![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Recently, @ Supermann: and I had a dispute involving the same section on two articles, Wonder Woman (soundtrack) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack). The crux of the issue is including a section detailing music that is featured (and credited) in the film but not included on the soundtrack. There has been some discussion on my talk page at You have sth against IMDb.com as a RS, too?
In this particular case, the sections (in their current version) are not sourced to secondary sources and seems to be putting together information by comparing film credits and the track listing, which feels to me to be OR. I don't think this is appropriate. Such a section should be sourced to a secondary, reliable source stating that this music used in the film but is absent from the soundtrack. If this sourcing doesn't exist, it seems to me this section cannot exist.
I also question the grounds on which this information is included. Like, if the omission of several songs in the film is commented on by secondary sources for whatever reason, like if it was widely expected to be included on the soundtrack, if critics felt the absence of multiple songs was an oversight, etc., then I could understand putting together a list. But without any information to properly ground and justify the list, I'm not sure it's appropriate. The article is about the soundtrack, rather than the film's score and usage of licensed music. Mentions of licensed music used in the film, which is verifiable and stating it was in the movie isn't OR, is probably best left to the film's main article music section.
At this point, I want to open up the discussion to a wider audience, seeing as myself and Supermann haven't gotten anywhere on my talk page. I also invite Supermann to summarize his rationale to inclusion and defense of the sourcing here. I have also included a neutral notice of this discussion at WikiProject Albums. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
If there aren't any more comments to be had about this topic, I'm going to re-remove the sections from the two articles in a few days, seeing as consensus slightly favors removing them on the basis of OR and INDISCRIMINATE, and attempt to implement them into the main articles, as consensus appears to agree that there is a place there for credited songs. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
First, soundtrack.net is NOT a reliable source. Doesn't meet it per WP:RS. That said, just because something is in a film doesn't mean that it is important. If you cannot find a way of including it beyond saying "it was there", then that doesn't make a compelling argument for its importance. Existence does not equal noteworthy. Films use songs all the time that doesn't mean that we need to list every single song that was in a film. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. It seems like you are confusing the beauty of a song with its importance in a film, not to mention (which is separate) its importance in being mention on the film's Wiki page. Here is a basic question: "Is a reader hurt by not knowing that 15 seconds of this song appeared in the film?" There's no context for it, there's no discussion of its importance from a directing standpoint. You are literally just pointing out that it exists. That would be equivalent to pointing out every painting that appeared in Batman v Superman (which we don't do). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Inviting interested editors to comment at a CFD for Category:Police films and several related subcategories. We could use additional opinions on the best course(s) of action regarding merging/renaming. Discussion here. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 04:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? The Cast section names them anyway so I thought it's redundant. Slightlymad ( talk) 13:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a dispute over the country of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Please see Talk:Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets#Countries and Budget. The article is currently fully protected, so we need to come to some kind of consensus on how to proceed. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate any copy editing of the Plot and Critical response sections. The article has been semi-protected for two weeks, so your edits won't be reverted erratically. – Cognissonance ( talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a edit warring regarding Die Hard 2 about character descriptions in cast sections and such, started by TheOldJacobite. Details in this section of the talk page and The page's recent revision history. BattleshipMan ( talk) 15:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
A general BTW question: When the cast section contains casting information, isn;t it more precise to call it "Cast and casting"? Hoverfish Talk 23:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Can we include a small paragraph in MOS:FILM about MOS:FLAG, especially on the section "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"? We have decided against them for infoboxes, but they keep appearing in film some award articles, where nationality of recipient should be mere parenthetical information. Hoverfish Talk 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate on the 12 Monkeys article regarding the sources of the plot section of the article. It can be found at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It has been suggested by a GOCE volunteer after his copy edit that the Top-ten list section be reduced to a paragraph as it's overkill. He explains, "It's hardly important who was number two, let alone number seven!" Anybody agree? Slightlymad ( talk) 08:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Since Ragland spent the final six years of his life as an MGM contract character player, participation is sought for the discussion at Talk:Rags Ragland#Requested move 30 June 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Categorization of Category:Ninja Hattori-kun is a bit of a mess, or I miss something. The main article says it is a manga series; the catergory belongs to: 2003 Japanese television series debuts, 2004 anime television series, 2004 manga, 2005 anime films, 2006 films (!!), 2008 anime films, 2012 anime television series... I am removing category 2006 films, but the rest needs some cleanup IMO. Hoverfish Talk 11:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Today I noticed the existence of the Chris Stuckmann (YouTube personality) article. It was created earlier this July. I'm noting this here in case anyone besides me wants to add this to their watchlist and/or see if it can provide WP:Notability. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really great at dealing with copyright issues but the first paragraph of the production section for the Hangover Part 2 Clearly contains word for word content from this article. I suspect that there may be more instances. Could someone that knows how to do this, do the legwork for me. -- Deathawk ( talk) 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Diannaa who brought up copyright problems at Film censorship in China. What actions can be taken here? Is there any way to search sentences in film articles for matches in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear Film folks, Who on here is interested in documentaries? I am hoping to expand the coverage of Doug Tirola and his films. Anyone interested in helping with this? Many thanks. Invertzoo ( talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at The Matrix about whether or not to include White savior narrative in film in the article's "See also" section. Please see the discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lugnuts, Erik, Hoverfish, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?
Username | Recent Edits within Film | Recent Edits in Wikipedia | First Edit Date | Most Recent Edit Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
KatyCole17 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 3 | 2017-7-19 | 2017-7-20 |
Tiber and Isis ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 4 | 2017-7-12 | 2017-7-18 |
Patrickroberts1105 ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 1 | 2017-7-16 | 2017-7-16 |
Adampizer ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 2 | 2017-7-19 | 2017-7-19 |
Umairkhaled19 ( talk · contribs) | 254 | 579 | 2013-10-4 | 2017-7-19 |
Gouravbhosale ( talk · contribs) | 266 | 718 | 2014-7-27 | 2017-7-15 |
Jerrylewis528 ( talk · contribs) | 316 | 3817 | 2006-6-11 | 2017-7-23 |
OscarFercho ( talk · contribs) | 428 | 6092 | 2008-8-30 | 2017-7-23 |
Baba i deda ( talk · contribs) | 456 | 510 | 2014-3-28 | 2017-7-22 |
Bobo.03 ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I was alarmed by how excessive and poorly written this article's plot is: 4,500 words! It goes without saying that it overwhelms the entire article. Could someone take a stab at copy editing it as well as cutting down the excess? Slightlymad ( talk) 10:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Warning: the person who started this is known for writing lots of guff, so if you have the patience to wade through all of that, feel free to contribute. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi I just was looking at the production section for Trollhunter and the middle paragraph currently is almost entirely about a remake. The remake has it's own section in the article, and I feel that it would be much more appropriate to move the paragraph down. However the source for this paragraph are in Norwegian, so I can't really combine it seamlessly. I would appreciate it if someone who knows Norwegian could take a look at this. -- Deathawk ( talk) 06:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think, judging on past experience, this'll get shot down, but I'm going to throw it out there just in case.
I'm strict when it comes to plot summaries. I think they should summarise the plot of a work of fiction and no more. That means nothing that describes the film's editing or structure, like "In the film's opening scene...", or "The film cuts to..." etc - these are irrelevant to summarising plot.
On this basis, I think we should avoid mentioning whether scene take place after credits ("In a post-credits scene, Batman wakes up and punches a camel."). If a scene is important enough to be included in the summary, then there's no need to mention whether it occurs before or after the credits. If the scene isn't important - post-credits scenes are often just throwaway gags - then it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I know there's a lot of nerd interest in knowing what's in post-credits scenes, or if a film has a post-credits scene at all, but satisfying nerd curiosity isn't the purpose of Wikipedia plot summaries. Popcornduff ( talk) 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything wrong with inserting "editing language" when it is appropriate. Indicating that it is a post-credit scene itself I don't have a problem with. I do NOT agree with things like "the screen fades to black" or something like that where you're describing transition shots or something like that. All that said, I do think that most post-credit scenes are just quick references and not relevant to the overall plot. There are plenty of cases where it is, but I think we need to start looking more at these and saying "what does this impact"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Erik above and would probably oppose a MOS change in that regard. First of all it is always iffy to ban a certain approach in general or completely, because there tend some cases where that approach actually works fine. Secondly I prefer giving individual freedom/leeway in writing plot summaries rather mandating too many details or a style possibly preferred by few editors only.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think they can be removed if they aren't notable as with Sharknado 2 [1]. But some can be notable as with Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Ferris tells everyone to go home. The Marvel superheroes ones seem to connect them to further upcoming films. And horror monster films usually resurrect the monster who was killed, implying that the franchise isn't over yet. Some films put the epilogue scenes (dramatic reunion x years later) in the post-credits. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the previous notice was archived and the discussion has slowed down (I.E. arbitrarily stopped without a clear result) in the last several days, I want to once again let everyone know of the relevant discussion that is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Franchise and Film series: Changing the DAB for those who don't already know about it. Dark Knight 2149 01:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
There has a discussion about splitting the Star Wars article. The discussion is... a bit all over, but it seems to be meant to be at Talk:Star Wars#Way too big. There has been very few comments regarding the proposal to split, and additional comments would be appreciated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Someone has added Template talk:Infobox film to the Our Gang article, and used it to include composite information for all 220 Our Gang short films and the feature General Spanky. Is this a proper use of this template? Is there another better suited to it, or is this an opportunity for a new Infobox template dedicated to short film series? -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The above editor initially started the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Use for film series?, and other editors can comment there (so discussion is not split in two places). So consider the above a notice. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I’m reaching out urging for an amendment on all individual film InfoBoxes that would add Production Designer credits. Since Wikipedia’s inception, Production Designers have not been credited on individual film pages, while both Cinematographers and Editors—who are equal peers—are credited at the top of the page, along with the Director and Producers.
I've been looking through the archives in the discussion on this and have seen a lot of support. What needs to happen to make this addition? I’m a film and TV Production Designer; there are many people in the industry who are advocating for this change. Addressing this issue and having Wikipedia make this addition would give designers the proper credit that reflects the great contribution Production Designers make in film. As you of course know, Wikipedia is a powerful information tool and having these credits listed would be an extremely positive addition to design recognition.
Thank you, Meredith Meredithlipp ( talk) 21:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, fellow editors! Shouldn't we change its name from Logan (film) -> Logan (2017 film)? Because there is Logan (2010 film) which includes "2010" in its name. I mostly edit video game articles and whenever there are games of the same name we usually add the specific year in its article's name. I'm new in this field and wanted opinions regarding this matter. Thanks! ☺ - Pure conSouls ( talk) 16:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Emperor Motion Pictures, a Hong Kong film producer and distributor, was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Concerns at the AfD are that the subject is not notable and the Wikipedia article is an advertisement. Would editors be able to look for more sources and help clean up the article to remove any promotion? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I just have a quick question on categorization for a (future) GA nomination (once I have worked more extensively in expanding and improving The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon). I am wondering, when it is eventually submitted for GA review, should it be done so under film or music? It is a documentary film about a concert by the Rolling Stones. I am leaning towards it indeed being categorized as a film, but want to double check since it is a film about a musical performance. Thanks in advance for your help! -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 07:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hoverfish Talk 09:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Film censorship in China#RfC about the runtime columns regarding the adding columns to a table showing the original runtime of a film and its runtime upon release in China. This RfC comes after multiple discussions and a recently closed DRN. Comments would be appreciated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a major mistake in the article for the animated film Ballerina (2016 film). The film was first released in French, and then, a week later, in English, but an editor has deleted all mention of the French version. I collected some French sources on the Talk page, but I do not read French. Can people familiar with dual releases please take a look at the Talk page, and see what you think? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
As you can see here The Quiet Man ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) an editor is questioning the appearance of Hank Worden in the film. Any input/insight that can be added to Talk:The Quiet Man#Hank Worden will be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 23:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I found this weird draft article DRAFT:Frequent collaborators that is contextless and seems to crossreference actors across multiple unrelated films; does anyone know what this is about? -- 67.70.35.17 ( talk) 08:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Including criticism regarding Ghost in the Shell (2017 film). A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
A spin-off of an old favourite. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The cast that is listed for "The Animal Kingdom" starring Leslie Howard is actually the cast list for the Robert Montgomery movie "When Ladies Meet". The movies are very similar so I can see why they are mixed up. I don't know the entire cast listing for "When Ladies Meet" and I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia. I tried to go to the talk page for "The Animal Kingdom" but it directed me here instead. I can't fix the error (I am computer illiterate) but I wanted to point out the error so someone else may be able to fix it. Thanks. The mistake is on the Wiki page "The Animal Kingdom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.238.66 ( talk) 01:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Urgently needing someone who would put The Getaway (1972 film), an article I have significantly expanded, onto their watchlist and review revisions made in it; sometimes I'm pretty busy and I won't be able to do so. SLIGHTLY mad 13:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved editor take a look at the recent plot changes at Zero Dark Thirty, please? I have removed the film from my watchlist because I have tired of arguing with the anonymous editor who keeps rewriting the plot. Someone objective should take a look and see if it is an improvement. Thanks. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the plot is at a point that more could be added that just increases word count at the cost of changing from a plot to a story line. It does present the ever jarring presence of those that want a guarantee (photograph of bin Laden) and those that evaluate probability based on behavior and culture that Maya uses. It clears up some factual mistakes. It eliminates some word gymnastics. Sometimes a good plot has to consider losing the "party list" approach to plot development. The who what when where & why is not for every incident in a timeline but for the entire timeline, especially a fictionalised account of non-fiction. A plot probably has to be a grammarian's chief antagonist (Innuendo comes a close second) because there are some people that have to move to the teaspoon to the saucer instead of leaving it in the cup, no matter how hot the tea. They can never change their sense of regret.00:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk)
Please see this discussion. And a warning that the article itself has an interesting colour-scheme... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
When searching for a template of British-Film-Institute-ID I only found Template:BFI Explore. To take this example I want to show the difference between http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b26838c and the more precise http://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150039217. This template should be modified. -- MovieFex ( talk) 08:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Dolby Atmos films appears to list numerous film articles that make no mention of using this technology. Per WP:CATV then, it is likely inappropriate for the films to be in this category unless/until the articles can be improved to make mention of this tech. I also question whether this is really a defining feature of the films, as at this point this sound technology appears to be fairly widely-adopted, but I figured I'd get some feedback here before taking further action. DonIago ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone else care to weigh in on this? I can work on moving articles out of the category per WP:CATV as time permits, but that won't stop anyone else from adding articles to it, and it's unclear to me from the limited participation here that we'd have enough of a consensus for anything to be done about the category. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I support making a list to include the articles of this category and deleting the category. Hoverfish Talk 20:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Gone Girl (film) article has been nominated for WP:GA by MagicatthemovieS. Interested editors might want to work on any improvements the article may need before the review begins. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have previously posted here of issues with User:Taeyebar. He continues to edit war over subgenres, putting in his preferred version in film article leads. He has been repeatedly warned about this regarding Snow White and the Huntsman and other pages. He says things like this movie was titled high fantasy before being changed without discussion. Calling something fantasy is different from saying "it's not high fantasy" as that's the subgenre. even though it's been discussed there and at Talk:The Huntsman: Winter's War.
I gave him notice: As you've been told before, WP:FILMLEAD, which says Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. Most sources call this film a fantasy, not a "high fantasy". You've been told this many times before. Claiming authority from another guideline that has nothing to do with films or genres does not entitle you to ignore the clear intent of WP:FILMLEAD. Get consensus or leave it alone. You also need to stop your WP:STALKING on numerous pages.
His announced intention to stalk me can be seen here. A number of his reverts of my work were immediately reverted by other editors, like this one and this one. Others here have had run-ins with him as well, like Betty Logan. Last June User:TenTonParasol warned him here As a third and uninvolved party, I'm going to firmly warn: systematically undoing Gothicfilm's edits as part of an announced vendetta sparked by an unrelated issue is unconstructive battleground behavior (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). She backed up the warning here. But still, he persisted. If you look at his edit history, over 90 percent of his edits since August 18, 2017 have been reverts of the last edit I did at certain pages. I posted another warning on his Talk page as seen here. He has lately taken to saying things like They both mean the same thing don't they? So whats the point and But i told you it can fit in one sentence. How is this change necessary? after repeatedly undoing my fix to a very long run-on sentence. Since being warned by DonQuixote yesterday regarding The Wicker Man (film series), he is now demanding discussion over my edits, trying to present himself as a responsible party watching over my activity.
As he has backed off when others have reverted him, I'm asking editors here who would like to see WP:FILMLEAD respected to address the situation at Snow White and the Huntsman, and also take a look at the less visited articles where he continues to revert my edits, such as Niki Caro and Isabelle Fuhrman. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up here at the Filmproject last year, but the issue has resurfaced and I want to get other editor's opinions on this so we can (hopefully) make a final determination. Rms125a@hotmail.com insists on adding the word "fictional" to the lede in place of "historical," arguing that the film is not historical but a complete work of fiction. I don't think anyone confuses this film for a documentary, and the point of saying "historical period film" is to point out that it happens during a given historical period, in this case, the Civil War era, not to argue that every claim in the film is historically accurate. The article has a historical accuracy section that is more than sufficient for pointing out the errors made or liberties taken in telling the story. It is simply not necessary to add the word "fictional" to the lede, and I see this as Rms125a@hotmail.com pushing his particular PoV about the film. This needs to stop. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Gotham Gazette had a far more intellectually honest and serious discussion than anything you are going to find from beneficiaries and interested parties inextricably linked to the nexus of the film industry, like AFI.
Um, with all due respect, how is it not "our call"? We are all editors on this collaborative encyclopedia and I know of no rule which says the AFI or Allmovie sites take precedence over our consensus, should we reach one, barring, of course, legal issues, of which none present themselves. This is a little bit of a tempest in a teapot, which I may have stirred, but which now seems to have raised new issues of where our writ ends, an issue on which I respectfully disagree with Betty. Were I to unilaterally cite WP:IAR to remove the offending word, which I will not do, but am merely mentioning hypothetically, what would happen? This may be a tempest in a teapot, which I acknowledge stirring, but if so, why then is this trivial conceit of such paramount importance?? My own low personal opinion of the film, as referenced by @TheOldJacobite, can obviously be discerned from my text, but I have backed it up with reliable and more than merely reliable sources (Yamin, Arbinder, Denby, and Cocks above), which are not being given due weight. Yours. Quis separabit? 20:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Usually focused on some important figure or events" --- @BettyLogan -- Ok. So who is the important figure in a film in which the only character who actually existed is Boss Tweed. Maggie the Cat was not a bouncer and or an owner of a pub -- that was, in real life, Gallus Mags. If the film were about Tweed I probably would not be dissenting. But it isn't. It is primarily about almost exclusively fictional persons committing, at an unspecified but hinted timeframe which thus tacitly avoids actual horrific events of that time that would qualify today as war crimes, and likely would today as well, to wit, burning orphanages, lynching, murders, arson and ethnic cleansing. So fictional characters committing fictional acts is "historical"!!
I understand I haven't attained a consensus but I just wanted to close out the thread with my remaining thoughts. I understand and respect your position. Yours. Quis separabit? 02:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Din of Celestial Birds#Merger Proposal to merge the short film article with its feature length predecessor, Begotten (film). Dark Knight 2149 20:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There are issues about the Plot section ok the film's article first of all the Screenplay and Story of a film is a copyright of it's production house so it would be copvio and plagarism if we allowed to write plot in films article, and secondly most plots on wikipages about films are unsourced, despite being unsourced they still are there, mispresentation of plot by original research can simply change the theme of film, and original research is forbidden in the Wikipedia. Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If you have a specific example of mispresentation of a film plot in a certain article, it should be discussed and corrected locally. In general lines, this project has guidelines on what should be in film plot sections and how it should be formulated to avoid OR, copivio and plagiarism. There are no issues I know of with production companies in respect to plot sections of film articles. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 09:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be a couple of misconceptions here. Retelling/summarizing some plot in your own words, is usually not a copyright violation. And retelling basic content/facts based on primary sources usually isn't original research either. Plot summaries are in doubt always based on an (implicit) primary source, that is the film itself. So there is also no issue of the plot summary being unsourced.
However in individual cases when somebody cuts & pastes a plot summary from elsewhere, then of course it would be a copyright violation, but it that case not the plot summary as such such but the cut &paste job is the problem. Similarly somebody might mix a mere plot summary with analysis and interpretation, then that would constitute original research (at least if no sources other then the film itself are provided for the analysis/interpretation part).
Lastly content/plot summary sections are a well established and essential part on articles about films, books, plays or even songs and we're certainly not going to remove them over questionable or disputed interpretations of policy.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen at Rocky (film series) about whether the details for Creed 2 should be added (along with a credit issue). I removed the column because the film has not started filming so a Creed 2 article would not meet the notability requirements. Of course, items added to tables do not need to meet notability requirements so I was wondering what the protocol is for this, and whether I was correct to remove the entry?? It seems to me that we would be just documenting speculation until the thing actually starts so do we have a project stance on this? Betty Logan ( talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Alycia Debnam-Carey#Which lead image to use?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:BBC's 100 Films of the 21st Century up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_3#Category:BBC.27s_100_Films_of_the_21st_Century. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Franchise_and_Film_series:_Changing_the_DAB to alter the (film series) disambiguator needs to be resolved. The discussion is going around in circles so I think the most clear-cut way to resolve this is to take a survey, which can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Survey, if you don't want to trawl through the discussion. For those editors who have been involved in the discussion it would be helpful to briefly summarise your position. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Uma Thurman#Request for comment. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Could someone write an article about the Paramount film Booloo, 1938? I don't know where generally to look for good sources, and a Google search is complicated by the existence of a porn website with the same name. It has an IMDB entry, and bizarrely, this American film with no en:wp article has an article in the Malay Wikipedia, complete with a poster image. Nyttend ( talk) 15:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Can we get some opinions on the current state of Crush fetish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I started a discussion at Talk:Crush fetish#Recent expansions. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I didn't, but Ben Affleck's film I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney is at AfD, and has been relisted a couple of times. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone with a Wall Street subscription provide me the text for this article? It's being used to source the box office of the Shawshank Redemption but I believe it's being used erroneously since every other source says 16 million. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
We need some opinions on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"secondary sources" for the film's reception are NOT the same thing as what many editors are likely to read "secondary sources" as. A permalink for it is here. There's also a discussion higher up on the talk page about using Rotten Tomatoes for significantly older films. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I proposed a merger of the Back to the Future sountrack article into the parent article, " Back to the Future" two weeks ago. I invite you to comment at Talk:Back to the Future#Merger proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place - I'm not part of this WikiProject so I'm not sure where everything goes - but I thought I should mention that I have nominated the documentary film We Are X for Featured Article status. Any help with the nomination would be great. Thanks very much. ISD ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I've brought up various British film studios categories to CfD to be discussed for renaming. The crux of these are the names should be "Films shot at X Studios" over the current naming of "X Studios films", which suggests they are a production company (ie Marvel Studios) and not a physical location that films come to shoot. The discussion can be found here, plus one that was nominated by Trivialist, here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Twice now I've had to revert an edit to The Greatest Showman, that states that the film was somehow inspired by Jackman's Hosting of the 81st Oscars. The first time this was simply added without a source, the second time this was added they cited an Indiewire article that did not state this at all. The user is also trying to imply that my, well sourced, article about the film not being a musical initially is untrue. It might be worth keeping an eye on the page. -- Deathawk ( talk) 02:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there actually a policy or guideline in place somewhere that says whether cameo appearances should be listed in film sections? I have seen a lot of back-and-forth about this in a lot of film articles, but I've never seen anyone quote an actual policy. Personally, I am against them as I think they are generally unimportant roles. But, is there any consensus on this question? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Can someone check the "Release" sections for both, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse and Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. The text, in it seems to crib from the sources, maybe not word for word, but definitely close to it. -- Deathawk ( talk) 01:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)-=
Hi. Are categories such as Category:Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film a case of WP:OVERCAT? One one had, I can see how it's defining for the film, but the other arguement is that dozens of films don't even make it to the final Oscar ceremony for a nomination, and as far as I know, we don't create cats for films/people who just got a nomination. I'd like thoughts on this before I go to CfD with this (and similar cats). Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that any film submission for any festival/award is an unimportant piece of information so long as it was not nominated, therefore any such category should go. Hoverfish Talk 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:Boarding school films is at CfD and would benefit from additional opinions. Discussion here. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, we could use some opinions at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#GA nomination?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on The Shawshank Redemption, and I'm struggling to evidence the truth about the maggot scene. Most sites claim that they weren't allowed to use a live maggot and had to find one that died of natural causes. But the American Humane associations website says the maggot was made of babyfood. It seems like maybe the maggot story has kind of taken on an urban legend vibe, but then the maggot in the film doesn't look like baby food. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I like to point out something that I'm concerned. I don't think cast and crew members in many shorts and expanded universe stuff in many universes, including the Jurassic Park universe and the Die Hard film series, should be listed, except some things, including the Marvel Cinematic Universe and such, under some circumstances. My problem of that is it tends to cramp up some spaces to those tables and I don't the majority of them are canon, like what you see in the Die Hard film series when one of the games Die Hard: Vendetta is not canon and some animated shorts in Jurassic Park series as you can see in this diff don't look canon, despite having actors who did the films in both universes lending their voices on it. I think we should figure out how to settle this issue in someway we could. BattleshipMan ( talk) 03:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
A discussion as to whether the on-screen period in Good Night, and Good Luck. should be part of the main title header of this film's Wikipedia article is at Talk:Good Night, and Good Luck#Requested move 21 September 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure some of you have this on your watchlist, I've been expanding it massively over the last 2 weeks with an eye towards making it a GA/FA. I'm hitting a plateau because I'm now struggling to find sources for things that although are on reliable websites, they end up sourcing us and IMDb. If anyone can help me find a few final sources, mainly for the music and lasting legacy it would be much appreciated. I don't need you to write it up, just provide a link. The music itself is really hard, I'm surprised given it's apparent lasting impact, while the lasting legacy is talked about a lot but not really provided in much detail. Also just any behind the scenes stuff that isn't cited to the IMDb trivia section would be great. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
In case anyone here does not already know, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor is moving through franchise articles replacing section tables with infoboxes. See the following examples:
I have reservations about this new direction and would appreciate a few more opinions at Talk:Superman_in_film#Replacing_table_with_infobox. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This has been relisted twice, with no input. If anyone has any strong feelings for keep or delete, please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Over at the Ronin talk page, I posted about a discrepancy between sources as to the film's runtime. Another editor changed the runtime, which had been 122 min., to 116 min. and added a source from the BFCC, which was legitimate. But, looking at IMDb, Box Office Mojo, and AllMovie, they didn't agree with the BFCC. So, my question is, what do we do when different reliable sources disagree on something like this? Thanks! --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if this exact suggestion has been made before, but there's way too much past discussion about cast lists to read every single comment. I'm new to this issue, so I've only read a few past comments about it.
IMHO (to be quite frank) the current {{ Cast list break}}-based solution for cast lists with long descriptions makes the lists look ugly and amateurish:
Especially when lists include entries with and without the break, this actually makes it harder to parse [i.e., scan] cast lists than if each entry was just one long line.
For comparison with what I'm going to suggest, here's the wikicode that generates the above list:
* [[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''. {{Cast list break|Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]}} * [[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''. {{Cast list break|Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]}}
It seems the only reason definition lists are discouraged is the bold it gives to the actors and their roles (see last sentence in the "Cast" section of WP:CASTLIST and WP:TVCAST):
(Personally, I think the bold text makes it easier to scan the list. But anyway…)
So why not use a definition list structure but use a template to suppress the bold?
This would be accomplished with code such as the following:
; {{cast list entry|[[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''}} : Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […] ; {{cast list entry|[[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''}} : Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]
Or:
; {{cast list entry|[[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''}} : Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […] ; {{cast list entry|[[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''}} : Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]
(The actual name of the template can be anything, of course. Also, note that this is only for cases where an ordinary bulleted list is not sufficient.)
This has several benefits, including:
The one negative I can see is having the text flush with the left margin. This is not a problem if the cast list is the only thing in a section (as it usually is), but may be awkward if a paragraph of introductory text precedes the list. (Perhaps in that case {{ cast list begin}} and {{ cast list end}} could be used to indent the list slightly?)
So, dare I ask… Opinions? - dcljr ( talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The
dl
element represents an association list consisting of zero or more name-value groups (a description list). [...] Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value data.— 4.4.8 The dl element, W3C's HTML5 specification
Both The Mummy (2017) and Tomb Raiders (2018) have sections titled "Future". Both sections are about subsequent films in a cinematic universe and so "Sequels" doesn't really fit. However I have concerns, with the title, it sounds unprofessional and it's also not futureproof (IE: As soon as one film from these sections is released the title is no longer accurate) Can we think of a better name? -- Deathawk ( talk) 04:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably the most common way to present a film's box office performance is in the style "X grossed $Y on a $Z budget". When reporting this, some editors like to add their own opinions on whether the film is a "box office success" or not. That's obviously original research, and I remove that. Lately, I've been wondering whether the budget should even be mentioned in the same sentence as the gross. It's completely irrelevant to how much money the film made, and it seems to mostly serve the purpose of indicating whether the film was a "success" or not. This is perhaps compounded by the widespread belief that if a film grosses more than its budget, the studio made a profit, which is not necessarily true. As this New York Times article states, the reality is a lot more complicated. So, my question is: are we leading people to a possibly erroneous conclusion? If a film cost $50 million and grossed $75 million, it could still very well be a net loss. However, the way we're phrasing it, it sounds like a resounding success. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I am a participant from Russian Wikipedia and I have a question for Wikiproject Film: How will you consider the initiative of introducing templates about future films, cartoons and TV series? These templates will be assigned to indicate in the article information that the movie, cartoon or TV series is future or planned and information about it will change. These templates are present in the Russian Wikipedia and other language Wikipedia and are always inserted into articles about future creations of cinematographic and television studios, but this template is removed in the article only when a film, a television series or a cartoon has already appeared on the big screen in the country. Write what do you think about this. -- Bogolub ( talk) 09:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I want fellow Filmproject editors to be aware of an anonymous editor who has repeatedly removed "whitewashing" links from the see also sections of numerous articles, always with an edit summary that says "doesn't seem necessary," or similar. These are the five addresses I have found so far:
Be on the lookout for this guy, as he is a tedious pain in the neck. This is clearly the same person and I wonder if a range block isn't warranted. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I added a Request for comment request over at Ladybird, You can view it here -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If they are particularly relevant to discuss in a film article, which section should they be put? SLIGHTLY mad 04:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia editors, contributors, colleagues,
Normally I live/work in New York and Los Angeles. Right now I work in Paris until 16th Nov 2017, 9 hours behind LA time. So please forgive any delay in responding to your queries. I came across my written, produced and directed film Beyond Paradise (2016) post at Wikipedia.
There were a number of small and medium errors and omissions. So I created a Wikipedia user in my name @JJAlani in the name of which I edited my film with the corrections of errors and omissions, but only adding strictly factual data that are verifiable on IMDB.com and Internet research of independent professional sites.
I chose @JJAlani my real name as the contributor so it will be transparent to all concerned that I'm connected with this film, as its single Writer, Producer, and Director.
Moreover, in the edit box I declared my COI = Conflict Interest as follows: COI disclosure: Contributor JJAlani is the writer/director of this film Beyond Paradise. He is only contributing factual data from independent sources like IMDB.com. Contributor JJAlani is NOT compensated and will NOT be compensated for this film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JJAlani ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to comment on my RFC here -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a problem that's really been on my mind for a while and I brought it up before, A lot of these film sections are just poorly written and seem like a wall of text spitting unrelated facts at you. I think we can do better than this, and I've for my part been trying to tidy up sections but it's hard when hundreds of movies come out a year.
I feel like part of the problem is that production sections are started too early (often times with the articles) when there really isn't much about the film known other than when cast members join and rote business news, so in an effort to make a "complete" article, editors often just fill it with every bit of news they can find, and often this is never cleaned up.
I don't know what I'm asking or proposing,l But it's just frustrating and somewhat depressing that the quality of these sections is so low, but I do feel something should be done. Any ideas -- Deathawk ( talk) 03:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I suggest that we add the Egyptian Cinema to the task force as it is one of the earliest countries to be introduced to film as the Lumière Brothers screened their short film in Alexandria in 1896, and it has been reported that Egypt produced more than 3000 films since 1918. It also has a great influence over the middle east and africa. Some useful links to show the need for this task forces: Cinema of Egypt, Lists of Egyptian films and Category:Egyptian films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdslkd ( talk • contribs) 08:44, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
I noticed today that the 2014 film The Other Woman had received a GA rating back in 2015, however the production and release section seem rather poorly worded. I'm not really sure if it's worth sending it back over two sections though. Can I get some eyes on it. -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Unlisted Owner (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone from WikiProject Film mind taking a look at this and assessing it? Much of the recent editing has been done by IP SPAs who might be connected to the film in some way. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Cordially inviting everybody in this project to participate in my current peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ronin (film)/archive1 SLIGHTLY mad 06:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
R.S.V.P. (film) is a pretty bare-bones article right now. A cursory search for sources on my part didn't yield anything that I considered especially promising. If anyone's got some free time and feels like bulking this one up, their efforts would be appreciated. As it stands the article's been tagged since 2010 for a lack of sourcing. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 17:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
These extended length plot summaries are not serving human needs. I can't even tell if a movie has a happy ending from a typical plot summary. It appears the choice was made to serve a tiny sector of the encyclopedia audience. How about a decent synopsis so readers can determine whether they are interested in seeing the movie? An incredibly basic question. Rtdrury ( talk) 02:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on actresses/women filmmakers etc during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Would welcome more input on this AFD. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello WT:Film,
Over at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization we're discussing the application of a number of categories to this article. I can't request a 3O because there are already more than two users here, and I think starting an RFC over eleven categories would probably be unwise, but we appear to be at a standstill, so I turn to you. Hope you can help! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Bestfilmclips2016 ( talk · contribs) recently added Cinemascore results to a number of films' reception sections. However, the citation they provided simply points to the homepage for the site. My initial conclusion was that this isn't acceptable in that the citations should point to pages for the specific films. However, in this case it appears that the site doesn't offer specific pages for films; rather, if you key a film's name into the drop-down box they provide, you can view the result for the film.
Could I get some feedback as to whether it's acceptable, or a good idea, to provide these results when the only sourcing data we can provide is to Cinemascore's main page? Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the text Bestfilmclips was adding was along the lines of "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A-" on an A+ to F scale." along with, as noted, the site's homepage as the ref. My sense from the above is that this statement doesn't provide sufficient context, but I think we have at least a couple of questions:
Thanks everyone for your feedback thus far. DonIago ( talk) 13:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Should the CS grade only be mentioned if a third-party source notes it?
What would the preferred wording be?
the respondents are people who chose to see the movie, and therefore already were more likely to have a favorable opinion"?
How should we apply WP:FILMOGRAPHY to Umberto Lenzi#Select filmography? Please comment at Talk:Umberto Lenzi#Filmography. -- wooden superman 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() ![]() Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
If all but Home media and Awards information is complete, could one nominate that article to GA? Where is the line that says it's complete? Cognissonance ( talk) 23:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan and TriiipleThreat: In your honest opinion, is Dunkirk (2017 film) ready to be reviewed against the GA criteria? This is what I've been debating, whether to wait for Home media and Accolades to come, or consider the article complete given its contents. Cognissonance ( talk) 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Recently, @ Supermann: and I had a dispute involving the same section on two articles, Wonder Woman (soundtrack) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack). The crux of the issue is including a section detailing music that is featured (and credited) in the film but not included on the soundtrack. There has been some discussion on my talk page at You have sth against IMDb.com as a RS, too?
In this particular case, the sections (in their current version) are not sourced to secondary sources and seems to be putting together information by comparing film credits and the track listing, which feels to me to be OR. I don't think this is appropriate. Such a section should be sourced to a secondary, reliable source stating that this music used in the film but is absent from the soundtrack. If this sourcing doesn't exist, it seems to me this section cannot exist.
I also question the grounds on which this information is included. Like, if the omission of several songs in the film is commented on by secondary sources for whatever reason, like if it was widely expected to be included on the soundtrack, if critics felt the absence of multiple songs was an oversight, etc., then I could understand putting together a list. But without any information to properly ground and justify the list, I'm not sure it's appropriate. The article is about the soundtrack, rather than the film's score and usage of licensed music. Mentions of licensed music used in the film, which is verifiable and stating it was in the movie isn't OR, is probably best left to the film's main article music section.
At this point, I want to open up the discussion to a wider audience, seeing as myself and Supermann haven't gotten anywhere on my talk page. I also invite Supermann to summarize his rationale to inclusion and defense of the sourcing here. I have also included a neutral notice of this discussion at WikiProject Albums. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
If there aren't any more comments to be had about this topic, I'm going to re-remove the sections from the two articles in a few days, seeing as consensus slightly favors removing them on the basis of OR and INDISCRIMINATE, and attempt to implement them into the main articles, as consensus appears to agree that there is a place there for credited songs. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
First, soundtrack.net is NOT a reliable source. Doesn't meet it per WP:RS. That said, just because something is in a film doesn't mean that it is important. If you cannot find a way of including it beyond saying "it was there", then that doesn't make a compelling argument for its importance. Existence does not equal noteworthy. Films use songs all the time that doesn't mean that we need to list every single song that was in a film. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. It seems like you are confusing the beauty of a song with its importance in a film, not to mention (which is separate) its importance in being mention on the film's Wiki page. Here is a basic question: "Is a reader hurt by not knowing that 15 seconds of this song appeared in the film?" There's no context for it, there's no discussion of its importance from a directing standpoint. You are literally just pointing out that it exists. That would be equivalent to pointing out every painting that appeared in Batman v Superman (which we don't do). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Inviting interested editors to comment at a CFD for Category:Police films and several related subcategories. We could use additional opinions on the best course(s) of action regarding merging/renaming. Discussion here. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 04:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? The Cast section names them anyway so I thought it's redundant. Slightlymad ( talk) 13:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a dispute over the country of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Please see Talk:Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets#Countries and Budget. The article is currently fully protected, so we need to come to some kind of consensus on how to proceed. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate any copy editing of the Plot and Critical response sections. The article has been semi-protected for two weeks, so your edits won't be reverted erratically. – Cognissonance ( talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a edit warring regarding Die Hard 2 about character descriptions in cast sections and such, started by TheOldJacobite. Details in this section of the talk page and The page's recent revision history. BattleshipMan ( talk) 15:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
A general BTW question: When the cast section contains casting information, isn;t it more precise to call it "Cast and casting"? Hoverfish Talk 23:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Can we include a small paragraph in MOS:FILM about MOS:FLAG, especially on the section "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"? We have decided against them for infoboxes, but they keep appearing in film some award articles, where nationality of recipient should be mere parenthetical information. Hoverfish Talk 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate on the 12 Monkeys article regarding the sources of the plot section of the article. It can be found at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It has been suggested by a GOCE volunteer after his copy edit that the Top-ten list section be reduced to a paragraph as it's overkill. He explains, "It's hardly important who was number two, let alone number seven!" Anybody agree? Slightlymad ( talk) 08:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Since Ragland spent the final six years of his life as an MGM contract character player, participation is sought for the discussion at Talk:Rags Ragland#Requested move 30 June 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Categorization of Category:Ninja Hattori-kun is a bit of a mess, or I miss something. The main article says it is a manga series; the catergory belongs to: 2003 Japanese television series debuts, 2004 anime television series, 2004 manga, 2005 anime films, 2006 films (!!), 2008 anime films, 2012 anime television series... I am removing category 2006 films, but the rest needs some cleanup IMO. Hoverfish Talk 11:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Today I noticed the existence of the Chris Stuckmann (YouTube personality) article. It was created earlier this July. I'm noting this here in case anyone besides me wants to add this to their watchlist and/or see if it can provide WP:Notability. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really great at dealing with copyright issues but the first paragraph of the production section for the Hangover Part 2 Clearly contains word for word content from this article. I suspect that there may be more instances. Could someone that knows how to do this, do the legwork for me. -- Deathawk ( talk) 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Diannaa who brought up copyright problems at Film censorship in China. What actions can be taken here? Is there any way to search sentences in film articles for matches in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear Film folks, Who on here is interested in documentaries? I am hoping to expand the coverage of Doug Tirola and his films. Anyone interested in helping with this? Many thanks. Invertzoo ( talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at The Matrix about whether or not to include White savior narrative in film in the article's "See also" section. Please see the discussion here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lugnuts, Erik, Hoverfish, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?
Username | Recent Edits within Film | Recent Edits in Wikipedia | First Edit Date | Most Recent Edit Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
KatyCole17 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 3 | 2017-7-19 | 2017-7-20 |
Tiber and Isis ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 4 | 2017-7-12 | 2017-7-18 |
Patrickroberts1105 ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 1 | 2017-7-16 | 2017-7-16 |
Adampizer ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 2 | 2017-7-19 | 2017-7-19 |
Umairkhaled19 ( talk · contribs) | 254 | 579 | 2013-10-4 | 2017-7-19 |
Gouravbhosale ( talk · contribs) | 266 | 718 | 2014-7-27 | 2017-7-15 |
Jerrylewis528 ( talk · contribs) | 316 | 3817 | 2006-6-11 | 2017-7-23 |
OscarFercho ( talk · contribs) | 428 | 6092 | 2008-8-30 | 2017-7-23 |
Baba i deda ( talk · contribs) | 456 | 510 | 2014-3-28 | 2017-7-22 |
Bobo.03 ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I was alarmed by how excessive and poorly written this article's plot is: 4,500 words! It goes without saying that it overwhelms the entire article. Could someone take a stab at copy editing it as well as cutting down the excess? Slightlymad ( talk) 10:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Warning: the person who started this is known for writing lots of guff, so if you have the patience to wade through all of that, feel free to contribute. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi I just was looking at the production section for Trollhunter and the middle paragraph currently is almost entirely about a remake. The remake has it's own section in the article, and I feel that it would be much more appropriate to move the paragraph down. However the source for this paragraph are in Norwegian, so I can't really combine it seamlessly. I would appreciate it if someone who knows Norwegian could take a look at this. -- Deathawk ( talk) 06:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think, judging on past experience, this'll get shot down, but I'm going to throw it out there just in case.
I'm strict when it comes to plot summaries. I think they should summarise the plot of a work of fiction and no more. That means nothing that describes the film's editing or structure, like "In the film's opening scene...", or "The film cuts to..." etc - these are irrelevant to summarising plot.
On this basis, I think we should avoid mentioning whether scene take place after credits ("In a post-credits scene, Batman wakes up and punches a camel."). If a scene is important enough to be included in the summary, then there's no need to mention whether it occurs before or after the credits. If the scene isn't important - post-credits scenes are often just throwaway gags - then it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I know there's a lot of nerd interest in knowing what's in post-credits scenes, or if a film has a post-credits scene at all, but satisfying nerd curiosity isn't the purpose of Wikipedia plot summaries. Popcornduff ( talk) 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything wrong with inserting "editing language" when it is appropriate. Indicating that it is a post-credit scene itself I don't have a problem with. I do NOT agree with things like "the screen fades to black" or something like that where you're describing transition shots or something like that. All that said, I do think that most post-credit scenes are just quick references and not relevant to the overall plot. There are plenty of cases where it is, but I think we need to start looking more at these and saying "what does this impact"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Erik above and would probably oppose a MOS change in that regard. First of all it is always iffy to ban a certain approach in general or completely, because there tend some cases where that approach actually works fine. Secondly I prefer giving individual freedom/leeway in writing plot summaries rather mandating too many details or a style possibly preferred by few editors only.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think they can be removed if they aren't notable as with Sharknado 2 [1]. But some can be notable as with Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Ferris tells everyone to go home. The Marvel superheroes ones seem to connect them to further upcoming films. And horror monster films usually resurrect the monster who was killed, implying that the franchise isn't over yet. Some films put the epilogue scenes (dramatic reunion x years later) in the post-credits. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the previous notice was archived and the discussion has slowed down (I.E. arbitrarily stopped without a clear result) in the last several days, I want to once again let everyone know of the relevant discussion that is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Franchise and Film series: Changing the DAB for those who don't already know about it. Dark Knight 2149 01:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
There has a discussion about splitting the Star Wars article. The discussion is... a bit all over, but it seems to be meant to be at Talk:Star Wars#Way too big. There has been very few comments regarding the proposal to split, and additional comments would be appreciated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Someone has added Template talk:Infobox film to the Our Gang article, and used it to include composite information for all 220 Our Gang short films and the feature General Spanky. Is this a proper use of this template? Is there another better suited to it, or is this an opportunity for a new Infobox template dedicated to short film series? -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The above editor initially started the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Use for film series?, and other editors can comment there (so discussion is not split in two places). So consider the above a notice. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I’m reaching out urging for an amendment on all individual film InfoBoxes that would add Production Designer credits. Since Wikipedia’s inception, Production Designers have not been credited on individual film pages, while both Cinematographers and Editors—who are equal peers—are credited at the top of the page, along with the Director and Producers.
I've been looking through the archives in the discussion on this and have seen a lot of support. What needs to happen to make this addition? I’m a film and TV Production Designer; there are many people in the industry who are advocating for this change. Addressing this issue and having Wikipedia make this addition would give designers the proper credit that reflects the great contribution Production Designers make in film. As you of course know, Wikipedia is a powerful information tool and having these credits listed would be an extremely positive addition to design recognition.
Thank you, Meredith Meredithlipp ( talk) 21:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, fellow editors! Shouldn't we change its name from Logan (film) -> Logan (2017 film)? Because there is Logan (2010 film) which includes "2010" in its name. I mostly edit video game articles and whenever there are games of the same name we usually add the specific year in its article's name. I'm new in this field and wanted opinions regarding this matter. Thanks! ☺ - Pure conSouls ( talk) 16:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Emperor Motion Pictures, a Hong Kong film producer and distributor, was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Concerns at the AfD are that the subject is not notable and the Wikipedia article is an advertisement. Would editors be able to look for more sources and help clean up the article to remove any promotion? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I just have a quick question on categorization for a (future) GA nomination (once I have worked more extensively in expanding and improving The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon). I am wondering, when it is eventually submitted for GA review, should it be done so under film or music? It is a documentary film about a concert by the Rolling Stones. I am leaning towards it indeed being categorized as a film, but want to double check since it is a film about a musical performance. Thanks in advance for your help! -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 07:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hoverfish Talk 09:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Film censorship in China#RfC about the runtime columns regarding the adding columns to a table showing the original runtime of a film and its runtime upon release in China. This RfC comes after multiple discussions and a recently closed DRN. Comments would be appreciated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a major mistake in the article for the animated film Ballerina (2016 film). The film was first released in French, and then, a week later, in English, but an editor has deleted all mention of the French version. I collected some French sources on the Talk page, but I do not read French. Can people familiar with dual releases please take a look at the Talk page, and see what you think? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
As you can see here The Quiet Man ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) an editor is questioning the appearance of Hank Worden in the film. Any input/insight that can be added to Talk:The Quiet Man#Hank Worden will be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 23:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I found this weird draft article DRAFT:Frequent collaborators that is contextless and seems to crossreference actors across multiple unrelated films; does anyone know what this is about? -- 67.70.35.17 ( talk) 08:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Including criticism regarding Ghost in the Shell (2017 film). A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
A spin-off of an old favourite. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The cast that is listed for "The Animal Kingdom" starring Leslie Howard is actually the cast list for the Robert Montgomery movie "When Ladies Meet". The movies are very similar so I can see why they are mixed up. I don't know the entire cast listing for "When Ladies Meet" and I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia. I tried to go to the talk page for "The Animal Kingdom" but it directed me here instead. I can't fix the error (I am computer illiterate) but I wanted to point out the error so someone else may be able to fix it. Thanks. The mistake is on the Wiki page "The Animal Kingdom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.238.66 ( talk) 01:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Urgently needing someone who would put The Getaway (1972 film), an article I have significantly expanded, onto their watchlist and review revisions made in it; sometimes I'm pretty busy and I won't be able to do so. SLIGHTLY mad 13:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved editor take a look at the recent plot changes at Zero Dark Thirty, please? I have removed the film from my watchlist because I have tired of arguing with the anonymous editor who keeps rewriting the plot. Someone objective should take a look and see if it is an improvement. Thanks. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the plot is at a point that more could be added that just increases word count at the cost of changing from a plot to a story line. It does present the ever jarring presence of those that want a guarantee (photograph of bin Laden) and those that evaluate probability based on behavior and culture that Maya uses. It clears up some factual mistakes. It eliminates some word gymnastics. Sometimes a good plot has to consider losing the "party list" approach to plot development. The who what when where & why is not for every incident in a timeline but for the entire timeline, especially a fictionalised account of non-fiction. A plot probably has to be a grammarian's chief antagonist (Innuendo comes a close second) because there are some people that have to move to the teaspoon to the saucer instead of leaving it in the cup, no matter how hot the tea. They can never change their sense of regret.00:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk)
Please see this discussion. And a warning that the article itself has an interesting colour-scheme... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
When searching for a template of British-Film-Institute-ID I only found Template:BFI Explore. To take this example I want to show the difference between http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b26838c and the more precise http://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150039217. This template should be modified. -- MovieFex ( talk) 08:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Dolby Atmos films appears to list numerous film articles that make no mention of using this technology. Per WP:CATV then, it is likely inappropriate for the films to be in this category unless/until the articles can be improved to make mention of this tech. I also question whether this is really a defining feature of the films, as at this point this sound technology appears to be fairly widely-adopted, but I figured I'd get some feedback here before taking further action. DonIago ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone else care to weigh in on this? I can work on moving articles out of the category per WP:CATV as time permits, but that won't stop anyone else from adding articles to it, and it's unclear to me from the limited participation here that we'd have enough of a consensus for anything to be done about the category. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I support making a list to include the articles of this category and deleting the category. Hoverfish Talk 20:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Gone Girl (film) article has been nominated for WP:GA by MagicatthemovieS. Interested editors might want to work on any improvements the article may need before the review begins. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have previously posted here of issues with User:Taeyebar. He continues to edit war over subgenres, putting in his preferred version in film article leads. He has been repeatedly warned about this regarding Snow White and the Huntsman and other pages. He says things like this movie was titled high fantasy before being changed without discussion. Calling something fantasy is different from saying "it's not high fantasy" as that's the subgenre. even though it's been discussed there and at Talk:The Huntsman: Winter's War.
I gave him notice: As you've been told before, WP:FILMLEAD, which says Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. Most sources call this film a fantasy, not a "high fantasy". You've been told this many times before. Claiming authority from another guideline that has nothing to do with films or genres does not entitle you to ignore the clear intent of WP:FILMLEAD. Get consensus or leave it alone. You also need to stop your WP:STALKING on numerous pages.
His announced intention to stalk me can be seen here. A number of his reverts of my work were immediately reverted by other editors, like this one and this one. Others here have had run-ins with him as well, like Betty Logan. Last June User:TenTonParasol warned him here As a third and uninvolved party, I'm going to firmly warn: systematically undoing Gothicfilm's edits as part of an announced vendetta sparked by an unrelated issue is unconstructive battleground behavior (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). She backed up the warning here. But still, he persisted. If you look at his edit history, over 90 percent of his edits since August 18, 2017 have been reverts of the last edit I did at certain pages. I posted another warning on his Talk page as seen here. He has lately taken to saying things like They both mean the same thing don't they? So whats the point and But i told you it can fit in one sentence. How is this change necessary? after repeatedly undoing my fix to a very long run-on sentence. Since being warned by DonQuixote yesterday regarding The Wicker Man (film series), he is now demanding discussion over my edits, trying to present himself as a responsible party watching over my activity.
As he has backed off when others have reverted him, I'm asking editors here who would like to see WP:FILMLEAD respected to address the situation at Snow White and the Huntsman, and also take a look at the less visited articles where he continues to revert my edits, such as Niki Caro and Isabelle Fuhrman. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up here at the Filmproject last year, but the issue has resurfaced and I want to get other editor's opinions on this so we can (hopefully) make a final determination. Rms125a@hotmail.com insists on adding the word "fictional" to the lede in place of "historical," arguing that the film is not historical but a complete work of fiction. I don't think anyone confuses this film for a documentary, and the point of saying "historical period film" is to point out that it happens during a given historical period, in this case, the Civil War era, not to argue that every claim in the film is historically accurate. The article has a historical accuracy section that is more than sufficient for pointing out the errors made or liberties taken in telling the story. It is simply not necessary to add the word "fictional" to the lede, and I see this as Rms125a@hotmail.com pushing his particular PoV about the film. This needs to stop. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Gotham Gazette had a far more intellectually honest and serious discussion than anything you are going to find from beneficiaries and interested parties inextricably linked to the nexus of the film industry, like AFI.
Um, with all due respect, how is it not "our call"? We are all editors on this collaborative encyclopedia and I know of no rule which says the AFI or Allmovie sites take precedence over our consensus, should we reach one, barring, of course, legal issues, of which none present themselves. This is a little bit of a tempest in a teapot, which I may have stirred, but which now seems to have raised new issues of where our writ ends, an issue on which I respectfully disagree with Betty. Were I to unilaterally cite WP:IAR to remove the offending word, which I will not do, but am merely mentioning hypothetically, what would happen? This may be a tempest in a teapot, which I acknowledge stirring, but if so, why then is this trivial conceit of such paramount importance?? My own low personal opinion of the film, as referenced by @TheOldJacobite, can obviously be discerned from my text, but I have backed it up with reliable and more than merely reliable sources (Yamin, Arbinder, Denby, and Cocks above), which are not being given due weight. Yours. Quis separabit? 20:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Usually focused on some important figure or events" --- @BettyLogan -- Ok. So who is the important figure in a film in which the only character who actually existed is Boss Tweed. Maggie the Cat was not a bouncer and or an owner of a pub -- that was, in real life, Gallus Mags. If the film were about Tweed I probably would not be dissenting. But it isn't. It is primarily about almost exclusively fictional persons committing, at an unspecified but hinted timeframe which thus tacitly avoids actual horrific events of that time that would qualify today as war crimes, and likely would today as well, to wit, burning orphanages, lynching, murders, arson and ethnic cleansing. So fictional characters committing fictional acts is "historical"!!
I understand I haven't attained a consensus but I just wanted to close out the thread with my remaining thoughts. I understand and respect your position. Yours. Quis separabit? 02:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Din of Celestial Birds#Merger Proposal to merge the short film article with its feature length predecessor, Begotten (film). Dark Knight 2149 20:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There are issues about the Plot section ok the film's article first of all the Screenplay and Story of a film is a copyright of it's production house so it would be copvio and plagarism if we allowed to write plot in films article, and secondly most plots on wikipages about films are unsourced, despite being unsourced they still are there, mispresentation of plot by original research can simply change the theme of film, and original research is forbidden in the Wikipedia. Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If you have a specific example of mispresentation of a film plot in a certain article, it should be discussed and corrected locally. In general lines, this project has guidelines on what should be in film plot sections and how it should be formulated to avoid OR, copivio and plagiarism. There are no issues I know of with production companies in respect to plot sections of film articles. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 09:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be a couple of misconceptions here. Retelling/summarizing some plot in your own words, is usually not a copyright violation. And retelling basic content/facts based on primary sources usually isn't original research either. Plot summaries are in doubt always based on an (implicit) primary source, that is the film itself. So there is also no issue of the plot summary being unsourced.
However in individual cases when somebody cuts & pastes a plot summary from elsewhere, then of course it would be a copyright violation, but it that case not the plot summary as such such but the cut &paste job is the problem. Similarly somebody might mix a mere plot summary with analysis and interpretation, then that would constitute original research (at least if no sources other then the film itself are provided for the analysis/interpretation part).
Lastly content/plot summary sections are a well established and essential part on articles about films, books, plays or even songs and we're certainly not going to remove them over questionable or disputed interpretations of policy.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen at Rocky (film series) about whether the details for Creed 2 should be added (along with a credit issue). I removed the column because the film has not started filming so a Creed 2 article would not meet the notability requirements. Of course, items added to tables do not need to meet notability requirements so I was wondering what the protocol is for this, and whether I was correct to remove the entry?? It seems to me that we would be just documenting speculation until the thing actually starts so do we have a project stance on this? Betty Logan ( talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Alycia Debnam-Carey#Which lead image to use?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:BBC's 100 Films of the 21st Century up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_3#Category:BBC.27s_100_Films_of_the_21st_Century. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Franchise_and_Film_series:_Changing_the_DAB to alter the (film series) disambiguator needs to be resolved. The discussion is going around in circles so I think the most clear-cut way to resolve this is to take a survey, which can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Survey, if you don't want to trawl through the discussion. For those editors who have been involved in the discussion it would be helpful to briefly summarise your position. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Uma Thurman#Request for comment. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Could someone write an article about the Paramount film Booloo, 1938? I don't know where generally to look for good sources, and a Google search is complicated by the existence of a porn website with the same name. It has an IMDB entry, and bizarrely, this American film with no en:wp article has an article in the Malay Wikipedia, complete with a poster image. Nyttend ( talk) 15:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Can we get some opinions on the current state of Crush fetish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I started a discussion at Talk:Crush fetish#Recent expansions. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I didn't, but Ben Affleck's film I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney is at AfD, and has been relisted a couple of times. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone with a Wall Street subscription provide me the text for this article? It's being used to source the box office of the Shawshank Redemption but I believe it's being used erroneously since every other source says 16 million. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
We need some opinions on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"secondary sources" for the film's reception are NOT the same thing as what many editors are likely to read "secondary sources" as. A permalink for it is here. There's also a discussion higher up on the talk page about using Rotten Tomatoes for significantly older films. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I proposed a merger of the Back to the Future sountrack article into the parent article, " Back to the Future" two weeks ago. I invite you to comment at Talk:Back to the Future#Merger proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place - I'm not part of this WikiProject so I'm not sure where everything goes - but I thought I should mention that I have nominated the documentary film We Are X for Featured Article status. Any help with the nomination would be great. Thanks very much. ISD ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I've brought up various British film studios categories to CfD to be discussed for renaming. The crux of these are the names should be "Films shot at X Studios" over the current naming of "X Studios films", which suggests they are a production company (ie Marvel Studios) and not a physical location that films come to shoot. The discussion can be found here, plus one that was nominated by Trivialist, here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Twice now I've had to revert an edit to The Greatest Showman, that states that the film was somehow inspired by Jackman's Hosting of the 81st Oscars. The first time this was simply added without a source, the second time this was added they cited an Indiewire article that did not state this at all. The user is also trying to imply that my, well sourced, article about the film not being a musical initially is untrue. It might be worth keeping an eye on the page. -- Deathawk ( talk) 02:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there actually a policy or guideline in place somewhere that says whether cameo appearances should be listed in film sections? I have seen a lot of back-and-forth about this in a lot of film articles, but I've never seen anyone quote an actual policy. Personally, I am against them as I think they are generally unimportant roles. But, is there any consensus on this question? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Can someone check the "Release" sections for both, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse and Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. The text, in it seems to crib from the sources, maybe not word for word, but definitely close to it. -- Deathawk ( talk) 01:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)-=
Hi. Are categories such as Category:Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film a case of WP:OVERCAT? One one had, I can see how it's defining for the film, but the other arguement is that dozens of films don't even make it to the final Oscar ceremony for a nomination, and as far as I know, we don't create cats for films/people who just got a nomination. I'd like thoughts on this before I go to CfD with this (and similar cats). Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that any film submission for any festival/award is an unimportant piece of information so long as it was not nominated, therefore any such category should go. Hoverfish Talk 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:Boarding school films is at CfD and would benefit from additional opinions. Discussion here. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, we could use some opinions at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#GA nomination?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on The Shawshank Redemption, and I'm struggling to evidence the truth about the maggot scene. Most sites claim that they weren't allowed to use a live maggot and had to find one that died of natural causes. But the American Humane associations website says the maggot was made of babyfood. It seems like maybe the maggot story has kind of taken on an urban legend vibe, but then the maggot in the film doesn't look like baby food. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I like to point out something that I'm concerned. I don't think cast and crew members in many shorts and expanded universe stuff in many universes, including the Jurassic Park universe and the Die Hard film series, should be listed, except some things, including the Marvel Cinematic Universe and such, under some circumstances. My problem of that is it tends to cramp up some spaces to those tables and I don't the majority of them are canon, like what you see in the Die Hard film series when one of the games Die Hard: Vendetta is not canon and some animated shorts in Jurassic Park series as you can see in this diff don't look canon, despite having actors who did the films in both universes lending their voices on it. I think we should figure out how to settle this issue in someway we could. BattleshipMan ( talk) 03:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
A discussion as to whether the on-screen period in Good Night, and Good Luck. should be part of the main title header of this film's Wikipedia article is at Talk:Good Night, and Good Luck#Requested move 21 September 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure some of you have this on your watchlist, I've been expanding it massively over the last 2 weeks with an eye towards making it a GA/FA. I'm hitting a plateau because I'm now struggling to find sources for things that although are on reliable websites, they end up sourcing us and IMDb. If anyone can help me find a few final sources, mainly for the music and lasting legacy it would be much appreciated. I don't need you to write it up, just provide a link. The music itself is really hard, I'm surprised given it's apparent lasting impact, while the lasting legacy is talked about a lot but not really provided in much detail. Also just any behind the scenes stuff that isn't cited to the IMDb trivia section would be great. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
In case anyone here does not already know, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor is moving through franchise articles replacing section tables with infoboxes. See the following examples:
I have reservations about this new direction and would appreciate a few more opinions at Talk:Superman_in_film#Replacing_table_with_infobox. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This has been relisted twice, with no input. If anyone has any strong feelings for keep or delete, please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Over at the Ronin talk page, I posted about a discrepancy between sources as to the film's runtime. Another editor changed the runtime, which had been 122 min., to 116 min. and added a source from the BFCC, which was legitimate. But, looking at IMDb, Box Office Mojo, and AllMovie, they didn't agree with the BFCC. So, my question is, what do we do when different reliable sources disagree on something like this? Thanks! --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if this exact suggestion has been made before, but there's way too much past discussion about cast lists to read every single comment. I'm new to this issue, so I've only read a few past comments about it.
IMHO (to be quite frank) the current {{ Cast list break}}-based solution for cast lists with long descriptions makes the lists look ugly and amateurish:
Especially when lists include entries with and without the break, this actually makes it harder to parse [i.e., scan] cast lists than if each entry was just one long line.
For comparison with what I'm going to suggest, here's the wikicode that generates the above list:
* [[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''. {{Cast list break|Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]}} * [[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''. {{Cast list break|Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]}}
It seems the only reason definition lists are discouraged is the bold it gives to the actors and their roles (see last sentence in the "Cast" section of WP:CASTLIST and WP:TVCAST):
(Personally, I think the bold text makes it easier to scan the list. But anyway…)
So why not use a definition list structure but use a template to suppress the bold?
This would be accomplished with code such as the following:
; {{cast list entry|[[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''}} : Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […] ; {{cast list entry|[[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''}} : Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]
Or:
; {{cast list entry|[[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''}} : Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […] ; {{cast list entry|[[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''}} : Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]
(The actual name of the template can be anything, of course. Also, note that this is only for cases where an ordinary bulleted list is not sufficient.)
This has several benefits, including:
The one negative I can see is having the text flush with the left margin. This is not a problem if the cast list is the only thing in a section (as it usually is), but may be awkward if a paragraph of introductory text precedes the list. (Perhaps in that case {{ cast list begin}} and {{ cast list end}} could be used to indent the list slightly?)
So, dare I ask… Opinions? - dcljr ( talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The
dl
element represents an association list consisting of zero or more name-value groups (a description list). [...] Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value data.— 4.4.8 The dl element, W3C's HTML5 specification
Both The Mummy (2017) and Tomb Raiders (2018) have sections titled "Future". Both sections are about subsequent films in a cinematic universe and so "Sequels" doesn't really fit. However I have concerns, with the title, it sounds unprofessional and it's also not futureproof (IE: As soon as one film from these sections is released the title is no longer accurate) Can we think of a better name? -- Deathawk ( talk) 04:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably the most common way to present a film's box office performance is in the style "X grossed $Y on a $Z budget". When reporting this, some editors like to add their own opinions on whether the film is a "box office success" or not. That's obviously original research, and I remove that. Lately, I've been wondering whether the budget should even be mentioned in the same sentence as the gross. It's completely irrelevant to how much money the film made, and it seems to mostly serve the purpose of indicating whether the film was a "success" or not. This is perhaps compounded by the widespread belief that if a film grosses more than its budget, the studio made a profit, which is not necessarily true. As this New York Times article states, the reality is a lot more complicated. So, my question is: are we leading people to a possibly erroneous conclusion? If a film cost $50 million and grossed $75 million, it could still very well be a net loss. However, the way we're phrasing it, it sounds like a resounding success. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I am a participant from Russian Wikipedia and I have a question for Wikiproject Film: How will you consider the initiative of introducing templates about future films, cartoons and TV series? These templates will be assigned to indicate in the article information that the movie, cartoon or TV series is future or planned and information about it will change. These templates are present in the Russian Wikipedia and other language Wikipedia and are always inserted into articles about future creations of cinematographic and television studios, but this template is removed in the article only when a film, a television series or a cartoon has already appeared on the big screen in the country. Write what do you think about this. -- Bogolub ( talk) 09:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I want fellow Filmproject editors to be aware of an anonymous editor who has repeatedly removed "whitewashing" links from the see also sections of numerous articles, always with an edit summary that says "doesn't seem necessary," or similar. These are the five addresses I have found so far:
Be on the lookout for this guy, as he is a tedious pain in the neck. This is clearly the same person and I wonder if a range block isn't warranted. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I added a Request for comment request over at Ladybird, You can view it here -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If they are particularly relevant to discuss in a film article, which section should they be put? SLIGHTLY mad 04:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia editors, contributors, colleagues,
Normally I live/work in New York and Los Angeles. Right now I work in Paris until 16th Nov 2017, 9 hours behind LA time. So please forgive any delay in responding to your queries. I came across my written, produced and directed film Beyond Paradise (2016) post at Wikipedia.
There were a number of small and medium errors and omissions. So I created a Wikipedia user in my name @JJAlani in the name of which I edited my film with the corrections of errors and omissions, but only adding strictly factual data that are verifiable on IMDB.com and Internet research of independent professional sites.
I chose @JJAlani my real name as the contributor so it will be transparent to all concerned that I'm connected with this film, as its single Writer, Producer, and Director.
Moreover, in the edit box I declared my COI = Conflict Interest as follows: COI disclosure: Contributor JJAlani is the writer/director of this film Beyond Paradise. He is only contributing factual data from independent sources like IMDB.com. Contributor JJAlani is NOT compensated and will NOT be compensated for this film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JJAlani ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to comment on my RFC here -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a problem that's really been on my mind for a while and I brought it up before, A lot of these film sections are just poorly written and seem like a wall of text spitting unrelated facts at you. I think we can do better than this, and I've for my part been trying to tidy up sections but it's hard when hundreds of movies come out a year.
I feel like part of the problem is that production sections are started too early (often times with the articles) when there really isn't much about the film known other than when cast members join and rote business news, so in an effort to make a "complete" article, editors often just fill it with every bit of news they can find, and often this is never cleaned up.
I don't know what I'm asking or proposing,l But it's just frustrating and somewhat depressing that the quality of these sections is so low, but I do feel something should be done. Any ideas -- Deathawk ( talk) 03:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I suggest that we add the Egyptian Cinema to the task force as it is one of the earliest countries to be introduced to film as the Lumière Brothers screened their short film in Alexandria in 1896, and it has been reported that Egypt produced more than 3000 films since 1918. It also has a great influence over the middle east and africa. Some useful links to show the need for this task forces: Cinema of Egypt, Lists of Egyptian films and Category:Egyptian films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdslkd ( talk • contribs) 08:44, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
I noticed today that the 2014 film The Other Woman had received a GA rating back in 2015, however the production and release section seem rather poorly worded. I'm not really sure if it's worth sending it back over two sections though. Can I get some eyes on it. -- Deathawk ( talk) 05:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Unlisted Owner (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone from WikiProject Film mind taking a look at this and assessing it? Much of the recent editing has been done by IP SPAs who might be connected to the film in some way. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Cordially inviting everybody in this project to participate in my current peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ronin (film)/archive1 SLIGHTLY mad 06:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
R.S.V.P. (film) is a pretty bare-bones article right now. A cursory search for sources on my part didn't yield anything that I considered especially promising. If anyone's got some free time and feels like bulking this one up, their efforts would be appreciated. As it stands the article's been tagged since 2010 for a lack of sourcing. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 17:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
These extended length plot summaries are not serving human needs. I can't even tell if a movie has a happy ending from a typical plot summary. It appears the choice was made to serve a tiny sector of the encyclopedia audience. How about a decent synopsis so readers can determine whether they are interested in seeing the movie? An incredibly basic question. Rtdrury ( talk) 02:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on actresses/women filmmakers etc during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Would welcome more input on this AFD. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello WT:Film,
Over at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization we're discussing the application of a number of categories to this article. I can't request a 3O because there are already more than two users here, and I think starting an RFC over eleven categories would probably be unwise, but we appear to be at a standstill, so I turn to you. Hope you can help! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Bestfilmclips2016 ( talk · contribs) recently added Cinemascore results to a number of films' reception sections. However, the citation they provided simply points to the homepage for the site. My initial conclusion was that this isn't acceptable in that the citations should point to pages for the specific films. However, in this case it appears that the site doesn't offer specific pages for films; rather, if you key a film's name into the drop-down box they provide, you can view the result for the film.
Could I get some feedback as to whether it's acceptable, or a good idea, to provide these results when the only sourcing data we can provide is to Cinemascore's main page? Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the text Bestfilmclips was adding was along the lines of "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A-" on an A+ to F scale." along with, as noted, the site's homepage as the ref. My sense from the above is that this statement doesn't provide sufficient context, but I think we have at least a couple of questions:
Thanks everyone for your feedback thus far. DonIago ( talk) 13:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Should the CS grade only be mentioned if a third-party source notes it?
What would the preferred wording be?
the respondents are people who chose to see the movie, and therefore already were more likely to have a favorable opinion"?
How should we apply WP:FILMOGRAPHY to Umberto Lenzi#Select filmography? Please comment at Talk:Umberto Lenzi#Filmography. -- wooden superman 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() ![]() Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
If all but Home media and Awards information is complete, could one nominate that article to GA? Where is the line that says it's complete? Cognissonance ( talk) 23:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan and TriiipleThreat: In your honest opinion, is Dunkirk (2017 film) ready to be reviewed against the GA criteria? This is what I've been debating, whether to wait for Home media and Accolades to come, or consider the article complete given its contents. Cognissonance ( talk) 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)