![]() | 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 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
It's a new year and I think we should finally tighten our production section guidelines this year. This is something I've been trying to bring up in various ways off and on, but I feel the new year it would make sense to actually do it.
Right now my major issue is that it seems there is no formal agreed upon "house" style for production sections. For older films this isn't really a problem so much, but it's really hurting new film articles. Often times you end up with people putting in every little piece of news that comes out into these articles. So you often end up with bloated production section that list, who the screenwriters are, when the cast joined, when locations were scouted but in the end it doesn't really add up to anything.
Look at the current page for The Conjuring 2: The Pre-production section lists A) when cast members were announced B) When they were confirmed C) When location scouting occurred, and when actors visited the set. None of these actions I would say really add up to anything in that they don't really present the story of how the film came to be.
The traditional view of many Wikipedians seems to be that if it's sourced information no matter what information it is, it should stay, and that leads to some bloated production section, that like I said don't really accomplish the goal of Wikipedia.
I dunno maybe I'm crazy to think like this. Could we maybe try to say something in the Manual of Style for film aricles about this? ---- Deathawk ( talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ BattleshipMan: :@ TriiipleThreat:.@ Captain Assassin!: Can we all agree with this passsage of my draft "the goal of the production section is to establish the story of how a movie came together, this is different from a news site like The Hollywood Reporter or Vanity Fair which reports on every little aspect of the production." I think we get hung up in the example I used, but can agree that these sections shouldn't read like a news section from Variety correct? Like we all agree that there's a problem, it's just how do we fix it that's a problem.-- Deathawk ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
To @ NinjaRobotPirate:'s point earlier in this thread. I've been thinking about how to cut down on the clutter and I though we might include such wording as "Production sections should be created when there is an ample story to tell and not created merely because a film article is expected to have them. For instance while it might be useful to provide dates when cast members or filming joined or dates filming started for a production section in process these shouldn't be the only sections contained within it. Instead the production section should create context for how the casting came about or how the filming location was decided"-- Deathawk ( talk) 06:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to start coming up with some consensus on things. right now it appears to be that one thing we can all agree on is that the film should follow proseline formatting. I have heard no complaints about my idea that the production should follow a clear narrative. Although for the latter there hasn't been quite as much discussion as I'd like. :@ TriiipleThreat:. @ Captain Assassin!: ( talk) do you agree with the wording? -- Deathawk ( talk) 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:List of supercouples#Requested move: Move back to List of fictional supercouples. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear: This move discussion concerns whether or not real-life people should be on the list. If you really have no problem with the list reverting back to how it was years ago (the inclusion of real-life people), then (going by the current lean of the move discussion) there is no need to comment. If you do have a problem with it, then now is the time to comment. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may or may not know I've spent about six months or so trying to get new guidelines for the production section off the ground. I worry mainly about the crop of 2014 and 2015 film articles who's production read more like PR news releases than they do useful Wikipedia articles. While I do not think we've not quite finished discussing everything I wanted to in my previous "Production Section Problems" section the conversation has seemingly reached a dead end. With that said I think I've got enough input to create a reasonable first draft of what the production section guideline in the Manual of style should look like. I would like some of your guys's input.
When creating a production section it is important to keep in mind both what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Whereas a site like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter reports on every little detail as it happens that is not so beneficial for a Wikipedia article. Instead the production section should focus on a clear narrative that is interesting to the reader while avoiding trivial information. The definition of what is and is not "Trivial" here is deliberately vague and may change from movie to movie. Context should be provided for information added about how it contributes to said narrative. Not all films may have such a narrative at which point editors should give pause to whether or not the film should even have a production section.
All information should be written using WP:Prose guidelines. Dates can be useful for context however the article should not rely too heavily on them.
This is what I have so far, thoughts opinions? -- Deathawk ( talk) 02:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
When creating a production section it is important to keep in mind both what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Particularly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, information should be put in context to provide a clear narrative that is interesting to the reader while avoiding indiscriminate details. Remember, an encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Context should be provided for information about how it contributes to said narrative. At the same time, be sure to avoid proseline. While general time frames can be useful for context, exact dates are rarely important and similar pieces of information can be bundled together.
Elisha Cuthbert and House of Wax (2005 film) could use more eyes. Promotional wording is being added by SPAs: "premiered at several festivals, including three of the most important in the world", more about "most important" film festivals, "gained international fame", various permutations of "hailed by critics", etc. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion which is relevant to this project has been opened here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should we move full-length movies from article space to Commons.3F. MarnetteD| Talk 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been given no explanation as to why my edits to Shaun the Sheep Movie have been reverted, basically noting that the film has no dialogue. Why is this not notable, when The Naked Island lists the language as being "Japanese (no dialogue)," and Themroc lists the language as "Gibberish?" Most other articles I've seen about films without dialogue either don't have a language listed, or note the language of the country of origin. I'm just asking for consistency here; silent films always list the language as being "Silent" no matter what the original language on the title cards is, so why don't films without dialogue have any sort of standard? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
While I do not refute any information on this page I feel that anyone that hasn't seen the movie will miss out in the value of the drama because of the whole plot being displayed even to the point of killing a climax of the ending. If you could allow a drop down tab for these parts it would be nice, but I don't know enough to know how to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.183.70 ( talk) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Would someone please take a look at the contributions of 187.190.4.251? In the past few days, this IP user account has modified several articles about films and film actors by changing preexisting text about nationality to state that the individuals or films are Mexican. I reverted these changes in one case where sourced content was replaced with unsourced content but would like a second opinion on the others: Tad Hilgenbrink, Sergio Kleiner, El Topo, The Holy Mountain (1973 film), Ray Santiago, Iyari Limon, Maite Perroni and Angelique Boyer. I am inclined to revert all changes to BLPs as unsourced but sadly that is characteristic of most content within those articles, and so I thought to check here before taking any steps. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD says, the "first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film". I'm curious how WikiProject Film defines star. I am aware that actors' roles can be classified as "top billing", "lead", "supporting", and so on. Unfortunately I don't know how to determine who's classified as what for each film. IMDB's public site doesn't divide or list roles this way (I don't know about pay IMDB site). Usually I think it is clear from the size of the names on the original posters who are the "stars" of the film. If an actor/actresses name is in the biggest font, they are the stars. Other people generally should not be given mention in the lead unless there's good reason.
I have in mind the article Grease (film), which currently has the statement "The film stars John Travolta, Olivia Newton-John, Stockard Channing, and Jeff Conaway." in its lead (paragraph even). I think it is obvious that Travolta and Newton-John are the film's stars in this case and Channing and Conaway had supporting roles and should not be mentioned in the lead paragraph, or perhaps even the whole lead. The film's poster corroborates this point of view. It doesn't even mention Conaway. This is good example where it would be great to know the specific about the role titles.
Anybody able to give advice her on sorting through this? Jason Quinn ( talk) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on, but there's a whole lot of hoaxing in film-related articles right now. I would request that editors keep an eye out for this. In animated film articles, I'm seeing a lot of fake casting news that's falsely sourced to existing citations. In mainstream, live-action comedy films, I'm seeing editors replace actors with different ones. I don't know why this is such a big issue suddenly, but it's been going on for the past month or so. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
How reliable are The New York Times online biographies, such as this one? Can we assume that birthdates, birthplaces, and birthnames have been independently verified by TNYT? Or is there a chance that they are cribbing those from us, thus making it a WP:CIRCULAR reference? Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The list for the Carol article was deleted as being "superfluous". See: Talk:Carol_(film)#Top_Ten_lists
Is there any means by which such a list could be included in a secondary article related to the film? Can it be added to the bottom of the accolades page, or perhaps create a page for the Top Ten lists when it represents voluminous content? Particularly when a film has been declared the best reviewed film of 2015 by Metacritic. [1] I just think that needing to go from citation to citation within the article to cull this information is contrary to making information on Wikipedia helpful and easy to find. Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 10:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Pre-CFR discussion on possible new names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Ambiguous_name:_Category:Directors_and_national_subcats.
This would effect the parent categories of Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors, Category:Television directors, Category:Opera directors, etc. It would not effect the titles of the categories used on individual biographical articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Had a quick confab in Talk:2016 in film, decided to try out change to the column lists. Working backward from 2020.
Nutshell: Replace Medium column with Country to list of films.
I suggest the Year in film pages that are more than a year in the future get locked down. Have a link for regular editors to submit suggested updates for approval instead of messing with all the fanboyz adding their wishlists for stuff like Harry Potter and the Zombie Dumbledore Part LIV. Kid Bugs ( talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
All references on this page, apart from being affiliated with the British Screen Advisory Council (BSAC), seem to be dead links. All three that were linked go to the BSAC website, but it apeasr to be down. I am in Australia, if that makes any difference. - 220 of Borg 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Works for me too, now. I should have added that I emailed the contributor from BSAC on the 10th (Wednesday), and they replied that the website was down. "... being rebuilt but the new version should (according to developer's deadline) be back up again by this Friday." (Today!) - 220 of Borg 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
Recently, I've run into an editor who is linking Charlie Chaplin movies from YouTube onto their relevant Wikipedia articles. Presumably, all the movies are in the public domain as they are 80+ years old. Is there any precedent for whether or not these types of additions are OK? Right now, I'm leaning towards allowing them, but I figured someone here might know better. m.o.p 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There is not a significant consensus regarding the issues that are raised here. However, the consensus codified in 'What Wikipedia is not' and the external links guideline does suggest against linking to YouTube movies (or any external links) if that inclusion can not be properly justified. I came here after I got notified that my reversion of the third link to an online version of a movie was judged to be against this consensus. There are several reasons not to link to YouTube movies (bandwidth, not always accessible everywhere, etc. etc. - see WP:ELNO points), and I do think that the movie itself does not necessarily tell anything beyond the encyclopedic content of the article itself (and if they do, some of that can be included. Adding those YouTube/Vimeo/etc. links then turns the list into a Yellow Pages entry for that article. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Film directors from Africa and three similar categories, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Did the rule change? I thought a film had to be in principal photography to merit an independent article, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 appears to have existed a lot longer than a week ago... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I just made some edits to Amy Pascal because it gave zero indication of what had happened since the Sony hack. It sounds like she is doing a lot with a lot of big movies, and like Pascal Pictures is about ready for its own article. Problem is, I made these edits knowing zero, I mean zero, about what a film producer is, and in trying not to plagiarize I could have munged the content in ways I don't understand. Also, I think there's a lot more to be written in that article. It was the biggest story there is a year ago ... now nobody is minding the store. Wnt ( talk) 23:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding this edit about the plain listing of DVD features at Talk:Marvel Animated Features#technical minutiae. All comments are welcome.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of organizations and production companies credited in some way on Manifesto (2015 film). Input needed on which (if any) should be included in the infobox. Lapadite ( talk) 18:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No, not in any i've come across (German or English-language). I just looked through the sources on development & production, and I think it points to the director-writer being the editor:
Again. Please see this discussion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please feel free to add any input that you have at Talk:Once Upon a Time in America#Sergio Leone. MarnetteD| Talk 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the Choreographer tag should be added to the Film infobox. (See discussion here.) I support this addition. algocu ( talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. More input is needed. Lapadite ( talk) 08:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:Simon Kinberg appears to be problematic because it was seeded in film articles where he was a writer, a producer, or both. Considering that a given film often has multiple writers or producers, the use of this kind of template implies endorsing inserting writers' and producers' filmographies wholesale even though they are part of a team. This is problematic per WP:NAVBOX since it bloats the footer with works or persons themselves that may or may not be relevant to the topic. I don't believe we ever formalized guidelines for this matter. Do we need to update MOS:FILM#Navigation to exclude navigation templates for figures other than directors (with consensus-based exceptions)? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:Jared Leto by Naano94 is another such template that unloads an actor's entire filmography into each film article, even for the smaller roles. We really need to prevent such templates from taking hold and creating bloat. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There's a dispute over at Talk:The Mermaid (2016 film) over the language(s) to be included in the infobox. I think it would be useful to have more opinions. Thanks,-- Cattus talk 20:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Any interest in creating this task force? The following are examples of authoritative sources that can be exploited in writing articles on this genre.
—Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC) by FWiW Bzuk ( talk)
I couldn't see this mentioned, but given that RT is now owned by Fandango which has suspect scores and a conflict of interest, should we be looking at precluding the use of Rotten Tomatoes scores in film articles going forward? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a dispute over which date should be used in the infobox in Tarzan (1999 film). Since the article is currently fully protected, we need to come to consensus on the talk page. See Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Release date in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Editor Tenebrae has been removing lists of film critics' top 10 listings from a number of film articles and references this discussion from May 2012. I would like to revisit the consensus since it is over three years old. I have seen these lists around film articles for some time and have not been bothered by them. They strike me as similar to listing accolades. I could see a case for them appearing to be indiscriminate. Do other editors find such lists indiscriminate? I would say at minimum, we should at least keep the prose summary that usually appears with such lists, like here for Gravity (film). Input would be appreciated. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Let me just chime in to say I have no strong opinion on Tenebrae's actual Gravity edit. The questions that came to mind revolved around entirely different issues, that potentially have nothing do with actual Film:
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 09:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Erik, Betty Logan, Grapple X, and CapnZapp: CapnZapp unilaterally reversed a consensus change to the Film MOS here. Rather than get into an edit-war, I'd ask that he respect consensus and WP:BRD and discuss the issue here. I'd also ask the consensus editors to be vigilant of any further unilateral edits to the page. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed excessive top ten lists (lists with over 50 critics/publications or that would contain over 50 per the Metacritic scorecard) from Academy Award-nominated films. Lapadite ( talk) 05:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
--Valleysgirl76 00:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleysgirl76 ( talk • contribs)
There is an open discussion about Gods of Egypt (film) and the reporting of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I've recently come across this list article and was astonished at the sheer number of redlinks that appear on this list. I am normally not a fan of removing redlinks, and advocate for Wikipedia:Red link from time to time. However, this article is 80% redlinks. I seriously wonder if any of these redlinks will ever have articles. I went looking for direction on this issue and came across Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Guidelines_for_related_topics which says "Once an article has been created for a film, it can be entered into a number of lists..." This apparently hints that a film shouldn't be entered onto a list until an article exists for the film. Thoughts? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe what the manual of style is alluding to here is that an easy to rescue orphaned articles is to put them in various list related article. I do not believe that is advising against putting red linked titles in such articles.-- Deathawk ( talk) 23:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, I'd appreciate those with a critical eye for cutting plot sections take a look at The Mummy. People keep inflating the plot summary repeatedly, and I axed it down again from 1000 words to about half that. I'd appreciate someone else taking another look and seeing if there's any good way to shave a few dozen extra words off it, or make sure that there's nothing I've cut or truncated that reads wrongly. Thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm in the process of adding a reception section to Where the Red Fern Grows (1974 film). I don't watch movies much and don't edit movie or TV articles much consequently. However, I have seen this movie (when I was a kid I loved it to the extent that I worked to buy a dog like the main character!) and I wanted to know if it's alright to add the audience approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes. I know IMDB is crap, but is the RT audience rating considered reliable? It doesn't have any comments from professional critics, but I did find some of those in the Google newspaper archives. Thanks, White Arabian Filly Neigh 16:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
here. BMK ( talk) 18:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
here, as well. BMK ( talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment at Category talk:Films about rape#About or in. Debresser ( talk) 11:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
112.208.19.69 ( talk · contribs) added a See Also link to List of ghost films to a number of film articles and also added them to that article. No sources were provided, and as some of the additions included the Scream films, which as far as I'm aware involve no supernatural elements, I have reverted the changes to the list article. I am less certain about the changes to the individual articles as I don't recognize many of the films, and in some cases this may be a judgment call. My WP time is quite limited right now, but wanted to make other editors aware. DonIago ( talk) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that this IP definitely added a link to List of ghost films for several that in no way involve ghosts. I reverted a couple, but didn't have time to go through all of them. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 04:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion, thanks. -- Deathawk ( talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
John Wayne is one of the most noted actors of all time, and considering John Wayne filmography exists as a standalone article, it's only natural that a parallel category would too. The deletions of the film categories by actors is most a decade old now, and while consensus doesn't really "expire", I'd like to ask that this one be allowed.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 09:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the "distributor" field of Template:Infobox film still supposed to be the original distributor only, per the infobox documentation? There's an awfully long note on that field at Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith that reads "Theatrical and home media distribution rights will be transferred from 20th Century Fox to the Walt Disney Studios in May 2020. The digital distribution rights belong to Disney, as Lucasfilm retained the film's digital distribution rights prior to its acquisition by Disney." which seems entirely unnecessary, or should at least be accompanied by a comment of some sort... -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
A new editor BToller ( talk · contribs) has begun adding a number of articles of questionable notability, basically, all on himself or related to him. Two of them, Brendan Toller (on himself) and Pamela Lubell (on his producer) have been deleted ( [6], [7]) via PROD already. Another, I Need That Record! I have just prodded: it seems clearly non-notable, his student film that had no theatrical release and went to DVD.
My question is on Danny Says (film), another unreleased film; but at least this one is purportedly planned for a release, this year. It seems non-notable, but I would like some input from this crowd before PRODding it. Also, while I really dislike it when people use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote themselves, I don't want to propose deleting content if it actually has merit. TJRC ( talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding List of films featuring whitewashed roles, there is an active discussion about an attempted overhaul of the list article. The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
There is also a discussion thread about the writing of one of the section headings used in the article. The thread can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken recently restored uncited content to the article Moby Dick (1930 film), the subject of a disagreement on the article's talk page. I'd like to ask whether project members could find citations for the restored material, or, failing that, whether they would be prepared to offer opinions about whether the material ought to remain without citations. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Please join the discussion over at {{ Film date}} here that pertains to recent discussions this project has at about including "[Year] film" categories on upcoming film articles. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Once upon a time I started a discussion at Category talk:Films set in the future regarding whether 2012 belonged in this category. Yes, the film was released prior to 2012, but less than 5 years beforehand, and I don't believe the film is particularly futuristic, as opposed to, say 2001. What I suppose I'm saying is that I believe this category is intended to be used for "futuristic" films, though that's not entirely clear.
In any event, I think there should probably be some clarification as to what films belong in that category. Nobody's yet replied to my inquiry, so additional opinions would be welcome! DonIago ( talk) 14:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been posted at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
WP editor Tenebrae requests to have a
chapter of the article removed, which reports about comments by journalists and city offcials who criticized the depiction of the Mexican city Juarez in the film.
From my understanding any public discussion caused by a film fits very well in the WP article about it, however documentary or fictional the film is. If the film kicked off these public discussions they become part of the story; for example in
JFK (film),
American_Sniper,
Zero_Dark_Thirty,
Lockerbie Revisited or
The Power of Nightmares. But I'm willing to accept majority view: Should we remove comments (backed by sources like
this) on the realism of a movie from an article? --
Bernd.Brincken (
talk)
14:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Once an RfC has been called for a section, that section is not to be edited. Yet I've just had to revert Bernd.Brincken's unialteral editing of the section. I ask other WikIProject Film editors to keep an eye on the article so that this breach of policy does not recur. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Coonskin (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dagko ( talk) 04:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016. There is a request to add
|mother=
and |father=
parameter aliases to {{
Infobox character}}, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hola, re:
Template:Infobox film's |released=
parameter, does the project have any preference for whether or not to add "Scheduled for" before the film date if the movie has not been released yet? There's no mention in the template instructions, but I've seen "Scheduled for" here and there. Gracias,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Here. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Does this article pass WP:NFF? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Lately, I've seen a number of summary section headings added and removed, e.g., [8]. Is there a consensus on whether they should be used? Lapadite ( talk) 01:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to post here to get more eyes on this matter before I took any action, but I've just come across {{ FilmdbLink}}, created by Nami-ja, which appears to be a copy of this template at the Japanese Wikipedia, ja:Template:映画情報管理, where that user is also more active. I believe this template, which puts external links below an articles navbox, goes against our practices here, as laid out in Wikipedia:External links#How to link. I was planning to nominate it for deletion, but just wanted to see other's thoughts before I did. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Look at The Lobster. (This has been discussed a bit before.) Most of the characters aren't named in the film, but are identified with names like "Limping Man", "Heartless Woman" and "Biscuit Woman" in the credits - presumably because some means of identification is necessary in the credits. The current plot summary uses these names - proper nouns and all - in the summary itself. I think this is a bad idea, because it suggests those are the characters' actual in-universe names, when nothing in the story suggests this. So it's misleading. Surely referring to them with standard prose ("the man with the limp") would suffice?
I don't mean this to just be a discussion about The Lobster, by the way; I'd like to establish a consensus about how we identify unnamed characters generally, as it's something I've seen in a few places. Popcornduff ( talk) 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The page List of accolades received by the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator franchises lists the accolades received by three separate science fiction franchises. I suppose this would have been acceptable had the franchises all existed under the AvP umbrella, a la a shared universe. However, the AvP franchise has been dead for over eight years now and the Alien and Predator franchises have had their producers explicitly state that the continuities are separate from AvP and that AvP is a non-canon crossover detached from the individual franchises.
Seeing as how these franchises are not a part of the same umbrella, I believe we should look at splitting the contents of the page. I believe the page should be reserved for the Alien franchise, while it is a subject of discussion as to whether the accolades received by the Predator franchise are numerous enough to warrant a separate page. As for AvP? Ehh... it's pretty evident that the couple accolades would fit nicely on the Alien vs. Predator page. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 09:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Could those interested please comment in the talk thread Talk:Spectre (2015 film)#Indian censorship revisited on whether the solute cuts of a censor in one market is worthy of inclusion in an article. Many thanks. – – SchroCat ( talk) 06:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
...may be interested in this discussion. BMK ( talk) 02:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I loved Egan's book, The Invisible Circus, and was totally delighted when I saw a TV movie of the book. It was SO much better than the one with Cameron Diaz. And the love scenes in Italy so much more explicit and beautiful.
I cannot find any mention online of this TV production. I would love to hear from you if you saw this TV movie!
Carolyn Erbele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.237.234 ( talk) 17:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Is Dunkirk not considered to be notable enough to have an article? It has been covered by a fine amount, with large coverage of it being Harry Styles' "film debut". Freshness For Lettuce ( talk) 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I was recently told on Talk:Captain America: Civil War that the standard for articles on films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is to give the small-print billing block from the official poster, verbatim, but this seems problematic to me. For one thing, on our Avengers: Age of Ultron article this means Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba (who have one-minute cameos) and Stellan Skarsgård (whose cameo is only slightly longer) are named in the lead, before the film's principal antagonist James Spader. The problem on the (as-yet unreleased) Captain America: Civil War article may or may not be worse, with Wikipedia unilaterally declaring that the film will have an "ensemble cast" even though the same poster that lists sixteen actors also lists three of them much more prominently. Both of these articles' leads suffer from WP:OVERLINK with the paragraphs in question having more blue text than black.
I was told that saying that we should list the actor who plays the title character and the other actors whose names are listed above the film's title on the poster is bad because it is "based off of marketing materials", even though billing blocks by definition come from marketing material.
Any thoughts? Is this actually a style guideline for film articles? I read WP:MOSFILM#Lead section and WP:MOSFILM#Cast, but I still can't understand the logic here...
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there guidance somewhere about what constitutes notability (i.e., notable enough to have their own article) for producers of films, TV shows, etc.? I can't find a guideline at WP:Notability (people); WP:CREATIVE includes writers and directors, but does not say anything about producers. I also couldn't find anything at WP:NFILM. But I'm guessing that some kind of consensus understanding does exist - possibly not written down - and that you folks here at WikiProject Film might know what it is. Specifically: if a person has been the producer (I mean THE producer, not just one out of several executive producers) of a notable TV series or film, is that enough to make them notable? Or does it require multiple such productions, or an unusually notable production, or what is required? Thanks for any input. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
List of films considered the best is on to its fifth AfD nomination (if you include the three AfDs under its previous title as well). It seems some editors just don't get the message >>> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (2nd nomination). Betty Logan ( talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
To include or not to include the Harry Potter films: Talk:List_of_children's_films#Harry_Potter. An editor has removed sourced content several times now. He's about to feel the ANI birch on his backside (hopefully) but it wouldn't hurt to get a third opinion at the discussion. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I've proposed something about approaching some of the film companies to make agreements with screenshots from films. If interested please add some input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's official. According to this article in The Atlantic, list of cult films is one of the longest articles on Wikipedia. This is fairly recent. The article used to be well-sourced and moderately long, but now it's insanely long and comparatively poorly sourced. If anyone wants to take a look at it, I'd be grateful. The first thing that needs to be done is to remove all the redundant citations per WP:OVERCITE. Second, and this is going to be tedious, we need to get rid of the unreliable sources. Finally, we may want to tighten the inclusion criteria such that it takes more than some trivial mention in a glorified blog to make it onto the list. An indiscriminate list of 1000+ random films really doesn't help anyone understand what a cult film is. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Should we list that a film was an "official selection" at every film festival in which it played? For example: The House on Pine Street. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please seee Talk:Birdy (singer) In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 02:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
We could use more input at the film's Talk page. Another discussion affecting this project was opened on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.
There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to
WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I know the phrase has two definitions, but are we supposed to conform to one or the other when writing articles? It seems like when WP:FILMCAST says that if a film has an "ensemble cast" we should write up the cast list in detail, this could not mean that "if the cast includes a large number of famous actors" but rather "the cast includes a large number of players of roughly equal importance". Any ideas? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Just bringing to this projects attention the many unreferenced 'pashto' movie (and actor BLP pages) [10] created by Nouman khan sherani ( talk · contribs). 10 of 31 new pages have already been deleted. -- 220 of Borg 07:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking for some 3rd-party comments and feedback at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Opening in lead. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wikiproject Film. Lately I´ve wondered about the very high level of detail about money/earnings (Box office) in some moviearticles. A small sample is Deadpool (film) (the one that made me react), The Avengers (2012 film), Jurassic World and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Obviously, an important aspect of films like these is that they cost and make a lot of money, but is the abundance of detail here in line with what a WP-article should reasonably cover? To me it seems excessive, but that´s my opinion. I´d like to hear others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
[11] The underlying question is how do we disambiguate films, by premiere date or by general release date, and is that convention enshrined in a guideline somewhere? BMK ( talk) 03:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
And yet, we have another "summary statement" discussion brewing at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Constant Revision of Criticics Response section. Your opinions there would be appreciated, thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 12:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Science fiction movies-- Moxy ( talk) 05:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Should music videos be included in the navigational boxes of their directors? I'm thinking mainly of examples like Jazzin' for Blue Jean and Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video), where the videos are made by notable directors and are often described by reliable sources as short films in their own right. It seems to me there's a grey area here with no official guidelines. — Flax5 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussions here and here could use more eyes. Both related to image use. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Related move discussion linked at dab page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I've created a new article on the satirical comedy short film Climate Change Denial Disorder.
Help with additional research would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Climate Change Denial Disorder.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There's a dispute on an old Bruce Lee film. Can someone look at Way of the Dragon, please? A new editor is adding a producer to the infobox, and I'm not convinced this person, Riccardo Billi, belongs there. It's difficult to find authoritative English-language information about this film. I just checked the film's credits on Netflix, and Billi is not listed. The editor has provided a non-English source that has Billi's name in it, but how can that override the film's own credits? And I'm not even sure what the source is even saying after putting it into Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well not shot down, but there really wasn't a consensus able to be reached. You can read the whole thread here. The main problem seemed to be that it wasn't specific enough although there weren't really enough comments to properly gauge a reaction. The manual of style talk page, is not the most active in the world, so that also was a problem. I don't think I did a request for comment for that particular piece, just because I already did a request for comment on here regarding the same thing and I didn't want to come across as repetitive.
I think in a lot of ways the problem regarding production sections is kind of fixing themself, but we should probably tighten up our draft and submit it again. -- Deathawk ( talk) 09:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
In the page The Huntsman: Winter's War, a user from Thailand is adding full plot into the article as it has been released in that territory but not in the United States (where this English Wikipedia is written into the style and coverage). It was removed by another user citing "spoiler". How could it be when it was released in one territory before? Do this English Wikipedia has a spoiler policy? Why doesn't it allow a coverage to be written when this Wikipedia itself promotes worldwide subject? -- 182.232.115.23 ( talk) 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
These two films have been proposed to be renamed, see Talk:10 Years (film) and Talk:Ten Years (film) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 03:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at Template talk:Infobox film#Request for comment - would this be the better forum for this discussion? I'm also questioning the wording of the RfC - if I had started it, it might have been written:
But that's just my interpretation, and I'm involved in the dispute, though not one of the primary parties. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Any WP Film editors know if this website (English version) is a reliable source? I don't see any info on the site that can help determine if it is. Lapadite ( talk) 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Can other editors please weigh in at Talk:List of giant-monster films#Sourcing desperately needed? Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Could someone of authority please weigh in on the entire talk page, while they are at it, see Talk:List of giant-monster films#regarding links section, which has never been resolved on the talk page. Danke. Doctor Kaiju ( talk) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, so I think I've now got a pretty good handle on assessing 'Stub', 'Start' and 'C' class actor articles. Next, I'd like to figure out if Elizabeth Olsen has graduated to "B"-class. I can read the Wikipedia:B-class criteria, but I'd like someone who's done some "B-class" assessment work before to look over my shoulder on this. If anyone's willing to work with me on this, please reply back here, or hit me on my Talk page... I think once I've gotten one or two "B"-class assessments done, I should have a handle on it. Thanks! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
given that this has an "expand Russian Wikipedia" tag on it should it really be just blanked like this? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A relisting of a discussion, please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hollywood blacklist#Huston quote BMK ( talk) 20:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of A Streetcar Named Desire is under discussion, see talk:A Streetcar Named Desire (play) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. This is just a friendly notice to inform everyone of a new script created by AlexTheWhovian to check a length of a film's plot in relation to WP:FILMPLOT. Obviously there will continue to be the rare exceptions, but this is meant to help check the standard instance. You can find the script and instructions to install it on your common.js page, here. Feel free to reach out to Alex with any questions regarding the script. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, what's the consensus for the inclusion of negative awards like the Golden Raspberry? I have this situation to deal with, where Sonam Kapoor received an award for worst actress. Include? No include? Many thanks (and could I please trouble you to ping me in case I forget? My little red gnome hat has been spinning lately... Thanks all!) Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Can some of you take a look at List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Wars cast members. Both are basically identical. One is a table and list, the other just a longer table. Both have a great deal of overlap and duplicate info. While they serve a purpose, I'm thinking with some reduction, re-writing and merging, a single comprehensive article/list would serve much better. - theWOLFchild 15:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The charts in this family of articles only document the intitial release (i.e. it excludes grosses from reissues in subsequent years) as explained at Talk:2008_in_film#Disruptive_editing_of_the_grosses. An editor keeps re-adding the reissue grosses and refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. At the moment there is not much I can do because I am the only opinion on the talk page so if possible I would like to get some outside opinions. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the Purple Rain screenings that occurred all weekend across the country do not appear in the weekend box office results.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Folks may want to take a look at recent changes to the Plot for Independence Day (1996 film) and get involved if they feel it is appropriate to do so. Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The New York Times film database seems to be gone. It redirects to NYT reviews instead of showing data from Baseline. That's kind of a pain because I was using that for a lot of citations. Oh well. I guess we've still got Allmovie. Speaking of which, I see that Allmovie isn't listed at WP:FILM/R. Is there a reason? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I keep forgetting to mention this but the thread above jogged my memory. In actor (and occasionally film) articles I find refs that use Yahoo pages that no longer exist. These are from last decade and they - no doubt - disappeared during the several changes that they have gone through. Is it possible to program a bot to go through and mark these as dead links? If not I don't think it is as big a problem as losing the NYT info but I thought the members of the project should be aware of this. MarnetteD| Talk 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
So, have we figured out a workaround solution for this? Assuming TNYT films/bios database is "gone" (and I am assuming that until told otherwise...), is there a viable alternative for this kind of info? IMDb can't be used, and Hollywood.com is questionable, so is there another viable source for this kind of information? Because using archive.org isn't going to help those of us looking for this kind of info for "new" people or films and new articles... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the internet archives have all, or most of the data we need? Someone with more technical knowledge than I have could probably create a bot that archives all these links (I say probably, because again I don't have much knowledge on these things), also was this database deleted or was it just taken offline? Because if it's the latter, Wikipedia allows for hard to reach articles assuming that there is someone withing the company that can access them. -- Deathawk ( talk) 09:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Moody Blues - Nights In White Satin, should be included on the soundtrack list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.119.234 ( talk) 08:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I think more people should weigh in on Talk:5 Centimeters Per Second#Numeral romanization. There is an ongoing debate regarding which numeral romanizations are to be used for the title. Input from project members are appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I recently noticed the existence of Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe and Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe and I don't see any strong verification for naming these articles "cinematic universes". It seems the names are solely inspired by the existence of Marvel Cinematic Universe. The difference is Marvel Cinematic Universe, was actually coined by Marvel and became the common name for the franchise. I don't think "cinematic universe" should be the de facto name of these types of film series, especially if there are no strong sources to back them up. And they should definitely not be capitalized like "Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe". I think either "film series" or simply "universe" should be fine. It should also be noted that DC Extended Universe was once located at DC Cinematic Universe until references proved otherwise.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing, I thought the general rule of thumb was that we do not create film series articles unless it includes three or more standalone film articles.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about which gross should be used in the "XXXX in film articles" i.e. in the case of something like Star wars in 1977 in film, should the lifetime total be used or should the gross for the 1977 release be used? This issue affects a whole bunch of articles and the articles are inconsistent. We need to settle on one format or another, so I have started an RFC at Talk:1982 in film if anybody wishes to comment. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
They are quite common at wp:FLC and they look fine overall, but to me I think too many of them have 20+ sections. I think you guys should devise a guideline on how to merge some of those 20+ sections. I saw recently that people started grouping critic's awards into a single table/section which is a great step towards that. I hope people in this field come up with good suggestions (maybe ask those at wp:Music too since musicians have the same issue?). This is a typical list these days: List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone. Nergaal ( talk) 15:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi the reliability of stephenfollows.com is being discussed at RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#stephenfollows.com. That is a blog about the movie industry. Perhaps folks here could weigh in there. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to talk the hind legs off a donkey here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's a long shot, but does anyone here know anything about German animated children's films? I'm dealing with an IP that I suspect may be a vandal, but it's very difficult for me to even tell. The article is The Fearless Four (film). You can see that I and a few other people have been reverting someone on an IPv6 range. I'm not quite sure, but I think this edit is a hoax. I checked the Turner Classic Movies database, BFI, the Big Comics Database, and the IMDB, and none of these databases list the cast members the IP editor insists on adding. I can't find anything on the Internet to support their inclusion in the cast list. I filed a request for page protection, but it's probably going to get declined. I also started a talk page thread a few weeks ago where I asked for sources to confirm the casting, but nobody has responded. So, in desperation, I come here. What's the verdict? Is this a hoax, or have I suddenly lost my ability to source content? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The nom looks a bit of a mess, but I thought I'd bring it to people's attentions. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a suspicious film called The Slave Island in Pauline Frederick and IMDb's filmographies. I think it may actually be another name for The Slave Market. Greta de Groat, who appears to be Frederick's number one fan, doesn't list it, [12] IMDb's entry is extremely bare (e.g. she's the only cast member listed), and the two films' release dates are December 31, 1916, and January 1, 1917, respectively. Can anyone shed any light on the matter? Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This image is discussed. I invite you to FFD. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Another image is still discussed. I invite you to FFD. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm new to the Wikiproject and I was looking at the Time Travellers film and Is it the Time Travelers, Time Travelers or the film called The Time Travelers, Would this be classed as a disambiguation or the TV movie? D Eaketts ( talk) 12:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean't there is a request for Time Travellers (film) but I wasn't sure which film it was suppose to before. D Eaketts ( talk) 10:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks will do the Redirect for the article shortly. D Eaketts ( talk) 13:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
100 Years (film). Any thoughts? Passes WP:NFF?! @ Bovineboy2008: too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There are debates on various open FACs regarding the interpretation of MOS:TENSE (a guideline) and WP:FICTENSE (an essay) because most current WP:FAs ignore these directives. In summary, I believe that these two points combine to give the directive that we should consider films ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion. Colloquially, people will say a film was good/bad, but say a building is tall/beautiful/etc. A film is as permanent/ongoing as a building, and modern buildings are more likely to be demolished/replaced than modern movies are likely to be lost. Because of colloquial use, I think it is common to allow articles fall into past tense when discussing a movie. The question is whether we want to ignore, revise or enforce these guidelines.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Inspired by List of longest-running video game franchises, what do you think about this article being created? At the moment the nearest thing is List of the longest gaps between film sequels, which has a notably difference scope.-- Coin945 ( talk) 04:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 16:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
![]() | 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 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
It's a new year and I think we should finally tighten our production section guidelines this year. This is something I've been trying to bring up in various ways off and on, but I feel the new year it would make sense to actually do it.
Right now my major issue is that it seems there is no formal agreed upon "house" style for production sections. For older films this isn't really a problem so much, but it's really hurting new film articles. Often times you end up with people putting in every little piece of news that comes out into these articles. So you often end up with bloated production section that list, who the screenwriters are, when the cast joined, when locations were scouted but in the end it doesn't really add up to anything.
Look at the current page for The Conjuring 2: The Pre-production section lists A) when cast members were announced B) When they were confirmed C) When location scouting occurred, and when actors visited the set. None of these actions I would say really add up to anything in that they don't really present the story of how the film came to be.
The traditional view of many Wikipedians seems to be that if it's sourced information no matter what information it is, it should stay, and that leads to some bloated production section, that like I said don't really accomplish the goal of Wikipedia.
I dunno maybe I'm crazy to think like this. Could we maybe try to say something in the Manual of Style for film aricles about this? ---- Deathawk ( talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ BattleshipMan: :@ TriiipleThreat:.@ Captain Assassin!: Can we all agree with this passsage of my draft "the goal of the production section is to establish the story of how a movie came together, this is different from a news site like The Hollywood Reporter or Vanity Fair which reports on every little aspect of the production." I think we get hung up in the example I used, but can agree that these sections shouldn't read like a news section from Variety correct? Like we all agree that there's a problem, it's just how do we fix it that's a problem.-- Deathawk ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
To @ NinjaRobotPirate:'s point earlier in this thread. I've been thinking about how to cut down on the clutter and I though we might include such wording as "Production sections should be created when there is an ample story to tell and not created merely because a film article is expected to have them. For instance while it might be useful to provide dates when cast members or filming joined or dates filming started for a production section in process these shouldn't be the only sections contained within it. Instead the production section should create context for how the casting came about or how the filming location was decided"-- Deathawk ( talk) 06:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to start coming up with some consensus on things. right now it appears to be that one thing we can all agree on is that the film should follow proseline formatting. I have heard no complaints about my idea that the production should follow a clear narrative. Although for the latter there hasn't been quite as much discussion as I'd like. :@ TriiipleThreat:. @ Captain Assassin!: ( talk) do you agree with the wording? -- Deathawk ( talk) 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:List of supercouples#Requested move: Move back to List of fictional supercouples. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear: This move discussion concerns whether or not real-life people should be on the list. If you really have no problem with the list reverting back to how it was years ago (the inclusion of real-life people), then (going by the current lean of the move discussion) there is no need to comment. If you do have a problem with it, then now is the time to comment. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may or may not know I've spent about six months or so trying to get new guidelines for the production section off the ground. I worry mainly about the crop of 2014 and 2015 film articles who's production read more like PR news releases than they do useful Wikipedia articles. While I do not think we've not quite finished discussing everything I wanted to in my previous "Production Section Problems" section the conversation has seemingly reached a dead end. With that said I think I've got enough input to create a reasonable first draft of what the production section guideline in the Manual of style should look like. I would like some of your guys's input.
When creating a production section it is important to keep in mind both what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Whereas a site like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter reports on every little detail as it happens that is not so beneficial for a Wikipedia article. Instead the production section should focus on a clear narrative that is interesting to the reader while avoiding trivial information. The definition of what is and is not "Trivial" here is deliberately vague and may change from movie to movie. Context should be provided for information added about how it contributes to said narrative. Not all films may have such a narrative at which point editors should give pause to whether or not the film should even have a production section.
All information should be written using WP:Prose guidelines. Dates can be useful for context however the article should not rely too heavily on them.
This is what I have so far, thoughts opinions? -- Deathawk ( talk) 02:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
When creating a production section it is important to keep in mind both what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Particularly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, information should be put in context to provide a clear narrative that is interesting to the reader while avoiding indiscriminate details. Remember, an encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Context should be provided for information about how it contributes to said narrative. At the same time, be sure to avoid proseline. While general time frames can be useful for context, exact dates are rarely important and similar pieces of information can be bundled together.
Elisha Cuthbert and House of Wax (2005 film) could use more eyes. Promotional wording is being added by SPAs: "premiered at several festivals, including three of the most important in the world", more about "most important" film festivals, "gained international fame", various permutations of "hailed by critics", etc. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion which is relevant to this project has been opened here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should we move full-length movies from article space to Commons.3F. MarnetteD| Talk 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been given no explanation as to why my edits to Shaun the Sheep Movie have been reverted, basically noting that the film has no dialogue. Why is this not notable, when The Naked Island lists the language as being "Japanese (no dialogue)," and Themroc lists the language as "Gibberish?" Most other articles I've seen about films without dialogue either don't have a language listed, or note the language of the country of origin. I'm just asking for consistency here; silent films always list the language as being "Silent" no matter what the original language on the title cards is, so why don't films without dialogue have any sort of standard? -- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
While I do not refute any information on this page I feel that anyone that hasn't seen the movie will miss out in the value of the drama because of the whole plot being displayed even to the point of killing a climax of the ending. If you could allow a drop down tab for these parts it would be nice, but I don't know enough to know how to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.183.70 ( talk) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Would someone please take a look at the contributions of 187.190.4.251? In the past few days, this IP user account has modified several articles about films and film actors by changing preexisting text about nationality to state that the individuals or films are Mexican. I reverted these changes in one case where sourced content was replaced with unsourced content but would like a second opinion on the others: Tad Hilgenbrink, Sergio Kleiner, El Topo, The Holy Mountain (1973 film), Ray Santiago, Iyari Limon, Maite Perroni and Angelique Boyer. I am inclined to revert all changes to BLPs as unsourced but sadly that is characteristic of most content within those articles, and so I thought to check here before taking any steps. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD says, the "first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film". I'm curious how WikiProject Film defines star. I am aware that actors' roles can be classified as "top billing", "lead", "supporting", and so on. Unfortunately I don't know how to determine who's classified as what for each film. IMDB's public site doesn't divide or list roles this way (I don't know about pay IMDB site). Usually I think it is clear from the size of the names on the original posters who are the "stars" of the film. If an actor/actresses name is in the biggest font, they are the stars. Other people generally should not be given mention in the lead unless there's good reason.
I have in mind the article Grease (film), which currently has the statement "The film stars John Travolta, Olivia Newton-John, Stockard Channing, and Jeff Conaway." in its lead (paragraph even). I think it is obvious that Travolta and Newton-John are the film's stars in this case and Channing and Conaway had supporting roles and should not be mentioned in the lead paragraph, or perhaps even the whole lead. The film's poster corroborates this point of view. It doesn't even mention Conaway. This is good example where it would be great to know the specific about the role titles.
Anybody able to give advice her on sorting through this? Jason Quinn ( talk) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on, but there's a whole lot of hoaxing in film-related articles right now. I would request that editors keep an eye out for this. In animated film articles, I'm seeing a lot of fake casting news that's falsely sourced to existing citations. In mainstream, live-action comedy films, I'm seeing editors replace actors with different ones. I don't know why this is such a big issue suddenly, but it's been going on for the past month or so. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
How reliable are The New York Times online biographies, such as this one? Can we assume that birthdates, birthplaces, and birthnames have been independently verified by TNYT? Or is there a chance that they are cribbing those from us, thus making it a WP:CIRCULAR reference? Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The list for the Carol article was deleted as being "superfluous". See: Talk:Carol_(film)#Top_Ten_lists
Is there any means by which such a list could be included in a secondary article related to the film? Can it be added to the bottom of the accolades page, or perhaps create a page for the Top Ten lists when it represents voluminous content? Particularly when a film has been declared the best reviewed film of 2015 by Metacritic. [1] I just think that needing to go from citation to citation within the article to cull this information is contrary to making information on Wikipedia helpful and easy to find. Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 10:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Pre-CFR discussion on possible new names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Ambiguous_name:_Category:Directors_and_national_subcats.
This would effect the parent categories of Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors, Category:Television directors, Category:Opera directors, etc. It would not effect the titles of the categories used on individual biographical articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Had a quick confab in Talk:2016 in film, decided to try out change to the column lists. Working backward from 2020.
Nutshell: Replace Medium column with Country to list of films.
I suggest the Year in film pages that are more than a year in the future get locked down. Have a link for regular editors to submit suggested updates for approval instead of messing with all the fanboyz adding their wishlists for stuff like Harry Potter and the Zombie Dumbledore Part LIV. Kid Bugs ( talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
All references on this page, apart from being affiliated with the British Screen Advisory Council (BSAC), seem to be dead links. All three that were linked go to the BSAC website, but it apeasr to be down. I am in Australia, if that makes any difference. - 220 of Borg 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Works for me too, now. I should have added that I emailed the contributor from BSAC on the 10th (Wednesday), and they replied that the website was down. "... being rebuilt but the new version should (according to developer's deadline) be back up again by this Friday." (Today!) - 220 of Borg 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
Recently, I've run into an editor who is linking Charlie Chaplin movies from YouTube onto their relevant Wikipedia articles. Presumably, all the movies are in the public domain as they are 80+ years old. Is there any precedent for whether or not these types of additions are OK? Right now, I'm leaning towards allowing them, but I figured someone here might know better. m.o.p 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There is not a significant consensus regarding the issues that are raised here. However, the consensus codified in 'What Wikipedia is not' and the external links guideline does suggest against linking to YouTube movies (or any external links) if that inclusion can not be properly justified. I came here after I got notified that my reversion of the third link to an online version of a movie was judged to be against this consensus. There are several reasons not to link to YouTube movies (bandwidth, not always accessible everywhere, etc. etc. - see WP:ELNO points), and I do think that the movie itself does not necessarily tell anything beyond the encyclopedic content of the article itself (and if they do, some of that can be included. Adding those YouTube/Vimeo/etc. links then turns the list into a Yellow Pages entry for that article. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Film directors from Africa and three similar categories, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Did the rule change? I thought a film had to be in principal photography to merit an independent article, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 appears to have existed a lot longer than a week ago... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I just made some edits to Amy Pascal because it gave zero indication of what had happened since the Sony hack. It sounds like she is doing a lot with a lot of big movies, and like Pascal Pictures is about ready for its own article. Problem is, I made these edits knowing zero, I mean zero, about what a film producer is, and in trying not to plagiarize I could have munged the content in ways I don't understand. Also, I think there's a lot more to be written in that article. It was the biggest story there is a year ago ... now nobody is minding the store. Wnt ( talk) 23:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding this edit about the plain listing of DVD features at Talk:Marvel Animated Features#technical minutiae. All comments are welcome.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of organizations and production companies credited in some way on Manifesto (2015 film). Input needed on which (if any) should be included in the infobox. Lapadite ( talk) 18:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No, not in any i've come across (German or English-language). I just looked through the sources on development & production, and I think it points to the director-writer being the editor:
Again. Please see this discussion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please feel free to add any input that you have at Talk:Once Upon a Time in America#Sergio Leone. MarnetteD| Talk 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the Choreographer tag should be added to the Film infobox. (See discussion here.) I support this addition. algocu ( talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. More input is needed. Lapadite ( talk) 08:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:Simon Kinberg appears to be problematic because it was seeded in film articles where he was a writer, a producer, or both. Considering that a given film often has multiple writers or producers, the use of this kind of template implies endorsing inserting writers' and producers' filmographies wholesale even though they are part of a team. This is problematic per WP:NAVBOX since it bloats the footer with works or persons themselves that may or may not be relevant to the topic. I don't believe we ever formalized guidelines for this matter. Do we need to update MOS:FILM#Navigation to exclude navigation templates for figures other than directors (with consensus-based exceptions)? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:Jared Leto by Naano94 is another such template that unloads an actor's entire filmography into each film article, even for the smaller roles. We really need to prevent such templates from taking hold and creating bloat. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There's a dispute over at Talk:The Mermaid (2016 film) over the language(s) to be included in the infobox. I think it would be useful to have more opinions. Thanks,-- Cattus talk 20:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Any interest in creating this task force? The following are examples of authoritative sources that can be exploited in writing articles on this genre.
—Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC) by FWiW Bzuk ( talk)
I couldn't see this mentioned, but given that RT is now owned by Fandango which has suspect scores and a conflict of interest, should we be looking at precluding the use of Rotten Tomatoes scores in film articles going forward? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a dispute over which date should be used in the infobox in Tarzan (1999 film). Since the article is currently fully protected, we need to come to consensus on the talk page. See Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Release date in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Editor Tenebrae has been removing lists of film critics' top 10 listings from a number of film articles and references this discussion from May 2012. I would like to revisit the consensus since it is over three years old. I have seen these lists around film articles for some time and have not been bothered by them. They strike me as similar to listing accolades. I could see a case for them appearing to be indiscriminate. Do other editors find such lists indiscriminate? I would say at minimum, we should at least keep the prose summary that usually appears with such lists, like here for Gravity (film). Input would be appreciated. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Let me just chime in to say I have no strong opinion on Tenebrae's actual Gravity edit. The questions that came to mind revolved around entirely different issues, that potentially have nothing do with actual Film:
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 09:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Erik, Betty Logan, Grapple X, and CapnZapp: CapnZapp unilaterally reversed a consensus change to the Film MOS here. Rather than get into an edit-war, I'd ask that he respect consensus and WP:BRD and discuss the issue here. I'd also ask the consensus editors to be vigilant of any further unilateral edits to the page. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed excessive top ten lists (lists with over 50 critics/publications or that would contain over 50 per the Metacritic scorecard) from Academy Award-nominated films. Lapadite ( talk) 05:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
--Valleysgirl76 00:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleysgirl76 ( talk • contribs)
There is an open discussion about Gods of Egypt (film) and the reporting of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I've recently come across this list article and was astonished at the sheer number of redlinks that appear on this list. I am normally not a fan of removing redlinks, and advocate for Wikipedia:Red link from time to time. However, this article is 80% redlinks. I seriously wonder if any of these redlinks will ever have articles. I went looking for direction on this issue and came across Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Guidelines_for_related_topics which says "Once an article has been created for a film, it can be entered into a number of lists..." This apparently hints that a film shouldn't be entered onto a list until an article exists for the film. Thoughts? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe what the manual of style is alluding to here is that an easy to rescue orphaned articles is to put them in various list related article. I do not believe that is advising against putting red linked titles in such articles.-- Deathawk ( talk) 23:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, I'd appreciate those with a critical eye for cutting plot sections take a look at The Mummy. People keep inflating the plot summary repeatedly, and I axed it down again from 1000 words to about half that. I'd appreciate someone else taking another look and seeing if there's any good way to shave a few dozen extra words off it, or make sure that there's nothing I've cut or truncated that reads wrongly. Thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm in the process of adding a reception section to Where the Red Fern Grows (1974 film). I don't watch movies much and don't edit movie or TV articles much consequently. However, I have seen this movie (when I was a kid I loved it to the extent that I worked to buy a dog like the main character!) and I wanted to know if it's alright to add the audience approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes. I know IMDB is crap, but is the RT audience rating considered reliable? It doesn't have any comments from professional critics, but I did find some of those in the Google newspaper archives. Thanks, White Arabian Filly Neigh 16:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
here. BMK ( talk) 18:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
here, as well. BMK ( talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment at Category talk:Films about rape#About or in. Debresser ( talk) 11:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
112.208.19.69 ( talk · contribs) added a See Also link to List of ghost films to a number of film articles and also added them to that article. No sources were provided, and as some of the additions included the Scream films, which as far as I'm aware involve no supernatural elements, I have reverted the changes to the list article. I am less certain about the changes to the individual articles as I don't recognize many of the films, and in some cases this may be a judgment call. My WP time is quite limited right now, but wanted to make other editors aware. DonIago ( talk) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that this IP definitely added a link to List of ghost films for several that in no way involve ghosts. I reverted a couple, but didn't have time to go through all of them. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 04:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion, thanks. -- Deathawk ( talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
John Wayne is one of the most noted actors of all time, and considering John Wayne filmography exists as a standalone article, it's only natural that a parallel category would too. The deletions of the film categories by actors is most a decade old now, and while consensus doesn't really "expire", I'd like to ask that this one be allowed.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 09:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the "distributor" field of Template:Infobox film still supposed to be the original distributor only, per the infobox documentation? There's an awfully long note on that field at Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith that reads "Theatrical and home media distribution rights will be transferred from 20th Century Fox to the Walt Disney Studios in May 2020. The digital distribution rights belong to Disney, as Lucasfilm retained the film's digital distribution rights prior to its acquisition by Disney." which seems entirely unnecessary, or should at least be accompanied by a comment of some sort... -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
A new editor BToller ( talk · contribs) has begun adding a number of articles of questionable notability, basically, all on himself or related to him. Two of them, Brendan Toller (on himself) and Pamela Lubell (on his producer) have been deleted ( [6], [7]) via PROD already. Another, I Need That Record! I have just prodded: it seems clearly non-notable, his student film that had no theatrical release and went to DVD.
My question is on Danny Says (film), another unreleased film; but at least this one is purportedly planned for a release, this year. It seems non-notable, but I would like some input from this crowd before PRODding it. Also, while I really dislike it when people use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote themselves, I don't want to propose deleting content if it actually has merit. TJRC ( talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding List of films featuring whitewashed roles, there is an active discussion about an attempted overhaul of the list article. The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
There is also a discussion thread about the writing of one of the section headings used in the article. The thread can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken recently restored uncited content to the article Moby Dick (1930 film), the subject of a disagreement on the article's talk page. I'd like to ask whether project members could find citations for the restored material, or, failing that, whether they would be prepared to offer opinions about whether the material ought to remain without citations. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Please join the discussion over at {{ Film date}} here that pertains to recent discussions this project has at about including "[Year] film" categories on upcoming film articles. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Once upon a time I started a discussion at Category talk:Films set in the future regarding whether 2012 belonged in this category. Yes, the film was released prior to 2012, but less than 5 years beforehand, and I don't believe the film is particularly futuristic, as opposed to, say 2001. What I suppose I'm saying is that I believe this category is intended to be used for "futuristic" films, though that's not entirely clear.
In any event, I think there should probably be some clarification as to what films belong in that category. Nobody's yet replied to my inquiry, so additional opinions would be welcome! DonIago ( talk) 14:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been posted at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
WP editor Tenebrae requests to have a
chapter of the article removed, which reports about comments by journalists and city offcials who criticized the depiction of the Mexican city Juarez in the film.
From my understanding any public discussion caused by a film fits very well in the WP article about it, however documentary or fictional the film is. If the film kicked off these public discussions they become part of the story; for example in
JFK (film),
American_Sniper,
Zero_Dark_Thirty,
Lockerbie Revisited or
The Power of Nightmares. But I'm willing to accept majority view: Should we remove comments (backed by sources like
this) on the realism of a movie from an article? --
Bernd.Brincken (
talk)
14:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Once an RfC has been called for a section, that section is not to be edited. Yet I've just had to revert Bernd.Brincken's unialteral editing of the section. I ask other WikIProject Film editors to keep an eye on the article so that this breach of policy does not recur. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Coonskin (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dagko ( talk) 04:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016. There is a request to add
|mother=
and |father=
parameter aliases to {{
Infobox character}}, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hola, re:
Template:Infobox film's |released=
parameter, does the project have any preference for whether or not to add "Scheduled for" before the film date if the movie has not been released yet? There's no mention in the template instructions, but I've seen "Scheduled for" here and there. Gracias,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Here. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Does this article pass WP:NFF? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Lately, I've seen a number of summary section headings added and removed, e.g., [8]. Is there a consensus on whether they should be used? Lapadite ( talk) 01:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to post here to get more eyes on this matter before I took any action, but I've just come across {{ FilmdbLink}}, created by Nami-ja, which appears to be a copy of this template at the Japanese Wikipedia, ja:Template:映画情報管理, where that user is also more active. I believe this template, which puts external links below an articles navbox, goes against our practices here, as laid out in Wikipedia:External links#How to link. I was planning to nominate it for deletion, but just wanted to see other's thoughts before I did. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Look at The Lobster. (This has been discussed a bit before.) Most of the characters aren't named in the film, but are identified with names like "Limping Man", "Heartless Woman" and "Biscuit Woman" in the credits - presumably because some means of identification is necessary in the credits. The current plot summary uses these names - proper nouns and all - in the summary itself. I think this is a bad idea, because it suggests those are the characters' actual in-universe names, when nothing in the story suggests this. So it's misleading. Surely referring to them with standard prose ("the man with the limp") would suffice?
I don't mean this to just be a discussion about The Lobster, by the way; I'd like to establish a consensus about how we identify unnamed characters generally, as it's something I've seen in a few places. Popcornduff ( talk) 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The page List of accolades received by the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator franchises lists the accolades received by three separate science fiction franchises. I suppose this would have been acceptable had the franchises all existed under the AvP umbrella, a la a shared universe. However, the AvP franchise has been dead for over eight years now and the Alien and Predator franchises have had their producers explicitly state that the continuities are separate from AvP and that AvP is a non-canon crossover detached from the individual franchises.
Seeing as how these franchises are not a part of the same umbrella, I believe we should look at splitting the contents of the page. I believe the page should be reserved for the Alien franchise, while it is a subject of discussion as to whether the accolades received by the Predator franchise are numerous enough to warrant a separate page. As for AvP? Ehh... it's pretty evident that the couple accolades would fit nicely on the Alien vs. Predator page. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 09:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Could those interested please comment in the talk thread Talk:Spectre (2015 film)#Indian censorship revisited on whether the solute cuts of a censor in one market is worthy of inclusion in an article. Many thanks. – – SchroCat ( talk) 06:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
...may be interested in this discussion. BMK ( talk) 02:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I loved Egan's book, The Invisible Circus, and was totally delighted when I saw a TV movie of the book. It was SO much better than the one with Cameron Diaz. And the love scenes in Italy so much more explicit and beautiful.
I cannot find any mention online of this TV production. I would love to hear from you if you saw this TV movie!
Carolyn Erbele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.237.234 ( talk) 17:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Is Dunkirk not considered to be notable enough to have an article? It has been covered by a fine amount, with large coverage of it being Harry Styles' "film debut". Freshness For Lettuce ( talk) 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I was recently told on Talk:Captain America: Civil War that the standard for articles on films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is to give the small-print billing block from the official poster, verbatim, but this seems problematic to me. For one thing, on our Avengers: Age of Ultron article this means Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba (who have one-minute cameos) and Stellan Skarsgård (whose cameo is only slightly longer) are named in the lead, before the film's principal antagonist James Spader. The problem on the (as-yet unreleased) Captain America: Civil War article may or may not be worse, with Wikipedia unilaterally declaring that the film will have an "ensemble cast" even though the same poster that lists sixteen actors also lists three of them much more prominently. Both of these articles' leads suffer from WP:OVERLINK with the paragraphs in question having more blue text than black.
I was told that saying that we should list the actor who plays the title character and the other actors whose names are listed above the film's title on the poster is bad because it is "based off of marketing materials", even though billing blocks by definition come from marketing material.
Any thoughts? Is this actually a style guideline for film articles? I read WP:MOSFILM#Lead section and WP:MOSFILM#Cast, but I still can't understand the logic here...
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there guidance somewhere about what constitutes notability (i.e., notable enough to have their own article) for producers of films, TV shows, etc.? I can't find a guideline at WP:Notability (people); WP:CREATIVE includes writers and directors, but does not say anything about producers. I also couldn't find anything at WP:NFILM. But I'm guessing that some kind of consensus understanding does exist - possibly not written down - and that you folks here at WikiProject Film might know what it is. Specifically: if a person has been the producer (I mean THE producer, not just one out of several executive producers) of a notable TV series or film, is that enough to make them notable? Or does it require multiple such productions, or an unusually notable production, or what is required? Thanks for any input. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
List of films considered the best is on to its fifth AfD nomination (if you include the three AfDs under its previous title as well). It seems some editors just don't get the message >>> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (2nd nomination). Betty Logan ( talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
To include or not to include the Harry Potter films: Talk:List_of_children's_films#Harry_Potter. An editor has removed sourced content several times now. He's about to feel the ANI birch on his backside (hopefully) but it wouldn't hurt to get a third opinion at the discussion. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I've proposed something about approaching some of the film companies to make agreements with screenshots from films. If interested please add some input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's official. According to this article in The Atlantic, list of cult films is one of the longest articles on Wikipedia. This is fairly recent. The article used to be well-sourced and moderately long, but now it's insanely long and comparatively poorly sourced. If anyone wants to take a look at it, I'd be grateful. The first thing that needs to be done is to remove all the redundant citations per WP:OVERCITE. Second, and this is going to be tedious, we need to get rid of the unreliable sources. Finally, we may want to tighten the inclusion criteria such that it takes more than some trivial mention in a glorified blog to make it onto the list. An indiscriminate list of 1000+ random films really doesn't help anyone understand what a cult film is. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Should we list that a film was an "official selection" at every film festival in which it played? For example: The House on Pine Street. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please seee Talk:Birdy (singer) In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 02:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
We could use more input at the film's Talk page. Another discussion affecting this project was opened on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.
There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to
WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I know the phrase has two definitions, but are we supposed to conform to one or the other when writing articles? It seems like when WP:FILMCAST says that if a film has an "ensemble cast" we should write up the cast list in detail, this could not mean that "if the cast includes a large number of famous actors" but rather "the cast includes a large number of players of roughly equal importance". Any ideas? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Just bringing to this projects attention the many unreferenced 'pashto' movie (and actor BLP pages) [10] created by Nouman khan sherani ( talk · contribs). 10 of 31 new pages have already been deleted. -- 220 of Borg 07:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking for some 3rd-party comments and feedback at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Opening in lead. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wikiproject Film. Lately I´ve wondered about the very high level of detail about money/earnings (Box office) in some moviearticles. A small sample is Deadpool (film) (the one that made me react), The Avengers (2012 film), Jurassic World and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Obviously, an important aspect of films like these is that they cost and make a lot of money, but is the abundance of detail here in line with what a WP-article should reasonably cover? To me it seems excessive, but that´s my opinion. I´d like to hear others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
[11] The underlying question is how do we disambiguate films, by premiere date or by general release date, and is that convention enshrined in a guideline somewhere? BMK ( talk) 03:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
And yet, we have another "summary statement" discussion brewing at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Constant Revision of Criticics Response section. Your opinions there would be appreciated, thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 12:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Science fiction movies-- Moxy ( talk) 05:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Should music videos be included in the navigational boxes of their directors? I'm thinking mainly of examples like Jazzin' for Blue Jean and Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video), where the videos are made by notable directors and are often described by reliable sources as short films in their own right. It seems to me there's a grey area here with no official guidelines. — Flax5 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussions here and here could use more eyes. Both related to image use. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Related move discussion linked at dab page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I've created a new article on the satirical comedy short film Climate Change Denial Disorder.
Help with additional research would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Climate Change Denial Disorder.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There's a dispute on an old Bruce Lee film. Can someone look at Way of the Dragon, please? A new editor is adding a producer to the infobox, and I'm not convinced this person, Riccardo Billi, belongs there. It's difficult to find authoritative English-language information about this film. I just checked the film's credits on Netflix, and Billi is not listed. The editor has provided a non-English source that has Billi's name in it, but how can that override the film's own credits? And I'm not even sure what the source is even saying after putting it into Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well not shot down, but there really wasn't a consensus able to be reached. You can read the whole thread here. The main problem seemed to be that it wasn't specific enough although there weren't really enough comments to properly gauge a reaction. The manual of style talk page, is not the most active in the world, so that also was a problem. I don't think I did a request for comment for that particular piece, just because I already did a request for comment on here regarding the same thing and I didn't want to come across as repetitive.
I think in a lot of ways the problem regarding production sections is kind of fixing themself, but we should probably tighten up our draft and submit it again. -- Deathawk ( talk) 09:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
In the page The Huntsman: Winter's War, a user from Thailand is adding full plot into the article as it has been released in that territory but not in the United States (where this English Wikipedia is written into the style and coverage). It was removed by another user citing "spoiler". How could it be when it was released in one territory before? Do this English Wikipedia has a spoiler policy? Why doesn't it allow a coverage to be written when this Wikipedia itself promotes worldwide subject? -- 182.232.115.23 ( talk) 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
These two films have been proposed to be renamed, see Talk:10 Years (film) and Talk:Ten Years (film) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 03:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at Template talk:Infobox film#Request for comment - would this be the better forum for this discussion? I'm also questioning the wording of the RfC - if I had started it, it might have been written:
But that's just my interpretation, and I'm involved in the dispute, though not one of the primary parties. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Any WP Film editors know if this website (English version) is a reliable source? I don't see any info on the site that can help determine if it is. Lapadite ( talk) 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Can other editors please weigh in at Talk:List of giant-monster films#Sourcing desperately needed? Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Could someone of authority please weigh in on the entire talk page, while they are at it, see Talk:List of giant-monster films#regarding links section, which has never been resolved on the talk page. Danke. Doctor Kaiju ( talk) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, so I think I've now got a pretty good handle on assessing 'Stub', 'Start' and 'C' class actor articles. Next, I'd like to figure out if Elizabeth Olsen has graduated to "B"-class. I can read the Wikipedia:B-class criteria, but I'd like someone who's done some "B-class" assessment work before to look over my shoulder on this. If anyone's willing to work with me on this, please reply back here, or hit me on my Talk page... I think once I've gotten one or two "B"-class assessments done, I should have a handle on it. Thanks! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
given that this has an "expand Russian Wikipedia" tag on it should it really be just blanked like this? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A relisting of a discussion, please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hollywood blacklist#Huston quote BMK ( talk) 20:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of A Streetcar Named Desire is under discussion, see talk:A Streetcar Named Desire (play) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. This is just a friendly notice to inform everyone of a new script created by AlexTheWhovian to check a length of a film's plot in relation to WP:FILMPLOT. Obviously there will continue to be the rare exceptions, but this is meant to help check the standard instance. You can find the script and instructions to install it on your common.js page, here. Feel free to reach out to Alex with any questions regarding the script. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, what's the consensus for the inclusion of negative awards like the Golden Raspberry? I have this situation to deal with, where Sonam Kapoor received an award for worst actress. Include? No include? Many thanks (and could I please trouble you to ping me in case I forget? My little red gnome hat has been spinning lately... Thanks all!) Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Can some of you take a look at List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Wars cast members. Both are basically identical. One is a table and list, the other just a longer table. Both have a great deal of overlap and duplicate info. While they serve a purpose, I'm thinking with some reduction, re-writing and merging, a single comprehensive article/list would serve much better. - theWOLFchild 15:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The charts in this family of articles only document the intitial release (i.e. it excludes grosses from reissues in subsequent years) as explained at Talk:2008_in_film#Disruptive_editing_of_the_grosses. An editor keeps re-adding the reissue grosses and refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. At the moment there is not much I can do because I am the only opinion on the talk page so if possible I would like to get some outside opinions. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the Purple Rain screenings that occurred all weekend across the country do not appear in the weekend box office results.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Folks may want to take a look at recent changes to the Plot for Independence Day (1996 film) and get involved if they feel it is appropriate to do so. Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The New York Times film database seems to be gone. It redirects to NYT reviews instead of showing data from Baseline. That's kind of a pain because I was using that for a lot of citations. Oh well. I guess we've still got Allmovie. Speaking of which, I see that Allmovie isn't listed at WP:FILM/R. Is there a reason? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I keep forgetting to mention this but the thread above jogged my memory. In actor (and occasionally film) articles I find refs that use Yahoo pages that no longer exist. These are from last decade and they - no doubt - disappeared during the several changes that they have gone through. Is it possible to program a bot to go through and mark these as dead links? If not I don't think it is as big a problem as losing the NYT info but I thought the members of the project should be aware of this. MarnetteD| Talk 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
So, have we figured out a workaround solution for this? Assuming TNYT films/bios database is "gone" (and I am assuming that until told otherwise...), is there a viable alternative for this kind of info? IMDb can't be used, and Hollywood.com is questionable, so is there another viable source for this kind of information? Because using archive.org isn't going to help those of us looking for this kind of info for "new" people or films and new articles... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the internet archives have all, or most of the data we need? Someone with more technical knowledge than I have could probably create a bot that archives all these links (I say probably, because again I don't have much knowledge on these things), also was this database deleted or was it just taken offline? Because if it's the latter, Wikipedia allows for hard to reach articles assuming that there is someone withing the company that can access them. -- Deathawk ( talk) 09:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Moody Blues - Nights In White Satin, should be included on the soundtrack list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.119.234 ( talk) 08:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I think more people should weigh in on Talk:5 Centimeters Per Second#Numeral romanization. There is an ongoing debate regarding which numeral romanizations are to be used for the title. Input from project members are appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I recently noticed the existence of Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe and Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe and I don't see any strong verification for naming these articles "cinematic universes". It seems the names are solely inspired by the existence of Marvel Cinematic Universe. The difference is Marvel Cinematic Universe, was actually coined by Marvel and became the common name for the franchise. I don't think "cinematic universe" should be the de facto name of these types of film series, especially if there are no strong sources to back them up. And they should definitely not be capitalized like "Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe". I think either "film series" or simply "universe" should be fine. It should also be noted that DC Extended Universe was once located at DC Cinematic Universe until references proved otherwise.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing, I thought the general rule of thumb was that we do not create film series articles unless it includes three or more standalone film articles.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about which gross should be used in the "XXXX in film articles" i.e. in the case of something like Star wars in 1977 in film, should the lifetime total be used or should the gross for the 1977 release be used? This issue affects a whole bunch of articles and the articles are inconsistent. We need to settle on one format or another, so I have started an RFC at Talk:1982 in film if anybody wishes to comment. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
They are quite common at wp:FLC and they look fine overall, but to me I think too many of them have 20+ sections. I think you guys should devise a guideline on how to merge some of those 20+ sections. I saw recently that people started grouping critic's awards into a single table/section which is a great step towards that. I hope people in this field come up with good suggestions (maybe ask those at wp:Music too since musicians have the same issue?). This is a typical list these days: List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone. Nergaal ( talk) 15:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi the reliability of stephenfollows.com is being discussed at RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#stephenfollows.com. That is a blog about the movie industry. Perhaps folks here could weigh in there. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to talk the hind legs off a donkey here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's a long shot, but does anyone here know anything about German animated children's films? I'm dealing with an IP that I suspect may be a vandal, but it's very difficult for me to even tell. The article is The Fearless Four (film). You can see that I and a few other people have been reverting someone on an IPv6 range. I'm not quite sure, but I think this edit is a hoax. I checked the Turner Classic Movies database, BFI, the Big Comics Database, and the IMDB, and none of these databases list the cast members the IP editor insists on adding. I can't find anything on the Internet to support their inclusion in the cast list. I filed a request for page protection, but it's probably going to get declined. I also started a talk page thread a few weeks ago where I asked for sources to confirm the casting, but nobody has responded. So, in desperation, I come here. What's the verdict? Is this a hoax, or have I suddenly lost my ability to source content? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The nom looks a bit of a mess, but I thought I'd bring it to people's attentions. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a suspicious film called The Slave Island in Pauline Frederick and IMDb's filmographies. I think it may actually be another name for The Slave Market. Greta de Groat, who appears to be Frederick's number one fan, doesn't list it, [12] IMDb's entry is extremely bare (e.g. she's the only cast member listed), and the two films' release dates are December 31, 1916, and January 1, 1917, respectively. Can anyone shed any light on the matter? Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This image is discussed. I invite you to FFD. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Another image is still discussed. I invite you to FFD. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm new to the Wikiproject and I was looking at the Time Travellers film and Is it the Time Travelers, Time Travelers or the film called The Time Travelers, Would this be classed as a disambiguation or the TV movie? D Eaketts ( talk) 12:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean't there is a request for Time Travellers (film) but I wasn't sure which film it was suppose to before. D Eaketts ( talk) 10:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks will do the Redirect for the article shortly. D Eaketts ( talk) 13:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
100 Years (film). Any thoughts? Passes WP:NFF?! @ Bovineboy2008: too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There are debates on various open FACs regarding the interpretation of MOS:TENSE (a guideline) and WP:FICTENSE (an essay) because most current WP:FAs ignore these directives. In summary, I believe that these two points combine to give the directive that we should consider films ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion. Colloquially, people will say a film was good/bad, but say a building is tall/beautiful/etc. A film is as permanent/ongoing as a building, and modern buildings are more likely to be demolished/replaced than modern movies are likely to be lost. Because of colloquial use, I think it is common to allow articles fall into past tense when discussing a movie. The question is whether we want to ignore, revise or enforce these guidelines.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Inspired by List of longest-running video game franchises, what do you think about this article being created? At the moment the nearest thing is List of the longest gaps between film sequels, which has a notably difference scope.-- Coin945 ( talk) 04:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 16:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)