![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
The usage of Epic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:epic poetry -- 70.51.46.146 ( talk) 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
An administrator suggested all references to IMDB should be removed from Wikipedia, due to their alleged lack of reliability--is that true? Moreover, editors have removed short films from a page I created, and it has not been added back. Is there consensus that short films should be censored on Wikipedia? Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A Clockwork Orange (film) has gone without a genre in its lead for some time. Seems to me it actually needs it more than most, and it is not really that controversial. I started a thread at Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)#Genre - crime drama and science fiction. People here may want to weigh in, as this should be settled. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 23:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm helping an American and international film history class. I'm working on showing them how to edit, but she would also like "advice on locating early film history articles that need to be expanded, as well as areas that haven't been covered so the students can start doing research for the articles they will write."
Being the film people, do you have any ideas, suggestions, and/or know of a page that lists a bunch of open tasks? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Some additional opinions are requested at Talk:She_Wore_a_Yellow_Ribbon to discuss adding uncredited actors to the cast list or even to find WP:RS for some of those uncredited actors to include "future stars". Thanks. AbramTerger ( talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lucy (2014 film)#"Lucy" becomes the first highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I am getting into the habit of implementing the {{
Plainlist}} template in articles. Reviewing the template documentation, it seems like it is an improvement of accessibility on film articles. Is there a reason to use <br />
instead of this template? If not, do we want to standardize this practice, by updating the film infobox guidelines and perhaps finding a way to automatically update the current infoboxes?
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
For the film Contagion, there is a discussion about the appropriate length of the plot summary here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I just created Eye in the Sky (2015 film), which is verified to come out sometime in 2015. Bovineboy2008 removed the year from the infobox and excluded the category Category:2015 films. This is not the first time a scheduled release year has been removed like this; it is being removed because it is too vague of a projection compared to a mm/dd/yy projection. I do not think this is sound logic because projected specific release dates still change anyway. What do other editors think? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Any opinions on the idea to create a chronological order of all world films by release date with an article on each month of release? A 2014 in film-like list but for every release in a given month worldwide since the beginning of cinema like List of films released in September 2014 sort of thing. Rather than listing the studio though, a column for Country of release. Obviously some release dates are unknown but it would be for all notable films which have a documented release date. I began a list but baled out, realizing the scope of the task!! I just think it would be a good thing in addressing systematic bias as the main lists by year are heavily Anglo centric. It would just be a massive undertaking and I think priority should be going into developing certain films. I do think it would be a valuable group of lists in documenting the history of film though as when they were released many other releases worldwide wouldn't have been known in other countries so having something universal would be great I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to find reliable sources defining a production banner, which seems to be a small brand-name company usually formed by a film producer (e.g., Nolan and Syncopy). I can only find sources saying whether or not a company is a production banner and am wondering if anyone can find better sources. I'm not sure if it is different from an independent film production company either. In addition, would it be worth creating a Wikipedia article, or is it best kept as a Wiktionary term? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I don't edit here much anymore, but I took a whack at cleaning up The English Patient (film) article a couple of weeks ago, as it was shockingly full of original research, interpretation, and even whole paragraphs about biplanes. I didn't realize at the time that the main person invested in the article was Ring Cinema, a notorious edit-warrer who was going to fight me to the death to keep his "insights" in the article. I took out all such "insights," which included descriptions of scenes that do not exist in the film, and made the plot summary a typical matter-of-fact recitation of the main events, without lots of attributions of character motivation and certainly without the inclusion of things that never happen, e.g. this: "When Geoffrey discovers the affair, he lures Katherine aboard their plane and pilots it into the camp in a crash aimed at Almásy. The husband is killed instantly, she is seriously injured, but Almásy narrowly hit." [1] I maintain that, as there is no scene showing Geoffrey and Katherine getting into the plane, the idea that he lures her into it constitutes original research--I guess it's what Ring Cinema believes happened, but I'm not sure as he hasn't defended it, simply reverted me multiple times. Further, Almasy runs and the plane misses him, so he's not narrowly hit (and I re-watched the film to be sure). Yesterday I again corrected this, as you can see if you follow the link, and instead of reverting me this time, he changed the first sentence to this: [2] which is much less egregious but still describes something that is his own idea, i.e., that Geoffrey discovered the affair. In the film itself, Katherine says she thinks he must have known, but it is not a fact. I'm here asking for help because the problem, as far as I can tell, is the Ring Cinema believes that he "understands" and "comprehends" the film and I don't, and my position is that "understanding" and "comprehending" the film is not necessary and is usually detrimental to a film summary because it becomes all about interpretation, which is not what we're supposed to do here.
My understanding of writing plot summaries is that we are absolutely not supposed to be writing about what we think character motivations or feelings are, or what may have "really" happened off-screen, but instead sticking to a simple recitation of facts (well-written, one hopes). This is the article as it was when I decided to re-write it: [3], and this is it now: [4]. It is much, much better than it was, and most of my changes ended up being left in (even if re-written, which is okay--I don't need to be the "author"), but I am asking if someone will address the problem of editors' interpretations of a film as being beside the point. I wrote at length on the talk page about this, but I don't think Ring Cinema understands the issue. And maybe things have changed here at WP and now we want colorful essays instead of simple plot summaries, in which case, please tell me that and I'll stop insisting on my point.
I tried several times to eliminate the following sentence, too, which sounds to me like a press release: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds in World War II Italy through the story of a burn victim, a once-handsome explorer whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." It's a little better (it used to say "once-dashing"!). First of all, this is an entirely subjective description of the film that few people would even agree with. I don't know why the Patient's supposed handsomeness is relevant (and is it a fact? I'm sure there are people who don't think Ralph Fiennes is handsome, and there's no plot element related to the character's looks, so ???), and I have no idea what "sacrifice" this refers to. In the film I've seen, there is no act that I would describe as a "self-sacrifice," and I don't even know what to do with "spell his end." I took that sentence out, but he has refused to let the article stand without it. All his arguments boil down to: "I understand the film and you don't." I've heard many editors say that people who think they "understand" a film or book can be difficult to deal with because they are very attached to their ideas about those things. I think that is part of what is happening here.
After every edit, I left detailed explanations, and then discussed them on the talk page, often point-by-point. I don't think I substituted my interpretations for his, I think I left out ALL interpretation. Any feedback would be welcome, and help dealing with the Handsome Man Sacrifices Himself sentence would be especially great. Thank you.-- TEHodson 21:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender. Thank you. You're right, of course, and Ring Cinema is a notorious edit-warrer who has had multiple complaints and warnings from many users, all of which he completely ignores and could care less about (he usually demands an apology from those who have reported him, too). Not until he is outright blocked or banned will he, maybe, get it. I stopped editing here because it is so difficult to resolve problems, and I probably wouldn't have touched the article had I realized it was "owned" for all intents and purposes by someone like RC, but I had spent a few hours on it by the time I realized that and was willing to stand up for those changes because they weren't of the sort that are terribly debatable, but rather pretty damn straightforward. I had never run into someone who fights to keep in things like a scene that isn't in the movie before, and I just don't have the time or the stamina to deal with the whole process you outline, and I did ask for help but no one else looked at the article, so I just can't. If you checked the talk page, you can see I did take him at his word and ask for explanations, but if you checked the talk page, you also know that he didn't deign to give them, just kept up a snide, sarcastic tone as he repeated his assertion that he's right and I'm an idiot. I lost it at the end of that, having really tried--again--to work with him, but he just won't and I foresee a long, exhausting fight over just a couple of sentences. I did get most of my earlier changes left intact, though I'm not really sure how that happened, but I'm not up to doing more. I have never been accused of edit-warring in all my years here nor been reported for any violations, I worked well with lots of people, got lots of good stuff done, but I'm very busy now and really just can't. Editors who treat other editors like shit really shouldn't be allowed to work here, but they are, you have to go through an arduous process to prove your case, and those people don't care anyway--they just come back after they've been blocked and start all over again. And I think they like having a "bad reputation" because it's a form of validation and it makes them feel big and strong and reinforces their belief in themselves as the only ones who know what is going on. I can't deal with those sorts of headcases, so I have to walk away. -- TEHodson 23:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
My only concern, once again, is that you may run afoul of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Categories, which specifically says that categories for films by year are for films "that came out in" a given year, not produced in such a year. I think the logic is WP:V. While the NFB maintains a well organized database that lists films by year of production, most private producers do not, and so the decision was made, years ago, to categorize by year of release -- a much more easily verifiable attribute. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not actually proposing a change in categorization or in how films are titled by release date, only to recognize that the National Film Board which has somewhat of middling size collection of films, from shorts to feature length productions, and most if not, nearly all have no problem in being identified by the "official" date of release, includes some exceptions, two of which I have "bumped" into: The Defender (1988 film) and Bush Pilot: Reflections on a Canadian Myth. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If somebody goes on an article about a music album, there is a small infobox titled "Professional ratings". Seeing as films are rated in a similar fashion (star ratings, score out of 10, positive/negative reviews) I'm just curious if there is any reason why articles for films don't have a Ratings infobox. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 18:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, no worries guys. Cheers for the speedy response too. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand why articles on individual films do not normally include their ratings. The policy is clearly explained at WP:FILMRATING. But how, then, is one supposed to find the rating of a film? What other sources of this information are there? I know that boxofficemojo.com lists the MPAA ratings, but I would like to know the BBFC ratings for films going back decades. Thanks, -- Viennese Waltz 11:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I was thinking about cleaning up List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon and started a discussion on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon regarding options. If someone could weigh-in, that would be wonderful! Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 20:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon and cannot find a nice sources with lists of awards or a database for:
Can I use IMDb in this case? Or, is there another good source of award info?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Last question regarding List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon: Do you generally include regional awards, like:
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A bunch of these seem to have sprung up. Not sure what to make of these unsourced list contributions. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Dude just submitted a ton of these, all unsourced. Who are these "exhibitors", exactly? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 07:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Editor input is welcome here Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Celebrity reactions in order to form a consensus regarding a possible addition of new information. MarnetteD| Talk 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Christopher Walken filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This Saturday the 11th October we have an editathon and backstage pass at the Cinema Museum in London some places still available Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) ( talk) 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be an upcoming film; does this appear to merit an article? My concern is it's an IP author, who tend to wander off and not come back, so if this is worthwhile it'd be great for someone to do a 10m cleanup and Approve it. Thanks! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of you might see this error message, "The time allocated for running scripts has expired," in the "References" section of film articles (not sure about other kinds of articles). I saw it this morning at Walking with Dinosaurs (film) when someone tried to add a random template to it. I removed the template, thinking that was the cause somehow, but then I saw someone complain at Talk:Rabbit-Proof Fence (film) about the same error appearing. I thought it had to do with the review aggregator templates being used in the article body, since their references had no error message (see this), but now I think just editing the article itself in some way will make the problem go away. It may be an issue with the general referencing code, which is beyond our reach. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Everyone, all Box Office Mojo links now redirect to http://www.imdb.com/chart?ref_=mojo. This means a lot of broken links, and I'm not sure how many will be resolved. The external link template will be the most impacted as useless for the time being. Any details about this change, we can discuss in this thread. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of splitting the entries in Category:Film awards by category section into two sub categories for easier searching as it seems they are two distinct groups there atm. One is more technical or craft with awards for acting, directing, editing, music, custom design, etc. The other is more genre based with awards for animation, adult industry, anime, LGBT, documentary, short film, etc. Currently I have no good name for either category and was hoping for some help from the taskforce. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the film infobox's talk page about automatically linking the language. You can find it here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 01:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
May I please get some experienced editors' eyes over at Iron Man (2008 film)? I honestly don't know how to best describe this apparent issue, so please just look at the recent edit history, this talk page discussion, this and this. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Link to related and now-archived ANI discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of page move ongoing; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Others and I are dealing with an editor who continues to act disruptively at the The Maze Runner (film) article, and input from other WP:Film editors would be helpful on these matters. See Talk:The Maze Runner (film)#overly positive review summary and Talk:The Maze Runner (film)#Changes to article. WP:Permalinks to those sections are here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Film articles that would be affected by this action are these:
If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Film's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I was summoned by LegoBot to an RFC, and, after poking around the article a bit, I found a linked film, Lord of the Universe. The grammar is a bit wonky, the infobox a bit barren, and there's a big old "credits" wikitable at the end. I figured, "OK, I'll just fix this up." Then I realized that it's a Featured article. Whoa. OK, so maybe I won't do any sweeping, bold edits. What do you guys think? Am I overreacting here when I think this should be delisted? I've contributed to a Featured article review or two, but usually in a minor capacity, and never as the person who initiates it. I could clean up this article to the point at which it would probably pass a particularly generous GAN, but there's a pretty big gulf between this article and Prometheus (2012 film). NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I can con any of you to weigh in on this, but I've started a conversation at the Indian cinema task force as it relates to the inclusion of statements such as "XYZ film achieved Blockbuster verdict" or "XYZ was a Super-hit". Here are some examples of the usage: [12] [13] [14] If anyone has a hankering, some more input would be appreciated, since these films do still fall within the scope of WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I took a look at some big movies, mostly ones that grossed over $500 Million at the World-Wide Box Office, and I noticed that everything was there, except for film Budgeting, and not Budget as in how much it took to make the film, I mean how much money does a Director, Actor, Studio and more gets paid, [ Budgeting Page] shows some examples, but for all films, they should be. We do need to find sources, but that only might be the biggest problem, but I think that we should include that there. -- Editor49 ( talk) 13:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposal is discussed; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. It's me again. Midnight Rider (film) was recently the subject of POV edits that neutered a ongoing controversy. Interested, I checked out the article and was astounded to find that it's a 5000-word memorial to a dead crew person. By comparison, Twilight Zone tragedy is 1080 words, and that's an entire article dedicated to the topic. My concerns are, I think, obvious: WP:UNDUE and WP:MEMORIAL. Besides the usual resistance to my more minimalist vision for Wikipedia articles, the article's talk page is understandably a bit skeptical of new editors who want to make sweeping changes. Comments would be quite welcome at Talk:Midnight Rider (film)#Memorial. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
If you read through the article, this is a very unique case. The film has been halted with multiple attempts to restart, creating a lof of very public controversy. It differs from Twighlight Zone in many ways. That was one criminal case and the film continued. And yes there is a separate article Twilight Zone tragedy. It was also in 1982, long before the internet and modern media. In this case there have been a huge number of lawsuits and multiple county and federal agencies investigating, all of which had interesting information realted to whether or not the production would continue, which is relevant to the film. All of this is very significant to the film production industry in general, which is why there is so much media coverage. Does it make sense to break the article off into a separate "Midnight Rider tragedy" article as The Twighlight Zone did, since the film was halted while shooting the first scene on the first day? Wiki allows for much of this to tie together and to give a general overview of what has happened for those who want to research further. It begs to question, should this resource be available to the public to learn more about this series of events related to Midnight Rider? It is not just the noteriety of the many famous people involved, it is a very significant topic to the entire film production community. DFinmitre ( talk) 23:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb You are giving a description of Undue that is not in the wiki definition. Undue weight is about major/minority opinions and not giving undue weight to minority opinions that are only held by a tiny group of people. The elements being discussed are heavily cited and quite mainstream opinion. DFinmitre ( talk) 02:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this an actual notable organization? It has no sources, no (real) update since 2004 and feels like another Chlotrudis Society to me. On top of that, the intro text is pretty much a copyvio from their website. I'm tempted to have it speedily deleted. Thoughts? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've started a peer review for the WP:GA quality article, R U Professional.
Comments to help further improve quality would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/R U Professional/archive1.
— Cirt ( talk) 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As a union member iof Local600 and someone who has worked in the film industry for several years I came across the Template:Film_crew this evening and made some minor edits. I also posted some lengthy notes on the template talk page with ways in which this can be significantly improved if anyone wants to work on it. For example there are a plethora of articles that have not even been created yet if you want to truly list all possible jobs. In the relevant talk page I also linked several quality references which can be used in this endeavor. Anyone interested in working with me on it? David Condrey log talk 08:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Fortdj33 ( talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The title of this Category:Academy Special Achievement Award winners is awkward and not accurate. The actual award is called the Special Achievement Award. It should be changed to Category:Special Achievement Academy Award winners to match the article name Special Achievement Academy Award. Thread started here. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this traffic report that talks about mobile page views now being included in overall page views. A previous report (seen here) revealed that the overall page views were being understated without the mobile views. You can now view WP:5000 with the mobile page views included (and the percentages are revealed). For film articles, it looks like mobile page views make up 40-60%, which is quite a lot to me. Just wanted to share! Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 00:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I have a question. I had another editor mention on my page that he was an experienced film editor, and as such I should listen to what he says is right, rather than what is stated on MOS:Film. In particular it had to do with the aggregate site, Rotten Tomatoes. At MOS:Film#Critical response, it says, "review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews." The only reference it makes to using quotes is NOT to use "user" quotes. There is something called a "Critics Consensus" quote. While the MOS doesn't clearly state NOT to use this quote, neither does it say that it is acceptable. The way it is written would seem to indicate that ONLY the statistics from the site should be used. Not sure the consensus quote should be used. In the particular example that was under discussion that quote did not seem to correlate to the score, so not sure where the quote comes from. Thanks. Onel5969 ( talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The UK poster (with credits) for this primarily British film, or some old teaser poster? Hard decision. /info/en/?search=Talk:The_Imitation_Game#Argument_over_which_teaser_poster_to_use. Film Fan 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently made a request to edit template:infobox film to include a label for "Sound Engineer" which would allow this position to be given credit where it was due in articles about black-and-white films in the early 20th century. This position seems to have been highly regarded by the film makers of those days, appearing in the opening credits above both Music and Lyrics, and Film Editor. My request was denied very quickly by BOVINEBOY on Template_talk:Infobox_film#Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2014, suggesting I get support first before making the request, so am here asking for support for my proposal. Jodosma (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor - real award, or an elaborate hoax? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently updated the categories for some of the articles in Category:Upcoming films, and diffused them in to the sub-category of Category:Upcoming Indian films. However, User:Bovineboy2008 has been adding "Upcoming films" back to these articles, because he believes it to be a non-diffusing category. I believe that it is redundant for those articles to be in both the parent category and the diffused sub-category, since "Upcoming films" does not contain {{ Allincluded}} like Category:Indian films does. Can we get some additional input, so that we can come to a consensus on this issue? Fortdj33 ( talk) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: I was working on a draft article, Draft:Gerard Lough, but I didn't notice that in the meantime someone else had created a mainspace article Gerard Lough. Since most of what I did was to add references, I could just copy them over to there, but I find the exact same text at http://www.ovguide.com/gerard-lough-9202a8c04000641f8000000028c19198 . I am not familiar with this website. I don't want to add supporting material to a copyright violation, and also the text in the mainspace article is rather promotional. Is Ovguide one of those sites where filmmakers add their own material, and, if so, is there a way to find out whether the text predates its appearance in Wikipedia? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
At the reliable sources noticeboard, there's a discussion as to whether all reviewers listed at Rotten Tomatoes are automatically reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Being involved, I do not wish to do an unnecessary block, so I seek other eyes under WP:THIRD. There is an editor who continues to wish a plot section removed from a film article because it is unreferenced. I have repeatedly pointed him to MOS:FILM and WP:FILMPLOT, but he still wants it removed, and appears to wish me state that I understand the Kannada language and to state that I personally saw this Kannada film before I returned the plot section first placed there by the article's author. Ongoing discussion is HERE. While he seems unduly fixated on this one film, if he's correct we'll have to remove unreferenced plot sections from all film articles. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has spotted this, but the template works without any parameters whatsoever. Spotted it with this edit on Pride. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"? that you may be interested in. 11:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a couple of Interstellar discussions underway:
Editors are invited to weigh in at either discussion. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Opinion are needed on the following matter: Talk:Set It Off#Requested move. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt ( talk) 21:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Should filmographies of lesser known actors include uncredited roles? This has come up in Charles C. Wilson (actor). Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Should Fishing Without Nets (2012 film) and Fishing Without Nets (2014 film) be merged, or kept separate? They are both by the same director, the difference is that the 2012 film is a short, while the 2014 film is a feature film. -- benlisquare T• C• E 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Woody Allen filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit by Rusted AutoParts on the film and restored the redirect. However, this might be a case where WP:NFF may not apply due to sourcing. Here is the article before I reverted. Could other people chime in and say if the article should be restored or redirect kept in place. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion to move the "Audience response" section out from under the "Critical response" section at MOS:FILM. See the discussion here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone. There's a relevant discussion at Talk:Blowup#Requested_move_2014 if any of you want to chime in. I just wrote a comment about how I (and evidently the Wikiproject) believe the film to be one of the core (most vital and significant) film articles for an encyclopedia, but I think a lot of you are probably more knowledgable on the subject than I am so if you get a chance please feel free to tell me that I am overstating my point. Thanks!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing that the film The Book of Life is a Mexican film. I am based this on the following premises: 1. The director is Mexican 2. The main writer is Mexican 3. The main producer is Mexican 4. The film was released in several languages, including English and Spanish, so it is not predominately an English film.
The Dallas company Reel FX co-produced the film, but I do not consider this as enough reason to call it a USA Movie. 20th Century Fox distributed the film, but I do not see how the distribution company controls the nationality of a film.
Several actors are either Mexican or American, but I do not consider this a factor for nationality.
The book of life website reads : "From producer Guillermo del Toro and director Jorge Gutierrez comes an animated comedy with a unique visual style. THE BOOK OF LIFE is the journey of Manolo, a young man who is torn between fulfilling the expectations of his family and following his heart." [1] [2]
Here are some discussions about how to determine the nationality of a film. I want to stress the point that the main producer is Del Toro, from Guadalajara, no Reel F/X, who co-produced the film: http://www.filmspotting.net/forum/index.php?topic=4395.0 https://mubi.com/topics/determining-the-nationality-of-a-film-for-list-making-purposes-help-wanted
What do you think? M cyclops ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 03:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Please find a discussion regarding what the title of the new Star Wars film actually is at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Is the episode number in the film's title? and how it should be mentioned in the lead and infobox. I personally feel this is easy to discern, based on sources available, and hope this does not turn in to Star Trek Into Darkness 2.0. Thank you in advance. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, etc. all present Nymphomaniac as two films rather than one. Shouldn't Wikipedia follow suit? Can someone reading this please kindly construct two articles out of the existing one? Thanks! 85.250.155.74 ( talk) 13:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There is conversation whether the content on the film The Town That Dreaded Sundown requires sources or not for the The_Town_That_Dreaded_Sundown#In_popular_culture section. If anyone can contribute, it would be useful. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 03:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
At America: Imagine the World Without Her, there is a discussion underway about whether or not to include demographic breakdown. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The CinemaScore details (grade, demographic breakdown) as printed by TheWrap is now quoted at length in the discussion. Editors are invited to comment about including or excluding part of the details. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
A separate discussion is also underway about the film's critical reception: the number of reviews to use in the section, and whether or not one particular review should be used. See that discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Could I have some help in fleshing out Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me? I haven't seen the film and don't know much about film writing overall, so I'd appreciate if someone with better chops could flesh it out more. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is up to performing a GA review, Cult film needs a reviewer knowledgeable about film-related topics. Normally, I wouldn't bother the WikiProject with requests like this, but it's been almost three months since I listed it. The article is admittedly a bit long and complex, but it shouldn't take too much effort. I'm familiar with the Good Article Criteria and have attempted to write it accordingly. There shouldn't really be any major hurdles. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a situation with one editor who is repeatedly adding a parenthetical to the lead calling this mini-series a film, without discussion. Thread started at Talk:Olive Kitteridge (TV miniseries)#Lead. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be a article titled "HIGHEST GROSSING HORROR FILMS WORLDWIDE", I can do it, but it would be put in this category ?(WIKI PROJECT: FILM), ill get the correct sources, and if you want I can do it. Editor49 ( talk) 13:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
{{cite news | last = | first = | date = | title = | url = | work = | accessdate = }}
at the top of your sandbox page so you can copy it and paste it where you want to use it and fill it out. Let us know if you have any questions! :)
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
14:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)An editor just posted this question Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What if there.27s no movie poster.3F at the Teahouse. I thought some of you may be able to provide an answer if you have the time. Thanks ahead of time for any help you can provide. MarnetteD| Talk 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I just want to make absolutely certain that the year in the article title refers to the release date before I rename The Captain from Köpenick (1941 film). According to the article, it was finished in 1941, and there's a release date in the infobox of November of that year (what's up with that?), but it later goes on to say it wasn't actually shown until 1945. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saptaswa Basu for deletion discussion related to a film director.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hiya, I'm having trouble with an IP who keeps adding odd Cast of Characters lists to VeggieTales articles, for example The Star of Christmas, where we find such content as "Mr. Nezzer as Ebenezer Nezzer", "Unnmaned England Girl as Herself", "England Woman with Tan Colored Dress as Herself". Now currently the IP adding to this list appears to be 50.77.15.126, but I feel like I've seen this sort of thing frequently at VeggieTales articles. I find it problematic because it looks like a lot of OR, plus it's written from an in-universe perspective, as Larry the Cucumber, for instance, isn't a real human being. I've been treating it as vandalism, but I thought I'd get some more feedback in case I'm nuts. At the article in question it appears the Cast of Characters content was first added by user Poolio in this edit, although they seem to write coherently, whereas the IPs typically don't write, or use talk pages. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_17#Category:Children.27s_films there's a discussion going on debating whether it should be "Children's films", "Family films" or something else. Feel free to join the discussion. JDDJS ( talk) 03:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story#Removed plot per WP:BLP. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The article for The Fifth Element, which is under the scope of this project, has been nominated for featured status for some time now. The only thing currently standing in the way of it being passed is that another user has requested it receive a reference check from someone who has experience with film referencing, so as to check whether the sources are reliable. If someone could give the article a reference check and then comment at the FAC nomination I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 01:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I've created an article about the stand-up comedy film, Bill Cosby 77.
Feel free to help out with expansion from secondary sources, or engage in collaboration at Talk:Bill Cosby 77.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 04:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. There's a discussion going on at Attack on Titan regarding the film article's possible creation. The discussion can be found at Talk:Attack on Titan#Create film article?. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the first film article I have created completely from scratch, so I wanted to ask: I have a small low-res copy of the film's poster from IMDb. Can I upload this under Fair Use? If so is there anything I need to know first about how to do that as I take it through the Upload Wizard? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Badly needs cleanup, it's an absolute shambles. Hollywood Film Enterprises which made films like Tarzan of the Apes (1918 film) should probably have its own article; I just redirected it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can anyone reading this please kindly upload the following poster images of Morning Patrol, The Loser Takes It All, Sweet Gang, and Singapore Sling as well as this photo from the Italian Wikipedia when having the time into their respective entries? Thanks! 85.250.155.74 ( talk) 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This is 85.250.155.74 here once again. People reading this with some time on their hands might be interested in the article requests I recently made regarding the four remaining Nikolaidis features. 109.186.254.192 ( talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) My current IP is: 85.250.146.10 ( talk) 17:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
I've created a new article on the 1970 film The Man from O.R.G.Y.
Please help expand with additional secondary sources, or feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Started new article on 1995 film Galaxis, help with expansion from secondary sources would be appreciated, or feel free to suggest some on the article's talk page.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nighthawks (film) needs a patient editor to engage in a bit of cleanup. It's quickly turning into a gigantic, embedded fansite. Normally, I'd do it myself, but... ugh. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone will more patience than me needs to look at Guerrilla filmmaking. There's been a massive expansion to the article recently. I don't want to be overly critical of other editors' work, but... I think it needs a bit of cleanup. From the use of guillemets, I suspect the author is a native Francophone. The same editor has been adding links to that article from the leads of many other film articles. These additions are unsourced, and I don't really think it's appropriate to label films as such without a citation. Most of them aren't too controversial ( Pi, El Mariachi, etc), but I'm still not entirely sure that these films should be labeled as guerrilla films in the opening sentence as if it is the defining characteristic. I dunno. I left a message at User talk:Tertulius#Guerrilla filmmaking asking for consensus before further changes are made to more articles, so hopefully we'll see a discussion here soon. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Not resolved. Tertulius ( talk · contribs) went right back to same disruption right after block expired. Adding unsourced info to BLP page and adding poorly sourced info, IMDB links, etc. Need admin to look into this behavior pattern, again. — Cirt ( talk) 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see this page. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to raise a related topic, which User:Fayenatic london has suggested I take here. Last month, User:Piotrus created by-year categories for Category:2010s documentary films. User:Fortdj33 nominated them for speedy deletion as empty categories, but they have sat the undeleted because they have not always been entirely empty. In fact, I had added two articles to this category tree today, until Fayenatic removed them. So I my question is: should we populate and retain these categories? If you look at Category:2013 films as an example, we do have a wealth of sibling categories for such subgroups as 2013 animated films, 2013 computer-animated films, 2013 American animated films, 2013 anime films, 2013 drama films, 2013 horror films, 2013 short films -- and more. Is this WP:OC? If not, I can't think of a good reason not to establish the doc category as well. your thoughts? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page of MOS:FILM, there is an ongoing discussion about including audience response stats (e.g., audience score from Rotten Tomatoes) in film articles. The discussion, which started on 11/23/14, can be found here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
For info, this is now used on 50,000 articles, with the latest addition being placed on The Nevada Buckaroo. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, the Plot section of this article needs serious reviewing, it's full of mistakes and misunderstandings. -- Pagony ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's diffuse/depopulate Category:Film series. Most of the films listed in there are already members of child categories, such as Category:Science fiction films by series. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered there have been some page moves that didn't attract any attention from the Film project here, or much of anywhere else. There have been discussions here which concluded that the term filmmaker should be avoided in article titles. The purpose of disambiguation in a WP page title is to differentiate, not give a complete or specific description of the role a person does. That should be done in the article. This is not always the perfect solution to DAB issues, but it seems to be what consensus has arrived at. Walter Hill (director) was moved to Walter Hill (filmmaker), then eventually back again. This can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 8#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?. More recently John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) was moved to John Waters (director born 1893), as discussed at length at Talk:John Waters (director born 1893).
I started a new thread at Talk:Andrew Adams (filmmaker)#Page move - Filmmaker as disambiguation, under the closed (very brief) discussion involving four page moves of this type. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Just seen these categories (and sub-cats):
Thoughts? The sub-cat Category:2014 in British cinema seems to have a mis-match of award ceremonies, lists and films. What's the inclusion criteria? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Marianne Edwards is a less-known child actress of the 1930s and according to some sources of lesser quality, including IMDb, she has died in November 2013. So shall we add the information with a remark of the uncertainy or shall we leave it out completely? -- Clibenfoart ( talk) 13:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I posted a comment about film editors and civility last year, and I believe it should be reiterated. My original comment can be seen here. Even if certain situations are frustrating, it is important to have a respectful and considerate attitude. Everyone has a part in making Wikipedia a hospitable environment for editing. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed that Yesgoanimate ( talk · contribs) added production company categories to a bunch of film articles today. Some seem legitimate, some do not, at first glance, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Can someone take a look and determine whether these are valid or not? -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 15:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone besides me is watching the featured article B movie. Someone has made a few changes to the article and started a talk page discussion about a possible merger. Mostly, I'd like someone else to look at the edits and see what they think. I'm skeptical of any undiscussed changes to a featured article, but I'm trying to back off on my habit of reverting every change to that article; I don't want to get a bad reputation. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) edit: Come to think of it, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, as I've made plenty of undiscussed changes to featured articles. Maybe just forget I mentioned anything about the changes, as I'm probably just being paranoid. On a second glance, they look fine. I'm too used to people vandalizing the article. The merger discussion still needs input, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion here and I'd like the community input. Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Tchaliburton has nominated a ton of Oscar nominated individuals for deletion. These are people who were nominated in the minor categories (Visual Effects, Sound, etc). The full list is everything south of here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an article split discussion at Talk:The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel#Article_split, to discuss whether the "accolades" section should be spun out into its own article. The article isn't that important on its own terms but it could set a precedent for carving up small film articles. I also disagree with how the split has been carried out too, which has been pushed through without discussion. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
176.250.192.215 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just went through a whole lot of film articles adding them to categories which seems to be at best unsourced, at worst completely incorrect. I don't have time at the moment to go through their contributions, but I've blocked them for 24 hours after several editors asked them to stop. If anyone can help go through their contributions and revert as needed, I would appreciate it. -- Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the "Controversy" section at Slither (2006 film), there is a discussion on the article's talk page. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A while ago, I pruned a cluttered list of film recommendations from The Man from Earth. A few days ago, I returned and saw the list had regrown. I again pruned it down, but this time I got reverted. I started a talk page discussion if anyone wants to chime in. As far as I'm aware, we generally don't give out film recommendations, but I can't really point to any specific guideline that says not to. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the inclusion of runtimes in film infoboxes. The discussion can be found
here.
Sock
(tock talk)
13:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I know there is section regarding this topic at The Interview (2014 film) but I am surprised that there isn't a stand-alone article for it. There is tons of coverage, which should easily meet WP:GNG and its scope seems to have out grown its relevancy to this particular film; how it has affected Sony Pictures, its staff, and the larger journalistic debate of releasing such information for starters. Besides the coverage in the film article also seems to be outweighing the rest of the content. I guess I am calling for WP:BOLD editor, who has more time than me to get things going.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 21:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I aim to please. As far as I can tell, the title suggested meets all the necessary points. It specifies what happened and when. It was 2014, and Sony's email got hacked. I know all of that before I click, so I think this covers it very nicely. Any alternate suggestions?
Sock
(tock talk)
21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Overkill or underpopulated? Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Any point to these images in the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear all,
There are concerns regarding the box-office section of Guardians of the Galaxy. The main points are that the section has a historical rather than retrospective approach. In some cases, only the estimates are mentioned instead of the actual figures. Also, there are mentions of countries in which the film's gross is not notable in any way. The article is written with a considerable degree of recentism, since it is mentioning aspect of the bix-office run highlighted in the media, although these aspects are, in retrospect and in comparison to other aspects of its run, not notable at all.
Please contribute to the discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)#Box_office:_changes_needed
Thank you. Spinc5 ( talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please explain all the cats at Talk:I Have Tourette's but Tourette's Doesn't Have Me? There are no missing references or citations? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FILM, this is a general inquiry as to who is interested in helping to create and maintain task forces, for a few areas that are not currently covered by the {{ WikiProject Film}} banner. Specifically, in classifying film articles I have noticed a need for project parameters that would cover silent films (General), documentary films (Genre), and Mexican films (National). All three categories have a large number of articles, which in most cases are not covered by any other task forces, and all three also have enough stubs to warrant division by decade. Once created, I would be happy to help these task forces tag any relevant articles. Please help me form a consensus, as to whether or not there is a significant number of participants to organize these task forces. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The task forces have been created! Please join me in welcoming:
|Documentary-film-task-force=yes
(or "Documentary=yes") to the {{
WikiProject Film}} banner.|Silent-film-task-force=yes
(or "Silent=yes") to the {{
WikiProject Film}} banner.|Mexican-task-force=yes
(or "Mexican=yes") to the {{
WikiProject Film}} banner.Be sure to add yourself to the list of participants for the task forces that you're interested in, and please spread the word! Fortdj33 ( talk) 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I am adding the parameters to already existing templates to avoid problems with pages that the wikiproject community does not want them to be tagged and problems with false category tree. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Interested project members can comment at Talk:The Interview (2014 film)#Requested move 24 December 2014. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 08:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the A Christmas Story#Dating the story section for the film has begun here Talk:A Christmas Story#1940 decoder pin. Any and all input is welcome. MarnetteD| Talk 18:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've created a semi-article/semi-dab-page for Eastmancolor, as it seemed very unsatisfying that there wasn't a single place, let alone article, to find out about it, despite its importance.
In particular, I didn't like that Eastmancolor and Eastman color themselves (formerly) redirected to a section *within* the Technicolor article. That is, of course, a nice overview of Eastmancolor in itself- but it's within the context of Technicolor, and limits scope for expansion or links to other Eastmancolor-related material (since the Technicolor article should only be covering Eastmancolor as far as the latter is relevant to the main subject).
On the other hand, I haven't rushed into creating a proper article. I don't want to risk duplicating content elsewhere and/or reorganising or removing it from its existing context (e.g. within Technicolor).
There's a lot of information scattered across several articles, and I think this dab-esque page is still an improvement in that it provides a context for them to be found, but it could probably be better.
Ubcule ( talk) 19:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. The MOS page was recently moved from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Films by Baqeri. I moved it back to the current title, as I believe this requires more input. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Tobi (1978 film) was posted for deletion on December 10th, and the discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to evaluate and comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle, which has been open since December 14th. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor has been restructuring List of highest-grossing films in Japan by converting dollar earnings at Box Office Mojo (which were converted from Japanese yen at different conversion rates in different years) and converting them back to Japanese yen at 2014 rates, and thereby changing the amounts and order of the chart. The upshot is that by converting the dollar amounts back to Japanese yen using a different conversion rate to the original you get a completely fictious number. The editor isn't backing down so I would appreciate a couple of opinions at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Japan#Alterations_to_the_chart. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated
North Carolina Film Critics Association for deletion. Please comment on the nomination
here.
Sock
(tock talk)
17:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about adding a guideline about including recognitions only from notable (in the Wikipedia sense) awards organizations to the "Accolades" section of MOS:FILM. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll state upfront that this is a busy time of year so I know that you may not have the time to research this anymore than I do. An edit request has been made here Talk:Fantasia (1940 film)/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014. It sticks in my memory that this word was used by Walt in describing the sequence on TWWoD but I couldn't get google to turn up anything. Maybe some of you who are better at these kinds of searches then I am can find something and add it to the talk page and the article. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow film fans, just letting you all know that McFarland & Company has offered free e-book versions of its titles to experienced Wikipedians. The publisher has quite a few film studies titles ( Film, film noir, silent cinema). See Wikipedia:McFarland for instructions. Best, The Interior (Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:The Thing (1982 film)#eBook about whether a self-published fan analysis should be included in the external links. Note that it is not proposed as a reliable source but only as an external link. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the scope of the "See also" section for Boyhood (film) on the film's talk page. Given the items listed in that section I don't see what any film series or TV series featuring child characters would not also qualify, but that seems silly. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. 99.192.56.139 ( talk) 17:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the Gone Girl needs a page split. And a new page containing the list of accolades received by the film needs to exist. DtwipzB Talk 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Does WP:NCTV beat WP:NCF for a TV film? Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Other than myself, the only longtime WP:Film editor that I see in the most recent edit history of that article is Sock. I would think that more regular WP:Film editors would be actively editing that article. Right now, it's mostly edited by this IP; while the IP does some okay work at the article, he sometimes calls edits he disagrees with "vandalism." The IP, while familiar with some of Wikipedia's rules, does not appear familiar with guidelines such as WP:Said and so on. I'm not sure which registered editor the IP is, but I'm certain that the IP has a registered account. More eyes from this WikiProject would certainly be beneficial to that article. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and parts of the Critical response section are needlessly redundant. I don't want to cut anything if I'm simply going to be reverted by the IP. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I know that Erik was significantly editing the article; because of that fact (knowing that Erik was taking care of the article), and because of the constant debates I saw going on there, I'd decided that I didn't need to put the article on my WP:Watchlist. I also didn't want to have aspects of the film spoiled for me. I finished watching it for the first time earlier this hour, however. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
The usage of Epic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:epic poetry -- 70.51.46.146 ( talk) 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
An administrator suggested all references to IMDB should be removed from Wikipedia, due to their alleged lack of reliability--is that true? Moreover, editors have removed short films from a page I created, and it has not been added back. Is there consensus that short films should be censored on Wikipedia? Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A Clockwork Orange (film) has gone without a genre in its lead for some time. Seems to me it actually needs it more than most, and it is not really that controversial. I started a thread at Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film)#Genre - crime drama and science fiction. People here may want to weigh in, as this should be settled. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 23:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm helping an American and international film history class. I'm working on showing them how to edit, but she would also like "advice on locating early film history articles that need to be expanded, as well as areas that haven't been covered so the students can start doing research for the articles they will write."
Being the film people, do you have any ideas, suggestions, and/or know of a page that lists a bunch of open tasks? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Some additional opinions are requested at Talk:She_Wore_a_Yellow_Ribbon to discuss adding uncredited actors to the cast list or even to find WP:RS for some of those uncredited actors to include "future stars". Thanks. AbramTerger ( talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lucy (2014 film)#"Lucy" becomes the first highest-grossing opening for a female-driven action film. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I am getting into the habit of implementing the {{
Plainlist}} template in articles. Reviewing the template documentation, it seems like it is an improvement of accessibility on film articles. Is there a reason to use <br />
instead of this template? If not, do we want to standardize this practice, by updating the film infobox guidelines and perhaps finding a way to automatically update the current infoboxes?
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
For the film Contagion, there is a discussion about the appropriate length of the plot summary here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I just created Eye in the Sky (2015 film), which is verified to come out sometime in 2015. Bovineboy2008 removed the year from the infobox and excluded the category Category:2015 films. This is not the first time a scheduled release year has been removed like this; it is being removed because it is too vague of a projection compared to a mm/dd/yy projection. I do not think this is sound logic because projected specific release dates still change anyway. What do other editors think? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Any opinions on the idea to create a chronological order of all world films by release date with an article on each month of release? A 2014 in film-like list but for every release in a given month worldwide since the beginning of cinema like List of films released in September 2014 sort of thing. Rather than listing the studio though, a column for Country of release. Obviously some release dates are unknown but it would be for all notable films which have a documented release date. I began a list but baled out, realizing the scope of the task!! I just think it would be a good thing in addressing systematic bias as the main lists by year are heavily Anglo centric. It would just be a massive undertaking and I think priority should be going into developing certain films. I do think it would be a valuable group of lists in documenting the history of film though as when they were released many other releases worldwide wouldn't have been known in other countries so having something universal would be great I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to find reliable sources defining a production banner, which seems to be a small brand-name company usually formed by a film producer (e.g., Nolan and Syncopy). I can only find sources saying whether or not a company is a production banner and am wondering if anyone can find better sources. I'm not sure if it is different from an independent film production company either. In addition, would it be worth creating a Wikipedia article, or is it best kept as a Wiktionary term? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I don't edit here much anymore, but I took a whack at cleaning up The English Patient (film) article a couple of weeks ago, as it was shockingly full of original research, interpretation, and even whole paragraphs about biplanes. I didn't realize at the time that the main person invested in the article was Ring Cinema, a notorious edit-warrer who was going to fight me to the death to keep his "insights" in the article. I took out all such "insights," which included descriptions of scenes that do not exist in the film, and made the plot summary a typical matter-of-fact recitation of the main events, without lots of attributions of character motivation and certainly without the inclusion of things that never happen, e.g. this: "When Geoffrey discovers the affair, he lures Katherine aboard their plane and pilots it into the camp in a crash aimed at Almásy. The husband is killed instantly, she is seriously injured, but Almásy narrowly hit." [1] I maintain that, as there is no scene showing Geoffrey and Katherine getting into the plane, the idea that he lures her into it constitutes original research--I guess it's what Ring Cinema believes happened, but I'm not sure as he hasn't defended it, simply reverted me multiple times. Further, Almasy runs and the plane misses him, so he's not narrowly hit (and I re-watched the film to be sure). Yesterday I again corrected this, as you can see if you follow the link, and instead of reverting me this time, he changed the first sentence to this: [2] which is much less egregious but still describes something that is his own idea, i.e., that Geoffrey discovered the affair. In the film itself, Katherine says she thinks he must have known, but it is not a fact. I'm here asking for help because the problem, as far as I can tell, is the Ring Cinema believes that he "understands" and "comprehends" the film and I don't, and my position is that "understanding" and "comprehending" the film is not necessary and is usually detrimental to a film summary because it becomes all about interpretation, which is not what we're supposed to do here.
My understanding of writing plot summaries is that we are absolutely not supposed to be writing about what we think character motivations or feelings are, or what may have "really" happened off-screen, but instead sticking to a simple recitation of facts (well-written, one hopes). This is the article as it was when I decided to re-write it: [3], and this is it now: [4]. It is much, much better than it was, and most of my changes ended up being left in (even if re-written, which is okay--I don't need to be the "author"), but I am asking if someone will address the problem of editors' interpretations of a film as being beside the point. I wrote at length on the talk page about this, but I don't think Ring Cinema understands the issue. And maybe things have changed here at WP and now we want colorful essays instead of simple plot summaries, in which case, please tell me that and I'll stop insisting on my point.
I tried several times to eliminate the following sentence, too, which sounds to me like a press release: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds in World War II Italy through the story of a burn victim, a once-handsome explorer whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." It's a little better (it used to say "once-dashing"!). First of all, this is an entirely subjective description of the film that few people would even agree with. I don't know why the Patient's supposed handsomeness is relevant (and is it a fact? I'm sure there are people who don't think Ralph Fiennes is handsome, and there's no plot element related to the character's looks, so ???), and I have no idea what "sacrifice" this refers to. In the film I've seen, there is no act that I would describe as a "self-sacrifice," and I don't even know what to do with "spell his end." I took that sentence out, but he has refused to let the article stand without it. All his arguments boil down to: "I understand the film and you don't." I've heard many editors say that people who think they "understand" a film or book can be difficult to deal with because they are very attached to their ideas about those things. I think that is part of what is happening here.
After every edit, I left detailed explanations, and then discussed them on the talk page, often point-by-point. I don't think I substituted my interpretations for his, I think I left out ALL interpretation. Any feedback would be welcome, and help dealing with the Handsome Man Sacrifices Himself sentence would be especially great. Thank you.-- TEHodson 21:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender. Thank you. You're right, of course, and Ring Cinema is a notorious edit-warrer who has had multiple complaints and warnings from many users, all of which he completely ignores and could care less about (he usually demands an apology from those who have reported him, too). Not until he is outright blocked or banned will he, maybe, get it. I stopped editing here because it is so difficult to resolve problems, and I probably wouldn't have touched the article had I realized it was "owned" for all intents and purposes by someone like RC, but I had spent a few hours on it by the time I realized that and was willing to stand up for those changes because they weren't of the sort that are terribly debatable, but rather pretty damn straightforward. I had never run into someone who fights to keep in things like a scene that isn't in the movie before, and I just don't have the time or the stamina to deal with the whole process you outline, and I did ask for help but no one else looked at the article, so I just can't. If you checked the talk page, you can see I did take him at his word and ask for explanations, but if you checked the talk page, you also know that he didn't deign to give them, just kept up a snide, sarcastic tone as he repeated his assertion that he's right and I'm an idiot. I lost it at the end of that, having really tried--again--to work with him, but he just won't and I foresee a long, exhausting fight over just a couple of sentences. I did get most of my earlier changes left intact, though I'm not really sure how that happened, but I'm not up to doing more. I have never been accused of edit-warring in all my years here nor been reported for any violations, I worked well with lots of people, got lots of good stuff done, but I'm very busy now and really just can't. Editors who treat other editors like shit really shouldn't be allowed to work here, but they are, you have to go through an arduous process to prove your case, and those people don't care anyway--they just come back after they've been blocked and start all over again. And I think they like having a "bad reputation" because it's a form of validation and it makes them feel big and strong and reinforces their belief in themselves as the only ones who know what is going on. I can't deal with those sorts of headcases, so I have to walk away. -- TEHodson 23:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
My only concern, once again, is that you may run afoul of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Categories, which specifically says that categories for films by year are for films "that came out in" a given year, not produced in such a year. I think the logic is WP:V. While the NFB maintains a well organized database that lists films by year of production, most private producers do not, and so the decision was made, years ago, to categorize by year of release -- a much more easily verifiable attribute. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not actually proposing a change in categorization or in how films are titled by release date, only to recognize that the National Film Board which has somewhat of middling size collection of films, from shorts to feature length productions, and most if not, nearly all have no problem in being identified by the "official" date of release, includes some exceptions, two of which I have "bumped" into: The Defender (1988 film) and Bush Pilot: Reflections on a Canadian Myth. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If somebody goes on an article about a music album, there is a small infobox titled "Professional ratings". Seeing as films are rated in a similar fashion (star ratings, score out of 10, positive/negative reviews) I'm just curious if there is any reason why articles for films don't have a Ratings infobox. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 18:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, no worries guys. Cheers for the speedy response too. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand why articles on individual films do not normally include their ratings. The policy is clearly explained at WP:FILMRATING. But how, then, is one supposed to find the rating of a film? What other sources of this information are there? I know that boxofficemojo.com lists the MPAA ratings, but I would like to know the BBFC ratings for films going back decades. Thanks, -- Viennese Waltz 11:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I was thinking about cleaning up List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon and started a discussion on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon regarding options. If someone could weigh-in, that would be wonderful! Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 20:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon and cannot find a nice sources with lists of awards or a database for:
Can I use IMDb in this case? Or, is there another good source of award info?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Last question regarding List of awards and nominations received by Matt Damon: Do you generally include regional awards, like:
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A bunch of these seem to have sprung up. Not sure what to make of these unsourced list contributions. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Dude just submitted a ton of these, all unsourced. Who are these "exhibitors", exactly? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 07:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Editor input is welcome here Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Celebrity reactions in order to form a consensus regarding a possible addition of new information. MarnetteD| Talk 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Christopher Walken filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This Saturday the 11th October we have an editathon and backstage pass at the Cinema Museum in London some places still available Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) ( talk) 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be an upcoming film; does this appear to merit an article? My concern is it's an IP author, who tend to wander off and not come back, so if this is worthwhile it'd be great for someone to do a 10m cleanup and Approve it. Thanks! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of you might see this error message, "The time allocated for running scripts has expired," in the "References" section of film articles (not sure about other kinds of articles). I saw it this morning at Walking with Dinosaurs (film) when someone tried to add a random template to it. I removed the template, thinking that was the cause somehow, but then I saw someone complain at Talk:Rabbit-Proof Fence (film) about the same error appearing. I thought it had to do with the review aggregator templates being used in the article body, since their references had no error message (see this), but now I think just editing the article itself in some way will make the problem go away. It may be an issue with the general referencing code, which is beyond our reach. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Everyone, all Box Office Mojo links now redirect to http://www.imdb.com/chart?ref_=mojo. This means a lot of broken links, and I'm not sure how many will be resolved. The external link template will be the most impacted as useless for the time being. Any details about this change, we can discuss in this thread. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of splitting the entries in Category:Film awards by category section into two sub categories for easier searching as it seems they are two distinct groups there atm. One is more technical or craft with awards for acting, directing, editing, music, custom design, etc. The other is more genre based with awards for animation, adult industry, anime, LGBT, documentary, short film, etc. Currently I have no good name for either category and was hoping for some help from the taskforce. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the film infobox's talk page about automatically linking the language. You can find it here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 01:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
May I please get some experienced editors' eyes over at Iron Man (2008 film)? I honestly don't know how to best describe this apparent issue, so please just look at the recent edit history, this talk page discussion, this and this. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Link to related and now-archived ANI discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of page move ongoing; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Others and I are dealing with an editor who continues to act disruptively at the The Maze Runner (film) article, and input from other WP:Film editors would be helpful on these matters. See Talk:The Maze Runner (film)#overly positive review summary and Talk:The Maze Runner (film)#Changes to article. WP:Permalinks to those sections are here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Film articles that would be affected by this action are these:
If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Film's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I was summoned by LegoBot to an RFC, and, after poking around the article a bit, I found a linked film, Lord of the Universe. The grammar is a bit wonky, the infobox a bit barren, and there's a big old "credits" wikitable at the end. I figured, "OK, I'll just fix this up." Then I realized that it's a Featured article. Whoa. OK, so maybe I won't do any sweeping, bold edits. What do you guys think? Am I overreacting here when I think this should be delisted? I've contributed to a Featured article review or two, but usually in a minor capacity, and never as the person who initiates it. I could clean up this article to the point at which it would probably pass a particularly generous GAN, but there's a pretty big gulf between this article and Prometheus (2012 film). NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I can con any of you to weigh in on this, but I've started a conversation at the Indian cinema task force as it relates to the inclusion of statements such as "XYZ film achieved Blockbuster verdict" or "XYZ was a Super-hit". Here are some examples of the usage: [12] [13] [14] If anyone has a hankering, some more input would be appreciated, since these films do still fall within the scope of WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I took a look at some big movies, mostly ones that grossed over $500 Million at the World-Wide Box Office, and I noticed that everything was there, except for film Budgeting, and not Budget as in how much it took to make the film, I mean how much money does a Director, Actor, Studio and more gets paid, [ Budgeting Page] shows some examples, but for all films, they should be. We do need to find sources, but that only might be the biggest problem, but I think that we should include that there. -- Editor49 ( talk) 13:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposal is discussed; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. It's me again. Midnight Rider (film) was recently the subject of POV edits that neutered a ongoing controversy. Interested, I checked out the article and was astounded to find that it's a 5000-word memorial to a dead crew person. By comparison, Twilight Zone tragedy is 1080 words, and that's an entire article dedicated to the topic. My concerns are, I think, obvious: WP:UNDUE and WP:MEMORIAL. Besides the usual resistance to my more minimalist vision for Wikipedia articles, the article's talk page is understandably a bit skeptical of new editors who want to make sweeping changes. Comments would be quite welcome at Talk:Midnight Rider (film)#Memorial. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
If you read through the article, this is a very unique case. The film has been halted with multiple attempts to restart, creating a lof of very public controversy. It differs from Twighlight Zone in many ways. That was one criminal case and the film continued. And yes there is a separate article Twilight Zone tragedy. It was also in 1982, long before the internet and modern media. In this case there have been a huge number of lawsuits and multiple county and federal agencies investigating, all of which had interesting information realted to whether or not the production would continue, which is relevant to the film. All of this is very significant to the film production industry in general, which is why there is so much media coverage. Does it make sense to break the article off into a separate "Midnight Rider tragedy" article as The Twighlight Zone did, since the film was halted while shooting the first scene on the first day? Wiki allows for much of this to tie together and to give a general overview of what has happened for those who want to research further. It begs to question, should this resource be available to the public to learn more about this series of events related to Midnight Rider? It is not just the noteriety of the many famous people involved, it is a very significant topic to the entire film production community. DFinmitre ( talk) 23:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb You are giving a description of Undue that is not in the wiki definition. Undue weight is about major/minority opinions and not giving undue weight to minority opinions that are only held by a tiny group of people. The elements being discussed are heavily cited and quite mainstream opinion. DFinmitre ( talk) 02:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this an actual notable organization? It has no sources, no (real) update since 2004 and feels like another Chlotrudis Society to me. On top of that, the intro text is pretty much a copyvio from their website. I'm tempted to have it speedily deleted. Thoughts? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've started a peer review for the WP:GA quality article, R U Professional.
Comments to help further improve quality would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/R U Professional/archive1.
— Cirt ( talk) 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As a union member iof Local600 and someone who has worked in the film industry for several years I came across the Template:Film_crew this evening and made some minor edits. I also posted some lengthy notes on the template talk page with ways in which this can be significantly improved if anyone wants to work on it. For example there are a plethora of articles that have not even been created yet if you want to truly list all possible jobs. In the relevant talk page I also linked several quality references which can be used in this endeavor. Anyone interested in working with me on it? David Condrey log talk 08:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Fortdj33 ( talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The title of this Category:Academy Special Achievement Award winners is awkward and not accurate. The actual award is called the Special Achievement Award. It should be changed to Category:Special Achievement Academy Award winners to match the article name Special Achievement Academy Award. Thread started here. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this traffic report that talks about mobile page views now being included in overall page views. A previous report (seen here) revealed that the overall page views were being understated without the mobile views. You can now view WP:5000 with the mobile page views included (and the percentages are revealed). For film articles, it looks like mobile page views make up 40-60%, which is quite a lot to me. Just wanted to share! Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 00:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I have a question. I had another editor mention on my page that he was an experienced film editor, and as such I should listen to what he says is right, rather than what is stated on MOS:Film. In particular it had to do with the aggregate site, Rotten Tomatoes. At MOS:Film#Critical response, it says, "review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews." The only reference it makes to using quotes is NOT to use "user" quotes. There is something called a "Critics Consensus" quote. While the MOS doesn't clearly state NOT to use this quote, neither does it say that it is acceptable. The way it is written would seem to indicate that ONLY the statistics from the site should be used. Not sure the consensus quote should be used. In the particular example that was under discussion that quote did not seem to correlate to the score, so not sure where the quote comes from. Thanks. Onel5969 ( talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The UK poster (with credits) for this primarily British film, or some old teaser poster? Hard decision. /info/en/?search=Talk:The_Imitation_Game#Argument_over_which_teaser_poster_to_use. Film Fan 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently made a request to edit template:infobox film to include a label for "Sound Engineer" which would allow this position to be given credit where it was due in articles about black-and-white films in the early 20th century. This position seems to have been highly regarded by the film makers of those days, appearing in the opening credits above both Music and Lyrics, and Film Editor. My request was denied very quickly by BOVINEBOY on Template_talk:Infobox_film#Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2014, suggesting I get support first before making the request, so am here asking for support for my proposal. Jodosma (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor - real award, or an elaborate hoax? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently updated the categories for some of the articles in Category:Upcoming films, and diffused them in to the sub-category of Category:Upcoming Indian films. However, User:Bovineboy2008 has been adding "Upcoming films" back to these articles, because he believes it to be a non-diffusing category. I believe that it is redundant for those articles to be in both the parent category and the diffused sub-category, since "Upcoming films" does not contain {{ Allincluded}} like Category:Indian films does. Can we get some additional input, so that we can come to a consensus on this issue? Fortdj33 ( talk) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear film experts: I was working on a draft article, Draft:Gerard Lough, but I didn't notice that in the meantime someone else had created a mainspace article Gerard Lough. Since most of what I did was to add references, I could just copy them over to there, but I find the exact same text at http://www.ovguide.com/gerard-lough-9202a8c04000641f8000000028c19198 . I am not familiar with this website. I don't want to add supporting material to a copyright violation, and also the text in the mainspace article is rather promotional. Is Ovguide one of those sites where filmmakers add their own material, and, if so, is there a way to find out whether the text predates its appearance in Wikipedia? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
At the reliable sources noticeboard, there's a discussion as to whether all reviewers listed at Rotten Tomatoes are automatically reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Being involved, I do not wish to do an unnecessary block, so I seek other eyes under WP:THIRD. There is an editor who continues to wish a plot section removed from a film article because it is unreferenced. I have repeatedly pointed him to MOS:FILM and WP:FILMPLOT, but he still wants it removed, and appears to wish me state that I understand the Kannada language and to state that I personally saw this Kannada film before I returned the plot section first placed there by the article's author. Ongoing discussion is HERE. While he seems unduly fixated on this one film, if he's correct we'll have to remove unreferenced plot sections from all film articles. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has spotted this, but the template works without any parameters whatsoever. Spotted it with this edit on Pride. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"? that you may be interested in. 11:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a couple of Interstellar discussions underway:
Editors are invited to weigh in at either discussion. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Opinion are needed on the following matter: Talk:Set It Off#Requested move. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt ( talk) 21:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Should filmographies of lesser known actors include uncredited roles? This has come up in Charles C. Wilson (actor). Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Should Fishing Without Nets (2012 film) and Fishing Without Nets (2014 film) be merged, or kept separate? They are both by the same director, the difference is that the 2012 film is a short, while the 2014 film is a feature film. -- benlisquare T• C• E 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Woody Allen filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit by Rusted AutoParts on the film and restored the redirect. However, this might be a case where WP:NFF may not apply due to sourcing. Here is the article before I reverted. Could other people chime in and say if the article should be restored or redirect kept in place. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion to move the "Audience response" section out from under the "Critical response" section at MOS:FILM. See the discussion here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone. There's a relevant discussion at Talk:Blowup#Requested_move_2014 if any of you want to chime in. I just wrote a comment about how I (and evidently the Wikiproject) believe the film to be one of the core (most vital and significant) film articles for an encyclopedia, but I think a lot of you are probably more knowledgable on the subject than I am so if you get a chance please feel free to tell me that I am overstating my point. Thanks!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing that the film The Book of Life is a Mexican film. I am based this on the following premises: 1. The director is Mexican 2. The main writer is Mexican 3. The main producer is Mexican 4. The film was released in several languages, including English and Spanish, so it is not predominately an English film.
The Dallas company Reel FX co-produced the film, but I do not consider this as enough reason to call it a USA Movie. 20th Century Fox distributed the film, but I do not see how the distribution company controls the nationality of a film.
Several actors are either Mexican or American, but I do not consider this a factor for nationality.
The book of life website reads : "From producer Guillermo del Toro and director Jorge Gutierrez comes an animated comedy with a unique visual style. THE BOOK OF LIFE is the journey of Manolo, a young man who is torn between fulfilling the expectations of his family and following his heart." [1] [2]
Here are some discussions about how to determine the nationality of a film. I want to stress the point that the main producer is Del Toro, from Guadalajara, no Reel F/X, who co-produced the film: http://www.filmspotting.net/forum/index.php?topic=4395.0 https://mubi.com/topics/determining-the-nationality-of-a-film-for-list-making-purposes-help-wanted
What do you think? M cyclops ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 03:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Please find a discussion regarding what the title of the new Star Wars film actually is at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Is the episode number in the film's title? and how it should be mentioned in the lead and infobox. I personally feel this is easy to discern, based on sources available, and hope this does not turn in to Star Trek Into Darkness 2.0. Thank you in advance. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, etc. all present Nymphomaniac as two films rather than one. Shouldn't Wikipedia follow suit? Can someone reading this please kindly construct two articles out of the existing one? Thanks! 85.250.155.74 ( talk) 13:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There is conversation whether the content on the film The Town That Dreaded Sundown requires sources or not for the The_Town_That_Dreaded_Sundown#In_popular_culture section. If anyone can contribute, it would be useful. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 03:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
At America: Imagine the World Without Her, there is a discussion underway about whether or not to include demographic breakdown. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The CinemaScore details (grade, demographic breakdown) as printed by TheWrap is now quoted at length in the discussion. Editors are invited to comment about including or excluding part of the details. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
A separate discussion is also underway about the film's critical reception: the number of reviews to use in the section, and whether or not one particular review should be used. See that discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Could I have some help in fleshing out Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me? I haven't seen the film and don't know much about film writing overall, so I'd appreciate if someone with better chops could flesh it out more. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is up to performing a GA review, Cult film needs a reviewer knowledgeable about film-related topics. Normally, I wouldn't bother the WikiProject with requests like this, but it's been almost three months since I listed it. The article is admittedly a bit long and complex, but it shouldn't take too much effort. I'm familiar with the Good Article Criteria and have attempted to write it accordingly. There shouldn't really be any major hurdles. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a situation with one editor who is repeatedly adding a parenthetical to the lead calling this mini-series a film, without discussion. Thread started at Talk:Olive Kitteridge (TV miniseries)#Lead. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be a article titled "HIGHEST GROSSING HORROR FILMS WORLDWIDE", I can do it, but it would be put in this category ?(WIKI PROJECT: FILM), ill get the correct sources, and if you want I can do it. Editor49 ( talk) 13:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
{{cite news | last = | first = | date = | title = | url = | work = | accessdate = }}
at the top of your sandbox page so you can copy it and paste it where you want to use it and fill it out. Let us know if you have any questions! :)
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
14:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)An editor just posted this question Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What if there.27s no movie poster.3F at the Teahouse. I thought some of you may be able to provide an answer if you have the time. Thanks ahead of time for any help you can provide. MarnetteD| Talk 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I just want to make absolutely certain that the year in the article title refers to the release date before I rename The Captain from Köpenick (1941 film). According to the article, it was finished in 1941, and there's a release date in the infobox of November of that year (what's up with that?), but it later goes on to say it wasn't actually shown until 1945. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saptaswa Basu for deletion discussion related to a film director.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hiya, I'm having trouble with an IP who keeps adding odd Cast of Characters lists to VeggieTales articles, for example The Star of Christmas, where we find such content as "Mr. Nezzer as Ebenezer Nezzer", "Unnmaned England Girl as Herself", "England Woman with Tan Colored Dress as Herself". Now currently the IP adding to this list appears to be 50.77.15.126, but I feel like I've seen this sort of thing frequently at VeggieTales articles. I find it problematic because it looks like a lot of OR, plus it's written from an in-universe perspective, as Larry the Cucumber, for instance, isn't a real human being. I've been treating it as vandalism, but I thought I'd get some more feedback in case I'm nuts. At the article in question it appears the Cast of Characters content was first added by user Poolio in this edit, although they seem to write coherently, whereas the IPs typically don't write, or use talk pages. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_17#Category:Children.27s_films there's a discussion going on debating whether it should be "Children's films", "Family films" or something else. Feel free to join the discussion. JDDJS ( talk) 03:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story#Removed plot per WP:BLP. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The article for The Fifth Element, which is under the scope of this project, has been nominated for featured status for some time now. The only thing currently standing in the way of it being passed is that another user has requested it receive a reference check from someone who has experience with film referencing, so as to check whether the sources are reliable. If someone could give the article a reference check and then comment at the FAC nomination I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 01:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I've created an article about the stand-up comedy film, Bill Cosby 77.
Feel free to help out with expansion from secondary sources, or engage in collaboration at Talk:Bill Cosby 77.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 04:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. There's a discussion going on at Attack on Titan regarding the film article's possible creation. The discussion can be found at Talk:Attack on Titan#Create film article?. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the first film article I have created completely from scratch, so I wanted to ask: I have a small low-res copy of the film's poster from IMDb. Can I upload this under Fair Use? If so is there anything I need to know first about how to do that as I take it through the Upload Wizard? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Badly needs cleanup, it's an absolute shambles. Hollywood Film Enterprises which made films like Tarzan of the Apes (1918 film) should probably have its own article; I just redirected it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can anyone reading this please kindly upload the following poster images of Morning Patrol, The Loser Takes It All, Sweet Gang, and Singapore Sling as well as this photo from the Italian Wikipedia when having the time into their respective entries? Thanks! 85.250.155.74 ( talk) 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This is 85.250.155.74 here once again. People reading this with some time on their hands might be interested in the article requests I recently made regarding the four remaining Nikolaidis features. 109.186.254.192 ( talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) My current IP is: 85.250.146.10 ( talk) 17:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
I've created a new article on the 1970 film The Man from O.R.G.Y.
Please help expand with additional secondary sources, or feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Started new article on 1995 film Galaxis, help with expansion from secondary sources would be appreciated, or feel free to suggest some on the article's talk page.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nighthawks (film) needs a patient editor to engage in a bit of cleanup. It's quickly turning into a gigantic, embedded fansite. Normally, I'd do it myself, but... ugh. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone will more patience than me needs to look at Guerrilla filmmaking. There's been a massive expansion to the article recently. I don't want to be overly critical of other editors' work, but... I think it needs a bit of cleanup. From the use of guillemets, I suspect the author is a native Francophone. The same editor has been adding links to that article from the leads of many other film articles. These additions are unsourced, and I don't really think it's appropriate to label films as such without a citation. Most of them aren't too controversial ( Pi, El Mariachi, etc), but I'm still not entirely sure that these films should be labeled as guerrilla films in the opening sentence as if it is the defining characteristic. I dunno. I left a message at User talk:Tertulius#Guerrilla filmmaking asking for consensus before further changes are made to more articles, so hopefully we'll see a discussion here soon. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Not resolved. Tertulius ( talk · contribs) went right back to same disruption right after block expired. Adding unsourced info to BLP page and adding poorly sourced info, IMDB links, etc. Need admin to look into this behavior pattern, again. — Cirt ( talk) 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see this page. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to raise a related topic, which User:Fayenatic london has suggested I take here. Last month, User:Piotrus created by-year categories for Category:2010s documentary films. User:Fortdj33 nominated them for speedy deletion as empty categories, but they have sat the undeleted because they have not always been entirely empty. In fact, I had added two articles to this category tree today, until Fayenatic removed them. So I my question is: should we populate and retain these categories? If you look at Category:2013 films as an example, we do have a wealth of sibling categories for such subgroups as 2013 animated films, 2013 computer-animated films, 2013 American animated films, 2013 anime films, 2013 drama films, 2013 horror films, 2013 short films -- and more. Is this WP:OC? If not, I can't think of a good reason not to establish the doc category as well. your thoughts? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page of MOS:FILM, there is an ongoing discussion about including audience response stats (e.g., audience score from Rotten Tomatoes) in film articles. The discussion, which started on 11/23/14, can be found here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
For info, this is now used on 50,000 articles, with the latest addition being placed on The Nevada Buckaroo. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, the Plot section of this article needs serious reviewing, it's full of mistakes and misunderstandings. -- Pagony ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's diffuse/depopulate Category:Film series. Most of the films listed in there are already members of child categories, such as Category:Science fiction films by series. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered there have been some page moves that didn't attract any attention from the Film project here, or much of anywhere else. There have been discussions here which concluded that the term filmmaker should be avoided in article titles. The purpose of disambiguation in a WP page title is to differentiate, not give a complete or specific description of the role a person does. That should be done in the article. This is not always the perfect solution to DAB issues, but it seems to be what consensus has arrived at. Walter Hill (director) was moved to Walter Hill (filmmaker), then eventually back again. This can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 8#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?. More recently John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) was moved to John Waters (director born 1893), as discussed at length at Talk:John Waters (director born 1893).
I started a new thread at Talk:Andrew Adams (filmmaker)#Page move - Filmmaker as disambiguation, under the closed (very brief) discussion involving four page moves of this type. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Just seen these categories (and sub-cats):
Thoughts? The sub-cat Category:2014 in British cinema seems to have a mis-match of award ceremonies, lists and films. What's the inclusion criteria? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Marianne Edwards is a less-known child actress of the 1930s and according to some sources of lesser quality, including IMDb, she has died in November 2013. So shall we add the information with a remark of the uncertainy or shall we leave it out completely? -- Clibenfoart ( talk) 13:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I posted a comment about film editors and civility last year, and I believe it should be reiterated. My original comment can be seen here. Even if certain situations are frustrating, it is important to have a respectful and considerate attitude. Everyone has a part in making Wikipedia a hospitable environment for editing. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed that Yesgoanimate ( talk · contribs) added production company categories to a bunch of film articles today. Some seem legitimate, some do not, at first glance, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Can someone take a look and determine whether these are valid or not? -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 15:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone besides me is watching the featured article B movie. Someone has made a few changes to the article and started a talk page discussion about a possible merger. Mostly, I'd like someone else to look at the edits and see what they think. I'm skeptical of any undiscussed changes to a featured article, but I'm trying to back off on my habit of reverting every change to that article; I don't want to get a bad reputation. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) edit: Come to think of it, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, as I've made plenty of undiscussed changes to featured articles. Maybe just forget I mentioned anything about the changes, as I'm probably just being paranoid. On a second glance, they look fine. I'm too used to people vandalizing the article. The merger discussion still needs input, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion here and I'd like the community input. Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Tchaliburton has nominated a ton of Oscar nominated individuals for deletion. These are people who were nominated in the minor categories (Visual Effects, Sound, etc). The full list is everything south of here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an article split discussion at Talk:The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel#Article_split, to discuss whether the "accolades" section should be spun out into its own article. The article isn't that important on its own terms but it could set a precedent for carving up small film articles. I also disagree with how the split has been carried out too, which has been pushed through without discussion. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
176.250.192.215 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just went through a whole lot of film articles adding them to categories which seems to be at best unsourced, at worst completely incorrect. I don't have time at the moment to go through their contributions, but I've blocked them for 24 hours after several editors asked them to stop. If anyone can help go through their contributions and revert as needed, I would appreciate it. -- Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the "Controversy" section at Slither (2006 film), there is a discussion on the article's talk page. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A while ago, I pruned a cluttered list of film recommendations from The Man from Earth. A few days ago, I returned and saw the list had regrown. I again pruned it down, but this time I got reverted. I started a talk page discussion if anyone wants to chime in. As far as I'm aware, we generally don't give out film recommendations, but I can't really point to any specific guideline that says not to. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the inclusion of runtimes in film infoboxes. The discussion can be found
here.
Sock
(tock talk)
13:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I know there is section regarding this topic at The Interview (2014 film) but I am surprised that there isn't a stand-alone article for it. There is tons of coverage, which should easily meet WP:GNG and its scope seems to have out grown its relevancy to this particular film; how it has affected Sony Pictures, its staff, and the larger journalistic debate of releasing such information for starters. Besides the coverage in the film article also seems to be outweighing the rest of the content. I guess I am calling for WP:BOLD editor, who has more time than me to get things going.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 21:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I aim to please. As far as I can tell, the title suggested meets all the necessary points. It specifies what happened and when. It was 2014, and Sony's email got hacked. I know all of that before I click, so I think this covers it very nicely. Any alternate suggestions?
Sock
(tock talk)
21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Overkill or underpopulated? Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Any point to these images in the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear all,
There are concerns regarding the box-office section of Guardians of the Galaxy. The main points are that the section has a historical rather than retrospective approach. In some cases, only the estimates are mentioned instead of the actual figures. Also, there are mentions of countries in which the film's gross is not notable in any way. The article is written with a considerable degree of recentism, since it is mentioning aspect of the bix-office run highlighted in the media, although these aspects are, in retrospect and in comparison to other aspects of its run, not notable at all.
Please contribute to the discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)#Box_office:_changes_needed
Thank you. Spinc5 ( talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please explain all the cats at Talk:I Have Tourette's but Tourette's Doesn't Have Me? There are no missing references or citations? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FILM, this is a general inquiry as to who is interested in helping to create and maintain task forces, for a few areas that are not currently covered by the {{ WikiProject Film}} banner. Specifically, in classifying film articles I have noticed a need for project parameters that would cover silent films (General), documentary films (Genre), and Mexican films (National). All three categories have a large number of articles, which in most cases are not covered by any other task forces, and all three also have enough stubs to warrant division by decade. Once created, I would be happy to help these task forces tag any relevant articles. Please help me form a consensus, as to whether or not there is a significant number of participants to organize these task forces. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The task forces have been created! Please join me in welcoming:
|Documentary-film-task-force=yes
(or "Documentary=yes") to the {{
WikiProject Film}} banner.|Silent-film-task-force=yes
(or "Silent=yes") to the {{
WikiProject Film}} banner.|Mexican-task-force=yes
(or "Mexican=yes") to the {{
WikiProject Film}} banner.Be sure to add yourself to the list of participants for the task forces that you're interested in, and please spread the word! Fortdj33 ( talk) 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I am adding the parameters to already existing templates to avoid problems with pages that the wikiproject community does not want them to be tagged and problems with false category tree. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Interested project members can comment at Talk:The Interview (2014 film)#Requested move 24 December 2014. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 08:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the A Christmas Story#Dating the story section for the film has begun here Talk:A Christmas Story#1940 decoder pin. Any and all input is welcome. MarnetteD| Talk 18:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've created a semi-article/semi-dab-page for Eastmancolor, as it seemed very unsatisfying that there wasn't a single place, let alone article, to find out about it, despite its importance.
In particular, I didn't like that Eastmancolor and Eastman color themselves (formerly) redirected to a section *within* the Technicolor article. That is, of course, a nice overview of Eastmancolor in itself- but it's within the context of Technicolor, and limits scope for expansion or links to other Eastmancolor-related material (since the Technicolor article should only be covering Eastmancolor as far as the latter is relevant to the main subject).
On the other hand, I haven't rushed into creating a proper article. I don't want to risk duplicating content elsewhere and/or reorganising or removing it from its existing context (e.g. within Technicolor).
There's a lot of information scattered across several articles, and I think this dab-esque page is still an improvement in that it provides a context for them to be found, but it could probably be better.
Ubcule ( talk) 19:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. The MOS page was recently moved from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Films by Baqeri. I moved it back to the current title, as I believe this requires more input. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Tobi (1978 film) was posted for deletion on December 10th, and the discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to evaluate and comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle, which has been open since December 14th. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor has been restructuring List of highest-grossing films in Japan by converting dollar earnings at Box Office Mojo (which were converted from Japanese yen at different conversion rates in different years) and converting them back to Japanese yen at 2014 rates, and thereby changing the amounts and order of the chart. The upshot is that by converting the dollar amounts back to Japanese yen using a different conversion rate to the original you get a completely fictious number. The editor isn't backing down so I would appreciate a couple of opinions at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Japan#Alterations_to_the_chart. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated
North Carolina Film Critics Association for deletion. Please comment on the nomination
here.
Sock
(tock talk)
17:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about adding a guideline about including recognitions only from notable (in the Wikipedia sense) awards organizations to the "Accolades" section of MOS:FILM. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll state upfront that this is a busy time of year so I know that you may not have the time to research this anymore than I do. An edit request has been made here Talk:Fantasia (1940 film)/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014. It sticks in my memory that this word was used by Walt in describing the sequence on TWWoD but I couldn't get google to turn up anything. Maybe some of you who are better at these kinds of searches then I am can find something and add it to the talk page and the article. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow film fans, just letting you all know that McFarland & Company has offered free e-book versions of its titles to experienced Wikipedians. The publisher has quite a few film studies titles ( Film, film noir, silent cinema). See Wikipedia:McFarland for instructions. Best, The Interior (Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:The Thing (1982 film)#eBook about whether a self-published fan analysis should be included in the external links. Note that it is not proposed as a reliable source but only as an external link. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the scope of the "See also" section for Boyhood (film) on the film's talk page. Given the items listed in that section I don't see what any film series or TV series featuring child characters would not also qualify, but that seems silly. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. 99.192.56.139 ( talk) 17:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the Gone Girl needs a page split. And a new page containing the list of accolades received by the film needs to exist. DtwipzB Talk 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Does WP:NCTV beat WP:NCF for a TV film? Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Other than myself, the only longtime WP:Film editor that I see in the most recent edit history of that article is Sock. I would think that more regular WP:Film editors would be actively editing that article. Right now, it's mostly edited by this IP; while the IP does some okay work at the article, he sometimes calls edits he disagrees with "vandalism." The IP, while familiar with some of Wikipedia's rules, does not appear familiar with guidelines such as WP:Said and so on. I'm not sure which registered editor the IP is, but I'm certain that the IP has a registered account. More eyes from this WikiProject would certainly be beneficial to that article. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and parts of the Critical response section are needlessly redundant. I don't want to cut anything if I'm simply going to be reverted by the IP. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I know that Erik was significantly editing the article; because of that fact (knowing that Erik was taking care of the article), and because of the constant debates I saw going on there, I'd decided that I didn't need to put the article on my WP:Watchlist. I also didn't want to have aspects of the film spoiled for me. I finished watching it for the first time earlier this hour, however. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)