This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
While of course it isn't necessary to list full crew, I think the infobox is missing some important parameters. Some art directors, casting agents, costume designers, and production and Second Unit directors in particular might be notable enough to have articles. Particular for the Golden period of Hollywood you'll notice than many of them worked on many films and are certainly notable enough. In reading biographies I frequently come across mention of such people and when I visit the articles I see no mention of them! I just think if we opened up the opportunity to add the parameters for any of the above in the infobox this would be a positive move forward. I propose the introduction of the following parameters initially which any editor may add to an article if the person has an article or they intend adding an article. They wouldn't be compulsory parameters, but where they're relevant it would give editors the option to add them.
♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
For instance 2001 Space I would immediately like to know who the production designer and art director was, more so than film editor. The infobox should list John Hoesli etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't provide for mobile readers though who may want a quick reference point and find out who designed the sets for a given film though. They'd have to read through a long article and let's face it, most film articles, even very good ones, tend to ignore things like art directors and set designers. We could of course add a collapsible section of the infobox for things like this... The problem is that some aren't notable and I can see people adding like the full crew from imdb..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please comment on the quality of ths edit. I have no idea how lead vs supporting lead is sourced for article purposes. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 20:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing requested move at the Golden Globe Award talk page regarding several awards that should possibly have their titles pluralized, due to the recent moving of Academy Awards. Click here for the discussion. All opinions are appreciated! Corvoe (speak to me) 21:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Since a few hours Samar Island occupies the title Samar, which is the title of some films and other things.
Please see Talk:Samar#Requested move (February 2014) - Androoox ( talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of spare time, help would be appreciated over at Transformers: Age of Extinction. I recently removed much of its sources, as they were all to TFW2005.com, a fan forum site. The page now needs reliable sources to back up its information. (Also, if anyone knows of a discussion where TFW2005 was deemed reliable, please let me know. But just by looking at it I know that it is not.) I don't have a ton of time to spend on the page, but will try to assist when I can. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter: Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#The marital "rape" in the plot summary. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, guys. Anyone has this issue of Film Review that reviewed Space Adventure Cobra? And, someone knows if the Film Review in the link is the same as this article. Thanks. Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Anybody cares to comment on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#An_article_on_a_movie_before_release.? Anup Mehra ✈ 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As some or all of you will remember, I brought this matter up the previous month; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 50#Shutter Island (film) article -- Critical reception section. Well, the matter still is not resolved, perhaps because the main discussion did not take place there at the article talk page. So I am asking all of you to weigh in on this, and to do so there at the article talk page. For those of you who don't know, the dispute concerns whether or not to categorize the film as "mixed" when Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 68% score and Metacritic gives it a 63% score. In the previous WP:FILM discussion about this, the WP:Consensus is that such scores do not equate to "mixed" (not in the general way that the term is used). There was also sentiment that we should remove any unsourced lead-in summary, such as "The film received mixed reviews.", or explicitly source the summary. Explicitly sourcing is not enough if the source is at odds with what critics generally state about the film, however. We should keep WP:Undue weight in mind. The categorization of "mixed" to describe Shutter Island is unsourced and generally at odds with what the sources relay about the film, and that should be remedied. Discussion is here: Talk:Shutter Island (film)#Critical reception section -- mixed reviews?. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What do others think of this edit? Is there any value in adding pictures to these tables? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed increasingly when I Google a film, it has it's own Wiki page. Often, the content is a cut and paste from IMDB. However, I am becoming increasingly of the view many of these pages are "ego trips" by wannabe contributors, as many of these reviews are of films that have little or no importance in the History of cinema.
I am not to sure about the aims and objectives of Wikipedia, but it does occur to me the proliferation of film reviews of dubious or no importance is like opening a page for Joe Schmoe, because his sixth time great-grandafther was a minor official at the court of King Nobody. IMDB lists in the region of 1,000,000 films and TV programmes, but it seems that there are contributors to this forum who want to duplicate the entire contents of IMDB solely for the glory of being published by Wiki. If that is the trend, then how long will it be before say a TV series, has individual pages for every episode? Coronation Street, a UK "soap" has had well over 5,000 episodes in case anyone is having trouble understanding where I am coming from.
Can I suggest that what is needed here, is a "Film and Tv committee" from whom approval should be sought prior to undertaking a project, where an explanation should be given as to why the contributor thinks their project should be included in Wikipedia. To give you an example of my thinking, I read a review of "Somebody Killed Her Husband". The film itself, in my opinion, rates as "dire", but the review was important to the extent it mentioned this was Farrah Fawcett's first film since "Charlie's Angels" and one critic entitled his review, "Somebody Killed Her Career", which gives the film some distinction or notoriety and therefore might merit inclusion on Wiki.
I am not saying bad films should be excluded from Wiki. For example, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is often regarded as the most technically inept film ever made. However, I feel that most of the film pages on Wiki are of totally insignificant films. I am not against "bad" films being included on Wiki as long as there is significant reason for the review, but I am totally fed up seeing pages that have been included just because nobody else has done this and then reading a C&P of IMDB. Perhaps it's time for some contributors to think that perhaps the reason why nobody has reviewed this film, is because generally, nobody think's it's a worthwhile project. 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems you have a different definition of what constitutes a troll to many others. Either that or the charm school you attended should give you a refund. So I may well have misunderstood what the purpose of these apparent IMDB clones are as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it seems that your definition of a troll is anyone that writes something you don't like. 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If you feel that a film is not important, you can rate it as Importance=low in its assessment template. That isn't a reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia, as long as we have enough information to write a neutral, verifiable article about it - this encyclopedia is not about "famous" or "important" topics only. Diego ( talk) 07:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A controversy occurred recently when the Academy Awards committee revoked a nomination for the Best Song Oscar at the 86th Academy Awards. Here is the source: Scott Feinberg (January 29, 2014). "Academy Disqualifies Oscar-Nominated Song 'Alone Yet Not Alone'". Hollywood Reporter. So, this got me to thinking. Maybe we should create an article entitled "List of Academy awards and nominations that have been revoked or rescinded" (or some such wording). Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Two questions about The Grand Budapest Hotel - 1) Are all those names in the infobox's starring field needed? and 2) Is it OK to use Youtube as a reference to cite the cast? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I added a link in Amarcord linking 1973 to List of Italian films of 1973. The MOS guidelines state that you can link year if it provides some useful purpose which this does. I think it's an appropriate link and useful to link to that year in Italian film. I've been twice reverted by Bovine who claims I'm violating "WP:EGG", yet I don't see how it is misleading or inappropriate to link, and I think it's much more useful for navigation for the reader to link it than not. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's tidier to simply link it though. What actual problem does it cause? I'm not a fan of see also sections. I did make an italian film nav a few years back which links all years but I'm not really a fan of them at the bottom of film pages. Per WP:BACON :-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, anybody know if articles about Bollywood films are governed by MOS:FILM and are they within the scope of WikiProject Film? I perceive the answer to be yes, but I thought I'd check. I see a lot of stuff at articles on Bollywood movies that don't make a lot of sense to me, that is, they are heavy with strange attributions like "such and such achieved Blockbuster status". Anyhow, before I start rambling and posting links to other articles, I'll just leave. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the lead for the film Byzantium, I added a template saying the section needed to be expanded upon as it is very short. However, it has been removed several times by a user saying it is perfect as it is. I was wondering if other users feel the same or if it is indeed too short and lacking in relevant info. I have been directed to the Manual of Style section about it's length, but it doesn't seem to meet the required criteria. Thanks for the help. - Over Hill and Under Hill ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
On the Marvel Cinematic Universe page, a recently new section (since November) was added under the critical reception regarding the impact it had on other studios with comic book character rights in also creating shared universes. However, there were two cases ( Here and here (this one doesn't really count because they are both Disney properties so they can't really "copy" anything)) were editors saw this section as an opportunity to add all accounts of new shared universe talk, some which do not specifically mention Marvel's influence or does not really fit with the scope of the page (ie. non comic related). However, I don't think this info should go unused, and was wondering if there is a better central section or page where all of this info could go. Currently Shared universe#Film universes is pretty lacking of info, so maybe there? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As awards season continues at full speed, I believe WikiProject Film might want to have a serious discussion about the plethora of meaningless regional and even film-club "awards" showing up on some movie pages. The Phoenix Film Critics Society, for instance, includes non-professional, amateur reviewers as well non-notable WP:SPS bloggers and free weekly penny-shoppers. The Oklahoma City film critics? The Central Ohio film critics? The Indiana film critics? It's WP:INDISCRIMINATE to list 50 different critics groups, one for each state — or more, given that there's both a Houston critics group and a North Texas critics group. Giving the North Carolina critics group equal weight in an awards chart as the Academy Award or the New York Film Critics' Circle is giving it undue weight, wouldn't you say?
An encyclopedia is supposed to present things with balance and perspective, and not be a fannish catch-all for everything anybody ever calls an "award." I believe it's in the best interest of this encyclopedia that we work to come up with reasonable, responsible guidelines. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A couple of questions. If an award is listed on imdb, then why shouldn't it be included on wiki? And what's the reason for the difference in treatment of List of accolades received by Blue Is the Warmest Colour when other films' accolades pages such as 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity and Life of Pi can have a comprehensive list? Gomuse17 ( talk) 16:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Some similar thoughts about groupings have appeared at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Request for comment, and I've left a note there suggesting editors bring their groupings suggestion here for a centralized discussion. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." ( Full article...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Started List of books on films. Any help adding books would be appreciated from guys like Erik, Lugnuts and anybody else!! Simply paste google book urls into here! or paste the urls into the talk page and I'll draw them up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Replaced with ; .♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone willing to take a look at this article: List of film accents considered the worst. My finger is hovering over the AFD button and I'm just about to pull the trigger, but I wanted to see if I could get some opinions from the community, especially opinions that disagree with mine. This article contains patent synthesis in that in many instances it takes cherrypicked reviews and draws a conclusion of "considered the worst". Many of the entries are unsourced, and many, like the Nicolas Cage entry, only have one source. In the case with Cage, Gene Siskel said "Nicolas Cage is not convincing, with his too-thick Southern accent". Does this translate to "worst"? What should an article like this look like? Here's another article: List of films considered the worst. That one's been up for 11 years. I understand that if something has historically been in multiple top 50 lists for "worst" this or that, that maybe it means something academically. But it feels that we are acting as critical response aggregators, which I know we try to avoid. (ex: "Critical response was generally mixed"). I don't mind being wrong, and I feel like I'm probably wrong here, so if I am, please give me a different perspective. My "interest" in this article is related to a discussion I've been having at Talk:Bollywood films of 2014 regarding a data table that summarizes cherrypicked opinions about the financial success of various movies. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Having a look through Category:Film awards by year there seems to be some confusion on what year any given article should be placed. Even though the category text states "List of film awards to honor films released in xxxx", I think this could be clearer from the category title. How do people feel about them being renamed from say Category:2013 film awards to Category:2013 film award ceremonies, for example? Or should the category names be left as they are and the articles moved into the year the ceremony took place, eg, the 86th Academy Awards moved from the 2013 category to the 2014? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to film stories, but I hope to do more film and theatrical articles, so I had a question that has come up. It's long been my understanding (even before I started editing here), that vintage film trailers are in the public domain because they invariably did not carry a copyright notice for the trailer. Yes, they might show the title of the film, with a copyright notice, but the trailer would still be in the public domain. For instance, in this video [1] the copyright notice for the film is at 0:21. I had thought this was in the public domain, but am I mistaken? Coretheapple ( talk) 18:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Based on this and other discussions I regretfully tagged for deletion two photos taken from the movie trailer of The Band Wagon. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 17. The two photos had a "non-renewed" notice, but I figured that the same argument applied. But notice the objection that another editor posted. Is this a valid point? Because if so, it would seem to be a safe harbor for trailers generally. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Any help on editing the article to bring it up to standards for an In the News mention would be grateful. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 45#Comic-Con Panel. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks, there is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Ranveer Singh#RFC: Unspecified roles in films still in development. The discussion is about whether or not as-yet unspecified roles in films still in development should be added to an actor's Filmography table. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts: and @ Erik:, thought this might interest you both. I was considering starting a series of bibliographies for each major director.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm planning on getting a grant for books from WMUK so I was just opening up my options. I think I'll create lists for the other major film directors too gradually. It's good as a film scholar resource and aid for finding further material, perfectly encyclopedia. Somebody already created one for Welles.♦ Dr. Blofeld
This seems like a no-brainer to me, but: How does the community feel about including audience ratings in articles? I reverted an edit at Clearnskin, (on the basis that any idiot can click a button) but it was reverted here. I assume that audience ratings are not relevant to our interest because they can be easily manipulated and inherently unreliable. Amirite? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Accolades_or_Awards_and_nominations_received_by_.3F.3F.3F. — Cirt ( talk) 11:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at this link in regards to the titling of 3D films. Please click the link and contribute your opinion. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I have requested to drop the "3D" from this article's title. See this discussion and share your opinion. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 13:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There have not been many notable adaptations of As You Like It. However, I think there are probably several notable rehashings of the Rosalind/Ganymede/Orlando storyline (Rosalind disguised as Ganymede convinces Orlando to marry Rosalind). However, the most notable one that I can find is so obscure it does not have a WP page. From what I can tell, A Perfect Man starring Liev Schreiber and Jeanne Tripplehorn, which came out on DVD 4 weeks ago seems close to this story line. I imagine that there are films about masquerades, costumes, disguises or other forms of anonymity that have been used to deliver this theme. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find examples?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we happy that The Ape is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over The Ape (2009 film), or should both be disambiguated? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I was editing the recent Good Article for Toy Story 3 where I removed the home video cover feeling that it didn't provide any critical commentary to justify it. The user who helped write most of the article has stated that the image was "inserted to illustrate a section in the article entirely dedicated to the DVD. The cover art is there to illustrate the DVD, as the topic of discussion in the section. It is used just as the movie poster or the cover of the soundtrack album for the film. They too do not help the audience understand more about there object, they are just to serve as a visual identification of the object discussed. The same is the case here. If you think the image here should be removed , then remove the other two too. But that will not be appropriate. You might say that the poster serves as visual identifier of the main article subject so it justifies. But what about the soundtrack album cover? The DVD is discussed on at least as much as that if not more. Still there is a place in the soundtrack album infobox used there for the pic. As such it is allowed. The same way this image is also allowed. Anyways it does not really matter to me whether the image is present in the article or not. It will just be better if it is there."
He brings up some good points but I'm not really sure if this violates wiki's copyright laws at all. I normally would leave this on the Toy Story 3 talk page, but I feel as if this relates more to the whole WP:FILM group instead. Any suggestions? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject, there is an open request for comment at Talk:List of former child actors from the United States. Short story: Article lists child actors, but examples of some actors' works may be getting a little bloated. The question asks if we should limit the list to a select few examples, somewhere between 3-5. Your thoughts are appreciated, and it'll only take a minute. :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just created and put the 1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil article up for Peer Review with the intention of nominating it as a Featured List Candidate. I'd appreciate any and all feedback. The review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil/archive1. Thanks, Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 04:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Both List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes are currently at AfD. Zero here and 100 here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comments regarding suitable verification for genre categories at Talk:Ant-Man (film)#Genres. All are welcome to comment. Thank you.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comments regarding the naming of mid-table headings at Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#In table headings. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Due to technical restrictions, how do you think we should name the film ID:A? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks - I've created a stub at ID A. Looks ugly, but what can you do? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. Could someone look at Whispers of Dead Zone? I've never seen film articles contain a gallery of images like this and I'm not sure whether this complies with MOS. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
An issue has come up at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#Recent infobox edits, but since this relates to pretty much any film that has been re-released I think we need to consider the issue in a general sense. At the moment, our infobox parameter for the box-office gross simply says "Box-office" and in accordance with the infobox guidelines we stick in the total worldwide figure, if known. However, an editor wants to add a note to the GWTW figure to explcitly state the gross comes from multiple releases. User:Erik supports this notion on the grounds that the "default assumption is not that a film has been released several times". I am against it on the grounds that I disagree with this assumption (think of pretty much any big film released prior to 1980 and its gross—and our infobox figure—comes from multiple releases), but mainly because I don't think it's a practical solution to go through a ton of articles adding notes to the infobox. These are the three basic options as I see them:
I'm interested in seeing which option editors prefer, and if anyone has any other ideas feel free to throw out. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Today Sharklover5555 ( talk · contribs) moved the article Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. They also created this for some reason. They didn't look at this previous discussion Talk:Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb#Requested move. I haven't worked with a page move in a long time and I am not sure how tricky this one will be so I am posting this here in hopes that one of you can fix things. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Due to lack of time to follow through and I think some exhaustion that necessitated a break, I'd like to continue a discussion [4] that was progressing toward what seemed like a solution to address WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE concerns about awards lists in movie, actor and filmmaker articles (as opposed to standalone list articles). User:Erik, User:Lugnuts, User:Ring Cinema and myself were the most recent editors over the course of a couple of weeks in January.
Now, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, a guideline that says to include every member of a group that has a Wikipedia article, only applies to standalone-list articles. Each movie / actor / filmmaker article is not required to include every minor award. And I would suggest that — and I get the impression most editors discussing this agree — that the North Texas Film Critics Awards do not carry the same weight as the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs, the SAG Awards, etc.
Erik had suggested having a "Regional awards" subsection. I agree with him, and I'm in favor of that for standalone film articles. Do we need to include every tiny regional award in movie / actor / filmmaker articles, though? And could we all agree that in movie / actor / filmmaker articles we at least not include the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, a Boston fan group anyone can join and whose award is named after the founder's two cats? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We have an official statement of the Studio that did co-produce The Grand Budapest Hotel telling us that the film is a UK-German co-production - yet, some editor/s, although aware of that statement - continue their edit warring. Please see → Talk:The Grand Budapest Hotel/Archive 1#This is also an American movie.
Help is greatly appreciated. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC).
Hello film experts! Here's an old draft that will soon be deleted as stale. It was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is there any reason to keep it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an article at Jurassic World despite the film being in development hell for over a decade. Full of "confirmed" dates, directors, actors, etc. These change several times a year, but they're all "confirmed". The editors who control it insist that it's going to start filming "real soon". They just say WP:IAR to any attempt to raise WP:NFF. There's a section of Jurassic Park article that keeps track of the latest rumours, there is no justification to "ignore all rules" to have a whole article on these desperately important press releases and blog accounts until it actually does start filming. If it ever does. 202.81.243.53 ( talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Wikimedia UK is running an editathon and photography day at the Cinema Museum in London on the 11th October 2014. Obviously people from this project would be very welcome. But it is also an opportunity to make requests for photographs of exhibits at that museum, and we would welcome suggestions of offline sources that need checking at the museum archive to reference content in specific articles. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an RFC in regards to whether websites should be added to the infobox at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC:Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template?. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I want to just say first of all that this is a thing that I've seen on many film articles, but I don't quite understand why. I will use Under the Skin (2013 film) as an example, as it was what sparked me posting this thread here.
Under the Skin, in the article (and on the title of the article), is considered to be a 2013 film. The film was screened at several film festivals in 2013, and is starting to be released to theatres as of last week (first theatrical release was in Germany on the 6th). My issue is how is it considered to be a 2013 film, and not a 2014 film? The film is being released in 2014, but was screened, or rather, previewed, at several festivals in the year previous.
And even so, I've read a few articles about that the film receiving additional editing after the screenings, so therefore the version being released to theatres isn't even exactly the same as the one that was previewed prior. For example, the main character of the film had a name, and in the final version of the film she does not. — Status ( talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a requested move currently open for Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Any and all input welcome here! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, film buffs. Are these notable awards? Should this old draft be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
At WT:MOSFILM, there is an ongoing discussion about how early one should have a "Reception" section. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this link for more. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've just spotted that Savolya ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying plots wholesale from other websites (usually Allmovie) and reminded them that this is not allowed. I've checked some of this user's recent edits and removed the offending text as needed. Any help with older edits would be welcomed. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see my question at Talk:The Railway Man (film)#Missing characters about why the characters of "Memsahib" (supposedly played by Marta Dusseldorp) and two others listed at IMdB did not appear in the film that I saw recently at the cinema. I also raised this at Talk:Marta Dusseldorp, but have received responses at neither place so far. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I had suggested deleting Raza Mallal's page, and was guided here. The first couple of pages of Google results for this film exec/director seem to only have online databases (e.g. IMDB, variety director listing, ect) and social media websites. It seems to me that this doesn't meet WP's standards for notability. Can someone more experienced with film opine? BernieGordon ( talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Requested move proposed at Talk:Home (2014 film)#Requested move. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Input on the talk page would be warmly welcome. I was about to promote it to GA but an editor insists that the lead doesn't have to be a decent summary of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an open RfC at Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees. The question is whether List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees should be moved to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees so that its scope would include black Oscar winners and nominees from countries other than the United States. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: I found this old Afc submission and added some references. Before moving it into the encyclopedia, I wanted to check to make sure that this topic wasn't already covered under another name or had some other problem that I have missed. Any opinions? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force per editor suggestion that a more specific project page would be a more appropriate place for requests of this nature. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
May someone please take a look over at Space Jam? I am on the verge of voilating 3RR, but a user keeps making unexplained formatting and ordering changes to the cast and has added a very large "Trivia" section. I don't really know if the ordering change is for the better, but I know the formatting (bolding cast names) and the trivia sections have got to go. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk:Nudity in music videos which has been tagged as a page monitored by this WikiProject. Members of this project are welcome to contribute, thank you. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( t • e • c) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed several categories describing how a film was shot, for instance Category:Films shot in Technicolor. WP:Categorization indicates that categories should be "defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".
In many cases the articles classified under these categories do not have any discussion regarding how they were shot. While I don't necessarily doubt the claims, if there's no text discussing the shooting of the films, it seems reasonable to me to question whether the shooting technique is a "defining characteristic" at that point.
I already engaged in multiple reversions of category additions of this nature on the grounds that they were unsupported by the article text (it didn't help that in every case these were mass-additions by IP editors) before it occurred to me that theoretically the film credits at least might support the category. That said, if there's absolutely no discussion of the category within the article itself, I do believe it's appropriate to remove the category. But I'd like to know what other editors think about this before I proceed any further. DonIago ( talk) 16:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Advocates for David Bergstein are again attempting to turn his article into a promotional advertisement. People familiar with WP:BLP and recent Hollywood history are invited to help ensure that incidents are presented appropriately rather than not only being whitewashed but gilded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
User:WikiFanCreator2010 recently made a round of edits on several articles where they removed the Golden Raspberry Award mentions in filmographies and award sections. They explained their edits by citing Wikipedia:ACTOR#Razzie Award templates. I reverted them because that discussion seemed to be related only to navboxes. User:Musdan77 reverted my revert, which lead to a discussion on their talk page in which they said that inclusion of the Razzies in these sections goes against consensus and that the Razzies are not real awards. I could find no such consensus in the talk archive here and I wondered if you folks could chime in on this situation.
Just for the record, I don't have much of an opinion on this issue, my reverts were done more as a procedural measure as I didn't think WikiFan's summary was adequate. LM2000 ( talk) 20:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Hercules (2014 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Hercules: The Thracian Wars -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello all! Just wanted to let you know that the
Animated films work group is now an official task force of {{
WikiProject Film}}! You can add articles to the project, by simply adding the parameter |Animated=yes
to the WikiProject Film banner. If you're interested in helping develop and classify animated films, please add your name to the project's
participants as well. Hope to see you there!
Fortdj33 (
talk)
01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyone interested in creating an official WP:FILM/R Google Custom Search modeled after the WP:VG/RS one? It would help locate sources for articles and research notability for deletion discussions. Even if we just included four sources – Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Film Journal International, and Screen International – it would be useful in finding coverage for mainstream American and European film topics. It would be easy to add another 20–25 completely uncontroversial sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed from this project on this matter: Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Appropriateness of a Lesbian cartoon for children?. There are a lot of reviewers (I'm speaking of the ones who pass as WP:Reliable sources) who have interpreted, or have reported people as having interpreted, the film as having one or more LGBT parallels, and the talk page discussion concerns whether or not we should include material about that in the article. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment regarding the migration of {{
cite AV media notes}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here:
Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite DVD-notes}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here:
Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.{{
cite music release notes}}
. The discussion is here:
Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.Requested move proposed at Talk:Let It Be (film)#Requested move. Input is welcome. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the Swedish and Luxembourgish Wikipedias both have articles about Rainer Werner Fassbinder's 1970 film Götter der Pest yet the film's English entry does not link to them. Can someone please therefore add them to the foreign languages section at the left? I myself have no idea how to do so. Thanks! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 22:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 10:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I have also now noticed that the French Wikipedia has an article about Larisa Shepitko's 1966 film Wings yet the film's English entry does not link to it. Can someone please therefore once again add it to the foreign languages section at the left? Thanks! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 11:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 12:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The film Kolachi (film) did not seem notable to me per our guidlelines, but perhaps I'm missing something. The same for the first-listed actor, Fawad Khan (actor), whom I thought worthy of a speedy (declined). Thoughts?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
This movie article has been created shortly. It's plot section is very short. Can anyone expand the plot and add critical reviews.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 10:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on an article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electrick Children. The first time I submitted it, the only third party source was IMDB. I re-submitted it with fully referenced "Reception" and "Awards and nominations" sections, but it was rejected again with an edit summary of "subject appears to be a non-notable film". Could somebody take a look at it and tell me if it really is non-notable? If it is, why? And if it isn't, what more can I do to establish its notability? Thanks. 86.41.35.230 ( talk) 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Category:Nigerian films from the page Half of a Yellow Sun since it already exists in the sub category Category:Nigerian drama films but Lugnuts don't seem to agree with that. I really don't see why the Category should be left to get crowded when at the end of day it becomes too large to control and also makes it impossible for inexperienced users to find the kind of Nigerian film they are looking for. According to WP:FILMCAT in the "Most specific category" section, it clearly states that articles should be moved into their specific sub-categories and at the "Intersection Category" it points out the problems of multiple categorization stating that the system is unwieldy as category sizes increase; thus, common combinations of multiple categories can be made explicit by creating an "intersection" sub-category for them; in this case, Category:American documentary films." Stanleytux ( talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
An IP is claiming that the UK title for this film is the same as the French one. I can't find a source to back this up. If anyone can please add it to the article in a way that doesn't remove the language template. Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that can be provided. MarnetteD | Talk 04:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE ( t • c) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone has been vandalizing the Anatomie de l'enfer article for some time now. I suggest semi-protecting it. 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 10:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I have made the request. Let's see what happens now... 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 11:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In light of a requested move for the 2014 film Noah, I looked over the 1998 film and found it not up to Wikipedia standards. I've nominated it for deletion, and all opinions are welcome on its AfD page. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 13:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I searched the archives and I perused Wikipedia:Review aggregators but I didn't find an answer. What is the current wisdom on using audience reviews (as opposed to critic reviews) from MetaCritic and other sites? I thought we avoided them as more or less useless and irrelevant, but I've been reverted at Ender's Game (film) so if I'm wrong then I need to back off. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The current RM at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move has some relevance to how we title filmographies and similar articles. Your input there would be appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Does any editor have access to the online Variety achives? There are three articles I'd like to get hold of, and unfortunately they do not offer a single article purchase. Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, there is discussion about the genre for Grand Budapest Hotel that could use a second look. If anyone has a minute, It'd be great! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Quick question. I'm going through all the RKO films, and I'm noticing that in some articles the "release date" is the date of the premiere, while in others, it is the general release date. AFI, differentiates between the two, with the release date being the date of wide release, rather than date of the premiere. In the RKO releases, I've been conforming it to the release date (trying to be WP:BOLD), but was wondering what other editors think. The premiere is technically not the release. Perhaps in those instances two dates are appropriate? Onel5969 ( talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
“ | Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. | ” |
Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards. Comments are welcome there. — sroc 💬 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
how do I fix an error in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie13b ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems as though I've seen a growing number of these articles popping up. I wanted to approach the project and see what other's opinions are on them. How eager should editors be to create this type of page for films (say as done with Star Wars Episode VII, or potential superhero films such as future Marvel Cinematic Universe films or the upcoming Batman/Superman film), instead of developing the info in a "Sequel" subsection or (incorrectly) on the actual page before it passes notability guidelines. If it is something the project thinks is feasible, should the MOS be updated to reflect this option, and when it would and would not apply? Thanks for the opinions. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Jet Stream (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Debresser (
talk)
20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the prior discussion here I've nominated a number of "Films shot in..." categories for deletion (or perhaps listification). That discussion can be found here. DonIago ( talk) 16:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Barbarella (film) over whether an unreferenced "in popular culture" section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:BURDEN. To prevent further edit warring, I started a discussion at the talk page, but it has stalled. Input on this matter from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
At WT:MOSFILM, there is an ongoing discussion about MOS guidelines for articles about upcoming films. The discussion can be seen here, and editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The full line-ups have been announced for the upcoming 2014 Cannes Film Festival. Any help with article creation/expansion for films will be welcomed. Ties in nicely with Erik's post, above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Pather Panchali is a featured article cadidate now. Please provide feedback in the FAC page. Thanks.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
At Transcendence (2014 film), there is an issue with reporting the overall critical reception, especially considering the disparity in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's reporting for this particular film. See discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If anyone would like to help out, Stanley Kubrick is up for GA status, and suggestions for it to pass have been pointed out at the article's Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Rusted AutoParts 13:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing issue in the plot section regarding Gwen's death in the plot section. Please see the discussion at Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man 2#Plot section. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: This old Afc submission was abandoned before acceptance, and another editor made an article about the same topic. ( Dead Man's Burden) Is there any information in the submission which should be transferred to the new article, or should it just be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a request to move Trailer Park Boys 3: Don't Legalize It to Trailer Park Boys: Don't Legalize It that was recently re-listed. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Cinématon: I've noticed that the stated length of this film has been gradually increasing over the years. In 2009, we said it was 150 hours long, it increased at various points up until today when it reached 188 hours. There never seems to have been a source, and at List of longest films, the runtime seems to have been going through a similar period of growth (also never a source). I suspect that the film is sort of an ongoing work (given one source that the film was being screened as early as 1985, yet Courant was still adding footage to the film no earlier than 2006), but I can't find a source in either direction. Most sources seem to indicate that the film is 150 or 156 hours long. I'm not sure where to go from here. Does anybody here have any thoughts? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Film scores by composer was intended for articles about film scores, but its subcats currently seem to be used mainly for films categorised by the composer who scored them. I recently created Category:Soundtracks by composer which is now used for film score (soundtrack) albums.
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Category:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman for a suggestion to rename the "Film scores by composer " categories to e.g. "Films scored by". – Fayenatic L ondon 13:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Greed (film) is currently a FA candidate here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (film)/archive3 is anyone is interested.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion (and ongoing edit war) about the dispute about the box office figure for The Godfather Part II. On a side note, did we ever get a consensus about which site is the prefered one when it comes to using figures for this field? I see some lengthy discussions in the archives about BOM and The Numbers, but can't see anything concrete. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This is a neutral notice to inform the project that List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is currently a Featured List candidate. All are welcome to review it, here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
While of course it isn't necessary to list full crew, I think the infobox is missing some important parameters. Some art directors, casting agents, costume designers, and production and Second Unit directors in particular might be notable enough to have articles. Particular for the Golden period of Hollywood you'll notice than many of them worked on many films and are certainly notable enough. In reading biographies I frequently come across mention of such people and when I visit the articles I see no mention of them! I just think if we opened up the opportunity to add the parameters for any of the above in the infobox this would be a positive move forward. I propose the introduction of the following parameters initially which any editor may add to an article if the person has an article or they intend adding an article. They wouldn't be compulsory parameters, but where they're relevant it would give editors the option to add them.
♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
For instance 2001 Space I would immediately like to know who the production designer and art director was, more so than film editor. The infobox should list John Hoesli etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't provide for mobile readers though who may want a quick reference point and find out who designed the sets for a given film though. They'd have to read through a long article and let's face it, most film articles, even very good ones, tend to ignore things like art directors and set designers. We could of course add a collapsible section of the infobox for things like this... The problem is that some aren't notable and I can see people adding like the full crew from imdb..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please comment on the quality of ths edit. I have no idea how lead vs supporting lead is sourced for article purposes. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 20:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing requested move at the Golden Globe Award talk page regarding several awards that should possibly have their titles pluralized, due to the recent moving of Academy Awards. Click here for the discussion. All opinions are appreciated! Corvoe (speak to me) 21:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Since a few hours Samar Island occupies the title Samar, which is the title of some films and other things.
Please see Talk:Samar#Requested move (February 2014) - Androoox ( talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of spare time, help would be appreciated over at Transformers: Age of Extinction. I recently removed much of its sources, as they were all to TFW2005.com, a fan forum site. The page now needs reliable sources to back up its information. (Also, if anyone knows of a discussion where TFW2005 was deemed reliable, please let me know. But just by looking at it I know that it is not.) I don't have a ton of time to spend on the page, but will try to assist when I can. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter: Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#The marital "rape" in the plot summary. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, guys. Anyone has this issue of Film Review that reviewed Space Adventure Cobra? And, someone knows if the Film Review in the link is the same as this article. Thanks. Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Anybody cares to comment on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#An_article_on_a_movie_before_release.? Anup Mehra ✈ 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As some or all of you will remember, I brought this matter up the previous month; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 50#Shutter Island (film) article -- Critical reception section. Well, the matter still is not resolved, perhaps because the main discussion did not take place there at the article talk page. So I am asking all of you to weigh in on this, and to do so there at the article talk page. For those of you who don't know, the dispute concerns whether or not to categorize the film as "mixed" when Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 68% score and Metacritic gives it a 63% score. In the previous WP:FILM discussion about this, the WP:Consensus is that such scores do not equate to "mixed" (not in the general way that the term is used). There was also sentiment that we should remove any unsourced lead-in summary, such as "The film received mixed reviews.", or explicitly source the summary. Explicitly sourcing is not enough if the source is at odds with what critics generally state about the film, however. We should keep WP:Undue weight in mind. The categorization of "mixed" to describe Shutter Island is unsourced and generally at odds with what the sources relay about the film, and that should be remedied. Discussion is here: Talk:Shutter Island (film)#Critical reception section -- mixed reviews?. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What do others think of this edit? Is there any value in adding pictures to these tables? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed increasingly when I Google a film, it has it's own Wiki page. Often, the content is a cut and paste from IMDB. However, I am becoming increasingly of the view many of these pages are "ego trips" by wannabe contributors, as many of these reviews are of films that have little or no importance in the History of cinema.
I am not to sure about the aims and objectives of Wikipedia, but it does occur to me the proliferation of film reviews of dubious or no importance is like opening a page for Joe Schmoe, because his sixth time great-grandafther was a minor official at the court of King Nobody. IMDB lists in the region of 1,000,000 films and TV programmes, but it seems that there are contributors to this forum who want to duplicate the entire contents of IMDB solely for the glory of being published by Wiki. If that is the trend, then how long will it be before say a TV series, has individual pages for every episode? Coronation Street, a UK "soap" has had well over 5,000 episodes in case anyone is having trouble understanding where I am coming from.
Can I suggest that what is needed here, is a "Film and Tv committee" from whom approval should be sought prior to undertaking a project, where an explanation should be given as to why the contributor thinks their project should be included in Wikipedia. To give you an example of my thinking, I read a review of "Somebody Killed Her Husband". The film itself, in my opinion, rates as "dire", but the review was important to the extent it mentioned this was Farrah Fawcett's first film since "Charlie's Angels" and one critic entitled his review, "Somebody Killed Her Career", which gives the film some distinction or notoriety and therefore might merit inclusion on Wiki.
I am not saying bad films should be excluded from Wiki. For example, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is often regarded as the most technically inept film ever made. However, I feel that most of the film pages on Wiki are of totally insignificant films. I am not against "bad" films being included on Wiki as long as there is significant reason for the review, but I am totally fed up seeing pages that have been included just because nobody else has done this and then reading a C&P of IMDB. Perhaps it's time for some contributors to think that perhaps the reason why nobody has reviewed this film, is because generally, nobody think's it's a worthwhile project. 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems you have a different definition of what constitutes a troll to many others. Either that or the charm school you attended should give you a refund. So I may well have misunderstood what the purpose of these apparent IMDB clones are as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it seems that your definition of a troll is anyone that writes something you don't like. 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If you feel that a film is not important, you can rate it as Importance=low in its assessment template. That isn't a reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia, as long as we have enough information to write a neutral, verifiable article about it - this encyclopedia is not about "famous" or "important" topics only. Diego ( talk) 07:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A controversy occurred recently when the Academy Awards committee revoked a nomination for the Best Song Oscar at the 86th Academy Awards. Here is the source: Scott Feinberg (January 29, 2014). "Academy Disqualifies Oscar-Nominated Song 'Alone Yet Not Alone'". Hollywood Reporter. So, this got me to thinking. Maybe we should create an article entitled "List of Academy awards and nominations that have been revoked or rescinded" (or some such wording). Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Two questions about The Grand Budapest Hotel - 1) Are all those names in the infobox's starring field needed? and 2) Is it OK to use Youtube as a reference to cite the cast? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I added a link in Amarcord linking 1973 to List of Italian films of 1973. The MOS guidelines state that you can link year if it provides some useful purpose which this does. I think it's an appropriate link and useful to link to that year in Italian film. I've been twice reverted by Bovine who claims I'm violating "WP:EGG", yet I don't see how it is misleading or inappropriate to link, and I think it's much more useful for navigation for the reader to link it than not. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's tidier to simply link it though. What actual problem does it cause? I'm not a fan of see also sections. I did make an italian film nav a few years back which links all years but I'm not really a fan of them at the bottom of film pages. Per WP:BACON :-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, anybody know if articles about Bollywood films are governed by MOS:FILM and are they within the scope of WikiProject Film? I perceive the answer to be yes, but I thought I'd check. I see a lot of stuff at articles on Bollywood movies that don't make a lot of sense to me, that is, they are heavy with strange attributions like "such and such achieved Blockbuster status". Anyhow, before I start rambling and posting links to other articles, I'll just leave. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the lead for the film Byzantium, I added a template saying the section needed to be expanded upon as it is very short. However, it has been removed several times by a user saying it is perfect as it is. I was wondering if other users feel the same or if it is indeed too short and lacking in relevant info. I have been directed to the Manual of Style section about it's length, but it doesn't seem to meet the required criteria. Thanks for the help. - Over Hill and Under Hill ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
On the Marvel Cinematic Universe page, a recently new section (since November) was added under the critical reception regarding the impact it had on other studios with comic book character rights in also creating shared universes. However, there were two cases ( Here and here (this one doesn't really count because they are both Disney properties so they can't really "copy" anything)) were editors saw this section as an opportunity to add all accounts of new shared universe talk, some which do not specifically mention Marvel's influence or does not really fit with the scope of the page (ie. non comic related). However, I don't think this info should go unused, and was wondering if there is a better central section or page where all of this info could go. Currently Shared universe#Film universes is pretty lacking of info, so maybe there? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As awards season continues at full speed, I believe WikiProject Film might want to have a serious discussion about the plethora of meaningless regional and even film-club "awards" showing up on some movie pages. The Phoenix Film Critics Society, for instance, includes non-professional, amateur reviewers as well non-notable WP:SPS bloggers and free weekly penny-shoppers. The Oklahoma City film critics? The Central Ohio film critics? The Indiana film critics? It's WP:INDISCRIMINATE to list 50 different critics groups, one for each state — or more, given that there's both a Houston critics group and a North Texas critics group. Giving the North Carolina critics group equal weight in an awards chart as the Academy Award or the New York Film Critics' Circle is giving it undue weight, wouldn't you say?
An encyclopedia is supposed to present things with balance and perspective, and not be a fannish catch-all for everything anybody ever calls an "award." I believe it's in the best interest of this encyclopedia that we work to come up with reasonable, responsible guidelines. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A couple of questions. If an award is listed on imdb, then why shouldn't it be included on wiki? And what's the reason for the difference in treatment of List of accolades received by Blue Is the Warmest Colour when other films' accolades pages such as 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity and Life of Pi can have a comprehensive list? Gomuse17 ( talk) 16:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Some similar thoughts about groupings have appeared at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Request for comment, and I've left a note there suggesting editors bring their groupings suggestion here for a centralized discussion. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." ( Full article...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Started List of books on films. Any help adding books would be appreciated from guys like Erik, Lugnuts and anybody else!! Simply paste google book urls into here! or paste the urls into the talk page and I'll draw them up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Replaced with ; .♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone willing to take a look at this article: List of film accents considered the worst. My finger is hovering over the AFD button and I'm just about to pull the trigger, but I wanted to see if I could get some opinions from the community, especially opinions that disagree with mine. This article contains patent synthesis in that in many instances it takes cherrypicked reviews and draws a conclusion of "considered the worst". Many of the entries are unsourced, and many, like the Nicolas Cage entry, only have one source. In the case with Cage, Gene Siskel said "Nicolas Cage is not convincing, with his too-thick Southern accent". Does this translate to "worst"? What should an article like this look like? Here's another article: List of films considered the worst. That one's been up for 11 years. I understand that if something has historically been in multiple top 50 lists for "worst" this or that, that maybe it means something academically. But it feels that we are acting as critical response aggregators, which I know we try to avoid. (ex: "Critical response was generally mixed"). I don't mind being wrong, and I feel like I'm probably wrong here, so if I am, please give me a different perspective. My "interest" in this article is related to a discussion I've been having at Talk:Bollywood films of 2014 regarding a data table that summarizes cherrypicked opinions about the financial success of various movies. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Having a look through Category:Film awards by year there seems to be some confusion on what year any given article should be placed. Even though the category text states "List of film awards to honor films released in xxxx", I think this could be clearer from the category title. How do people feel about them being renamed from say Category:2013 film awards to Category:2013 film award ceremonies, for example? Or should the category names be left as they are and the articles moved into the year the ceremony took place, eg, the 86th Academy Awards moved from the 2013 category to the 2014? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to film stories, but I hope to do more film and theatrical articles, so I had a question that has come up. It's long been my understanding (even before I started editing here), that vintage film trailers are in the public domain because they invariably did not carry a copyright notice for the trailer. Yes, they might show the title of the film, with a copyright notice, but the trailer would still be in the public domain. For instance, in this video [1] the copyright notice for the film is at 0:21. I had thought this was in the public domain, but am I mistaken? Coretheapple ( talk) 18:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Based on this and other discussions I regretfully tagged for deletion two photos taken from the movie trailer of The Band Wagon. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 17. The two photos had a "non-renewed" notice, but I figured that the same argument applied. But notice the objection that another editor posted. Is this a valid point? Because if so, it would seem to be a safe harbor for trailers generally. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Any help on editing the article to bring it up to standards for an In the News mention would be grateful. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 45#Comic-Con Panel. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks, there is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Ranveer Singh#RFC: Unspecified roles in films still in development. The discussion is about whether or not as-yet unspecified roles in films still in development should be added to an actor's Filmography table. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts: and @ Erik:, thought this might interest you both. I was considering starting a series of bibliographies for each major director.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm planning on getting a grant for books from WMUK so I was just opening up my options. I think I'll create lists for the other major film directors too gradually. It's good as a film scholar resource and aid for finding further material, perfectly encyclopedia. Somebody already created one for Welles.♦ Dr. Blofeld
This seems like a no-brainer to me, but: How does the community feel about including audience ratings in articles? I reverted an edit at Clearnskin, (on the basis that any idiot can click a button) but it was reverted here. I assume that audience ratings are not relevant to our interest because they can be easily manipulated and inherently unreliable. Amirite? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Accolades_or_Awards_and_nominations_received_by_.3F.3F.3F. — Cirt ( talk) 11:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at this link in regards to the titling of 3D films. Please click the link and contribute your opinion. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I have requested to drop the "3D" from this article's title. See this discussion and share your opinion. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 13:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There have not been many notable adaptations of As You Like It. However, I think there are probably several notable rehashings of the Rosalind/Ganymede/Orlando storyline (Rosalind disguised as Ganymede convinces Orlando to marry Rosalind). However, the most notable one that I can find is so obscure it does not have a WP page. From what I can tell, A Perfect Man starring Liev Schreiber and Jeanne Tripplehorn, which came out on DVD 4 weeks ago seems close to this story line. I imagine that there are films about masquerades, costumes, disguises or other forms of anonymity that have been used to deliver this theme. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find examples?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we happy that The Ape is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over The Ape (2009 film), or should both be disambiguated? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I was editing the recent Good Article for Toy Story 3 where I removed the home video cover feeling that it didn't provide any critical commentary to justify it. The user who helped write most of the article has stated that the image was "inserted to illustrate a section in the article entirely dedicated to the DVD. The cover art is there to illustrate the DVD, as the topic of discussion in the section. It is used just as the movie poster or the cover of the soundtrack album for the film. They too do not help the audience understand more about there object, they are just to serve as a visual identification of the object discussed. The same is the case here. If you think the image here should be removed , then remove the other two too. But that will not be appropriate. You might say that the poster serves as visual identifier of the main article subject so it justifies. But what about the soundtrack album cover? The DVD is discussed on at least as much as that if not more. Still there is a place in the soundtrack album infobox used there for the pic. As such it is allowed. The same way this image is also allowed. Anyways it does not really matter to me whether the image is present in the article or not. It will just be better if it is there."
He brings up some good points but I'm not really sure if this violates wiki's copyright laws at all. I normally would leave this on the Toy Story 3 talk page, but I feel as if this relates more to the whole WP:FILM group instead. Any suggestions? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject, there is an open request for comment at Talk:List of former child actors from the United States. Short story: Article lists child actors, but examples of some actors' works may be getting a little bloated. The question asks if we should limit the list to a select few examples, somewhere between 3-5. Your thoughts are appreciated, and it'll only take a minute. :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just created and put the 1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil article up for Peer Review with the intention of nominating it as a Featured List Candidate. I'd appreciate any and all feedback. The review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil/archive1. Thanks, Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 04:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Both List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes are currently at AfD. Zero here and 100 here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comments regarding suitable verification for genre categories at Talk:Ant-Man (film)#Genres. All are welcome to comment. Thank you.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comments regarding the naming of mid-table headings at Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#In table headings. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Due to technical restrictions, how do you think we should name the film ID:A? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks - I've created a stub at ID A. Looks ugly, but what can you do? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. Could someone look at Whispers of Dead Zone? I've never seen film articles contain a gallery of images like this and I'm not sure whether this complies with MOS. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
An issue has come up at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#Recent infobox edits, but since this relates to pretty much any film that has been re-released I think we need to consider the issue in a general sense. At the moment, our infobox parameter for the box-office gross simply says "Box-office" and in accordance with the infobox guidelines we stick in the total worldwide figure, if known. However, an editor wants to add a note to the GWTW figure to explcitly state the gross comes from multiple releases. User:Erik supports this notion on the grounds that the "default assumption is not that a film has been released several times". I am against it on the grounds that I disagree with this assumption (think of pretty much any big film released prior to 1980 and its gross—and our infobox figure—comes from multiple releases), but mainly because I don't think it's a practical solution to go through a ton of articles adding notes to the infobox. These are the three basic options as I see them:
I'm interested in seeing which option editors prefer, and if anyone has any other ideas feel free to throw out. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Today Sharklover5555 ( talk · contribs) moved the article Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. They also created this for some reason. They didn't look at this previous discussion Talk:Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb#Requested move. I haven't worked with a page move in a long time and I am not sure how tricky this one will be so I am posting this here in hopes that one of you can fix things. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Due to lack of time to follow through and I think some exhaustion that necessitated a break, I'd like to continue a discussion [4] that was progressing toward what seemed like a solution to address WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE concerns about awards lists in movie, actor and filmmaker articles (as opposed to standalone list articles). User:Erik, User:Lugnuts, User:Ring Cinema and myself were the most recent editors over the course of a couple of weeks in January.
Now, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, a guideline that says to include every member of a group that has a Wikipedia article, only applies to standalone-list articles. Each movie / actor / filmmaker article is not required to include every minor award. And I would suggest that — and I get the impression most editors discussing this agree — that the North Texas Film Critics Awards do not carry the same weight as the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs, the SAG Awards, etc.
Erik had suggested having a "Regional awards" subsection. I agree with him, and I'm in favor of that for standalone film articles. Do we need to include every tiny regional award in movie / actor / filmmaker articles, though? And could we all agree that in movie / actor / filmmaker articles we at least not include the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, a Boston fan group anyone can join and whose award is named after the founder's two cats? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We have an official statement of the Studio that did co-produce The Grand Budapest Hotel telling us that the film is a UK-German co-production - yet, some editor/s, although aware of that statement - continue their edit warring. Please see → Talk:The Grand Budapest Hotel/Archive 1#This is also an American movie.
Help is greatly appreciated. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC).
Hello film experts! Here's an old draft that will soon be deleted as stale. It was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is there any reason to keep it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an article at Jurassic World despite the film being in development hell for over a decade. Full of "confirmed" dates, directors, actors, etc. These change several times a year, but they're all "confirmed". The editors who control it insist that it's going to start filming "real soon". They just say WP:IAR to any attempt to raise WP:NFF. There's a section of Jurassic Park article that keeps track of the latest rumours, there is no justification to "ignore all rules" to have a whole article on these desperately important press releases and blog accounts until it actually does start filming. If it ever does. 202.81.243.53 ( talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Wikimedia UK is running an editathon and photography day at the Cinema Museum in London on the 11th October 2014. Obviously people from this project would be very welcome. But it is also an opportunity to make requests for photographs of exhibits at that museum, and we would welcome suggestions of offline sources that need checking at the museum archive to reference content in specific articles. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an RFC in regards to whether websites should be added to the infobox at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC:Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template?. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I want to just say first of all that this is a thing that I've seen on many film articles, but I don't quite understand why. I will use Under the Skin (2013 film) as an example, as it was what sparked me posting this thread here.
Under the Skin, in the article (and on the title of the article), is considered to be a 2013 film. The film was screened at several film festivals in 2013, and is starting to be released to theatres as of last week (first theatrical release was in Germany on the 6th). My issue is how is it considered to be a 2013 film, and not a 2014 film? The film is being released in 2014, but was screened, or rather, previewed, at several festivals in the year previous.
And even so, I've read a few articles about that the film receiving additional editing after the screenings, so therefore the version being released to theatres isn't even exactly the same as the one that was previewed prior. For example, the main character of the film had a name, and in the final version of the film she does not. — Status ( talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a requested move currently open for Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Any and all input welcome here! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, film buffs. Are these notable awards? Should this old draft be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
At WT:MOSFILM, there is an ongoing discussion about how early one should have a "Reception" section. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this link for more. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've just spotted that Savolya ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying plots wholesale from other websites (usually Allmovie) and reminded them that this is not allowed. I've checked some of this user's recent edits and removed the offending text as needed. Any help with older edits would be welcomed. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see my question at Talk:The Railway Man (film)#Missing characters about why the characters of "Memsahib" (supposedly played by Marta Dusseldorp) and two others listed at IMdB did not appear in the film that I saw recently at the cinema. I also raised this at Talk:Marta Dusseldorp, but have received responses at neither place so far. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I had suggested deleting Raza Mallal's page, and was guided here. The first couple of pages of Google results for this film exec/director seem to only have online databases (e.g. IMDB, variety director listing, ect) and social media websites. It seems to me that this doesn't meet WP's standards for notability. Can someone more experienced with film opine? BernieGordon ( talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Requested move proposed at Talk:Home (2014 film)#Requested move. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Input on the talk page would be warmly welcome. I was about to promote it to GA but an editor insists that the lead doesn't have to be a decent summary of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an open RfC at Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees. The question is whether List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees should be moved to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees so that its scope would include black Oscar winners and nominees from countries other than the United States. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: I found this old Afc submission and added some references. Before moving it into the encyclopedia, I wanted to check to make sure that this topic wasn't already covered under another name or had some other problem that I have missed. Any opinions? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force per editor suggestion that a more specific project page would be a more appropriate place for requests of this nature. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
May someone please take a look over at Space Jam? I am on the verge of voilating 3RR, but a user keeps making unexplained formatting and ordering changes to the cast and has added a very large "Trivia" section. I don't really know if the ordering change is for the better, but I know the formatting (bolding cast names) and the trivia sections have got to go. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk:Nudity in music videos which has been tagged as a page monitored by this WikiProject. Members of this project are welcome to contribute, thank you. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( t • e • c) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed several categories describing how a film was shot, for instance Category:Films shot in Technicolor. WP:Categorization indicates that categories should be "defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".
In many cases the articles classified under these categories do not have any discussion regarding how they were shot. While I don't necessarily doubt the claims, if there's no text discussing the shooting of the films, it seems reasonable to me to question whether the shooting technique is a "defining characteristic" at that point.
I already engaged in multiple reversions of category additions of this nature on the grounds that they were unsupported by the article text (it didn't help that in every case these were mass-additions by IP editors) before it occurred to me that theoretically the film credits at least might support the category. That said, if there's absolutely no discussion of the category within the article itself, I do believe it's appropriate to remove the category. But I'd like to know what other editors think about this before I proceed any further. DonIago ( talk) 16:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Advocates for David Bergstein are again attempting to turn his article into a promotional advertisement. People familiar with WP:BLP and recent Hollywood history are invited to help ensure that incidents are presented appropriately rather than not only being whitewashed but gilded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
User:WikiFanCreator2010 recently made a round of edits on several articles where they removed the Golden Raspberry Award mentions in filmographies and award sections. They explained their edits by citing Wikipedia:ACTOR#Razzie Award templates. I reverted them because that discussion seemed to be related only to navboxes. User:Musdan77 reverted my revert, which lead to a discussion on their talk page in which they said that inclusion of the Razzies in these sections goes against consensus and that the Razzies are not real awards. I could find no such consensus in the talk archive here and I wondered if you folks could chime in on this situation.
Just for the record, I don't have much of an opinion on this issue, my reverts were done more as a procedural measure as I didn't think WikiFan's summary was adequate. LM2000 ( talk) 20:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Hercules (2014 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Hercules: The Thracian Wars -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello all! Just wanted to let you know that the
Animated films work group is now an official task force of {{
WikiProject Film}}! You can add articles to the project, by simply adding the parameter |Animated=yes
to the WikiProject Film banner. If you're interested in helping develop and classify animated films, please add your name to the project's
participants as well. Hope to see you there!
Fortdj33 (
talk)
01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyone interested in creating an official WP:FILM/R Google Custom Search modeled after the WP:VG/RS one? It would help locate sources for articles and research notability for deletion discussions. Even if we just included four sources – Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Film Journal International, and Screen International – it would be useful in finding coverage for mainstream American and European film topics. It would be easy to add another 20–25 completely uncontroversial sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed from this project on this matter: Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Appropriateness of a Lesbian cartoon for children?. There are a lot of reviewers (I'm speaking of the ones who pass as WP:Reliable sources) who have interpreted, or have reported people as having interpreted, the film as having one or more LGBT parallels, and the talk page discussion concerns whether or not we should include material about that in the article. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment regarding the migration of {{
cite AV media notes}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here:
Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite DVD-notes}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here:
Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.{{
cite music release notes}}
. The discussion is here:
Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.Requested move proposed at Talk:Let It Be (film)#Requested move. Input is welcome. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the Swedish and Luxembourgish Wikipedias both have articles about Rainer Werner Fassbinder's 1970 film Götter der Pest yet the film's English entry does not link to them. Can someone please therefore add them to the foreign languages section at the left? I myself have no idea how to do so. Thanks! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 22:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 10:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I have also now noticed that the French Wikipedia has an article about Larisa Shepitko's 1966 film Wings yet the film's English entry does not link to it. Can someone please therefore once again add it to the foreign languages section at the left? Thanks! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 11:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 12:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The film Kolachi (film) did not seem notable to me per our guidlelines, but perhaps I'm missing something. The same for the first-listed actor, Fawad Khan (actor), whom I thought worthy of a speedy (declined). Thoughts?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
This movie article has been created shortly. It's plot section is very short. Can anyone expand the plot and add critical reviews.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 10:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on an article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electrick Children. The first time I submitted it, the only third party source was IMDB. I re-submitted it with fully referenced "Reception" and "Awards and nominations" sections, but it was rejected again with an edit summary of "subject appears to be a non-notable film". Could somebody take a look at it and tell me if it really is non-notable? If it is, why? And if it isn't, what more can I do to establish its notability? Thanks. 86.41.35.230 ( talk) 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Category:Nigerian films from the page Half of a Yellow Sun since it already exists in the sub category Category:Nigerian drama films but Lugnuts don't seem to agree with that. I really don't see why the Category should be left to get crowded when at the end of day it becomes too large to control and also makes it impossible for inexperienced users to find the kind of Nigerian film they are looking for. According to WP:FILMCAT in the "Most specific category" section, it clearly states that articles should be moved into their specific sub-categories and at the "Intersection Category" it points out the problems of multiple categorization stating that the system is unwieldy as category sizes increase; thus, common combinations of multiple categories can be made explicit by creating an "intersection" sub-category for them; in this case, Category:American documentary films." Stanleytux ( talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
An IP is claiming that the UK title for this film is the same as the French one. I can't find a source to back this up. If anyone can please add it to the article in a way that doesn't remove the language template. Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that can be provided. MarnetteD | Talk 04:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE ( t • c) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone has been vandalizing the Anatomie de l'enfer article for some time now. I suggest semi-protecting it. 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 10:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I have made the request. Let's see what happens now... 89.139.186.69 ( talk) 11:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In light of a requested move for the 2014 film Noah, I looked over the 1998 film and found it not up to Wikipedia standards. I've nominated it for deletion, and all opinions are welcome on its AfD page. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 13:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I searched the archives and I perused Wikipedia:Review aggregators but I didn't find an answer. What is the current wisdom on using audience reviews (as opposed to critic reviews) from MetaCritic and other sites? I thought we avoided them as more or less useless and irrelevant, but I've been reverted at Ender's Game (film) so if I'm wrong then I need to back off. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The current RM at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move has some relevance to how we title filmographies and similar articles. Your input there would be appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Does any editor have access to the online Variety achives? There are three articles I'd like to get hold of, and unfortunately they do not offer a single article purchase. Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, there is discussion about the genre for Grand Budapest Hotel that could use a second look. If anyone has a minute, It'd be great! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Quick question. I'm going through all the RKO films, and I'm noticing that in some articles the "release date" is the date of the premiere, while in others, it is the general release date. AFI, differentiates between the two, with the release date being the date of wide release, rather than date of the premiere. In the RKO releases, I've been conforming it to the release date (trying to be WP:BOLD), but was wondering what other editors think. The premiere is technically not the release. Perhaps in those instances two dates are appropriate? Onel5969 ( talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
“ | Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. | ” |
Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards. Comments are welcome there. — sroc 💬 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
how do I fix an error in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie13b ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems as though I've seen a growing number of these articles popping up. I wanted to approach the project and see what other's opinions are on them. How eager should editors be to create this type of page for films (say as done with Star Wars Episode VII, or potential superhero films such as future Marvel Cinematic Universe films or the upcoming Batman/Superman film), instead of developing the info in a "Sequel" subsection or (incorrectly) on the actual page before it passes notability guidelines. If it is something the project thinks is feasible, should the MOS be updated to reflect this option, and when it would and would not apply? Thanks for the opinions. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Jet Stream (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Debresser (
talk)
20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the prior discussion here I've nominated a number of "Films shot in..." categories for deletion (or perhaps listification). That discussion can be found here. DonIago ( talk) 16:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Barbarella (film) over whether an unreferenced "in popular culture" section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:BURDEN. To prevent further edit warring, I started a discussion at the talk page, but it has stalled. Input on this matter from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
At WT:MOSFILM, there is an ongoing discussion about MOS guidelines for articles about upcoming films. The discussion can be seen here, and editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The full line-ups have been announced for the upcoming 2014 Cannes Film Festival. Any help with article creation/expansion for films will be welcomed. Ties in nicely with Erik's post, above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Pather Panchali is a featured article cadidate now. Please provide feedback in the FAC page. Thanks.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
At Transcendence (2014 film), there is an issue with reporting the overall critical reception, especially considering the disparity in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's reporting for this particular film. See discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If anyone would like to help out, Stanley Kubrick is up for GA status, and suggestions for it to pass have been pointed out at the article's Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Rusted AutoParts 13:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing issue in the plot section regarding Gwen's death in the plot section. Please see the discussion at Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man 2#Plot section. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: This old Afc submission was abandoned before acceptance, and another editor made an article about the same topic. ( Dead Man's Burden) Is there any information in the submission which should be transferred to the new article, or should it just be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a request to move Trailer Park Boys 3: Don't Legalize It to Trailer Park Boys: Don't Legalize It that was recently re-listed. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Cinématon: I've noticed that the stated length of this film has been gradually increasing over the years. In 2009, we said it was 150 hours long, it increased at various points up until today when it reached 188 hours. There never seems to have been a source, and at List of longest films, the runtime seems to have been going through a similar period of growth (also never a source). I suspect that the film is sort of an ongoing work (given one source that the film was being screened as early as 1985, yet Courant was still adding footage to the film no earlier than 2006), but I can't find a source in either direction. Most sources seem to indicate that the film is 150 or 156 hours long. I'm not sure where to go from here. Does anybody here have any thoughts? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Film scores by composer was intended for articles about film scores, but its subcats currently seem to be used mainly for films categorised by the composer who scored them. I recently created Category:Soundtracks by composer which is now used for film score (soundtrack) albums.
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Category:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman for a suggestion to rename the "Film scores by composer " categories to e.g. "Films scored by". – Fayenatic L ondon 13:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Greed (film) is currently a FA candidate here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (film)/archive3 is anyone is interested.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion (and ongoing edit war) about the dispute about the box office figure for The Godfather Part II. On a side note, did we ever get a consensus about which site is the prefered one when it comes to using figures for this field? I see some lengthy discussions in the archives about BOM and The Numbers, but can't see anything concrete. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This is a neutral notice to inform the project that List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is currently a Featured List candidate. All are welcome to review it, here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)