Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 69

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

→

Film Booking Offices of America Featured article review

FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Film Booking Offices of America for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Films shot in multiple formats

I've nominated this category for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant

Each year since 1989 the Library of Congress issues the latest vetted list of films based on "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" that then are accorded the resources of the US government so that they do not disappear as has happened to much of the US silent film catalogue. But when you look into the detail as to why The National Film Board choose particular titles it is not ""culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"." that is significant but the supporting brief summary or extended essay they either issue along with the list or attach to the appropriate websites? First of all, if it is basically a cookie cutter phrase lifted from the press release of that year's list (taken from the enabling legislation), the value of the distinction is not "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" but just why did the Board choose that film as expressed in the short description or the extended essay? When we use the phrase "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" we basically are gnawing on cotton candy and jarred fluff. There is very little if any substance to the WP article text because it leaves you with the question as to just why did the Film board find the film so distinguishable? Yet if we indicate the list year and use the list home page as a source citation it directs the reader to additional resources about the film and voila, the brief film descriptions and the any extended essays? The citations are straight away waiting for use? You have to do absolutely anything more than follow the citation and the job is done. No need to look up newspaper indices, or other sources of internet compilation for a source citation and you get significant content in the process? It seems such a natural.

Is it necessary to say "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" when the fundamental reason for the enabling legislation was to protect and preserve the intellectual history of film and culture. If it gets listed we should know that it is "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant", that is the whole distinction of the honor; and if anyone is confused about the registry all they have to do is click on the link? I go into various films on the registry and in a forthright and structured manner present what year list it was inducted, the reasons stated by the Film Board and the citations to match. And this is reverted as being unnecessary? Is this an idea before it's time? The Registry predates WP; we should have if we had that tool all along been accepting of this very generous compilation and concentration of information available to anyone with an internet connection. Not to make you skate on thin ice but just what is the Film Project waiting for?2605:E000:9143:7000:995A:C286:EE14:C81D (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In essence, are you advocating for a fuller description in the article body as to why a film is archived? I created the article for Samsara: Death and Rebirth in Cambodia, and I'm looking at its description here. It seems to be more of a general summary rather than explaining why the NFR selected it specifically. Using that example, what exactly do you want to see in an article? Quoting the aesthetic bit for Samsara -- "Described as poetic, heartbreaking and evocative, the film brings a humanistic perspective to the political chaos of Southeast Asia with a deliberate, reflective and sometimes dreamlike pace as it intertwines the mundane realities of daily life with the spiritual beliefs of the Khmer people"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Despite what may be the impression in the example cited, the summary and extended essays are fundamentally a synopsis as to why is film is appropriate for the Registry. As for what it is thought of is dependent on the reader but that cannot be decided if there is no inclusion. Many of these mentions in WP link to sources that are press releases or newspaper articles that may not fully cover the actions of the Registry. We cannot expect for the web site to include all the considerations that can be found in the vetting of the Registry inductees but we certainly can get an understanding when we have the opportunity to view the explanation for the distinction. The phrase is generic; if the example cited is thought of as generic I would rather have the web cite information. The link is generally to an explanation of the Registry, not the distinction vetted by the Registry. How can you get a fuller understanding as to the reason(s) for the distinction unless you have more than what is potentially further summarized by a newspaper article or a press release, both links that may go dead? The generic phrase from the enabling legislation is suppose to convey its significance? The WP article is not primarily meant for the reader that knows about the film but the reader that is attempting to get a fuller understanding of the film and its distinctions. You do not get a better understand of a film by exclusion of information and that is what the web site information provides.2605:E000:9143:7000:25BC:4CE5:6FF9:4929 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

An example of the usefulness and added benefit of using the web site essays is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_War_Relocation_Center .2605:E000:9143:7000:25BC:4CE5:6FF9:4929 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:MCU actors

Just a notification that I have put Category:MCU actors up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_20#Category:MCU actors. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It got G5'd. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Uncredited Roles in Cast section

I had recently come across the article for the film The Warriors and noticed that Thomas G. Waites who played one of the main characters was not in the cast section of the article. I added his name thinking it had been a mistake but my edit was quickly reverted by User:TheOldJacobite due it being an uncredited role, which I did not know at the time. I then re-added Waites' name but with (uncredited) next to his name like I had seen in a number of articles (including Emilio Estevez in Mission: Impossible, Sean Connery in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Macaulay Culkin in Jacob's Ladder just to name a few). This edit was also reverted as TheOldJacobite claimed that we didn't allow uncredited roles. Obviously as I've shown with the three films I just mentioned, uncredited roles are mentioned in quite a few articles, so what exactly is the problem with Waites in The Warriors? Beast from da East (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as it is reliably sourced, it shouldn't matter whether they are listed in the credits or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no problem with including an uncredited role as long as it is verifiable by a secondary source. I've never seen a consensus completely against uncredited roles. I do think they should not be included if nobody has anything to say about it. So it would help to find a source that highlights that particular role for The Warriors. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

See other shit exists. Just because one article is wrong, doesn't mean we should it as an example for making other articles wrong, too. That line of reasoning is unsound. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it in the cast listing part but describe it in a paragraph afterwards as a cameo, unless it was some sort of obvious omission where the sources show the actor was billed among the credited stars but it didn't show as such in the actual credits. Or you can use Rear Window as an example where uncredited roles and Hitchcock's appearance are listed separately. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

But what makes those articles "wrong"? They appeared in the movie in an uncredited role yes, but they appeared in the movie nevertheless and it is noted in parenthesis that the role was uncredited so I'm not sure what you're argument is, TheOldJacobite. To the user above, this role differs greatly from that of Hitchcock's cameos as Waites actually played a major role in the film but to due to difficulty with the director, had his name removed from the credits. In, if one were to go to IMDB, probably the largest online movie database in existance, Waites' name is in the cast listing and the film does appear in his filmography though it does mention that is was an uncredited role for the actor and wikipedia should be no different, as its the largest online encyclopedia in the world and we should be providing as much information as we possibly can, I just don't see why this piece of information should be left out of the article. Beast from da East (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article from Village Voice talks a lot about Waites. One sentence says, "He would later demand that his name be removed from the cast altogether; he remains uncredited to this day." I would definitely support a mention in the "Cast" section. I don't have a strong preference for a bulleted item or a sentence after the list, though the latter may permit some context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I also support a mention in the Cast section, given the above mentioned crediting fact about Waites. Hoverfish Talk 14:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If he demanded that his name be removed, wouldn't it make more sense to discuss this, with the source, in the production section? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a preference where the context should go, but his name should at minimum appear in the "Cast" section, with a note or whatever is similar. I just checked the AFI Catalog for this film, and it does list his name with a note as seen here. Ebert's review here mentions him. The New York Times does as well. If we ever shy away from identifying uncredited roles, it would be because they are not verifiable (by secondary sources) or not noteworthy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the shooting section ends with an unsourced fact relating to this, so we could kill two birds with one stone with this... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Waites is mentioned as being in the film on the Internet Movie Database as I mentioned above. As the user above mentioned his name has appeared in article for the Village Voice as well as the AFI catalog, NY Times and Ebert's review. Another search I did shows that both CNN and Rolling Stone magazine have also made mention of Waites in the film so we have quite a few reliable sources. Do we have a consensus? Beast from da East (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I support the suggestion made by Lugnuts. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Beast from da East, I would stay away from referencing IMDb and any databases that reference it. But indicating that Waites still appeared in the film and was uncredited, as referenced by the critics reviews and that AFI Catalog, can be put in the Production section in the sentence following his dismissal either as a footnote or as a sentence there. Also add the name of his character there so that way the plot section can use his character name where it is important if indeed he is a main character. The other option is to add the sentence in that paragraph following the main listing in Cast, as I've done with many of the cameo appearances for Pixels (2015 film). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

1965 MGM vault fire

This article desperately needs some help.

I know virtually nothing of film history, yet I've heard of this fire. I assume this means it was a significant event.

The article, however sat around for several years as the 1967 MGM vault fire. Most of the current content was added with that wrong title and is unsourced. It currently has all of one source.

I'm hoping that someone here is starting with some knowledge in the field and can get some of the basics nailed down with significantly less effort than would be involved for me. Any assistance would be appreciated. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't normally work with historical events, but you're right it's important. I'll watchlist it and get started on research. I must have some book resources somewhere from some past media history classes. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, it seems like there was a totally different fire in 1967 on the MGM lot (Lot #2) that destroyed some sets. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Situation with Armageddon

There's a edit warring/dispute situation in Armageddon. Those involved besides me include Gareth Griffith-Jones, TheOldJacobite, Beyond My Ken, GreenMeansGo and Aledownload. There a serious clash of style and issues with the article's infobox on the cast table of it and the cast section of that movie. TheOldJacobite has been shrinking the cast section down to unnecessarily low levels, which that movie has a lot of notable actors on it and Gareth Griffith-Jones has removed most of the cast in the infoboxes which the names he removed are on the bulletin board of the theatrical poster. They haven't stopped doing that and the article is under full protection for a week as a result of this dispute. We need all the help we can get to solve this situation. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to discussion: Talk:Armageddon (1998 film)#Welcome to the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As a note, I was the one who requested protection and started the talk page discussion, but I have no editorial opinion either way as to which content should be included in the article. GMG ^talk 18:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

C'mon, it's not the end of the world... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The situation with Armageddon isn't resolving very well. TheOldJacobite and Gareth Griffith-Jones are acting like they are making things better with Armageddon which they are not and they refuse to listen to reason. They want to remove most of the names in the infobox, since the bulletin box has eight actor names on it, including Willis and they want to leave only Willis's name on it, based on Beyond My Ken's ideas. That's not a good sign. The situation requires a lot of help than we realize. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to keep an eye on Armageddon in case we can have another edit war over the issues with the infobox, cast section and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The clash of the cast section of Armageddon is happening again. TheOldJacobite has removed the majority of actors in that section, which is unnecessary. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of cast section of the movie

There will be a discussion about the cast section of Armageddon. So it will involved this issue whatever it's better for the cast list, as seen on this diff and this diff. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This has been talked to death. You have no consensus for an expanded cast list. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you think that. You don't know anything about doing what you think is right for this wiki. You're becoming disruptive on most of the film article pages. You are blind and one-sided on this issue, you have no respect for other editors about that cast section, you refuse listen to reason from them. You're becoming a problem on those pages, not a problem solver. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a better discussion of the cast section as to what level of detail to give, in general (not just for Armageddon). We are not IMDB, we're not going to list out every role (unless that list is super short like with Moon) obviously, but I think there is value in keeping a very trim list to include characters specifically listed in the billing block for a film and those that are essential to a concise plot summary. Any parts outside of those should be avoided, unless the role is something of note by third-party sources (and these can then be given in prose). And this should mean that plot summaries should not be forced to include minor characters just to justify their inclusion in a cast list. There's going to be some subjective nature to this, but a tight cast list is much more professional looking that trying to list all actors possible. --Masem (t) 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem is there is a lot of important characters in some movies, not just on the billing block. There are reasons with editors like me do with those sections. Like in Armageddon, there are characters in the cast section that have survived the mission on the asteroid, those who have died on that mission, those who are essential in the control room and they are being repeatedly removed by TheOldJacobite and anyone else for very poor reasons. We're not saying we should do this like IMDb, we're saying that who should only list some essential characters in that section like the ones I just mentioned on here. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Except again, with concise plot summaries, we have to consider that we don't have space to include every character that may have a good number of spoken lines. For Armageddon, the only characters from the control room that are critical would be Thorton's (as mission commander) and David's (the general that wants to trigger the failsafe plan) characters. Everyone else in the control scenes are unnecessary to mention in a concise plot, even if they have multiple lines or reappear frequently. --Masem (t) 15:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is that a lot of every readers has a right to know about the essential characters in the cast section and not just the ones listed in plot summaries & cast sections. There are more cast and characters the readers have a right to see in those sections in the film articles. Like in Armageddon, they have a right to know about those who survived and died in that asteroid, few in the control like Jason Isaac's character and Chris Ellis's character. In Home Alone, they have a right to see some of the other cast sections that have been removed for very poor reasons, like most of the McCallister family (which have been removed) and few others. There are a majority of film articles that many readers have a right and need to know about every essential characters in cast sections and not just the ones mentioned in plot summaries and billing blocks. Not in IMDb way, but enough to satisfy many readers. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The only one established as MOS is that the cast listing in the infobox should follow the billing block, and that should be a poster with a normal billing block, not one that just has a bunch of star names on top. Then you can discuss or debate whether the main Cast section listing should be the billing block, the opening/closing title card sequence, the production notes list, or the closing credits. If you go by closing credits, then check whether there's a hierarchy of main roles, at which you can then draw a line to split the main roles from the "Helicopter Pilot #1" minor roles, which would be discussed in a paragraph following the main list. If they just list in order of appearance then you won't be able to do that with the closing credits. If the film is known for having a gazillion notable actors like with Sharknado 4 then you can create a second list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not having seen the film, I am not sure where the main roles line should be drawn in this case. But by looking at the version before TheOldJacobite's edit and the one after, and by comparing the Cast section with what we have in the Plot, I'd rather have the (main) cast list limited to the roles that are described in the plot. Any secondary roles can be placed in a secondary list, like in the example given by AngusWOOF above. Hoverfish Talk 17:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not 100% sure if they would allow this idea in many films articles. But it is possible. If you seen that movie, you would know about the roles that some of these characters did on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's my point in reverse: if you haven't seen the movie, and don't know what each character did, all that you see in a cast list that is not explained under Plot is rather a lot of unconnected bits of info than any reader's right to know something concrete. I am for more information only if I can somehow connect it without having to see the movie. Hoverfish Talk 17:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

To a point. There are some character descriptions in cast sections in some of the film articles since they wouldn't know the contributions of some of the characters on that movie not mentioned in plot summaries are. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I remember a story with character descriptions in Die Hard 2 last year, and again it was between TheOldJacobite and you. I had offered a suggestion for a sub-list under "Stuart's mercenaries " but it was not accepted and the extra character descriptions did not prevail. Hoverfish Talk 18:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Whichever method you chose for Armageddon, be sure to put in some embedded notes so others who watch the movie later can easily confirm if needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: You said you have Principal cast and Supporting cast in Sharknado 4, right? BattleshipMan (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for that film, I organized the principal one by the title cards. The closing credits list those same main characters first in a slightly different sequence, followed by the two actors who play Little Gil, then a huge list of characters in alphabetical order last name, then "Christine" (the car) and "Petunia" (a mascot character in Sharknado films). Then there's a list of actors grouped under "Background" which I did not include, unless they were notable like The Chippendales. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could use that in some of the movies, including Armageddon, if possible. Why can't we do that? BattleshipMan (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Avengers: Infinity War is using Top Billing Block for its cast order as determined on their talk page. Apparently there are a large number of names on top for their poster. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe Armageddon is known to be a movie that features a large number of celebrity cameos like the Sharknado sequels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this edit right? / Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

Hello together,

I edited the table under the point Box office performance of the article Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). I removed the text “-$320 million” from the “Budget” cell of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales because I couldn’t find a corresponding record in the given reference, neither in it’s current nor in a past version. The mentioned info was added by Foodles42.

I only want to ensure myself. Maybe there are other informations about the film budget somewhere…😇🤓💡

--Molekularbiologe (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like that range comes from Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales itself. We do not always get to know the precise budget, so when there are multiple sources reporting different numbers, we instead show the estimated range. I would restore that text as well as the relevant citations from the film's own article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that Foodles42 forgot to include a source when he added it. A source needs to be copied over to ensure that the article complies with WP:Verifiability. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Poem included in plot...

In Beauty in Trouble there is the whole poem by Robert Graves in the Plot section. It surely is very relevant, as the movie uses its title, it is sung at the intro and the plot seems to follow its outline. But a whole poem in the plot section does seem strange. Hoverfish Talk 05:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I would exclude it as too much detail. Perhaps the poem warrants its own Wikipedia article, but I am not sure of its copyright status to permit a republishing (especially in full) on Wikipedia. Even if a poem was in the public domain, it is likely indiscriminate without any context to connect the poem with the film (beyond the obvious title and intro). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. The plot section is for describing what happens on screen. There's no need to have the poem included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

12 Monkeys (again)

There is currently a discussion (debate might be a more appropriate word) on the 12 Monkeys talk page as to whether 3 quotes from the film, formatted as references, are necessary for the plot section. This matter was discussed last August, with the clear consensus being against including them. The discussion erupted again recently after I removed the quotes. BrightR is alone in wanting to maintain the quotes, and selectively cites policies and guidelines to support them. I argued that the quotes are not illuminating, and that if they are truly necessary, they should simply be quoted in the plot. Formatting them as references makes no sense to me. Three other editors, including Doniago, have reverted and posted to the talk page, but the debate rages on. Can some other experienced FilmProject editors comment over there? At some point, this has to be put to rest. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is consensus-by-mob which goes against a specific guideline that recommends using references in plot sections, and the reason for removing these references is "not needed", which is against policy. Bright☀ 18:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the problem is these bad-faith accusations of multiple editors who oppose these primary-source inline citations for that article, claiming that they are violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in not supporting that unconventional approach. Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." I suggest making the case for using secondary sources, rather than using the primary source itself to attempt to clarify complicated aspects of the primary source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, can you clarify what these "bad-faith accusations" are, please? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to last year's discussion with multiple editors opposing BrightR in using primary-source inline citations. It is bad faith for them to assume that such editors are in utter violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I get the sentiment of referencing quotes to address a "complex plot point", it crosses the threshold from being able to provide a "straightforward" description of the plot to going beyond that. The talk page involved bringing up secondary sources, which is fine, but why not use these in the first place? If a plot point is contentious among editors, then either write the summary on a higher level until all is in agreement, or use a secondary source to tackle the matter directly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think there was any contention between editors regarding the plot, only about the use of these quotes as references. And this is still the point of contention, as you know. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Erik, is there any chance of this matter being resolved, considering that BrightR listens only to the sound of his own voice? All discussions of this matter have now gone stagnant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I am listening to Wikipedia policies and guidelines while you are engaging in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 09:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So, everyone who disagrees with you (at least half a dozen editors, by my count) has ownership issues, while you are the sole editor abiding by WP's policies. What a burden that must be for you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Linking directly to IMDb title or name from within lists

I've asked before, and the answer was plainly "no". Even Template:IMDb name states that "it should only be used in the "external links" section of an article". And yet there seems to be a way of wikilinking directly to IMDb, not sure how this works but [[imdbname:0698757|Svetlana Proskurina]] produces: Svetlana Proskurina (try it), and I find it lately in plenty of filmographies and award lists. I think that this practice should not spread. Could this be a bug in the software, or could it be reported as such? Or how else could we stop it? Hoverfish Talk 19:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue was raised at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_140#IMDB_hack a couple of years ago. I think it is wrong to treat IMDB as an "inter-wki" rather than an external link. We could add something to MOS:FILM if we are in agreement that IMDB should follow the guidelines outlined at WP:EL. It will be difficult to enforce at a technical level because to my knowledge there is no way of trackings its usage, unlike a template. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Search finds about 700 pages. --Izno (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

A-ha! If we can track the usage then it does make it worth doing something to tackle it, that is if we all agree that this is indeed a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In terms of agreement, here is what I got from @Erik: and @Lugnuts: when I asked: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_65#External_links_in_filmographies Hoverfish Talk 00:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure about consensus here, but I made a suggestion in MOS:FILM. Hoverfish Talk 01:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Connie Corleone

An article about Connie Corleone was deleted per AfD back in 2013. Last year, it was recreated. I reverted, citing the previous AfD, and the article has since been restored. I see no significant improvement in the article, and nothing that proves the character's notability apart from the films. Does this have to go through AfD again? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

So much has been written about the Godfather films that it seems likely to be able to have stand-alone articles for its main characters. While there may be some redundancy in terms of content, what differs is the scope, which may allow for a more focused and cohesive presentation about a particular character. This, for starters, seems like good character-centric coverage. If there is more like that, then there could be an article of that focus that would be out of place in any particular film's article (or the series article). I think, though, it is important to do a good job of it to "prove" its presence compared to just having in-universe detail about the character, which tends to happen. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is more coverage. I'm definitely seeing sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article, especially when searching in Google Books with her name and "female" or "woman". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Spoiling the spoiler

I'd like opinions if I'm on the right track in my edit/ES here [1]. Spoilers/plot twists are ok, sure, but I think, in general, it is best to wait with them in the plot until they are revealed in the fiction. Or is the opposite true, spoilers should generally be introduced when they become "relevant"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should treat spoilers no differently than other content. Our goal should always be to write an easily readable and understandable article. When revealing a plot twist makes the work easier to understand, I do so where it will best serve the reader. Otherwise, I generally do follow the film's script. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends. Sometimes, stating the spoiler ahead of time is necessary to make the plot concise; Memento establishes the structure of the film that specifically notes that the B&W scenes lead right into the color scenes so that are part of the same story, rather than waiting until the very end to talk of this. On the other hand, there's no reason to mention in The Usual Suspects that Verbal is really Keyser at the very start since it doesn't help to simplify the narrative. --Masem (t) 23:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I and many others keep them out of the lead (and out of the Cast section) unless they actually need to be in the lead (or Cast section). We had a lengthy discussion about this in 2016 at the WP:Spoiler talk page: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 17#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. I cannot stand it when editors spoil the plot for the sake of spoiling and then wave WP:Spoiler around as if that justifies it. And, yeah, like in your edit summary, the The Sixth Sense example was mentioned in that aforementioned discussion. Editors agreed that there is no need whatsoever to include the twist in the lead of that article. When it comes to revealing what a spoiler is, though, rather than a vague mention about the spoiler, I don't see that we shouldn't if the context is needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, this helps. I was thinking specifically of the plot-section, but of course an article is larger than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and cannot really decide what is more preferable. On one hand, it makes sense to write exactly what unfolds on screen, but on the other hand, revealing the key detail earlier also makes sense to understand critically the subsequent events. After all, these plot summaries should not exist to be titillating reads to substitute the film. They're supposed to be read so the rest of the article is easier to understand. Since the reveal happens either way in a full reading of the plot summary, it's not that big of a deal where it happens. Just should not count a reader's "enjoyment" in presenting a summary to them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO we shouldn't be worrying about spoilers - people who come to an encyclopaedia page about a film ought to know in advance that it will tell them what happens. The normal approach is to set out the plot in the order it happens, but it is reasonable to override this where revealing key information earlier makes for a clearer and more straightforward summary of the storyline. MapReader (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can necessarily assume that. I know I've read a plot summary before while I was watching a movie just to make sure I understood what happened, and I'm probably not the only one. There's also the idea that in some cases telling the spoiler up front leads to a very different story than what's presented. --Deathawk (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Erik, MapReader. We've mentioned three films in this thread that currently do plots "my" way regarding the plottwist. Alien: Covenant, The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects. In your opinion, would any of those be improved by changing this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care... in my experience, it is very likely that such a plot summary will be rewritten again and again, so I don't put much stock in achieving an ideal presentation of that particular section. There are just too many ways to summarize about happens on-screen. I think the time is better spent writing good content in the rest of the article. Compared to plot summaries, such content rarely changes. I wanted to share my thoughts in general, but I don't think any editor should sweat too much about that kind of thing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Including Academy awards in tables of other international festival winners

I reverted this edit [2] as I find it improper to have a column for Academy Awards in other international festival winners. The information is not even parenthetical in the scope of other festivals but belongs to the film article. If anyone thinks Academy Awards honors should be mentioned in a separate column in other film festivals, please comment. Hoverfish Talk 10:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like two unrelated awards. So what if a Golden Bear winning film gets an Academy Award nom? Why end with the Oscars? Why not other awards? If someone started an article called "List of films that won the Golden Bear and an Academy Award" it would be deleted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless we can find sources that regularly link the two awards then Wikipedia shouldn't be doing it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Help Needed: Expanding The Leatherface Draft

Paleface Jack and myself have been slowly working on the draft User:Paleface Jack/Leatherface (Revision), and are seeking volunteers to help with the expansion to hopefully bring it to Good Article or Featured Article quality, and ultimately replace the current subpar Leatherface. Any help is appreciated. Dark Knight 2149 20:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

ByTowne Cinema Stub

I am going to be adding some new subsections (with information, images, research and citations) pertaining to the ByTowne Cinema. I aim to add about 800 words in addition to the pre-existing text. Let me know if there are any suggestions. Thanks! --Tealtea21 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Special effects in Final Destination 3

Hello Wikipedians. I've currently placed Final Destination 3 for FAC (yeah, again). Unfortunately, a user thinks that there is a problem with close paraphrasing in the article, especially the "Filming and effects" section. I was wondering, could someone who is an expert, or at least understands what all of the information provided means so that the section can be rewritten? PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

i comment about reference format.

Tenebrae opinion that, example rotten tomatoes reference, should be

|publisher=rotten tomatoes (fandango media)

tenebrae take issue with my change, which follow frequent style of

|work=rotten tomatoes |publisher=fandango media

which correct? which advisable? which common? is personal preference or rule to enforce? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

i comment to expand opinion. i think not advisable to put rotten tomatoes in publisher, which imply rotten tomatoes is publisher. no rotten tomatoes inc publish rotten tomatoes, only fandango media (was flixster).

also tenebrae have problem with italic for rotten tomatoes. what you opinion? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is a work, not a publisher, so |work= or |website= should be used, NOT |publisher=. The publisher is Fandango Media. If Tenebrae has an issue with how {{cite web}} renders |website= or |work=, they are welcome to use {{noitalic}} to suppress italics if appropriate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not an online magazine or a news site but a review aggregator. As such, it is not italicized at its Wikipedia article, Rotten Tomatoes, nor at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics (except for a single inadvertently italicized usage amid ten non-italicized).--Tenebrae (talk)

i thank you joeyconnick for comment. above tenebrae comment: note italic usage is in context of theoretical quote sentence from article.

goal in current discussion is to establish guideline for having italic in review aggregator or not. currently exact guideline on subject exist anywhere, manual of style has vague comment about case by case basis.

once this discussion over no need for such conflict again, we all follow same format in future. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: The issue is not whether or not it takes italics. The issue is you are reverting someone who is listing Rotten Tomatoes in a semantically correct way (as a work or website) and instead listing it as the publisher of the information. The documentation at {{cite web}} clearly explains what constitutes a publisher, and it is not a website or a publication. If you have an issue with how the template renders text entered in the |website= or |work= parameters, please take it up at Template talk:Cite web. Or, as previously suggested, use {{noitalic}} to suppress the italics. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, WP:COMMONSENSE. Rotten Tomatoes is not italicized. Yet you're suggesting we put it in a field that italicizes. That goes against any sort of real-world logic. As for {{noitalic}}, I can't see the logic in making something convoluted with extra coding when we can simply not use an italicized field in the first place. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

because joeyconnick point out, and i agree, meaning of field is not correct. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

i raise related point of discussion: do all film article use no italic template for rotten tomatoes? is acceptable at global level? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not use (or advise the use of) templates inside of the {{cite}} templates to change formatting. A) That corrupts the metadata and B) it is the templates's responsibility to take care of formatting. --Izno (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:ITALICTITLE websites that are not online newspapers/magazines are taken on a case-by-case basis. As far as I can tell there is no policy or guideline that dictates whether "Rotten Tomatoes" should be italicised. I sympathise with Joeyconnick's point that Fandango could be considered the "publisher" in this case, but I would say this is only true if Fandango execute a level of control over the content. If this is the case then I agree that Rotten Tomatoes should be considered a "work" and italicised; hoever; if Rotten Tomatoes operates autonomously then I would consider RT self-publishing and Fandango simply the "owner" rather than the publisher, in which case the title should not be italicised. It is worth noting that Wikipedia's article about Rotten Tomatoes does not italicise the title, unlike we do for films, newspapers, books etc. I would argue that this debate needs to be settled at the article talk page itself because we should be taking our formatting from how the title is formatted at the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo publishes articles analyzing box office results (example), but it's mostly a database. Rotten Tomatoes publishes editorials (example), but it's mostly a review aggregator. So, I don't italicize them in prose, but I don't care that much what other people do. In citations, I follow the advice of {{cite web}}, which says not to use the "publisher" field for websites. Sometimes people change the citations I add to say "publisher=", which I find somewhat pointless. I think they care more about this than I do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

i think this is good point. i not have opinion that all reference to rotten tomatoes in article should be italics, but it is not needed to contradict reference style because preference. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but WikiProject Film MOS shows that Rotten Tomatoes is not in italics.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

i note manual of style does not say rotten tomatoes must not have italic, and manual of style have no format for reference rotten tomatoes. and you change manual of style without discuss to remove italic by preference. i do protest this actions. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

i find Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 124#Assuming no change to CS1... which agree no italic for rotten tomatoes in article context but use work in reference. if does not apply to film then we need own consensus. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

also is acceptable to make change to existing reference without consensus here? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Our MOS seems a bit ambiguous on the issue, while some of our templates like {{cite web}} couldn't be more clear. It's understandable that this has caused some confusion. Looking outside of Wikipedia, the CMOS has wavered back and forth, with the latest edition recommending that only websites that have had a "printed counterpart" at one point in time should be italicized (see this). On the other hand, the MLA Style Manual strongly advocates that titles of websites are always italicized in citations. This passage from a former head of editorial services states, "A good editorial policy should be simple and not demand hairsplitting by writers, editors, or readers." He goes on to explain the benefits of always italicizing website titles in both prose and citation formats, arguing that a rule or definition of when to do so "would be endlessly debatable, given all the variations in online publication". He also points out how the context surrounding the title can come into play (i.e., "a posting on Facebook" vs "the CEO of Facebook").
So while I don't think this debate will be settled here, I think it's important to realize that there are different schools of thought after all these years, and it's still evolving. The MLA is one of the most commonly used formats in K-12 and college, so I get that our citation style supports it's stance on website titles. As for prose, our MOS is partly to blame for leaving a lot of leeway for inconsistency to thrive. I say partly, because in some ways, it may be too early in the debate to take a side. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

i raise point: is acceptable to go against suggestion of cite web template and break use meta data? as ninja robot pirate observe, cite web template has following:

Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website).

i do not think it can be argue that rotten tomatoes is not name of website rotten tomatoes. so rotten tomatoes must be put in work, and work make it italic. if we not use cite web maybe issue not relevant. but i not sure change cite web template to text is good idea. however if necessary and to make please different opinion of user then possibly execute idea. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm having a hard tim understanding what you're saying, but WP:FILMMOS does not italicize Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Box Office Mojo — where also are not italicized in their respective articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

since depend much on rotten tomatoes page it self, i continue on Talk:Rotten Tomatoes#i comment on is rotten tomatoes publisher of content or publication. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Films that break the Fourth Wall

This category was just created today and is currently being populated. I removed a couple films from the category, Ferris Bueller's Day Off and High Fidelity, as I don't believe "breaking the fourth wall" is a defining feature of the films. In general, though, do we feel this is a necessary category? I'd like to hear from other FilmProject editors on this. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This category has already existed before under a similar name and was deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30#Category:Films that break fourth wall. I would speedy-delete this one. Generally speaking, though, I would be okay with having a Wikipedia list article about such films using secondary sources that highlight this characteristic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that most of the films that are readily coming to mind that break the fourth wall do it as a gag rather than a defining characteristic, and that listification may be the better option. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need such a list, when the Fourth wall#In cinema section has examples as above that aren't even properly sourced yet? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As before it has WP:CATVER problems. If the speedy is declined a second AFD is in order. TheOldJacobite I dabbed your HF link. I hope that is okay with you. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk MarnetteD|Talk 13:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't "need" a list, but I remember researching this out of curiosity and seeing the potential for one. Of course, I'd rather that a well-sourced one be rolled out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If secondary sources discuss this grouping of films then it would qualify for a list under WP:LISTN. WP:CATDEF is different, because it not only requires a certain category to be notable it also requires it to be defining, which is far tougher criteria IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on splitting film, director and actor award articles by decades

Editors support one sortable table for film award articles and one sortable table for director and actress/actor awards.
Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Since last year, User:‎Michael 182, also as User:TwentySteps (blocked) and via various IP edits (some blocked for socking), has been splitting several film award articles that were previously arranged in one whole table, most of them sortable, into tables by decades. Venice Festival awards: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Berlin Festival awards: [7], [8], [9], [10]. He has also done various changes in Academy Awards and Primetime Emmy Awards which are outside of my scope of interest in films. Note also that I have not opposed the division by decades in director and actor awards as this is also outside my focus of interest, plus I find no meaningful sortability damaged in so splitting them.

From several discussions I have participated or just followed in WP:Film, I am aware that by longstanding consensus the preferred format for presenting film award lists, is by using one stortable table. Splitting such a table to smaller tables by decades (sortable or not) disables any meaningful sortability throughout the whole list. If split by decades, one cannot get either a full alphabetical list of Directors or of Films that won a certain award any longer. Since the user claims that there is not sufficient evidence that such consensus exists, I am doing here a formal RfC to have some consensus on this issue clearly found in one place, also for future reference. 1. Should the film award articles be kept in one sortable table or split in decades? 2. Should director and actress/actor awards be kept in one sortable table or split in decades? Hoverfish Talk 14:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Support one sortable table. Reviewing the diffs, I was honestly expecting a much longer list of films. But considering the relatively small size of these lists of films, I see no compelling reason to split by decade. These lists would need to be much longer to warrant any splitting. WP:SIZERULE has some application here, indicating that list articles could be much longer than the readable prose size especially to preserve a sortable table. That to me says that sortable tables are permitted to be concentrated and quite large. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Support one sortable table. If there are only 1-2 entries per year, there's no reason to split that by decade. And these are for annual awards, it is not a big deal. On the flip side if it were tens or hundreds of media per year then that would warrant it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Support a single sortable table. By splitting each decade into a separate table you are losing the sorting functionality and gaining absolutely nothing in terms of organization and structure. Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Support a single sortable table. To add a specific item to Betty Logan's point you lose the functionality of alphabetic sorting. MarnetteD|Talk 04:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Support single sortable table (invited by the bot). One additional reason. When you split it, the user would need to know that additional piece of info (e,g, the decade) in order to find it. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Support single sortable table for acting and directing articles as readers can and probably often will wish to sort by familiar names across decades of films; however, sortability is not really needed in the Academy Award for Best Picture article as producers are mostly unknown to general readers who probably don't want to see all the films by a specific producer across multiple decades. Also, most modern films have multiple producers, which makes logical sorting basically impossible for any specific producer's name from a list of names in a single table cell. Btw, I just reverted another split by decade in all the Academy Awards lists for acting and directing. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

It is true that there is no need to divide the table by deacdes based on the size of the article now. But, over time, the bytes will increase and, as the text accumulates in one single table, it will make it more difficult to look through the text. It will also make it similar to the format of the other Venice Film Festival awards. Despite the fact that they handle different kinds of awards, that doesn't mean that they can't have similar formats. Michael 182 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is an exaggeration to worry about list growth "over time". Looking at Golden Lion as an example, adding a new film to both distinct lists is an increase of 217 bytes. The current article size is 17,578 bytes. WP:SIZERULE indicates that the rules of thumb apply less strictly to list articles than they do with prose articles, but let's go with 60 kB as the cutoff anyway. The difference between now and then is 42,422 bytes. If we simply added two films every year, it would take over 195 years for it to reach 60 kB in size. Of course, perhaps there will be more prose in that article, but it is still very slow growth overall. Essentially, list size is not an issue now and won't be for these articles for a long time. (Not to mention that there will likely be advances in Wikipedia, e.g., more powerful filtering options even for the biggest sortable tables.) If you want to talk about much broader scopes and how to sort films under these, that makes sense, but these aren't the lists to be rearranging. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point that you still can get a list of Directors and Films that won the award even with the sortable table divided by decades. Just because they are not on the same page, that doesn't mean that it is not possible to do that. Also, by dividing the table, the text is actually organised in a better way as it makes it easier to focus on reading only specific parts of the table that you want to read. As I've commented, despite the fact that there are different Venice Film Festival awards and they have different information to sort, that doesn't mean that they can't have similar formats. Michael 182 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Notting Hill (film)

Notting Hill (film), 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. AIRcorn (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Boxofficestory.com and Jpbox-office.com/

So I keep seeing the site Boxofficestory.com added as a source to articles, specifically on French articles and how many visitors they have seen. When comparing it to known publishers, the sites seem to be often correct the I can not find anything that makesit fall under WP:RS. Jp-boxoffice claims it takes some content from sources that seem reliable, but it also bases its information on this section of the site, but it also claims some of its information is pulled from Boxofficestory.com. As I can't find a lick of anything on that site that states where their information comes from, should we be using/removing these sources? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing. For what it's worth, jpbox-office.com is used fairly often on French Wikipedia. They have different standards than us, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of JP-boxoffice's sources seem to be legitamte, while others (such as Box Office Story itself) are unclear. If there is no further sourcing, I'd suggest not to use either as we could be using superior sources that JP-boxoffice already uses, and Box Office Story does not seem reliable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Box Office Predictions

At the moment, box office predictions from BoxOffice are being added to several large film articles.

Deadpool 2 - diff of addition by @Disneyisatale:
Solo: A Star Wars Story - diff of addition, second addition by @TropicAces:, added numerous more times by @96.242.50.246:
Avengers: Infinity War - diff of addition by @JoeyFox1019:

At Deadpool 2, the addition was reverted twice by one @SNUGGUMS: (once, twice), but ultimately readded by @Adamstom.97:. A similar addition was made to Black Panther (film) (diff), and the content has remained in the article up until the current version.

I myself have removed the content from Solo, feeling that it violates WP:CRYSTALBALL and failing to see the significance of inclusion for this information at this time. (See the Solo talk page) Adamstom in the restoration of the material at Deadpool stated that is accepted practice, but I've never seen such practice until recently. I do not see the merit in having a prediction for box office numbers for the sole purpose that it exists, and it is pretty rote coverage anyway, unless the projection is significant perhaps by being astonishing, or something, idk? I admit that such projections might be useful once box office numbers are finally in, perhaps to help contextualize final box office numbers especially in the case that box office very much differs from projections. However, I don't see why articles would need to include projections before the film is released beyond a desire to include every minute detail of coverage.

Is there a community consensus for whether or not these should be included for not-yet-released films? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen any discussion about this, but it's probably a good idea to have one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems a clear WP:CRYSTAL problem to me. The 'pedia is to report what has happened not what might. While it is just possible that a comparison of what did occur to their guess work might be encyclopedic its not anything that I would be interested to read. I would favor not including them in film articles. MarnetteD|Talk 03:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MarnetteD. To me it seems like fanboy enthusiasm overriding the common sense approach of WP:CRYSTAL. If, after a film opens, its gross is notably different (above or below) from estimates prior to its opening and this is commented upon in multiple reliable sources, then it may be appropriate to talk about the estimates. But before is pure speculation. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've stated before, they're too speculative and often subject to change over time. MarnetteD sums it up pretty well. I'm fully against including mere projections no matter what as those also are all completely meaningless trivia, especially compared to actual results. It's even worse for films not yet released. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely not a recent thing, and it doesn't violate CRYSTAL because we are not predicting anything, we are noting someone else's predictions. If they are coming from a reputable source then they can serve as a good comparison for when we get actual numbers (if a film over- or under- performs). If there turns out to be no noteworthy difference between predictions and actual, then the predictions don't need to be mentioned. In the meantime it is harmless to have a small, well-sourced section giving an indication of what the box office is expected to be, similar to having a short premise section before a film comes out and a full plot summary can replace it. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

For future films, I do not see reporting on projections to be a violation of CRYSTAL, especially when the information is phrased clearly that the number is a projection, not actuality. Box office tracking is a part of this industry, not like it's audience members pulling together numbers; the majority of this info comes from studios themselves. To @SNUGGUMS: saying it is all completely meaningless trivia, especially compared to actual results, look to Black Panther when projected numbers were no where near what it made. It is good to note that. Take for example the following sentences: "[Film] will make $100 million in its opening weekend." vs "[Film] is projected to make $100 million in its opening weekend." If all of this content was being added as in the former, that would definitely violate CRYSTAL. But with the latter, as Adam noted, we are sourcing someone else's projection, not our own. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

They are still guesses. "Projected" or otherwise - "Someone" else's or otherwise - they are guesses which are of no critical or scholarly value. 100s of 1000s of people predict the score of the Superbowl or the World Cup final. All of these are guesses. An encyclopedia does not need to mention any of them. The guesses lead to "patting oneself on the back" if they are right and "well I didn't think things would go that way" if they are wrong. These "harmless" guesses are fine for a blog or a facebook page but they do not belong here. Along with the CRYSTAL problems they are WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. There are also WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS problems. These guesses are essentially news stories and "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Timely news subjects (and that is what these are since, after the film comes out, they are meaningless) not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. This is another alternative to a blog or a facebook page. In the end if the guesses are going to be removed after the film comes out why put it there in the first place. MarnetteD|Talk 05:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the problem with these, but they should be used carefully. First, box office projections for a film that is a month or so from theatrical release is not a CRYSTALBALL problem. (For comparison, a similar question was just asked at WT:NOT about election predictions, and that was determined to not be CRYSTALBALL). I do agree that we should include only the projection as close to the release as possible; we don't need a projection 6 months out. But I would think that when you see what was predicted, and what numbers actually came back, that's a rough indicator how well the film's doing. I don't think every film needs this. A big blockbuster will have impressive numbers, compared to a high drama, Oscar-aiming film, so more appropriate for the blockbuster. But ultimately this is a per-page determination. I just don't think a "no, never" approach is not the best approach. --Masem (t) 05:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

One last thing to note - Box Office is a WP:PRIMARY source for these guesses. Policy wise WP:SECONDARY sources commenting on the Box Office guesses would be what is needed for inclusion in an article. If the consensus is to include this stuff then so be it. Everyone here is a good faith editor with the 'pedia's best interest at heart. Should a day come when those numbers start being manipulated by studios, or whoever, to increase or decrease ticket sales I hope that there will be a rethink on their inclusion. MarnetteD|Talk 05:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is actually a good point for when to think about including them. For example, I know because Speilberg's name on it, there has been interest in tracking Ready Player One's opening Variety THR, so I would think inclusion makes a lot of sense in this specific case. --Masem (t) 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The initial projections from BoxOffice magazine tend to be their own, and I don't think they're a primary source. Tracking info sourced directly from a film studio/official service would be the primary source, no? To this point (and a bit of Masem's initial comment above), the trade publications (THR, Deadline, Variety) tend to report on and have industry tracking much closer to a film's release (when the studios actually start reporting on it). So in the case-by-case situations, maybe BoxOffice with their "long-range" forecast reports should be avoided, and preference should be given to the trade publications close to the film's release when the film "hits tracking" services (as noted in Deadline's wording for Black Panther when it did just that, compared to estimates from when it hadn't). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad we're having this discussion since this has been on my mind too. WP:CRYSTAL is most definitely not against Wikipedia reporting box office forecasts. It's explicitly written this way in WP:CRYSTAL, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." I agree with Favre1fan93 that box office tracking is very much part of the industry, so it can't simply be dismissed as trivia. I think the better question is how much to report about such forecasts and what to do after the film comes out. It's worth noting that there is indeed post-release coverage of reality versus expectation. Films can over-perform or under-perform compared to what the industry predicts, and there is coverage related to that. Furthermore, I can see a case made for condensing multiple numerical estimates into simply a range, though I do think that forecast coverage can help contextualize a film's release. Wikipedia is dynamic, and we can adjust the article accordingly. Like we can't report everything, but if a film wins a certain technical award, we can go back and spend more time on that technical topic. We can see based on post-release coverage which details were irrelevant retrospectively. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's too speculation-y to make me comfortable, but I concede that argument. My thing is, like, what I'm interpreting is the direction of Erik's comment, I don't have a problem with adding these projections after release especially if something about the actual box office numbers warrants contextualization: like how Black Panther greatly outpaced projections. I don't remotely think never have these numbers at any point. Even if consensus says it isn't a WP:CRYSTAL problem, I don't see quite an argument for including it before release, especially in the case of months before release, without the real box office figure to contextualize it. As Masem says, and I agree, it seems to be a case-by-case basis. For that, the inclusion of these numbers and whether this is a case to do so, in my mind, is something that the inclusion of which becomes justified only after release. If the box office hits the dozen projections the industry puts out, the projections in third-party coverage get promptly forgotten, and so I don't see the point of articles keeping such projections; but if the box office significantly over- or under-performed, it becomes a noteworthy figure, and I believe projections are warranted for inclusion. I'm sort of concerned that, like, it will end up at a point where projection numbers become emphasized in their own sections over every film article that has any sort of projection, whether or not the inclusion of such numbers is justified even after release. At that point, I think it becomes a little having them just to have them instead of them increasing a reader's understanding of the topic at hand. For example, at Solo, there is a push to include the numbers purely because they exist, not because they're significant in the context of the release of this particular film, and then to include them in every single article under the same rationale. I'm more of a "wait and see" type of editor, admittedly, which is why I generally am leaning toward "don't include them until after release and the rationale for such numbers becomes apparent when it is alongside real box office numbers". ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Black Panther: who cares what such estimates were (aside from perhaps Marvel fans)!? The official results are what truly matter as those are concrete and not subject to change. There's honestly no good reason to add anything outside of what it actually made (which includes record grosses). Mere speculation about what something could make falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS even if WP:CRYSTAL doesn't quite apply. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, for Black Panther specifically, BBC took note of it doubling its projected first weekend take; it grabbed attention of the movie world because of that impressive return. There is some merit for films that are aimed to be blockbusters to whether they meet, exceed (or greatly exceed) or fail to meet the projections made by reliable sources, even if post-first weekend no one readily makes that connection. It's a figure like a budget; it, alongside total take, give an idea of how decently a film performed, though clearly not sufficient to state that a film did well as a fact (since we're not including marketing, etc.) You're not going to see this same thing for arthouse movies with limited distributions. --Masem (t) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that the box office expectations of a film isn't always indiscriminate or excessive information. It can matter to the financial analysis of a film in determining/gauging its overall success. Now whether it should be included days, weeks, or months ahead of time is up for debate. It can even be provided after a film's release with little or no harm to the article. But one of the main points here is that it doesn't need to be discussed for every film. Taking it into consideration on a case-by-case basis is the right approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's OK to mention box office predictions before the opening if they are made by serious industry sources like BoxOffice (magazine). Many readers are interested which is why many media report it, but don't mention predictions by random media months before release, before the industry tracking services start collecting data and use it for more "scientific" predictions. Any prediction should say in the article text and not just in a reference who made it and when. I think the specific date (or the number of weeks before the opening) and not just month should be in the article text. The same source can make significant changes with new information like trailer views, presales and social media numbers like [11][12]. For example, BoxOffice predicted a $20 million opening weekend for Rampage (2018 film) on March 16, $27 million on March 23, and $31 million on March 30. Some diffs in the original post say "in March 2018" in the article text, and only give the precise date in the references. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We should be careful not to perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the internet after all. IMO this is something to be especially considered when adding predictions before the film's release. Daß Wölf 01:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the day. I think we need to make sure that what we're writing is to serve the reader. All too often I see things a seemingly added to articles simply because they appeared in a trade paper and without the author questioning "who would want to know this?" This leads to bloated articles which contain a ton of useless trivia for us to clean up. To the point at hand we need to ask ourselves "Is it really important to include the box office forecast for this?" Sometimes it is, if news develops around it, or if it was significantly wrong, however I don't really see a point in including forcasts for the next Avengers movie, which will most likely be a hit as predicted. --Deathawk (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

List of animated box office bombs at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Chhote Nawab

Hello. Would someone be able to look at this abandoned draft and determine whether it is likely to be notable. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Release table

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Release table. -- Alex^TW 13:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

BFI page move

Please see the discussion here. It was relisted overnight for more input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the request was closed for the move, and BFI redirects to the article, the archived discussion is now on the dab page: Talk:BFI (disambiguation) Hoverfish Talk 18:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Production sections and introduction sentences.

@Erik: generally likes in his production sections to begin with a introduction sentence reiterating who directed the film among other things, You can see an example of it here as well as currently on the~~It Comes at Night~~ A Quiet Place page I think these are unneeded as they just parrot information that the user looking at such a section would already be familliar with and that a well written article should not include these types of sentences. There was actually some back and forth on the Edge of Tomorrow talk page, with a third (and fourth) opinion being that such a sentence was unneeded. Recently, I tried to similarly cut the intro to A Quiet Place, only to have Erik revert me. I feel we should settle this once and for all. Are these sentences needed or are they just needlessly repetitive. --Deathawk (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a community-wide consensus on this matter. There is no policy or guideline that opposes or supports starting a section with the sub-topic's key details. Points and counterpoints could be made either way. The spirit of MOS:RETAIN should be applied as to prevent editors from enforcing the exact same approach across every article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything in the WP:LEAD must appear elsewhere in the article (with citation). If there is some duplication elsewhere between other sections of the article, that indicates poor writing. --Izno (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

To frame the matter more simply, Deathawk does not think the "Production" section needs to open with any kind of sentence stating the key production details. They prefer more of a "hit the ground running" approach, where I prefer starting a new section with the "final" context rather than starting and proceeding strictly chronologically. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it will all depend on how the production works out. Some are more confusing than others and as with any project as a big as a film, it's never smooth. For example, I'm struggling a bit with my work on The Incredible Shrinking Man article (here). For example, the film began production before the book was published (!?) the films ending was argued about in pre-production, but after test screenings, it was agreed to leave it open-ended (where do I put that last bit?), special effects were shot during production, but more were needed when post-production went into play, so...where do I talk about the special effects? (!?!) . Its complicated. As for Erik's edit shown above, I think it would be able to fit that in, but maybe it would fit a pinch better after the film went unproduced for a bit? That information seems to flow better for me. I think Erik's info is important, as it will be useful that's going to be needed in the prose preferably to have it placed in the infobox, as the purpose of the infobox is to have content that's already mentioned in the article anyways. Just a matter of location I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The "final context" is already stated in the the lead, repeating it just means readers will have to read it twice, which is by definition redundant.--Deathawk (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is so-called "redundancy" everywhere in a Wikipedia article. It's not like we have one lead-section sentence with the key production details and then the very first section in the article body with a very similar sentence. The lead section covers many different key details, and you're assuming perfect retention of all that no matter where they are in the article body. It's simply a reminder or reinforcement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Deathawk inserted their comment before Andrzejbanas's and with an extra indent as seen here. I've already tried to tell them that per WP:THREAD, this kind of thing is not in order. Can someone please confirm this too? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your read of it is correct, but most people don't bother making the change (as it is a very 'small' thing to try to enforce--we have bigger fish to fry). --Izno (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you read my comment about how WP:LEAD is required to be a summary of the article, which means you will have duplication between the lead and other sections? Is your issue actually the duplication (which is required by guideline), or is it that the flow of the section in question is disrupted because it is no longer time ordered? What is the issue? --Izno (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Izno:First of all I should note that I mistyped the film, the one in question is "A Quiet Place" and my issue is that, yes, it breaks the flow and is redundant. The production section is actually well written, to the point where it's immediately apparent who did what even without the opening sentence, therefore it's best just to remove it. The other problem is that if you ignored the plot details, you would be reading very similar sentences (The opening to the lead and the opening of the production section) within about thirty seconds of each other making it very stilted. If you want to view the difference between our two versions you can do so here --Deathawk (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZE, the "fastest" reading generally done is around 333 words per minute (based on 10,000 words / 30 minutes). There are about 943 words between the first two opening sentences and the "Production" section (combining the rest of the lead, the plot summary, and the "Cast" section), so that means close to three minutes. :) Obviously, we know the film well at this point, but not everyone will. So I don't find it detrimental to reinforce the key production details within the article body after that much time absorbing the plot and the cast (assuming a straightforward read). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the production section I guess my big problem with the section is that it begins with the statement "A Quiet Place is a production of Sunday Night and Platinum Dunes;[3] it was produced on a budget of $17 million.[4]" The two companies are never brought up again and while the budget is, it is only marginally so. It'd be better to keep these out of the production section if there is no context for it. I think if we got rid of these two sentences I would be fine with it. In fact it's actually a well written section with those changes made.--Deathawk (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to get some more eyes and opinions on this, if everyone doesn't mind there's a host of edits that Erik has done that uses this "introduction" format, which I do not think is appropriate. I'd like us to be able to settle this matter. --Deathawk (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You have not explained why it is not "appropriate" to open a section with the key details of the sub-topic, especially as to try to ban such openings. You exaggerated that a reader would see the same information in mere seconds and have ignored that it would actually take a few minutes to get to the section. You're assuming perfect retention on the reader's part. There is nothing inherently detrimental about stating the key details. Some information is repeated throughout the article for different purposes. I don't see you throwing a fit that the lead section and the infobox have many of the same names in the same view. Isn't that too repetitious for you? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this practice as it does seem ridiculous to keep repeating the same information when it is already clearly summarised in the lead and infobox, and we avoid other summaries like this such as giving our own summary of a film's reception at the start of that section. But, I don't think we need to be making an outright declaration on whether this can be done or not. Unless there is obvious consensus to avoid this practice, as there is with the reception summaries, then I think this should just be left up to local consensus at each article. I for one would not be keen on having this in an article I regularly edited, especially if I was trying to promote it to GA, but I'm not going to go to articles that do have it just to try and get it changed, if that makes sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

For an article like Edge of Tomorrow, with a pretty robust production section, I think it would be beneficial to weave the "lead in" content into the sections naturally. In an article like A Quiet Place, I'd probably suggest a more natural approach, but it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in this case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, not sure what you mean about reception summaries. You and others do have summary sentences for how critics received a film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

By reception summaries I mean a sentence summarising the reception... can you provide an example of what you think "we" do have? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: The problem is that you assume that the all readers are going to read the article in chronilogical order and I do not think we can reasonably make that assumption. For instance a Marvel fan who has not yet seen Avengers:Infinity War, but was interested in how it was made would most likely avoid the plot section. To that end, if one were to skip over that cast listing and plot point they would reach the production section in under one minute (109 words from below where the writers are mentioned) Now you may resonably say that I'm also making assumptions here, but really a well written article should serve both types of readers and if you look at my revision it retains more than enough context to remind readers of the key aspects, --Deathawk (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's true, so we don't really know how a reader will read an article. Maybe they'll read the "Production" section last. :) In any case, regarding A Quiet Place, you had a problem with that section opening with naming the director and his writing involvement. For the past week, though, the opening sentence has named the production companies and the budget, neither detail which is stated anywhere else in the article body. So is there even a problem with that particular case? Furthermore, you have not answered why you do not have a problem with seeing the same names repeated in the lead section and in the infobox. And is it fair to say that you are against the "Critical response" section reporting what critics overall thought of a film, even though we already say that in the lead section? Maybe we should just start quoting critics individually, right? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

For the production company to be included I feel there needs to be more context to it, otherwise we're just exporting data from the infobox just for the sake of it, which. I feel leads to an uneven read. Is there info about how Platinum Dunes was approached? Were there other companies involved? I feel that sort of stuff would provide the proper context for inclusion but to just say "A Quiet Place was produced by Company X" I feel doesn't really do any service to anyone. I think the budget could be placed in the "filming" subsection or possibly even the reception area. As for your question regarding the "Reception" section I'm not really sure, I don't really work a lot in those areas but my gut feeling is that it's a somewhat different beast because you are not repeating yourself by including such a sentences. For instance, if the first sentence says "A Quiet Place scored X on Rotten Tomatoes" You are not going to find that info further down. --Deathawk (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Production section cleanup discussion

I started a discussion over at the manual of style talk page that I would like to get more eyes on. The link can be found here --Deathawk (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Quoting US release dates for non-American films?

Just reading our Victoria & Abdul article, and the penultimate sentence of the opening paragraph seemed weird to me. With American films, (I'm pretty sure?) we quote one non-American release date if it received wide release somewhere else first, but we don't add the British (or Australian or other Anglosphere) release date "just 'cause" if it was later than the American one (unless there is something noteworthy about it like it made a lot of money in opening weekend in a particular territory, I guess). Is theVictoria & Abdul article just out-of-step, or what? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove it in this context. It's systemic bias that we need to counter. If the article had a "Box office" section, the US can be mentioned there with the relevant box office details as reported by sources. The US distrib should also be dropped (and mentioned elsewhere if needed) for the same reason. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I also agree about this being systemic bias. Hoverfish Talk 15:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes to the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

See also - WP:FILMDIST and WP:FILMRELEASE. If I had a (British) pound for every time I've removed the US release/distribution info from the infobox of a non-US film, I'd be slightly richer. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of accolades received by English Vinglish

An article relevant to this project—List of accolades received by English Vinglish—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sound effect

Shouldn't article be moved to "Sound effects"? Eurohunter (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not per WP:PLURAL. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Big time issue over at a few articles.

We have a big time issue regarding lack of sources over at a few articles, I reverted all edits made by User: 87.14.234.47 on three specific articles, including....

If you will look at the edit logs for today, that user inserted unsourced claims stating that Saban Brands would be teaming up to distribute a new Digimon film reportidly named Digimon Heroes. That IP has been warned twice today and I will be bringing up similar discussion over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon because the same IP also made unsourced edits claiming that there would be an English Dub of Digimon Universe: Appli Monsters. If we could have all hands on deck, that would be great. --IanDBeacon (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@IanDBeacon: - Couple of options if the IP continues. You can request page protection for the article(s) concerned. This will stop IP edits for the duration of the protection. If they're simply being disruptive and continue after being warned to stop, then WP:AIV is the next step. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot notice

Template:Plot notice, which I created in 2010, recently survived TFD (with no preferred opinion from me). My thinking with this template was to encourage editors not to worry so much about how the plot summary is written (since it is rewritten again and again... and again). I wanted to bring it up here in case other editors see a potential use for it with newly-released movies whose articles are highly trafficked. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add this to the "Useful Tags" section of the Project page? If so, we may want to consider other "core" templates that may be appropriate to add there as well. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It does look like a good idea to me Erik, I think it would be beneficial to champion its use and make others working on film articles aware of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User added "Plot Explained" section on Atomic Blonde

User Broomekw has added a new section called "Plot Explained" on Atomic Blonde article.[13] His reasoning when I asked him on his talk page, that because it's apparently complex plot, it needs to go into deeper detail. I feel the plot summary already gives a good explanation of the film's plot and doesn't need a entirely another section just to explain what has already been said in the plot summary. Can I get any other editors views on this?, thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The section goes against WP:FILMPLOT which states "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Any analysis or interpretation of the plot would need to be accompanied by secondary sources. The section was pure WP:Original research so I have taken the liberty of removing it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Misogyny in horror films

There's a page move discussion here for those who are interested in this genre. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Die Hard

There is a discussion in the talk page of Die Hard, regarding the cast section and plot summary of that movie. It's tied three-to-three. Me, Darkwarriorblake and Ducktech89 are in favor of keeping the plot summary and cast section as is while TheOldJacobite, Masem and Doniago are in favoring of removing the named henchmen on that movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the above user canvassed both DWB[14] and DT89[15] and seems to make a habit of calling in "help" over every little disagreement.[16] I could not find any such messages on the talk pages of User:Masem or User:Doniago. Given that I don't really have a dog in whatever "fight" was going on there and only showed up because I noticed the above message, it seems likely that the above was intended to attract sympathetic editors and backfired. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I now feel forced to point out that Battleship has approached me directly in the past to weigh in on matters...presumably ones in which they felt I would offer a sympathetic opinion. Diffs available upon request if someone wants to go there, though an appropriate scan of my Talkpage would probably turn them up easily enough. I'm not going to make an argument as to intent to canvass, just stating the facts here. DonIago (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I noticed something like that when I checked -- maybe he chose not to contact you about this because he thought you'd disagree? Anyway, DT89 had previously only made two tweaks to the article and never touched the talk page (ditto DWB), so their having received notifications seems somewhat suspect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

X-Men film tables

There has been a discussion at Talk:X-Men (film series) recently regarding the potential replacement of the large crew table there with the type of film overview tables that can be found at other pages such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. A comparison of the two options can be seen in my sandbox here. Consensus appears to be forming in favour of changing to the more streamlined overview tables, but I thought it would help to try and get some more eyes on the issue. Any contributions to the discussion would be greatly appreciated! - adamstom97 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Do Cast Lists need Citation

I was cleaning up some production sections when I got pushback in one section from Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs). I removed the casting news from the Hotel Artemis page, and Rusted Autoparts seems to believe that that would prevent the article from ~~getting a "GA" nomination in the future~~ meeting notability requirements. rationalizing that there is now no references for the cast listing section. I find this to be somewhat ridiculous as the film itself would be the needed reference and similar to the "plot section" we do not need to reference it. It gets somewhat tricky in that it's an upcoming film but I still feel that providing ref seems somewhat overkill. ---Deathawk (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A casting section under production is helpful and does need to be sourced; such as knowing who was announced and when they were announced (a big name attached early to a small film , for example, has some significance). This type of news needs sources. On the other had, a strict cast list outside of production can be considered implicitly sourced to the film's credits, but I will say that this should really be sourced, knowing the issue we have when actor articles come up in other venues like WP:ITN and there are problems with sourcing of filmography. --Masem (t) 00:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We're actually trying to get rid of pure casting news littering the production section (focusing more on the" why and how" rather than simply "when") but regardless, I guess what I'm really trying to ask is would an unreffed cast list be a reason for a GA assessment to fail? --Deathawk (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that a cast section that just reads "On DATE, X was announced as a cast member." is not helpful, but, when that date is integrated with other events of the film (for example, if I read the Hotel Artemis page, the film was announced alongside Foster's casting, which is going to draw attention to it), it should be kept. There's a balance needed. --Masem (t) 00:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I feel that's not enough context for it. If we had info on how Foster was chosen for the part then maybe for instance take a look at the casting page for Lady Bird That's the acceptable amount of context. In addition we're trying to avoid listing the public announcements unless there is sufficient context. Putting together two pieces of unwanted content does not equal appropriate context. --Deathawk (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that this film (Hotel Artemis) is not yet released. As one approaches the release, more information may come out to better flesh out that section, with those dates and news items better to be integrated. I agree that if after release that there is nada on any more casting elements, then that information is not useful and should be removed, but I'd wait until after release to verify that. --Masem (t) 01:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a bad approach to an article and just leads to WP:Proseline, furthermore these are never cleaned up and get to a place where there are paragraphs and paragraphs of irrelevant news. I've seen it happen many times before. We should be trimming the fat as we see it. It also, if we leave it until release, looks bad on Wikipedia's part, as many eyes will be looking upon it then, and we do not want to have a subpar article to show them. If it is necessary to state when an actor was cast, it will almost certainty come up in subsequent articles. --Deathawk (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, remember there is no deadline. Proseline is bad in a final article, but there's not that much harm in a developing article (which any unreleased film I would consider to still be developing) since it encourages editors to at least document and source information. It does need to be cleaned up after release, and some films don't get cleaned up after that, but at least that information is there to build on. I'd rather see poor prose and good information than lack of information in otherwise suitable prose. --Masem (t) 02:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is no longer in the draft space which means it is the final article. People are going to see it, and its poor quality will reflect badly on Wikipedia. Further more the trailer is out, which means that the general public is aware that it exist and will start searching for it. Casting dates for the majority of the cast are not considered "good information" either, they are considered trivial. --Deathawk (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "final" article on WP. Articles are always works in progress; the GA/FA are not final events, but goals. I do not disagree that casting dates in isolation of any other information are not good information that should present once the film has been publicly released and a more proper production section can be written (and if no additional production details can be obtained, then casting dates should be removed), but until the film's had its public release and some reaction by critics, we don't know if those casting dates are going to be in isolation forever. Consider it placeholder information that we know we likely won't keep most of the time but there remains a good chance that it could be integrated with proper good information. --Masem (t) 05:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem, at least as I see it, is that we shouldn't be using a live article as a depository for information that may become useful, especially if we think that there is very little chance that the information would become relevant. In the average readers eyes an article in the mainspace is "complete" and we should strive to keep it neat and tidy. Also, while it's nice to think that the production section will eventually be cleaned up, I think we all know that it's unlikely to happen. --Deathawk (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Which is why, as I say below, the solution here is not to have a casting/production section, if there is nothing noteworthy as per MOS to put in it, but to create a straightforward cast list, as the cast for the forthcoming film is formed, referencing each entry accordingly. MapReader (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Deathawk: sorry but when exactly did I say you were preventing the article from achieving GA status? Never once said that. Rusted AutoParts 00:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, you said "Notability" guidelines, I don't know why I thought you said GA. --Deathawk (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no reason to blank a "Production" section. We can debate how "tight" the language can be, but it seems like the last sentence is a reasonable attempt to consolidate multiple sources. (I applied WP:CITEBUNDLE to that.) An example of proseline with this last sentence would be to write instead, "On May 12, this periodical announced that this person joined the cast. On May 30, this other periodical announced that these other people joined the cast. On May 31, this third periodical announced that two other people joined the cast." Instead, it seems like the last sentence combines these details reasonably. You could argue to write it even more simply, that the rest of the cast was rounded out before filming started in May. But nothing on the level of, "Nah, we don't need a 'Production' section at all." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that as I read it I could not find anything salvageable about the section. We don't list context less casting news, we don't list context less announcements to the public, and we don't list minute business details so that means the only thing we're left with is the filming date. Which I did not notice at the time. --Deathawk (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The GA/FA point is clearly a red herring, as no article would even be considered for such a review if it is inherently unstable and incomplete, as is obviously an article about a film yet to be released. In terms of notability, trivia about the dates of individual castings doesn't merit inclusion (without another good reason) and you were right to delete it. However even a cast list in a article about an unpublished film needs referencing, since otherwise there is nothing to support the information. IMO the appropriate outcome here is to produce a straightforward cast list (name of character, name of actor) and reference each entry with the source that provides details of the castings.MapReader (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion regarding how the MOS tells us to write production sections. In November I posted an RFC regarding changes to the overall production wording, it passed unanimously in December, with many commenting about how it was a good way to combat subpar production section. Part of the new MOS states that ". 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." as well as Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. " Clearly the section does not pass either of those tests. Initially I was opposed to putting that wording about casting news in there as I thought it could be bundled like Erik suggested, however I was eventually persuaded otherwise I am not going off of my own opinion here, I'm going off of what the community has stated. --Deathawk (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Production" sections in the past has been a poor presentation of otherwise useful content. Like I stated above, the subpar approach to naming names usually involved specific dates and the periodicals that shared that information. The casting sentence that was in Hotel Artemis did not do this. It kept the date matter simply by just saying "In May" and grouped names. It avoids "simply repetitively listing their dates". Furthermore, the section covers the timeline for the start of development and Lionsgate's backing. The casting sentence could be written in a few ways, including a very concise approach, but the production section reflects the production timeline of the film. I do not find the guidelines to say that should be removed in its entirety. Written more concisely, sure, but not removed outright. As a small example of rewriting, I would avoid the "it was announced" kind of wording as extraneous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Erik please read the MOS, the production section clearly discourages listing out the dates wehn people were casts, in fact that was one of the major goals of the revamp. It's true that we were previously doing it very sloppy however we ended up deciding that it was best away to do away with the majority of casting news rather to do a truncated version. --Deathawk (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove all casting news. The guidelines do not reflect this at all. It advocates for streamlining production coverage in several different ways. It does not say, "Do not include casting information at all." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You are right however it does explicitly,state to " only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history." The casting news included in the article clearly do not meed this criterea. What we are looking for in casting news is how and why actors came aboard. --Deathawk (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Surely the answer to the OP's question is that a cast list does not need referencing (once the film is widely available, its credits stand as the reference), but a casting or production section (where this information meets the MoS requirements) does? MapReader (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much what MP said. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think, though, that the production section warranted total removal? Or a rewrite, or a shortening, or both? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Since this topic seemed to of got way off topic, and now appears to be us arguing over the MOS, I decided to take the debate over on that talk page, you are welcome to join us here --Deathawk (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Hotel Artemis, yes, it's an upcoming film. See Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom where those same references are supporting when they have been confirmed to have joined or reprised in the film and what their roles are in the film. After the film's release, the refs can be removed if they don't add any other useful information that isn't already covered by closing credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS debate

There is currently a discussion regarding various interpretations of the MOS going on over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. It is related to a previous discussion above that took place here yesterday, however it got sidetracked and turned into a MOS matter. You can view the discussion here. --Deathawk (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Tables for TV and film actors

Help! :)

Ok, not a big deal and I am trying to nip something in the bud.

While on RC vandal patrol, I ran across two articles of actors where an IP editor is: -removing filmography tables -misquoting policies to justify theis -making up policies -insisting that if the tables are kept they be be as bare as possible (no info about awards etc). -exhibiting WP:OWN attitudes and behaviors

What I am looking for: Some other users with experience to look at these pages, especially someone who has lots of experience in film and acting pages, especially with tables

Articles in question: Desmond Tan and Zen Chong

Basically I am concerned about a lot of work being lost (on these and future articles) through made up standards for film and actor tables. All input welcome! Sethie (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is tantamount to vandalism. As a rule we don't record non-notable awards so the awards table needs cleaning up a bit, but the IP editor is pretty much ripping encyclopedic content out of these articles. Filmography tables are entirely acceptable (and encouraged) provided they comply with WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Betty Logan (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ocean's twelve

If anyone here could please help with this discussion it would be appreciated Talk:Ocean's_Twelve#La_Marque/LeMarque/LeMarc - Galatz ^Talk 23:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Posters with torn edges

Like the films Hook (film) and In Bruges, the poster for the upcoming film The Wild Pear Tree has torn edges, so I uploaded the poster as it should be (and the only way it can be) as a PNG file. Another user had already uploaded a JPG file, which can only be a rectangle, thus filling in the edges with black. So when I uploaded the PNG file, the other user reverted back to the JPG file. And I don't want to start an edit war, so if it could be settled here that would be great. Thanks. — Film Fan 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"I don't want to start an edit war" Hahaha, mercy. Along with stalking/hounding this is all this user ever does. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful response. I've never been guilty of stalking/hounding, but well done for changing the subject, as always. You will never change. — Film Fan 14:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I was fine with the In Bruges selection because it was very close to looking rectangular anyway. Looking at The Wild Pear Tree and Hook, I find a border more warranted for these because the lack of them strikes me as more distracting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the border, Erik (although obviously a poster that isn't rectangular should not have a rectangular border). I'm talking about the addition of a black background which is not part of the poster. — Film Fan 11:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Some input would be greatly appreciated. — Film Fan 21:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I just need someone to state the obvious. — Film Fan 10:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

While I get liking the "neatness" of the PNG version, it's worth pointing out here that you're replicating the poster in a way it will never be seen. These posters aren't getting produced and put in marquees with transparent backings or anything similar. The black is part of the marketed item. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Netflix films at TfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion related to disambiguation of "TV specials"

A multi-article move discussion which maybe of interest to partipants of this WikProject is being held at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Requested mass move of TV specials - 29 April 2018. Some of the items involved are animated shorts and are proposed to be disambiguated using (film). --Netoholic @ 16:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Í

Old announcements for upcoming films

An IP editor recently added several upcoming projects to List of Columbia Pictures films, but the sources date back to 2010 in some cases. Is there a problem with using such old announcements to source upcoming projects? It seems to me that you'd probably want up-to-date sources that confirm something is actually happening. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think these pages should follow WP:NFF. If a film hasn't started filming it is not "upcoming" IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That'd probably be the best way to avoid errant speculation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

studio in infobox

I've looked at the film infobox template and searched the archive, but can't find an answer to the following question. When the production credits say, for example "Touchstone Pictures presents," my recollection is that we do not list that company in the infobox as one of the production companies. Am I misremembering this? I seem to recall a discussion of this at some point, but can't find it, and don't completely trust my recollection. Would anyone care to illuminate this? Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This link can help you decode billing blocks. But I think the best thing to do is go by what reliable sources say. Let them do the analysis and determine who the production companies are. Otherwise, you end up mired in talk page debates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I take your point. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in film articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the ==Soundtrack== section. Looking at the preview, they don't look quite the same. The old version shows the two infoboxes merged. The new parser displays them as separate infoboxes. If you're satisfied with having them display separately, then you're done and can check the next one.

This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting indicates that the problem is in the ==Sources== list. However, they look about the same to me, so while there is probably a problem with some tags being applied in the wrong order (and it's probably in Template:Refbegin), there's no urgent need to change anything.

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Krazy Kat had some obvious markup errors that I fixed. I can't tell if that's what was causing the above error, though. I'd have to read more about how this stuff works. I never paid much attention to it before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Izno, do you want to take a look at that article? (The lintid's are unreliable after the first edit.) NinjaRobotPirate, I think there are a couple of user scripts that provide more information and can be used to check out individual pages, if you'd like to try one of those. They're probably listed at WP:Linter. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) and NinjaRobotPirate: You can verify post-edit that the page no longer contains a lint error by checking out the page information (in one or another of the sidebars) and scrolling to the bottom. If one remains, then there will be a section called "Lint errors". (You can skip scrolling and append #Lint_errors to the page information URL and then hit Enter, or you can ctrl+f.) It looks like KK now only has a "missing end tag" error, which is not a high-priority error. User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint is the only way to verify that you've finished that off without digging through the sometimes-large Special:Linterrors categories, though I've just filed phab:T193454. --Izno (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

CFD notice

Category:Film actors and related articles have been nominated for upmerging based on the idea they create too much duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 28#Category:Actors by medium. MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Movie posters within scope?

The Colossus of Rhodes, a 1954 painting by Salvador Dalí, was commissioned as a poster for the 1956 film Seven Wonders of the World. Is the article on the painting within the scope of this wikiproject? Just asking, as I originally included it, but Fortdj33 removed it. Not a big deal, but just curious and thought I would ask. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Film actors

I made a proposal to end actors by medium categories you can get to it by going through the link at Category:film actors. I also tried to post about it on the village pump. I have no clue how to link to that discussion. Wikipedia needs to make it easier to generate broad discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Good Will Hunting plagiarism claim

A claim has been added to the lede of the Good Will Hunting article, saying that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck plagiarized the script from another writer. The claim is sourced to an article on the Fox News website. No other discussion of the story is included anywhere in the article. It seems to me that such an extraordinary claim needs better sources, but an anon. disagrees, arguing that there is no source in the article saying that Affleck and Damon wrote the script. Searching the web, I can find no other articles about the script being plagiarized. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that more sources should be found to include it, otherwise it seems like undue weight being placed on one writer's assertion. That said, regardless it shouldn't just be in the lead. Even if it's included in the article, I wouldn't put something one person says in the lead. I would work it into the writing section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading that claim is actually laughable. He was so aware of the brilliance of his idea (granted he acknowledges that he only came up with the idea, not that he wrote anything) that he knew that Damon and Affleck would write a screenplay that would win an Oscar and that he just needed a thank you and financial backing for a film as payment? He was sure that two nobodies were going to write an Oscar worthy film? LOL. I doubt this will ever get traction and just comes across as a bored newsday at Fox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If there hasn't been a successful legal action or a settlement it should not be included IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't be included in my view unless at least two rs have sig cov of it, these sort of claims are often fabricated, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: should actors by split by medium?

The underlying question is does it make sense to divide film actors, television actors, web series actors and stage actors? If not, we could either merge all screan actors, or upmerge to all actorsJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Support splitting actors by medium as the distinctions help editors searching for specific categories of actors/actresses such as French television actresses where they are not interested in French actresses who only acted in films and there are many many similar examples of where these distinctive categories are helpful. Upmerging these categories would make searching more difficult and make a big timesink for many editors searching for specific types of actors/actresses so basically it is an unhelpful and retrograde move, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Also as this includes tens of thousands of categories a sample of a hundred is too small,thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Comment I went through the first about 100 articles in Category:American television actresses. Over 95% of them overlapped into other categories of actresses by medium. This is a very high overlap. Beyond this, some cases, like Star Teck have seen the same actors play the same roles in TV and film. Another issue is with the rise of web-series, do we really want to differentiate roles in productions released all at once as a series of episodes on netflix. How exactly do serial films, made-for-TV movies and some other things fit into these categories?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
If someone could help post this to other places, including a link from the village pump, it would help a lot. We need to get lots of people commenting on this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
No MapReader (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Procedural comment, this discussion overlaps with the earlier started discussion by at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_28#Category:Actors_by_medium. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Support splitting actors by medium as the distinctions help editors searching for specific categories of actors/actresses such as French television actresses where they are not interested in French actresses who only acted in films and there are many many similar examples of where these distinctive categories are helpful. Upmerging these categories would make searching more difficult and make a big timesink for many editors searching for specific types of actors/actresses so basically it is an unhelpful and retrograde move, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you are actually in favor of splitting actors by medium, not opposed to it. --Deathawk (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, have amended it Atlantic306 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment The above does not give any guidance on what to call people acting in made-for-TV films. It also does not address the large level of overlap. Also, should we put everyone in works released first by netflix in Category:Web-series actors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Superhero

On the List of highest grossing superhero films can someone help peak the top 50 and help expend the second list? Fanoflionking 23:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Move request on Drama (film and television)

Inviting participants. I have made a move request here.----Let There Be Sunshine 07:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinions requested on category usage

I have started a discussion at Category talk:Police misconduct in fiction#Minimum threshold for inclusion? regarding whether it's appropriate to apply the category if the misconduct is only discussed in the plot section of a film article, or whether mention outside the plot summary should be required for the category to be added. Additional opinions would be welcome! DonIago (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI that the above-linked discussion now includes some conversation regarding film-related categories that allow for "casual mentions" (e.g. "Murder in Film"), and what our feelings are regarding such categories. I believe we're a very long way from making any suggestions or proposals with regards to such categories, but if editors have opinions on them, they may wish to review the discussion and consider participating. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Overlong plot

The plot summary in the Hereditary article badly needs pruning. Will someone do the honors? Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it may be a copyright violation, according to this tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Category rename discussion

Hi all. Category:Performance capture in film has been requested to be renamed to Category:Motion capture in film. Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Film score review table

What do other editors think of the table in this section (diff) with all the star-based scores? I've not seen this in any other (film) article before. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

- Don't think its a problem, as it is useful as a quick summary, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Apart from it being unsourced, and indiscriminate? Half of them appear non-notable, with at least one based on user-generated reviews (IMDb). Why would this supercede prose? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The table contents are already referenced in the prose section and imdb is the only unreliable link, its ok as an addition to prose but not as an alternative imo thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC) 13:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

To me it begs the question of why those specific sites, some of which I'm unfamiliar with (though I'm no expert). I'm also concerned that making this generally available may cause focus to shift from providing actual prose regarding reviews to simply populating the "star table". DonIago (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

These review boxes are a regular visitor to TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_14#Template:Film_ratings. Obviously we can't send this on there because it is hardcoded, but it should meet the same fate. Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Unlike at video games, where the number of notable/trustworthy sites is within dozens (and thus we have a reasonable reason to use such tables), there's far too many "expert" film reviews that a table either will be far far too long, or will have to use selective reduction to certain critics which can be seen as original research or POV. It is best that film articles do not use them. --Masem (t) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, am convinced they are not necessary Atlantic306 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've gone ahead and removed that table, based on the above, and that the editor who added it has not replied anywhere to discuss it. I'll look out of the Red Dot of Revert soon... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

When to add announced roles to an actor's filmography?

Hi all, this may not be the best place to ask this, but under what circumstances would you add an upcoming release to an actor's filmography?

Context: this edit. A future film project was added to Disha Patani's filmography. It has a reference. No indication that principal photography has begun yet.

Too soon to include, or fine to include? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that previous consensus has been that roles should not be added until the film is in production, though I'm not sure where I could point you to for that consensus. DonIago (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it can be included. Two confirmed cast members of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 are mentioned here in a Featured List but still in 'in development' phase (though, the film's name is not included in both the actor's filmography). So, I think it can be included with proper citations. Vivek Ray (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Films about space at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

List of film and television clichés at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)