Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films)
Jump to: navigation, search

User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability[edit]

User:Michael 182 is changing film award artiles by diasbling sortability and splitting the lists by decades.[1] I reverted once in Palme d'Or, User:Filmested has reverted them in Golden Bear and User:Brian W. Schaller has adviced them against doing this in Academy Awards. However they revert back and continue with this scheme. Any opinions? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 20:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe hold an RFC? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Since this is an issue spanning various award articles, where would the right place for an RfC be?
I guess this would probably be the best place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Splitting by decade is usually done when there is a need to split a list due to size issues, per Lists of horror films. I don't see much point in doing it within the article itself, especially if the table is sortable. It seems to me it is reducing the functionality and not gaining much in return by breaking up the table. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
On the user's talk page I extended an invite to participate in the discussion here. AldezD (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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

@Michael 182, your statement is contradictory to the comments by Betty Logan. Please explain how the article is not able to be understood as details are presented today, and what your revisions enhance or adjust in terms of understanding material. AldezD (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Michael 182: You really need to stop edit-warring on articles such as Academy Award for Best Picture and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited Series or Movie. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, and you are going to end up being blocked at this rate. You need to take it to the talk pages, lay down your arguments and win support before continuing with this campaign. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The format of the Academy Award for Best Picture that is being used in recent modifications is he one being used in articles of Golden Globe Award categories and International Film Festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 182 (talkcontribs) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The director of the film has no bearing on the recipient of the award. Please stop WP:DE edits to this article. AldezD (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
User:TwentySteps is reverting the sortable tables -against present consensus- to the versions by Michael 182. Hoverfish Talk 23:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Already blocked by Ponyo. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories again[edit]

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

I could swear that there was once a policy/guideline on not creating triple-intersection categories, but I can't find it. That aside, these do seem total overkill, esp. with the "Children's" part of the examples above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, these categories are a textbook violation of WP:NARROWCAT. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I also agree such categories are way OVERCAT. The guideline -at least in WP:FILMCAT- should warn against creating triple intersections. Hoverfish Talk 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Haven't we discussed this same problem with this editor in the past? This all seems very familiar... ------The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Fictional film page move[edit]

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

Annual-overview articles: introductory sentence copyedit[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Update: I had originally thought the 2017 article was the same as the rest, but it's different. I've discovered another change I think should be made: most articles seem to have "Award ceremonies" as a sub-heading of "Events". Correct grammar would be "Awards ceremonies". — Hugh (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Maybe give it a full seven days here, incase anyone (stongly) objects, or has a better wording. Thanks for looking at it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks ok to me. I would just get on with it. If people object you soon find out when they revert you, and then we can have the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts and Betty Logan:Thanks for your support. I don't know how to use AWB, and haven't registered for it. Is there someone who can make these changes for me? Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably just as quick to copy & paste that paragraph into each year, working backwards, changing the year as you go. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: there are more than 140 pages! Maybe I will apply for AWB access. — Hugh (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled Avengers film[edit]

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

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

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

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

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

Draft help requested[edit]

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

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject[edit]

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

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at

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

Does the Re-release Matter?[edit]

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

Where does it state you can't nominate the article before it's out of theatres? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: I don't know, but I asked the same question here a month or so ago, and was told that the film needs to be out of theatres. They didn't remember where they read it either. I can recall it was a user I trusted, and said I would wait. Cognissonance (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the criteria is specifically about being out of theaters. It is more about ensuring broad coverage, per Good Article criteria. For example, an unreleased film's article could not be a Good Article because it lacks coverage of arguably the most important part (for Wikipedia), the reception of the work, even if its production is very well-covered. Details of a film's re-release would be a small portion of the article body and not a big deal. However... I personally am not crazy about nominating films who will likely be covered more during awards season. The film may or may not win accolades, or the film may be written about more, meaning a potentially incomplete and unstable article. I admit I don't really do anything GA-related anymore, but I think it would be ideal to do this kind of nomination after all the awards are said and done for a given film. Most of everything will be settled by then, in terms of content and editing activity. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Erik - that makes sense, esp. with regards to the award season. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The article covers all the main aspects of the film, considering awards are more ancillary information. I wrote the Production section from the book The Making of Dunkirk, which makes me doubt there is much more to add. Stability is the only thing that worries me. I must admit, after so long, I'm impatient. Cognissonance (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to listen to me. :) You could just go ahead with the nomination now and pay attention to additional coverage while the film is in the running and then nominate it as a Featured Article next year post-Oscars. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, go for the GA if you wish, and with the feedback and improvements to the article in the GA process, you can then push for a FA after the Oscars. The whole GA/FA does take a long time though. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks for replying guys. I've never done a FA (from what I've seen, it's a pretty overwhelming process), but if you think it's good enough, I just might. For now I'll just brave the first hurdle. Cognissonance (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption Featured Article review is open[edit]

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

RfC: Use of the term "Soft reboot"[edit]

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

New Zealand films by decade[edit]

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


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

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

Spider-Man: Homecoming[edit]

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

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

Is there a way that your post doesn't constitute canvassing? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
How so? The notification was made at one location, the message text is neutral, and recipients are not preselected. They could agree with one side or the other. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
How is a 3RR report of interest to the Wikiproject, as it - by definition - addresses editor conduct, not content? Maybe the article discussion is worthy of noting here, but not the addendum of your 3RR report. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned it because I wanted swifter feedback from the community to lean the matter one way or another. The dispute was initially between two editors with no good room to compromise. You complained about the general notification, though, despite the best practices followed for it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, asking for eyes in the article is approriate. Asking for eyes on your Edit-warring complaint is not: its canvassing. You thought that if you told people here, everyone would jump to your defense. That's not okay. I'm frankly a lot surprised by your behavior here. My Dad (a former wiki editor) holds you in the highest esteem; I'm wondering where that version of Erik went. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Nah, it wasn't canvassing. Editors here are welcome to disagree with me (and have before). Notifications for film-related content disputes are posted here routinely. I know I've disagreed with the notifying editors in the actual discussions themselves. In any case, it's not even clear here what the dispute is; they still have to go and look for themselves. Do you want to post a notification at the talk page for WP:SEEALSO? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's immaterial at this point; you dodged a bullet (even the minor one of a warning). That said, the canvassing here for defenders in AN:EW was clearly fucked up. You are allowed to seek eyes on content issues. Not conduct defense canvassing. I respect you enough to expect that you will not do it again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:IMDb title"[edit]

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

The Film Chart at Star Wars[edit]

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

Inclusion criteria for List of Columbia Pictures films[edit]

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

The production section guidelines have been changed[edit]

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

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

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

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World[edit]

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

  • Comment The American Film Institute also has it down as UK/Jap/US as well. I don't know how they are making the determination but both the AFI and BFI are very credible sources, and the fact that they are consistent makes a compelling case. Interestingly the Lumiere database has it down as UK/US/Canadian. Ultimately though we shouldn't be determining the countries ourselves and should rely on sources. I would say that on the basis of those three sources per WP:WEIGHT both the UK and US should definitely be in the infobox. I am less sure about Japan due to the lack of consensus between the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty. I appreciate your thoughts and the sources you provided. Still, the question remains: the sources say one thing, but the article still lists one production company, so I want to know how we deal with this contradiction. This isn't about placing my judgement above that of these reputable sources, it is simply saying that the article now contradicts itself. ------The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that WP's standard is that a production company singularly defines a film's nationality. The standard is to follow the sources, which can conflict. The film is likely partly categorized as US because Universal is the studio behind the film. A studio does not merely distribute a film; it is very much involved with its production. (Though a studio's independent-films branch could get distribution rights to a film after it was produced and then distribute it.) For this film, there is no specific nationality to put upfront. Since the sources conflict, perhaps the matter can be relegated to a "Notes" section that reports what each database (AFI, BFI, Lumiere) says are the countries behind the production? See Out of the Dark (2014 film) with its note as a potential example to copy. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Erik. It seems to me that most of the discussions/debates/arguments I have witnessed or been involved in have revolved around the notion (correct or not) that a film's production company defines its nationality. This is clearly a widely-held view, which is disturbing since you say that it is incorrect. I also feel that it is widely-held that a film's distributor is irrelevant to questions of nationality – is this also incorrect? In the end, all I want is for this article's information to be accurate, even if it is complex, and your idea of a note to explain the apparent contradictions in the sources would go a long way toward solving the problem.
Beyond that, I want the IP-hopping anonymous editor to stop pushing his POV on film nationalities. I also want a pony for Christmas. Which one seems more likely? ------The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It is worth reading "Lumiere – Country of Origin" for how they determine the nationality. Nationality clearly extends beyond just where the production company is based and can also take into account international co-production treaties, cultural tests and financing. If it were as straightforward as just stating where the production company was based then I doubt there would be so many inconsistencies between sources. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Italics for translations?[edit]

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

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

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

It should be: Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (English: This Youth is Crazy) per WP:NCF. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Thanks for the link to WP:NCF. Is helpful, but not sure if I still know exactly what to do. It says "If the film was released in the English-speaking world under its native title, use that throughout the article, but include an English translation in brackets after the first use. Do not put the English title in bold, as this is not an 'official' title." So it shouldn't be in bold, but it's not clear to me if it should be italicized, as it not an official English title, or capitalized using Title Case." There doesn't seem to be an example there that fits this particular shape. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Basically if something isn't a title it shouldn't be italicised, so if the translation has never been used as a title then it shouldn't be in italics. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I'm getting closer. Not bolded, and not italicized. So: (English: This Youth is Crazy) or (English: This youth is crazy)? Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but this is just so common and there's no clear explanation anywhere for how to deal with it as far as I can tell. Face-smile.svg Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I would avoid title case for a straight translation and I would format it in quotes like in the Ran example at WP:NCF. That's just how I would do it i.e. I'm not speaking with authority on the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Production section best example[edit]

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

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment we use Boys Don't Cry (film) and Inside Out (2015 film) as our FA and GA models, so it's good place to start. In truth, any film article added to Category:FA-Class film articles and Category:GA-Class film articles in the last couple of years should provide a pretty good template. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that it can depend on the film. Some of the more famous films have entire books about their productions, and that itself is a challenge to summarize into a section. (I would also argue that it would be possible to have a production sub-article as long as there are a variety of sources about the production.) Some other films may have very little coverage. Older films pose another challenge in finding sources, especially when they are not famous. And yet some films may be very well-known for certain aspects that warrant their own sections or sub-sections (e.g., one specifically for cinematography). Slightlymad, do you have a specific film in mind? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Well Erik, I think the Leprechaun article, a GA, has a pretty concise and direct production coverage, but perhaps it could be expanded using the audio commentary from that movie's DVD. In any case, that article was my example in improving Shoot 'Em Up. Slightlymad 05:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)