Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JuneGloom07 (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 25 June 2012 (→‎Genre change help: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcut
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(7 more...)

Featured article reviews

Featured list removal candidates

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

WikiProject Film - to do list?

I have analyzed the condition of various film articles and i feel if there was a list people added titles to, then various editors could take on a seperate project to improve it's standards. Any thoughts? RAP (talk) 23:49 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy Peer Review

Would anyone be willing to provide a review for Tron: Legacy so I can move forward with the GA nom? RAP (talk) 15:24 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)#Prometheus

There is a discussion going on here and as a result at Prometheus (film) that I would like input on or ideally intervention because I've spent days debating this with a brick wall and I'm sick of dealing with it so I'm not anymore. Fair warning this might have spoilers for the above film I'm being told that with reliable sources you can add information to articles even if that information is theory. If you've seen the film you know its wildly open to interpretation and most importantly not directly related to the events of Alien without a massive amount of time/distance/logic being filled in, yet largely a single editor semitransgenic is and has been for days, arguing for the inclusion of theories about creatures in these films to be taken as fact and added to the article on the Alien creatures. Mys tance is that reliable source or no, its uninformed theory that only 3 people definitely know about: Ridley Scott, Damon Lindelof, and Jon Spaihts, and they haven't discussed it. I think the user is wrong, thoroughly wrong, but I have been back and forth over this since the 7th or 8th and I am done with it, nothing I say will assuage him or others on that path even when I debunk source after source. So if someone with more knowledge knows whether it would fail policy to include that info or if anyone wants to enter the discussion for either stance, go nuts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Executive producer roles in producer navboxes

I recently cleared out all the executive producer entries in Template:Steven Spielberg, as I feel they don't belong. An executive producer does not have an implicit creative role, and much the same way we don't have actor navboxes, some films can have a dozen or so executive or associate producers, so assuming each executive producer had an infobox, we would end up with as many navboxes on the articles. I recently did something similar at Template:Quentin Tarantino. Is there any precedent for this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing. RAP (talk) 12:08 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You have to have the same rule for one as the other. It's not a valid argument that because Spielberg is Spielberg, he had creative input. There's a link to his filmography on the navbox. That will suffice. And "all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing" would not include Executive producer, as that is not "producing". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is Spielberg we're talking about. Everything he does, he has creative input in. Jurassic Park III, Men in Black are examples. The navboxes and infoboxes are different because with the navboxes we can use it to cover all aspects of a highlightable person's work, examples being Spielberg and Joss Whedon. RAP (talk) 12:17 13 June 2012 (UTC)
But that's my point. You cannot assume that an executive producer has creative input just becasue of who he is, and you have to have the same rule for one as another, and executive producer credits are not notable enough for a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do we do with them? They are part of his career, and navboxes cover all career aspects, but since that doesn't apply anymore, what becomes of them? RAP (talk) 12:24 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Navboxes are not supposed to "cover all career aspects". Navboxes are supposed to appear on each article that is mentioned within them, and if you start doing that with every role in someone's career, then each article will be full up with navboxes. This is why we don't have actor navboxes. All the information can be included in a biography or filmography article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, these navboxes are there to identify creative authorship. Actors can have creative input in films too, and we don't include a navbox for every actor whoever ad-libbed a line. The production designer probably had more creative input than Spielberg in the executive producer capacity. According to Robert Zemeckis, Spielberg didn't interfere at all on Back to the Future; a lot of the time—especially in the 80s—Spielberg would act as an executive producer for his friends just so they could get their movies made. It's important for Wikipedia to not get caught in the fame game; the issue is really the creative authorship of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't navboxes meant to highlight important links related to their topic? If you're going to have something as bloated as Spielbergs navbox, you might as well just replace all of that with a link to his filmography. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool - we're in agreement. I cleared out the George Lucas one a bit too. How do we feel about the executive producer roles in their filmography articles? Should they be in the main filmographies, or as a separate list? --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the Spielberg filmography is fine as it is, I wouldn't want to see data fragmented just for the sake of it. With the filmography, each column is sortable, so if you want his director credits it can be sorted that way, same with his producer credits, and if you want to view all his credits for a particular film they are all there on one row. In truth I think the editing decisions for filmographies are best left to the individual article editors; they are restricted to the article the filmography is on, it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Until the other day however, all the executive producer roles on Spielberg's filmography page were lumped in together with the producer roles showing a "Yes" in the relevant column, so I changed this. I did the same with the George Lucas page, but this has been reverted, changing the column to executive producer instead, as Lucas doesn't appear to have had any actual producer roles. I can live with that! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tails / George Lucas

Making the argument that executive producers do not provide creative input belies the fact that individual films have unique histories and stories. Making the statement Lucas doesn't have any producer roles?? that alone fails as a statement as he is renown for his involvement as an executive producer, including Red Tails which extended far beyond just being a money man, he actually took up the reins as a second unit director. FWiW, individual articles have to be treated in isolation and left to the authors/editors that have made thoughtful and relevant submissions. Bzuk (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes of course, there are always exceptions, and that's fine as far as individual articles go, but we shouldn't be including executive producer credits in navbox and infobox templates, as there is no context (and I meant that Lucas didn't have any "producer" credits - roles are a different matter). --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a general statement, that might be true as executive producers usually are backroom people, but folks like Lucas as notorious "tinkerers" that just have to get involved. His role in Red Tails was so complex as both creator, originally screenwriter and then personally financing the production that it stands out as a unique role, and again, I did not contribute the original note or infobox, but am confident that a reasonable "exception" can be made to retain a mention in the infobox for the casual reader. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It can be discussed at length in the article if you like, but it doesn't belong in the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance" and even in [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film , there is a clarifying statement/premise that "All parameters are optional".] The particular article already has an extensive background as to the role Lucas played, but that isn't the question. I feel that it is an issue of removing content where it matters, disregarding that the original contribution was a reasonable "exception" and follows WP:Bold, rather than a, dare I say it, "drive by" reversion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer", and there is no field, nor any support for an executive producer field. This has been discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox film and is a bit off topic here (although that's my fault we went off topic I guess). Consensus was that no executive producers should be included, and Lucas was cited as a specific example. And as Betty mentions, we're playing the "fame game" if we start excusing people because of who they are. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that an exception should be made for "who they are" but for "what they did" in individual films should lead to consideration of the actual contribution of an individual to the creative element of a film. How that appears should be relevant to the reader and the case that infoboxes are there for a "at the glance" type of information is one possible solution. Take a look at Red Tails now to see my out-of-the-box solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC). As to the assertion that "consensus was that no executive producers should be included" is not at all what was the jist of the arguments. In reading through the "strings", it is evident that many editors made the case for allowing individual and unique situations to be identified in the infobox when an executive producer made a substantial or significant contribution to the production. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Just because a couple of editors were pushing the argument in a certain direction, doesn't mean that that wasn't consensus. If you look toward the bottom of the discussion, a case study was made specifically on Lucas, and it was decided that if anyone was an exception it was him, and consensus was that he failed the tests for exception. Just be content to add the information in the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even making a clarifying note to the reader is not acceptable? What became of AGF editing? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Infoboxes are supposed to be "at-a-glance". If you start including clarifying notes, then they are no longer "at-a-glance". And sorry about my last revert, that was a mistake. And what's your obsession with the outdents? ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the outdents are an affectation that resulted from my involvement in "circle jerk" arguments. The issue, however, should not come down to an editwar which was precipitously being created. The reader actually does not have a full or complete picture of the role of George Lucas in Red Tails which may end up being a last effort of the ubiquitous filmmaker in the creative process. FWiW, the need for concise and "to-the-point" editing is the flag behind which I am fighting. Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
If you're all for being concise and to the point, then I'd say that the concise statement is "George Lucas was the Executive producer of this film". The non-concise statement is "George Lucas was credited as the Executive producer on this film, but actually he took on many other roles including...", etc, etc. As I said, there's no problem in elaborating in the text, just not in the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This convoluted discourse has now devolved into an examination of the role of the executive producer, and I am now questioning the "consensus" that is being bandied about. Isn't a consensus derived when all parties to a solution agree to the decision, rather than one adherent taking/making a statement that consensus has been reached? Perhaps further elaboration and discussion is required? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
If you care to read the discussion, there is a very clear consensus that executive producers should not be included in the infobox. I'm not getting into it again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People continue with this fiction that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". Not all Executive Producers are stereotypical managers or lawyers or studio heads whose credit is questionable. As I explained at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21#Executive Producers producer credits are not specific anymore at all. They have come to mean very different things on different films. It is now not at all unusual for the line producer to be given the title of Executive Producer, while the initiating producer takes the "Produced by" credit. But on other projects, including all Lucasfilm productions, the reverse happens, with the line producer taking the "Produced by" credit. So the two credits have become effectively interchangeable, with no precise definition. As an example from a less famous person, Robert L. Rosen was John Frankenheimer's line producer on six films. On the first, French Connection II, he got "Produced by" credit. On the second, Black Sunday in 1977, he got "Executive Producer" credit, even though he did the same job. (For what it's worth, I think he and others should have objected -- that switching the then-common meaning of the two titles was not a good thing.) The two credits became increasingly interchangeable on feature films ever since.

The infobox is supposed to accurately reflect who made the film. When if comes to the Producer category, the most important criterion is not a strict telling of who got the "Produced by" title, but who actually initiated the film and oversaw it - this guy is the effective principal producer, whatever title he actually got. He should be listed for the article to be accurate.

I agree with Bzuk that Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance", and that is why I believe instances like Lucas should be included. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gothicfilm, If you look at the recent discussion on this subject that you mention above, you were the only editor giving this opinion, and consensus disagreed with you. And that discussion specifically talked about Lucas. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You came in and declared consensus was achieved - based on the false belief that there's a hard and inviolable difference between Producers and Executive Producers. I could show many examples of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reasonable editor who saw that only one editor was arguing in one camp would have reached the same conclusion. If you choose to ignore all the arguments against your point, that's up to you, but there was a clear consensus. We have to be careful about WP:OR and jumping to conclusions regarding these roles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

template:Internet Archive film

A reviewer at WP:FLC suggested getting rid of the "more" link. See the discussion here: Template_talk:Internet_Archive_film#more_link_redux. – Lionel (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinema of the Philippines

To be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting that this template be entirely deleted, but instead that it be split into smaller, more targeted subtemplates. none of the other templates in Category:Film country navigational boxes are as large as this one. I attempted to boldly split the template into modified version of Template:Cinema of the Philippines, Template:Filipino film crew, Template:Philippine film schools, Template:Philippine film awards, and Template:Philippine production companies and film studios. However, this change was reverted and I was told to gain consensus first. given the fact that none of the other Cinema of Country templates are this large, it seemed to me that there was consensus, but I guess not. what do you think? Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your split makes sense. I'm in favour; go for it. GRAPPLE X 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to split this down, it's massively bloated. Although I'd go one step further - where's the merit in Template:Filipino film crew? Imagine if we had a Template:U.S. film crew. And I'll bet this template is included on the article pages for every Filipino movie ever made. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm considering sending Template:Filipino film crew to WP:TFD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sure, we can delete that one, but if it is deleted, we should remove that section from Template:Cinema of the Philippines as well. FYI, it's not used on articles about films, but articles about directors, producers, ... Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section should be removed from Template:Cinema of the Philippines regardless, but nominated at WP:Templates for discussion#Template:Filipino film crew if anyone wants to contribute. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
320 transclusions, at present. //Obviously// this pig needs splitting up. The one-template-to-link-them-all approach is very poor design (as was image-on-left in prior 'look'). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the high transclusion count is due to it being included on articles which it does not link (e.g., individual actors). Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the creator of Template:Cinema of the Philippines. I just want to let you know that Philippine Cinema is very different from American cinema, budgetary wise and much lesser number of people involved in making a movie. Frietjes made the Template:Filipino film crew, from the original Cinema of the Philippines template, but in the original COP template the director is separated from other film crews, it has its own collapsible group. When Frietjes combined the directors to the other film crews that's when the template got bloated and lopsided. Transclusion? Yes, I added the navigation template to some Filipino actors, but it is still related to Philippine Cinema. Could you please tell what rule am I breaking by doing that? Because I believe that's what Navboxes are for. So, If we have a Navigation box we can only place it to only a few articles? My main problem is Frietjes keeps doing all this changes without explaining what I did wrong? What rule am I breaking? Don't I deserve an explanation? I think this is just rude and disrespectful. Whatever happened to WP:ETIQUETTE? Briarfallen (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are the creator of Template:Cinema of the Philippines? are you a sockpuppet of Dr. Blofeld who created the template back in 2007? it looks to me that you are the one who "expanded" the template in 2011. I'm not the only one who feels that was a mistake, if you check the recent edits to the template. instead of asking me to revert my changes, or why I made the changes, you simply went on a rollback spree, then told me to gain consensus when it was fairly clear that this template was the outlier in the group of all the others. indeed, what happened to etiquette ... Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here on Wikipedia to argue with anyone, I am here to contribute or improve articles on Wikipedia most especially about the Philippines. Please do what is best with the template. Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tcmdb title

There is a note there stating that the template is not working as of 2011.
Well, it is working as of 2012, with the different URL structure over at TCM.
Varlaam (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather lead & infobox

There is a dispute at Talk:The Godfather#Godfather film credits about whether or not to include two uncredited figures in the lead & infobox, or put their involvement in the prose. The other issue is whether screenwriters should be listed in the lead as "in a production of", instead of the usual WP film article language. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various film categories at CFD

Several film categories are currently up for changes at CFD. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film#Categories. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: FILMRELEASE - A Matter of Life and Death

I wonder if I could please have some thoughts on the article A Matter of Life and Death, particularly in relation to the age-old question of WP:FILMRELEASE. I undertook a stack of edits yesterday to try and move this article out of the mess in which it currently wallows, only to have them reverted. Most of the reverts were down to formatting points and, whilst I disagree with them, I am more concerned about the release dates of this film. The film, for those who don't know, is British and was first released in the UK on 1 November 1946. Another editor, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has added both a New York release and an LA release date (both with non-consistent date formats too). Neither of these US release dates are in themselves particularly notable, but BeyondMyKen has argued that "The NYC release (which is not a screening -- films at that time generally opened first in NYC), which is the American premiere, significant because the American release is discussed in the article, (3) The LA release, which determines the year that the film is considered for Academy Awards, and, finally, the general US release." I'd be very grateful to hear the thoughts of others on these additional dates. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that as the UK release was first, the American premiere or release is not relevant in the infobox (just as a UK premiere of a US film isn't relevant), but can be discussed in the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Think that the premiere, the first general release, and the home country release are all valid. Have updated article to this effect. LA release has absolutely no bearing on anything. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, I've tweaked what you wrote, based on new info which puts general release in the UK on 15 December 1946 - way before any US release. Are you happy with this? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes. If home country's general release is before any other territory's then this renders any other release date irrelevant. That's not to say it can't be discussed in the article mind you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Matrix - Larry to Lana (And other films)

There is a discussion going on at the manual of style with a user who believes that The Wachowski Brothers and the Larry Wachowski credit should be changed to Lana Wachowski and the Wachowskis to represent her current status. Personally I feel this falls under the realm of this project, and that it is improper to retroactively alter credits on films based on future events. There is also comment of a compromise (Lana as Larry for example) but again I feel this is improper and irrelevant to the article's history, past, present or future. She wasn't a she at the time, certainly wasn't credited that way, and that change hasn't retroactively altered the film. To insert such a statement is unnecessary, incorrect and confusing ("Wait, why was this woman credited as a man?"). BUT, I am only one person with my own opinion, so I feel input from members of this project would be appropriate since this can potentially affect any film article where something changes in the future and effectively alters their existing history. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this seems like it would be similar to changing someone's maiden name on their previous credits once they're married, which we don't do. Obviously Wachowski's page would be titled Lana but piped links on past credits are Larry are how we should go about this. Future credits under the name Lana would go ahead as normal. GRAPPLE X 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly the thought process I had. I made an example there that Steven Spielberg changing his name wouldn't mean updating E.T. or Indiana Jones, it'd be ridiculous, those are Spielberg films, that is how they're known. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with a very similar situation working on the articles Against Me! and Tom Gabel (Gabel recently came out as transgender and plans to transition to living as a woman and take the name Laura Jane Grace). I agree with Darkwarriorblake's take on it, and it's the approach I've used: When an individual goes through a name change—whether through adopting a pseudonym, marrying, legally changing names, etc.—it's improper to go through all their past credits changing their name. It's basically revisionist history. In this case the individual was Larry Wachowski at the time they did all these works, and that's how they're credited on the works. MOS:IDENTITY comes into play in these circumstances with respect to how we refer to the individual in their bio and in articles about current/future works, but it doesn't justify changing all past credits. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have had a similar situation for years with Wendy Carlos. She is referred to as Walter for her work on A Clockwork Orange and as Wendy on The Shining. The default has been that "credits are listed as seen onscreen". I don't remember whether that ever got added to the MoS but it is the guideline that most of us have used over the years. There is always room for mentioning the change briefly somewhere in the article and, as these changes are going to continue to occur we should make some allowance for them. Perhaps a centralized discussion involving several projects would be a good idea. MarnetteD | Talk 00:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I still don't think it needs to be mentioned in the articles unless it is of note, like they changed their name because of the film or were forced to be credited in another way/chose to be like Alan Smithee. In their Bio that work before a certain point was credited as another name or that suchafilm was their last film credited as whomever, OK. I just don't see how it is of any relevance to the Matrix films. Certainly not in the infobox (though tbh they shouldn't even be credited individually in the infobox, they were credited as The Wachowski Brothers, I assume someone has already partly changed that for the sake of this in the past) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To find another (so far uncontentious) example, Aqualung (Jethro Tull album) mentions the role Dee Palmer had in arranging the album, though she was at the time David Palmer and was credited as such, which is the name used in the article. As that article's primary author, I know its GA review was quite thorough and performed by an experienced reviewer, so if it were incorrect or contentious to list credits as they were at the time then it surely would have come up. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the user who actually brought this up at MOS:Identity used Cat Stevens as an example, unintentionally completely undermining their argument since he is now known as Yusuf Islam, but all his work as Cat Stevens is still credited to Cat Stevens and not Yusuf Islam. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It bugged me last week when I saw Bound (film) credited to The Wachowskis, an obvious compromise. While not promoting the name Lana, it's still not accurate to the film's historical credit. Credits should reflect the work at the time of its release. The Walter Carlos example on A Clockwork Orange (film) - Wendy Carlos (then known as "Walter Carlos") - in the text, Walter Carlos in the infobox - is a good way to handle it. I've had to restore that a few times myself after someone deleted "Walter", leaving just Wendy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, except I think the prose part is unnecessary there to. It raises a point in the very lede about the composers personal life which has no bearing on the article itself (She doesnt appear to be mentioned at all outside of the lede and infobox). I just can't see how it is important to mention that in the lede or article at all and gives the mention seemingly more importance than the article reflects since she is never mentioned again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with you, in a pure sense. The problem is if it doesn't say that there will always be people coming along to change it to Wendy - probably thinking they're the first to do so. And it is in the third paragraph of the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps per MarnetteD (formerly known as MarnetteC), we should have a discussion and add the result to the FILM:MOS because this is apparently happening more often than I realised as I'd only ever seen it with the Matrix films. I'm really not happy with this "THe Wachowskis" compromise, it flies in the face of the effort we go to, to maintain accuracy and it does it to reflect things that simply weren't the case when the work was made. If they decided to retroactively rename Blade Runner to Edge Trimmer, I can't imagine we would change the article name to reflect that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are using the term formerly - I have never change my user name and that is easy enough to check by viewing my edit history or edit count :-). I would agree that we should have something in our Film MoS but it might be a good idea to get it into the larger MoS for the biography project since this will affect more than just actors and filmmakers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Blake was just being hypothetical, not implying that you've actually gone by a different username. Personally, I'm against the "x (formerly known as y)" thing. It just seems unnecessary. Assuming the person is notable enough to have an article, and that article is titled by their current name, a simple piped link suffices to handle the name issue, for example [[Tom Gabel|Laura Jane Grace]]. It's exactly how we handle name changes due to marriage or legal name change, when the person had previous credits under their maiden/birth name. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: I didn't "unintentionally completely undermine" my argument. I was completely aware of the crediting for Cat Stevens, and like I said, I consider it a different situation (name changed at the end of their career, not the beginning; doesn't involve a change of gender). I'm trying to examine the guidelines and precedents to figure out what naming makes the most sense. I'm not just trying to win an argument. The reason I changed the name in the first place is that MOS:IDENTITY states that people who's gender is in question should be referred to by their "latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." That seems to suggest that "Larry" Wachowski should be listed as "Lana" Wachowski (as sites like IMDB and Metacritic list it). If people want to carve out an exception for movie credits, that's fine, but I don't see any guidelines to that effect currently. Kaldari (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that changing your public gender identity is a much more sensitive issue than a simple name change. This is why we have specific guidelines on this issue. The argument that it is equivalent to a person's last name changing when they get married is unconvincing. Per our BLP policy, we have an obligation to take people's identities seriously and treat them with some degree of sensitivity. I'm not sure there's any solution that will make everyone happy, but I hope there is room for compromise. Kaldari (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: "The default has been that credits are listed as seen onscreen". I don't think that's necessarily true. In all the cases I've found where a cast member's name was spelled wrong in the credits, we list their name spelled correctly:
And in most of the Alan Smithee films on Wikipedia, we list the real director, not "Alan Smithee". In many cases, however, "(credited as Alan Smithee)" is added after the real name. Kaldari (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"'latest expressed gender self-identification.' This applies in references to 'any phase of that person's life.'" In a biographical article that would be true, but it has never applied to other types. In fictional articles characters are to be referred to as they were first introduced. Film information, especially infoboxes is to refer to films as they first came out and how the people were credited at the time. Larry was NOT Lana when The Matrix was made and it should not be forced to reflect future events. If Hitler were alive today and changes his name to Puppy Sunshine Totally Innocent, the article name would change to reflect that, the article body would have a pre- and post- life as Hitler sections, otherwise a huge historical common knowledge would be distorted. ANd I've already told you about IMDb and Metacritic once, they're databases, they're not going to have two entries for the same person with a different name, it absolutely violates the most basic tenets of managing a database because you'll end up with redundant information. It is not an endorsement for history altering, it's practical computer knowledge. The same thing happens here, you use a piped link to "CooCoo Machoo" but it leads to his current name of "ChooChoo Macoo". No matter what you name the piped link, it will lead back to the base article because we don't have separate articles for people based on hteir current identity. And you seem to be arguing that it somehow upsets Lana to have been previously named Larry. Well this isn't a gender issue, what does the gender have to do with the films they made as the Wachowski Brothers? She obviously had no issue receiving that credit, that is the credit as given, that is what the credit here should reflect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for spelling mistakes, that isn't a name change, it's a correction. We aren't pedantic about that, we fix spelling mistakes in quotes as well unless it impacts the context in which case we use [sic] to retain the error. A mistake in name, Lary to Larry, is not the same as rewriting the film's history and putting in place an entirely different name/individual compared to who is recognized as being responsible for the film, The Wachowski Brothers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I was going to make this comment over at the Talk:MOS discussion, but it seems better-placed here:

Different ways of referring to them

The case of the Wachowkis is complicated by the fact that not only is there a name change, but they're also commonly referred to as a pair (and the name for that pair is also affected by the sex change); also, sometimes their films credit them as a pair and other times individually (I just watched the end credits of The Matrix and it says "Written and directed by The Wachowski Brothers", but "Executive Producers: Andy Wachowski Larry Wachowski Erwin Stoff and Bruce Berman").

Different places they can be mentioned in an article

  • The infobox
  • Their first mention in a lead section
  • Subsequent mentions in the article's body text

In each of those places, the question comes up: how should they be mentioned? The way they were credited in the film, their individual names at the time of the film's release, their individual names now, their collective names then, their collective names now?

Infobox inconsistency

I looked at the infoboxes of the articles on films they were involved with, and here's what each infobox currently uses:

  1. "The Wachowski Brothers" - The collective way they were credited as directors/writers on The Matrix. (Used in the infoboxes for Speed Racer and The Animatrix.)
  2. "The Wachowskis" - The current collective way of describing the pair, and the name of their biographical Wikipedia article. (Used in the infoboxes for Bound, The Invasion and Cloud Atlas.)
  3. "Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski" - Their individual names at the time of their films' releases, and the way they were credited as Exec Producers on The Matrix. (Used in the infoboxes for the three Matrix films, Assassins, V for Vendetta, Ninja Assassin.)
  4. "Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski" - Their individual names now. (Not used in any infoboxes.)

My opinion

To be honest I haven't really decided for myself. I've considered a few different variants (like changing the opening sentence of The Matrix to read: "The Matrix is a 1999 American science fiction action film written and directed by Lana and Andy Wachowski (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)") but I can see problems with all of them.

I just know that whatever's decided needs to be applied consistently! --Nick RTalk 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea about Larry/Lana. As well as the Against Me! example cited above, see also Keith Caputo of Life of Agony. Has there been any thought on spliting the The Wachowski article? Lugnuts (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the solution to me is simple, we don't change who authored an album when they have a name change, which we discussed above, I imagine any re-releases of the Matrix do not refer to her as Lana either. The credits should accurately reflect the history and not future changes, and the credit should remain Larry and/or The Wachowski Brothers and not the made up credit "The Wachowskis", even if this is in use for their releases now. The sex change is not relevant to these films and does not need discussing there and as Lugnuts statement above proves, it is not even particularly common knowledge and so introducing it into films where it was not the case causes unnecessary confusion. Courteney Cox is not credited as Cox Arquette on things where she wasn't married, neither is Jada Pinkett, Jada Pinkett Smith.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Tenenbaums

Since I have been accused of article ownership, I was hoping some other editors would take a look at the recent changes to this article's plot and give their opinion as to which version is better. My opinion on the matter is that the plot changes added unnecessary details and an inadequate reason was given for the changes. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

Due to the fact that this thread Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters was closed without resolution I would ask that other input be added to this discussion Talk:Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters#The new film by any of the members of the film project that have the inclination to do so. As only two people have discussed this we need other input to form a consensus one way or the other. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible article you have to see for yourself!

The First Motion Picture Unit has more full length watchable film videos embedded than any other article in Wikipedia. It is really cool to be able to watch so many movies in one place! It is now at WP:PR (and T:TDYK). Check it out here: Wikipedia:Peer review/First Motion Picture Unit/archive1. – Lionel (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre change help

An IP has changed the genre of My Week with Marilyn from drama to biographical. I believe there are more sources stating the film is a drama, than a biopic (An Economist writer even states that it isn't a biopic [1]). Google gives me 3,500,000 results for drama and 1,730,000 results for biographical. Is there a website the project uses to source the genre or will a discussion need to take place on the talk page to determine a consensus? - JuneGloom Talk 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This happens every once in a while on film articles. I would suggest not getting into a dispute. Leave the "biographical" bit in the article, but take it to talk. I might suggesting using a straw poll if consensus cannot otherwise be easily determined. I used the same method during a similar disagreement recently. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Getting into a dispute over the genre is definitely something I want to avoid! I'll start a discussion on the talk page and use the straw poll if I need to. - JuneGloom Talk 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion started, if anyone wants to take part and help resolve this. - JuneGloom Talk 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable for sourcing?

A question of "reliability" is being answered at WP:RSN. Journalist and film critic Nick Nicholson is an established expert in his field as film critic. He accepted two minor positions in two-different film projects, one in 2011 and the econd in 2012. The positions which may have been volunteer spots or paid. Any supposed financial connection ended when he left those projects. His works are found in otherwise reliable sources in which he does not control editorial policy: Fort Bend Focus Magazine & Focus on Women Magaine,[2] Fort Bend Star, [3] Style Magazine,[4] ABC News 92 FM,[5] CBS/CNN 650 AM,[6] Houston Chronicle, and Houston Post.

To clarify, before we get off-track, policy WP:SELFPUBLISH is about someone publishing their own book or creating a self-published media, and THEN claiming themself as expert. Inapplicable. The related WP:SELFPUB speaks toward non-experts writing about themselves and their personal activities. Inapplicable. Further, the guideline WP:USERGENERATED telling us that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This said, may we consider those articles written by him before his connection was made and those written by him after his connections ended, as worth weighing toward notability of his covered film topics per WP:NF? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=499290476"