_that/

http://cynobs.com/2014/04/19/10-sequels-that-started-right-at-the-end-of-the-previous-movie/

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1898202/sequels-that-start-almost-immediately-after-previous-film

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=690572

BornonJune8 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not one of those links is a reliable source. Forums can't be used as sources and the rest are user submitted. Cynobs doesn't use the term. Canterbury Tail talk 01:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For anyone who was following this discussion, the category has been merged to Category:Sequel films. DonIago (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody keep an eye on Asmaa, please?

Does anybody know why the page views on Asmaa should suddenly spike from about 20/day to 3436? Whatever it is, it seems to have resulted in a flurry of poor quality edits to this article, so I would be grateful if WP Film members could keep an eye on it. --NSH001 (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The spike may be due to this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As it happens, shortly after posting that request, I realised that was the case from some of the edits to Asmaa. The Tamil film Aruvi was released a few days ago, and seems to have been a big hit, but there have been allegations on social media that it was plagiarised from Asmaa, with some posts quoting large chunks of Asmaa's Wikipedia article and/or referring to our article. There's obviously no basis to the allegations, but it does feel a bit weird to see verbatim copies of my writing plastered all over the place . Google "Asmaa+Aruvi" if you want to see it all. --NSH001 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation help

Hi all, I'm looking at Chhatrapati (film). It looks like many news sources like "Chatrapati" with only one H, so I wanted to move it, but I'm curious what the best target for this? Chatrapati (film)? (That's currently a redirect.) There are other similarly-named films, like:

• Chatrapathy (2004 film), a 2004 Tamil film
• Chatrapathi (2013 film), a 2013 Kannada film

Thanks for your input, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of significance seems to actually link to Chatrapati (film), so I would just delete the redirect and move the article there. Betty Logan (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles about filming of James Bond films

• Filming of James Bond in the 1960s
• Filming of James Bond in the 1970s
• Filming of James Bond in the 1980s
• Filming of James Bond in the 1990s
• Filming of James Bond in the 2000s

I don't know whether the articles are messy or need fixing or something else. However, they were nominated for deletion three years ago; the AfD discussion led to "no consensus". Right now, those articles need some improvements. Is anyone interested in fixing them? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems that there wasn't much of a discussion to be had last time, and what did take place was a discussion of whether or not if could be fleshed out into a useful article, which I don't think happened. I'd honestly nominate them all for deletion again. --Deathawk (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Philly.com

Does anyone have a subscription for this site? http://www.philly.com/philly/archives/

I need an article from 1988 featuring an interview with Richard Donner, I can't even get to the article to try and archive it to see if it unblocks the content. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced legacy information about cult followings

Fronticla is removing all mention that certain films have received a cult following, even though sources explicitly state this; for example: diff. He's now edit warring to remove sourced content. Is this something that project considers to be a POV term? If sources explicitly say that there's a cult following, I think this should be included, especially for something like The Psychotronic Man or The Rocky Horror Picture Show. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Certain films (not to mention games and other things) have notable cult followings demonstrated by sources. Popcornduff (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If secondary sources refer to them as a "cult films" or similar, it is common practice that we quote the sources. I have reverted in The Psychotronic Man and Near Dark, added sources, and I have invited Fronticla to join us here. Sam Sailor 23:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The basic problem seems to be that a lot of movies are refereed to in RS's as "cult" This can be seen at our List of Cult Films article, which, as this writing, has 1621 references. Now a lot of movies in that list have multiple references, but even then it's a staggering amount of movies. I really have no opinion on the matter, one way or the other, but I can see where the editor is coming from. --Deathawk (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely a problem that needs to be resolved. However, I don't think the right first step is to start blanking sourced content in articles where it's easy to source the fact that a cult following exists. I'd also like to see us determine reasonable inclusion criteria on articles like list of cult films, but there's never been any substantial discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's my feelings as well. although I can certainly see why someone would be weary of such a term. --Deathawk (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

NRP: I typically remove "cult following" claims from the Indian film articles I watch. It's usually unsourced, but it's also such an overused term that it's just become another way to puff up the importance of a work. If the definition of a cult following is that a thing has a small, devoted fanbase, that could literally describe any piece of entertainment created in the last 150 years. Does Bob Ross's Joy of Painting have a small, devoted fanbase? Sure! What about Tay Zonday's ? "Chocolate Rain"? It sure did. Pick an obscure thing, and there is a small group of people who would describe themselves as loyal to that niche thing. By contrast, Rocky Horror Picture Show seems the undisputed cult following King and/or Queen. People going out at all hours of the night to see it, dressing up, bringing rice, "virgin ritual", etc... And in contrast to that contrast, does Star Wars even count as having a cult following if half of America are fans? Trek fans used to be considered cultish loons, but these days fandom is the norm. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a paragraph about cult followings of blockbuster films in cult film. It's actually pretty interesting stuff if you're into sociology. But I agree that unsourced "it's a cult film" statements should be removed. Sometimes even sourced statements might not add much to an article, but there are times when a film is notable mostly for its cult following. I doubt there are going to be critical retrospectives of something like The Psychotronic Man. When it gets mentioned in reliable sources, it's mostly because its a cult film. There isn't really much else to talk about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I would urge the WikiProject Film community to discuss what constitutes "cult" lest we wind up with thousands of film articles making the claim. At some point the term will become meaningless, and I think that time is now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

One thing that I suggested a few years ago at talk:list of cult films was that entries should have a citation that explains why the film has a cult following. If no source does that, maybe it's not worth labeling. It would give us something encyclopedic to say about the topic besides adding a contentious label. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with what NRB said above. As cult film can easily be puffery and declaring something a cult film does not help a reader. Unless you can contribute to why/how it is a cult film, get into details about it. Its relatively useless to our readers. For example, see the article I expanded on Barbarella. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And Fronticla is still engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT and blanking sprees without the slightest attempt at discussion. Fronticla, I suggest you start discussing this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've weighed in here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Visual Effects Society award nominations - to be included?

Spanneraol (talk · contribs) has been adding information to a number of films about them being nominated for Visual Effects Society awards. I wouldn't dispute that winning one of these awards would merit inclusion in the appropriate article, given that the society is bluelinked, but is being nominated also worthy of inclusion? I'm reminded of AFI, where the consensus was that nominations aren't notable enough that they should be mentioned in articles.

Thanks for your thoughts on this! DonIago (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's just as notable as the Annie awards or any of the other Guild Awards that are listed and I would suggest more notable than Peoples Choice or Teen Choice Awards which are also listed on many of these pages. And unlike the AFI Awards.. which i think just reveal winners and not nominations anyway.. the VES Awards are actually televised. Spanneraol (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is a nomination shortlist (like the Oscars) then I would say include them. The AFI nominations weren't shortlisted so the nomination lists often extended to hundreds of entries which was too indiscriminate for us. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

FilmAffinity revisited

Today I found 81.61.46.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) spamming FilmAffinity links using the EL template. We already discussed this matter last May as seen here. While the consensus was against FilmAffinity as an EL, we did not do anything about it. Lugnuts suggested taking it to WP:TFD. Now I've done so here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 December 21#Template:FilmAffinity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And the outcome was delete. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami

Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Note that the reassessment was opened five months ago, but the notice was never posted here. I hope that anyone interested can begin work in the next seven days. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Spider-Man films cast members

I've tried to remove the parts of the tables that include non-Spider-Man film stuff, like Iron Man 2, Civil War and the Avengers sequels, but the table does not seem to work now. I would appreciate if someone could help me out.★Trekker (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually good with tables, but I don't believe that those films should be removed; table sections such as these are for any films featuring the character, not necessarily starring the character. Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree, the title of the article is "Spider-Man films cast", none of those films are Spider-Man films, they're just films that the character has been in. It's very overkill to include them.★Trekker (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

George III of UK or of Great Britain?

I am new here so my edit did not publish.... That said, in line 126 reference to King George, he is speciously called "George III of the United Kingdom" (...also the redirect reference title, albeit that that source, itself, contradicts the "UK" usage).

First note that the article's line 126 text is in reference to the point of view of characters in the stage play/screen play. From that perspective, George III was king of Great Britain, his official title along with same of Ireland, at that time in history. It is, I contend, acceptable to omit stating the double title (in respect of Ireland) in lieu of the fact that the colonist characters depicted and discussed would neither have held nor advanced any regard of any Ireland connection to their own perceptions of tyranny or other cause of revolt. And, U.S. history as well as the declaration of 1776 makes no reference to George's colonial authority as it may have related to Ireland. Moreover, the designation, "United Kingdom of [Anything]" did not become historic fact during the characterizations in the play or the movie but, rather, happened firstly in 1801 with respect to Great Britain and Ireland; and secondly in 1922 (I think it was) with respect to the modern-day inclusion of Scotland, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, and exclusion of Ireland/Eire. So, it seems that what characters would have thought as to George's office(s) should be no different than how current writers would describe what they (back then) thought in their own fictitiously depicted times. Therefore, in line 126, a change of wording from "United Kingdom" to "Great Britain" is warranted for sake of historical as well as rhetorical accuracy. The reference, however, can remain the same as that article supports what is proposed here.172.56.38.178 (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

IP - I think you've posted this at the wrong page. If you have any questions about that article, please raise them at its talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding additional theme composer in infobox

Hi all. There is currently a discussion at Solo: A Star Wars Story about including or not including John Williams in the "music" infobox parameter, as he is writing the film's theme and is not scoring the film. The discussion can be found here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! As you may remember, I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute. See my previous posts, post1, post2. I’ve been working it on in the past several months, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it. If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-awards"?

I was wondering if it has ever occured to anyone to have a separate table for "positive" and "negative" (like the Razzies) awards and nominations in film articles. I was looking at Independence Day: Resurgence and it has a sizeable amount of both. The thing is, at first glance, without actually reading into it, one would be led to think the thing was nominated for 20-ish actual awards, which it hasn't. Would it be acceptable to split the list into two somehow? Has anything like this been done before? Cheers. --uKER (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't be listed at all. They could be in the reception section with prose writing, but not listed as an accolade.★Trekker (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That's how I would do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

So be it. Deleting the stuff from ID: Resurgence then. --uKER (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Uhm... agree that they shouldn't be included in "Accolades" but if one type of award has tables and its own section, and the other doesn't, isn't that violating WP:NPOV? I will grant you that the "worst of" style of "awards" are probably less notable (and numerous) than the positive ones, but it would be good to present the negative ones that are inarguably notable (like the Razzies, for instance) the same way as positive recognition is presented. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was kinda the point, and makes even more sense now that you mention NPV. --uKER (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Joy. The Razzies are notable. We shouldn't be removing them from articles. And they should be presented the same way as other awards for neutrality. Giving positive awards a big chart but relegating negative ones to a breif text mention is definitely imbalanced. But "accolades" is definitely the wrong header for them. oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but presenting them in a unified way is horribly misleading and uninformative. If they are to be presented in equal standing, I'd say two separate tables is the way to go. Otherwise, making out the good/bad ratio becomes a chore. --uKER (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you can call it an "accolade" (nor an "award", exactly, which implies benefit...), but omission/removal or "downgrading" to inequal treatment seems wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Films retitled after limited premiere

Sidney Hall, which was released at Sundance 2017, has been tentatively set to have its wide release by A24 in March of this year. Now, according to IMDb- likely edited by A24 or the filmmakers- it will have the new title of "The Vanishing of Sidney Hall". When there is official, verifiable word, will the page need to be renamed? In the very least, the lead will mention both titles, but I'm not sure if we'll just stick with the original or not. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the projects notice DarthBotto. Since IMDb is an unreliable source we will need to wait for better sourcing. When this becomes available a page move is probably the way to handle things. Then the original title can be mentioned in the lede and the body of the article. This is just my suggestion and others may have different thoughts on the matter. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that per WP:COMMONNAME, the new title will likely be the one to go with, as the film is scarcely known of at this point anyways. With a wide theatrical release, the original title won't even cross people's minds, unless they're big film buffs watching the Sundance slate. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Young & Wild

There's a discussion at Talk:Young & Wild (2012 film)#Intro sentence in Critical Release over whether the reception should include an unsourced statement that the film received mixed reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed...

...on current WP:POINTy editing on Pre-Code Hollywood, the result of the editor not getting their way at Talk:Pre-Code Hollywood#Franklin Roosevelt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected for two days to help reach consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Valley of the Dolls

Main article: Valley of the Dolls

There is no article for Valley of the Dolls 1981 TV Mini-Series. The redirect takes the reader to the Novel. If interested someone needs to check the disambiguation for the topic. It seems very jumbled to me but I do not have the knowledge to sort or redirect or find deleted articles.Eschoryii (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Eschoryii, I created a stub here to start working with: Jacqueline Susann's Valley of the Dolls. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Something I think is a problem gets solved. Thanks.Eschoryii (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Somethings going on with the Joel Schumacher's page

If you search for Joel Schumacher on mobile the short description says "American hack film director" This is clearly not neutrally worded and seems like a bad joke. Unfortunately I don't know how these summaries are generated so I can't change it back. --Deathawk (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikidata. I reverted it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Using multiple sources for film gross figures

The Raees (film) article is using figures from several different sources to come up with a figure for the total gross, with the sources in a note in the article. This is film from India, where the games around gross figures is pretty shady, but the sources used ([3] for the India gross and [4] for overseas gross) are pretty good sources. I'm troubled by this though, as BoxOfficeIndia has a page on the file here with both India gross and overseas gross, and BOI is generally regarded about one of the best, if not the best, sources for financial information on Indian films. Using two different sources like this feels like cherry-picking, even though both are solid sources. They can have different methodologies and techniques for coming up with those estimates, but we're now mixing things together. It is basic math, just adding two numbers, so WP:CALC is somewhat related. This feels beyond that though, and would appreciate some thoughts from others. Leaving a pointer to WP:ICTF, but discussing here for a larger audience. Ultimately, the desire is for a great article with financials that readers feel they can trust. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion, Ravensfire. I too feel that this is a tricky business, for the same reasons you've noted. The figures are all estimates, and each site has their own methodology for determining what figures to report. To me, this is not really different from WP:SYNTH. I know that Maestro2016 (who has been involved in the establishment of some of these Frankensteined figures) has counter-argued on his talk page that WP:SYNTH applies for textual interpretation, and that this should be permissible under WP:CALC, but my feeling is that since each financial figure represents an opinion, you're basically combining two opinions to arrive at a conclusion that neither source necessarily agrees to, and I think that's problematic, since we run the risk of publishing numbers higher or lower than our sources might, and we could inadvertently be affected by our personal biases. So I don't see how this would be acceptable from an academic standpoint, especially when we know that Indian film financial details are completely untrustworthy from stem to stern. If you're interested in learning more about the problems with Indian film financials from someone other than me, this article is an interesting read. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It does seem a bit questionable to combine sources like this. What I would do is list them separately in the article's body instead of adding the numbers together. "Source A says this, and source B says this." That sort of thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: But then in that scenario, we'd leave the gross pararmeter blank, but then what? Ultimately present data that's higher or lower than what any of the other sources say? We're effectively creating our own data. Using Raees as an example:

We say: ₹308.88 crore (US$37 million)[5] is the worldwide gross for Raees based on 213 crore taken from Indian Express and 95.88 taken from Box Office India.

Indian Express says: ₹304 crore (US$36 million) (213 domestic + 91 international).

Box Office India says: ₹272.5 crore (US$33 million) (176.6 crore domestic + 95.88 international.)

So by cherrypicking between the sources, we have arrived at a figure that is not consistent with what either of these sources say. That to me, is exactly what WP:SYNTH doesn't want us to do. We've managed to inflate the film's performance by about $1 million USD, just by cherrypicking! That is not what we're supposed to be doing. We shouldn't publish any figure that can't be traced back to a single source. And in this case we got lucky that we have an example where two sources published their domestic and international breakdowns so we could see why cherrypicking is problematic. I'm sure we have tons of articles out there where editors have cobbled together sums because source A never reported the domestic gross, and source B never reported the international gross. At best, the above should be presented in the form of a range: 272.5–304 crore. If users like Maestro2016 want to break that down in the Box office section, fine. I also strongly dislike the inclusion of complicated notes in the gross parameter, because it makes it difficult to spot vandalism when we have to chase down references elsewhere in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. WP:CALC is for uncomplicated and undisputed calculations i.e. say you have the gross for each James Bond film then IMO it is reasonable to add them up for a series total. However, WP:CALC should not be used to cherrypick data to somehow mediate between conflicting data. If you have two sources giving two different estimates (which we often get with budgets) then a range estimate is the most neutral approach. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that it is not WP:SYNTH to WP:CALC together the domestic and overseas figures from two sources, due to domestic and overseas generally having very different methodologies (which I explained on my talk page), unless the two sources in question contradict each other, which may very well be the case with Raees. However, it is worth noting that Box Office India only includes the gross from the Hindi version, not non-Hindi versions. Raees (like many Bollywood films these days) had dubs in South Indian languages such as Tamil and Telugu, which are not included in BOI's 272.5 crore estimate. Whereas The Indian Express cites Ramesh Bala, an analyst based in South India, whose higher 304 crore estimate includes South Indian versions. Therefore, the higher number (304 crore) may not be a contradiction of the lower number (272.5 crore), since the lower number is only referring to the Hindi version while the higher number is referring to all versions. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that adding together domestic and foreign from the same source for a worldwide total is a legitimate use of CALC, but taking the domestic figure from one source and the foreign figure from another does appear to be crossing into WP:SYNTH. If there is a good reason for doing that (say the domestic figure in one source is more up to date while the foreign figure in the other is more complete) then that is a legitimate argument but you need to put forward your reason on the talk page because CALC is always subject to consensus. If there is no good reason to pick one source over another then a range is often the way to go. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maestro2016: Where at BOI does it say it's only factoring in the Hindi versions? Unless that's disclaimed somewhere clearly, it's pure conjecture to assert that, even if you ultimately are correct, which you may be. The strength of our encyclopedia rests entirely on what we can demonstrate with references. If claims can't be verified, then they are of no use to us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

BOI said here that they do not include dubbed Tamil or Telugu versions, but only Hindi versions. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Worried about some Marvel film lead sections

I've been noticing lately that some of our lead section for comic book films, mainly Marvel ones, seem to be to overly specific. For instance both the Black Panther films as well as the Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse leads both note the month various actors joined the project. While I suppose one could argue that in some cases these are important enough for the lead, the way things are phrased just seems like an attempt to condense the production section down into a single paragraph, rather than summarizing the important aspects of the film. --Deathawk (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that sort of information isn't appropriate for the lead. Remove it when you see it. Popcornduff (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment but the article is still very early in development. This sort of thing is very common in "start" class articles and many of these problems will be ironed out through natural evolution. If there is going to be a concerted drive against WP:PROSELINE it would be better directed at GA and B class articles where we are aspiring to a standard. Betty Logan (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Another problem with Marvel film articles' lead sections is that they are extremely cookie-cutter in starting off in a mostly-useless way. They constantly repeat "produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" (borderline puffery) and being the x film in the franchise before they talk about anything else. Oftentimes the articles don't even connect the actor with the titular character(s). I had to make that happen at Black Panther (film). Even looking at Ant-Man and the Wasp, we don't even know who plays Ant-Man and the Wasp in the lead section itself. That mentality springs from being so familiar with the subject matter that they don't even consider a more introductory approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not a Marvel-specific problem, but a comic book one. Wonder Woman (2017 film) doesn't even make it clear in the lead section that Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Same with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The last time I tried to clean up something like this it was in the Infinity War Page , where I ran into resistance. Part of the problem is that we have some GA's that use this type of language in the lead (Ant Man, Avengers) which I initially interprited as less problematic, but as time goes on I do think they're equally as problematic.--Deathawk (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's more problematic in a GA because they are peer reviewed and held to a standard. The GA badge of honor also gives those resisting change a line of defense too, because they can say it passed GA. If we are going to target this endemic that is the logical place to start, because if we can fix the problem there we get a domino effect on the lower class articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. I assume you are talking about this paragraph in the Black Panther article:

Wesley Snipes first mentioned his intention to work on a Black Panther film in 1992, with that project going through multiple iterations over the next decade but never coming to fruition. A Black Panther film was announced as one of the ten films based on Marvel characters that would be developed by Marvel Studios and distributed by Paramount Pictures in September 2005, with Mark Bailey hired to write a script in January 2011. Black Panther was officially announced in October 2014, with Boseman first appearing in Captain America: Civil War. By the end of 2015, Cole and Coogler had both joined Black Panther, and additional cast members came on board beginning in May 2016. Principal photography for the film took place from January to April 2017, at EUE/Screen Gems Studios and Pinewood Atlanta Studios in the Atlanta metropolitan area, and Busan, South Korea.

It doesn't mention any months associated with the hiring of any particular actors just "additional cast members came on board beginning in May 2016." I think it actually sums up the production pretty well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But putting in the lead "additional cast members came on board beginning in May 2016" is very excessive As is when someone was hired to write the film, as is putting that both the stars joined in 2015. Individually, I guess I could maybe see including one or two of the points, however putting all of them in not properly summarizing the content and is instead just parroting the information from further down. ---Deathawk (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Its hardly excessive. Excessive would be detailing when each of the individual additional cast members were hired. Speaking generally about casting is perfectly acceptable. Casting is a very important part of the narrative of how the film came to be. In fact, its omission would be more glaring than its inclusion as would be when the writer and director were hired. Per WP:FILMLEAD: "Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include milestones or major events in the film's production..."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead sections are meant to be broad overviews of the topics. I would not call adding the month a writer was hired or when casting began as fitting with this purpose. If readers are interested in learning about what's written about in the lead we have a dedicated production section for that. This is true for the majority of film articles and it's only the Marvel film articles which really have this problem. --Deathawk (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I do, it fits the narrative and considering the length of the production section, this paragraph is pretty broad. Also its not just Marvel or comic book film that take this approach.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Consider a hypothetical article on Superman. Superman was not initially depicted with all his powers – he was always invulnerable and super-strong, but most of the other stuff came later. That's kind of interesting, right? Maybe it should be mentioned in the lead. But does the exact issue he started flying belong in the lead? I think that's what people are saying. Maybe leave the details for the body. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a bad example, a closer hypothetical would be 'when did Siegel and Shuster begin writing Superman?' Which is interesting, relevant and included in the lead of that article. I'm not saying that all dates need to be listed in the lead but some like the ones detailed above are crucial to the contextual understanding of the film's production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be one thing which might be fine depending on the circumstances, however it would be another if the lead mentioned the date it was announced, when the stars were cast and when the writers began working on the film. The latter would be closer to the problem we have here, which is that we have leads that are just too cluttered with excessive information that were never meant to fit in these sections. --Deathawk (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion about the lead section of Black Panther (film) has been started here: Talk:Black Panther (film)#Lead section review. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool 2

There is a discussion regarding Deadpool 2 and the titling for the film. Please see the discussion here, including the sub-section at the end: Talk:Deadpool 2#Title. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Docufiction

Is a film (perhaps not just film?) genre, not the same as docudrama or mockumentary. Parts of it reads very essay-like, so please help if interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY

Got HosaBhaasha (talk · contribs) removing this source from articles while stating "WP:PRIMARY." Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

He's right to remove it. It's trivial to the film. It might bear on Aḵẖtar's process, but that belongs on his page, not the film's. And including a quote about it on the film's page is pure cruft. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere under the tinsel

Does somebody at the Project have access to actual back issues of Variety or something? There are ridiculously high boxoffice numbers here (& elsewhere), which are (I'm told) supposed to represent annual take on release. The trouble is, they're sourced to websites using lifetime take, & that number is the one being used, which (I'm also told) is supposed to be reserved for the page on the individual film (which is confusing enough...). So, I'm hoping somebody has access to a source that records the actual number for the year & the film in question. Any help would be enormously welcomed (by me, anyhow). Roger Siskel ^{under my thumb} 15:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to check Box Office Mojo and The Numbers first. They're free and reliable. It looks like you've rejected their data because they only list the lifetime gross. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with that, but the initial box office gross and the lifetime gross certainly could be different. Well, BoxOffice might have something. If not, I'd check the American Film Institute next, since they usually have a decent (or even very good) write-up for classic films. If nothing else, you'll get a bibliography that's useful for further research. In you don't find anything in reliable sources, I'd check the IMDb to see what stats they've got listed. That will give you a starting point for what numbers you should look for on sites that are reliable. Try a Google search. If you're lucky, Google might turn up digitized trade magazines, perhaps at Archive.org, JSTOR, or Google Books. I'm not really sure where to find old issues of Variety; you might have to spend money on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Sound of Music was absolutely huge on its original release—it toppled Gone with the Wind. I actually have the first run gross to hand: $138.7 million. The rest (taking it to around $160 million) came from 1973 and 1990 reissues. It appears the chart is using the lifetime gross for that film, and the same for Doctor Zhivago. I can't find Doctor Zhivago's first run box-office gross, only its gross rental, but going by the gross rental it did 70% of its business in its first run, which would put the box-office at around $80 million. Betty Logan (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  I have cleaned the article up a bit. The chart was way too long (20+ entries and conflated box-office gross and gross rental). I have cut it down to ten entries in line with the 2017 in film and fixed the Sound of Music. I can't find a box-office gross for Doctor Zhivago but its gross rental confirms that it was definitely the #2 film of the year by a considerable margin, so I have added a note to that effect. Anyway, if anyone else views this article please bear in mind you are are viewing a revamped version and the previous version can be found here. Betty Logan (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

♠There's yet another conflict in the sources, because this site & this site both put "Welcome Danger" at #1, & Worldwideboxoffice.com lists it at US$3.1 mil, "Sunnyside Up" at US$3mil, "The Broadway Melody" at US$2.8mil, & "Coquette" at US$1.4mil; "Gold Diggers of Broadway" doesn't even make the list... That said, a contemporary (more/less) source is more likely to be correct IMO--but since the year pages routinely use gross take including re-release, clearly some standard is required. AFAIK, there isn't one.

♠I have no intention of making this a years-long project. I went to the film year pages looking for remotely reliable boxoffice for a film in a given year, & repeatedly found ridiculously inflated figures based on lifetime performance, or grosses, or some other number--& none of them agree with any others. And I only noticed because I looked at more than one year & more than one film. This is atrocious researching & atrocious attribution. How is a casual reader supposed to rely on these numbers? I wouldn't.

♠If you still doubt it, look at this page. It lists The Born Losers as making more on initial release than Casino Royale. I've seen "Born Losers". Who do you think you're kidding? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:35 & 06:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues you have about 1929 at Talk:1929 in film. As for 1967, it appears that the chart was overhauled at some point, and a much earlier version used gross rentals which is a better reflection of that year's actual rankings. The gross for The Born Losers includes later reissues as explained at The Born Losers#Reception, so shouldn't be in the chart. Also, a problem with box-office fabrication has been uncovered in the last few days so I would not rely on Wikipedia's figures either at these articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's far from that simple. this makes it pretty clear: you yourself are hiding the fact re-release take is being included, as if it's annual, leaving the casual reader with no idea it's been done & demanding further exploration to uncover it, contrary to what you yourself claim the policy on year pages is. And you wonder why I'm changing it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

How am I "hiding" re-releases? This list of releases at Box Office Mojo lists each release for The Graduate and gives the gross for each release. The figure BOM gives for the 1967 release is the one that is in the table, and leaves out the grosses from the later reissues. Is Box Office Mojo wrong about this? Am I interpreting it incorrectly? Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

To draw on a recent example, Box Office Mojo has itemised each release for Titanic. As you can see it grossed $600 million from the 1997 release. In Box Office Mojo's 1997 chart Titanic is top with $600 million (leaving out the grosses from the two later releases). Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

When the year page fails to mention the number includes re-releases and demands the reader go to at least one other page to find out, without specifying the need, it's hidden. How many readers do you suppose check the footnote links of every film to see which are & aren't re-released? Bad enough it's not clear "lifetime" means "that year" in some cases & not others, without ever making clear which cases or which years it applies to, because it seems to vary... Nor do I think going to the film page is a solution, not when that page is counting re-release & not making it explicit in the infobox, either, & may never mention the fact on the page itself...which may require reading the entire page to find out. More & more, I think using online sources is a bad idea; they tend not to distinguish between annual & lifetime, or gross & rental, so it's next to impossible to know what, exactly, they're describing. The case for "Titanic" (AFAIK) is a rarity; that's an example WP should follow: expressly list first release somewhere (preferably the year page), & expressly mention the total take includes re-releases on the film page. There are doubtless other issues... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute that these charts are poorly designed and lacking exposition, and include seemingly many errors. Pretty much every chart prior to 1980 is just a mish-mash of WP:SYNTHESIS. The chart at 1967 film is a good example to go with. This is what it looked like at the start of 2012 (it looks like a Variety rentals chart for 1967) and this is what it looked like at the end of 2012. While each individual figure is sourced, there is no source for the actual rankings. Personally I think the only way to fix these charts is to replace them Variety's historical gross rental charts. This is a big job and will take quite a bit of time, so I would like some input from the project before embarking on this task. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Producers

Deathawk and I are having a disagreement at my talk page regarding film producers. I feel that the producers of a film (the people who are literally in charge of making the film and get the recognition for it in the end if it goes well) are extremely significant to a film, and should at least be mentioned in the production section where we first learned of their involvement. Deathawk feels that we need more information on what each producer is specifically doing before we can add them. For me, the producer is the most important person involved with a film, tied with the director, and we wouldn't leave out any mention of a director if we didn't yet have information on what they had been up to on the project. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it correct that this disagreement only concerns Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse? Raymond3023 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is the subject of the disagreement. Specificly the passage

Following the November 2014 hacking of Sony's computers, emails between Sony Pictures Entertainment Co-Chairman Amy Pascal and president Doug Belgrad were released, stating that Sony was planning to "rejuvenate" the Spider-Man franchise by developing an animated comedy film with Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Sony executives were set to discuss the project further in a discussion regarding several Spider-Man spin-off films at a summit in January 2015.[3] At the 2015 CinemaCon in April, Sony Pictures chairman Tom Rothman announced that the animated Spider-Man film had a July 20, 2018 release date, and would be produced by Lord and Miller, Avi Arad, Matt Tolmach, and Pascal, with Lord and Miller also writing a treatment for the film. Rothman said that it would "co-exist" with the live-action Spider-Man films, though Sony soon stated that the film would "exist independently of the projects in the live-action Spider-Man universe".[4]

I feel the third sentence could better be worded as "the project was then officially announced at the 2015 Cinemacon by Sony Pictures Chairman Tom Rothman[4]" as the listing out five names in a row especially with little context seems extreme. I believe that since the role of producer is so wide that listing off all the names is of little service to the readers, and that some of the producers are likely little more than purse strings. I pointed out to Adam the wikipage for Toy Story 3, which doesn't mention the producer at all and The Hunger Games which only lists one of the two producers of examples that it is not necessary to list the producers, or at least all the producers in the prose. --Deathawk (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I believe that is a problem that should be fixed with those pages. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

♠More information on what the producers are actually doing, as part of a description of what producers actually do, seems to have merit. I'm less sure it's essential to have it on any (let alone every) film page, but if there's a development hell issue, maybe the producer input would help explain why it went how it did. (Of course, it also begs for inclusion of Harlan's famous story of the Paramount suit who wanted Mayans & dinosaurs in a proposed "ST" film...)

♠Complete omission of producers seems like a bad idea, not least because they get the credit if a film wins "Best Picture" Oscar--not the director.

♠As for the claim "the producer is the most important person involved with a film", that's just absurd. The screenwriter is, & remains; you won't even get a meeting with a producer without a script. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no "complete omission" going on here. The info is available in the infobox Mostly my objection comes down to phrasing. I simply think that listing five people in a row is a rather difficult read, especially when the concept of the film has already been introduced in the previous paragraph. Simply put, at this current moment there's nothing much to say about them in the prose part of the article, and the only reason we would have them is because all five have the title of producer. --Deathawk (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Also we've just finished updating the film MOS to state the following Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. While I find the reveal in the leak and the actual announcement, given the size of the announcement, to fulfill these requirements, I do not find that the listings of various attached producers do. --Deathawk (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite what our friend Trekphiler may think, the producer is the most important person involved with the film—there is no film without a producer, even if they don't go by that title or have more duties than just that. On the other hand, there have definitely been films made without scripts. And finding out who these most important people are is exactly what I would call "particularly noteworthy". - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say trying to claim that anyone specific is always the most important person on a production is nonsensical and idiotic. Yeah sure a film migth not get made without one or several producers but maybe those producers are far more replacable than the director for example? I don't know how much you have worked on film but don't go around claiming somehitng as fact when it's really just your personal opinion.★Trekker (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone will like this solution, but I sometimes add a "crew list" to the production section as a way to at least identify certain crew members that don't have parameters in the film infobox. Furthermore, technically the infobox is a summary of the article too, so we should make sure the article itself is complete even with the infobox ignored. E.g., think of "Starring" being a most-important-people parameter from the cast list in the article body. The crew parameters are the more important people. The Martian (film)#Production is one such example and identifies all the producers, the other credits that also appear in the infobox, and the credits that do not: production designer and costume designer. For other films, other credits could be relevant too, like dance or fight choreographer, if the person is especially famous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

My thinking is that we shouldn't include information just because it's an "important role" for inclusion sake. I think if it's truly important the info will reveal itself naturally. This, I feel is doubly true for a complicated franchise like Spiderman, where it's at least probable that some of the producers are under contractual obligation to be credited as such. Amy Pascal,for instance, is listed in three Spiderman-related films (everyone since Homecoming) and Avi Arad has been a producer for every Spiderman film dating back to the 2002 original and serves as the CEO of Marvel Studios. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't include the name in the prose at all, but right now we don't know exactly what they did other than providing the rights to the characters, and including the names seems trivial at best and a hassle at worst. --Deathawk (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Like Erik said, we shouldn't be leaving them out of the body just because they are in the infobox. And more information on their role will come out, it is still early days. But they should be mentioned anyway. If the only thing we knew about the lead actor of a film is that they have been cast, we still mention their casting. If the only thing we know about a director is that they have signed on, we add that fact. It doesn't make sense to do anything different with the producers of the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we specifically don't do that. If there is nothing to write about we don't include the info about them. The fact that the director makes so much of the creative decisions during the productions means that there is usually something to write about for most situations, but if there isn't we don't list the name automatically. Similarly we don't list the stars just because they're in a movie. There was a time we did list when stars we cast but that got repetitive and made for bad production sections so now we only talk about how they were cast. Similarly we should only list producers if there is something to write about. --Deathawk (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." Technically, we're quite failing to comply with this especially with underdeveloped articles whose bodies barely mention any of the names in the infobox. We're very good with adding cast lists at minimum, and we need to be just as good in having crew lists at minimum. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It also notes that "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." I think that applies here. While it's possible to integrate a lot into the infobox it is not mandatory to include all the inormation if it cannot be presented well. --Deathawk (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But it isn't difficult to integrate it into the body, because there is a natural place to introduce it (when we learned about their involvement). And no, there is no way that a director would not be mentioned simply because we didn't have further details yet. That is an argument you would never win at a talk page, especially if RfC was involved. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in the MOS that states this to be true, in fact our current itteration of the MOS would seem to indicate to use caution if the names were all we knew. --Deathawk (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that our MOS for film now states "ry to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process" being as how big Spiderman is I interprit this to mean that we can include the announcement but that it should be kept brief. Because of that I brought the editors at MOS into the discussion. --Deathawk (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be interpreting that passage as an excuse to not include relevant details (which goes against the widely followed essay Wikipedia:Scope), which may have been your intention when proposing it, but I interpret it as a warning to not get too far down the rabbit hole of details and day-to-day updates. It doesn't change the fact that this is an encyclopaedia and it is our job to collect and present all the relevant information on a topic. So looking at your passage, we should check to make sure that we haven't added a trivial announcement to the page. The producers of the film are not trivial, and I would easily consider them as noteworthy for inclusion in any form, so I don't think we are causing a problem like those that your proposal was in response to. From my experience working on many film articles, I do not believe that your new wording in the MOS should have a significant effect on articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess my real issue with the article is that there is nothing actionable about including the contested statements included. In the vast majority of film articles we do not state "The director is ___" in the production section or "Actor X plays Y" so we also don't need to include statements such as "The producer is X". Now we do include statements such as "In X, Y director joined the project" or "Producer Y joined the project because...", that is reasonable. By your own admission we do not know a lot about the producers roles in the film, so let's hold off on just listing them for the sake of listing them for the time being. and we can see what happens closer to release. --Deathawk (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your examples of what we don't do are not being proposed by anybody here. The content added is the same as your examples for what we do do. When a director signs on, we say 'In month, person joined the film as director' etc. We do the same when a notable actor is cast / a notable role is filled. We don't have all the information at that point, but that doesn't matter. By the time the film is out and all the information has been collated, the article will have all the information it needs to justify the initial announcement, and if it doesn't then that can be addressed then. You can't expect the article to be full and complete straight away, or to always be a perfect Wikipedia entry no matter the stage of production. These things take time. We add noteworthy information as we come across it, and when there is enough we can go back and see how it is coming together, reevaluating the inclusion of content if we must. We don't leave out standard information because we don't know what is going to happen in the future. All we can do is act on what we know now: at the moment, for this article, we don't know much, but we do know who the producers are and that is always an important piece of information that we note (plus, we still shouldn't be leaving out information that is also in the infobox, especially when it can be so easily slotted in). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that, for me, as time goes on I'm arguing less and less about Spiderman and more and more about articles as a whole. I am honestly trying to clean up a bunch of production cruft in articles and that often includes things like simplifying phrasing and =avoiding "empty calorie" sentences, which often include needless insertion of who the producer or what the production company is. Comic book films are somewhat of a different beast I guess, and I could see how in the Marvel world the producer may be more important than say in "Paddington 2". So before people get sick of us arguing and makes a "One size fits all" change to the production section of films. I think I'm going to bail out. I'll continue to work to simplify the stuff in the areas that I know about, but I guess Spiderman films aren't one of them.--Deathawk (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Usually, if a producer is notable (has their own article), there's something to say about how they got involved. For example, it's usually pretty easy to find interesting stories about Roger Corman. The guy is not shy, and he gives lots of interviews. It's something to consider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence grammar

Would appreciate opinions at WT:Manual of Style/Film#Lengthy adjective strings in the lead sentence. Thanks in advance... --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Can previously uninvolved editors weigh in on the talk page, please? There is an ongoing dispute about whether the summary of the plot in the lede should include "spoilers". A long series of anons have repeatedly removed the offending sentence, and the talk page discussion has gone nowhere. I requested page protection, which was denied with the singularly ignorant comment that, since the plot is unreferenced, it is appropriate for the anons to remove unreferenced claims from the lede. We need other eyes on this, please. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film so I don't want to wade into that directly. First, WP:FILMLEAD suggests, "If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph..." Furthermore, MOS:LEAD says, "A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article..." In my experience, it is sufficient to summarize the synopsis or premise that other reliable sources have when explaining the film to readers. If a late-in-the-film detail is especially prominent, that should be established by the critics and not us editors, and the summary of discussion of that detail housed in the part of the lead section that discusses the critical reception. Maybe this applies to this film, maybe it doesn't. That's my shot in the dark. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

An intelligent discussion can be had on the article talk page, but not when anons are going to repeatedly revert to their preferred version. That's why I asked for page protection: so that a stable version is preserved while discussion continues. The admin's response to the protection request was appallingly ignorant, as was his unreferenced tag in the plot section (he did the same with another film article and was reverted). I agree with your approach, Erik and I've never been comfortable with revealing a plot point that comes later in the film. But, I'm not happy with how this has been approached and the free-for-all of reverts and unhelpful talk page comments. Admin intervention is necessary, but it needs to be someone who was not previously involved. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be enough plot information in the lead to warrant spoilers, it should just be a single sentence premise. Any more, and you are giving undue weight to something that is only supposed to be in the article to give context to the rest of the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the dispute in detail—although I will do later or tomorrow—but the inclusion of spoilers in the lead mainly depends on their real-world context. I recall a dispute involving Skyfall where some editors did not want to mention the casting of Naomie Harris as Moneypenny in the lead, but in the end it was determined the real-world relevance of the character's return took precedence. However, I agree that spoilers should not be included simply for the sake of including a spoiler i.e. there needs to be a real-world justification. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and Betty Logan: Have you read WP:SPOILERS? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, why do you ask? - adamstom97 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I would encourage all readers to actually contribute to the discussion at the talk page discussion here so that we are not splitting up the discussion over multiple pages --Deathawk (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Does one direct "from" a screenplay? "with"?

See Black Panther (film), whose lead includes the sentence The film is directed by Ryan Coogler from a screenplay by him and Joe Robert Cole; ditto Thor: Ragnarok, which makes me think this has been copy-pasted onto a whole bunch of articles going back to such-and-such date without much thought about the grammar behind it. I'm not even sure if my gut is right on this, but I kinda feel like "from a screenplay" is meant to be preceded by a different verb than "direct". Am I crazy? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It comes from people copying the phrasing used by trade magazines, such as Variety. See, for example, this Variety article. Hollywood press releases have their own language. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we should use plain English. It's like that "against a budget" thing. No normal human being says "against a budget". Popcornduff (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is plain English. The screenplay is the blueprint from which a film is made, and from it comes the dialogue and actions to be filmed. We would say that a builder made a house from architectural plans, and a chef cooked a meal from the instructions in a recipe. Likewise, a film director makes the film from the screenplay. "with" is technically a valid alternative, but doesn't mean the same thing: directing with a screenplay just says that he had that screenplay (which could be any old screenplay) in his possession as he was directing the film, but directing from a screenplay says that he followed the screenplay to direct the film—the screenplay was for this film specifically. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Umm... do you really make a building from a blueprint? I think you are supposed to make a building from brick and mortar, using (or with) a blueprint. Additionally, unless you've actually read the screenplay, you can't assert definitively that "from it comes the ... actions to be filmed": screenplays vary in their level of detail (see the famous George Lucas "There's a lot of 'They fight' in there"), and even the dialogue could have been altered to an unknown degree by the director or even the actors while shooting. And no one would read The film is directed by Ryan Coogler with a screenplay by him and Joe Robert Cole as implying that Cole's script was not the script specifically for that film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to echo Adam... how else would you say it? You direct from a screenplay. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

PCD's solution works for both the articles I linked, and I suggested another in the title of this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've never had need to write that. I'd just say "directed by xx and written by yy" or whatever. The construction "from a screenplay" isn't hard to understand but to me it feels a bit odd. Popcornduff (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it's not hard to understand, but definitely feels odd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the guideline right now but I believe that there's guidance on using similar language to how reliable, expert sources write about a subject. "directed by X from a screeplay by Y" would be a perfect example of this. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that guideline, as it sounds like it contradicts MOS:JARGON. Popcornduff (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually it would contradict the entire MOS; telling people to copy the MOSes of external sources, regardless of how "reliable, expert" they are is out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not about the style so much as the vocabulary, I believe, so maybe it doesn't apply. And to be fair, yeah, I can't seem to dig it up, so I understand any skepticism. If I run across it again, I'll try to include it here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I go to film school, but I didn't blink an eye at "directed from". Like, I don't think there's anything wrong with the construction and I wouldn't go out of my way to change it when I see it, but if someone wrote something else like what Popcorn suggested, then I wouldn't go out of my way to change it back. Overall, I just think it's sort of a pedantic, non-issue. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

An alternative approach would be to say "based on". Would that be any better? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "based on" would enter murky waters if used on a film that is actually adapted from some other material. I believe "from" and "with" can both be used, simply depending on the sentence structure. If mentioning a director before the screenwriters, "directed by X from a screenplay by Y" would be appropriate. But if a director isn't mentioned first, "with" is fine to use. Pulling from The Hunger Games It is the first installment in The Hunger Games film series and was produced by Nina Jacobson and Jon Kilik, with a screenplay by Ross, Collins, and Billy Ray. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Jumping in late here... "from a screenplay" is actually the correct terminology.. "with" is awkward and not entirely accurate as you dont direct with a screenplay.. you direct with a crew and a cast.. and the work is from the screenplay in most cases. Spanneraol (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to argue with industry terminology, but "directing with" sounds unnatural to me. I would say that "you direct a crew and a cast", i.e. you tell them what to do. "Directing with" implies either that they're participating along with you in the process of direction, or that they're somehow tangential to the whole thing. What happens to them is that "they are being directed". (I'd speculate that "directing with" evolved to differentiate film director's directing from the usual meaning of the verb). Daß Wölf 02:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO, "from a screenplay" is perfectly correct; my other option would be "to a screenplay" (since this case has the director as co-writer). "Based on" strikes me as wrong, since directing isn't "based on" the screenplay (exactly), & implies something adapted from another source: the screenplay might be based on a book or play, but the screenplay is integral to the film (unless the director has completely ignored it...). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

All immaterial when the simplest solution is just to write "written by". Popcornduff (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

While not directly related I feel like this part of a larger problem where editors try to write film articles as trade papers such as Variety and Deadline do. I really have no specific examples on me, but I know I've had to in the past edit my fair shares of odd turns of phrases, that seemingly only exist in trade magazines.The larger problem is that these lead to people reporting on this such a day to day and minute business dealings that really do not have a place, simply because it was reported on in an industry paper. I don't know maybe that's just a rant, but I feel like that's where it comes from. --Deathawk (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I think so too. Like I said above, this is also how we have an abundance of "against a budget of". Like "from a screenplay", it's grammatically sound, you can make sense of it - but it's just not a turn of phrase that normal non-industry, non-specialist people would use, and therefore it isn't the most plain and neutral solution. It's like how so many video game articles refer to games with the weirdly euphemistic word "title" when the clear and direct "game" would suffice, a habit absorbed from trade journals and press releases. Popcornduff (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because you hadn't come across a phrase before doesn't mean it isn't just normal English. "directing from" was not taken from some trade or release, it was written by editors using some basic English in an attempt to make the lead, a dumping ground for a lot of details, more readable. You could have a list of details (Directed by X, written by Y, starring Z...), or we could write an encyclopaedic article with some basic grammar and common sense used. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but a lead sentence such as "The Social Network is a 2010 American biographical drama film directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin" is pretty unimprovable as far as basic grammar and common sense goes - not to mention clarity, precision, and efficiency. Popcornduff (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh look, Mr. Roger Ebert approved of "from a screenplay" in one of his reviews! xD Slightlymad 15:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)