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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
At the film article Tangled, the "Soundtrack" section includes the non-free image of the soundtrack cover. The image has been posted at WP:FFD to evaluate its compliance with image policies and guidelines. The discussion can be seen here. A previous FFD was had on February 2013 and can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a MOS on this? Does anyone else think this is overkill? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please consider merging Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata to Proloy (film). I have added the appropriate templates. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see no category connecting films about satanism or featuring the devil's child theme. We just have Demons in film. Shouldn't we have a category connecting films like Rosemary's Baby and The Omen? Not that it is to my specific interest hehe but I would find it useful as a film buff knowing similar themed films for browsing because they make good horror films!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
How would be define such a category though? I mean, some films actually feature devil worshipping (like Rosemary's Baby) while others simply happen to have references to the devil rather than being specifically about satanism. I mean could you classify a film such as Don't Look Now as a film about Satanism. I don't think so, but it clearly drifts into the occult. I think we probably need at least two categories One Category:Films about Satanism, Category:Demons in film, Category:Films about exorcism and some which is related and can be a subcategory of the paranormal of supernatural thriller films which involve the devil in some form. I don't want too many separate categories but I definitely think a Films about or involving Satanism or the devil would be a good idea. I think we need a mother category to connect the ones like the Demons in films and Films about exorcism etc What name would be ideal to you? Category:Films about Satan might be more ideal than Films about Satanism as a form of worship? Or Category:Films with a Satanic theme? The latter for me is more ideal I think as it would cover all without implying it is actually about the practice of worship or purely about Satan. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether this category should be deleted. If you would like to express an opinion, please voice it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 28#Category:Film shooting locations. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, |
There's an open CFD discussion on Category:Tech noir that could use additional opinions. You're invited to join the discussion. DonIago ( talk) 15:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
List of useable sources: here
I think an article discussing the battle between TV and film within showbusiness would be very interesting. Topics would include the stigma regarding TV being a lower-grade form of entertainment that film, and the implication of stars from medium hopping over to the other (a common practice back in the mid 20th century that has come back full force in the past couple of years). Thoughts?-- Coin945 ( talk) 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone check the edits by 90.206.243.189 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Two of the edits were clearly inappropriate category additions ( Category:American criminal comedy films to Now You See Me (film) and The Usual Suspects), but I don't know enough to check their other edits. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As I do editing I have been rounding gross dollars, opening dollars etc from the numbers to the nearest dollar ($123,456,789) to something like $123 million typically to nearest million or houndred thousands (2-3 significant figures) per MOS:LARGENUM. There has been some kick-back by editors, insisting that other films use all (as they have not set the the MOS:LARGENUM or insisting that the whole number be used since that is what it is in the citation. To me a citation is sometimes quoted, but since we are not adding quotes, it is no different than paraphrasing the content from the source and adding the relevant info. Could something be done to decide if MOS:LARGENUM is or is not appropriate and if so, try to make it more clear (explicitly mentioning the practice in the Template:Infobox film for example and even mentioning film grosses as an example in MOS:LARGENUM to better ensure that the editors understand what the style is so there more consensus. Thanks. AbramTerger ( talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone who saw Footloose give the article a plot section? It's completely blank and not there for some reason. Surely no one is crying spoilers after 30 years? Rusted AutoParts 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter ( WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#WikiProjects don't write guidelines?. It's mainly about whether or not it's best to describe WP:FILMPLOT as a guideline or to convey it as advice, but the discussion touches on other things as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: It looks to me as though the mainspace article here has information about two different films. I'd like to move the Afc draft to mainspace as "Drivers Wanted (2012 film), remove the information about the documentary from the current article, and create a disambiguation page. Does anyone see a problem with this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a community GA reassessment of Wanted. The article has had quite a fall from grace since its promotion in 2009, and I believe it needs to be demoted. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors, I've noticed that the current InfoBox template for films does reasonably well for Hollywood films and for other World Cinema. However, in the context of Indian cinema, song, dance and music are integral to the film's success. Even before the movie is released, the song videos are used widely and aggressively to promote the film. Not only is the music composer critical to the film but equally important is the lyricist (the songwriter); there may or may not be a choreographer for all the songs. The current Wikipedia InfoBox template for films currently allows name of music composer, but it does not allow for the name of lyricist. This is my earnest request to please make room for lyricist/s - who play a very important role towards the success of Indian Films - and to be allowed on the template. Indian cinema is just as popular in the world outside of South Asia. Songs are not songs without the words, right? I feel due credit should be given to those who write these songs hummed by millions. To cite an example, I also looked at the Slumdog Millionnaire page. While the music composer's name features within the infobox, the notable awarding winning songwriter's name does not feature as prominently, precisely for the reason I elaborated on earlier. This is just one example. I'd really appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks a bunch, editors. :) Pictowrit ( talk) 22:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)pictowrit
Category:Millennium Entertainment films, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
If you go to the article on, for example, Jaws and hover over the image of the poster in the infobox, you get a detailed description of said poster. I was curious as to weather there's any sort of rules or regulations governing this.
Americanfreedom ( talk) 01:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
alt =
field in the film infobox.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing that we add a "Production company" field to the film infobox. The proposal can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
A couple of editors have shared their thoughts about the proposal. Other editors are invited to comment. The proposal has to do with adding a "Production company" field to the film infobox to make better use of the "Studio" and "Distributed by" fields where applicable. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been a week since the last comment in this discussion. More editors are welcome to weigh in to see if there is a consensus for this new field. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In the guidelines, we endorse navigation templates for directors but not for actors. The guidelines do not say anything about producers and screenwriters. I've been seeing template creep in which director templates are being converted into more general templates, showing the person's credits as a producer, as a screenwriter, or both. There are even screenwriter-only templates like {{ Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci}}. I assume this kind of thing is not very visible to most of us since we do not normally watchlist templates. I feel like we are bloating the footer with such expanded templates when the internal links to the filmmakers' pages are sufficient. What are other editors' thoughts about their usage? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Editor is removing the claim of British co-production and the sources to verify it. Refuses to engage anywhere other than my own talk page (I reverted this nonsense once it became clear it was just the usual wiki-trap to isolate the reverter so as to press 3rr claims). I'm over the revert limit that shouldn't exist when one is revert edits that violate policy. Started a thread on it on the talk page as I didn't find any old ones in the archives. Any extra eyeballs that would like to watch the situation are welcome. I'm off to watch some terribad TV and trim a plot summary or something. Millahnna ( talk) 04:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Direct link to discussion: Talk:Batman Begins#British-American. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 11:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If any admins are watching the page, I request a review of Einsteinbomb ( talk · contribs)'s edits. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Cowlibob and I have had List of accolades received by American Hustle up as a featured list candidate for over a month now, and we though we received some very helpful comments from The Rambling Man, we haven't had any real closure yet. If anyone would be willing to leave comments or reviews that would be fantastic! I'd be happy to do a quid pro quo, as well. Thank you in advance! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I came across this a few days ago (it's a counterpart to Template:Album ratings) and have cleaned up the code (well, as best as I could) and the documentation. If anybody wants to use this, please do. I've got an example started up at Departures, although it's still a work in progress. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 06:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, |
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned with Category:Tamil films by year which seems to break our golden rule of film categorization. Has the time come to split the year categories by industry like Category:American films of 1952 or should these be nuked? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts: Can you rid of them manually or use AWB or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts:. I've also found Category:Lists of Kannada films by year..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an archive discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_52#Rounding_Dollars_in_film_articles_and_Infoboxes. The issues of the MOS:LARGENUM remains an issue when rounding numbers in articles. There has been a minor "editing war" and discussion at Talk:Anchorman_2:_The_Legend_Continues#Rounding_Dollars_in_Infobox. It would be helpful if some consensus were reached for film grosses in the main article and also in the infobox (and we may choose to have different styles for each) and explicitly give them in MOS:LARGENUM and in Template:Infobox film so they can be referred to. My understanding is that style guidelines are there to help make articles consistent. My presumption is that if there is a style that it applies unless something is explicitly excluded, or the editors justify and gain a consensus opinion to not use a particular style. I think some additional guidelines could help prevent further issues with editing. AbramTerger ( talk) 19:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There are several film director categories currently at CfD. The discussions start here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter ( WP:Permalink) -- the length of the Franchise potential section of the Frozen (2013 film) article; see Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#The Franchise potential section to weigh in. The article is currently nominated for WP:GA status. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a while since you guys rated it C-class. As quite a lot of improvements have been made, please go check it out again. Please feel free to voice your opinions on the talk page! Forbidden User ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion brewing here regarding which cast members are appropriate for inclusion on the HP film articles. My understanding is that consensus here is that, when all else fails, stick with the primary-billed cast, though including others may be appropriate if sources took note of them in a significant manner. In any event, there's some question as to whether there's a previous consensus on how the cast lists for the films should be handled, and additional voices would probably be helpful. DonIago ( talk) 15:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Cars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Cars (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The reference section is called Endnotes, and then you have a section called References which list dozens of film reviews. I tried to remove this nonsense, but got reverted. [1] Is there any other film article that does this? Please scroll through that section and just see how long it is. Dream Focus 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Oddly BoxOfficeMojo.com has no box office results for this even though The Huffington Post says it was to be released in 2000 theatres. Can anyone help me find theatre (movie not Broadway) box office results for Romeo and Juliet (2013 Broadway play). Leave comments at Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet_(2013_Broadway_play)#Box_office.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been working really hard on the Wikipedia page this forgotten animated film masterpiece. I would really appreciate for someone to copyedit it, and perhaps help me to find and utilise new sources. Thank you. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 13:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Should the intro to a foreign language film have the original language title in bold? WP:NCF states: "However, the first time it is used, follow it immediately with the original title in brackets, bolded...". But MOS:FORLANG states: "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology". (My emphasis in bold in both cases). Should the MOS for WP:NCF reflect MOS:FORLANG, or is this an exception? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The Telegraph newspaper has published a list of the "most overrated films ever made", and User:Mikeblas is proceeding to add content based on this list to the followings articles:
I feel inclusion of this opinion is WP:UNDUE.The purpose of the reception section in articles is to record prominent opinions, not every single opinion published. This article isn't a collective opinion (like the Sight & Sound or Time Out polls) it is just one guy giving his opinion. UNDUE states that if an opinion forms a mainstream view we should be able to "substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts", and if it is a significant view we should be able to name "prominent adherents" i.e. we should only include a critical viewpoint if it is shared by other critics. I haven't even seen some of these movies, but I honestly don't think we should be labeling them the "most overrated films ever" unless other critics also feel this way too. I would like to see what other Film editors feel about this? If I am out of step with what other project members think then fair enough, but I was always under the impression that we didn't include singular opinions. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
By definition, saying that you think a film is overrated just says that most people liked a film a lot more than you did. To call a film one of the most overrated is to say that this is a film where your own assessment of it disagrees most significantly with what most reviewers think. So by definition, thinking a film is one of the "most overrated" is to say that your view is a fringe minority view. When deciding what reviews to quote from or to present in a film article's "reception" section, the goal is to fairly represent the general reception of it. Sometimes mentioning minority views can help, but it often can provide undue weight to a fringe opinion. If Robey's assessment that a film is one of the most overrated is worth noting at all (and it might not be), then it will only help a reader of the article if something is said about why he thinks it is overrated. So unless there are particular things he says about a given film it would improve a reception section to add, mentioning his list is not likely to help any of the articles. Whether any of the specific things he says about a film should be included in the reception section should be judged the same way any pull quotes are assessed: Not all reviewers need to be quoted and the ones who are quoted should together represent the general reception of the film. 99.192.71.210 ( talk) 12:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Continuing from the previous discussion, I agree with Betty Logan: Category:Occult films or Category:Films about the occult, would be suitable as "Satanism" would be too narrow of a category in terms of scope.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Christopher McQuarrie has a template at {{ Christopher McQuarrie}}. He has directed some films, but he is mainly a screenwriter. I started a discussion last month about whether or not navigation templates should have non-directing credits: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Navigation templates. There is a discussion regarding the template here: Template talk:Christopher McQuarrie#Writing credits. Editors are invited to comment about how it should be structured. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an edit war brewing at The Stoning of Soraya M. over the authenticity of the source material. Other editors are invited to comment. A discussion thread can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT films may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
See the award navigation templates at American Beauty (film)#External links. There are six award templates now, which to me seems to be too many. MOS:FILM#Navigation does not talk about award templates at all. Do we need to restrict the use of award templates, either completely or to have only the "major" ones (Oscars, BAFTAs)? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if any of you guys could take a look at this article and tell me if my instincts are wrong in this. There's one other logged in editor who seems to keep an eye on the page regularly (we're tangentially helping each other keep an eye out for a particular disruptive IP who has attached him/herself to the article) but other than that I don't see a lot of editor traffic there that isn't questionable anon edits so I'd appreciate the extra eyeballs.
My concern is that the article is essentially these long lists of unsourced trivia due to anon editors attempts to list all of the differences between the various prints of the film. And I mean EVERY. SINGLE. DIFFERENCE. Like for serious. It's long bullet pointed lists that could probably be described more simply and in less excruciating detail in a paragraph of prose. I know when I've seen similar stuff pop up in standard film articles (DVD extras, for example) it's generally been frowned upon under reasons of sourcing, fancruft, listy mclists when prose would be better and a slew of other reasons. But given the film's iconic status and that fact that this article even needed to be spun off into its own thing, I'm truly not sure. As those of you who know me know, I mainly look for copyedit type text tweaks and plot summaries in my editing efforts. This sort of thing is a little out of my wheelhouse.
I'll start a talk page convo there for anyone who'd like to participate. Millahnna ( talk) 22:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, The requested reassessment page has some requests that are over 2 months old and I was hoping that someone could take a look and/or archive the requests.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 02:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Ready for Love (film) is a film with a 2-time Oscar nominee writer, a pair of 2-time Oscar nominee actresses, an Oscar nominee actor and a 3-time Emmy nomineee actress. I was hoping someone could stub this out from WP:RS.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Which year? There's
♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've started Ready for Love (1934 film). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I was told today that the categories of films by country like Category:American films and Category:Japanese films are "all included" categories, where films are included in those categories even if they are also in one of the subcategories of those categories. This surprised me, since those don't seem to me to be the sort of categories that would be "all included" categories, and instead seem like the sort of large categories that should have entries diffused into smaller categories. At WP:DUPCAT, the examples of "all included" categories are relatively small categories where someone would be likely to want to see the whole category at once and know all of the members (e.g., Presidents of the United States, countries in Western Europe, bridges in New York City). However, the categories of films by country seem like large categories where someone wouldn't be able to view the entire category at once or know the complete contents of the category (e.g., Category:American films has over 20,000 entries). This seems much more like the example given at WP:DIFFUSE of music albums, where it is suggested that albums could be diffused into subcategories by things like date and genre. Is there a reason why the categories of films by country were made to be "all included" categories? It would make more sense to me to only place films into the subcategories by date and/or genre (e.g., Category:American action films or Category:1995 American films). Calathan ( talk) 18:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly obvious that parent categories should be NEVER used on Wikipedia in a redunant way. -- Niemti ( talk) 13:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello film contributors! If any of you have a spare moment, an article I've put a lot of work into (The FP) is currently nominated for FA status. Click the link at the end of my signature to comment, if you please. All criticism is welcomed and encouraged! Thank you in advance. Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 01:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So here's a weird question. I'm bringing it up here instead of at the article I noticed it at because it's something I'm seeing a lot of places right now (and across other projects, Video Games has it baaaaaad right now). If you check the edit history of Alpha and Omega (film), you'll see one poor editor fighting off hoards of IPs regarding the release date of a sequel (been trying to help but I'm usually beat to the punch on reverting the unsourced dates). But in watching the edits go back and forth, I had the thought that perhaps we shouldn't be using the word "spring" to describe the proposed release because, of course, Spring in North America is Fall in Australia (and I'd swear I recall a site wide policy describing this but cannot find it). Unfortunately, the sourced material is not any more clear than "Spring 2015". Is it ok because it's an American film so we'll go with their loose time approximate and local label? Should I go in there and give a little parenthetical indicator? And if so, how; (North American, Northern Hemisphere, "released in Spring in North America", etc?)? Can anyone think of the policy I'm thinking of? Anything I can think of to do seems super awkward or really wordy. Millahnna ( talk) 01:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
These lists could use some tidying up (they don't link between one another for example), but before I take a look, what do we think of the title? I'd prefer "fictional". Also the brackets and ampersand at the end of " List of fiction works made into feature films (0-9) & (A-C)" don't sit quite right to me, but not sure how to improve these.
Can anybody help re-build the Sarasota Film Festival with new sources? I took a look at it and the history section was basically a copy-and-paste copyvio of the about page on their website. I'm sure there are more resources off-line, and hopefully editors can dig something up. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A new account has been adding references to this parody "award" to biographical articles. This doesn't seem to be appropriate in award sections, but I just wanted to check with this wikiproject to be totally sure about that, and that somehow we haven't along the way felt that Razzie belongs in lists along with the Golden Globe, Academy Awards, and so on. Coretheapple ( talk) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that this discussion may have some relevance. I'm not finding any discussion of the inclusion of this parody in award lists, per se. The subject has come up because there is a new user account, User:Fallacies4, that has been created for the specific purpose of adding "Razzies" to performer/director filmographies and award lists. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
At this point an additional issue is that the editor has been spoken to but is (or at least was) continuing to add the award without providing sources. I've left them a note about that and will consider it an edit-warring issue if they persist. DonIago ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source? This just launched today, and I'd say it is, given who the person is. And she's already doing some hefty reporting. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
According to this sockpuppet investigation, there's an IP editor who has been disruptively editing martial arts-related films for several years now. I guess he took a break for a while, because the last discussion was back in 2012. He seems to be back now, and I'm having trouble keeping the following articles free of his disruption. I don't like edit warring, and I usually try to keep to a voluntary policy of 1RR. However, this editor is absolutely determined to disrupt these articles:
I haven't yet posted any of this to the associated SPI, as I don't really know much about SPI or its associate protocol. I have requested assistance from an administrator on how to proceed, but if someone with more knowledge than me wants to go ahead with that, that'd be fine. I could really use help on this, as I don't have much experience with dealing with such disruptive users, and I don't want to get into trouble for edit warring, too. It's also very taxing and frustrating trying to keep track of these articles and the disruptive edits. I'm dedicating too much time to this, and I'd rather be productively editing articles. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
please note: This is an updated version of a posting that I previously made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 09:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
User:WARNER_one has been attempting to switch the order of how a co-country production is given in a number of films (many by C. Nolan, but it is extending out from that) (eg whether a film is "British-American" or "Amercian-British".) From what I can tell most of these aren't correct, but I would ask , how is this usually determined for such films? Is there a single RS we use? Is is based on which country (in terms of production team) has done the most work on it, etc. It would be helpful to have a few eyes on this user's edits since they seem contrary to what others have said. -- MASEM ( t) 19:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject! I need a little guidance. At The Rugrats Movie, Rugrats in Paris and Rugrats Go Wild, the infobox has grown a little bloated with starring roles. I checked the instructions for Template:Infobox film, which instructs, "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." What I've noticed, is that the theatrical posters don't have Starring credits, for example here and here, and the opening credits for Rugrats Go Wild (courtesy of Netflix) only lists the producers. The closing credits for The Rugrats Movie (around 0:54) list all the voice talent in a giant block. Same with Rugrats in Paris (around 1:20). How should the infobox be handled in this case? There are a lot of characters in the Rugrats. Do I just wrap all those names in a {{ plainlist}} and call it a day? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion about including production companies in the film infobox, either by adding or changing a field, had stalled. Please revisit the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film#Round 2. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Film for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I've created this. Can somebody populate? Should it be judges or juries?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ha, this was great fun drawing up. Still a work in progress. Still got a ton of arty/critically acclaimed films to see from 1980 to 2010. I think such a list would be useful for highlighting what needs to be worked on for myself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Battleship IMO is the most overrated film I've ever seen!! Aside from the attack scenes which were great, was the film really that great? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been started at the above link to discuss removing the archive site Archive.is from the blacklist. Feel free to join the chorus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I have just rewritten the article Stunt performer, and wanted it reassessed on your group quality scale. Also, do you think that there is enough material out there to sustain the article Stunt double, or should it be merged into Stunt performer? Thanks! Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Would somebody combine Bollywood films of 2015 into List of Bollywood films of 2015? Robert4565 ( talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the film article Subway Sadie for Featured Article consideration; as it pertains to this WikiProject I leave a notice here. Thanks, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This list article is particularly problematic because it contained copious references to the " Golden Raspberry Award" that we discussed above. I'd say about a third of more of the list consists of this parody "award"; I've removed and it's being edit-warred. This is a good example of why we need independent sourcing for parody awards, and they should not be inserted in articles and lists unless they're written about by someone other than the "award" issuer. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at CfD. What do members of the film project feel about having a category structure for films by producer to mirror the director's categories? There are only a handful of these categories at the moment. I'm against having them myself, as I don't see it as being as defining as the director, and would be happy to nominate the other categories at CfD if a consensus was reached here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This is really a question for anyone experienced in the FAC department, but it's relating to a film article so I'll post it here. I've bumped into an interesting issue during one of my FACs, and have inquired about it here. Any comments would be greatly appreciated! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a proposal about rewording the first notability criterium for actors, from "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" to "has had leading/starring roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Discussion here. -- Cavarrone 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not 100% certain, but doesn't the theme music in The Big Country constitute some sort of copyright violation or something of that ilk? (It's not that memorable anyway.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Already listed on Film alerts, but see Talk:Live 2012 / Volume II, could do with some new eyes. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Curious how the WikiProject Film community regards this: In the soul-sucking world of Bollywood movie articles, which are plagued with unreliable sources, rampant POV editing, inflated successes and exaggerated failures, phrases like "Such-and-such a movie achieved Blockbuster status" occur quite often. I am averse to this sort of language for the issues with poor sourcing and obvious agendas from the editors submitting the content, but I'm also averse to it because it doesn't impart anything to the reader. What does "blockbuster" literally mean? That it made a profit? Can we say that without using fancy marketing speech? It seems to me that at the very least, if someone calls a movie a "blockbuster", the write-up should go, "XYZ Magazine declared the movie a 'blockbuster'" instead of stating matter-of-factly that the movie is a blockbuster. What's the community's opinion about this? ♥ Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
At white savior narrative in film, there is interest in adding a section as seen here, and this addition is being disputed. A discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"Universally panned", "generally positive", "mixed to negative" and the like frequently pop up as summaries for critical reception. They are also a frequent source of edit warring: "mixed" vs. "mixed to positive" vs. "generally favorable" vs. every conceivable spin. Surely there's a guideline that specifically addresses this?
The closest thing I could find was the RfC which received mixed reviews. Is there anything more substantial? - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment The main problem comes from the fact that Metacritic counts "average" reviews as well as positive/negative ones while Rotten Tomatoes just "positive" and negative". I actually analyzed how the two aggregators process the same set of reviews at Talk:Transcendence_(2014_film)#Mixed_vs._negative. It's worth reading even if I do say so myself; the findings are quite illuminating. My view on this is that the terminology should stick to the positive/negative/mixed/average nomenclature that aggregators use, rather than loaded terms like "acclaimed", "universally" or "over-whelmingly" etc. Aggregators count reviews and turn them into a few simple statistics and that is basically it, and we shouldn't step byeond that when summarising it. The problems arise, for example, when RT says the reception has been negative and MC says it is average/mixed, even when they count the same reviews. Basically they are just marking them differently. The same reviews but just different grading methodologies. There are three acceptable ways of dealing with this in my view:
My preference is for the first two approaches if they are workable, but if it is particularly problematic then perhaps the third option is the way to go. I also don't think they should be used on older films either, since in such cases many of the reviews are retrospective and don't give an accurate survey of contemporary critical reception. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
A few minor points:
In case you didn't see this, Slate had an interesting article about some of our more lengthy plot summaries. The article listed the ten longest summaries, with the award going to Alley Cats Strike. If anyone's up for plot summary trimming, there's some good examples in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the follow up article of an interview of the director of the film. It notes that the plot has been modified thanks to the efforts above. It looks like the next article on the list is now getting the additional publicity. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments are welcome regarding a proposal to merge Rupesh Paul Productions Limited with Rupesh Paul. Discussion is at Talk:Rupesh Paul#Merge from Rupesh Paul Productions Limited. Cnilep ( talk) 04:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Should Diana Serra Cary be at [[Baby Peggy Montgomery]], following the precedent of having Marie Osborne Yeats article at Baby Marie Osborne? Paul Austin ( talk) 11:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have revived the conversation from March about a possible wording change to Template:Infobox film regarding the "Starring" parameter. The discussion can be found here. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). — Cirt ( talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this project. Back in March of 2014 I moved the lengthy unsourced plot summary for the film to the talk page for the article and now an IP User has repeatedly moved the summary back to the main article.
I think that this has got to the point that intervention by a more experienced editor is needed as I am not familiar enough with the rules surrounding film related articles. Graham1973 ( talk) 02:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys - just a heads up that I've written up last week's Signpost feature on this WikiProject for the Wikimedia blog. Bit late, I know... Here's a wee link - hopefully I do it justice :) JSutherland (WMF) ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I wanted to pitch an idea that I had today. The primary way I keep up with film headlines is to use Feedly as a pinned tab in Google Chrome. While I have some film websites' RSS feeds added to that, I also add RSS feeds based on Google News. For example, I can add the URL " https://news.google.com/news?&q=dawn+of+the+planet+of+the+apes" to Feedly and follow the headlines for that film. For Edge of Tomorrow, I've basically added headlines to its talk page so I could evaluate and incorporate them on a later date. While Google does a good job displaying news headlines, as some of you know, it does not archive them anymore. I personally find it difficult to Google for news headlines of films a few years older since there are so many irrelevant search results to sift through, especially when not knowing exactly what to look for. One has to search Google using domains (e.g., site:variety.com) and/or date ranges. I think it would be neat to set up an approach where we can load headlines from RSS feeds into a film article talk page's sub-page. I'm not really sure how to do this on a technical level, but I think it would be a good way to capture all the relevant news headlines at around the time of the film's release. Anyone have an inkling on how this could be accomplished? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this has ever been brought up in a discussion before, but I found this breakdown by The New York Times of the billing block. I brought it up at Talk:Interstellar (film) in regard to Legendary's role in that film, but it looks like it would be a good reference for discussing cast identification too. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've found out that there are many films which received a nomination for an Academy Award but don't have an article here. Even worse, many of them don't have an Wikidata entry. Maybe you want to help me to reduce the number of such movies. Here I listed them. -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
After finding a suggestion that the Oregon Film Awards and Yosemite Film Festival awards weren't legitimate, I found this website. Which starts off: "Along with the Alaska International Film Awards, Honolulu Film Awards and Mountain Film Festival — on Withoutabox there are identical pages for the Mountain Film Festival and the Mountain Film Awards, except the Film Awards page says that films are not screened to the public — other questionable entities include the Oregon Film Awards, California Film Awards, Mexico International Film Festival, Colorado Film Festival, Yosemite Film Festival, Nevada Film Festival and Canada International Film Festival.
They all have similarly designed web pages, and most have mailing addresses that ultimately go to P.O. boxes despite being made out to read as suite addresses on their contact pages. If they have phone numbers listed on their sites or Withoutabox pages, most of them have area codes outside of where the competitions are held, are no longer in service or, in some cases, go to people who have never heard of the events. The various festivals’ e-mails to filmmakers are worded almost exactly the same."
A quick search shows 11 articles mentioning a Yosemite Film Festival award. [3] Should there be a list of awards not to include? Dougweller ( talk) 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The Brady Bunch Movie, A Very Brady Sequel, and The Brady Bunch in the White House are just plain bad. But they are notable. Nevertheless, articles about them cannot maintain themselves alone. I'm proposing The Brady Bunch (film series) or The Brady Bunch (film trilogy) and merger of these three articles. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't really see any sense in merging them. Two movies and a made-for-TV "movie" released over the course of 7 years is vastly different then three novels released over the course of 9 months. There isn't much to say about the TV movie, but that's kinda par for the course. The two films have reviews and the usual coverage. - SummerPhD ( talk) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Films by country or language has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 ( talk) 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I added a sentence to Frozen (2013 film) detailing the film's first public screening in New York, but is has been reverted on the pretext that the sources are not reliable and "not notable". I have started a survey at Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Should the New York screening hosted by Disney and The Cinema Society be included in the article? and would like to get a few comments from editors who don't have a vested interest in their version of the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:America (2014 film) may be of interest to Project members. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over The Godfather that is in need of more opinions. Please click here to join the conversation and help us settle this argument. Corvoe (be heard) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the sources on Oliver Twist (Vaughn De Leath song) describes it as a " picture feature song", i.e. a song tie up to a silent movie. What is the correct article for this article to link to (or redlink to redirect to)? In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed the restoration of Bond 24 at Talk:Bond 24#Restoration of article. This project is invited to participate in the discussion. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 10:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have requested an article move at Talk:Naughty But Nice (1939 film)#Requested move. Please feel free to weigh in. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:02, 28 July 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
At the film article Tangled, the "Soundtrack" section includes the non-free image of the soundtrack cover. The image has been posted at WP:FFD to evaluate its compliance with image policies and guidelines. The discussion can be seen here. A previous FFD was had on February 2013 and can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a MOS on this? Does anyone else think this is overkill? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please consider merging Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata to Proloy (film). I have added the appropriate templates. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see no category connecting films about satanism or featuring the devil's child theme. We just have Demons in film. Shouldn't we have a category connecting films like Rosemary's Baby and The Omen? Not that it is to my specific interest hehe but I would find it useful as a film buff knowing similar themed films for browsing because they make good horror films!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
How would be define such a category though? I mean, some films actually feature devil worshipping (like Rosemary's Baby) while others simply happen to have references to the devil rather than being specifically about satanism. I mean could you classify a film such as Don't Look Now as a film about Satanism. I don't think so, but it clearly drifts into the occult. I think we probably need at least two categories One Category:Films about Satanism, Category:Demons in film, Category:Films about exorcism and some which is related and can be a subcategory of the paranormal of supernatural thriller films which involve the devil in some form. I don't want too many separate categories but I definitely think a Films about or involving Satanism or the devil would be a good idea. I think we need a mother category to connect the ones like the Demons in films and Films about exorcism etc What name would be ideal to you? Category:Films about Satan might be more ideal than Films about Satanism as a form of worship? Or Category:Films with a Satanic theme? The latter for me is more ideal I think as it would cover all without implying it is actually about the practice of worship or purely about Satan. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether this category should be deleted. If you would like to express an opinion, please voice it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 28#Category:Film shooting locations. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, |
There's an open CFD discussion on Category:Tech noir that could use additional opinions. You're invited to join the discussion. DonIago ( talk) 15:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
List of useable sources: here
I think an article discussing the battle between TV and film within showbusiness would be very interesting. Topics would include the stigma regarding TV being a lower-grade form of entertainment that film, and the implication of stars from medium hopping over to the other (a common practice back in the mid 20th century that has come back full force in the past couple of years). Thoughts?-- Coin945 ( talk) 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone check the edits by 90.206.243.189 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Two of the edits were clearly inappropriate category additions ( Category:American criminal comedy films to Now You See Me (film) and The Usual Suspects), but I don't know enough to check their other edits. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As I do editing I have been rounding gross dollars, opening dollars etc from the numbers to the nearest dollar ($123,456,789) to something like $123 million typically to nearest million or houndred thousands (2-3 significant figures) per MOS:LARGENUM. There has been some kick-back by editors, insisting that other films use all (as they have not set the the MOS:LARGENUM or insisting that the whole number be used since that is what it is in the citation. To me a citation is sometimes quoted, but since we are not adding quotes, it is no different than paraphrasing the content from the source and adding the relevant info. Could something be done to decide if MOS:LARGENUM is or is not appropriate and if so, try to make it more clear (explicitly mentioning the practice in the Template:Infobox film for example and even mentioning film grosses as an example in MOS:LARGENUM to better ensure that the editors understand what the style is so there more consensus. Thanks. AbramTerger ( talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone who saw Footloose give the article a plot section? It's completely blank and not there for some reason. Surely no one is crying spoilers after 30 years? Rusted AutoParts 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter ( WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#WikiProjects don't write guidelines?. It's mainly about whether or not it's best to describe WP:FILMPLOT as a guideline or to convey it as advice, but the discussion touches on other things as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: It looks to me as though the mainspace article here has information about two different films. I'd like to move the Afc draft to mainspace as "Drivers Wanted (2012 film), remove the information about the documentary from the current article, and create a disambiguation page. Does anyone see a problem with this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a community GA reassessment of Wanted. The article has had quite a fall from grace since its promotion in 2009, and I believe it needs to be demoted. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors, I've noticed that the current InfoBox template for films does reasonably well for Hollywood films and for other World Cinema. However, in the context of Indian cinema, song, dance and music are integral to the film's success. Even before the movie is released, the song videos are used widely and aggressively to promote the film. Not only is the music composer critical to the film but equally important is the lyricist (the songwriter); there may or may not be a choreographer for all the songs. The current Wikipedia InfoBox template for films currently allows name of music composer, but it does not allow for the name of lyricist. This is my earnest request to please make room for lyricist/s - who play a very important role towards the success of Indian Films - and to be allowed on the template. Indian cinema is just as popular in the world outside of South Asia. Songs are not songs without the words, right? I feel due credit should be given to those who write these songs hummed by millions. To cite an example, I also looked at the Slumdog Millionnaire page. While the music composer's name features within the infobox, the notable awarding winning songwriter's name does not feature as prominently, precisely for the reason I elaborated on earlier. This is just one example. I'd really appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks a bunch, editors. :) Pictowrit ( talk) 22:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)pictowrit
Category:Millennium Entertainment films, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
If you go to the article on, for example, Jaws and hover over the image of the poster in the infobox, you get a detailed description of said poster. I was curious as to weather there's any sort of rules or regulations governing this.
Americanfreedom ( talk) 01:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
alt =
field in the film infobox.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing that we add a "Production company" field to the film infobox. The proposal can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
A couple of editors have shared their thoughts about the proposal. Other editors are invited to comment. The proposal has to do with adding a "Production company" field to the film infobox to make better use of the "Studio" and "Distributed by" fields where applicable. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been a week since the last comment in this discussion. More editors are welcome to weigh in to see if there is a consensus for this new field. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In the guidelines, we endorse navigation templates for directors but not for actors. The guidelines do not say anything about producers and screenwriters. I've been seeing template creep in which director templates are being converted into more general templates, showing the person's credits as a producer, as a screenwriter, or both. There are even screenwriter-only templates like {{ Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci}}. I assume this kind of thing is not very visible to most of us since we do not normally watchlist templates. I feel like we are bloating the footer with such expanded templates when the internal links to the filmmakers' pages are sufficient. What are other editors' thoughts about their usage? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Editor is removing the claim of British co-production and the sources to verify it. Refuses to engage anywhere other than my own talk page (I reverted this nonsense once it became clear it was just the usual wiki-trap to isolate the reverter so as to press 3rr claims). I'm over the revert limit that shouldn't exist when one is revert edits that violate policy. Started a thread on it on the talk page as I didn't find any old ones in the archives. Any extra eyeballs that would like to watch the situation are welcome. I'm off to watch some terribad TV and trim a plot summary or something. Millahnna ( talk) 04:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Direct link to discussion: Talk:Batman Begins#British-American. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 11:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If any admins are watching the page, I request a review of Einsteinbomb ( talk · contribs)'s edits. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Cowlibob and I have had List of accolades received by American Hustle up as a featured list candidate for over a month now, and we though we received some very helpful comments from The Rambling Man, we haven't had any real closure yet. If anyone would be willing to leave comments or reviews that would be fantastic! I'd be happy to do a quid pro quo, as well. Thank you in advance! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I came across this a few days ago (it's a counterpart to Template:Album ratings) and have cleaned up the code (well, as best as I could) and the documentation. If anybody wants to use this, please do. I've got an example started up at Departures, although it's still a work in progress. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 06:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, |
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned with Category:Tamil films by year which seems to break our golden rule of film categorization. Has the time come to split the year categories by industry like Category:American films of 1952 or should these be nuked? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts: Can you rid of them manually or use AWB or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts:. I've also found Category:Lists of Kannada films by year..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an archive discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_52#Rounding_Dollars_in_film_articles_and_Infoboxes. The issues of the MOS:LARGENUM remains an issue when rounding numbers in articles. There has been a minor "editing war" and discussion at Talk:Anchorman_2:_The_Legend_Continues#Rounding_Dollars_in_Infobox. It would be helpful if some consensus were reached for film grosses in the main article and also in the infobox (and we may choose to have different styles for each) and explicitly give them in MOS:LARGENUM and in Template:Infobox film so they can be referred to. My understanding is that style guidelines are there to help make articles consistent. My presumption is that if there is a style that it applies unless something is explicitly excluded, or the editors justify and gain a consensus opinion to not use a particular style. I think some additional guidelines could help prevent further issues with editing. AbramTerger ( talk) 19:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There are several film director categories currently at CfD. The discussions start here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter ( WP:Permalink) -- the length of the Franchise potential section of the Frozen (2013 film) article; see Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#The Franchise potential section to weigh in. The article is currently nominated for WP:GA status. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a while since you guys rated it C-class. As quite a lot of improvements have been made, please go check it out again. Please feel free to voice your opinions on the talk page! Forbidden User ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion brewing here regarding which cast members are appropriate for inclusion on the HP film articles. My understanding is that consensus here is that, when all else fails, stick with the primary-billed cast, though including others may be appropriate if sources took note of them in a significant manner. In any event, there's some question as to whether there's a previous consensus on how the cast lists for the films should be handled, and additional voices would probably be helpful. DonIago ( talk) 15:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Cars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Cars (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The reference section is called Endnotes, and then you have a section called References which list dozens of film reviews. I tried to remove this nonsense, but got reverted. [1] Is there any other film article that does this? Please scroll through that section and just see how long it is. Dream Focus 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Oddly BoxOfficeMojo.com has no box office results for this even though The Huffington Post says it was to be released in 2000 theatres. Can anyone help me find theatre (movie not Broadway) box office results for Romeo and Juliet (2013 Broadway play). Leave comments at Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet_(2013_Broadway_play)#Box_office.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been working really hard on the Wikipedia page this forgotten animated film masterpiece. I would really appreciate for someone to copyedit it, and perhaps help me to find and utilise new sources. Thank you. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 13:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Should the intro to a foreign language film have the original language title in bold? WP:NCF states: "However, the first time it is used, follow it immediately with the original title in brackets, bolded...". But MOS:FORLANG states: "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology". (My emphasis in bold in both cases). Should the MOS for WP:NCF reflect MOS:FORLANG, or is this an exception? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The Telegraph newspaper has published a list of the "most overrated films ever made", and User:Mikeblas is proceeding to add content based on this list to the followings articles:
I feel inclusion of this opinion is WP:UNDUE.The purpose of the reception section in articles is to record prominent opinions, not every single opinion published. This article isn't a collective opinion (like the Sight & Sound or Time Out polls) it is just one guy giving his opinion. UNDUE states that if an opinion forms a mainstream view we should be able to "substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts", and if it is a significant view we should be able to name "prominent adherents" i.e. we should only include a critical viewpoint if it is shared by other critics. I haven't even seen some of these movies, but I honestly don't think we should be labeling them the "most overrated films ever" unless other critics also feel this way too. I would like to see what other Film editors feel about this? If I am out of step with what other project members think then fair enough, but I was always under the impression that we didn't include singular opinions. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
By definition, saying that you think a film is overrated just says that most people liked a film a lot more than you did. To call a film one of the most overrated is to say that this is a film where your own assessment of it disagrees most significantly with what most reviewers think. So by definition, thinking a film is one of the "most overrated" is to say that your view is a fringe minority view. When deciding what reviews to quote from or to present in a film article's "reception" section, the goal is to fairly represent the general reception of it. Sometimes mentioning minority views can help, but it often can provide undue weight to a fringe opinion. If Robey's assessment that a film is one of the most overrated is worth noting at all (and it might not be), then it will only help a reader of the article if something is said about why he thinks it is overrated. So unless there are particular things he says about a given film it would improve a reception section to add, mentioning his list is not likely to help any of the articles. Whether any of the specific things he says about a film should be included in the reception section should be judged the same way any pull quotes are assessed: Not all reviewers need to be quoted and the ones who are quoted should together represent the general reception of the film. 99.192.71.210 ( talk) 12:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Continuing from the previous discussion, I agree with Betty Logan: Category:Occult films or Category:Films about the occult, would be suitable as "Satanism" would be too narrow of a category in terms of scope.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Christopher McQuarrie has a template at {{ Christopher McQuarrie}}. He has directed some films, but he is mainly a screenwriter. I started a discussion last month about whether or not navigation templates should have non-directing credits: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Navigation templates. There is a discussion regarding the template here: Template talk:Christopher McQuarrie#Writing credits. Editors are invited to comment about how it should be structured. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an edit war brewing at The Stoning of Soraya M. over the authenticity of the source material. Other editors are invited to comment. A discussion thread can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT films may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
See the award navigation templates at American Beauty (film)#External links. There are six award templates now, which to me seems to be too many. MOS:FILM#Navigation does not talk about award templates at all. Do we need to restrict the use of award templates, either completely or to have only the "major" ones (Oscars, BAFTAs)? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if any of you guys could take a look at this article and tell me if my instincts are wrong in this. There's one other logged in editor who seems to keep an eye on the page regularly (we're tangentially helping each other keep an eye out for a particular disruptive IP who has attached him/herself to the article) but other than that I don't see a lot of editor traffic there that isn't questionable anon edits so I'd appreciate the extra eyeballs.
My concern is that the article is essentially these long lists of unsourced trivia due to anon editors attempts to list all of the differences between the various prints of the film. And I mean EVERY. SINGLE. DIFFERENCE. Like for serious. It's long bullet pointed lists that could probably be described more simply and in less excruciating detail in a paragraph of prose. I know when I've seen similar stuff pop up in standard film articles (DVD extras, for example) it's generally been frowned upon under reasons of sourcing, fancruft, listy mclists when prose would be better and a slew of other reasons. But given the film's iconic status and that fact that this article even needed to be spun off into its own thing, I'm truly not sure. As those of you who know me know, I mainly look for copyedit type text tweaks and plot summaries in my editing efforts. This sort of thing is a little out of my wheelhouse.
I'll start a talk page convo there for anyone who'd like to participate. Millahnna ( talk) 22:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, The requested reassessment page has some requests that are over 2 months old and I was hoping that someone could take a look and/or archive the requests.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 02:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Ready for Love (film) is a film with a 2-time Oscar nominee writer, a pair of 2-time Oscar nominee actresses, an Oscar nominee actor and a 3-time Emmy nomineee actress. I was hoping someone could stub this out from WP:RS.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Which year? There's
♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've started Ready for Love (1934 film). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I was told today that the categories of films by country like Category:American films and Category:Japanese films are "all included" categories, where films are included in those categories even if they are also in one of the subcategories of those categories. This surprised me, since those don't seem to me to be the sort of categories that would be "all included" categories, and instead seem like the sort of large categories that should have entries diffused into smaller categories. At WP:DUPCAT, the examples of "all included" categories are relatively small categories where someone would be likely to want to see the whole category at once and know all of the members (e.g., Presidents of the United States, countries in Western Europe, bridges in New York City). However, the categories of films by country seem like large categories where someone wouldn't be able to view the entire category at once or know the complete contents of the category (e.g., Category:American films has over 20,000 entries). This seems much more like the example given at WP:DIFFUSE of music albums, where it is suggested that albums could be diffused into subcategories by things like date and genre. Is there a reason why the categories of films by country were made to be "all included" categories? It would make more sense to me to only place films into the subcategories by date and/or genre (e.g., Category:American action films or Category:1995 American films). Calathan ( talk) 18:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly obvious that parent categories should be NEVER used on Wikipedia in a redunant way. -- Niemti ( talk) 13:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello film contributors! If any of you have a spare moment, an article I've put a lot of work into (The FP) is currently nominated for FA status. Click the link at the end of my signature to comment, if you please. All criticism is welcomed and encouraged! Thank you in advance. Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 01:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So here's a weird question. I'm bringing it up here instead of at the article I noticed it at because it's something I'm seeing a lot of places right now (and across other projects, Video Games has it baaaaaad right now). If you check the edit history of Alpha and Omega (film), you'll see one poor editor fighting off hoards of IPs regarding the release date of a sequel (been trying to help but I'm usually beat to the punch on reverting the unsourced dates). But in watching the edits go back and forth, I had the thought that perhaps we shouldn't be using the word "spring" to describe the proposed release because, of course, Spring in North America is Fall in Australia (and I'd swear I recall a site wide policy describing this but cannot find it). Unfortunately, the sourced material is not any more clear than "Spring 2015". Is it ok because it's an American film so we'll go with their loose time approximate and local label? Should I go in there and give a little parenthetical indicator? And if so, how; (North American, Northern Hemisphere, "released in Spring in North America", etc?)? Can anyone think of the policy I'm thinking of? Anything I can think of to do seems super awkward or really wordy. Millahnna ( talk) 01:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
These lists could use some tidying up (they don't link between one another for example), but before I take a look, what do we think of the title? I'd prefer "fictional". Also the brackets and ampersand at the end of " List of fiction works made into feature films (0-9) & (A-C)" don't sit quite right to me, but not sure how to improve these.
Can anybody help re-build the Sarasota Film Festival with new sources? I took a look at it and the history section was basically a copy-and-paste copyvio of the about page on their website. I'm sure there are more resources off-line, and hopefully editors can dig something up. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A new account has been adding references to this parody "award" to biographical articles. This doesn't seem to be appropriate in award sections, but I just wanted to check with this wikiproject to be totally sure about that, and that somehow we haven't along the way felt that Razzie belongs in lists along with the Golden Globe, Academy Awards, and so on. Coretheapple ( talk) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that this discussion may have some relevance. I'm not finding any discussion of the inclusion of this parody in award lists, per se. The subject has come up because there is a new user account, User:Fallacies4, that has been created for the specific purpose of adding "Razzies" to performer/director filmographies and award lists. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
At this point an additional issue is that the editor has been spoken to but is (or at least was) continuing to add the award without providing sources. I've left them a note about that and will consider it an edit-warring issue if they persist. DonIago ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source? This just launched today, and I'd say it is, given who the person is. And she's already doing some hefty reporting. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
According to this sockpuppet investigation, there's an IP editor who has been disruptively editing martial arts-related films for several years now. I guess he took a break for a while, because the last discussion was back in 2012. He seems to be back now, and I'm having trouble keeping the following articles free of his disruption. I don't like edit warring, and I usually try to keep to a voluntary policy of 1RR. However, this editor is absolutely determined to disrupt these articles:
I haven't yet posted any of this to the associated SPI, as I don't really know much about SPI or its associate protocol. I have requested assistance from an administrator on how to proceed, but if someone with more knowledge than me wants to go ahead with that, that'd be fine. I could really use help on this, as I don't have much experience with dealing with such disruptive users, and I don't want to get into trouble for edit warring, too. It's also very taxing and frustrating trying to keep track of these articles and the disruptive edits. I'm dedicating too much time to this, and I'd rather be productively editing articles. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
please note: This is an updated version of a posting that I previously made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 09:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
User:WARNER_one has been attempting to switch the order of how a co-country production is given in a number of films (many by C. Nolan, but it is extending out from that) (eg whether a film is "British-American" or "Amercian-British".) From what I can tell most of these aren't correct, but I would ask , how is this usually determined for such films? Is there a single RS we use? Is is based on which country (in terms of production team) has done the most work on it, etc. It would be helpful to have a few eyes on this user's edits since they seem contrary to what others have said. -- MASEM ( t) 19:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject! I need a little guidance. At The Rugrats Movie, Rugrats in Paris and Rugrats Go Wild, the infobox has grown a little bloated with starring roles. I checked the instructions for Template:Infobox film, which instructs, "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." What I've noticed, is that the theatrical posters don't have Starring credits, for example here and here, and the opening credits for Rugrats Go Wild (courtesy of Netflix) only lists the producers. The closing credits for The Rugrats Movie (around 0:54) list all the voice talent in a giant block. Same with Rugrats in Paris (around 1:20). How should the infobox be handled in this case? There are a lot of characters in the Rugrats. Do I just wrap all those names in a {{ plainlist}} and call it a day? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion about including production companies in the film infobox, either by adding or changing a field, had stalled. Please revisit the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film#Round 2. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Film for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I've created this. Can somebody populate? Should it be judges or juries?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ha, this was great fun drawing up. Still a work in progress. Still got a ton of arty/critically acclaimed films to see from 1980 to 2010. I think such a list would be useful for highlighting what needs to be worked on for myself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Battleship IMO is the most overrated film I've ever seen!! Aside from the attack scenes which were great, was the film really that great? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been started at the above link to discuss removing the archive site Archive.is from the blacklist. Feel free to join the chorus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I have just rewritten the article Stunt performer, and wanted it reassessed on your group quality scale. Also, do you think that there is enough material out there to sustain the article Stunt double, or should it be merged into Stunt performer? Thanks! Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Would somebody combine Bollywood films of 2015 into List of Bollywood films of 2015? Robert4565 ( talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the film article Subway Sadie for Featured Article consideration; as it pertains to this WikiProject I leave a notice here. Thanks, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This list article is particularly problematic because it contained copious references to the " Golden Raspberry Award" that we discussed above. I'd say about a third of more of the list consists of this parody "award"; I've removed and it's being edit-warred. This is a good example of why we need independent sourcing for parody awards, and they should not be inserted in articles and lists unless they're written about by someone other than the "award" issuer. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at CfD. What do members of the film project feel about having a category structure for films by producer to mirror the director's categories? There are only a handful of these categories at the moment. I'm against having them myself, as I don't see it as being as defining as the director, and would be happy to nominate the other categories at CfD if a consensus was reached here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This is really a question for anyone experienced in the FAC department, but it's relating to a film article so I'll post it here. I've bumped into an interesting issue during one of my FACs, and have inquired about it here. Any comments would be greatly appreciated! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a proposal about rewording the first notability criterium for actors, from "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" to "has had leading/starring roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Discussion here. -- Cavarrone 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not 100% certain, but doesn't the theme music in The Big Country constitute some sort of copyright violation or something of that ilk? (It's not that memorable anyway.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Already listed on Film alerts, but see Talk:Live 2012 / Volume II, could do with some new eyes. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Curious how the WikiProject Film community regards this: In the soul-sucking world of Bollywood movie articles, which are plagued with unreliable sources, rampant POV editing, inflated successes and exaggerated failures, phrases like "Such-and-such a movie achieved Blockbuster status" occur quite often. I am averse to this sort of language for the issues with poor sourcing and obvious agendas from the editors submitting the content, but I'm also averse to it because it doesn't impart anything to the reader. What does "blockbuster" literally mean? That it made a profit? Can we say that without using fancy marketing speech? It seems to me that at the very least, if someone calls a movie a "blockbuster", the write-up should go, "XYZ Magazine declared the movie a 'blockbuster'" instead of stating matter-of-factly that the movie is a blockbuster. What's the community's opinion about this? ♥ Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
At white savior narrative in film, there is interest in adding a section as seen here, and this addition is being disputed. A discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"Universally panned", "generally positive", "mixed to negative" and the like frequently pop up as summaries for critical reception. They are also a frequent source of edit warring: "mixed" vs. "mixed to positive" vs. "generally favorable" vs. every conceivable spin. Surely there's a guideline that specifically addresses this?
The closest thing I could find was the RfC which received mixed reviews. Is there anything more substantial? - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment The main problem comes from the fact that Metacritic counts "average" reviews as well as positive/negative ones while Rotten Tomatoes just "positive" and negative". I actually analyzed how the two aggregators process the same set of reviews at Talk:Transcendence_(2014_film)#Mixed_vs._negative. It's worth reading even if I do say so myself; the findings are quite illuminating. My view on this is that the terminology should stick to the positive/negative/mixed/average nomenclature that aggregators use, rather than loaded terms like "acclaimed", "universally" or "over-whelmingly" etc. Aggregators count reviews and turn them into a few simple statistics and that is basically it, and we shouldn't step byeond that when summarising it. The problems arise, for example, when RT says the reception has been negative and MC says it is average/mixed, even when they count the same reviews. Basically they are just marking them differently. The same reviews but just different grading methodologies. There are three acceptable ways of dealing with this in my view:
My preference is for the first two approaches if they are workable, but if it is particularly problematic then perhaps the third option is the way to go. I also don't think they should be used on older films either, since in such cases many of the reviews are retrospective and don't give an accurate survey of contemporary critical reception. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
A few minor points:
In case you didn't see this, Slate had an interesting article about some of our more lengthy plot summaries. The article listed the ten longest summaries, with the award going to Alley Cats Strike. If anyone's up for plot summary trimming, there's some good examples in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the follow up article of an interview of the director of the film. It notes that the plot has been modified thanks to the efforts above. It looks like the next article on the list is now getting the additional publicity. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments are welcome regarding a proposal to merge Rupesh Paul Productions Limited with Rupesh Paul. Discussion is at Talk:Rupesh Paul#Merge from Rupesh Paul Productions Limited. Cnilep ( talk) 04:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Should Diana Serra Cary be at [[Baby Peggy Montgomery]], following the precedent of having Marie Osborne Yeats article at Baby Marie Osborne? Paul Austin ( talk) 11:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have revived the conversation from March about a possible wording change to Template:Infobox film regarding the "Starring" parameter. The discussion can be found here. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). — Cirt ( talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this project. Back in March of 2014 I moved the lengthy unsourced plot summary for the film to the talk page for the article and now an IP User has repeatedly moved the summary back to the main article.
I think that this has got to the point that intervention by a more experienced editor is needed as I am not familiar enough with the rules surrounding film related articles. Graham1973 ( talk) 02:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys - just a heads up that I've written up last week's Signpost feature on this WikiProject for the Wikimedia blog. Bit late, I know... Here's a wee link - hopefully I do it justice :) JSutherland (WMF) ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I wanted to pitch an idea that I had today. The primary way I keep up with film headlines is to use Feedly as a pinned tab in Google Chrome. While I have some film websites' RSS feeds added to that, I also add RSS feeds based on Google News. For example, I can add the URL " https://news.google.com/news?&q=dawn+of+the+planet+of+the+apes" to Feedly and follow the headlines for that film. For Edge of Tomorrow, I've basically added headlines to its talk page so I could evaluate and incorporate them on a later date. While Google does a good job displaying news headlines, as some of you know, it does not archive them anymore. I personally find it difficult to Google for news headlines of films a few years older since there are so many irrelevant search results to sift through, especially when not knowing exactly what to look for. One has to search Google using domains (e.g., site:variety.com) and/or date ranges. I think it would be neat to set up an approach where we can load headlines from RSS feeds into a film article talk page's sub-page. I'm not really sure how to do this on a technical level, but I think it would be a good way to capture all the relevant news headlines at around the time of the film's release. Anyone have an inkling on how this could be accomplished? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this has ever been brought up in a discussion before, but I found this breakdown by The New York Times of the billing block. I brought it up at Talk:Interstellar (film) in regard to Legendary's role in that film, but it looks like it would be a good reference for discussing cast identification too. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've found out that there are many films which received a nomination for an Academy Award but don't have an article here. Even worse, many of them don't have an Wikidata entry. Maybe you want to help me to reduce the number of such movies. Here I listed them. -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
After finding a suggestion that the Oregon Film Awards and Yosemite Film Festival awards weren't legitimate, I found this website. Which starts off: "Along with the Alaska International Film Awards, Honolulu Film Awards and Mountain Film Festival — on Withoutabox there are identical pages for the Mountain Film Festival and the Mountain Film Awards, except the Film Awards page says that films are not screened to the public — other questionable entities include the Oregon Film Awards, California Film Awards, Mexico International Film Festival, Colorado Film Festival, Yosemite Film Festival, Nevada Film Festival and Canada International Film Festival.
They all have similarly designed web pages, and most have mailing addresses that ultimately go to P.O. boxes despite being made out to read as suite addresses on their contact pages. If they have phone numbers listed on their sites or Withoutabox pages, most of them have area codes outside of where the competitions are held, are no longer in service or, in some cases, go to people who have never heard of the events. The various festivals’ e-mails to filmmakers are worded almost exactly the same."
A quick search shows 11 articles mentioning a Yosemite Film Festival award. [3] Should there be a list of awards not to include? Dougweller ( talk) 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The Brady Bunch Movie, A Very Brady Sequel, and The Brady Bunch in the White House are just plain bad. But they are notable. Nevertheless, articles about them cannot maintain themselves alone. I'm proposing The Brady Bunch (film series) or The Brady Bunch (film trilogy) and merger of these three articles. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't really see any sense in merging them. Two movies and a made-for-TV "movie" released over the course of 7 years is vastly different then three novels released over the course of 9 months. There isn't much to say about the TV movie, but that's kinda par for the course. The two films have reviews and the usual coverage. - SummerPhD ( talk) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Films by country or language has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 ( talk) 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I added a sentence to Frozen (2013 film) detailing the film's first public screening in New York, but is has been reverted on the pretext that the sources are not reliable and "not notable". I have started a survey at Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Should the New York screening hosted by Disney and The Cinema Society be included in the article? and would like to get a few comments from editors who don't have a vested interest in their version of the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:America (2014 film) may be of interest to Project members. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over The Godfather that is in need of more opinions. Please click here to join the conversation and help us settle this argument. Corvoe (be heard) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the sources on Oliver Twist (Vaughn De Leath song) describes it as a " picture feature song", i.e. a song tie up to a silent movie. What is the correct article for this article to link to (or redlink to redirect to)? In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed the restoration of Bond 24 at Talk:Bond 24#Restoration of article. This project is invited to participate in the discussion. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 10:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have requested an article move at Talk:Naughty But Nice (1939 film)#Requested move. Please feel free to weigh in. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)