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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
I'm having some trouble at American Mary. Metal121 ( talk · contribs) insists on including an extensive list of distributors and release dates in the infobox in violation of WP:FILMDIST and WP:FILMRELEASE. Also, we seem to be at an impasse with regard to the producers. Variety said that Evan Tylor and John Curtis are the producers, but he wants to include executive producers, which is also against the template docs. He wants further input on the matter, so I'll bring it here. I think we should follow the template docs. Is there still consensus for following the instructions there? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Could people please see my comments here and share their views. I'm concerned about how the article merges together Best Film, Best Foreign Film, and Best British Film when all three categories have been separate for some time. I'm proposing splitting it. -- Loeba (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is yet another important discussion regarding the critical reception of Batman & Robin (film). The discussion can be found at Talk:Batman & Robin (film)#critical reaction. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this kind of graphic acceptable under fair use? still, source. ? In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen this crop up on a few articles. Worth mentioning? I don't think it is. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this being referenced at Good Kill and removed it as poorly-inserted content per above. I used Special:Linksearch to find other instances and removed them everywhere else except for Dallas Buyers Club, for which it was actually referenced in context. If this reference is spammed again, this link can be used to track them down: Linksearch. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, all. There is an ongoing debate on the Darth Vader article at Talk:Darth Vader#Edit war. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
...at Talk:G. W. Pabst#Removal of professional name. Not a formal RfC, but other input would be good. BMK ( talk) 23:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In the section Sequels, shows and spin-offs there is a paragraph dedicated to a YouTube video. And said video is just a popular video online, nothing more, so I don't think it belongs in the article.
However, after finding out it has what looks to me like a reliable source, I decided to leave it there. So it's untouched. But I'm not sure if the source is reliable or not, or if it justifies this being here, so can someone help me out?
Just to make it easier for you, here is the exact quote:
In January 2013, a fan-made live-action version of the film was posted on YouTube which has gone on to have 14,751,219 views before being taken down by Disney for copyright of the audio.
My request is could someone who has more knowledge on what makes a reliable source analyze the sources and tell me if it belongs in the article or not? Thank you. Blaze The Movie Fan ( talk) 23:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_58#MOS:LARGENUM_issues where some editors felt the long-standing format violated MOS:LARGENUM. There was general agreement and a couple of solutions were put forward. However several editors (including myself) have misgivings about the eventual solution adopted so since this issue affects a wide range of film articles it would be handy to get project input at Talk:2015_in_film#Disagrreement. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, |
It seems that in quite a few film articles, the weblinks to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others have been removed if they had already been used for a footnote - example edit. Has there been consensus about this? I honestly think this is nonsense; rather remove the footnote and let the source be easy to find as it had been. -- KnightMove ( talk) 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway#Which poster for infobox? BMK ( talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi movie fans! I created a tool that automatically generates the list of Academy Award-winning films using the data from Wikidata. That's a big advantage compared to the current article, which has to be maintained manually. The only problem is that Wikidata lacks Academy Award data. This means that the number of Academy Award-winning films generated by my tool is much lower than the actual number. The same is true for the number of awards and nominations of the listed movies. The reason is Wikidata doesn't have data about many awards and nominations. Now I'm asking you to help make Wikidata more accurate concerning Academy Awards and nominations.
See here for the current list in German. I'm also planning to create an English version (if you're willing to help ;-p). The nice thing is we can all work together on this project because Wikidata is international. -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 00:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Looking for some guidance as I'm new to editing in general and haven't edited any articles about a film before, so it's hard for me to gauge what sources meet WP:Reliable. Seems like every website about movies that comes up in a google search allows user-generated content. I'm going to be vague about what articles I'm talking about b/c I don't want to make a wikipedia etiquette faux pas. The other day I came across a huge article dedicated to a movie that I'm 99% positive never actually existed. Since 2011, the same 4 usernames have been contributing exclusively to this article and several other equally suspicious articles that are all about movies, TV shows and books that were supposedly written by the same person. This one movie claims a HUGE cast made up of some big-name celebs and gospel singers (if you know gospel singers, I assume, based on the verifiable and reliable references in their own wikipedia articles), plus a few no-name cast members that are clearly the writer's friends and family. The same 4 sockpuppets have gone to each celebrity's article and added this movie to their filmography citing the movie's "official" homepage, IMDb and YouTube. When people have challenged these edits on their favorite celebrity's' article, 1 or 2 of these users will reply quickly with links to more sources, always websites with user-generated content. Almost every single one of the film credits has stuck. If it's not real, I feel bad for this one gospel singer that had a fan/family member that tried to remove this film credit from his article, but the the other person gave up after one these accounts shared a link to a YouTube video that's supposedly the first 10 minutes of the film. I don't want to falsely accuse someone of inventing a an elaborate online presence for books and movies that never existed, so can anyone point me to some online resources that are without a doubt WP:RELIABLE for lists of movies by actor or by production company? Thanks in advance! Permstrump ( talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Edited to be more neutral. Permstrump ( talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This is amazing. Permstrump appears to have stumbled upon an astonishing network of articles devoted to the deification of one Warren Chaney, all created and maintained by a ... surprising, let's say ... number of editors with a shared interest in Mr Chaney, early television and film, and with occasional dabblings in neural science (a subject Mr Chaney also happens to have written about). Now, I've spent the last couple of hours down this rabbit hole, and it seems to me that most of Chaney's projects do actually exist in some form or another, including the film to which Permastrump refers: America: A Call to Greatness. That actually is Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Peter Graves et al in the Youtube clip, and they are in something called America: A Call to Greatness. However, it's not entirely clear what that something is. It comes across like a short film that plays at the beginning of a museum tour than something that lasts a couple of hours (indeed, that clip ends with a credits roll after about ten minutes). There's no hard evidence that this is what it purports to be, and I would say there is not one reliable source that can verify its existence as a bona fide film. Everything goes back to user-generated or self-published content, and to obvious socks of someone with a desire to see Chaney lauded as a lost great of American cinema. Seriously, this goes everywhere; there are IMDB accounts dedicated solely to rating projects this guy's been involved in, accounts here there and everywhere dedicated to writing about the same. Even our article on Buzz Aldrin mentions the guy. I don't even know where to begin unravelling this stuff. Picking one of his other projects at random: Behind the Mask (1992), which is a cheapo six part serial experiment, now inexplicably lauded in our article: "Warren Chaney won the Best Director and Best Screenplay CineCon ’92 Award and a Best Screenplay American Cinema Award ... Deborah Winters was nominated for Best Actress and Luis Lemas as Best Supporting Actor." That seems unlikely, as CineCon is a classic film festival that doesn't even play films as recent as that ( full list). Similarly, there's no evidence to suggest the film "received the Silver Award in the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival" and "a Bronze Medal Award in the New York Film Festival", and I've looked. This is a pattern with every project and person ever associated with Chaney: some cheapo, marginal production blown up way beyond its significance with half truths and outright lies by a succession of determined editors over many, many years. What to do about it will likely be debated for a good long while. Steve T • C 23:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: A Call to Greatness. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well this is a rabbit hole. Copying some of what I wrote at the above AfD as it seems more appropriate here: Just for fun I started looking up some other things in Chaney's "Superb Speakers" profile. The first thing I checked: Using Neuroplasticity to Achieve Cognitive Change, Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Journal of Applied Cognitive-Behavioral Science, Volume 5, 1st Quarter, 2009, pp. 132-145. Google doesn't know anything about the title or the journal. Second thing checked: The Right Stuff - What is It? Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Your New Mind, (On Line Journal), 1st Quarter, 2008. "Your New Mind" took some searching, but I found it! Behold a .blogspot blog with two posts, one of which is Chaney's -- basically an ad for Mind Dynamics’ Workshops. Before coming across this discussion I also started to check out some Chaney-related articles and discovered what others did -- a preponderance of sources which either don't seem to exist, are based on user-generated content, or which have a direct (albeit often hidden) connection to Chaney himself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This sure seems like it might grow into an unwieldy affair, spread out over so many pages and with so much potential evidence. I've tried to gather all the relevant links/pages here: User:Rhododendrites/Chaney. I'd welcome anyone else to edit as they see fit and wouldn't be opposed to moving it out of userspace if someone has a better idea of where it could go. Seems useful to have a place to tie things together and a central point of talk (presumably, User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney or wherever the page ends up). Do what you will -- it's useful for me, at least, to wrap my head around this nonsense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
To update everyone, three accounts have been indefinitely banned based on the sockpuppetry investigation. Not sure if there are any articles by these accounts that have not yet gone to AfD, but they could instead be speedied with {{ db-banned}}. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Should magic lanterns be considered a sub-topic of film, and part of this project? It seems to be a significant precursor to modern film. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@ SNUGGUMS: used Twinkle to remove wikilinks to the film Cabin in the Sky, [1], saying it was deleted, but the correct article name is Cabin in the Sky (film), so these links need to be restored and corrected. Would someone who uses a automated tool please do this? BMK ( talk) 04:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an MfD nomination in progress for this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Telugu cinema task force. 103.6.159.75 ( talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Queen of Ireland (film) to be moved to The Queen of Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film)#Requested move 14 December 2015. -- Scolaire ( talk) 12:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
A number of articles about films split box-office figures between "North America" and "outside North America". The practice seems to stem from the fact that the film industry amalgamates US and Canadian ticket sales. Boxofficemojo for instance describes these as "domestic". However, calling the US and Canada together "North America" is an astonishing howler. Mexico, which is also in North America, has a population about three-and-a-half times that of Canada, so we're not talking about a minor difference in terms of ticket sales, here, but of completely skewed figures. I have corrected this on a few articles whenever I have spotted it but @ Adamstom.97: has reverted me on Iron Man 2 with the claim that "it is accepted across Wikipedia" so I thought I would ask here. To me this is a clear case of an error spreading memetically, and though it might be the case that Wikpedia editors understand that North America is short-hand in this context for US+CA, I don't think it is reasonable to expect a reader to know that. Has this been discussed before? Is there such a policy? Mezigue ( talk) 10:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 17:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it's awards season. I don't usually get too involved in awards drama, but it looks like we're getting a lot of updates to a lot of pages, and these are going to need to be sourced. Also, it looks like a few new pages are being created, such as 2015 Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards. I can't help but notice that neither Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards nor Boston Online Film Critics Association exist at the time of my writing this message. So, get ready for a deluge of non-notable awards and awards pages, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a mess developing over at Brooklyn (film) and I can't get to it right now, if anyone wants to clean it up. Lapadite ( talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest editors watch List of accolades received by Carol (film) for indiscriminate entries. There have been some non-notable minor awards cited to unreliable sources since before the list was split. On that note, I figure AwardsDaily is a reliable source for this context, as one of its editors is Sasha Stone, who's written for various industry magazines. Lapadite ( talk) 22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an important RfC at WT:ANIME in regards to production companies and anime film articles. The RFC can be found at here. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War#Category:2016_films for a discussion on using year categories for upcoming films. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Pedro Costa's article notes that he was born on 3 March 1959. Several of the foreign-language Wikipedias, as well as many internet websites, also give the dates 30 December 1958 and 3 January 1959. Thoughts? I have not been able to adjudicate independently which date is the correct one. Thanks. 109.67.195.14 ( talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to have additional members of this project weigh in on a discussion at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding including it being known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens in the lead. (Note this is not a discussion regarding moving the article.) You can find the discussion here, and for those of you sensative to spoilers regarding the film, this section does not have any and you should be able to avoid any on the talk page if you click that link directly and stay at the top of the talk page. (There are a few minor ones at the very bottom currently). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The article on the short film NHAMO has been nominated for deletion. As it has passed through two relisting cycles without any comment, members of the project may wish to take a look and opine on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Zoolander No. 2, an editor tried to move it to Zoolander 2. However, this film's billing block appears to show that the official title is Zoolander No. 2. Can we make this assumption? This says the billing block is "the product of detailed legal agreements and intense contract negotiation", so it seems correct to call it Zoolander No. 2 instead of Zoolander 2, though the official website uses the latter. There is a discussion on the talk page here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikiclaus greetings | ||
|
I made a topic about turning the Millennium TV miniseries into a film series article instead. You can find more about the situation here. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Angelina Jolie#How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I've lately been trying to help improve Wikipedia by trying to cut down on some of the clutter in the production section articles. I find that many such production sections consist mostly of "On (Insert Date here) X joined the cast. On (Insert Date Here) X Joined the cast, and so on and so on some times for paragraphs at a time, Lately, within the past few months or so I've been just deleting these section because the information provided is trivial at best, and the cluttered look, I believe hurts the project more than helps it. Lately I've been running into a few people who think that this is the wrong approach because they say the information of when cast members joined is valuable information that should be kept regardless of the clutter. I'm starting to think that. I may be in the wrong, because I just want to make these articles useful, I don't think I should have to fight about it. So I kinda wanted to get a project wide opinion on this.
I would present to you as an example of what I'm talking about Pete's Dragon. I would say that when compared to something like Inside Out (2015 film)the production section leaves a lot to be desired and has a lot of indiscriminite details that don't belong there.
I don't know I'm getting really sick of fighting these fights and was just hoping that we could all come to a consensus about how these sections should handle casting news. -- Deathawk ( talk) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion about review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes. I would appreciate some feedback from some of this project's members. Thanks. SharkD Talk 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Combined my section with this one. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding if a title including "Episode VII" should be considered an alternate title to the film. The RfC can be found here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#"Certified Fresh" designation. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
At Under Siege, we have a couple of IP editors adding material to the Plot that I don't think is particularly helpful, but so far I'm the only reverting editor. A Talk page discussion has been initiated. Thanks for the assist! DonIago ( talk) 14:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, does anyone have any info about who was credited onscreen as the director of The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water? AFI says that Paul Tibbitt was the director, but the kids keep adding Mike Mitchell, who apparently directed the live-action sequences. Obviously we shouldn't be fabricating credits for people, and by comparison, we normally don't credit second unit directors. If Mitchell received an opening credit as one of the directors, that should be included. It's just not clear from my research whether that's the case or not. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The project needs to look at what is best for our readers... deleting all links/template to movies/actors and leaving 30 awards templates on actor pages does not help our readers. Project need sit down and fix the spam of templates without going out of there way to imped real navigation. Content editors keep bring this up again again again...they what to know why there work is being orphaned from templates. Dont be the project that people use as an example of what not to do WP:ADVICEPAGE!! Is this project sure that an article like Robert De Niro is better off with hundreds of links to unrelated articles over his films? Do our readers want to find related articles or unrelated articles...to most this setup seem backwards and counter productive. -- Moxy ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see these AfD discussions - one and two. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we use review boxes in film articles, collecting critical ratings, like we do for game and music articles? I'm not necessarily saying we should, just curious. Popcornduff ( talk) 07:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
For video games, there are more universal reviewers that makes it easier to have a box. If the same applies for film articles, then that would be good. But each film is treated differently and will often have different reviewers. Lucia Black ( talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#Scandal. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This matter has now become a WP:RfC; see Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#How best to include the material?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Do we have list of all winners and nominees? -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 11:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm no expert on tables, but I don't believe that the "YYYY in film" articles ( 2015 in film, for instance) are in compliance with MOS:DTT as the large, multiple rowspans, and vertical text, do not facilitate accessibility for visually impaired users who employ screen readers. I've started converting some of the future articles ( 2020 in film, 2019 in film, 2018 in film) to a simpler format, which has two additional benefits: 1) They don't require casual editors to be savants at table formatting to add and subtract films. In my experience at the Indian equivalent (ex: List of Bollywood films of 2015), it was always a nightmare to fix other editors' rowspan errors, and I'm not very good at table formatting. Confuses the crap out of me. 2) By using {{ DTS}}, all the tables can be made sortable, which is more useful if you're interested in listing by studio, or genre. I expect that my changes will ruffle some feathers, because "that's the way we've always done it, and what about the gorgeous colors?!" so I thought it wise to voice my perspective here before moving onto the beefier articles like 2016 and 2015. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a real world example of the clean-up required. IP editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to clean-up the rowspan crap. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
(Not sure if this is the best place for this discussion - please feel free to suggest an alternative venue). Following on from a recent question on WP:RD/E, would Double feature be a better redirect target than B movie for Supporting feature, Program picture, and Second feature? The double feature article contains more useful information on the basic concept of the "second feature" - the B movie article is more about B movies as a genre, rather than the structure of theatrical programmes in the twentieth century. Tevildo ( talk) 15:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor and I disagree about The Lobster. Is it OK for a plot summary to incorporate details (names, settings etc) taken from a press release but not mentioned in the film itself? Check out the Talk page discussion. Popcornduff ( talk) 03:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see the film Honor Thy Father (film). This article is a magnet to Filipino fan-boys and sock accounts about the release date. I've had one sock blocked and another sock/SPA (User:Hollyckuhno) constantly remove/revise the release date. They have no fucking clue what they're doing. Can someone else help with this? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
A question has come up regarding the notability of a film reward. Please see Talk:List of accolades received by Inside Out section Movies for Grownups Awards. 100.36.87.229 ( talk) 19:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The concept of summarizing critical response has been a thorn in my side for a while and I've bellyached publicly on the side of "don't" summarize, especially when the aggregators are summaries themselves. As I've whined before, I patrol Indian cinema articles a great deal, because they're so problematic and prone to POV fluff. Often I'll seen an article cite a single source like at
Kaththi: "Kaththi opened to mostly positive reviews from critics.
[2]" or
Irandaam Ulagam: "The film received mixede [sic] reviews from critics.
[3]" and perhaps each summary is supported by a few selected reviews. Is that all it takes to substantiate the general critical response of a film to satisfy
MOS:FILM? One ref? Two refs? The MOS says: The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources.
If IBT is a reliable source (and it generally is considered such) do we post as fact this subjective evaluation? That seems like
WP:UNDUE to me, especially when RT and Metacritic, sources that take a clear analytical approach to critical response are not always in alignment. How many subjective summaries are satisfactory to meet the MOS? Thanks all,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been working on re-encoding from source to webm and re-uploading some of the public domain/free short and feature films available. There aren't that many, but I was wondering whether where a high quality copy of the film itself is available directly on wikipedia having the video itself with an appropriate "thumbtime" representing the film well in the infobox itself as the lede image would be acceptable/desirable? It's seems to make sense to me over burying inherently the most important media on the page at the bottom as tends to be the case now. - Wolftick ( talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:LEAD It seems like the lead section in many film articles is as brief and cryptic as possible. I can't tell you how many times I have come across articles with leads like, "X is a 1995 film about a man with a car. Y starred as the man. It grossed $Z." This is barely an exaggeration. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just a product of trying to write many articles about many films in a short time but I figured I would alert members of this project. The one section that virtually every film article has is "Plot" and two to four sentences describing what happens is entirely appropriate for summarizing the article. I get the impression (although this is unfounded speculation) that these obscure leads are to avoid "spoilers" which is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding A24 Films, I am interested in overhauling the "Filmography" table. I have a few ideas and have proposed them on the talk page as seen here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
For a long time, film accolades lists including featured lists have listed 2nd or 3rd as a win in their infobox and have also coded them green as wins in the main table e.g. List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film). This was because they were seen as a special distinction different from simply being nominated. However I was unable to find the consensus in the archives for this. This issue was also brought up in this featured list candidate. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Lost in Translation (film)/archive1. I welcome comments on this so that we may establish consensus on this. I personally would not mind changing the tables and infobox if there was a template to show wins, nominations and placings as different entities. Cowlibob ( talk) 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
nom}}
with customized text like "2nd". If they receive some designation like "Silver" or "Bronze" then you can color code with those colors as with Olympic competition {{
won}}
. If the award for second place has its own name then you can just use won. There are some Kpop music awards called Bonsang where the top 10 would win that physical award, but be a finalist for the Daesang. Similar for Best in Class and Best in Show for dog shows.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)A request to move the film article Fly Away Solo to Masaan, has been initiated here. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion.— indopug ( talk) 07:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Films about women. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Pacerier ( talk) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC): ❝
...list of Chinese films first released in 2015.
❞
What is the difference between Category:Incomplete film lists and Category:Film incomplete lists? If none, they should be nominated for merging; if there is a difference, someone should give an explanation on the category pages. Any advice?? Pegship ( talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyone have a thought about this?. Every time Bugs Bunny's name is removed from the Starring parameter of the infobox at Space Jam, someone invariably re-adds it, so I'm going to temporarily assume the problem is my narrow thinking. Not sure if this is a legit poster to use, but here you go. I'm drawing the line at Daffy Duck though! He's not even on the frickin' poster! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see the history of this issue or this discussion before editing before removing Bugs. (The IP made a "mistake" (?) in arguing that "Donald Kaufman" was nominated for an Oscar for Adaptation. Not true, that was Donald Kaufman, not "Donald Kaufman".)
Anyway, yeah, it's a marketing gimmick. Bugs cannot perform, receive a paycheck, eat carrots, &ct., so it cannot be a featured "performer". - SummerPhD v2.0 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed similar credits at Looney Tunes: Back in Action, with an edit summary and talk page comment inviting discussion here. - SummerPhD v2.0 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a complete non-issue. Fictional characters have been being credited throughout the history of cinema. I also can't but notice that Summer "PhD" removes all of her ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments she made while presenting this argument here, all the while saying I'm an IP who made a mistake? What mistake? Or was the fictional Donald Kaufman not only not credited with co-writing Adaptation but also not nominated for a real Academy Award? (Spoiler alert: He was). There never has been a rule that fictional characters cannot be credited. Aside from the dispositive fact that Bugs Bunny is listed above the title on the official poster (where the stars of the movie go), there is a long history of other fake names being used and discussed like the real stars, writers, directors, or editors of films. Not just psuedonyms like Alan Smithee but full-fledged alter-egos and fake personae. They get nominated, they get accolades, they get credit and sometimes they get unioncards. Also how often are dogs, horses and bears credited? They're listed in the cast, lots of things are listed in the cast. Sergeant Murphy comes to mind as the horse is credited. The point is: Never has there ever been a rule that only living people can be credited, it's up to the producers or director of each film to distribute the credit and for Wikipedia to neutrally report it. JesseRafe ( talk) 14:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
What about crediting Bugs Bunny then including a footnote explaining that the film itself credits him and who the current bugs bunny voice was at the time? While it may seem overly cute or gimmicky I think that if the movie itself does not credit a specific voice actor than we're just making an educated guess, which I would feel somewhat uncomfortable with. -- Deathawk ( talk) 06:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a talk-page discussion on the relevance (or not) of two images added to the article. Opinions sought. Softlavender ( talk) 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be an unconfirmed rumor flying around that Daniel Craig cameos in Star Wars. "Unconfirmed" as in Disney have not confirmed it and Craig himself denies it. An IP keeps adding the rumor to an article so I would appreciate a couple more opinions on the issue: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom#Daniel_Craig_in_Star_Wars. The film has also been added to Craig's filmography at Daniel_Craig#Filmography and while this discussion does not address that article I have doubts about its inclusion there too. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC) EDIT: There is a parallel discussion at Talk:Daniel_Craig#Star_Wars_rumor. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello I am looking for some people with more experience and comments/opinions on a series of articles [4] created by a single user over several years. My concerns are that almost every article I have looked at has no reliable sources and are nothing more then a plot summary on the film. As each of these films seem to predate computers sources may be difficult to track down, but I do not know where to start to my WP:BEFORE and am hoping someone here may be able to help. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 04:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The usage of " cinema" and the naming of "movie theater" is under discussion, see talk:movie theater -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 05:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion about the opening line/lead section for this film. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Anybody have any ideas on how to better the table format on List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees ? Jennica Talk 06:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol | Meaning |
---|---|
Bold green text | Winner |
O | Best Original Screenplay |
A | Best Adapted Screenplay |
Awards ceremony |
Best Picture | Best Director | Best Actor | Best Actress | Best Screenplay | Notes | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7th Academy Awards ( 1934) | It Happened One Night | Frank Capra | Clark Gable | Claudette Colbert | Robert RiskinA |
This should fit all on one page to make things much easier to navigate, without scrolling horizontally. I've also included the necessary formatting in there for compatibility with screenreaders, so if you copy that it should stand up to scrutiny for FLC if you go that far (plus it just means anyone relying on one can still read it). GRAPPLE X 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
So we had no real reply here to the concerns raised by the council about omitting certain types of articles from navigational aids. So we are moving forward regardless of this projects willingness to participate or not in the discussion. As seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance we think it may be best to start a site-wide discussion on the matter. We will move forward with this in the next week or so....I will inform the project when this takes place. Thank you for your time. -- Moxy ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mshmurd at film articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I brought this up a few weeks back, but dropped the matter because it was close to the holidays and I thought it'd be better to wait for everybody get back in the swing. There are a number of articles like 2014 in film, List of Bollywood films of 2013, List of Italian films of 2014, etc. which all use complicated tables like this:
Initially was concerned that there were WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, which may or may not be the case. I do know that formatting vertical text like this is problematic:
But my major problem with this style of table, is from a wikignome perspective. While they are intended to be pleasing to the eye, table formatting is confusing to begin with, and this fancy format requires casual editors to be familiar with nested rowspan formatting in order to add and subtract values. This very often necessitates that other editors clean up the mess. (Ex: Editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to perform cleanup by adjusting the rowspans for September and for the 23rd.) This is not an efficient use of volunteer time.
My recommendation for future articles is that the community consider a simpler format, like this:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This general style would make it far more intuitive to add and subtract titles, and would add the functionality of being able to sort by date and title. (I will note that I'm not good with table formatting, so I'm sure there are significant improvements to be made here. Sorting by genre and cast would be somewhat pointless, I'm aware.) Anyhow, your thoughts are warmly solicited. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
On my WP:Watchlist today, I saw that Coconutporkpie is removing the term " development hell" from film articles, per MOS:JARGON, as seen here and here. While I understand Coconutporkpie's point, I don't see that we should be completely avoiding that term/article, especially in cases where the creator is using the term. We can, for example, WP:Pipelink it with clearer wording. My point is that "development hell" is standard film terminology, and we shouldn't WP:Orphan that article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We can also use its alternative name "development limbo." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think development hell is unencyclopedic - it's a well-used industry term, and I think is pretty clear in the meaning.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I recently watched a film, The Veil (2016 film). Normally, one would think that if you've seen a film, it's been released. However, Vmars22 seems to want to go by the DVD release date, as in this edit. I don't understand this, as it seems contrary to WP:FILMRELEASE and common sense. I started a discussion on the talk page, but he hasn't responded there yet. So, I'll try here to see if we can find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, there's been an ongoing edit-war about whether The Little Prince (2015 film) is a French-only film, or a French–Canadian co-production. One of the references cited in an edit summary is behind a paywall, screendaily.com. Neither party has yet opened a discussion, so I thought that if anyone here was interested in getting the ball rolling, that would be sweet. The article has been fully-protected. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The film Subah - O - Shyam is actually Subah-O-Shaam. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158246/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uypoi ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit at File:Pride and Prejudice and Zombies poster.jpg which version of the film poster is better suited in the article. @ Film Fan: believes this version is better because it is a US poster and it is a US film even though there is no date or billing block. I contend that the UK version is better because it has a billing block and shows the month/year of release, which is still inline with the US release. The only thing wrong is that it shows the UK distributor instead of the US distributor. What say you all?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I was wrong. The final US poster HAS been released. Uploading it now. — Film Fan 14:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a large amount of red in the Once Upon a Forest#References section. If anyone can untangle it that would be wonderful. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 04:20, 28 January 2016 (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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
I'm having some trouble at American Mary. Metal121 ( talk · contribs) insists on including an extensive list of distributors and release dates in the infobox in violation of WP:FILMDIST and WP:FILMRELEASE. Also, we seem to be at an impasse with regard to the producers. Variety said that Evan Tylor and John Curtis are the producers, but he wants to include executive producers, which is also against the template docs. He wants further input on the matter, so I'll bring it here. I think we should follow the template docs. Is there still consensus for following the instructions there? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Could people please see my comments here and share their views. I'm concerned about how the article merges together Best Film, Best Foreign Film, and Best British Film when all three categories have been separate for some time. I'm proposing splitting it. -- Loeba (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is yet another important discussion regarding the critical reception of Batman & Robin (film). The discussion can be found at Talk:Batman & Robin (film)#critical reaction. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this kind of graphic acceptable under fair use? still, source. ? In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen this crop up on a few articles. Worth mentioning? I don't think it is. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this being referenced at Good Kill and removed it as poorly-inserted content per above. I used Special:Linksearch to find other instances and removed them everywhere else except for Dallas Buyers Club, for which it was actually referenced in context. If this reference is spammed again, this link can be used to track them down: Linksearch. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, all. There is an ongoing debate on the Darth Vader article at Talk:Darth Vader#Edit war. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
...at Talk:G. W. Pabst#Removal of professional name. Not a formal RfC, but other input would be good. BMK ( talk) 23:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In the section Sequels, shows and spin-offs there is a paragraph dedicated to a YouTube video. And said video is just a popular video online, nothing more, so I don't think it belongs in the article.
However, after finding out it has what looks to me like a reliable source, I decided to leave it there. So it's untouched. But I'm not sure if the source is reliable or not, or if it justifies this being here, so can someone help me out?
Just to make it easier for you, here is the exact quote:
In January 2013, a fan-made live-action version of the film was posted on YouTube which has gone on to have 14,751,219 views before being taken down by Disney for copyright of the audio.
My request is could someone who has more knowledge on what makes a reliable source analyze the sources and tell me if it belongs in the article or not? Thank you. Blaze The Movie Fan ( talk) 23:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_58#MOS:LARGENUM_issues where some editors felt the long-standing format violated MOS:LARGENUM. There was general agreement and a couple of solutions were put forward. However several editors (including myself) have misgivings about the eventual solution adopted so since this issue affects a wide range of film articles it would be handy to get project input at Talk:2015_in_film#Disagrreement. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, |
It seems that in quite a few film articles, the weblinks to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others have been removed if they had already been used for a footnote - example edit. Has there been consensus about this? I honestly think this is nonsense; rather remove the footnote and let the source be easy to find as it had been. -- KnightMove ( talk) 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway#Which poster for infobox? BMK ( talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi movie fans! I created a tool that automatically generates the list of Academy Award-winning films using the data from Wikidata. That's a big advantage compared to the current article, which has to be maintained manually. The only problem is that Wikidata lacks Academy Award data. This means that the number of Academy Award-winning films generated by my tool is much lower than the actual number. The same is true for the number of awards and nominations of the listed movies. The reason is Wikidata doesn't have data about many awards and nominations. Now I'm asking you to help make Wikidata more accurate concerning Academy Awards and nominations.
See here for the current list in German. I'm also planning to create an English version (if you're willing to help ;-p). The nice thing is we can all work together on this project because Wikidata is international. -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 00:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Looking for some guidance as I'm new to editing in general and haven't edited any articles about a film before, so it's hard for me to gauge what sources meet WP:Reliable. Seems like every website about movies that comes up in a google search allows user-generated content. I'm going to be vague about what articles I'm talking about b/c I don't want to make a wikipedia etiquette faux pas. The other day I came across a huge article dedicated to a movie that I'm 99% positive never actually existed. Since 2011, the same 4 usernames have been contributing exclusively to this article and several other equally suspicious articles that are all about movies, TV shows and books that were supposedly written by the same person. This one movie claims a HUGE cast made up of some big-name celebs and gospel singers (if you know gospel singers, I assume, based on the verifiable and reliable references in their own wikipedia articles), plus a few no-name cast members that are clearly the writer's friends and family. The same 4 sockpuppets have gone to each celebrity's article and added this movie to their filmography citing the movie's "official" homepage, IMDb and YouTube. When people have challenged these edits on their favorite celebrity's' article, 1 or 2 of these users will reply quickly with links to more sources, always websites with user-generated content. Almost every single one of the film credits has stuck. If it's not real, I feel bad for this one gospel singer that had a fan/family member that tried to remove this film credit from his article, but the the other person gave up after one these accounts shared a link to a YouTube video that's supposedly the first 10 minutes of the film. I don't want to falsely accuse someone of inventing a an elaborate online presence for books and movies that never existed, so can anyone point me to some online resources that are without a doubt WP:RELIABLE for lists of movies by actor or by production company? Thanks in advance! Permstrump ( talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Edited to be more neutral. Permstrump ( talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This is amazing. Permstrump appears to have stumbled upon an astonishing network of articles devoted to the deification of one Warren Chaney, all created and maintained by a ... surprising, let's say ... number of editors with a shared interest in Mr Chaney, early television and film, and with occasional dabblings in neural science (a subject Mr Chaney also happens to have written about). Now, I've spent the last couple of hours down this rabbit hole, and it seems to me that most of Chaney's projects do actually exist in some form or another, including the film to which Permastrump refers: America: A Call to Greatness. That actually is Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Peter Graves et al in the Youtube clip, and they are in something called America: A Call to Greatness. However, it's not entirely clear what that something is. It comes across like a short film that plays at the beginning of a museum tour than something that lasts a couple of hours (indeed, that clip ends with a credits roll after about ten minutes). There's no hard evidence that this is what it purports to be, and I would say there is not one reliable source that can verify its existence as a bona fide film. Everything goes back to user-generated or self-published content, and to obvious socks of someone with a desire to see Chaney lauded as a lost great of American cinema. Seriously, this goes everywhere; there are IMDB accounts dedicated solely to rating projects this guy's been involved in, accounts here there and everywhere dedicated to writing about the same. Even our article on Buzz Aldrin mentions the guy. I don't even know where to begin unravelling this stuff. Picking one of his other projects at random: Behind the Mask (1992), which is a cheapo six part serial experiment, now inexplicably lauded in our article: "Warren Chaney won the Best Director and Best Screenplay CineCon ’92 Award and a Best Screenplay American Cinema Award ... Deborah Winters was nominated for Best Actress and Luis Lemas as Best Supporting Actor." That seems unlikely, as CineCon is a classic film festival that doesn't even play films as recent as that ( full list). Similarly, there's no evidence to suggest the film "received the Silver Award in the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival" and "a Bronze Medal Award in the New York Film Festival", and I've looked. This is a pattern with every project and person ever associated with Chaney: some cheapo, marginal production blown up way beyond its significance with half truths and outright lies by a succession of determined editors over many, many years. What to do about it will likely be debated for a good long while. Steve T • C 23:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: A Call to Greatness. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well this is a rabbit hole. Copying some of what I wrote at the above AfD as it seems more appropriate here: Just for fun I started looking up some other things in Chaney's "Superb Speakers" profile. The first thing I checked: Using Neuroplasticity to Achieve Cognitive Change, Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Journal of Applied Cognitive-Behavioral Science, Volume 5, 1st Quarter, 2009, pp. 132-145. Google doesn't know anything about the title or the journal. Second thing checked: The Right Stuff - What is It? Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Your New Mind, (On Line Journal), 1st Quarter, 2008. "Your New Mind" took some searching, but I found it! Behold a .blogspot blog with two posts, one of which is Chaney's -- basically an ad for Mind Dynamics’ Workshops. Before coming across this discussion I also started to check out some Chaney-related articles and discovered what others did -- a preponderance of sources which either don't seem to exist, are based on user-generated content, or which have a direct (albeit often hidden) connection to Chaney himself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This sure seems like it might grow into an unwieldy affair, spread out over so many pages and with so much potential evidence. I've tried to gather all the relevant links/pages here: User:Rhododendrites/Chaney. I'd welcome anyone else to edit as they see fit and wouldn't be opposed to moving it out of userspace if someone has a better idea of where it could go. Seems useful to have a place to tie things together and a central point of talk (presumably, User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney or wherever the page ends up). Do what you will -- it's useful for me, at least, to wrap my head around this nonsense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
To update everyone, three accounts have been indefinitely banned based on the sockpuppetry investigation. Not sure if there are any articles by these accounts that have not yet gone to AfD, but they could instead be speedied with {{ db-banned}}. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Should magic lanterns be considered a sub-topic of film, and part of this project? It seems to be a significant precursor to modern film. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@ SNUGGUMS: used Twinkle to remove wikilinks to the film Cabin in the Sky, [1], saying it was deleted, but the correct article name is Cabin in the Sky (film), so these links need to be restored and corrected. Would someone who uses a automated tool please do this? BMK ( talk) 04:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an MfD nomination in progress for this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Telugu cinema task force. 103.6.159.75 ( talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Queen of Ireland (film) to be moved to The Queen of Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film)#Requested move 14 December 2015. -- Scolaire ( talk) 12:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
A number of articles about films split box-office figures between "North America" and "outside North America". The practice seems to stem from the fact that the film industry amalgamates US and Canadian ticket sales. Boxofficemojo for instance describes these as "domestic". However, calling the US and Canada together "North America" is an astonishing howler. Mexico, which is also in North America, has a population about three-and-a-half times that of Canada, so we're not talking about a minor difference in terms of ticket sales, here, but of completely skewed figures. I have corrected this on a few articles whenever I have spotted it but @ Adamstom.97: has reverted me on Iron Man 2 with the claim that "it is accepted across Wikipedia" so I thought I would ask here. To me this is a clear case of an error spreading memetically, and though it might be the case that Wikpedia editors understand that North America is short-hand in this context for US+CA, I don't think it is reasonable to expect a reader to know that. Has this been discussed before? Is there such a policy? Mezigue ( talk) 10:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 17:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it's awards season. I don't usually get too involved in awards drama, but it looks like we're getting a lot of updates to a lot of pages, and these are going to need to be sourced. Also, it looks like a few new pages are being created, such as 2015 Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards. I can't help but notice that neither Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards nor Boston Online Film Critics Association exist at the time of my writing this message. So, get ready for a deluge of non-notable awards and awards pages, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a mess developing over at Brooklyn (film) and I can't get to it right now, if anyone wants to clean it up. Lapadite ( talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest editors watch List of accolades received by Carol (film) for indiscriminate entries. There have been some non-notable minor awards cited to unreliable sources since before the list was split. On that note, I figure AwardsDaily is a reliable source for this context, as one of its editors is Sasha Stone, who's written for various industry magazines. Lapadite ( talk) 22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an important RfC at WT:ANIME in regards to production companies and anime film articles. The RFC can be found at here. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War#Category:2016_films for a discussion on using year categories for upcoming films. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Pedro Costa's article notes that he was born on 3 March 1959. Several of the foreign-language Wikipedias, as well as many internet websites, also give the dates 30 December 1958 and 3 January 1959. Thoughts? I have not been able to adjudicate independently which date is the correct one. Thanks. 109.67.195.14 ( talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to have additional members of this project weigh in on a discussion at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding including it being known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens in the lead. (Note this is not a discussion regarding moving the article.) You can find the discussion here, and for those of you sensative to spoilers regarding the film, this section does not have any and you should be able to avoid any on the talk page if you click that link directly and stay at the top of the talk page. (There are a few minor ones at the very bottom currently). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The article on the short film NHAMO has been nominated for deletion. As it has passed through two relisting cycles without any comment, members of the project may wish to take a look and opine on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Zoolander No. 2, an editor tried to move it to Zoolander 2. However, this film's billing block appears to show that the official title is Zoolander No. 2. Can we make this assumption? This says the billing block is "the product of detailed legal agreements and intense contract negotiation", so it seems correct to call it Zoolander No. 2 instead of Zoolander 2, though the official website uses the latter. There is a discussion on the talk page here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikiclaus greetings | ||
|
I made a topic about turning the Millennium TV miniseries into a film series article instead. You can find more about the situation here. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Angelina Jolie#How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I've lately been trying to help improve Wikipedia by trying to cut down on some of the clutter in the production section articles. I find that many such production sections consist mostly of "On (Insert Date here) X joined the cast. On (Insert Date Here) X Joined the cast, and so on and so on some times for paragraphs at a time, Lately, within the past few months or so I've been just deleting these section because the information provided is trivial at best, and the cluttered look, I believe hurts the project more than helps it. Lately I've been running into a few people who think that this is the wrong approach because they say the information of when cast members joined is valuable information that should be kept regardless of the clutter. I'm starting to think that. I may be in the wrong, because I just want to make these articles useful, I don't think I should have to fight about it. So I kinda wanted to get a project wide opinion on this.
I would present to you as an example of what I'm talking about Pete's Dragon. I would say that when compared to something like Inside Out (2015 film)the production section leaves a lot to be desired and has a lot of indiscriminite details that don't belong there.
I don't know I'm getting really sick of fighting these fights and was just hoping that we could all come to a consensus about how these sections should handle casting news. -- Deathawk ( talk) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion about review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes. I would appreciate some feedback from some of this project's members. Thanks. SharkD Talk 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Combined my section with this one. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding if a title including "Episode VII" should be considered an alternate title to the film. The RfC can be found here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#"Certified Fresh" designation. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
At Under Siege, we have a couple of IP editors adding material to the Plot that I don't think is particularly helpful, but so far I'm the only reverting editor. A Talk page discussion has been initiated. Thanks for the assist! DonIago ( talk) 14:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, does anyone have any info about who was credited onscreen as the director of The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water? AFI says that Paul Tibbitt was the director, but the kids keep adding Mike Mitchell, who apparently directed the live-action sequences. Obviously we shouldn't be fabricating credits for people, and by comparison, we normally don't credit second unit directors. If Mitchell received an opening credit as one of the directors, that should be included. It's just not clear from my research whether that's the case or not. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The project needs to look at what is best for our readers... deleting all links/template to movies/actors and leaving 30 awards templates on actor pages does not help our readers. Project need sit down and fix the spam of templates without going out of there way to imped real navigation. Content editors keep bring this up again again again...they what to know why there work is being orphaned from templates. Dont be the project that people use as an example of what not to do WP:ADVICEPAGE!! Is this project sure that an article like Robert De Niro is better off with hundreds of links to unrelated articles over his films? Do our readers want to find related articles or unrelated articles...to most this setup seem backwards and counter productive. -- Moxy ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see these AfD discussions - one and two. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we use review boxes in film articles, collecting critical ratings, like we do for game and music articles? I'm not necessarily saying we should, just curious. Popcornduff ( talk) 07:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
For video games, there are more universal reviewers that makes it easier to have a box. If the same applies for film articles, then that would be good. But each film is treated differently and will often have different reviewers. Lucia Black ( talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#Scandal. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This matter has now become a WP:RfC; see Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#How best to include the material?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Do we have list of all winners and nominees? -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 11:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm no expert on tables, but I don't believe that the "YYYY in film" articles ( 2015 in film, for instance) are in compliance with MOS:DTT as the large, multiple rowspans, and vertical text, do not facilitate accessibility for visually impaired users who employ screen readers. I've started converting some of the future articles ( 2020 in film, 2019 in film, 2018 in film) to a simpler format, which has two additional benefits: 1) They don't require casual editors to be savants at table formatting to add and subtract films. In my experience at the Indian equivalent (ex: List of Bollywood films of 2015), it was always a nightmare to fix other editors' rowspan errors, and I'm not very good at table formatting. Confuses the crap out of me. 2) By using {{ DTS}}, all the tables can be made sortable, which is more useful if you're interested in listing by studio, or genre. I expect that my changes will ruffle some feathers, because "that's the way we've always done it, and what about the gorgeous colors?!" so I thought it wise to voice my perspective here before moving onto the beefier articles like 2016 and 2015. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a real world example of the clean-up required. IP editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to clean-up the rowspan crap. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
(Not sure if this is the best place for this discussion - please feel free to suggest an alternative venue). Following on from a recent question on WP:RD/E, would Double feature be a better redirect target than B movie for Supporting feature, Program picture, and Second feature? The double feature article contains more useful information on the basic concept of the "second feature" - the B movie article is more about B movies as a genre, rather than the structure of theatrical programmes in the twentieth century. Tevildo ( talk) 15:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor and I disagree about The Lobster. Is it OK for a plot summary to incorporate details (names, settings etc) taken from a press release but not mentioned in the film itself? Check out the Talk page discussion. Popcornduff ( talk) 03:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see the film Honor Thy Father (film). This article is a magnet to Filipino fan-boys and sock accounts about the release date. I've had one sock blocked and another sock/SPA (User:Hollyckuhno) constantly remove/revise the release date. They have no fucking clue what they're doing. Can someone else help with this? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
A question has come up regarding the notability of a film reward. Please see Talk:List of accolades received by Inside Out section Movies for Grownups Awards. 100.36.87.229 ( talk) 19:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The concept of summarizing critical response has been a thorn in my side for a while and I've bellyached publicly on the side of "don't" summarize, especially when the aggregators are summaries themselves. As I've whined before, I patrol Indian cinema articles a great deal, because they're so problematic and prone to POV fluff. Often I'll seen an article cite a single source like at
Kaththi: "Kaththi opened to mostly positive reviews from critics.
[2]" or
Irandaam Ulagam: "The film received mixede [sic] reviews from critics.
[3]" and perhaps each summary is supported by a few selected reviews. Is that all it takes to substantiate the general critical response of a film to satisfy
MOS:FILM? One ref? Two refs? The MOS says: The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources.
If IBT is a reliable source (and it generally is considered such) do we post as fact this subjective evaluation? That seems like
WP:UNDUE to me, especially when RT and Metacritic, sources that take a clear analytical approach to critical response are not always in alignment. How many subjective summaries are satisfactory to meet the MOS? Thanks all,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been working on re-encoding from source to webm and re-uploading some of the public domain/free short and feature films available. There aren't that many, but I was wondering whether where a high quality copy of the film itself is available directly on wikipedia having the video itself with an appropriate "thumbtime" representing the film well in the infobox itself as the lede image would be acceptable/desirable? It's seems to make sense to me over burying inherently the most important media on the page at the bottom as tends to be the case now. - Wolftick ( talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:LEAD It seems like the lead section in many film articles is as brief and cryptic as possible. I can't tell you how many times I have come across articles with leads like, "X is a 1995 film about a man with a car. Y starred as the man. It grossed $Z." This is barely an exaggeration. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just a product of trying to write many articles about many films in a short time but I figured I would alert members of this project. The one section that virtually every film article has is "Plot" and two to four sentences describing what happens is entirely appropriate for summarizing the article. I get the impression (although this is unfounded speculation) that these obscure leads are to avoid "spoilers" which is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding A24 Films, I am interested in overhauling the "Filmography" table. I have a few ideas and have proposed them on the talk page as seen here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
For a long time, film accolades lists including featured lists have listed 2nd or 3rd as a win in their infobox and have also coded them green as wins in the main table e.g. List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film). This was because they were seen as a special distinction different from simply being nominated. However I was unable to find the consensus in the archives for this. This issue was also brought up in this featured list candidate. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Lost in Translation (film)/archive1. I welcome comments on this so that we may establish consensus on this. I personally would not mind changing the tables and infobox if there was a template to show wins, nominations and placings as different entities. Cowlibob ( talk) 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
nom}}
with customized text like "2nd". If they receive some designation like "Silver" or "Bronze" then you can color code with those colors as with Olympic competition {{
won}}
. If the award for second place has its own name then you can just use won. There are some Kpop music awards called Bonsang where the top 10 would win that physical award, but be a finalist for the Daesang. Similar for Best in Class and Best in Show for dog shows.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)A request to move the film article Fly Away Solo to Masaan, has been initiated here. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion.— indopug ( talk) 07:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Films about women. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Pacerier ( talk) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC): ❝
...list of Chinese films first released in 2015.
❞
What is the difference between Category:Incomplete film lists and Category:Film incomplete lists? If none, they should be nominated for merging; if there is a difference, someone should give an explanation on the category pages. Any advice?? Pegship ( talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyone have a thought about this?. Every time Bugs Bunny's name is removed from the Starring parameter of the infobox at Space Jam, someone invariably re-adds it, so I'm going to temporarily assume the problem is my narrow thinking. Not sure if this is a legit poster to use, but here you go. I'm drawing the line at Daffy Duck though! He's not even on the frickin' poster! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see the history of this issue or this discussion before editing before removing Bugs. (The IP made a "mistake" (?) in arguing that "Donald Kaufman" was nominated for an Oscar for Adaptation. Not true, that was Donald Kaufman, not "Donald Kaufman".)
Anyway, yeah, it's a marketing gimmick. Bugs cannot perform, receive a paycheck, eat carrots, &ct., so it cannot be a featured "performer". - SummerPhD v2.0 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed similar credits at Looney Tunes: Back in Action, with an edit summary and talk page comment inviting discussion here. - SummerPhD v2.0 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a complete non-issue. Fictional characters have been being credited throughout the history of cinema. I also can't but notice that Summer "PhD" removes all of her ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments she made while presenting this argument here, all the while saying I'm an IP who made a mistake? What mistake? Or was the fictional Donald Kaufman not only not credited with co-writing Adaptation but also not nominated for a real Academy Award? (Spoiler alert: He was). There never has been a rule that fictional characters cannot be credited. Aside from the dispositive fact that Bugs Bunny is listed above the title on the official poster (where the stars of the movie go), there is a long history of other fake names being used and discussed like the real stars, writers, directors, or editors of films. Not just psuedonyms like Alan Smithee but full-fledged alter-egos and fake personae. They get nominated, they get accolades, they get credit and sometimes they get unioncards. Also how often are dogs, horses and bears credited? They're listed in the cast, lots of things are listed in the cast. Sergeant Murphy comes to mind as the horse is credited. The point is: Never has there ever been a rule that only living people can be credited, it's up to the producers or director of each film to distribute the credit and for Wikipedia to neutrally report it. JesseRafe ( talk) 14:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
What about crediting Bugs Bunny then including a footnote explaining that the film itself credits him and who the current bugs bunny voice was at the time? While it may seem overly cute or gimmicky I think that if the movie itself does not credit a specific voice actor than we're just making an educated guess, which I would feel somewhat uncomfortable with. -- Deathawk ( talk) 06:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a talk-page discussion on the relevance (or not) of two images added to the article. Opinions sought. Softlavender ( talk) 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be an unconfirmed rumor flying around that Daniel Craig cameos in Star Wars. "Unconfirmed" as in Disney have not confirmed it and Craig himself denies it. An IP keeps adding the rumor to an article so I would appreciate a couple more opinions on the issue: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom#Daniel_Craig_in_Star_Wars. The film has also been added to Craig's filmography at Daniel_Craig#Filmography and while this discussion does not address that article I have doubts about its inclusion there too. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC) EDIT: There is a parallel discussion at Talk:Daniel_Craig#Star_Wars_rumor. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello I am looking for some people with more experience and comments/opinions on a series of articles [4] created by a single user over several years. My concerns are that almost every article I have looked at has no reliable sources and are nothing more then a plot summary on the film. As each of these films seem to predate computers sources may be difficult to track down, but I do not know where to start to my WP:BEFORE and am hoping someone here may be able to help. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 04:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The usage of " cinema" and the naming of "movie theater" is under discussion, see talk:movie theater -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 05:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion about the opening line/lead section for this film. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Anybody have any ideas on how to better the table format on List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees ? Jennica Talk 06:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol | Meaning |
---|---|
Bold green text | Winner |
O | Best Original Screenplay |
A | Best Adapted Screenplay |
Awards ceremony |
Best Picture | Best Director | Best Actor | Best Actress | Best Screenplay | Notes | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7th Academy Awards ( 1934) | It Happened One Night | Frank Capra | Clark Gable | Claudette Colbert | Robert RiskinA |
This should fit all on one page to make things much easier to navigate, without scrolling horizontally. I've also included the necessary formatting in there for compatibility with screenreaders, so if you copy that it should stand up to scrutiny for FLC if you go that far (plus it just means anyone relying on one can still read it). GRAPPLE X 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
So we had no real reply here to the concerns raised by the council about omitting certain types of articles from navigational aids. So we are moving forward regardless of this projects willingness to participate or not in the discussion. As seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance we think it may be best to start a site-wide discussion on the matter. We will move forward with this in the next week or so....I will inform the project when this takes place. Thank you for your time. -- Moxy ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mshmurd at film articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I brought this up a few weeks back, but dropped the matter because it was close to the holidays and I thought it'd be better to wait for everybody get back in the swing. There are a number of articles like 2014 in film, List of Bollywood films of 2013, List of Italian films of 2014, etc. which all use complicated tables like this:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Initially was concerned that there were WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, which may or may not be the case. I do know that formatting vertical text like this is problematic:
But my major problem with this style of table, is from a wikignome perspective. While they are intended to be pleasing to the eye, table formatting is confusing to begin with, and this fancy format requires casual editors to be familiar with nested rowspan formatting in order to add and subtract values. This very often necessitates that other editors clean up the mess. (Ex: Editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to perform cleanup by adjusting the rowspans for September and for the 23rd.) This is not an efficient use of volunteer time.
My recommendation for future articles is that the community consider a simpler format, like this:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This general style would make it far more intuitive to add and subtract titles, and would add the functionality of being able to sort by date and title. (I will note that I'm not good with table formatting, so I'm sure there are significant improvements to be made here. Sorting by genre and cast would be somewhat pointless, I'm aware.) Anyhow, your thoughts are warmly solicited. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
On my WP:Watchlist today, I saw that Coconutporkpie is removing the term " development hell" from film articles, per MOS:JARGON, as seen here and here. While I understand Coconutporkpie's point, I don't see that we should be completely avoiding that term/article, especially in cases where the creator is using the term. We can, for example, WP:Pipelink it with clearer wording. My point is that "development hell" is standard film terminology, and we shouldn't WP:Orphan that article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We can also use its alternative name "development limbo." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think development hell is unencyclopedic - it's a well-used industry term, and I think is pretty clear in the meaning.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I recently watched a film, The Veil (2016 film). Normally, one would think that if you've seen a film, it's been released. However, Vmars22 seems to want to go by the DVD release date, as in this edit. I don't understand this, as it seems contrary to WP:FILMRELEASE and common sense. I started a discussion on the talk page, but he hasn't responded there yet. So, I'll try here to see if we can find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, there's been an ongoing edit-war about whether The Little Prince (2015 film) is a French-only film, or a French–Canadian co-production. One of the references cited in an edit summary is behind a paywall, screendaily.com. Neither party has yet opened a discussion, so I thought that if anyone here was interested in getting the ball rolling, that would be sweet. The article has been fully-protected. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The film Subah - O - Shyam is actually Subah-O-Shaam. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158246/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uypoi ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit at File:Pride and Prejudice and Zombies poster.jpg which version of the film poster is better suited in the article. @ Film Fan: believes this version is better because it is a US poster and it is a US film even though there is no date or billing block. I contend that the UK version is better because it has a billing block and shows the month/year of release, which is still inline with the US release. The only thing wrong is that it shows the UK distributor instead of the US distributor. What say you all?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I was wrong. The final US poster HAS been released. Uploading it now. — Film Fan 14:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a large amount of red in the Once Upon a Forest#References section. If anyone can untangle it that would be wonderful. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)