Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 82

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 75

←

Archive 80

Film listed as 1969 should be listed as 1970

Hey everyone,

I was working away on Charles Bronson's page, where I stumbled on a page named "Lola (1969 film)" also known as Twinky. However while the film was made in 1969 it was released in 1970. So the page should be called "Lola (1970 film)". On the Charles Bronson filmography page the person who originally wrote it as a 1969 release, it was also the case in his article before, so it creates confusion. It's minor film so on the large scale of things who cares, but if I do notice such mistake how can I resolve them. Thank you.

Filmman3000 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be just to move it to Lola (1970 film), which you can do by selecting the "move" tab at the top of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Filmman3000 and Betty Logan, I made the move and hopefully it is correct. The page text seems to indicate the 1970 dating is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn and @Betty Logan thank you both! Filmman3000 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Trailers in articles?

What’s the guidelines/policy on adding film trailers to film articles? I can’t seem to find anything that either forbids or encourages their inclusion. Armegon (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I would ask, what is the point? The official site has the trailer and if that is not available, then the IMDb link will have the trailer. Mike Allen 00:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Earlier, I saw a user adding trailers to multiple film articles, including Lawrence of Arabia and Godzilla, King of the Monsters!. I was considering doing a mass revert but I didn't know if there's a rule/policy that encourages adding trailer. Personally to me, it seems like WP:FAN and doesn't add any commentary to warrant its inclusion. Armegon (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The trailers I added were all fair-use, are all on Commons, and while going through the Commons trailer collection maybe 3/4ths I looked at were already on the articles and I was picking up the stragglers. This is common practice on Wikipedia, and there is nothing wrong and everything encyclopedic about adding such important descriptive information and historical use of the technology and promotional ability of the time. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it “common practice?” Under what criteria is it common?? How is “important descriptive information and historical use of the technology and promotional ability of the time” when all you added to the caption box was “the film’s trailer”. That’s not descriptive info. It adds no relevance or commentary of any kind that warrants its inclusion. It’s just adding media for the sake of adding media and falls under WP:FAN. No one pinged you because this wasn’t about your edit. Like I said earlier, it was to sate my curiosity if such edits were encouraged or prohibited. WP:TRAILER seems to state that it’s only relevant if it’s both attributed to a reliable source and notable with commentary illustrating the film’s response by audiences and any impact the trailer had. None of which you provided. Armegon (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Although you seem quite combative (over trailers?) I'll answer a few of your concerns. "Common practice" because I've seen, watched, and enjoyed many trailers on Wikipedia for years, and affirmed it was common practice because most of the trailers in the Commons collection were already on pages. The caption "The film's trailer" describes the content, which is self-explanatory, and adding the free-use trailer seems at least equal to adding a photograph of an individual frame which is used on most articles. Pinging is polite when you discuss someone's Wikipedia work as something you'd like to "mass revert", no? May I ask, out of my curiosity, why trailers used on articles bother you so much? I know you've done good work on Godzilla pages, and you removed the trailer from the first U.S. film for page reasons that I don't understand, but trailers greatly accent the plot and descriptor of a film so are much more than "fan". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed. A trailer is not just an interesting artifact, it's an advertisement. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for the advertisement of films or anything else. We also don't post streaming ads for Coca-Cola (even if they're 60 years old) to Coca-Cola (albeit there are numerous still photos of ads there). And how many trailers are in the public domain, anyway? I don't believe that the publication of an entire copyrighted work, especially when that work itself isn't serving as a subject of discussion, qualifies as "fair use". Largoplazo (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Factual correction: The trailers in the Commons collection are not copyrighted, hence "fair use". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The fair-use doctrine refers to uses of copyrighted material. It's the whole point of the doctrine. If a work isn't copyrighted, then one can use it in any way one wishes, full stop; fair-use limitations don't apply. Therefore, for you to say "not copyrighted, hence 'fair use'" suggests that there's a gap in your understanding of the situation. Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The MOS does cover trailers first. Essentially, if there isn't critical commentary on the trailer itself, or something notable about it (e.g., It had record breaking views, etc.) then we don't include it. The fact that the trailer exists does not make it remarkable. The idea that you've watched trailers on Wikipedia doesn't mean that 1) they should be there or 2) that they are anything other than indiscriminate pieces of information about the film. Going to a film page and seeing, "Film X's trailer was released on June 14", adds exactly nothing to the article. We're not here to advertise for a film. I cannot think of anyone that would intelligently come to Wikipedia to see if a trailer exists when they can more easily google "Film X trailer" and just see it directly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My initial response was about adding the trailer link to the external links, but I also agree about adding bits about trailers in "Marketing" sections. For months I've been removing "[Film] trailer was released on June 13, 2023", but usually get backlash even after stressing a Marketing section must have critical commentary and not just a list of when of when trailer and images drop. Now there's an editor that adds "commentary" like this. (Pinging @Rocafellla:, would you like to discuss your position in adding this content to multiple articles, even though you aren't a big talker?) I'm glad CinemaBlend contributor Adreon Patterson thought an image of the lead in costume was "stylish and cool". There's more "reviews" in the marketing section than there will be in the critical reception next month (mark my words). I agree with with this rationale on the Elemental page about too much "commentary". Mike Allen 14:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Please move all further conversations to the MOS talk page (Found here), as that is the more appropriate location to discuss how to handle content being added to film pages in general. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic Four reception summary

There's a discussion on how we should summarize the reception in the lead on Fantastic Four (2015 film). It can be found at Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)#Summary of reviews in the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Rediscovered film categories

Hi. I've just noticed that there are a lot of articles miscategorised under Category:Rediscovered films and its subcats. Many were added by User:Espngeek, for whom I've left a message asking to stop. I've emptied Category:2010s rediscovered films and removed Category:2000s rediscovered films from all but one article, but help is needed to check the rest.

On another note, these should probably be titled Category:Rediscovered 2000s films, etc., but that's a matter for CfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The user has also added a lot of inappropriate citations to streaming site MUBI, e.g. Special:Diff/1161168191. Articles which they've extensively edited, such as Vulgar auteurism, are a mess. A lot of clean-up will be needed. Espngeek's behaviour has previously been brought up at ANI, but didn't receive attention then. They're now playing obtuse in response to my message regarding the above miscategorisations. I'd appreciate if regular WikiProject Film contributors could take a look and see if further action is needed here. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox color for DCEU character

Hello, in a similar way to MCU articles, I would suggest to decide a color to use for every DCEU articles. Also, do you think that DCEU and future DCU articles should have the same color? Redjedi23 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes and yes. The color should be extracted from the official franchise logo and adjusted if necessary to be MOS:COLOR-compliant. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be #0476F2, am I right? Redjedi23 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@WuTang94 I ping you because you are a major contributor to DCEU articles. What do you think about my proposal? Redjedi23 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a good color as it matches DC's current logo. The MCU characters seem to be red to match Marvel's logo so I see where you're going with it. WuTang94 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. For every other DC related article? (e.g. Bruce Wayne (1989 film series), Bruce Wayne (The Dark Knight Trilogy), etc. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: I tried this color in the Superman page (here), but I don't think it's a big deal. It would be fine if we could "force" the white text, but I don't think this is possible. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

#0376f2 is a little bit better. Redjedi23 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Colors must be AAA-compliant per MOS:COLOR, as the template documentation notes. Neither #0077F2 nor #0376f2 pass AAA standards. I got a different shade of blue, #0077F2 , when running File:DC Comics logo.svg through a color extractor; dragging the slider at [1] got me #0057AD and #3399FF as possible colors. But as Masem noted below, I would wait until the discussion on the infobox talk page has ended before making any changes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If the color parameter will be kept, I would go for #0057AD. Redjedi23 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware there is a RFC on removing the color parameter from the infobox character template. See its talk page. Masem (t) 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Template talk:Infobox character#Propose removal of the Color parameter. TompaDompa (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A small group of WikiProject Video games editors trying to force a needless change that affects multiple WikiProjects despite years of implicit consensus from the community... InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of pinkvilla

Editors may be interested in this RfC on reliability of pinkvilla. — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Review aggregator CherryPicks?

With this edit to Citizen Kane, Themashup (talk · contribs) added a critical reception score from a review aggregator called CherryPicks (redlinked to establish there's no WP article on the site), which is new to me. Are other editors familiar with this site? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I found it randomly. It basically is a site for female and non-binary critics. It is a interesting site but can't find a lot of information around it besides the site itself. From checking, a lot of the time, they lack a lot of reviews so I think that could be a reason for why there's no Wiki place for it. Another is because it essentially, from what I've seen, grabs RT critics who fit their criteria and just post their review on their site and see if it passes tests like the Bechdel test and give it a score. Wouldn't say a Wiki article is needed for it since the site doesn't seemed to share alot of information and likes to be low-key which is fine imo and support that vibe. It's like a antique shop (the website) and I found it intresting and fun. Themashup (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine as a resource for finding reviews in other sources; reliance on their coverage or aggregate scores directly would ideally be backed by WP:USEBYOTHERS examples. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it could work. For myself, I think it follows too much of a similar format as RT to be it's own. My one issue I found with it right now is that many foreign films (from before like the 2010s) are completely missing. Along with that, many more films are missing too and their scores are usually based on no more than a couple dozen (at most) of reviews making their ratings less accurate and taking into account all the reviews usually can be found on RT, it seems less noteworthy. Though, a praise I have with it is it's inventiveness. The site is trying to give voice to a community that I myself am apart of and I love what it's doing. Though, while I think it works as a site, I think as a site we always use like RT to prop up films won't work too well since it mainly feels like a less RT in that regard when it comes to the reviews they have. What should be regarded with them is their notice on if a film meets standards like the Bechdel test, that's interesting that most other film place usually do. Themashup (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there support for the addition of all these foreign and minor/non-notable aggregator sites being added by themashup? Where will that end? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think they matter, sites like KinoPoisk, Allocine are significant since they tell a countries peoples thoughts on a product. They are not "non-notable", but the opposite. I said Cherry Picks is minor but can be mentioned since it's a US service for specific reviews that can be supported but not much more/ I don't find deleting ,for example, information I put out about how The Dark Knight was received by other countries minor, that to me is just wrong. Critics in one country hated a film like The Dark Knight and just because you don't like that doesn't mean it should be hidden. I just found out some information I added for The Dark Knight was deleted and I find that absurd. To me, we should have a section there expressing what other countries thought of the film for others to know. To not seems ,in my opinion, elitist and offensive to other people's opinions. I'm not sure if someone accidently deleted what I wrote what Russia thought of that film but would like to talk to whoever did since I find you're reasoning reductive. Themashup (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"just because you don't like that", bit early to be assuming you know anything about me mash, this is literally our first encounter.

A) It's the English Wikipedia, if Russia has a specific issue with the film that could be notable but otherwise it's Russia, which is known for disinformation and a dislike of America, I question and challenge the neutrality of their reviews, but it's also a pool of 11 Russian Critics from what you added so why is that notable? Who are these critics, why does their opinon matter, are they writing for personal blogs? Who knows. Where is the notability, where is the evidence that their opion is noteworthy or that their opinion, which is so significantly out of line with reviews both in and outside of America are neutral? How are these 11 unknown people reflecting the opinion of a nation of 147 million (and dropping)?

B) Same with CherryPick, where is the notability? Just because 10 people get together and write reviews doesn't make it notable. If I collect 20 people, start a site called Wikiggrate, are our opinions noteworthy because we provided an aggregated score?

C) Where does it end? Literally. If we're including Russia which has no relevance whatsoever to an American/British made film, do we include every other aggregator we can find? A German one, a French One, a Spanish one? It's not feasible to do so and it borders on being well outside of the scope of the article. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem that I find with this website is that when I go to the "About" page....it tells me nothing about the company. In fact, it is partially a fluff piece about how they are a "leader in entertainment and media". Yet, a news search for "CherryPicks" only yields results from their website. That means that no one is referencing them. For reference, Here is Rotten Tomatoes. CherryPicks appears to be someone's personal work. The podcast and the IG are run by Meg McCarthy, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Twitter is also run by her. It looks like they are getting some access to actual people on the industry for interviews, which is good to see, but my concern is that no one is referencing them or their interviews....seemingly anywhere significant. That makes me feel like we are placing some undue weight on their opinion regarding films based on tests that have nothing to do with the quality of the film and more to do with sociopolitical ideals. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

With CherryPicks I understand your reasoning since CherryPicks is one I have myself criticism of and positives. I'm new here and don't know everything but think their platform seems to be trustworthy enough in my opinion for a mention since I believe they do have credibility based on how well organized they are. Themashup (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For KinoPoisk, I think it matters to include foreign countries opinion on media. Checking their Wikis, I have seen wiki for films in different countries describe varying consensus if they're significant. KinoPoisk I thought would be since it shows a shocking distain for a beloved movie which I think is significant and should be shown. For example, for Chernobyl miniseries, the wiki page discusses Russia,Ukraine and critics form US thoughts on it and China's. This is because they're opinions stand out from the masses or are relevant for discussion. If a iconic film gets a shocking response from one country I find that interesting to detail. KinoPoisk has been around for over a decade and has a trustworthy amount of reviews to be called legitimate and each critic review has a link to a reputable source. These reviews are important because they show a place's peoples taste in media and if it stands out it should be noted. I could say delete all Metacritic info for films and their scores since you can find all their reviews usually on RT and a average score and end Metacritic. Also, the reason why I said KinoPoisk critics opinions stands out is how negative it is by comparison showing not all universal acclaim was universal. If you say 11 critics from a nowhere country don't matter then ignore when sites like Allocine are mentioned by the film Boyhood wiki to show acclaim everywhere and verify that. If The Godfather had shocking hate from let's say Russia then I would add that there cause it stands out and opens people's eyes. Themashup (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about Allocine. Unless it's relevant it probably shouldn't be in the Boyhood article, and per WP:OTHERSTUFF just because an editor added Allocine to that article at some point doesn't mean it was a good thing to do, it just means noone ever bothered to remove it. 11 reviews on Kinopoisk, 6 of which are apparently negative, is not a consensus of Russian opinions in general, there is no evidence of Kinopoisk's notability (existing is not in itself notable), and there is no evidence of how it's processes for determining the content of reviews and how it aggregates them. It's not notable. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It is when knowing how many hundreds of thousands of votes from Russia are on films and TV on the site. It shows the site is huge there and is known enough here to have a Wiki page. It is notable with how it stands out and that's undeniable. The critics rating stands out even from the Russian audiences and shows the critics from Russia's odd opinions on it. Honestly don't feel like arguing this since it's not that deep and low-key lost interest. Themashup (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DWB and Bignole that we need to establish the notability/reliability of CherryPicks before using that site as a reliable source. The "About" page references plenty of sources where CherryPicks received coverage in 2018 when it entered the scene, but the question remains as to whether or not they are receiving sustained coverage and notability. Here are a few samples:

Rotten Tomatoes Alternative CherryPicks to Battle Gender Imbalance in Film Criticism – The Hollywood Reporter (2018)

CherryPicks Launches ‘CherryPop,’ a New Podcast on Sex in Movies With Hosts Beandrea July, Meg McCarthy – Variety (2018)

New aggregator CherryPicks will highlight female reviewers and women in film – Mashable (2018)

Ongoing coverage would indicate their work is being recognized for its quality and contribution to the industry. I didn't find much outside of 2018 in a brief search, and more recent sources I did come across weren't from highly-reputable publishers. Willing to consider further if we can verify sustained coverage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed those at the bottom, but it's weird they don't show up in a basic Google News search as the top choices. That said, I'll go back to what is the point of using them? Rotten Tomatoes "tomato meter" is really just an aggregate of positive and negative reviews, based on reviewers actual scores. The CherryScore claims to be based on female/non-binary reviewers. One would think they would pull from the list at RT, but they actually don't seem to do that. Citizen Kane has 100% rating, but has 1 reviewer listed. Batman Returns has 67%, but with 2 reviewers listed. If there are other reviews, then they are not easy to find. I don't think you can call yourself an "aggregator" with a single review. I'm back to the fact that we're placing undue weight on a website that is reviewing films (not all films mind you) from a sociopolitical standpoint and not from a quality of the film standpoint. That said, it is possible that we use some of their individual reviews as part of the overall summary of reception for the film, but I don't think they should be placed next to RT as some alternative aggregator like MetaCritic is used. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment The reason we use RT and Metacritic scores in reception for films is not because RT or Metacritic are inherently notable (that is what their articles are for) but because the mainstream media regularly use them for quantifying the immediate reception of a film i.e. they have become a kind of industry standard. This doesn't make it a free-for-all for every kind of metric we can find. For example, we don't add the Bechdel Test to film articles—despite it being notable—because its metrics are not an industry standard for assessing films. I have never heard of "Cherry Picks" and oppose its inclusion in articles unless its scores start popping up in other reliable sources, especially the mainstream trades such as variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen Daily etc. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)

Hello, I have discovered through the reliable source American Film Institute that the movie "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" (1998) is a co-production between the United States, Germany and Mexico, however when I add the information it is removed because I'm not a Wikipedia librarian. For this reason I decided to write to you in the hope that you add the true information that I mentioned and which you can verify, within the "countries" category in the "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" fact sheet. 201.168.135.194 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC for Inclusion criteria for List of highest-grossing films based on television series

On the talk page for List of highest-grossing films based on television series, there is a dispute over whether or not films based on short films like Mickey Mouse, Looney Tunes and Wallace and Gromit should be included on the list, with one argument being that they are dissimilar to television series and another being that the scope of the page could be expanded to include them. Should these be included or not? 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: As I said back in May, that entire article is a WP:SYNTH mess. AfD would probably be more appropriate than this RfC. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If you feel it's worthy of an AFD, you're free to make one. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is just deletion worthy. Total WP:SYNTH show, and full of blatant errors of fact. Like Space Jam is not based on Scooby-Doo or SNL, so those entries in the TV series list are bull. And the Kelvin-timeline Star Trek films are in continuity with the previous series, or did someone not understand the whole reason Leonard Nimoy was in those movies. The whole thing is a disaster that shouldn't exist and needs to be deleted. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You can create an AFD if you wish. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I sent the page's creator a talk page message directing them here. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Propose a technical close An article-specific RFC has no business being on the Film project talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I admit I posted it here because the article's talk page hasn't gotten any activity from other users and I wanted to put it where it would get more attention from other users, because currently the talk page is just me and the article's creator going back and forth without anyone else offering any opinions, which isn't enough for a consensus. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The appropriate course would be to create the RfC at that Talk page and post a notice here, not the other way around. DonIago (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Very well then. I'll close the one here and repost it there. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I created this page too be a sister page to List of highest-grossing films based on video games could this be defined better probably if anyone wants to help improve this page go ahead whiles creating this page I ask for help on the talk page for highest-grossing films based on video games but not no responseFan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion will now be hosted here.98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether an unfinished film is "canceled"

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Being Mortal (film) (article | history). The discussion concerns whether it's appropriate for the article to state the film has been canceled. Nardog (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Drama films by year

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Drama films by year. Qwerfjkl talk 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)— Qwerfjkl talk 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Relevant template best practice discussion

Please see Template_talk:Metacritic_album_prose#Subst'ing and weigh in. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Return to Silent Hill text copied from Fandom

Could I get more eyes on this discussion about text being copied from a Fandom page. Particularly if you are knowledgeable with copyright policies. Thanks. Mike Allen 18:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie

A Pilipino Movie JuanTejada19 (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Across the Spider-Verse cast section

A discussion has been started at Talk:Spider-Man:_Across_the_Spider-Verse#Cast_section, about the cast section for this film if anyone feels like inputting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Superman: Legacy (2025) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superman: Legacy (2025) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman: Legacy (2025) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Additional comments would be welcome. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Enjō#Requested move 26 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Enjō#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of DCEU articles

I want to report here this deletion proposal initiated by myself after the last discussion in this WikiProject. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: the AfD has been superseded by a series of merge requests on each of the challenged articles' talk pages:

Participants of the previous AfD are invited to comment on the new merge requests. Pinging @Redjedi23, Dronebogus, David Fuchs, WuTang94, Jclemens, Piotrus, TheJoebro64, StarTrekker, and Aoba47. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My general feeling is that fictional character articles should generally have one article only, with the various film, TV, comic, etc. instantiations covered in that one article. I have no specific concerns with any of these articles in particular. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd support such merges. A fictional character can have one article, lenghty if necessary, but one will do just fine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a major concern is and has been WP:SIZESPLIT, especially if an article gets too big, which was probably one of the reasons why certain iterations of fictional characters got their separate articles in the first place. But here we're deciding if certain character iterations meet WP:GNG, and if they don't, I totally support merging them back. WuTang94 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it'll depend on the article, but I've found very few articles on fictional characters where SIZESPLIT is the right answer, versus actually condensing and better summarizing the information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, InfiniteNexus :)

Imo, for DCEU articles we should merge the information into Characters of the DC Extended Universe.

For Batman articles, I would just redirect them to the main pages. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@WuTang94 I would close many of the requests Redjedi23 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

A standard problem with these character articles is that there is far too much plot retelling, trying to tell each major story or arc to a degree that the character was in. That's against WP:NOT#PLOT. Character backgrounds should only focus on stories that establish essential facets about the character's arc at a high level. Cut these down as they should be and you won't have size issues. Masem (t) 16:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible issues at Dexter Fletcher

I noticed that the article for Dexter Fletcher looks like it's been rewritten in a heavily promotional, non-encyclopedic tone, mostly by Khan Zak13. I'm traveling today so I can't look too much into it, but a deeper dive into possible COI violations might be warranted – if someone has a moment for that, that would be great. I'll also notify Khan Zak13 at their talk page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

i restored an earlier version as the current one was completely inappropriate -- FMSky (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Dolph Lundgren

I don't know if anybody here is a fan of his, but it's currently up for delisting as a GA. It just needs somebody to write an account of his film work since 2011. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot or Synopsis section

I notice that the plot or synopsis sections of film articles seem to typically not have references. This is in specific reference to this discussion. "At the talk page for the documentary Ukraine on Fire I am finding some very problematic stuff, including that the film is pushing a "fringe" POV and as such, "The whole synopsis is based on the film itself (as a primary source), and should be removed as pro-fringe." This editor wants the whole Synopsis section removed because they don't like what it says. Is that okay? Is the plot or synopsis section not always based on the primnary source of the movie its self? Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think MOS:FILMPLOT covers this better than I'm about to, but essentially, as long as the plot or synopsis really is just summarizing what occurs in the film, and doesn't attempt to interpret events or such, no references are needed because the film itself is the reference. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I know that's what MOS:FILMPLOT says but I don't see the justification for what seems to be a general flouting of Wikipedia's principles. If it's the editor writing about what they saw happen in a film while watching it, then it's no different from someone visiting a city and then writing here about things they saw there, or some scientist publishing here their own observations of the behavior of some organism in the presence of a particular wavelength of light. It's original research. Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Staying blind to the political aspect of that article, I can see how that synopsis does have some moments of original research which are not usually appropriate in film synopses. A proper synopsis should be an uncontroversial and straightforward accounting of the contents of the film, and this one definitely has some editorial tone to it. For example, there is a claim that the film portrays one particular side's point of view; unless the film explicitly states that outright, that needs a source. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A straightforward plot summary is self-sourcing, primarily because it would be difficult to summarize and verify a plot through secondary sources alone. To echo the points above, I do agree that there are fundamental problems with how this synopsis is written—the editor seems to have incorporated their own commentary; here is a red flag for me: "A big part of the film is dedicated to recounting the development of far-right politics in Ukraine." Does the film itself characterize the politics it is discussing as "far-right"? We need an experienced Film editor who has seen the film to mediate this dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's too difficult to cover the plot based on sources of the level of suitability that we usually require for everything else, then we don't have to cover the plot. On the other hand, an awful lot can be compiled from film reviews. Largoplazo (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Describing the plot summary based on the film itself has long been established in the film Manual of Style. The problem with this plot summary in particular isn't because of that, it's because an editor is adding their own interpretation of the material without secondary reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That it's in the film MoS was the stated premise to my comment. I didn't say it's long been there, but that doesn't alter the basis for my remarks. Largoplazo (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would take a lot of effort to piece together a coherent plot summary that is fully cited to a bunch of reviews. If you crib it from just one source (say for example, the AFI Catalog) then you are likely to encounter copyvio problems in many cases. MOS:PLOTSOURCE establishes that a plot summary can be sourced to the work itself, provided it is a basic summary with no interpretative statements. The problem with the plot summary at Ukraine on Fire is that it appears to include the editor's own analysis (and obviously, any analytical or interpretative statements should be fully cited). Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You've just repeated the premises on which my remarks were based. As I already said, if it would be too much effort to comply with Wikipedia's general policies and guidelines, then don't do it, just as with every other topic area, and every other aspect of every topic area, on Wikipedia. I understand what MOS:PLOTSOURCE says, and, as I stated above, it's in violation of Wikipedia's prevailing principles. I look at it and thing, "Did the people who wrote this ever consult the policy pages?" I don't see why "It's too hard" is more of a justification for film buffs than it is for every other Wikipedia contributor. (I realize that I've now fully digressed from the point of this thread, and I see no reason for any of us to take this in circles, so I'll end here.) Largoplazo (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles about works of fiction are well served by a basic plot summary. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for straightforward summaries that are not challenged by other editors. In such cases, I do not see the merit of imposing such an onerous task on editors in the case of all film articles i.e. the pain outweighs the gain. If you believe that MOS:PLOTSOURCE is not consistent with Wikipedia policy then I suggest that you raise the issue at the MOS page itself, because it affects more than just film articles. In the case of Ukraine on Fire secondary sourcing may the way to go, but I think it can probably be fixed by an experienced editor familiar with the conventions of writing a plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Basing a plot summary on the work itself is not original research, it is just sourcing the summary to the primary source. We could add explicit citation tags to the primary source but that is generally unnecessary because the plot summary is going to be beside an infobox that already has those details in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, see WP:PRIMARY. As long as we only describe what's can be verified in the primary source (in this case the film), we're good.Scribolt (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Are editors in this discussion aware that the subject film of Ukraine on Fire purports to be a documentary? It is not fiction, uses footage of real events and purports to interpret them. The article has a synopsis, not a “plot summary,” because if there is a plot (narrative), it is not the creation of the filmmaker. I see cited guidelines MOSPLOT, PLOTSOURCE, and PLOTCITE, which appear to apply only to works of fiction.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Documentaries, the synopsis can include analysis of aspects of the documentary’s subject from secondary sources, and can have a separate “Analysis” section, and reviews by authorities on its subject and not just film critics. —Michael Z. 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, for one, and the documentary guidance doesn't abrogate WP:FILMPLOT. In fact, it specifically states that WP:FILMPLOT applies to documentary synopses, and gives additional guidance in terms of providing analysis elsewhere, not in the synopsis. This discussion is about editorial analysis in the synopsis itself. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. But it refers to FILMPLOT with the qualification on how to “describe the on-screen events.” And it does give additional guidance on providing analysis in the synopsis and elsewhere:

Since a documentary deals with real-life topics and figures, provide wikilinks to them wherever useful. See the guidelines on link clarity and specificity, and link to terms that match the topic precisely if not closely. If coverage from secondary sources focuses on a specific aspect of the documentary, that aspect can be elaborated to provide context for the coverage. For example, the documentary may mention some statistics, and there is coverage from secondary sources analyzing these statistics, which are not detailed in the synopsis.

—Michael Z. 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything suggesting adding analysis to the synopsis itself and am focusing on the last sentence of the quoted section, which says that the analysis is not detailed in the synopsis. If that's not the right interpretation, then the guideline deserves some clarification. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarification would be good. But to me it clearly says that in the Synopsis section (referred to in the previous sentence), or “wherever useful,” we can “provide wikilinks” and elaborate “to provide context.” The last sentence ends with “the synopsis” meaning the specific text used to describe on-screen events, and not “the ‘Synopsis’ section.” —Michael Z. 21:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess the sentences surrounding the quoted material are clearer to me. For example:

Instead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT).

and

An "Analysis" section can be written to detail the statistics from the documentary and to report the analytical coverage from secondary sources.

To me, this indicates that we treat the the synopsis section as per WP:FILMPLOT and leave secondary coverage for other sections. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The first part is not comprehensive: it doesn’t say the synopsis should only contain what’s described in FILMPLOT. It says the description in the synopsis follows the other guideline.

The next four sentences say what else applies. It’s not unclear unless you can offer some other obvious interpretation.

Only then it adds that an “Analysis” section can optionally be added too. And furthermore it links to advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Controversies that says controversies shouldn’t be walled off in an article section, but are integral to the article’s narrative. —Michael Z. 00:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Film budget

Some movies which grossed more than their budget are declared flops. I found out that the budget includes only film budget but not cist of movie promotion and other costs.

Also producer share, distributer share, there share is not mentioned.

The film info box must give details, so that we can easily find out that the movie is flop Vampswefg (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No one can easily find out that the movie is flop as it's often not known how much a studio actually spent on a film. Infoboxes are for simple information, nuances are for the body of the article. —El Millo (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is 2.5 to 3 times whatever the budget is to break even (ex: a $200 mill budget film might have another $100 mill in marketing. If it makes $600 million, the studio only sees about 50% of that, because the theater keeps the rest. Hence, the studio got $300 million and basically broke even). The infobox doesn't need to acknowledge that, but I would expect the box office section to talk about this. It isn't hard to find sources that discuss the general rule of thumb for determining box office success and how a particular film stacks up. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Barbenheimer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbenheimer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary columns in table?

The table for DVD, Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD releases in the List of Criterion Collection releases article has the following columns which I feel is totally irrelevant: LD No. (Criterion LaserDiscs have been out of print for decades, there is a separate article covering those LaserDiscs and most importantly, the overwhelming majority of entries for that column have this field blank), Art House (same as the last logic for the previous one), Box set availability (same), UK release (same and Wikipedia is not a retail site anyway so not sure what purpose this one is serving here). The Blu-ray column can be removed too by just color-coding the spine numbers to indicate whether the release is a DVD, a Blu-ray, a UHD or a combination of any two. The table is too huge already. Would request other editors to comment on this and let us know about their opinions. _Jovian ^Eclipse 17:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Um, why does a page like this exist anyway? It's just a list of every film they've released....which is basically what's on their website. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bignole: It is definitely due to Criterion's reputation and mainstream media coverage. This article was a featured list nominee long back and although it could not gather much support, the very purpose of this article's existence was not questioned by editors then. Even the result of a later discussion for deletion was "Keep". _Jovian ^Eclipse 06:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion should probably take place on the talk page of the actual article. However, in a general sense I think these types of lists are better served if they avoid availability-type information (i.e. a list of different available formats) because it is not especially encyclopedic. I also take issue with the "art house" column—is this a Criterion designation or is original research? If that designation is not verifiable it should definitely be excised. Betty Logan (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: It is explained in the legend (The "Art House" column notes stand-alone releases of a film within the "Essential Art House" series. Some films are available through the "Essential Art House" 50-DVD set, but not as a stand-alone package.) But of course, this does not merit its justification for being included in the table. _Jovian ^Eclipse 06:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Jovian, there's a difference between listing all the films that Criterion has put their mark on and listing all the formats you can buy a film from them. Criterion being special doesn't mean that we need a page that just lists every single film they ever released as if they did anything other than purchase the license to distribute the film. You came here to ask about the relevance of listing laserdiscs and other antiquated formats, but arguably if the page itself isn't irrelevant than those formats wouldn't be either. Given that what editors are saying is that Criterion touching a film makes that release special then it would stand to reason that even older formats no longer produced still have historical relevance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bignole: Of course, they do still have historical relevance. I am not questioning that. I merely opined that the LaserDisc No. column does not have much use in the Blu-ray and DVD table, that's all. I think it is also inaccurate to say that Criterion did not do "anything other than purchase the license to distribute the film". As has been already mentioned in the deletion discussion, Criterion has created new restorations, recorded interviews and commentaries, commissioned essays for their releases, besides setting industry standards for releasing home cinema releases. _Jovian ^Eclipse 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are the only sources to in the article to www.criterion.com? It has no third party sources to show it even has notability. I agree with BIGNOLE. This really is just carbon copy of their website, in Wiki format. The featured list candidate was 13 years ago and it surprisingly passed AFD 4 years ago. In my opinion, everything in the table is unnecessary because there are no third party sources. Mike Allen 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

My god. You people are idiots. You've deleted an incredibly useful resource for the stupidest reasons. SilasPWilliams (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@SilasPWilliams: Make your point without personal attacks. Please read over the guidelines WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Lapadite (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the point has been made already. SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't have enough people burning actual books? Now we have to do it online as well? SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

They still run a website, with all of the content was just copied to Wikipedia anyway. No one erased their existence. Calm down. Also, I didn't see your participation in the discussion. Mike Allen 00:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware it was happening until you burned down all the information you didn't like. What a truly shameful act. SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You biblioclastic buffooon. SilasPWilliams (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah.. I guess you're right... 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Mike Allen 00:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The importance of the list here, in dynamic and searchable form, was many-fold. Films chosen for inclusion in the CC gain a measure of prestige and noteworthiness above-and-beyond the pre-existing note because the curators of the CC deem them worthy of inclusion. The Collection is a microcosm of noteworthy films - worldwide - and the ability to see and re-order at a glance which films from (e.g.) which director, country and decade are included is invaluable.

Providing additional data on format was not intended as a shopping list, but to track which of the films within the collection had INCREASED noteworthiness due to being included across format and over time.

The list passes all reasonable tests for noteworthiness and merit, and the brief and noncomprehending counter arguments are flawed or myopic.

If additional sources are warranted, they can be easily found; suggesting that sourcing Criterion releases primarily to Criterion is a problem is akin to criticising the use of the Bible when detailing Biblical details. It is risible and makes a mockery of the system. ntnon (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead descriptors

Just for my own sanity: do descriptors in the lead of a film article new RS citations? ie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring "epic fantasy adventure film", Star Wars "epic space opera", La La Land "romantic musical film", American Graffiti "coming-of-age comedy-drama film", Nixon (film) "epic historical drama film". In full disclosure, this is in tandem with the current discussion at An American in Paris: Talk Page. I am having difficulty with the concept of citing descriptors in the lead for films. Maineartists (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not the genres technically need to be sourced, if someone is questioning whether they're accurate/appropriate, the path of least resistance and most practical option is to provide a source that supports them rather than arguing over the need for sourcing. That said, I haven't looked at the specifics of this case (yet). DonIago (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess my question is: how are descriptors chosen at WP in regards to film articles? Since I have never seen an actual descriptor in the lead of a film article sourced, I am wondering how it is decided. And by whom? For instance: if every synopsis and review talks about the comedy of the actors, the comedic plot of he story and the comedic timing of the direction, and an editor places the descriptor "comedy" film, but another editor says: "prove it". What does one do? Maineartists (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILMGENRE discourages having complex descriptors like this, it is generally best to just list the obvious genre such as fantasy, space opera, musical, coming-of-age, historical drama. If there is a unique film where it really isn't obvious you could just not have one, or look to sources like the creative team. I would be careful about using sources from reviews, just because one reviewer praised the film's comedy doesn't mean it is appropriate to call it a comedy film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for this. So stating MOS:FILMGENRE "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." What does "verifiably classified" mean? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, an editor wished to include the descriptor: "romantic" at An American in Paris (film) and it was challenged. The editor who challenged it directly stated that to include, the descriptor would need RS sources that specifically called the film a "romantic musical". Not the plot, not the synopsis: there had to be RS sources that specifically called the film: a "romantic musical". I raised the question: where in all the WP articles on film does one find any descriptors that back each and every claim with a RS stating exactly what the film is? and since when did we start instituting this as a policy? I cannot find any RS that specifically state any of the descriptors for the 5 films listed above. So how are they allowed? What RS called the film Nixon: an "epic historical drama film" in their review in order for this descriptor to be allowed at WP without challenge? Presently, I cannot find any RS that calls An American in Paris a "comedy", yet the descriptor is there. It seems this would open up an unnecessary can of worms for editors across the WP-verse if they had to find RS that specifically stated the descriptor in exact wording. With this reasoning, I could go into any film article and remove descriptors based on this "policy" until proven with a specific RS. Where is common sense in all this? Per WP:FILMGENRE, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." WP even lists the film: American Romantic Musical Films (I know, I know: we don't cite WP) Maineartists (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC about use of Rotten Tomatoes for biographical information

This RFC at RSN may be of interest to project members. Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Editorializing at List of most expensive films

An anonymous editor keeps inserting random cherry-picked examples into the lead at List of most expensive films. There is no logic to the examples (i.e. most expensive/record-holders etc) and one of the films does not even qualify for the list on the basis it didn't cost enough. I would appreciate a third opinion at Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films#Recent_changes_to_lead, because until that happens it's just two editors having a content dispute rather than one editor editing against a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan Heads up, I already self-reverted before you wrote this.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most_expensive_films&diff=prev&oldid=1165561284

P.S.Before feeling the need to cry to mommy, you also could've just checked in with me.

I'm actually very reasonable. And I did in fact list my thinking/logic here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films&diff=prev&oldid=1165559468 despite your false claim that I offered no logic.

As far as my interest about "expensive films goes" I decided to look into this myself before I author anything, a little deeper dive, and see how other 'more objective folk' feel, for my own personal understanding. I definitely believe there is a place for this there, but I'm still reading articles on the matter-- given this uptick of mega-boxoffice films spiraling out of control in budget. So I want to see if there's a more cogent manner to include it if I decide to.

However, maybe next time, Betty, try to find a WP:MIDDLEGROUND first? And failing that, then and ONLY THEN resort to more drastic interventions? Rather than resorting to a WP:BATTLEGROUND just because you can't have your way. 2601:282:8100:32A0:9CB1:5324:555D:32CA (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

However little good faith you think Betty was initially assuming, this is far more uncivil than anything she wrote. You also started edit-warring by continually redoing your edit, not using either WP:BRD or WP:BRB, and your additions kept adding The Flash which doesn't even qualify for the article, showing a lack of knowledge in what you were adding. WP:COMPROMISE comes in after discussion, which you should've started instead of Betty. —El Millo (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo I self-reverted soon enough, and unlike “The Flash” I don’t have the power of time-travel to fix past mistakes, so all I can do is humbly move on upwards and onward. I was well within the 3RR rule so it wasn’t edit warring.lol

As far as “civility” goes, it takes two to tango— especially when I’m being provoked and WP:Baited from an editor who apparently has a history of being disruptive and edit warring (i.e.if you carefully examine her history of knee-jerk reactions to others she passionately disagrees with).

This is moot btw. As I made it clear I changed my mind for now. Sorry, but I’m not here to be trolled by you as this is WP:notaforum. So feel free to have the last word at my expense. I won’t be around to hear it— now that that unforgiving hot sun is going down, it’s cooling off enough that I’m going fishing with my blokes. Hopefully it cools off here with you hotheads, sheesh. 2601:282:8100:32A0:80E1:A586:1ACA:6325 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Starting a discussion that articulates the reasons why I disagree with your edit and inviting others to comment is not "baiting" you, it's how Wikipedia functions. You have characterized me as "crying to mommy", "resorting to WP:BATTLEGROUND", canvassing, not following WP:AGF, being "disruptive" and "edit-warring" (despite the fact I started a discussion hours ago and did not revert your most recent edit). You have accused another editor here of "trolling" you, and at the other discussion you accuse another editor of being WP:NOTHERE and not adhering to WP:CIVIL. None of us have referred to you in such impertinent terms. Please confine your comments to the topic at hand. If you take issue with an editor's conduct there are various administration boards to deal with that sort of thing, but project pages are not the place. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Dispute over studios credited in Nimona (film)

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Nimona (film)#Studio dispute over the studios credited for this animated film. Some want to credit only Annapurna Pictures (who produced it after it was revived), while others wish to credit Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Studios, and Vertigo Entertainment, with the latter three producing it before it was cancelled, along with Annapurna. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Rape film" genre?

An editor tonight has created all of these categories for a genre he calls "rape films" and "rape thriller films" (see Category:Rape films by decade). Now is it just me or this completely made up film genre? A major classification in the type of films is not whether or not there is a rape scene in them. This editor is so persistent, I think it will take more than me to challenge his efforts. Some of these categories are not populated yet so I have tagged this as CSD C1 but I think they'll find a way to fill them up.

What do you do when an editor invents a film genre? I'm sure it's happened before. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We could start by asking them to submit around 10 or so reliable sources that use the term. —El Millo (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me of an editor who had an obsession with "rape films" from a few years back. There was a massive case file against him. I will see if I can dig it out. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Here it is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218. The editor who created these categories is a new account so there isn't much to go on, but we should keep an eye on him. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There's an established genre called "rape and revenge film", and it has a category already. Drama films that don't have a violent revenge plot aren't labeled like this. They're just called dramas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Kill Bill

Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill Bill. Popcornfud (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

How to categorize reviews at Rotten Tomatoes

There is a dispute at Talk:The Angry Birds Movie#Rotten tomatoes "negative" or "mixed" over whether to describe a "rotten" rating as "negative" or "mixed". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Sound of Freedom (film) regarding inclusion of connections to QAnon

There is a discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) which may interest the regular readers of this talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Invitation to the Wedding

I recntrly created a draft for Invitation to the Wedding. Are there any good sources out there? Some big names had roles in it. Thriley (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Starring field in Infobox film: the 2-4 top billed stars, or the entire exhaustive cast list?

An editor has been warring with me at Carmen (2021 film) over the starring= field in the infobox; the rule has always been to list only the handful of top-billed stars who are playing the film's main characters in that spot, and use the body of the article to list the rest of the supporting cast, but the other user is arguing that the rule is that starring= has to list every single actor whose name appears on the poster at all, even if that runs to 13 or 14 "stars".

I can't find a version of the poster that's HD enough to read the poster in fully clear detail, but I have found this, in which Natasha McElhone and Steven Love are the two top-billed actors, and then there's a half-height word I can't quite make out ("featuring"? "introducing"?) before any other actor is named, then several actors later there's another group set apart as "with" and the only other actor with a Wikipedia article at all appears last and is set off with an "and". So it's clear that the film is positing McElhone and Love as the principal stars and everybody else as supporting, and our rule has never, ever been to let the starring= field in the infobox run on to 13 or 14 people — especially because that extends the infobox so badly that the page is now close to half dead whitespace because the amount of body text doesn't even come close to matching the extended length of the infobox.

So could somebody else weigh in on what the infobox is supposed to contain, so that this doesn't turn into an unresolvable one-on-one edit war? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a clearer image here. Generally we use the billing block as a guide (the other editor is correct in that the billing block is located at the bottom of the poster), but that's not to say every single name in the billing block should go in the infobox. I agree that a dozen actors is excessive, although it may be justified in the case of an ensemble cast. However, in this case I would say there is a clear distinction between the first two names and the ones that follow. Natascha McElhone and Steven Love seem to be positioned as the stars, so personally I would confine the infobox to those two names and put the rest in the cast list. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, somebody needs to pop in and do that, then, because I'm not willing to keep arguing with the other user without backup. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that you've received verification that we don't have to list every name on the billing poster, perhaps begin a talk page discussion at that article. Others here could weigh in if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, while I think all regular Film project editors would agree from a guideline perspective that we don't need to add all the names in the billing block (nobody has dissented so far), we may have different ideas where the names should be cut off in this particular instance. If there were a discussion at the Carmen article I would be happy to chip in. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

On most articles I edit/watch, the infobox does list all of the actors in the billing block. I don't feel this is a problem unless the list is extremely long, for instance more than 20. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Johnny Depp

I didn't see any mention of this newly created project here, which appears relevant to this project as well.

I already have concerns about some categorization categories that have been created in conjunction with that project, and at its Talk page I have noted that it seems more appropriate for those categories to either be moved to the appropriate Talk pages or hidden. Additional opinions would be welcome there. DonIago (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ngl, the scope of this WikiProject confuses me as it seems to encompass every single actor who has ever starred alongside Depp, Hedy Lamarr for simply being the subject of a song he wrote, Madam du Barry for being a character in a film he was in, at least two films in which he has only a cameo, and a film festival that does not mention him at all in the article (also Cannes). This feels like a WILDLY overextended scope in an attempt to justify an overly narrow WikiProject. Once you get rid of all the fluff in articles listed in the scope, I don't think there's anything left.

Also, note, all the project's categories are listed for deletion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Project has now been deleted. Gonnym (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Dispute: Wikipedia entry for "2:3 pulldown" is incorrect

This entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down) contains the following information:

The term "pulldown" comes from the mechanical process of "pulling" (physically moving) the film downward within the film portion of the transport mechanism to advance it from one frame to the next at a repetitive rate (nominally 24 frames/s). This is accomplished in two steps.

The first step is to slow down the film motion by 1/1000 to 23.976 frames/s (or 24 frames every 1.001 seconds). This difference in speed is imperceptible to the viewer. For a two-hour film, play time is extended by 7.2 seconds.

The explanation about "pulldown" is incorrect. "Pulldown" refers to the 0.1% slow down from 24fps, not the physical action of a Telecine. This description of "pulldown" is just describing what a film projector does, and a Telecine is a special-use film projector.

If this definition were true, an older European film shot at 25fps and transferred to PAL for broadcast in Europe would be called a "1/1 pulldown" or something, but it is not.

Pulldown refers to the speed change between "film speed" and "video speed". You pull-down to go from Film to Video and you pull-up when you go from Video to Film. DisquietHorizon (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also note that when searching for a reference for the "pulldown" definition given I seem to only find references to the Wikipedia entry. Is there any other source for the given definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisquietHorizon (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, some research has shown maybe I am incorrect. It is still quite vague, but I take back my dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisquietHorizon (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

An RfC of interest

An RfC of possible interest to the members of this WikiPRoject can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Pending films key

We're currently using {{dagger}} † as key for pending films, but that's extremely similar to {{extinct}} † and other symbols for death, e.g. {{KIA}} †. I think that {{await}} C would be much more intuitive, so I propose to substitute the symbol in Template:Pending films key and all pages linking to it. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, though I'm sure some people will object to a big clock showing up everywhere this template is used. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It also makes sense to me; it could suggest that the film was "killed", i.e. cancelled. I have no issue with the one with the clock, but if there are qualms against it, {{double dagger}} (‡) may be a suitable alternative? It doesn't, as least off my own experience and gut reaction, have any connotations and it's a clear symbol. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and TenTonParasol: Perfect, so none of us has issues with the clock, the traditional awaiting marker, yet all of us worried about other editors possibly complaining about it, lmao. In case somebody will object, I think that TenTonParasol's alternative could be valid. Thank you both! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I Support the use of the clock. Mike Allen 22:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How to categorize reviews at Rotten Tomatoes… again

There is a dispute at Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film)#Undue weight or original research in the lede over whether it is original research to describe a "rotten" rating as "negative" or "mixed", or undue weight to mention specific aggregate sites in the lede. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbenheimer has an RFC

Barbenheimer, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC on whether a certain instance of humor is appropriate on Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Travis Scott problem

I don't know exactly how to describe this so I'll just call it the Travis Scott problem.

Look how weird this looks. I knew there would probably be a good reason, but at the time I thought the best option was to get rid of the extra Travis Scott.

Someone looking at this is going to wonder why it looks like that. In this case, would "(star)" work?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You should probably post this on the article's talk page. Mike Allen 22:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I should have thought of that first. But this could be a problem for any country's films. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your edit; yet has this happened anywhere else besides that one instance? If it's a pattern, then it should be looked at, but I suspect this might be a case of hasty reversion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It was hasty but someone could still look at a list like this and wonder.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now I see what's going on. That format is indeed quite confusing and I don't understand why they don't just break it up into columns. Having said that, similar articles like the List of French films of 2023 does break it up into columns, so engagement on the American page is warranted. I'll join the conversation over there. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

ESPN 8: The Ocho

I've proposed that ESPN 8: The Ocho be split off from the film article Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, as it is a real TV programming segment on the real ESPN, and not just something in a fiction film. You may be interested in the discussion. For the discussion , see talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story#Split off ESPN 8 -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Moved to talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story § Split off ESPN 8

Swedish films

After creating an article today about the Swedish film Opponent, I went to try to add it to a list of Swedish films and found that no list existed at all yet for the 2020s, so I followed up by creating List of Swedish films of the 2020s. I'm mostly not all that knowledgeable about Swedish film, however — basically the only Swedish films of the 2020s I know about at all are what's been to either TIFF or Inside Out, and even a lot of those were multinational copros rather than distinctively Swedish films per se — so I just wanted to let the project know in case somebody with more knowledge on the subject can pad the list out further with additional entries. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How to source a filmography easily?

I recently created a draft for French filmmaker Claire Simon. Is there a single database that I can use as a reliable source for all her films? Thriley (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. My starting point for sourcing filmographies is usually BFI (page for Claire Simon), but it often needs to be supplemented with additional sources as it is not always complete. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is a reference nescessary for every single film listed in a filmography?

Is a reference/inline citation nescessary for every single film listed in a filmography? I have an argument about this with User:55go in this article: Ineko Arima.

1.I think that references/inline citations in filmographies are NOT nescessary, as they are not only not demanded in MOS:FILM and WP:CS, I even think this is a clear case of WP:OVERKILL.

2. Even IF they were, placing a "more citations needed" template would be more useful instead of making the whole filmography or parts of it invisible by comment tagging it while working on the article, as said user did. One can do this on his/her personal blog site, but not in a public online encyclopaedia, in my opinion. While doing this, said user also reverted ALL my changes, including a corrected referencing and adding of a nihongo template in the intro. I regard said user's way of working questionable. My invitation to said user to discuss this topic here instead of reverting my edits and making the filmography temporarily invisible was ignored.

3. And again, IF references/inline citations were obligatory, wouldn't it be more useful to place ONE reference in the filmography head section, e.g. to the Japanese Movie Database or Kinema Junpo in this case, instead of producing unnescessary clutter in the filmography?

Would like to hear some opinions. Many thanks Robert Kerber (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Because film roles can be cases of minor, cameo, or uncredited appearances, it is necessary to cite each film appearance that is given per WP:V. If this can be assuredly done by a single source, then that can be in the header, but this is often not the case for most actors. Masem (t) 16:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

What you refer to is verifiabilty of e.g. uncredited roles according to MOS:FILMCAST which is not the case here. Robert Kerber (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Filmography should still be supported by references, be it individual ones for each project, or a singular one such as from a reliable database (not IMDb) that covers all included filmography roles. Or a "catch all" for most with individual ones then for those not supported by the "catch all". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, even in filmographies, uncredited and other small roles that are not easily verified need to have verification. Masem (t) 18:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, it's necessary. This often comes up at WP:ITN/C—filmographies lacking proper sourcing is a common reason actors' recent deaths don't get posted (at least not right away). In many cases, it is fairly easy to cite the majority of the filmography to e.g. BFI. TompaDompa (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's needed, but rarely do I see this being done.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

They should be. Often, they're sourced in the prose. If there's nothing to say about someone's roles, and there's no real prose to speak of, I have to wonder why there's even an article to start with. Wikipedia isn't an acting database. Also, there's no telling who added a credit. Could be a hoaxer, could be a well-meaning but incompetent person, or (in most cases, I think), someone just copy-pasted the filmography from an unreliable source, such as the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've read a lot about "should bes" here so far, but not "has to bes", meaning, one definite, specific reference to a WP or MOS site which says referencing each entry in a filmography is obligatory.

The only related passage I could find is this one in MOS:FILMCAST. Quote: "When listing uncredited roles, a citation should be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy". (The same passage clearly excludes unreliable sources.) Meaning in my opinion: There is no demand for the other entries. Or, at best, one could list one single source for the COMPLETE filmography (for which there are enough reliable web and literary sources).

There is no instruction on how to deal with filmography referencing or the need of in any of the WP/MOS sites. (A writer's bibliography would be a comparable case.) So far, it is left to each individual editor's interpretation. Which, as in an extreme case such as Ineko Arima, leads to unnescessary clutter which for me is clearly against WP:CITEKILL. Robert Kerber (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The general guideline at MOS:LISTSOFWORKS states "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." The way I interpret that guideline is that lists of works (which include filmographies) by an artist or content creator of some kind are encouraged in the subject articles, and such lists should be reliably sourced. The way that reads to me is that you don't necessarily need an inline citation for every entry (you could have a single source for the entire list), but the body of work should be collectively referenced. How that is done is generally left to the discretion of the editor. If the entire filmography comes from just a single source then I don't really see the point of repeating the source for every single entry, but if the filmography draws from a composite of sources, then it makes life simpler to see which credit is reference to which source. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Betty_Logan I see your point there.

In said case Ineko Arima, user User:55go referenced each single entry where it could have been referenced with one single source, e.g. Arima's filmography at Kinema Junpo or the Japanese Movie Database. In addition to his/her unnescessarily producing reference clutter, s/he constantly and undiscriminatingly reverted my edits in other sections, which were corrections of incorrect citations. In order to prevent constant WP:REVERT or even WP:EDITWAR, and also not having the energy at the moment to open an editwar case, I "walked away". Sadly, said user ignored my repeated invitations to discuss this here on the talk page.

Question: is it appropriate then to delete the clutter with regards to WP:CITEKILL and refer to a single source like the ones I named above? Robert Kerber (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

55go did the correct thing in actually referencing the entries. You won't get any other answer here. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Gonnym (Apart from the fact that I find your statement "You won't get any other answer here" a bit assumptive, and that I doubt that constant undiscriminating reverting of corrections is "the correct thing" – )

One significant part of my question was: if so, isn't it appropriate then to give one single reliable source which covers the filmography/biography instead of various different ones to prevent WP:CITEKILL clutter? And does referring to WP:CITEKILL suffice to remove this clutter and place one source which covers the complete list? Robert Kerber (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

CITEKILL is an eassy so is basically useless as an argument. If you can find a reliabe source that lists all of a person's acting carrer then use it. Just don't link to a general source that does not in fact list that. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The page also has a total of 17 references, 14 of which are used in the filmography. I wouldn't call that overkill in my eyes, and it's useful that see that each project is referenced when actors with far more projects will maybe only have a handful of their projects sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Favre1fan93 I disagree here. When 14 references are needed to source a filmography of a mere 19 works, where 2–3 (e.g. NHK, the Japanese Movie Database and maybe Kinema Junpo in addition) would have done the job, not to speak of the fact that the rest of the article is referenced only by 3 sources, I do see an imbalance, and overkill, here. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As Gonnym states above, you are probably not going to get a different answer because no such policy or guideline exists to compel editors to use as few citations as possible. I often work on tables that have maybe 50/100 entries, so being able to source a table through a single citation and reduce the workload would for me be a blessing, but it's not uncommon for filmographies to have a reference column and for each entry to be referenced individually. Personally, I would not characterise the referencing style at Ineko Arima#Film as "clutter". If you refer to WP:REFCLUTTER, you will see that its main purpose is to reduce the number of citations after a single word, or in a sentence, and I don't think that is really an issue with tables. Betty Logan (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This discussion would have been more appropriate at WT:ACTOR, though that WikiProject does not have a MOS like this one does. (And this WikiProject's MOS would not cover filmographies anyway.) I think the core matter is verifiability, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." I think that many editors and readers focus on the most popular and mainstream actors (and films). For example, to cite that Cillian Murphy was in Oppenheimer seems absurd because it's so obvious. I guess there could be an argument that the primary source, the work, is being cited to support the credit, and the link is available to see the details of the film's personnel. A lot of films could be found and their credits directly checked. For lesser-known cast and crew members, though, this is murkier. Like what if some of them became famous later in their career, but their early career involved non-notable works for which there aren't Wikipedia articles, and the works aren't available via home media?

I think as a matter of course, if an editor wants to start adding inline citations for all the works, let them. We have no idea what the future holds, especially in this age of generative AI that could involve RS websites going out of business or sneaky automatic mass-vandalism to insert actors' names, so I find it no big deal to anchor every detail as best as we can. Like Betty said, the so-called "clutter" concern is within the article body, so it's fine if we have dozens more listings in the "References" section at the bottom of the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A released work is a published primary reliable source reference for both its existence and for internal details such as credits that are in the work itself so those facts don't need to have additional references. Information external to what is in the work such as uncredited roles, details about the subject's role beyond the credits, and the initial release year of the work should have a source, particularly if the work doesn't have an article. A column reference for the release year should be sufficient for that info if there is a directory source available and will also back up existence and name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing actors

There is discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing actors#Paul Bettany (again), and a proposal to remove the erroneous content about him that could benefit from further input. TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Allspark (company)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Allspark (company)#What exactly happened on October 9, 2020, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Killers of the Flower Moon plot section

Since it's a high profile movie (and there seems to actually have been a drawn out dispute on the plot section), noting this discussion for additional participation. Thanks. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of history of intellectual property rights of a movie.

Hello there, I'm a new contributor to a talk page like this but long time lurker!

Should or could films generally include a section which contains information regarding their current intellectual property status and history of such: - 1997->2005 ip rights were owned by x company - 2005->2009 IP rights were owned by y - 2009-> in the public domain

Unsure if this is the right place for this type of suggestion, and also unaware if this has ever been suggested before or goes against Wikipedia guidelines around notability, scope or similar.

kind regards Chris 194.56.198.54 (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I feel if there is notability and significant coverage around such an exchanging of IP rights, that can be noted on articles. As more films and such enter the public domain each year, I know those are always noted when that comes about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:CATALOG, so I would say that it is generally not necessary to document who the IP holder is (which may be different entity to the copyright holder). I would say the proper way to treat such information would be a similar approach to how Wikipedia documents film content classifications i.e. if there is an interesting background to it then it might be worth including, otherwise not. One example would be Debbie Does Dallas which fell into the public domain because of a mistake by the producer (see Debbie Does Dallas#Copyright). Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

FILMCOUNTRY

There is a dispute at Talk:1917 (2019 film)#Nationality regarding the opening sentence of the lead. The infobox states that the film is an American-British co-production, but an editor claims that the lead should say British film per sources. Input is appreciated, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ronald Reagan filmography

Template:Ronald Reagan filmography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mika1h (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Assistance with moving titles to new category

Category: Sundance Film Festival award-winning films was made to differentiate from Category: Sundance Film Festival award winners, which is supposed to be a list of persons only. There are still plenty of film titles in the latter category, so any help in moving these titles to the new category (and any titles not already listed) would be great. Spectrallights (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The River Wild (1994 film)#Requested move 29 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The River Wild (1994 film)#Requested move 29 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

All, this is a fairly interesting RM discussion. You're invited to review the discussion and weigh the policies and guidelines and related coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

RT reliability at RSN

Dropping a notice that a recent discussion was started at WP:RSN#Rotten Tomatoes revisited. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We should centralize the discussion either here or there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

True. I had glossed over that earlier, not realizing the same article was being discussed above. Oh well, the duplication may spark additional feedback from non-project members. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Time to rethink Rotten Tomatoes inclusion/centrality to film pages?

A recent article in Vulture describing both the manipulations of Rotten Tomatoes by film studies and the shifts in the review aggregation policies raises some serious questions about the site as a barometer of critical success. At the very least, the site that established itself widely on Wikipedia operates differently today and would have prompted very different conversations about its inclusion. Given how central these aggregators are to the "Critical Response" section of film wikipedia pages, is it time to rethink the idea that it is a reliable source? If so, what is an alternative? Infocidal (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's still widely used in reliable sources like Deadline Hollywood, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. I don't think blacklisting Rotten Tomatoes is warranted based on a opinion piece by Vulture. Also, film articles include Metacritic. Mike Allen 17:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@MikeAllen: That doesn't appear to be an opinion piece, it appears to be a feature piece of long form journalism. Can you offer some sort of explanation for this incongruence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It's more about how it's used than whether to use it. One possibility is to include RT scores in prose, but limit it to top critics and have a requirement for a minimum number of reviews (otherwise omit it from prose and just link to it in EL). I tend to agree with the Vulture piece that, effectively, there's too blurry a line between all of the critics they admit to RT and simply an audience score (for which there's already consensus that we should exclude). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this discredits Rotten Tomatoes as a whole. There are always entities trying to game the systems. Hopefully this will lead to scrutiny about critics' reviews. That said, we need to figure out who wrote the "Critical reception" section at Ophelia (2018 film) because the modus operandi appears similar. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Metacritic is based on mainstream critics, so it is a much smaller pool, perhaps up to 60-70 total (judging from the Barbie count). Plus Metacritic breaks down reviews as positive, mixed, or negative, which I think is more appropriate for encyclopedic articles than saying X positive and Y negative reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I am no fan of aggregators, but part of the problem with omitting them is that they are pretty much all that is available in the weeks following release. My bugbear is when they are added to articles about older films and used an indicator of contemporary reception. This can be problematic when the critical reception has been revised over time e.g. Vertigo. Also, given the number of polls that Citizen Kane has topped, is its RT score really that helpful? I would be happy to see aggregator scores removed from film articles that pre-date the aggregator, because often they are not an indicator of contemporary reception. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the idea of removing the aggregator scores from articles that pre-date the aggregator, though I'll stop short of advocating for it without hearing additional viewpoints. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't really a proposal as such, and I don't want to detract from the issue being discussed which is very specific to Rotten Tomatoes. I was just making a very general point that the proliferation of aggregators scores across our articles has turned it into a bigger problem than it needs to be. Any survey that has a low number of participants is susceptible to manipulation. I don't think Metacritic is immune to those pressures either. We have discussed just using the "Top Critics" before, but apparently they vary from country to country i.e. the Top critic score will be different in the UK to what it is in the US. We could impose a minimum threshold for the number of votes, but we have conversely argued that the lower number of votes on Metacritic yields a superior metric to Rotten Tomatoes. I don't think there is a solution to voter manipulation that we could implement, the solution will have to come from the aggregators themselves, but I think we could limit the problem by using aggregators more judiciously. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

My issues is a) editors single-mindedly add them to old films, as Betty Logan and Donlago describe, and b) editors single-mindedly try and use them as the barometer of critical consensus, quoting their critic consensus in full, essentially privileging an unbylined opinion above all else. None of this is even specified in FILM guidance, so I'd appreciate some caveats specifically added to dissuade this. Rotten Tomatoes being a little bit crooked wouldn't be so big a deal if we didn't have editors who wanted to write the reception articles of every single film ever the exact same, word for word, in their opening lines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly it. We over-rely on them and we elevate their standing within the articles. These metrics add an interesting perspective to newly released films when there isn't much else to go on, but ultimately they are just a perspective and not an arbiter of critical consensus. They aspire to be, but the different outcomes we get from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes shows just how much impact the algorithm and the selection of reviews has on the final score and conclusions. And now now we have score tampering to add to that. We magnify the problem with our approach to these metrics. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I see part of the problem being that editors want to make broad statements regarding a film's reception, which, to be verifiable, need to be based on a source of some kind, which then typically goes right back to the aggregators. It could be (and arguably already is) a challenge to make editors understand that making sweeping statements about a film's reception without a source that explicitly makes those statements is problematic. What we definitely don't want is such broad statements based solely on the reviews an individual editor finds versus what any source has said about the film's reception. DonIago (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it should either be downgraded or used very rarely. From my experience, people add it all the time as a shortcut rather than adding reviews from reputable reliable sources. It always seems like a bad way out, and I really detest it. Review bombing is a problem and the use of RT tends to act like that isn't an issue. Thanks for proposing this discussion. At minimum, I think there should be guidelines which limit its use. Historyday01 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is something that I've complained about for a while. The difference between a professional critic review and a user review have become very blurry on Rotten Tomatoes. In some cases, a Tomatometer-approved review is just a user review that was posted on YouTube. It's still a useful metric, but it should be used with caution when there's a small sample size, and people should stop trying to use it as a barometer of critical opinion in unattributed wikivoice, like it's the word of God. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We could add a threshold of a minimal amount of reviews required for inclusion. —El Millo (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That isn't a bad idea. It is similar to my proposal that there be guidelines to limit the use of Rotten Tomatoes in articles. Historyday01 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Like we did with CNET, I think we should wait at least a while to see how the situation progresses before deciding what to do. The exposé just came out today. At that time, WP:RSN should also be notified/consulted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the article addresses a lot of what we already suspect about Rotten Tomatoes; the aggregator is not impervious to flaws in its rating system, and it is susceptible (to some extent) to manipulation. But despite its flaws, RT has taken steps to correct them and/or reduce their impact over the years. It's an entity that values providing what they feel is reliable data, even if there may be underlying issues with the way the rating is calculated and how it is interpreted and perceived by the general public. While we should continue to apply the appropriate weight to this metric on Wikipedia, I don't see it being abandoned anytime soon, and certainly not while it continues to receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Perfection is not a prerequisite or requirement to being relevant. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Are we really in a situation where Rotten Tomatoes is central to our pages on movies? If so that raises competence questions as much as style/wiki ones, RT was never a high quality source... Ever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that RT is a great first-stop for finding actual reviews of a film, and that our list of reviews cited may reflect them (less than ideal), but not that we present RT scores as particularly meaningful in themselves. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
That was my understanding of community practices, I don't think we've broadly made RT central to film pages. Sometimes they are meaningful, but in those cases we will have coverage of them in independent sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It is one of several metrics cited, usually alongside MetaCritic and audience surveys from CinemaScore and PostTrak. No special attention is given, other than the fact they exist, though RT scores are typically listed first among them. Not sure I'd call that "central" to film articles, but its presence in critical reception sections is pretty consistent. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Why are any of them due without a mention in an actual RS? Or is it that most of the time you can find them in the reliable coverage so people have gotten a bit complacent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Likely, since it's not hard to find coverage, especially with tentpole films. An argument could be made that many smaller independent films receive less coverage, but I wouldn't doubt the coverage still exists to the level of warranting DUE. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it is central, but it is cited a LOT. And surely it isn't a high-quality source. Historyday01 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
A high-quality source isn't the bar for general inclusion; it's the bar for exceptional claims. And it shouldn't be a surprise that RT has a presence in film articles considering how often it is reported in reliable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Just a note that the bar for exceptional claims is *multiple* high-quality sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
One other consideration that I think might be worth setting in stone alongside other issues with pre-wide release films is that if the RT score is only based on a few outlets, we might not want to include it, the same way we don't allow plot summaries until the film hits wide release. At the very least then Wikipedia isn't helping perpetuate the problem of skewing early reviews for buzz. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- That similar to something I said above, which I'll clarify in case it was misinterpreted: if Rotten Tomatoes has only like 15 reviews logged, then we shouldn't include it. We could start by setting the threshold at the same amount Rotten Tomatoes itself sets it for their Certified Fresh status,^[1] which is at 40 reviews for limited-release films and at 80 reviews for widely released films. Of course this should be applied in context, so mostly for contemporary films, as older films tend to have fewer reviews and RT is not considered as important for them. —El Millo (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  - Per MOS:FILMCRITICS, we have cautionary language regarding review aggregators for older films. We can add similar language if the sample is too low. To avoid us coming up with some arbitrary cutoff, we could discourage RT until there is a critics' consensus published (which usually happens after 30 reviews or so, I think). I think this discussion is kind of all over the place, though. What exactly do we want to accomplish? Generally speaking, RT and MC are usually the "best" overview for most films. Certain famous films that have been studied closely could do without these, but many simply don't get that attention. Ideas from me include prioritizing Metacritic over Rotten Tomatoes, having the Rotten Tomatoes average score instead of the simplistic percent, deleting the cookie-cutter {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} that prevents any nuanced approaches. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    I like some of Erik’s ideas; in particular the very repetitive early citing of RT or MC in every film article together with their formulaic review summaries can become tiresome, often not actually adding much useful information to the article. Also regarding RT, including terms like “certified fresh” in articles ought IMHO to be a clear no-no; what this means is very familiar to film enthusiasts, but WP serves English speakers all around the world, and for a general reader coming to an article who has no idea what RT is, I don’t see that tomato-related jargon is helpful, clear or appropriate? Just saying “follow the link”, to understand something often given such weight so early in a lead or review section, simply isn’t good enough. Some editors like the aggregators because they offer an apparent shortcut to the hard work of editing - weighing up and balancing often conflicting sources (i.e. reviews) and an easy way to resolve disputes without really having to discuss them. But that’s just laziness, gives these sites undue weight, and can lose a lot of nuance from an article particularly if a controversial film with both very positive and very critical reviews merely gets summarised into some sort of middle-of-the-road averaged description. MapReader (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
These are some good talking points worth further discussion, but it might be best continued in a separate thread. The primary focus here is how revelations exposed by Vulture impact the reliability and acceptance of RT data on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I continue to believe we shouldn't be arriving at a hasty conclusion after one article "exposing" a source that has hitherto been widely held as reliable. It's too soon to make an informed decision. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about#whatisthetomatometer

B-class checklist

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to change B-class checklist behaviour — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments appreciated at Kareena Kapoor

Comments are appreciated at this move request. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight in opening sentences

I'd like to get other editors' thoughts on this. It seems to me that there is a consistent rigidity to many film articles' opening sentences, that they always name the director and the writer before any other contexts, which can be undue weight when other contexts are more appropriate, like with directors and writers who simply aren't household names or headline-makers. This rigidity is self-perpetuating because any attempt to change the opening is overridden with the claim that this approach is done everywhere (despite no guideline supporting that it has to be this way). I cover this in an essay here: User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films, identifying policies and guidelines that allow flexibility in how to "open" the given topic. Curious what editors' impressions are, as readers, and their interpretations of the policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Funny thing is I was one of those you corrected many moons ago (not ringing a bell which article it was or how long ago). But ever since, I've taken the importance of other aspects into consideration when working on film leads, and remain open to other opinions when there is disagreement. Despite best efforts among veteran editors of the project, however, you still have the drive-bys that expect consistency and are oblivious to why things are ordered the way they are at a particular article. I don't think there's any guidance in the MOS that's black/white about doing things a certain way, so as always it would default to local consensus. However, giving something more prominence in the lead because it has more weight per WP:DUE is a strong argument to make in talk page discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I know you feel strongly about this, but I disagree. The first sentence of the lead should logically identify the principal author of the work, which in most cases (though not always) is the director. If another element is as important as the director, they can both be in the first sentence. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The assumption that the director is essentially the film's author is auteur-based and is wrong to apply universally. The more auteur the director, the more likely they will be household names and be in the headlines. Nobody's arguing to take Spielberg's name out of the opening sentences. But there is a whole world of films where auteurship is much less of a thing. A lot of franchise films are far more noteworthy for the underlying franchise, yet there are articles where the opening sentence unduly prioritizes the director. I don't really understand the resistance to following how reliable sources cover a film. The context does vary by film, and Wikipedia's presentation to reflect that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't oppose naming the franchise in the first sentence of franchise films, but I oppose removing the director (or equivalent) at the same time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Another thing we should consider for franchise films is repetitiveness. Does the sentence Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a 2015 film in the Star Wars franchise or King Kong is a 2005 film featuring King Kong sound right to you? In these cases, the lead would flow better if the franchise was named in the second sentence or later. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think this? I had long assumed the director should be upfront, but my thinking changed when I learned that prominent placement of text can indicate undue weight. My essay quotes the reasons from policies and guidelines to be flexible with noteworthy contexts for films. Are there any policies or guidelines that support the near-universality of naming the director in every film article's opening sentence? As for your examples, these sound like they fit the policies/guidelines I highlighted, to define the topic (though I'd polish the wording). For movie buffs like us, we can be very knowledgeable that such definitions seem too obvious. But imagine someone who has never seen either film, they could come to the article and start learning. If the director is not famous, then the film doesn't really get defined until a sentence or two later. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight is about opinions and viewpoints, not this. I don't know if there is a guideline that explicitly states the author of a work must be in the first sentence, but this — to me, at least — is common sense and good writing. After all, books and artwork have traditionally been identified by author for centuries, and that is how we open virtually every article about a book of artwork. MOS:FIRST also permits spread[ing] the relevant information out over the entire lead, so there isn't a hard rule to put the "most" notable element of something in the first sentence anyway. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The point of contention is about identifying the director of a film as equivalent to the author of a book, which IS a bit of an opinion in the context of film studies. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this in principle. Obvious examples are franchise movies and star vehicles. One example that springs to mind is Goldfinger (film). The director is named in the opening paragraph, but it's not necessary to name him in the first sentence as directors are not part of the film's principle identity or authorship. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Erik and Betty Logan here. Equating a film's director with a book's author is a generalization that just doesn't hold water. There are certainly cases where directors are essentially "guns for hire" for ongoing franchises, book adaptations, star vehicles, and so on. There are also (non-anthology) films with multiple directors for one reason or another, such as The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and more recently Justice League. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Films like Justice League already don't follow standard wording, they follow the ridiculous MCU approach of naming every studio and distributor involved instead, which has even less merit than naming the director first.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the current first sentence in the WP:LEAD of the Justice League article is Justice League is a 2017 American superhero film based on the DC Comics superhero team of the same name. I do agree that a list of production companies has no business appearing in the first sentence, but that isn't the case here and subsequent sentences is a separate issue from the one under discussion. Justice League was only intended as an example of a film where the director (or in this case, directors) is not the equivalent of a book's author . TompaDompa (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What Darkwarriorblake is referring to is something like what is at Black Panther, "Black Panther is a 2018 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name. Produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, it is the 18th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)." The first sentence is fine, though the second sentence violates WP:PROMO. It sounds like a friggin' press release, and this happens across many similar articles because of like-minded editors engaging in groupthink. It's weird that these editors want to give a shoutout to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and also give the film's number in the series in absence of any context. Chadwick Boseman, the actor for the titular character, isn't even mentioned for about 40 words. There are much better ways to go about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I know that and agree with it, but how to write the first paragraph is really a different question than how to write the first sentence. I think we should stay on topic. TompaDompa (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, though it's still interconnected. Like a very long first sentence could be broken up into two, depending on compound-sentence best practices. Talking about the first sentence as well as the rest of the first paragraph can take into consideration the overall goal of serving readers. Like can we discern the proper order of noteworthy elements from reliable sources (and put the topmost one in the opening sentence) or not? Or is it something in the spirit of primary topic and secondary topics where we identify the "primary topic" noteworthy context for the opening sentence, and the remaining contexts can be considered relativley interchangeable? Maybe the first-sentence outcome is the same either way, but it can segue into how we deal with runner-up noteworthy contexts. In essence, the first sentence can't really be discussed in pure isolation. Anyway, for something like Black Panther, considering the retrospective coverage, it seems to me that Chadwick Boseman could potentially be in the first sentence, because from what I can tell from coverage, he is indelibly tied to that titular role. But it's hard to at least propose that change if the preexisting assumptions are too rigid. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ew. Superman (1978 film) doesn't even establish Christopher Reeve as Superman until about 95 words after the title. (I was trying to think of other "indelible" actor-character relationships, and this one came to point and proves the point of undue weight well.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, Erik, instead of trashing MCU article leads in a discussion that isn't about MCU article leads, it would seem more constructive if you raised your concerns at WT:MCU instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I already have. That's why I bring it up here, as something that hasn't been changed. They are very locked in with the promotional tone. It needs to be overridden by wider community consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:WBA goes into depth about how to write better lead sections, which are typically written with an inverted pyramid structure, meaning the most important aspects and details about a topic are given first. WBA also states, "The first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject – the essential facts that every reader should know." So this would support moving less relevant details out of the opening sentence or opening paragraph, but despite the guidance, it's not an absolute requirement. It also doesn't mandate that the most important details be given in any particular order, just as long as they are front and center near the top. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*It should be noted that WP:WBA is an explanatory essay, more relevant than a standard essay but not held to the same level as a policy or guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking for 1900 silent film: "Above the Speedway"

Above the Speedway is apparently a short silent film made by Frederick S. Armitage in 1900. All I've been able to find out about is a placeholder entry at Turner Classic Movies and an equally stubby IMDB entry. Any ideas on where I might find a copy of the film? It would make an outstanding addition to Fleetwood Park Racetrack (which I'm currently trying to push through as an FA). I drew a blank at https://www.loc.gov/film-and-videos. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Roy. If you search LOC for Frederick Armitage here, there seem to be other results labeled, "Contributor: Armitage, F. S. - American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - Paper Print Collection (Library of Congress)". Perhaps worth reaching out to one of these entities directly to see if the film can be made available? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Could also try contacting people and organizations that have papers mentioning the film since it sounds like they had/have access, like this and this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the other LOC material, but didn't see anything for this film (I guess "drew a blank" was a poor way to describe that). I also emailed the research group at https://movingimage.us/; haven't heard anything back yet.

What's interesting is that I've since figured out that "the speedway" refers to Harlem River Speedway, which is nearby Fleetwood Park, but not the same. Oh well. Not a loss, however, that opened up a whole new fascinating historical rabbit hole to explore, which is after all what I love about Wikipedia. RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

PR

Hey everyone, comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/To Fly!/archive3. Gerald WL 08:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To TIFF or not to TIFF

Bit of a situation that may require ongoing monitoring.

A few days ago, an editor tried to add an Indian-Bangladeshi film, Mujib: The Making of a Nation, to the Special Presentations lineup at 2023 Toronto International Film Festival — however, TIFF's own self-published calendar shows absolutely no trace of that film screening at TIFF at all. I searched for both the film's stated and "working" titles, and for the name of the director just in case it had a completely different title here, and there's just zip. I suppose there's a remote possibility that it was a late addition to Industry Selects, because those films aren't in that main calendar due to their "industry-only, no public ticket sales" status, but that's not promising because it isn't actually in the separate Industry Selects list either.

Meanwhile, there are Indian and Bangladeshi news sources claiming the film screened at TIFF, but absolutely none of the sources that covered any of TIFF's program lineup announcements in July and August name that film, or its director, as having been part of any program announcement either. (Not even the sources that covered Industry Selects, either.) These sources further claim that it screened at Lightbox 7, which is a pretty impressive trick given that the Lightbox only has 5 screens — you've gotta screen at the Scotiabank, not the Lightbox, if you want to get the word TIFF and the number 7 into the same sentence.

Realistically, my best theory at this point is that maybe some Indian or Bangladeshi film PR flack sent out a press release claiming that the film screened at TIFF as a publicity stunt, and some Indian/Bangladeshi media bit without verifying. At least, that's much likelier than TIFF screening a film while somehow completely forgetting to name it in any programming announcements or list it on the ticket-buyers calendar at all, and yet the film somehow sold out anyway, as the Indian-Bangladeshi sources claim. But I just can't find a shred of evidence that this was actually screened at TIFF at all, so the film's and the festival's articles may require monitoring to ensure that the claim doesn't get readded without better verification. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There does appear to be something called a Cinema 7 at Lightbox, at least according to this page, but I'm not familiar enough with the venue to understand what that means specifically. And, really, that is not helping verify that this showed at TIFF. I AM incredibly baffled to find at The Business Standard: "The film will be screened at 6:30 PM (Canadian local time) at the Bell Lightbox Cinema 7, as per the High Commission of Canada to Bangladesh's post on X," which I can't find anything from that Commission's Twitter, but it DID lead me to a tweet from Khalilur Rahman—who is of the High Commission of Bangladesh to Canada? Which, just makes me really confused? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably a market screening. Nardog (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, there's definitely no regular Cinema 7 at the Lightbox, but upon investigation it looks like a couple of the much smaller 60 to 70 seat studio rooms get temporarily designated as "6" and "7" during the festival as extra venues for Industry Selects titles that only need to accommodate a few dozen people rather than several hundred, but never for public screenings of any official selection films (which I wouldn't have known since I'm not eligible to attend Industry Selects screenings.) So yeah, a private industry screening is still in the mix of possibilities here, but there's still the problem that we need a proper source — and the problem that even if a private industry screening does turn out to be the truth, private industry screenings don't even count as premieres anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Expend4bles

Regarding Expend4bles, an editor has unilaterally moved it to The Expendables 4, and now there is an RM discussion to move it back. This seems inappropriate and flipped around; the editor should have started a RM discussion to make the move. There's no reason for it to be the other way around. Can an admin (or someone better with page-moving) undo this mess? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves is thataway. Nardog (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I was trying to find that, but I overlooked it since it's not in the TOC. Not sure if it's too late since flipping the current RM discussion would make opposes and supports confusing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

Regarding Oppenheimer (film), there is an ongoing issue with the lead section and how it covers the overall critical reception. See discussion here: Talk:Oppenheimer (film)#Critical reception in lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Mass move/translation of foreign-language titles to English.

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Translating foreign film/television titles to English

Hi there, I've recently noticed that User:Artemis Andromeda has been moving/translating numerous foreign-language television and film titles to English. Many of these are obscure, so it's not clear to me in what language they are more commonly known to English readers. The editor in question has been somewhat reticent on the subject, as can be seen here: Talk:07 Come In#Name change, so I thought I would try and find out whether these types of moves are approved/recommended, or if a stop should be put to the activity. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it is indeed WP:COMMONNAME. The official name may be the same thing, but it is not necessarily. So, the assertion that the official name is automatically the best one is erroneous. It probably is the best name in many cases, but that doesn't make moving a great many articles automatically to those names a good idea? imo? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ten, what do you suggest be done with this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (use English) Artemis Andromeda (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, WP:COMMONNAME. They're potentially competing, but MY general understanding of both conventions is that one is to use the most common name in English sources—which, as I stated above, is probably the English names but not automatically. The "use English" convention doesn't necessarily mean we translate every title into English. After all, we don't have the article at The Miserable Ones. Other examples are La Belle et la Bête (opera), Entre a Mi Mundo, Dil Se... My understanding is to use what the subject is called in English, which is sometimes a name that isn't in English. Personally, I'm confident the articles moved are most commonly known by the translated title in English sources, thus the move is appropriate, but the point I'm making is about more the Principle Of The Thing. I wouldn't move all of them back immediately but open quick sections on the talk pages to survey English sources for the most common name just for process reasons. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that Wikipedia: Naming conventions (use English) is entirely consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. WP:ENGLISH does not require that an article always uses an English-language version of the title, but rather the version that is most common in English-language sources. If sources stick with the non-English title, such as the case with Amour (2012 film) then so be it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is also my understanding. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Same. We go with the title that's actually seen in English-language sources. Foreign films often do have a different title in English than they do in their original language, but they don't always have a different title in English — the Canadian film Incendies, for example, never changed its title for English markets, and just stayed Incendies everywhere it screened. So we reflect what the sources are saying: we use an English-language title if that's what's reflected in English-language sources, but we leave it at the original title if the original title is what's reflected in English-language sources (and also if there are multiple titles seen in English-language sources so that there's a conflict over what is or isn't the "proper" English title). Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, so now that we've established the point, I wonder, does there seem to be any incentive to review the moves performed by User:Artemis Andromeda? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ten, @Betty Logan, @Bearcat? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone help locate older French sources?

Today I made some changes to Queer Palm, a sidebar award at the Cannes Film Festival, both formatting changes to improve its readability and adding missing sourcing to improve its verifiability — however, I'm having trouble locating adequate sourcing for a couple of the very oldest years where archival sourcing might very well exist that just doesn't google anymore.

2011 - Cannot find any viable source to support the nominees that were listed in the article; the source they were originally added with back in 2015 is now an unrecoverable deadlink, which has left me entirely unable to verify that that year's nominee list is complete and fully accurate.
2012 - While a source was already present in the article to support this year's nominees, it isn't ideal, as it only names six of them rather than all of them. And it's not a case of "there were actually only six nominees and the rest were made up by wikigoofballs", because its headline says there are 17 films in the Queer Palm competition before proceeding to name only six of them, and one of the films it fails to name was the fully verifiable winner (and thus was obviously in competition). And despite that source's headline saying 17 films, even our article only lists 11, so there might even be some nominees still missing.
2010 - Our article does not list any nominees at all this year. Given that this was the first year that the award was presented, it's possible that there just wasn't a list of nominees released at all prior to the winner announcement, but it's also possible that there was and we just missed it.

(The source for 2013's nominees is also not ideal, as it's a blog rather than real media, but unlike the 2012 source it fully matches the nominees that were sourced to it — so it could also stand to be replaced if possible, but isn't as much of an issue as the other three.)

The interlangs weren't much help, either: they all either don't list nominees at all, do list nominees but don't cite any sources for them, or list nominees sourced only to IMDb (which is not a reliable source).

So I wanted to ask if there's a project member with better access to archived French media coverage than I've got, who can do a quick search to see if they can locate improved sourcing for the nominees in those years. This only pertains to the nominees, as the winners in all three of those years have been fully sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)#Requested move 27 September 2023

Directly challenges WP:PFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown#Requested move 21 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown#Requested move 21 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

BFI shutting down website, moving to new search site

I haven't seen this discussed here (and apologies if this is the wrong place) but I learned this week from a query I made to BFI that it is shutting down its long-term website (random example for the 1959 film Action Stations: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6e822633, now broken) in favour of their new search site https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web, which for the example film eventually gets you to https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150102495 -- nb a different id number. BFI said in reply to my query "we have reduced the number of pages about films, TV programmes, people and companies that existed on the old BFI website. We are in the process of turning off this old website. A smaller number of these pages exist in a new form on the current website, for example https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time". So while the old BFI web has never been the greatest source of info, and I know it is debatable whether it counts as a reliable source or not, the fact remains that this web change is going to kill an awful lot of WP links! I mentioned the id numbers above when thinking about whether a bot could automatically make edits, but it looks unlikely. Tobyhoward (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

From my experience the biggest loss is that BFI was often used to cite running lengths and occasionally genres. Nothing crucial, but certainly stuff that can sometimes be a pain to find. Thanks for the heads up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It was also beneficial to determine a film's "country of origin". Mike Allen 22:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Lumiere is better IMO, as they have a more nuanced approach. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a shame. I've used it a lot for filmographies. TompaDompa (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to run a bot on the links we do have, to add a Wayback archive image?. It's bad enough to lose a resource like this, but if we can mitigate the loss where it is currently used that would be something. Betty Logan (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I see there already is a bot which may do this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/InternetArchiveBot I'll investigate. Tobyhoward (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely possible, I literally just a few days ago succeeded in getting an emergency run done to archive all citations to etcanada.com in light of the cancellation of Entertainment Tonight Canada. If you can't figure out how to do it yourself, I got expert assistance from WP:URLREQ. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bearcat. Tobyhoward (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Vertigo (film) or Vertigo (1958 film)?

A discussion at Talk:Vertigo (film)#Requested move 29 September 2023 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)#Requested move 3 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)#Requested move 3 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Stub updates

This Petscan link should give you a list of all the film-related articles that are in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs page. At the moment, there are 10 in the list tagged by WP:FILM. Some of them might still be stubs (this happens, e.g., if there are long lists of sources). Please take a quick look at update the Wikipedia:Content assessment ratings this week. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced "Notes" column in number-one box-office articles

I came across an editor earlier today adding unsourced records to articles such as this one. Looking down the "Notes" column, virtually every claim (bar one or two exceptions) is unsourced. This is symptomatic of all the articles in this series, which must amount to hundreds of unsourced claims. Clearly, box-office articles and records are not exempt from WP:V and the article cannot remain in this state, so I was wondering about how to approach this. I could go through the article tagging them, but it would mean tagging pretty much every article; I'm not a fan of tagging anyway because they never seem to address the problem unless somebody is taking an article through the GA/FA process. I could go through every single claim and remove all unsourced claims (which would be most of them). This would be a painstaking process and an unproductive use of my time.

Another solution would be to simply remove the "Notes" column completely, because it mostly invites non-relevant trivia. To take week #47 as an example, I am not sure how much encyclopedic value the claim "The Rugrats Movie broke Beavis and Butt-Head Do America's record ($20.1 million) for the highest weekend debut for a non-Disney animated film" has. It seems tangential to the topic. Pretty much the only notable on-topic information in there, is Titanic's record-equaling 15th week, which could be retained using a footnote (and with a source). Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll bypass the question of whether to keep these or not for now, but unsourced claims, and in this volume, should be removed completely. And I also agree that if the note column is removed but some notes are kept, then {{efn}} or similar should be used. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

SIA-class

Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like SIA-class from your project banner. Would you like to automatically reclassify these as List-class or Disambig-class perhaps? Alternatively it could just be removed and then the articles in Category:SIA-Class film articles would inherit the quality rating from other projects (or just become "unassessed" if there were no other projects) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in support of removing the SIA-clas from the project. Looking at a few selections of articles in that category, I think Disambig-class would be the best to recategorize them as, but I'm don't have much stake either way if that is deemed not the right replacement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I was looking into trying to understand what a SIA even IS, and even after looking at WP:SIA, I only vaguely understand what the difference between a SIA and a disambiguation page is. A proper SIA is a list, not a disambiguation page. However, I suspect the majority of our SIAs are actually disambiguation pages. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction is not very clear. From the name Set Index Article it appears that SIAs are counted as articles whereas disambiguation pages are non-articles. That would suggest that List-class might be a closer match. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Just to note that SIA-class has been removed and SIA will now classify as List-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ do you know how to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Summary so that the SIA line is removed? I can't seem to find the source of this data. Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I do not know how to do that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found that. Not sure how I didn't find it before. Gonnym (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Release date and year of the film "Eaten Alive"

There are conflicting reliable sources on the release year and date of the film "Eaten Alive". For example, Rotten Tomatoes lists the release year as 1976, while AFI lists a release year of 1977 (with a premier date of November 30, 1977). The article also currently cites October 18, 1976, as the release date, citing AFI, but I cannot find any WP:RS to support this, and it is in direct conflict with what AFI actually says. These conflicting sources have resulted in disagreements among editors. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

On a newspapers.com search, I'm finding some hits for it screening as early as April 1977, albeit mainly in advertisements or calendar listings, and there's even one hit for a film called "Eaten Alive" screening in Fort Myers, FL in March 1977, though it doesn't name the director for full verifiability — an April 29, 1977 ad in the Orlando Sentinel is the first hit I get that explicitly names both Eaten Alive and Tobe Hooper in the same place, and then it gets its first full-on GNG-worthy film review a few days later in the Miami Herald. (I already pulled a clipping, if you want it.) So November 1977 isn't right, because there is evidence of it screening at least six to eight months earlier than that, but I'm certainly not finding anything whatsoever to support an October 1976 premiere. In that entire month, the only hits I get for "eaten alive" anywhere on earth are of either the literal "bitten by insects or alligators" or metaphorical "utterly stomped on by an opponent in sports" varieties, with nothing related to a film at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of what date is actually correct, prior to editing, the page claimed 1976 in the article in multiple places but 1977 in the short description. Both obviously cannot be correct, but having different information in the main article vs. the short description ensures the article as a whole will always be wrong. If the date stated in the article is provably incorrect, it should obviously be corrected, but that needs to be done in all relevant places at once, including the main article, the short description, and the Tobe Hooper director template (which also listed 1977, thus making it also inconsistent with the article on the film itself). 24.251.3.86 (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WT:NCFILM#General conventions

I've proposed adding some general guidance about our naming conventions to WP:NCFILM, which I find strange to be missing, but apparently no one watches that talk page anymore? I would appreciate it if some editors could take a look. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Fan films

There is an editor trying to crowbar a fan film into the Starship Troopers 3: Marauder article and I cannot believe this is appropriate at all. Other opinions? Talk:Starship_Troopers_3:_Marauder#Fan_film? -- 109.79.64.12 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

B-class criteria

Hi; I was wondering if this project still finds B-class criteria useful? (the B1-B5 ratings in the project banner)?

If so, as a result of the global switch to project-independent quality assessments, we're planning to move these B-class criteria to the WikiProject banner shell so they're not duplicated across projects. Just trying to see whether there's any interest in keeping them. DFlhb (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to add that the two options are:

to keep B-class criteria, and move them to the banner shell to reflect consensus for WP:PIQA
to remove B-class criteria ratings from WikiProject banners, if people now consider them obsolete

The latter will happen, after further discussion, if the projects currently using B-class criteria signal that they lack interest in keeping it. DFlhb (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I personally was one of the ones feeling this is no longer necessary. WP:FILM is only a handful of projects who still use this, and I don't think we need the assessment anymore to change an article from a C or lower up to a B class. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And you may well have been right; I'm sorry for being a little brusque in my comment on WT:COUNCIL. I pinged the top-3 projects that used B-class criteria and you're the only one who responded. What I'll do (by this evening) is open a new discussion at WT:COUNCIL, and notify every WikiProject that uses B-class criteria; that way we can see whether people prefer keeping/deprecating. DFlhb (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite all right. I also gather there may not be many active FILM members who would have strong opinions on this in the long run, but I'll keep an eye out for any larger discussions and do my best to gather any support from here if it's needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) within its banner template. DFlhb (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Mission: Impossible film locations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Mission: Impossible film locations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible film locations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, but the AfD was just closed as keep. Now, to those who !voted keep for whatever reason, please go ahead and fix all the WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT issues as suggested by the closer. Apparently we're a travel guide now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

busts of mock variety

i've been ~~procrastinating~~ editing the article on mockbusters at a slow pace, and got tired of it not having an image, so i asked about adding one in the teahouse

per colinfine's answer, there might be legal issues with adding a mockbuster's cover or a side by side comparison of a movie and its mockbuster's covers, but it might also be perfectly okay

opinions? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Film studios

Wanted to ask for project input on a category problem.

While obviously I understand that there's a genuine distinction between a film soundstage or backlot facility and a film production company, in actual practice the category system's distinction between Category:Film studios (which is, at least in theory, meant for facilities) and Category:Film production companies is just utterly failing to respect or uphold it at all — in the real world, "studio" is so widely used in both senses that the entire "studios" tree is just teeming with entries that are more properly described as production companies, and in fact many, though not necessarily all, of them are dual-catted as both studios and production companies at the same time.

Obviously this needs to be resolved somehow: we need to either more strictly uphold the distinction between a facility and a production company, or just blow it right up if we can't. So I wanted to ask for opinions about which direction we should go in:

Rename the "studios" tree to something more explicitly "soundstage/backlot facilities, not companies" and purge it of the entries that aren't that, or
Just merge both the "studios" and "production companies" trees together into one common category on the grounds that trying to keep the distinction is going to be more trouble than it's worth?

Any input? Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly option 1? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bearcat can you give a few examples of articles that are meant for the facilities categories and not the company category? Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's principally the other way around: things being categorized as facilities when they aren't, not things that are facilities being categorized as if they weren't. Bearcat (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Since there are two categories and you are asking what to do with them, examples of pages that should go in them would help give an answer as currently it's just abstract. Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for examples of the reverse of the problem, which don't exist — it's a one-way problem travelling in the opposite direction of the one you asked for examples of. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

El Politigato AFD

Re-listed three times at AFD, needs more feedback: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Politigato. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Screen Rant paywall

Am I just now noticing this, or did Screen Rant recently add a free-account paywall? I clicked on a handful of their articles and got a popup asking me to "create an account to keep reading". Articles that cite Screen Rant should add |url-access=registration to their refs — if not retroactively, going forward. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

they did, seemingly while i was looking for sources on an unrelated matter

i believe addiing the registration flag is something jjmc89 bot 3 can do cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 14:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the Acceptable Way to Cite VHS etc.?

Is this an acceptable way to cite VHS and other home video releases?^[1] I can't seem to find anything on what sources are acceptable to cite home video releases. Armegon (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can use {{Cite AV media}}. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have been more specific. What's the acceptable way to cite the existence of specific VHS release? Perfect example: @Scottandrewhutchins wanted to say that Simitar Entertainment's VHS was released in 1990, see the edit here, but instead of citing a source he cited the UPC/Spine number catalogue of the VHS. I can't find whether that's acceptable or whether we should stick with secondary sources. Armegon (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A video can be a source for things on the video (for example, if you wish to cite a fact from a documentary), but it can't really be used as a source for facts about the video. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for the response. Armegon (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Monster Zero Cat. No. 2242. Plymouth, MN: Simitar Entertainment, 1990. UPC 0852551022427; Spine number SE02242EP0063

Help with Five Nights at Freddy's (film)

I would like to help getting this article to good article status. Can I get some tips on what I can do to improve it? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe wait until it's out of theaters? Mike Allen 22:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Determining a film's official title

When contradictions arise between sources, which should be treated as the most authoritative? For example:

Borat
- The billing block says: Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
- The MPAA certifiate says: Borat
- The U.S. copyright office says: Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
- The Library of Congress says: Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
- The BFI catalog says: Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
- The AFI catalog says: Borat
- Box Office Mojo says: Borat
- The Numbers says: Borat
Birdman (film)
- The billing block says: Birdman
- The MPAA certificate says: Birdman
- The U.S. copyright office says: Birdman
- The Library of Congress says: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
- The BFI catalog says: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
- The AFI catalog says: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
- Box Office Mojo says: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
- The Numbers says: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

To be clear, we are not talking about the film's common name or the article title, which are independent from the film's lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Billing block and how it is registered at the Copyright office should match and are legal documents much like a birth certificate is for a person. Those are authoritative. Other sources are wrong, or at least using alternative names if they deviate from the registered name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to worry about "official" titles here? Both the short form and the long form have valid uses per reliable sources, and it would be remiss to leave out a long-form title entirely. Not sure what to be "treated as the most authoritative" means. To show only the long-form over showing the short-form then mentioning the long-form? I would oppose leaving out the long-form entirely, but don't have strong feelings about how the first sentence presents the information. The short-form can be easily sussed from the long-form, unless there are guidelines that dictate a particular approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not necessarily about length, it could be punctuation or stylistic effects. I do not think alternate titles should necessarily be omitted, but there is a distinction between Borat! Cultural Learnings [...], or simply Borat and Borat, also known as Borat! Cultural Learnings [...]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

When the article is named with the short-form film title, here are two ways to write the opening sentence:

Birdman, officially titled Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), is a 2014 American...
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), often shortened to Birdman, is a 2014 American...

Nothing in the MOS (that I'm aware of) specifies that the official title must be mentioned first, so either approach should be acceptable as long as both the short-form and long-form appear in the opening sentence. For me, #1 seems more natural in these situations; leading with the article title is a natural tendency. But if an earlier edit wrote it the other way around, as shown in #2, I wouldn't go out of my way to change it. I assume that's the general consensus, but maybe it isn't? Do we need consistency across film articles? I know outside of film, it's hit and miss as to whether the official title takes precedence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the topic of this thread, this is a discussion about whether the shorter or the longer title is the official one. If the shorter title is the official name, we would use either of the two wordings you listed. If the longer title is the official name, we would do the other way round. Whether to open the lead with the official or alternate name first is a separate matter, though as I said earlier, rarely have I seen a film article open with an alternate title. This is also consistent with MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Just curious... Why would we treat a short-form official name differently? You just said that either #1 or #2 would be acceptable when the shorter name is the official name, but only #2 would be acceptable when the official name is longer? I'm not following that logic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say only #2 would be acceptable, I said it would be the other way around:

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), officially titled Birdman, is a 2014 American...
Birdman, also known as Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), is a 2014 American...

InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't list the examples in any particular order. Are you suggesting that #1 is preferable to #2 depending on the situation (hence the reason you reordered them)? I was describing that either option is equally acceptable. Similar to MOS:RETAIN, editors should just go with the option that is first inserted into the article and not change it unnecessarily. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't invert the order, I changed the conjunctions being used. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the topic of this thread, I would tend to agree with Geraldo Perez on what is likely more authoritative. However, it's not exactly clear why that matters. If the opening sentence of the lead is going to list both the common name and the official name (when they differ), then what's the impact of determining authority? Doesn't seem like anything will be lost by not making that determination. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Because it is not possible for us to list the two titles without a conjunction that implies one is official and the other is an alternative name, e.g. "also known as", "marketed as", "stylized as", "or simply", "officially known as", "titled onscreen as", etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm with you now. There are some neutral conjunctions that should work in any situation, such as "often shortened to", "billed as", and "titled onscreen as" (perhaps even "marketed as"). While it would be great to be able to use "officially titled as" as often as possible, neutral wording should work around that in the rare situations when we need it to. My 2¢. Good discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Also just thought of this one: "also titled". Seems like a great way to avoid the "official" label when editors disagree over a conflict in reputable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that we are also over-using the phrase "stylized as" when it really isn't "stylized" but has a different title. Alien 3's title is stylized differently, but a title like Borat or Birdman are not stylized, they are a different title. Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.rottentomatoes.com/about#whatisthetomatometer

[2] Monster Zero Cat. No. 2242. Plymouth, MN: Simitar Entertainment, 1990. UPC 0852551022427; Spine number SE02242EP0063

[1]

[1]