Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Alan Hale Sr. and Alan Hale (actor, born 1892)

A discussion regarding the proposed move of Alan Hale Sr. to Alan Hale (actor, born 1892), which is currently active at Talk:Alan Hale Sr.#Requested move 1 January 2017, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Dabpage and set index of "A Nightmare on Elm Street"

Since the closure on Talk:List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media#Requested move 18 December 2016, I had someone else split the logs from List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media to A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation). Since the split, I added entries "See also" section to make the page less redundant to A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), including a porn film. Unsure what to do with the "media" set index, however. Nominating the set index for deletion is tempting, but I'm pinging Anthony Appleyard, Bkonrad, and BD2412 about this.

Back to the dabpage, I could not add partial matches, like Nightmare on Evergreen Terrace; instead, I added {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}} templates, so readers can find parodic titles resembling "A Nightmare on Elm Street". --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the use of two film lists as sources

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough consensus below that these lists should not be used as primary sources on critical opinion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This request for comments has been created in order to determine whether or not the two main lists of They Shoot Pictures, Don't They (theyshootpictures.com, sometimes known as "TSPDT") – The 1,000 Greatest Films and The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films – should be regarded as reliable sources on how celebrated a film is among film critics and scholars. There is a discussion about this subject in the above talk page section "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#On TSPDT". Vote "Yes" if you consider the site's two main lists appropriate for being mentioned on Wikipedia, and "No" if you consider them unreliable. AndrewOne (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Yes, per my comments above and below. AndrewOne (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes as a secondary source for the polls but No as a primary source as an arbiter of critical opinion. Nobody has challenged the reliability of TSPDT in the previous discussion so this RFC is completely fatuous. To recap, what TSPDT does is aggregate film polls such as the Sight & Sound poll and using an arbitrary formula assigns ranks to films from those polls. In that sense, it does for film polls what Rotten Tomatoes does for film reviews and AndrewOne wishes to use the aggregate list as a litmus test of critical opinion. If the site is being used as a secondary source for those polls that is probably ok, but it lacks legitimacy as an aggregator i.e. TSPDT reflects only the site author's opinion and the ranks do not carry any weight in the critical community. There are many secondary sources that quote Rotten Tomato scores which help establish its legitimacy as an aggregator of critical opinion, but this is not the case with TSPDT ranks. Anyone can take a bunch of polls and mash them up but if the film criticism community does not respect the methodology enough to accept the list as an arbiter of critical consensus then we shouldn't either. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, and I say this being in complete agreement with Betty Logan's reasoning. We have two workable, time-proven aggregators in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and by using them together, they provide balance and perspective and prevent monopolistic influence. Where I think my good colleague and I may differ is that the subtext of this RfC seems, to me, to be a desire to "gild the lily" — that is, for editors to be able to call their favorite film "critically acclaimed" simply because it was well-reviewed. Well-reviewed and critically acclaimed are two different things. An action movie may get 95% on RT and MC, but that doesn't mean it's The Seventh Seal or La Strada — it just means reviewers thought it handled action-movie tropes in an entertaining way. (Occasionally, to continue with this example, an action movie may indeed prove to be more, such as Seven Samurai. But those are rarified exceptions.) I'm just not sure we could be giving fannish editors any ammunition to muddy the waters. And also, RfCs aren't a matter of "votes" — they're a matter of consensus for the most logical argument under the circumstances. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, and for the reason that the site itself concedes in its introduction to the latest list. The 'big picture' story of the years to come will be a more balanced distribution of power and influence in the world, with the rise of China, India, Brazil etc. providing a counter to the American (or American/West European) world view that has dominated since the end of the Cold War. Film is still US dominated but nevertheless the Chinese box office is expected to overtake the US (I am certain in numbers, not sure about the cash) within the next few years, and we are already seeing more emphasis being given to 'international' (aka 'foreign', lol) filmmaking and 'overseas' box office than previously. Right up front this site accepts that it is deficient in adequately reflecting audience from large parts of the world, and in my view therefore not fit for the purpose being advocated here IanB2 (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (1) This RFC belongs on the talk page of the article, NOT here. Can someone please move it? (Can leave a reminder link here.) (2) I have no idea what the RfC is asking. Seriously people, be clear, give links to and attribute the so-called "lists", and state exactly what phraseology in the wiki article you are proposing or questioning. ABOVE ALL, MOVE THIS TO THE CORRECT VENUE. Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Summoned by bot; agree with Betty Logan and Tenebrae. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

My argument, for which there are citations in the talk page section "On TSPDT", was that They Shoot Pictures, Don't They, as far as assessing critics' acclaim for films is concerned, is an exception to the general guideline regarding self-published sources due to the following: (1) Its runner is eligible for voting in what is described by Roger Ebert as "by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies—the only one most serious movie people take seriously", (2) Georgaris' project has been praised by critics including Jonathan Rosenbaum, and (3) several studies of films have cited it as a resource.

They Shoot Pictures, Don't They could be seen as a cinematic equivalent of Acclaimed Music. As another user has said, it also contains much sourced biographical material about directors and their works. Someone opposed to the referencing of the website on Wikipedia has understandably argued that if such material would be good for inclusion, editors should find the original source. However, I was not referring to this material in the first place when starting the discussion on the use of the website as a source: I am simply arguing in favor of TSPDT being used as User:Erik earlier said it could be used – that is, for referencing a film's placement on either of the site's two main tabulations, which have been viewed as helpful contributions to film criticism and which I consider worthy of mentioning on Wikipedia film pages. AndrewOne (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

From my earlier research, there seemed to be basis to indicate the source's reliability. However, my concern is taking this basis and interpreting it to mean that this list should be mentioned in over a thousand films' Wikipedia articles. I do not find that its noteworthiness is comparable to lists like Sight & Sound or AFI. Basically, to proliferate TSPDT across that many articles would be to inflate its prominence. Maybe keep it to a more in-prose use if there is a more detailed write-up involved? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The mentioned discussion is archived at /Archive 62#On TSPDT. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Day of the Dead remake plot

It's not a big deal, but there's a bit of an issue at Day of the Dead (2008 film) about whether the plot should stay under 700 words. I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Day of the Dead (2008 film)#Long plot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Duplicate organized crime categories

I'd like some opinions on what I see as duplicate organized crime categories: Category:Films about organized crime and Category:Gangster films. I don't see any difference between these; a gangster is a member of organized crime, and a member of organized crime is a gangster. Right now, the latter category is a subcat of the former, but I don't see how Gangster films is a more specific term than its parent cat. My suggestion would be to depopulate the Gangster films cat. and then delete it. Most of the films in the cat. are in more specific subcategories – for examples, organized by country. In general, I am trying to make some sense of all the organized crime categories, many of which are redundant. In the end, I'd like to see all the "gangster" subcats deleted as redundant and insufficiently defined to be helpful. Before I proceed, I'd like some opinions from other editors. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The "gangster film" is a well-established term and genre. I see multiple books with this in the title. I'm hard-pressed to get rid of it because of that prominence. Could "Gangster films" just be the main category instead? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to that. I simply think we don't need both categories. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that the "films about organized crime" is used as the parent category for child ones, like the documentary category about crime organizations. Why the need to delete one in favor of the fictional genre? --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the argument here is that the categories are synonymous i.e. in what way are Yakuza films not gangster films? Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good point, Betty. In general, the "gangster film" categories are a mess, and I am trying to get a start on fixing them. Obviously, we need cats to be specific – all Mafia films are gangster films, but not the other way around – but gangster films and organized crime films are, to my mind, identical. Which should stay? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
If I had to pick, I would go with gangster films. However, is there potentially a body of films that feature organized crime from a different perspective? For example, are The Departed and The Untouchables gangster films or something else? The Departed seems more called a "crime film", where there do seem to be results calling The Untouchables a "gangster film". We may want to look at what sources say to help make the proper distinctions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Departed is categorized in both "gangster film" and "films about the Irish Mob," the latter being a subcat of "films about organized crime in the United States," so I would argue that the "gangster film" cat is redundant. I would definitely call The Untouchables a gangster film, but it can also be called a police detective film. I can't imagine a situation in which "gangster film" is defined as distinct from "films about organized crime." Of course, I've been surprised before. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What about Traffic? Daß Wölf 04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That's categorized under "films about Mexican drug cartels," which is a subcat of "films about organized crime by country." ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is an organised crime film, but I wouldn't really call it a gangster film. Take Miami Vice for another example. This might be WP:OR, but to me the name of the genre brings to mind certain people in suits and bowler hats. This has a lot of overlap with Category:Mafia films but I'd call it distinct enough to survive on its own. For instance, Public Enemies (both the Barkers and Dillinger films) are gangster films but have little to do with the Mob. Daß Wölf 02:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that Mafia films shouldn't remain a distinct category. And I agree about the Public Enemies films. The question is, is there a way to distinguish "gangster films" from the category "films about organized crime"? So far, the consensus seems to be that they are one and the same, which is my argument. Subjective notions about what constitutes a "gangster" aside. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

There's a difference of opinion at Talk:List of historical period drama films and series#Prehistorical films. Could somebody else chime in, please? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Girl with All the Gifts (film) character ethnicity

At The Girl with All the Gifts (film), there are users who are demanding the article have a 'whitewashed controversy' section. Looking at the discussion, I agree with DKSpartan on the section's removal. More views on the matter would be appreciated DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Subramani

Invitation to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Subramani - Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about movies is updated - Skysmith (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Joker (character) nominated for deletion

Joker (character) has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). DarkKnight2149 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment re: Peter Cushing article.

Please see the CGI section of Talk:Peter Cushing about a famous film actor. CGI Who agrees to retain this info? Or should it be deleted? There is a disagreement over two aspects in the lede. 1) Has there been a dramatic resurgence of media attention to this actor's career (he died 20+ years ago) created by his CGI resurrection and 2) Is the controversy about CGI "resurrecting" a dead actor important enough to include in the lede (and to what extent).

The other user just reverted my latest edit but until he did so, the last two sentences of the leded read as follows: Cushing's likeness was extensively recreated with digital special effects in Rogue One (2016) and that raised questions around the morality of using a deceased actor's likeness.[1][2][3] This aspect has certainly brought Cushing's name to the forefront, generating frequent new coverage of a lengthy career which ended over 20 years ago.[4][5]

At the same time, he also deleted part of what I had added today in the CGI section of the body of the article. 20:46, 10 January 2017‎ Justeditingtoday . . (39,335 bytes) (-1,411)‎ . . (Reverted 4 edits by Peter K Burian (talk): WP:OR again. See talk. (TW)) If he is right and I am wrong about what should be included, no problem. I would simply appreciate unbiased comment to determine what is best for readers of the Peter Cushing article. Note: there has been no discussion in TALK by other users as to whether the sentence about the resurgence of media interest in the actor's career is relevant or not. The discussion of that topic is only between the other user and me. Thanks for any involvement that some of you might provide. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill, Jr.

An admin closed the discussion at Steamboat Bill, Jr. in favor of using the film's actual onscreen title with comma, despite a couple of WP:BIO editors believing WP:BIO guidelines for people supersede WP:FILM guidelines for film titles. Now those WP:BIO editors are trying to overturn the admin's decision. You may wish to comment — either to endorse the admin's close or not — at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 December#Steamboat Bill, Jr. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASSING, and please stop mischaracterizing the actual terms of the discussion. No one is "believing WP:BIO guidelines for people supersede WP:FILM guidelines for film titles". There is no conflict at all between MOS and any other applicable guidelines. WP:FILM is a wikiproject, not a guideline. The actual topical guidelines are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, which are not in conflict with MoS on this point. The film in question was promoted both with and without the comma by its own producers/distributors, so the punctation is not an integral part of the title (and serves no grammatical function; it's optional styling).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Close endorsed. A victory for comma sense. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Red Billabong

An entry for a recent film Red Billabong reads a bit like a positive review or a post by the movie creators. I have not seen the film so I can't speak to the accuracy of the content, but it does not follow the style of a typical film entry:

  • Review text in the description
  • Table of characters - poorly written "bios" of the principal and minor characters.
  • List of crew autobiographies - if the people mentioned are noteworthy, they should have their own wikipedia entries.

Mad about everything (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The crew autobiographies was a massive BLP issue, and certainly doesn't belong in the body of a film article (or, indeed anywhere on WP). Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 12:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I propose to remove the following text from the description:

Sparke infuses Australian culture and legend into every moment of his feature debut. In the opening scenes there’s a sense of carefully planned world, and the vague hints at granddad’s research or the local tribes only serve to deepen the mystery. Red Billabong is not just a horror film, but a riddle to be solved within the framework of a typical splatterfest.

and to delete the table of characters and crew bios.

Mad about everything (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

IP edit-warring on Shutter Island (film)

Can someone check the material the IP is edit-warring to remove? I've warned them on their talk page about edit-warring but they are still doing it. I haven't seen the film since its release so I'd like some substantiation that the information in that part of the Plot section (that the IP keeps deleting) was correct. If it is correct, could someone please revert the IP? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been too long, so I don't remember the details of the plot, but this book seems to corroborate the IP's edit: "It turns out Rachel Solando, the supposed murderess, is not a patient. Rather, she is a staff psychiatrist pretending to be a patient." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks for that. It looks like the IP was technically right. IPs are people too, I guess. :) Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Monkey's Paw (1933 film)

I would like to discuss this movie with someone. Until last year, it was considered lost for decades. For that reason, I think this article needs to be expanded. Scorpions13256 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Spanish help needed

Does anyone here have a workable knowledge of Spanish? I'm curious if an Argentine action-horror film called Daemonium is notable (IMDb link). It was directed by Pablo Parés and stars Caro Angus and Dany Casco. I can give more details if necessary, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it's about. I watched it on Netflix. There are English subtitles, but it's one of those films where robots and ninja fight each other for no particular reason, and then demons invade. However, I'm thinking that Parés and I would get along alright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be one of the more succesful films of Pablo Parés, despite a chaotic storyline. So I would say yes. Lyrda (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films RFC

There is an RFC at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#RfC: How many entries should the main table have? regarding the size of one of the tables. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. What do others think of this edit on the article for Room 237? I've not seen other articles link directly to a review of a film in the EL section with this template, rather just to the main page on AllMovie. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 20:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been seeing this appear too. It should probably link to the non-review. If the review is important, cite it in the reception section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Per WP:ELMAYBE #1, individual reviews should not be used as external links but instead as sources in the article. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic suffice as directory-type external links listing many reviews in one spot. As for AllMovie by itself, I do not find that it adds any value that is not already included in an ideal Wikipedia article about a film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both. It just looks odd to single out the review section from the template. The user who insists on adding the link direct to the review doesn't seemingly want to discuss it. If someone would like to update the EL on that article so it goes to AllMovie's homepage instead, I'd be grateful, as I don't want to break 3RR. Cheers. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Surprise, surprise, the edit was reverted. I've logged this at the 3RR messageboard. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 12:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it per WP:ELMAYBE #1. The external link template should not permit the review tab. I've started a discussion requesting its removal here: Template talk:AllMovie title#Review parameter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Quotes in The Big Kahuna (film)

The article included one large quote and an IP address has added the closing monologue twice. Given the second quote is roughly 3000 characters and the article (including markup) was under 6000 characters before the addition, I felt this is excessive. I'm not even sure if the older, shorter quote is appropriate. May I have some input or direct help from some people familiar with appropriate content for an article about a film? BiologicalMe (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that the quotes do not belong. A plot summary should be a concise description of the movie, and there is an unnecessary emphasis on these quotes in including them as part of the summary. They could be included in another part of the article body if there is analysis about either quote, but considering that the article has no real background information at all, there is no place to relocate them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this is why we have Wikiquote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film)

Per response in AN/I noticeboard, I am bringing this matter to the attention of WT:FILM for resolution regarding how MOS guidelines pertaining to the *Critical response* ("Critical reception") section and the *Accolades* section of Carol and the List of accolades received by Carol (film) articles are being applied by User:Tenebrae.

I restate what I brought to attention in AN/I -- and in my argument with User:Tenebrae in Gushy tone and other vios: in regards to the sentence he deleted from the narrative (i.e. prose) of the accolades article: "It was named one of the best films of 2015 by numerous critics and publications, appearing in over 130 Top Ten lists." -- this is not the same as adding a top-ten "list" in the accolades article.

User:Tenebrae also removed the following content from the *Critical reception* (i.e. Critical response) section of Carol main article:

  • [Carol was named]…one of the Top 100 Movies of the year.[116]
  • Carol was named one of the best films of 2015 by numerous critics and publications, appearing in over 130 critics' Top Ten lists.[n 1]

User:Tenebrae appears to be on a mission to delete the mere mention of "top ten lists" from film articles. He doesn't believe there is difference between adding an actual top ten films list vs. information that a film was included in lists of top ten films. Furthermore, the guidelines for the *Accolades* section are not one and the same guidelines for the *Critical response* section. Deleting the fact that the film was included in "over 130 top ten lists" and was one of the "top 100" films of 2015 from the article's *Critical reception* section goes against the purpose of providing such a section in a film article.

It is my position that User:Tenebrae is not only conflating MOS guidelines (Accolades section = Critical response section = Accolades section), but misinterpreting the guidelines. What constitutes a "list"? What does not constitute a "list"? For the sake of the Carol article and all film articles, this needs clarification. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why the sentence summarizing a film's placement on multiple top ten lists is out of place. If anything, I would modify it to clarify the total number of lists being considered. E.g., 130 out of... 150? 200? I do not recall a consensus to exclude summary sentences like that one. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Tenebrae also deleted inclusion of the AFI top-ten list in the prose, then reinstated it. He linked the following archived discussions from WikiProject Film to support removal of any content that mentions top-ten lists (or any kind of "top" list):
I read those discussions and nowhere is there a consensus that any mention in an article's prose about a film being included in top-ten (or top-100, etc.) lists was contrary to MOS:FILM guidelines.
The main article used to have a Top ten lists section that was deleted on "9 February 2016".Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
In a third opinion requested on Talk:Carol (film)#Third opinion I expressed the view that mentioning the fact that the film has appeared in 130 lists should be removed, because the number of top 10 lists is irrelevant (they aren't all equally notable), not worth mentioning, and likely constitutes original research because that number (130) was not cited anywhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
See previously-existing main article content: Top ten lists (which I also linked in my response to your third opinion). A manual count of lists was turned into the prose: "over 130 critics' Top Ten lists". (Since you have taken the position that "they aren't all equally notable...not worth mentioning": read the names of the critics and publications and tell us which ones do you consider not notable?)
"the number of top 10 lists is irrelevant" -- and as I replied to your third opinion about this matter: some films do not even make one list. When you have a film that has been included in more than 100 critics' "top" lists ... this is important information about the film. It's what the Critical response section of a film article is all about. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The "equally notable" claim is not valid. We report Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores and the number of reviews involved with each score, regardless of the critics aggregated at each website not being "equally notable". We do this because it is commonplace for reliable sources to talk about the scores. Sources also talk about end-of-the-year top ten lists. It is a matter of degree of how much detail we want to include. In the recent past, every single top-ten list with the film's rank on it was being listed, but we moved away from that as being too indiscriminate, and I supported a summary sentence to at least say something about it because sources do do that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
FIRST, other stuff exists and using an article that goes against FILMMOS isn't an excuse to make other articles non-consensus.
And here is what FILMMOS says about top-10 lists: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus. With a film largely overlooked for awards, a prose summary of it appearing on such lists may be appropriate; likewise with films nominated for awards yet appearing on few such lists." The Pyxis Solitary has no consensus to add top-10 lists, and Carol does not qualify for any mention under the second sentence either. This is nothing more than a largely SPA-editor fan trying to puff up one of her favorite films. The MOS is clear. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, if you're going to claim 130 top-ten lists, how many dozens of footnotes will have to be added? That is exactly the type of clutter the FILMMOS consensus was designed to fix. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
In one of the previous discussions, you seemed fine with summary sentences. Is your position different now? As for identifying how many top-ten lists listed a film, the relevant Metacritic page identifies that number. We do not need dozens of footnotes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not about me, it's about consensus, and the only summary I've endorsed is that of the AFI exception at FILMMOS#Accolades. Our consensus is not to include top-10 lists, for very good reasons hashed out at the discussion. SPA Pyxis Solitary feels FILMMOS doesn't apply when it comes to one of her personal favorite films. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's focus on the content. In regard to having a summary sentence about the film appearing on multiple top-ten lists, we can reference one source, Metacritic, to state that the film has appeared on 126 top-ten lists. We also have to remember that this started because details of the top-ten lists were being cribbed from the Metacritic web pages when we do not need to provide that much information in a Wikipedia article. So I think we should not assume a blanket exclusion here. For example, it looks like AFI is not on Metacritic's web pages (not being a major critic/publication). Perhaps a way to weigh a top-ten list mention is if an independent source reported on AFI's list for a given year. Thoughts from others? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
If it weren't for AFI being brought up in this discussion, I would not have gone back to the list of accolades article and discovered that when User:Tenebrae deleted the prose about AFI and the inclusion of AFI Movies of the Year in the accolades table ... then went back and restored the prose ... the independent source citation he added for the movies of the year regarded 2016 movies. I not only restored the original AFI citation, but added a new secondary source for the 2015 movies of the year (revision as of 00:20, January 14, 2017). Do Wikipedia film editors really need to be on guard and be prepared to play whack-a-mole? These reckless, careless edits are harmful to the article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, who as other editors have noted has a history of uncivil posts and unfounded accusations, seems to consider an inadvertent cite, easily corrected, as "reckless". No — one inadvertent edit out of the last several thousand I've made does not indicate a reckless editor. Pyxis Solitary appears to be on a crusade and is getting close to personal harassment of another editor. I am politely asking this editor to refrain from personal attacks and to observe WP:CIVIL, as editors besides me have asked her to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not just one bad edit in one article. It's a pattern. In the main article User:Tenebrae changed the updated # of critics in the critical reception section (was 247 and updated to 250) back to the non-updated #. Then went back to re-update the # to 250. Revision as of 22:18, January 11, 2017. These are not accusations. These are facts. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I've already addressed this. In a revert I made, a number changed from 250 to 247. I immediately corrected it to 250, within seconds. That is not a "pattern" of reckless editing. That's this editor cherrypicking and being deliberately hypercritical over trivialities, which is a form of attack.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
"In a revert I made, a number changed from 250 to 247". No. It didn't. That number was not included in a revert. You deliberately changed that number. The page history doesn't lie:
When you delete or change a block of content and realize something in it should have been retained ... that's one thing. But when you go out of your way to change a numerical figure ... then go back and re-change it to what existed before ... that is a deliberate, specific edit. And these deliberate, specific edits of yours were haphazard and deleterious. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
As multiple editors have now pointed out, your continuing WP:INCIVILITY, such as cherrypicking to quickly and easily corrected, including one immediately self-corrected edits, and throwing around harassing terms like "haphazard and deleterious" really needs to stop. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is not good for Wikipedia as a whole. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
If anyone looks at the first 500 revisions results in the history of the main article, they will see that the first edit by "Tenebrae" was made on "22:17, 11 January 2017‎". If you look at that revision, you see that it was not a revert of previously deleted content. It was, in fact, a manual deletion of content. It was long-existing content. And said deletion included the deliberate changing of updated number 250 back to the previous 247. Then in the one-minute-later "Tenebrae" revision of "22:18, 11 January 2017", the number was changed back to 250. You keep harping about civility. But being caught making a false claim ("In a revert I made, a number changed from 250 to 247") -- and proving that it was untrue -- is not incivility. You want to do whatever you want to do and you cross your fingers hoping that you can get away with it. But it's not going to happen. Editors who lie are harmful to Wikipedia and Wikipedia does not accept false statements from any editor (even if said editor has been editing Wikipedia for 5, 10, or 16 years, and has made thousands of edits): WP:DNTL. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the discussion may be starting to veer off-track. So, simply .... A "list" by definition is:

"A number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other." (source: Oxford Dictionary)

The purpose of this discussion is to determine:

  • Is adding a summary sentence about critics list/s identical to adding a list of critics names and publications to a film article?

This needs to be made plain and crystal clear in MOS:FILM. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Since you feel the need to define "list" for us., I suppose I need to explain something that I had thought was so obvious it didn't need to be explained. One reason WP:FILM consensus is not to include top-10 lists is that so many of them are non-notable and meaningless. You say Carol is on 130 top-10 lists — but how many of those are from non-notable groups, such as the film club Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, or the Central Ohio Film Critics Association, or the North Texas Film Critics Association, or any number of others that were deleted from Wikipedia as minor, non-notable organizations? Top-10 lists from non-notable groups are meaningless, and WP:FILM disallows them as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Your comment is almost word-for-word your response to "Lists" vs. prose about lists in the MOS:FILM Talk page. And what I replied there, I repeat for you here:
1. "how many of those are from non-notable groups, such as the film club Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, or the Central Ohio Film Critics Association, or the North Texas Film Critics Association, or any number of others that were deleted from Wikipedia as minor, non-notable organizations? - based on this logic, then MOS:FILM should also not allow the inclusion of review aggregators. Rotten Tomatoes states that 250 reviews are counted for Carol. If you look at "All Critics" in the reviews page, you see that the 250 reviews includes reviews (for example) from "The Mary Sue", "Grantland", "Antagony & Ecstasy", "Correcámara", "AARP Movies for Grownups", "Fan The Fire", "Cinegarage", "Butaca Ancha", "Seven Days", "Junkee", "Impulse Gamer", "Student Edge", "One Guy's Opinion", "The Popcorn Junkie", "Tiny Mix Tapes", "Spirituality and Practice", "Truthdig", "Playboy Online", "Nerd Report", "Film Freak Central", "HeyUGuys". Why should MOS:FILM accept a review aggregator that includes these sources for its ratings and rankings? Are they in any way superior compared to a review from the "North Texas Film Critics Association"?
And this also applies to the results from Metacritic. Why should MOS:FILM accept Metacritic as a source?
2. If you've read all the comments regarding your deletion of summary sentences and any mention of a "top" list (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes' "Top 100 Movies of 2015"), then you know by now that the summary sentence about "130 critics' Top Ten lists" is based on the *Top ten lists* section that was removed from the main article (Revision as of 09:11, 9 February 2016). If you look at that "Top ten list", you will see that it is a list composed of legitimate, film industry sources (some of them are sources used by Rotten Tomatoes).
3. You are mixing apples with oranges. A "list" is not a "prose". If you want to argue that a list = prose ... do it in WT:FILM. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update:

The discussion re guidelines for critical response has shifted to: "Lists" vs. prose about lists @ MOS:FILM Talk page.
(This is the first time I have initiated a discussion for the purpose of reaching consensus and because it regards interpretation and application of MOS:FILM guidelines, I thought this was the correct forum. Please accept my apologies for any confusion.) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Miss Teacher

Would someone from WP:FILM mind taking a look at Miss Teacher and assessing it? It's a new article whose creator/primary contributor appears to be the film's director. There are some issues with the citation style, etc. which need some cleaning up, but it's not clear whether the film satisfies WP:NFILM. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Should soundtracks have separate articles from films?

Discuss such a case at an RfC at Talk:Dust of Angels if you care. —  AjaxSmack  02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes FYI

Hey guys, so Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superheroprashast has been a bit of a pain, his MO is to add made-up Indian films to Wikipedia under the name Prashast Singh. Hoax vanity stuff. Just an FYI, that he was able to get Rotten Tomatoes to host his crap: [2][3]. Perhaps something to keep an eye out for in the future, since we normally consider RT to be a reliable source, if it's this easy to get a nonsensical film listed, that could be problematic. At least one of the pages at RT has been up since at least October. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

See "How do I submit a movie title to Rotten Tomatoes?" from their FAQ. Also, Metacritic uses the IMDb for their data. I wouldn't trust either site as evidence that a film exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New Nigerian films

Was wondering if someone from WP:FILM wouldn't mind taking a look at Happy Ending (2016 Nigerian Film) and Locked up (2016 Nigerian Film) and assessing them. The articles were just created, possibly by the director of the film, and the sourcing provided does not really indicate they satisfy WP:NFILM. There might be better sources out there, but it also looks like the creator might be copying and pasting content from external websites into the articles. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Telugu films

Hey all, I'm curious to know what the smartest approach is to handling the Top grossers by year table at List of highest-grossing Telugu films. (Telugu is one of the many Indian languages.)

Boiling down my question as simply as possible: Should the references in that table directly support the statement "X film was the highest-grossing Telugu film of Y year", or is it enough that they support a gross figure?

For example, Khaidi No. 150 is indicated as the highest-grossing Telugu film of 2017. How do we know this, unless we either know all the values for Telugu films in 2017, or we have a reference that explicitly says "Khaidi No. 150 is the highest-grossing film of 2017 so far"? The existing references (like this for Khaidi) seem to only justify gross values. By contrast, this source indicates Baahubali was the highest-grossing Telugu film for 2015, so I've no problem with that. It seems that without the clear "It was the highest grossing Telugu film" statement, the only way for a reader to verify these claims, would be for them to comb through every Telugu film gross they could find, and then compare the results. That sounds unreasonable. Thoughts appreciated. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia specifically labels it as the highest-grossing film of the year, the source should also be explicit about that that claim. However, trying to enforce this often causes a lot of drama. I remember one editor who insisted on saying, "The film received universally negative reviews" because he couldn't find a positive review on Google. We knew it received negative reviews, but it took a lot arguing for me to convince him that the burden was on him to find a source that said the reviews were "universally negative". Like you said, you know how much it grossed, but you don't know if it's the highest grossing film of the year. That's a separate claim beyond the raw numbers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This used to be a problem at List_of_highest-grossing_films#High-grossing_films_by_year. The section used to be called "Highest-grossing films by year" but now it is called "High-grossing films by year", simply because the sources didn't support the claim. Pre-Jaws (1975) the data is incomplete, inexact and inconsistent so the name of the section now reflects the fact the table is not conclusive. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both. @NinjaRobotPirate: To your point, I will always object to "universally negative" or any similar phrasing on the basis that it is always hyperbole, even if a source utters it. There is never such a thing as universal anything, because the universe is vast. We shouldn't be dealing in absolutes in matters of opinion. And, I think a lot of these issues stem from over reliance on scores rather than on evaluation of content. If even one source was "meh" about even one aspect of the film (pacing, acting, what have you...) then it would demonstrably be a flawed diamond. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Pseudo fields

Please read my post at Pseudo fields about the abuse of infoboxes where fields are being invented when they don't exist. Jodosma (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fargo infobox language

Will someone please take a look at the most recent edit to the Fargo infobox before I violate 3RR and tell this guy off? We don't need to mention the specific dialect of English that is spoken in the film. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How FAR will this edit war GO? I'm here all day. Looks like it's sorted, although that has to be one of the lamest edit-wars I've ever seen (and that's saying something). Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was tedious and silly. But, Marnette stepped in and that seemed to do the trick. Sorry it took me so long to respond. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia nationality

Lawrence of Arabia (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another utterly tedious edit war is underway at the Lawrence of Arabia article as to whether the nationality should be listed in the lede and whether that nationality should be described as British. User:Warner REBORN has removed United States from the infobox, along with the sources that support the claim, and yet demands that other editors not revert his POV-pushing and discuss on the talk page. Different sources make different claims, and this disagreement is a good indication of why the nationality should not be mentioned in the lede at all. The status quo was to list UK and US in the infobox, but that has been overturned. I'd like some other editors to weigh in, as this looks like it's going to keep going. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend more discussing and less reverting. This seems like a revival of an earlier edit war that got someone else blocked, and I think I'd be justified in fully protecting the article for a short time if this continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be more discussing. But, frankly, User:Warner REBORN is not getting the message. I would not object to seeing the article protected, perhaps then people will actually use the talk page. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Warner is a very infrequent contributor, making a handful of edits, then leaving for months at a time. I'd go for the waiting game, but invite them to discuss this on the talkpage. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think Lugnuts speaks wisdom. Anyway, ping me if the situation at the article gets bad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Warner still has not responded to my talk page message, but he hasn't reverted the article, either. So, maybe all is well. It is worth noting that Twobells who instigated the recent argument, has been indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and personal attacks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Quiet Riot - Well Now You're Here

Quiet Riot - Well Now You're Here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Quiet Riot - Well Now You're Here article could use some attention. The author has a COI and many of the citations don't verify the information that they should. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sundance film categories

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sette note in nero and The Psychic

A discussion regarding the proposed move of Sette note in nero to The Psychic, which is currently active at Talk:Sette note in nero#Requested move 30 January 2017, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion at Template:Plot

See Template talk:Plot#Requested move 22 January 2017. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The move discussion has been extended for another week. Daß Wölf 18:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Official genre"?

Over at Dunkirk, Cognissonance argues that Warner Bros.' website for the film gives us the "official genre" ("action thriller," they say). I have never heard of an "official genre," and were we to accept such a fraught term, I don't think that studio advertising should be our preferred source. A secondary source calls it a war film (which is my personal choice), but it keeps being removed. The film won't be out for months, so this is really arguing about something none of us have seen, but I don't like this idea of an "official genre," and don't think studio advertising is a source we should rely on. Your thoughts? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources per WP:PSTS. While primary sources are appropriate to use with care, there is no reason to adhere to one here as it relates to showcasing the film. I agree that "war film" is suitable. (Has there really been a non-epic, non-thrilling war film?) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Excalibur

2000 in film says there was a film with that title released in that year. However, the only reference I found on the Internet is this, and it appears to be a mistake, because if you look up any of the actors on that page, they acted in the 1981 movie by that name. Enigmamsg 15:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Enigmaman, that is under the "Notable deaths" section. It means that Nicholas Clay died in 2000, and one of his notable films was Excalibur from 1981. Really, it seems like all the films under that section should have their release year attached. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Enigmamsg 16:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The King of Kong

An IP added some content to this article that doesn't use encyclopedic tone and uses primary sourcing. I posted on his Talk page to try to explain the issues, but he basically just tried to shout me down. I don't have enough of an interest in film to try to deal with this. I didn't want to discourage a new editor, and who knows, maybe he has a point. Am hoping someone here would be willing to take a look. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is deleting its message boards in a couple of weeks

IMDB is deleting its message boards, and all of the content therein. The deletion will be on February 20, but it's not clear what time zone, so I would err on the conservative side and say February 19th (or 18th in case they mean zero hour Feb 20). If there is data or information on any threads on any IMDB message boards you wish to save, make copies now. (It seems the actual data pages for films and people will remain, but any and all message boards will be deleted.) On some of the boards I see a petition being floated to stop the deletion; if you feel strongly about it you could look into signing that. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The on-site announcement is here. They claim that the "message boards are no longer providing a positive, useful experience for the vast majority of our more than 250 million monthly users worldwide". The message boards are supposedly only utilized by "a small but passionate community of IMDb users"
Personally I won't loose much sleep over it. I have been an Internet Movie Database user for more than ten years and on occasion contribute additional content, corrections, and plot descriptions. But I have mostly avoided the message boards, as I am not really interested in the discussion topics. Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
First broccoli is rationed and now this! I might as well just kill myself. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 12:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't do that, Donald Trump will be popping over later this year to cheer you up! Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I just hope this doesn't bring an influx of forum related discussions here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Well it might but we can always delete them per WP:TALK#USE. It figures they would remove them - they were the place where you could post inaccuracies on film or actor pages when they would not fix items submitted to them. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
And general film questions ("what was the film...") can be handled at WP:RDE. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I never used them, but this is sad. Enigmamsg 03:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

IP editor who's making a very large number of extremely minor edits

There's an IP editor, 89.101.250.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who's making extremely minor edits to a very large number of articles – close to 200 of them so far. Basically, they consist of moving one single category around in the list of categories, such as this edit. It's cluttering up my watchlist, and I'm thinking that this is getting to be rather disruptive. Both TheOldJacobite and I have asked the IP editor to stop making these pointless edits. I'm bringing it here to see if other people think this is disruptive or whether I'm overreacting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it is alphabetical order fixing? WP:CATDEF says, "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the edits usually consist of moving one single category, not sorting the list alphabetically. If you look at the diff I listed above, the list is not sorted alphabetically. As annoying as it would be to have the categories in hundreds of films sorted alphabetically, even that is not what's happening. It's just one random category being moved around. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure it is not being alphabetized? I did see the diff, and it might be an incorrect way of doing it (considering 1980s vs. 20th). I thought I saw another diff that seemed to be similar in alphabetizing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
In the diff above, "British films" comes before "American films". If the list was being alphabetically sorted, wouldn't "American" come before "British"? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused. This is the screenshot for the diff that I see, which shows "20th Century Fox films" being moved up. Are you seeing something different? Not sure if the diff2 link shows different things for different people. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
My point is that the list of categories itself is not alphabetically sorted. One random category was moved to the top. Was that one category put where it would be if the entire list were alphabetically sorted? Yeah, I guess so. But what is the point of moving one category around? That's even more pointless than alphabetically sorting the entire list. I don't see any defensible, constructive reason to move a single category to the top of the list – even if that one category were placed where it should go if the entire list were alphabetically sorted. Why is it important whether the one moved category was placed in alphabetical order? I don't understand this. Are you saying these edits are constructive and useful? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If they are making this many changes to film articles the Film project should be able to follow their rationale. Whatever their motivations it is disruptive behavior if they refuse to explain their actions and they should be blocked until they respond to the concerns on their talk page. Does anyone actually disagree with that view? On the related subject of category order I generally think it is better for categorization to follow the groupings outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Category:Films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Not saying that I find the edits useful. Just trying to identify the motive, which seems to be general alphabetizing. Moving "20th Century Fox films" up seems to be an attempt to accomplish that alphabetizing, although I'm not sure how to sort "1980s" vs. "20th" myself. Like this is a different kind of alphabetizing. If they're not going to respond, then perhaps a block is warranted to get a response. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry for getting irritable. Yes, it's probably good to understand where people are coming from. TheOldJacobite left a final warning for disruption on the IP's talk page. I'll leave another message asking the IP to discuss these edits here before continuing with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I finally reported them to AiV. Enough is enough. Maybe, after 12 hours, they will change their attitude and behavior. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the 12-hour block did not work. He is now blocked for 2 weeks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Domestic

Dose anyone want to Help with Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States82.38.157.176 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for reviewers for GA: The Seventh Victim

Hello all, I've done considerable work on the article for The Seventh Victim, the 1943 horror film directed by Mark Robson, and am looking to get reviewers in order to help it pass a GA review. If anyone is interested, I would much appreciate it! –Drown Soda (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability of a vehicle in a film

Where would I find the specific notability policy for vehicles in films? Is there such a thing? I ask because I recently redirected the article for EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle to the Stripes article, arguing that the vehicle is not notable enough for its own article. Take a look at the article and you can see that it doesn't say much more than the film article says, and there is no basis for notability apart from the film. My edit was reverted, though, and my first thought was just to let the matter rest. On reflection, though, I really do not think it needs a separate article, and so would like to make a case for merging it. None of the refs in the article make a case for notability. I'd appreciate some thoughts from other FilmProject editors. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It would fall under how we look for notability in fictional characters: there should be something more than just it appeared in the film, but sources that describe how the concept of the vehicle was created, and its reception/legacy. Eg DeLorean time machine, TARDIS. Or if it actually is that important as a prop that has been trading hands for sometime, discussion of that can be made eg General Lee (car). I agree that the EM-50 is nowhere near those cases and should be merged/redirected to the film. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't feel it's notable, take it to WP:AFD and see if a consensus can be reached to a) restore the redirect or b) delete it altogether. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you'd be yelled out of town taking that to AFD - its a reasonable search term and the content is completely valid within Stripes and you want to retain that contribution history, so AFD is not the way to go. You'd have to argue the merge on the talk page. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Doing a quick search engine test, I do not think there is sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. It may make sense to have a stand-alone article for a vehicle that has multiple appearances (across movies or TV episodes) since no one movie/TV episode article can adequately discuss it. Here, WP:PAGEDECIDE seems applicable where the vehicle article would likely be a permanent stub and is more suitable under the film article that provides the best context for the vehicle's role. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for these responses. I thought about AfD, but decided against it, for the same reasons mentioned by Masem. In a past discussion on the EM-50 talk page, it was argued that the vehicle is the equivalent of the DeLorean or other film vehicles; subsequent responses said that this claim was without merit, as Erik's search verifies. A merge and redirect seems the best course of action. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion of EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle is now underway at Talk:Stripes (film) § Merger proposal. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Views wanted on The Russian Bride

Hi, I'd like some opinions regarding The Russian Bride, preferably on its talk page. This is an upcoming movie right before production with notable cast and crew members. I've bumped into a user who wants it deleted and hits both the article and myself with various templates. Thanks, Lyrda (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

English-language label

Per WP:FILMLEAD, if the nationality of a film is singular, then we include it in the opening sentence of the lead section. If there are multiple countries involved, we do not do a nationality mash-up and instead explain the role of each country later in the lead section. In the absence of a nationality, should we state the language upfront instead as an alternative characteristic? To use an example, Wolf Totem (film) involved China and France, but it is a Chinese-language film (and I labeled it as such). For films like UK-US productions, I've preferred to put in "English-language" even though it is not supported or opposed by policies or guidelines. It seems to make sense to do this for foreign-language co-productions, so I argue that this should also be done for English-language co-productions. Otherwise, the opening sentence would lack mention of a nationality or language, which seems to imply a default of being English-language (or even American in some cases, due to the focus on American films). While this is the English Wikipedia, is not having the "English-language" label implicating of systemic bias or not? The example I had in mind here was Dunkirk (2017 film), which is a production between France, UK, and US. If it was French-language, wouldn't we state that? So doesn't that mean we should state that it is English-language? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

For films with multiple countries, I've always gone for "X is an internationally co-produced film" or words to that affect. I'm sure it's in the MOS, but I can't find it right now. I've never stated the language of the film in the lead. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion about specifying languages in film leads a while ago at MOS:FILM. It didn't discuss international co-productions in depth, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I think your examples at that discussion for Drishyam, Buried, and The Terminator are pretty sound. If a film is American or British, then the English-language inference is there. However, if it is a UK-US co-production, we tend to mention that later, so there's nothing upfront to infer from. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I think both solutions are acceptable. There is an obvious distinction in my mind between a Brit-American film and a Brit-American co-production. For example, the James Bond films are undeniably British films but since the mid-70s when United Artists bought out Harry Saltzman they have been British-American co-productions, although London based Eon still undertake all the creative decisions. Same for Star Wars: undeniably American films but the last couple have had British investment and have been regarded as British-American co-productions, even though American based Lucasfilm take all the creative decisions. One is about national identity and the other is about production origin. Both approaches have their strengths: for example, The White Ribbon was a co-production between several European countries but its principal language is German and it was also the German submission at the Oscars so I think "German-language" is an elegant solution there. On the other hand I think Lugnuts' solution would probably work better at something like Paddington (film) since it is arguably a film produced within the sphere of the British film industry (making it more British than anything else) but in reality is a co-production with France. That is covered in the third sentence of the lead so it is not strictly necessary to call it a "British-American film" in the opening sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Budget figure guidelines

Template:Infobox_film offers the following guidance on budget information:

Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, with the latter usually listing a mainstream website as the main source of the budget, such as the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. Such websites are preferred to cite as a reference, if possible. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range. Do not use primary sources to corroborate budget figures. When applicable, add "gross" and "net" parenthetically beside the figure(s), using the {{Plainlist}} template.

Does anyone have a problem with me removing the "Such websites are preferred to cite as a reference, if possible" bit? It seems to be encouraging cherry-picking, with some editors removing sources that give a more thorough coverage of the financials and replacing them with Box Office Mojo figures. I don't think the guidelines should be encouraging source supremacy, that is what WP:RS is for. Basically, the guideline is just trying to be helpful and offering advice on where to find the information but some editors are clearly interpreting the guideline as a an instruction. Ultimately if we have a better source—one that is more thorough or up to date we should use that—but if there is no reason to discriminate between sources we shouldn't defer to just what one single source says. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that was added back in 2009 by MikeAllen as seen here. I think it was intended to mean that instead of using The Numbers, to go straight to the source and use Los Angeles Times or Variety instead. Do we want to take out the sentence completely, or clear up that intent? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we should just take it out. I think it is helpful to tell editors where they can find the information, it is just counter-productive to suggest there is a preferential hierarchy beyond WP:RS. Betty Logan (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with removing that sentence, but perhaps we should modify the previous one since they were added together. We can just say that budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. and leave it at that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with Erik's proposed rewording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with removing it, esp. the "if possible" bit. It's almost giving a green light to saying "well I checked, it wasn't possible, so I didn't bother getting a decent source." Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Actors' filmographies

You may be interested in this discussion about including directors in these tables/articles or not. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

There's a requested move discussion at Talk:Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World. This could impact WP:NCF and cause changes to other article titles, including Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Enough sources for a new list article?

I'm thinking here of films and TV shows like The X-Files episode Roadrunners (2000), The Village (2004), Population 436 (2006), or Wayward Pines (ongoing since 2015). Are there reliable sources on this new genre yet so that at least an own WP list could be started for this new genre where usually a lone person involuntarily ends up in a remote, isolated village or small town (usually by means of a car accident or by having been given wrong directions on purpose when they were in the middle of nowhere) that is ruled by a sect that intends to make them a permanent resident of the community for the rest of their life, violently preventing them and all of the residents from ever leaving the place or even just contacting the outside world and just as violently trying to make them forsake and forget their old life? --79.242.219.119 (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You would need to observe WP:NOTESAL here. It says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." That means there need to be preexisting lists that can be consolidated into a list on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if there is a term or genre name for what you're describing (which means it is not likely that a list is warranted at this point). To broaden the scope a little bit, perhaps a list of films featuring cults would work. I do see search engine results for that at least. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess my brain just works this way that I particularly tend to see or group fiction works within particular genres or sub-genres when they seem to become a trend, but I know that external sources would be required hence I've asked for them, as I thought it likely enough the above kind of films and shows may have been reviewed as a group already. Thank you kindly for looking into this.
Another case (though I'm afraid less likely to have been grouped or seen as similar to each other like this before by reliable or reputable sources) would be this new 'genre' of either fantasy action-style or purely action-style peplum aka sword-and-sandal film that is set in the ancient world (usually Greece, Rome, or Egypt), as a major genre feature has a cinematography, editing, pacing, lighting, and sets extremely influenced by 300 (2006) (which is basically a 300-originated, daunting and awe-inspiring stylistic mix of action-centered cinematography and editing based upon the iconic styles of Leni Riefenstahl, Sergio Leone, and especially with a heavy use of speed ramping particularly in relation to physical impacts), and many of them are released by either Village Roadshow Pictures and/or Legendary Pictures. Examples include the 2010-12 Clash of the Titans mini-franchise (where a third part was cancelled; I know it's narratively a remake of an early-80s franchise, but stylistically, it belongs entirely into this list of 300-style films), Immortals (2011), 300: Rise of an Empire (2014), Pompeii (2014), and Gods of Egypt (2016). --79.242.219.119 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that that grouping is less likely too. :) I think that the films inspired by 300 would still fall under fantasy film. The list would include these more recent films, and the prose could certainly cover the revival that has influences from 300 (as supported by sources, of course). The challenge with Wikipedia is that we cannot be a vanguard for topics. We have to follow what has already been written and summarize it. However, there is space for film-related articles not about individual films. I've done some list-making in the past. There is also the possibility of prose (e.g., alcoholism in film), but that requires a more invested approach. In any case, if you need a second pair of eyes to research anything, let me know. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
These types of films are basically a subset of dystopian films. The list primarily deals with dystopian societies, but there is no reason why a section can't be added to the list that covers dystopian communities. Films such as The Wicker Man (1973 film) is already in the category so arguably should also be in the list too. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether we're talking about the same thing. Dystopia is usually defined by two things for me: a.) It's a sci-fi genre, which the cult thing I've mentioned not necessarily is, and b.) dystopia concerns entire countries and societies, not small towns or villages with a small community that is isolated from the rest of the world. While both genres may deal with oppression and tyranny, dystopias deal with large groups such as countries and societies, while the rural cult thing I'm thinking of is defined by a small, closely-knit community where the small size of the community is part of the reason why they have to hide their doings from the world at large within the confinement and rural isolation of their community and have to prevent those they draw in by force from contacting the outside world where their community's madness is not accepted. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You are confusing dystopian fiction with speculative science-fiction. Dystopian fiction is basically "bad place" fiction: they can be post-apocalyptic worlds like Mad Max or alternative history fiction like SS-GB where the Nazis run Britain. They can be totalitarian futuristic cities like in Logan's Run or small rural communities as in The Wicker Man, and the famous novel Lord of the Flies. The underlying theme of this type of fiction is that there is an inherent threat in the way the society/community operates or is governed. To Population 436 and The Wicker Man, you can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and The Spring (the Kyle McLachlan version). All I am suggesting is that List of dystopian films could be organized by type, which would include a section for small-town/island/community dystopias. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'm seeing at dystopia appears to mainly corroborate the common definition I've been trying to give above: a.) It's concerned with the fate of large groups such as societies, states, and countries, and b.) Just like utopias have always been a proposal for a better future, dystopias have always been a warning as to where societies may be heading in the future. Hence, the article gives as most closely related genres (or rather genres where dystopia is usually counted as a sub-genre thereof) social science fiction, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, alternate history (another genre commonly categorized as a sub-genre of sci-fi, SS-GB being an example here), and New World Order (conspiracy theory) as well as New world order (politics). --79.242.219.119 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Look, I was just offering a potential solution. If you don't what to do it that way then it's not a big deal, but there is nothing about the definition of a Dystopia that bars villages, small towns, and island communities from being considered dystopias. In fact there are plenty of scholarly sources discussing dystopian (and utopian) literature that hold up work such as The Wicker Man, Lord of the Flies and The Lottery as examples. A dystopia is simply a "bad place" with malevolent social norms, and nothing more than that. In fact the most famous dystopic fiction ever written is set on a farm. Betty Logan (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit late to this discussion, but I would question the definition of "societies, states, and countries" as being necessarily more extensive in scope that an isolated community. :

  • We define "society" as "a group of people involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations." The size of the group is not part of the definition. Later in the article there is mention of an anthropological classification system where human societies are divided into 1) "Hunter-gatherer bands (categorization of duties and responsibilities)." 2) "Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige." 3) "Stratified structures led by chieftains." 4) "Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments."
  • The definition of a state has always included the "city-state", "a sovereign state that consists of a city and its dependent territories." We have historical examples in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Mesoamerica. We have currently existing city-states such as Singapore, Monaco, and Vatican City. And they are a relatively common trope in fiction. Our List of fictional city-states in literature includes everything from ancient city-states like Umbar to the various massive mega-cities in the Judge Dredd series. For example, Brit-Cit covers much of modern England and has a population of 160 million people.
  • The definition of "country" includes both sovereign states and various current or former political divisions. Our List of countries and dependencies by population contains 196 sovereign states and a large number of dependencies. Some are decisively small in population numbers. At the bottom of the list we have the Pitcairn Islands, a British Overseas Territory with an estimated population of 57 people. It is currently "the least populous national jurisdiction in the world".


As for dystopia, while it may be a recognizable genre in science fiction, the definition does not tie in it to either the size of the community depicted, nor necessarily to futuristic settings. A dystopia is "a community or society that is undesirable or frightening." Our article provides various definitions and examples. :

  • Dystopias are based on political principles and/or utopian ideals which have negative consequences for their inhabitants, "because of at least one fatal flaw."
  • Dystopias are based on flawed and oppressive economic systems. Typical depictions include either planned economies where the state controls the system or worlds where extensive privatization and corporatism have allowed unaccountable large corporations to function as governments in their own right.
  • Dystopias are based on rather rigid systems of social stratification. Worlds where a privileged ruling class dominates the working classes and/or abuses them.
  • Dystopias are based on systems which have either eradicated the family as a social institution or are hostile to it.
  • Dystopias are based on religious ideas and consequent oppression or persecution. Typical depictions feature atheists or a dominant religious group which are persecuting religious minorities or shaping society to match their own views.
  • Dystopias are based on societies which expect everyone to conform to their social norms and do not tolerate deviants.
  • Dystopias are based on societies which experience violence on a regular basis. Societies which are at war, societies where crime is rampant, urban crime is a norm, and criminal gangs operate more or less freely, societies where blood sports play a role in the regulation of society.
  • Dystopias are defined by their relations to nature. Their societies are "urban and frequently isolate their characters from all contact with the natural world". They often try to control or to eliminate nature and human nature alike. Conversely other dystopias are nature-loving, but they have either lost access to a few millennia worth of technololical evolution or actively suppress such access.
  • Dystopias are based on their misuse of technology or on the negative consequences of technological developments.
  • Our List of dystopian literature includes examples from the 16th century onwards. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a very thorough anaylsis, Dimadick, and while I personally appreciate your contribution I seem to have unwittingly "trolled" the thread and changed the subject under discussion. I was simply trying to find a way to accommodate the IP's request but obviously he hasn't embraced the suggestion, and that's fair enough—after all Wikipedia is not a dystopian community! He simply wants to create a list about a particular trope, and no more than that. As Erik points out above, unless reliable sources identify the trope and the media that exhibit it then he's going to have a problem. As for whether or not The Wicker Man et al are dystopian fiction, well that's really down to reliable sources to determine I guess. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Genre bloat?

Can someone look over the edits of 49.207.59.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and see if I'm overreacting? I don't want to edit war over this stuff, but the IP editor seems to be adding unnecessary, unsourced genres to leads. This continues the same behavior from 49.207.60.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I tried leaving what I hope was a friendly message on both editors' talk pages, but I've yet to get any response. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

First IP is now blocked. Speaking of genre bloat, what do people think of the genres listed in the lead of The Great Wall (film)? Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 09:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oof, "epic historical fiction action-adventure monster film". It feels like an attempt to explain the film in one breath. If sources support it, I would just call it a fantasy film and convey the premise right after, which can establish that it is a historical period and setting in which monsters have to be fought. That would unpack the genre bloat. Also, that's another thing that bugs me about some lead sections; the least important information is upfront. People aren't going to see the movie because of the six writers involved. It seems better to mention the director and the star more upfront and to save the other names to be mentioned later. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that opening sentence is a mouthful. I agree with Erik on each of his points. Enthusiastic fans seem to be using "epic film" indiscriminately lately as a generic form of puffery. I've come to think that it should be removed out-of-hand if it's unsourced. Stuffing as much information as humanly possible into the lead sentence also seems to be gaining popularity. I try to fix that when I see it, but there are a few IP editors who try to compress the entire infobox into the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Erik, fantasy film sounds about right. Also remember that WP:FILMLEAD states: " At minimum, the opening sentence should identify... the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", not genres or sub-genres.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it seems like "monster film" edges out "fantasy film". I posted my findings on the talk page: Talk:The Great Wall (film) § Genre in opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
A general interpretation of the guideline suggests there should be no more than two genre labels in there i.e. "horror film" or "romantic comedy". Any lead that lists three genres or more should be scaled back IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Anyone Out There?

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment § New requests

I see that WikiProject Film has a very impressive number of members. Perhaps someone could take a look at the Requests for Assessment, which hasn't been touched since 6 August 2016. There are 21 articles waiting. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's quite a backlog. We should all take one each this weekend and clear it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor adding film not in production to filmographies

An editor is adding the film Fighting with My Family to filmographies, and edit-warring to keep it there, even though the film is not yet in production and this violates WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, that article itself is not entirely reliably sourced. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I told you in numerous instances production begins today on the film. You ignored me each and every time. And how is it not reliably sourced? Rusted AutoParts 06:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The film is not yet in production. When it is in production, and this is confirmed by an independent reliable source, then can add it. See WP:CRYSTAL. Discussions of article content need to stay on article talk pages, not on usertalk pages. A forecast posted on Instagram is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Social media post from people involved with the production is very much reliable and have been used on various articles site wide. Johnson is an actor and producer on the film, him posting on Instagram production starts today is very much reliable, in fact the most reliable it can get.
And I was directly asking the question to you. Your talk page was the most appropriate place to ask you a direct question. Rusted AutoParts 06:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. When the film is in production, and this is confirmed by a reliable source, can add it. Discussions of article content need to stay on article talk pages, not on usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly you're not interested in corresponding with me as you're just regurgitating the same thing over and over again. Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a good answer since I do understand where both of you are coming from. On one hand, we could ignore all rules and accept the social media update since there is so little reason to question it. On the other hand, there is no deadline. Even if article creation and link proliferation is not verifiably warranted, it will be very soon. If Johnson posted an update, can we not find a secondary source that acknowledges this, and go with it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Secondary source GameSpot here independently recognizes the start of production. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a slippery slope though. Once you start accepting social media as evidence then would we accept a Facebook post by somebody claiming to be an extra? I think having a reliable source confirm principal photography has begun is a good line in the sand. After all our core policy WP:V states that something "must be verifiable before you can add it", and that requires a reliable source. To invoke IAR you have to be able to demonstrate that following a policy or guideline prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia and since there is WP:NODEADLINE I don't accept that IAR is applicable in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Although this particular case has been rendered moot by the GameSpot article, I agree with Betty. Once an announcement like that is made these days, it will be parroted soon by RS anyway if the film is of any notability at all. There is no rush. Daß Wölf 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reading WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I'm not seeing why Instagram cannot be referenced. Dwayne Johnson is involved with this film, the claim is not exceptional, and there is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity (since Johnson's Instagram is verifiably official). In any case, GameSpot probably refers to the Instagram post, and if they clear it, then we can clear it too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In this particular case it is probably ok, but I think instances where social media can and should be used are in the minority so it creates a poor precedent. A reputable source usually picks up these things within a few days so I don't see the harm in waiting. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that the GameSpot mention merely parrots the Instagram comment. Please also note that the Instagram comment was not even that filming had started, but that filming would start. Please also note that the film is still listed as being in pre-production on IMDB: [4]. Please also remember that there is no rush. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a load of crap. The point of an independent source is parroting other people's words. A secondary source talking info from a primary. Johnson has since also posted again, and has stated starts today. What more do you want? Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
And once again IMDB is not a reliable source. Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you do not fully understand the meaning of "independent source"; it does not include "parroting other people's words". "Production starts today" is still future tense; we need reliable proof that filming has in fact begun. IMDB is indeed definitely reliable for (and is the industry standard for) production status; the only parts of IMDB that are not fully reliable are those that are user-generated. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel you don't fully understand. An independent source first needs to gather info from another source. In this case they are getting first hand production info from Johnson himself, the film's producer and actor. He has very clearly established a production start, so when you say "parroting", they're actually just reporting what their source of information is saying. Him saying that "production starts tomorrow", which then was reiterated in another post a day later stating "production starts today, lets shoot" is their top off that filming began that day. Therefore the production start was confirmed and therefore IMDB is not needed to verify it. Rusted AutoParts 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

St. Louis Film Critics Association

I noticed that our articles for St. Louis Film Critics Association awards are titled e.g. St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association Awards 2005 (with "Gateway"). The website and every source I'm seeing just calls it "St. Louis Film Critics Association", so I moved the main association article to that location. Before I move the rest to omit "Gateway" I thought I'd drop a line here, first, to minimize headaches in case I'm overlooking something? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"Plot" sections tagged as too long

I don't know what to do about plot sections of films tagged with "{{long plot}}" (or "{{plot}}"). Seems that we can do nothing about the tag or the sections themselves. Maybe another edit-a-thon to fix "Plot" summaries or remove the tag from those sections? If not, what else to do about the film plot sections? --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well for films you haven't seen, one thing you can do is look at the page history and click on several revisions before, or look at edit summaries with "Plot" in them. Often times you can find a more succinct version of the plot that way. It's usually just the results of one editor and the previous versions can be just fine. (for featured and good articles, you can click on the talk page to find the revisions where they were reviewed and just default to those) In my experience it's usually harder to cut down a bloated plot than to write a good one from scratch because often the former is structured too much to focus on play-by-plays and you have to work within that. Otherwise yeah, an editathon is an idea but would hinge on having participants who are familiar with the works in question. Opencooper (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... there is WP:edit-a-thon, which says a "thon" can be either online, offline, or both. Someone must organize a "thon"; has anyone done a thon on plots before? I am not the right person to organize it. --George Ho (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it can be a lot of work (Churchill once apologised for writing a long letter, because he didn't have time to write a short one!). It is possible to copyedit a summary for a film you haven't seen (just removing the padding and finding succinct ways to say things often save a lot of text). The tags presumably direct to a list somewhere and the project could point interested editors towards it and encourage them to get stuck in? IanB2 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Another hmm... what if we spoil surprises of those who never have seen a film? Can they still edit the plot summary in spite of spoilers? George Ho (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 10:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
yes, WP has a clear policy on spoilers (i.e. not excluding them), see WP:SPOILER. Someone who comes to an encyclopedia and starts reading a section headed "plot" shouldn't be surprised to find that the section describes what happens in the film! IanB2 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know that guideline. Speaking of which, someone created Template:Spoiler Reminder recently just for one talk page. What to do with it? George Ho (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. And I wasn't particularly recommending that people who haven't seen the film do the editing (and certainly they can't write the summary!) - simply that if an article is too long it is usually possible to make a big improvement just from judicious copy-writing of the existing content, without actually needing to go away, watch the film, and start from scratch. IanB2 (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride

The user proposing deletion failed to notify this WikiProject. I would really appreciate input from some project members as the article seems in better shape than many in this category, and the users discussing the proposal now appear unfamiliar with concepts like reliability and independence when it comes to sources within the scope of this project. Lyrda (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Lyrda, please be aware of canvassing. You can post a neutral notice to the AfD discussion to invite editors to comment, but you cannot encourage a particular outcome. For what it is worth, even if it is deleted, you can request for the page to be put in draft space; see Wikipedia:Drafts. The best indicator of a film's notability is independent reviews. If the film is reviewed by multiple reliable sources, the article can ultimately be restored to the mainspace. Before a film's release, we have to be aware of mere reprints or summaries of press releases. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an upcoming film, so at the moment there are no reviews. The article references previews, however, as well as other independent sources that relate to verifiability and notability. The discussion should be, I think, about how much weight they carry, rather than about the article's creator. Lyrda (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know it is an upcoming film. :) My point is that there is no deadline. If the film is notable enough upon release to be reviewed by multiple reliable sources, then there will be a Wikipedia article for it forever. Before a film's release, we have to look closely at the coverage to determine if a topic is notable enough, before any reception of it, to warrant inclusion. As I mentioned, we have to be aware of mere reprints or summaries of press releases. I am mentioning the draft option because if the article is deleted, you can restore when there is new evidence of the film's notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but so far there has been little discussion about coverage or reliability. That's why I am asking for project members to get involved. Lyrda (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

O.J.: Made in America - Film or Miniseries?

There is currently a dispute at O.J.: Made in America whether it should be listed as a single documentary film, or a five-part miniseries. This project and WP:TV have been notified to the discussion, which can be found on its talk page, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike Zoss Productions

I just restored a redirect on the article Mike Zoss Productions, arguing, as I did back in November, that this article, about the Coen brothers' production company, doesn't say anything not already said in the Coen Bros. article. Is there any reason for this article to exist? To my mind, it is simply redundant, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern Academy ratio films

Because I was looking for such a list and was sure it would be here, I was surprised to find out that there wasn't. We have a List of black-and-white films produced since 1970 but no List of films filmed in the Academy ratio since 1952 or something of that nature. It seems this is becoming more and more of a trend in film-making (check out this article just after a very quick googling), so it would be nice to reflect that in an article. A few recent examples are noted in the Academy ratio article itself, but it would be nice to have an actual list. I would be happy to help with research but perhaps someone more knowledgeable would take the project on? Thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No one's interested? I would take this on, but I don't normally edit many film-related articles and wouldn't know how to properly research this. Jmj713 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Terminator production companies

Yesterday, I added two production companies to the infobox for The Terminator, based on information from IMDb. Andrzejbanas reverted, saying not to add unreferenced information to the article, and saying essentially the same thing on the talk page. As I responded to him, production companies in infoboxes are rarely sourced nor are they explicitly listed or discussed in body of articles. Then, looking back at a discussion that took place in November 2015, I noticed that this same issue had been discussed and Andrzejbanas had admitted that Hemdale was one of the studios involved in the production. So, I want this sorted out, both in regard to this particular film, but also in general. Yes, anything that is in the infobox should be sourced, but do we need a ref. for every production company, and is IMDb considered reliable for such information? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It may have been labeled in here, but if we can't specifically point out sources that describe it as a source (which we have not, especially using IMDb as a source (per WP:RS/IMDb), we have not established any source specifically describing production companies outside the one which is currently provided. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Production companies are rarely cited, but I've come to think they should be. There's too much misinformation, hoaxing, and good-faith guesswork involved in the majority of cases. But, no, the IMDb isn't a reliable source. It's user-generated. The best sources are subscription-only, unfortunately. National film databases are often a good place to start. For mainstream Hollywood films, there's the American Film Institute, which catalogs everything that got a wide release in the US. Other free-access film databases include Hollywood.com and AllMovie. Trade magazines are also a good source. Just make sure they're not licensing their data from the IMDb – Film Journal International does this, if I remember correctly. So does Metacritic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'd heard along the way here is that IMDb is generally considered acceptable for production companies – obviously, I'd heard wrong. I will keep that in mind. Thanks, NRP.
Andrzejbanas, what you said above is not true. You yourself admitted on the talk page, in the November 2015 discussion, that Hemdale was one of the production companies and cited an article that said so. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents. IMDB is not reliable for anything with the exception of writing credits issued by the SWG. Finding sources for Hemdale isn't very difficult and the AFI has it listed: http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=57224. That said I don't think sources are always necessary for production companies if they are clearly listed as such in the film credits; however if there is a dispute over exactly what function the company performed then it needs to be cited to secondary sources as all challenged claims do. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
In 2015 I was using different information to go by what I knew at the time. Since then I had found information that was written close to release of the film with very specific production company information. So yes, in 2015 I didn't have access to it. I'm going with the Monthly Film Bulletin write-up for now until we get more reliable and specific information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a close on this? One user is insisting on dragging this out and putting a tag claiming an ongoing problem in the film's infobox. Discussion at Talk:The Terminator#Production companies, continued. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Revived dispute

Andrzejbanas is insisting on tagging the lead of the article with an ongoing discussion tag. Can we get a close on this? Discussion at Talk:The Terminator#Executive producers in lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's actually not to do with the production company, which has been established. It has to do with the whether or not it is important to list the executive producers with three citations in the lead. Which i've pinged you at on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason it has multiple cites is because of your relentless challenges. It's connected to the production company (which you first challenged). I'm actually for removing the cites from the lead, as the same info is sourced in the article. But the link I provided just above makes it clear what this is in regard to. I do not believe one editor who fails to get consensus for his demand of removing sourced information from the lead should be able to endlessly tag an article claiming there's an ongoing discussion. So let's get this closed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What consensus? It's only been you and me discussing if these items are worth having in the lead or not...Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Review bloat

Can someone please give me some pointers on what to do on this article with regards to reviews. It seems that one editor wants to list pretty much every review ever written for this film. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it is structured as huge soundbites by critics, so it encourages never-ending bloat. I always try to structure review sections around opinion rather than critics which curbs bloat because once an opinion has been covered we don't need to keep quoting every single critic who repeats it. This reminds me of an edit-war at The Boy (2015 film) (the problem there was a SPA attempting to promote the film) but the section had the same structural problems i.e. it was just a bunch of soundbites one after another. You can compare the two versions here:
My approach is always the same: start of with the aggregator stats if they are available and then try to collect together an overall critical consensus. I then try group together opinions that discuss the same aspects such as the direction or the acting, or the pacing etc, so the section has a sort of rhythm to it to avoid the choppy "He said...she said...he said" format. Betty Logan (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Betty - much appreciated. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the "Critical reception" section is way too detailed. I would keep the reviews to those from the most authoritative sources like The New York Times and Variety (basically those on Metacritic or in Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics). Reviews that can be removed are Under the Radar, Exclaim Canada, No More Workhorse, The College View, Letterboxd, Geek Ireland, The Leaky Cauldron, The NYC Movie Guru, and MuggleNet. I would also suggest grouping Irish reviews in their own subsection and see if we can find a consensus among Irish film critics about the country's consensus for the film (especially compared to the general one). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. I'll take a look at this article in the near future. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you all here. People try to their their favorite films' articles into fan sites. And, yes, as my colleagues here do, I try to find quotes that make a specific, concrete point and illustrate a critical detail, rather than just, "Terrific movie! Great acting!" --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Have a delicious Mike Christie essay on the topic. --Izno (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a good read - thanks! Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Physician as occupation

I have started a thread at Talk:Michael Crichton#Physician as occupation. Comments welcome. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal for The Face of Love (1954 film)

I started a discussion about merging the article "The Face of Love (1954 film)" into Troilus and Cressida. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Film characters based on real people

There is currently an edit war at Black Hawk Down over the question of linking the character names to the people the characters are based on. I have argued consistently that they should not, as, between the real events, the book based on those events, and the multiple drafts of the script, numerous changes were made – including names, actions, dialogue, and combinations of real people – to the point that the characters in the film are not representations of those real people. The film is a dramatization of those events, not a documentary. At any rate, I want to know what the policy or guideline is on these questions. Another editor involved in the conflict argues that other historic films link to the real people, so why shouldn't this one. My response was other stuff exists and that this isn't proof of anything. It would be better, though, to point to a consistent policy on this, assuming one exists. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the most practical option in such cases might be to link to the real people/incident/etc. in "See Also", provided they're not already linked elsewhere in the article (in this case, Cast?), though I'd be curious to hear what other editors have to say. I doubt there's an existing policy on it, unfortunately, and I suspect any policy we wrote on it could be wikilawyered to death by a determined enough editor in any case ("How fictionalized does a portrayal have to be before it's inappropriate for linking?"). But, to look at this another way, should the historical names not be linked in Schindler's List, despite the fact that the people have been fictionalized to some degree? If they should be, where's the threshold? DonIago (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe there is a policy either. However, I assume it is prevalent to link to real persons because it is straightforward to provide that means of navigation, and I do not have much of a problem with that. I think if there are biographical concerns, maybe we can consider a couple of ways to shore them up: 1.) Have a summary sentence at the start of "Cast" sections to emphasize dramatized portrayals of real persons where applicable, and 2.) For each actor and role, strive to add (sourced) context where the role diverges from the real person (e.g., the character did this in the film, but the real person never did this). I think to avoid links or to put them elsewhere makes it unnecessarily difficult for readers. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The article needs to reflect what reliable sources say about the existence of such links, not what Wikipedia editors think (no original research). That will solve the edit conflict. Lyrda (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not think WP:NOR applies here. WP:BUILD indicates that it is up to the editors, and MOS:UNDERLINK encourages linking to relevant connections. At minimum, a link to a real person should be in the same space as naming the actor and the related role. If the role is a different name than the real person, though based on them, then separation is simple. I suppose the challenge is when the role is perceived to be that person, but it seems a bit ridiculous to say something like "George C. Scott as George S. Patton (see real person George S. Patton)". Hence if we are not going to assume that readers understand that roles are dramatized, then we should have a sentence about that and explain anything the real person did not actually do. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
But, if there is doubt about the accuracy of the "dramatization," wouldn't it be better to avoid direct links in both the plot and the cast sections, and instead cover the issues in a section specifically devoted to historical accuracy? The article in question has such a section, which could be improved with more sources – the accuracy question and the larger controversies of the film have been widely covered. This is why the other stuff exists argument is relevant. You mention Patton, which is a good example. That film is not completely accurate, but people can at least be certain that the film is really about him, even if some events have been telescoped or altered. In the case of Black Hawk Down, most of these men are more or less anonymous – I think that the cast section is too large, actually, as most of these characters are interchangeable and it is difficult to tell one from another – which argues for replacing the cast section with a well-referenced section on the casting process and how the characters differ from the real people. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel like avoiding direct links is a losing proposition. Do we avoid such links in the lead section itself? How can we say that Patton is a film about Patton without linking to that person? Same for any biographical film, or even any film about real-world events. For real-world events, in my experience, we do try to have context about how much the film actually shows the event (e.g., "loosely based on"). I don't think we should avoid direct links, but we should state fictional context in the same passage wherever possible. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think I was unclear. I am not at all suggesting a blanket policy of avoiding links. What I am suggesting is that we approach this on a case-by-case basis. In regard to the Black Hawk Down, I think it would be a mistake to link to the real people, since their representations in the film are only loosely-based on reality. This is the same approach we've taken in the articles for Casino and Goodfellas – avoiding direct links but spelling out in a later section that the characters are based on real people, but that liberties have been taken. In regard to this film, which has a large cast, but not many notable characters (Ridley Scott put the character's last names on their helmets – another departure from reality – because he was afraid the audience wouldn't be able to tell them apart), I think the approach I suggested above, a prose section on the casting process and how the characters differ from the real people would be the best approach. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Uh, I looked at the Goodfellas article, and it got away with linking Henry and Karen Hill, James Burke, and Johnny Dio in both the summary and cast list respectively. How the hell is that acceptable while Black Hawk Down is not acceptable in your eyes? Lone Survivor also had a similar format with referencing the Navy SEALs by name and adding a link to the actual Red Wings operation.Dibol (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The long-standing consensus was against including those links, which were added fairly recently, in the Goodfellas article. That does not undercut the argument I made above. I don't know the other film you mention, so can't comment on it. But, what I've said is that each film should be judged on its own merits, which is also why I told you, more than once, that other stuff exists, which is to say, one example is not necessarily relevant in another situation, and an error in one article does not justify repeating the error elsewhere. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Link to The film in question. I pointed out a specific example where that didn't get that same scrutiny you gave Black Hawk Down. Another Ridley Scott film, American Gangster also has a similar format, and the links to the actual characters in question exist. Compare these two with Black Hawk Down. Common factor between three films: film adaptations based on the actual event in question. WP:OSE doesn't exactly help explain your justification at all and this is coming from someone that tried to read the article in question leading to nothing but frustration.Dibol (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with linking to real people. However, if there is a problem with the historical accuracy of the film, then sourced commentary about those inaccuracies can be detailed as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward this as well, though I'd be open to considering a proposal for how this could be handled; I'm just not sure there's going to be one that closes more doors than it opens. DonIago (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You have the option of directing the link to the specific section of a historical person's article that deals with their portrayal in drama (most notable people who have been played in films or tv tend to have these), so that the user when following the link lands on this section of the article first, rather than at the top/lead about the actual person. That way, if the character in the film is only loosely based on the real person, or if dramatic or artistic licence has been taken with what actually happened in history, this is usually spelled out in the 'portrayal' section and the reader has a chance to process this first, before visiting the rest of the article if they wish IanB2 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I would expect that any real persons would either be linked in the cast section: "Character A played by Person B based on Person C"; or in the development section: "Film X is based on events surrounding Events Y, in which Person Z was a key person, and who character A is based on". --Izno (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Razzies are not "Accolades"

The Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies") should NOT be listed in a film's "Accolades," "Awards," or similar section, at least not without a disclaimer (examples here and here).

I recommend that the section be renamed "Recognition" if the only "accolades" are for how bad the movie was. If the movie actually got some "real" awards, split the section in two, with original section name used for the "real" ones and "Other Recognition" or something similar used for the Razzies and similar "awards."

This will be a major undertaking as they go back to 1980 (Can't Stop the Music#Awards and nominations). Any thoughts? Any script-writers out there who can write a script to make this easier? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Why is it that a negative award cannot be seen as an award? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
They're called awards and the first line of the Razzie article calls them awards. Your argument is somewhat flawed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It should also be noted that they are presented in a spirit of satire. Now I know that some will disagree with that but some of the recipients have shown up to collect their award List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM and Darkwarriorblake: Hmm, perhaps there is a case to be made that the word "Award" may be accetable, but "Accolade," which according to the dictionary is positive recognition, isn't appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Top ten gross lists at List of highest-grossing Indian films

Hey all, I haven't bugged you about any Indian cinema stuff for a while. Could use some comments at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Odd numbering. The Indian cinema task force is a ghost town, with many prominent editors having been indeffed for sockpuppetry, so it's very difficult to get discussions going, and I'd greatly appreciate some pity.

This discussion is about how to deal with top 10 tables. If three films gross ₹400 million, are they ranked differently (i.e. #5, #6, #7) or are they ranked the same (all falling in the #5 spot)? And in this case, does the table only include 10 films (and possibly have only 8 ranks) or do we list all 10 ranks (and have more than 10 films in the table?) This second one is hard to explain, but there's a visual at the discussion in question. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move for Sette note in nero

Resolved
 – The result of the move request was: no consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a requested move for Sette note in nero that has been open since 30 January 2017. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut

Interesting one this. The article is a GA, but is now at AfD. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a new one on me. Seems like something that should be mentioned at the AfD... DonIago (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Not for me, though if I recall it was an FA that got the AFD and subsequent merge. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
That's entirely different. FAs deserve to be deleted, strutting around thinking they're better than every other article... DonIago (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Was it that article about a knife brand? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
My memory is vague on the exacts--I seem to recall it showing up in the Signpost or even possibly external media as a offhand comment about how merciless we all are. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

More "micro" diffusion

It is normal to diffuse large genre categories by decade, such as Category:1970s crime films or Category:1980s comedy films (which I support BTW). There is no real encyclopedic value in doing this—since the year has nothing to do with the genre—it is just to aid organization. However, it reaches a point where the diffusion becomes so refined that the number of categories proliferate and become impossible to search. There is no real advantage if such categories are diffused into smaller categories of a few dozen films. For example, Category:Supernatural films has recently been diffused into Category:1990s supernatural films which in turn has been diffused into Category:1990s ghost films. These articles were perfectly well organized in Category:1990s films, Category:Supernatural films and Category:Ghost films IMO, and were far easier to search through.

What is the general view here at the Film project? Personally I find the level of diffusion unhelpful. By diffusing sub-genre categories that only have a few hundred films in them you literally increase the number of categories to search 10-fold. This diffusion seems to have started occurring in the last year or so and is counter-productive in my view. Personally I think we should retain diffusion by decade for the main genre categories to keep them manageable but I think we should upmerge this type of diffusion for sub-genres. So for example the 83 films scattered throughout Category:1960s disaster films, Category:1970s disaster films, Category:1980s disaster films, Category:1990s disaster films, Category:2000s disaster films and Category:2010s disaster films (all created in the last year) would be upmerged to Category:Disaster films. What does everybody else think? Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The video game project has a consensus not to diffuse, whatsoever: "YEAR video games" and "Role-playing video games" and "Single-player video games", without any diffusion of any of those categories. WP:Category intersection can be used for someone wishing to hunt for particular kinds of games. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
These small categories aren't worth having, but the question is, how small is too small? Another pointless by-decade set is the Category:Road movies one. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should focus less on the numbers and more on the overall categorization structure. For instance, diffusion seems to generally work well for the main genre categories, and in most cases I agree with it. However, bar the odd exception it is generally unnecessary for straight sub-genres—as opposed to intersection genres. So we could just make this very simple for ourselves: advocate decade-diffusion for the top-level main genres, prohibit it for straight sub-genres, and allow discretion for intersection genres. In most cases this would work well because most of the problems are with sub-genres. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC of interest to this project.

See Talk:Natalie Portman#RFC on the inclusion of Portman's Erdos-Bacon number in the text of this article. Contribute if you have an opinion. --Jayron32 04:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Surviving cast members in cast lists

I've discovered that Bright Eyes (1934 film)#Cast and some other articles about old movies list the living cast members as of "now". Can we have a policy guideline on this? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:V: if it isn't sourced then remove it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yikes. Is there a specific editor who is adding that sort of content? Softlavender (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
IMO those are always problematic. The fact that a given actor is alive has nothing to do with the film. It also smacks of WP:INDISCRIMINATE "trainspotting" info. Add to that the WP:OR of those that are unsourced. The final problem is what happens when they person does die - I don't think any editor should have to go through each film they were in to see if this kind of info is in said article. If a consensus is reached to keep this info out of film articles I would be fine with adding a line to MOSFILM about this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am having a hard time thinking of a good reason to have this kind of information. It seems irrelevant to the topic in general, though I could see something like this mentioned if a film has a significant anniversary re-screening. I don't know if it quite goes against WP:V since one can easily check who is alive and who is not, but the cutoff for the cast seems arbitrary, since we do not necessarily mention every cast member in a "Cast" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It should only be mentioned if it is explicitly commented on by reliable sources. For example, Olivia de Havilland turned 100 last year and there was quite a few mentions that she was only one of two surviving cast members of Gone with the Wind and we mention it at that article. She's probably the surviving cast member of most of her films from the 30s, but it seems to be only GWTW that is ever mentioned. It wouldn't be detrimental to the article if it were deleted but I don't really have a problem with it either. In the particular case of Bright Eyes the information is not sourced so it should be deleted regardless. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO the only reason to mention a cast member's lifespan status in a film article is if the film was that actor's final screen or film performance before they died. And even then it should not be mentioned in the Cast list, but elsewhere in the article (the lede perhaps, if it's a major star, or the Production section). As MarnetteD says, stating that an actor is still alive is unciteable and guaranteed to become inaccurate before long. Softlavender (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Outside of pub trivia (Who was the last surviving cast member from the film 12 Angry Men?), it has no value to list it here. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
<update> Haha, it is actually mentioned on that article! Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

List of highest-Domestic collection of Indian films

Hi friends, I'm not sure I know what the scope of List of highest-Domestic collection of Indian films is/should be and could use some learned minds to help direct the focus. (The title alone is a nightmare...) It's weird for an article to focus on domestic net collections rather than worldwide gross. I think the guy created it because some older Indian films didn't have worldwide releases, but I'm still not clear why he's focusing on net. Also, there's been a complaint on the talk page that this article about Indian films only focuses on Hindi-language films, when there are many other ethnic industries that could be represented. Comments about that would be appreciated. Please see Talk:List of highest-Domestic collection of Indian films and many thanks in advance. Your friend, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles that focus on domestic box office such as List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States, List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom, List of highest-grossing films in France and List of highest-grossing films in Japan. The Indian box-office articles ideally need to be brought into line with these. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Can you list all the Indian box-office articles here. I am overwhelmed by the labyrinth of articles related to Indian box-ffice, and then we can try to hammer them into a coherent structure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what they'd all be. This one took me by surprise because it's largely the effort of one user. And it looks like a user moved the article title to List of highest domestic nett collection of Hindi films, so that's new... There are also:
Some articles were converted into redirects to the main "Indian films" article, like:
There might be more. I have no idea. Whew... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The first thing that needs to be done is to collect the information into a single place, and then it can be structured. For a start I would merge List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets, List of highest-grossing Kannada films and List of highest-grossing Telugu films (dropping the US collections table) into List of highest-grossing Indian films per the merge notice. We can then figure out which tables should be kept and what to do about List of highest domestic nett collection of Hindi films, but it would more manageable if we could get it down to a couple of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Starring, child actor in Moonlight

I have added Alex Hibbert to the starring field in Moonlight. Your archives are inconclusive. So, what is the position of Wikiproject Film on this? The film had three lead actors. Why should we discriminate against the youngest one? I understand he is not presented in the poster billing block but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia MUST omit his name. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a similar case with Moonrise Kingdom where the two child actors are not credited. The challenge is that the "Starring" field in the film infobox is largely tied to billing credits. It does not necessarily have to be, but because opinions can differ about who to name, the default source is the billing credits. It does not necessarily mean we are limited to using that. Per MOS:FILM, we can follow certain rules of thumbs when listing the cast. So if sources (e.g., reviews) talk about Alex Hibbert with the other cast members, then perhaps there could be a case made for including him. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply. I could make an argument either way. So if someone objects again, I'll send them here. I found Hibbert in three or so reviews (AP, Shadow and Act, BBFCa) and then not in RottenTomatoes and elsewhere, depending on the slant of the article. IMdb lists Hibbert fourth, and he shows up in a Google search for "moonlight cast". -SusanLesch (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Template:Infobox film specifically dictates billing credits, so you may be challenged on that front. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. That's the rule, then. (The discussion on that template never found an answer.) Thank you for your guidance. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

National film registry categories

A category exists at Category:United States National Film Registry films to house articles about films preserved in the National Film Registry. In the last few months the following sub-categories have proliferated, all created by Espngeek:

I am wondering what other Film editors think of them. Personally, I find them completely unnecessary and redundant. They seem to violate WP:SMALLCAT, WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:NARROWCAT due to the defining criteria for the sub-categories being entirely peripheral to the notability of the parent category. If it were necessary to diffuse the parent category the sensible approach would be to use decades like the other categories do. Before I nominate them for deletion I would like to know if these categories enjoy general support at the Film project? There is no point wasting people's time if editors want to keep them. Betty Logan (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Along with the policies linked by Betty Logan IMO they have problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I mention those because the NFR does not break the films down into those labels. So any placement of these categories is based on the POV of the editor. I think they could go through a group CFD. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree that they suffer from WP:OR and are trivial. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Betty, MarnetteD, Lugnuts. The National Film Registry does not break them down this way. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Real-world perspective for plot summaries

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Real-world perspective for plot summaries. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Greatest Films aggregate site

Has there been any discussion of the aggregate site The Greatest Films? Are we allowing this in the accolades section of film articles? It seems redundant to me, and I just reverted its addition to The Godfather article. Anyone have any thoughts on this? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any independent coverage about the website. I would not include it at this time. Can anyone else find coverage? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems completely non-notable and existing only to drivce affiliate links to Amazon. Canterbury Tail talk 02:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I never heard of it before today. Betty Logan has also tagged two users who seem to be spamming film articles with this link. Seems fishy. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I found a third user spamming the same links. The wordings are identical between all users, it seems to be a deliberate spamming attack across multiple users. I think it's not only non-notable but should now be added to the blacklist. Canterbury Tail talk 03:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment The main discussion can be found at User talk:Orgcaptainnemo. No more links have been added in the last couple of days so hopefully this has been nipped in the bud. If it starts up again we can look into getting the link blacklisted. We can keep an eye on the links at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*.thegreatestfilms.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch. Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

IMDb

There's a dispute at Talk:IMDb#TMDB mentions over whether other websites should be discussed in IMDb. Please comment so we can find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, one user is adding stuff like this to articles. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
How are these two related? And what's the problem with that? François Robere (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well they're both about IMDb. And the problem is that adding IMDb scores isn't important to articles. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"Well they're both about IMDB" is a very weak relation. ANd the point with adding those IMDB scores is to illustrate the results of vote brigading and give a current reference point to anyone checking the sources. François Robere (talk)
I don't have much of a problem with the Wired reference about IMDb on the face of it, but it is kind of a random detail. If there was suitable context (hard to think of something since not many films have associated online behavior that get covered extensively), I would support its inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Moved it up to "controversy" section. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That suffices for me, but I think there could be a better section heading as a whole. "Controversy" is too banal and sometimes overused (but probably not so here, judging from the extensive coverage). WP:STRUCTURE says, "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial', and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." In other words, it could be more direct, something like "Impact of alleged rape charges" or something similar. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Just one more note: There's a difference between "inclusion" and "inclusion in a specific section". I wouldn't remove something completely because of a lack of context if it's otherwise Wiki-worthy. François Robere (talk)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It refers back to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A film can have many different details that are interesting, but in the past, details that could not really be interwoven into the article body were compiled in "Trivia" sections. Vote brigading isn't even discussed on the Wikipedia article for IMDb, which made it seem like a weak case. Its current placement seems fine, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"I wouldn't remove something completely because of a lack of context if it's otherwise Wiki-worthy", or in other words - if it conforms to all of the other criteria but is simply "misplaced" in the article. If a fact has its place in an article but isn't there, we should find it rather than remove it, at least in my view. François Robere (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I would disagree that its "wiki worthyness" at this particular article has been established. This piece of information would be relevant if IMDB scores were included in articles, but they are not, so its inclusion is not motivated by the context it would provide. Neither has it been established in the broader sphere that adding this information would be a substantive improvement. The goal of article writing on Wikipedia is to include information which we would expect to find in a thorough treatment of the topic, so if a comprehensive article on the subject includes an item of information—and thus establishing its relevance to the topic—then that is a valid case for adding something to the article. That is, if an article actually about The Birth of a Nation commented on the vote stacking then that would mitigate its inclusion, but that isn't the case here. The article is actually about vote-stacking at IMDB—which would mitigate coverage of the issue at the IMDB article—but as it is the vote stacking at IMDB is completely tangential to The Birth of a Nation as a topic. Per WP:VNOTSUFF verifiabililty alone is not reason enough for adding something to an article, and so far no explanation has been offered as to why readers would need to know this information to have a full appreciation of the film's background. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the vote brigading coverage is more relevant at IMDb than at The Birth of a Nation, but I don't think that Wikipedia articles' lack of IMDb scores mean that we should avoid mentioning the detail at the individual film's article. Reliable sources have reported top films as voted by IMDb, such as The Shawshank Redemption. While there are many user review setups, IMDb is the most prominent among them. A movie like Ghostbusters has experienced IMDb vote brigading as well, though it appears that there are a few more sources about that than for this film, judging from search results. Regardless, similar coverage about Ghostbusters is connected to the female-cast backlash, and for The Birth of a Nation, the source says the vote brigading may be connected to the alleged rape charges backlash. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that the lack of IMDB scores mean we should avoid mentioning the detail at the film articles either so I think you have misread my point. What I said was that so far a case has not been made for including this item of information: the article being cited is about IMDB so that establishes its relevance at the IMDB article. What is the rationale that this information is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the topic? This appears to be information about IMDB, not TBOAN. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I meant that our non-use of IMDb scores should not matter in considering whether or not to include the detail. The reference focuses on IMDb in general with TBOAN as a detail as part of it. I don't think a detail has to be headlined to warrant inclusion. For what it is worth, Indiewire reported on the Wired reference and reiterated the TBOAN mention in its report. The connection is "potentially" to the backlash, as both of these sources state. I assume you consider that too irrelevant? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that the lack of IMDB scores should not matter. What should be included in the article should be determined by how relevant it is to the article. One way of doing this is to ask what a comprehensive treatment of the topic should include? Now, if a comprehensive treatment of the topic included discussion of IMDB scores then this information would be contextually relevant, but the long-standing consensus is that they are not. Maybe inclusion of this information can be motivated by secondary coverage of the controversy surrounding the film? If secondary sources discussed the film or discussed the controversy in conjunction with the vote stacking at IMDB then you could argue it is relevant information in that capacity, but that doesn't appear to be the case with the Wired article, which simply discusses vote-stacking at IMDB and just uses The Birth of a Nation as an example. I haven't seen the Indywire article, but if it broaches the issue of vote-stacking from the perspective of the The Birth of a Nation rather than IMDB vote-stacking then that might establish its relevance to the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
You're mixing two different issues: First - is IMDB's status as a Wikipedia source relevant to that mention? Second - is that detail relevant to the article? A sub-question of this is whether a "passing mention", as opposed to a designated article, is worthy of inclusion. The questions are unrelated, but the answers to them are. The reason IMDB isn't a trusted source is its use of crowdsourcing for generating data, including scores. This characteristic of the site is key in in making it hugely popular and important for many film-goers, which in turn means a bad IMDB rating could adversely affect a film's financial success; and this result is what makes "vote brigading" so dangerous and so relevant to said, and other articles. The same is true of other websites with similar characteristics, eg. Wikipedia. As for the last question - indeed, if coverage of a subject is to be thorough, one cannot filter data based on its location within a trusted source. Fermat's theorem, considered so seriously by mathematicians for centuries, was nothing but a sidenote in Fermat's notebook. François Robere (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Co-director in film infobox

A discussion about having the co-director in the film infobox is underway on the template's talk page. See the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film § suggested new parameter - "co-director". Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Italics for translation?

Hey all, quickly re: this, should a direct translation of a title be italicised? As far as I know Baahubali doesn't have an official English title. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can find an answer to that. Here are some relevant guidelines I found if someone wants to search for an answer: MOS:FORLANG, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, and MOS:FOREIGN. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Using a common sense argument I would say not. Putting a title into italics implies that the work was released under that title, which is misleading if it was not. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In tackling another problem I came across Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films. This should resolve the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 20#Template:Infobox name module. As I remember this template was created to address specific problems with adding titles to "infobox film" so if anyone could add a link to that thread at this TFD that would be helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 14:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I left some feedback. In theory the merge could be done but the templates have very different functionality so I do question whether it is worthwhile. It is important that a merged template continues to behave the same on film articles because I am pretty sure we don't want Chinese infoboxes appearing on foreign-language film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oblivion critical response

I just left a comment on the Oblivion talk page about the fact that 90% of the quoted reviews are sourced to the Rotten Tomatoes page, rather than to the reviews themselves – which is also the source of the quotes. I commented that this was lazy editing, but I wonder if there is a policy or guideline about this. If a review is quoted, shouldn't the review be cited? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, which stipulates that you must cite the source you personally consulted. So if you get the quotes from the Rotten Tomatoes website which in turn lifted them from the reviews you should cite the Rotten Tomatoes website. In the example at the guideline it recommends citing both sources i.e. Richard Corliss, Oblivion review, April 19 2013 cited in Oblivion Movie Reviews, RottenTomatoes.com, accessed March 18, 2017. That said I agree with you that it is lazy and unnecessarily complicated. With many of the reviews you can (and should) just click through and cite the review directly, since second-hand citing is considered poor form. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty! At some point, I may fix it. But not today. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternate title clarification

Can I just clarify the situation with foreign language titles? 68.129.15.71 has been creating alternate title sections along the lines of this at Deep Red. I have reverted the editor's recent efforts because I have never seen any sections like this before, but I am now meeting some resistance. Wikipedia:NCF#Foreign-language_films explains the naming conventions for foreign language films and I have always taken this as the preferred way of handling foreign titles i.e. listing the native title along with the titles used in English-speaking countries is sufficient and we don't go beyond that. For example, is there anybody here who advocates an alternate title section for Star Wars: The Force Awakens and adding all of these: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/releaseinfo#akas? I don't consider the IP to be disruptive; I think the dispute is down to genuine confusion but I would like to get the project view before I press this any further. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This user is one who's skirting pretty close to WP:SPA, as pretty much all of their efforts have been about replacing foreign-language film titles with English in one way or another. I see no reason for sections like this, especially as I've written some of the articles they've shoehorned it into and the information is already present in prose under a relevant "Release" heading anyway (and in stubs where it hasn't been so written yet, it's still clearly a cleaner alternative anyway). GRAPPLE X 23:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The IP has resumed adding dedicated sectiosn for release titles so can I please get some more input on this from project members? Does the Film project support dedicated sections for alternative titles in non-English speaking and non-native countries such as at Deep Red, Don't Torture a Duckling and Don't Look Now. I personally believe our existing guidelines for foreign titles at Wikipedia:NCF#Foreign-language_films are sufficient and these sections are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The English-language Wikipedia does not require the German title for an Italian film IMO. The problem is though the MOS doesn't outright prohibit them so we need to develop a consensus on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    I have seen alternate titles cribbed from IMDb, but this set of articles is interesting because it references a book for the alternate titles. While this content is verifiable, it is a matter of determining if it is encyclopedic content that is suitable for inclusion. I think we can refer to WP:FILMRATING, which says to avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and to include them where there is substantial coverage. We sort of do this unofficially with box office coverage, not listing territories and their respective grosses indiscriminately, but summarizing pertinent discussion by sources. Here, we should probably request similar context to warrant inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Properly written and cited, I think the information itself is fine (for example, Zombi 2 has an interesting amount of them, but properly presented). The problem is I see no reason to shoehorn them into their own heading and/or the lead so gung-ho. I support their removal from sections like this as under WP:UNDUE. GRAPPLE X 19:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Most films will have a translated title wherever they are released. For example just look at all the ttiles for Star Wars. Do you agree with adding all those to the Star Wars article provided we can cite them? If so, how should we include them, and if not where do we draw the line? Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    If it comes up in a reputable source (I've usually just gone by what the BFI or BBFC list) then my assumption is that it's notable enough to mention in passing. I wouldn't proactively hunt down everything that shows up on IMDB--especially since it's a user generated site. But if a reliable source considers it worth listing then that's a line I'm happy enough with. GRAPPLE X 19:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    The problem though is that if a film is released under a translated title in a particular country then a reliable source will invariably exist for it at some point. Now, it's great if editors are judicious and don't hunt these down but what happens if someone does and adds a huge section of titles to the article? If the title wasn't used in an English-speaking country and there is nothing encylopedic to say about the foreign title I am struggling to understand the motivation for including them. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Help identifying people in image with Howard Hawks

Hi, I recently uploaded some images from our Howard Hawks collection. One of them has Howard Hawks sitting in folding chairs with some other people. Do you recognize any of the people in the photo? The back of the image said it was taken in 1929 in connection with Hearts in Exile (1929 film), but that may not be accurate. Our curator was guessing it could have been during the filming of The Dawn Patrol. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): - also try asking at WP:RDE too. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good idea. done. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on film article

Members of this project may be interested in the RfC found at Talk:Bikini Moon#RFC: Should first sentence include 1994 Academy nominee status of Director?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai

On this article, there's edit dispute over the sentence "She is often cited as the "most beautiful woman in the world" like there's unanimous support for such title, despite there isn't. Discussion can be found at here, kindly participate. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

More new decade categories

Per earlier conversations about unnecessary breakdown by decades, we now have another newly created category: Category:1980s chase films. Only one film was on it, now none. Just noticed a few others: Category:1960s chase films, Category:1970s chase films, Category:1990s chase films, Category:2000s chase films, all recently created by Jim Michael. Perhaps someone will nominate them for deletion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep - it is another WP:SMALLCAT situation. I found several that failed WP:CATDEF as there was no sourced info to support the cats. MarnetteD|Talk 23:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
We already went through those arguments when Chase films and American chase films survived being nominated for deletion. Jim Michael (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
First this is not the same thing and second, even if it was, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. MarnetteD|Talk 14:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Additionally neither of those cats violated WP:SMALLCAT MarnetteD|Talk 14:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

My purpose here was to slow the proliferation of these decade splits, but another editor has restored the category at The Terminator even though he says he disagrees with it. Category:1980s chase films now has a grand total of two entries. You can comment at Talk:The Terminator#Chase film category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I raised this issue again a couple of weeks ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_63#More_.22micro.22_diffusion. I agree it's becoming a real problem. Diffusion is only necesary to make categories more manageable. If the categories are already manageable then diffusion is unnecessary and actually starts to cause problems, because people don't want to have to search through ten extra categories when one will suffice. Jim Michael is undermining the categorization of the film articles. The trouble though is that it takes longer to delet them than it does to create them, so we need to come up with a sensible guideline for the MOS. A single catgeory can easily handle hundreds of articles, it's when you get to thousands you start running into problems so maybe we should create a basic rule of thumb for the MOS instructing editors not to diffuse categories with fewer than 1,000 members. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. If you're interested in a category, you don't want to go through multiple cats when one suffices just fine. Jim Michael is not making things easier for readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Time these micro-categories were terminated. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I saw these cats cropping up recently and reverted a couple because they seemed inaccurate. A film may have a chase in it without being a "chase film". That cat should be definitive of the film as a whole. But, the larger problem, as Gothicfilm makes clear, is that the decade subcats are simply too small to be necessary or helpful. I agree with the comments above: delete them. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

New category

Deloop82 recently created the category Psychological science fiction films with the explanatory text: "Films listed as psychological science fiction films by Allmovie." Do we consider Allmovie genres to be definitive, because they have a lot of subgenres that are unique to their site, but which I have not seen used reputable film critics and scholars. My reading of the definition would be "films that combine sci-fi with elements of the psychological thriller," but that definition would apply to a very small number of films. MarnetteD has already removed some films from the cat, with the argument "rmv per WP:CATDEF - there is no sourced info in the article to support the cat," and I agree with him, leaving 6 films in the cat. My guess is that the rest could be deleted as well, as the definition is simply lacking. Should I just depopulate it and list it for deletion, or do we want to discuss this first? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD states "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". So if other sources cite these films as being psychological science fiction films, then that would be OK. Plan B would be to de-populate the category of the remaining handful of films and then tag the category as being empty for speedy deletion. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
In this specific case a category shouldn't be sourced to only one website. In general there are a handful of films that might fit the cat if (as Lugnuts points out) they fit the criteria. The question then becomes will it ever be anything more than a WP:SMALLCAT. All to often these cats are created and them populated with films that the editor "thinks" (ie WP:OR) belong in them. That is why the instructions at WP:CATDEF are so important. MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_63&oldid=1136052306"