![]() | 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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
Can some project members take a look at the edit-dispute at {{ Film Studio}} and weigh in over which film studios should be included? Abecedare ( talk) 03:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
←It is not completely OR as Major and mini-major studios are those listed at Major film studio with sources and are from North America. For a while I had a source for the Independent financers group but that webpage disappeared with out any archive.org backup. The problem is that no real definition for mini-major exists and that its seems to be 3 groups at one point, select large foreign film company (Gaumont Film, Nordisk Film), actual production & distribution company able to compete (Lionsgate) and legacy majors or mini-majors (CBS, Amblin/DreamWorks). MGM was at one point a legacy as it did not have distribution in the US until it set back up Orion Pictures then completely with Mirror Releasing/United Artist Releasing joint venture. There is the major's slate partners, Legendary, RatPac Dune, TSG, with some that no longer fit that category. Probably should just dump the Producer-owned independents. Most should be redirects to the individual producers. Lots of the production companies are really not notable, but they get some fan who whips up an article. Possible other groupings for discussion:
...and all of which are worthy enough for that said template.
As for the Major film studio; I've been editing to check which studio is active or not. So if we include a French company like Gaumont or a Scandinavian company like Nordsk Film, but not Toho; despite that these three also have companies located in the US as well? Plus, I'm not here starting Wikipedia:Revert war or anything. It makes no sense. King Crimson the Third ( talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You have done terrible things for yourself, Spshu. You will be blocked for your childlike behaviour. -- GroupJWbackup ( talk) 11:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
More than half of you edits are reverts, Spshu. And i’d really expect better from a user who’s been on for 13 years. HurricaneGeek2002 ( talk) 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Spshu; necessary error fixing is needed in Template:Film Studio, such as placing said studios in alphabetical order, which studio is defunct or dormant, etc.; regardless of how many studios are added in there. Yet you still keep reverting the same articles as if you owned and/or created them. I suggest you let a lot of people edit before you consistently revert their edit history.-- King Crimson the Third ( talk) 23:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Should Second Glance (film) be nominated for deletion? Previous AFD was in 2011 with a "keep" consensus per "it looks good and is informative" sheep-votes. The Fresno Bee link doesn't even discuss the film. I could find no third-party coverage at all, and I've already redirected the director's page to it. Should this go to AFD again? I think it's pretty clear cut. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The FAC for Soultaker has been going on for over a month and I'm hoping that it can get some more eyes on it before it closes. GamerPro64 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Why it say that original soundtrack "is recorded music accompanying and synchronized to the images of a motion picture, television program, or video game."? OST it's "a commercially released soundtrack album of music as featured in the soundtrack of a film, video, or television presentation" (taken from lead of Soundtrack, where OST is also explained). Eurohunter ( talk) 09:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I need help with the production section. Since there is the page Production of The Lord of the Rings film series that covers the topic in detail, I think it should be shortened. I would do it, but I'm not that fluent in English and since I should rewrite things to make them shorter, I don't think I can do it. I was thinking in writing a small paragraph like this, which summarizes every production phase. I would appreciate if someone could do this. Thanks. -- Maze waxie 14:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this the best action film ever made or even the best film ever made in the history of cinema? Does this belong in the lead? Please see Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout#Puffery about being the best action film ever made. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding a potential WP:MOS on all fictional characters. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Manual of Style for fictional characters?. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Animator Suzan Pitt passed away a few days ago, and I finally found this obituary about her, which was helpful in adding some inline citations. Then I realized that some of the sentences appear to be lifted word-for-word right out of Wikipedia's (unreferenced) article about her. Is Animation Magazine reliable? Is this an instance of WP:CIRCULAR? Secundus Zephyrus ( talk) 14:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of film-related articles inappropriately using "cameo" as a verb. Not sure yet if it's vandalism or just plain ignorance, but cameo is an adjective or noun, not a verb. The trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are usually very consistent about this. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I just watched the 1927 silent film 'The Lone Eagle (1927)', and then read the Wikipedia article (here) - and there seem to be distinct errors in the plot description. In particular, it says that the leader of the German squadron was the character 'Lebrun' played by Cuyler Supplee, but it was 'von Buehl', played by Oscar Marion. It also says that near the end, the character Holmes commandeers a plane from his friend Sven Linder - but Holmes was with Linder as he died, and then got a plane from another character (not Linder).
There are a few other inconsistencies, but those ones jumped out.
My source is that I just watched a copy of the film from an archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.229.115.124 ( talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Input is requested at Talk:Super 35 § List in History section. Thanks. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 00:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. On the article Lantouri User:Sc wikinevis insists on adding details of every single film festival this film has been screened at, and all the awards it has ever been nominated for. This was the latest diff. I've removed all this, per the Film MOS and have communicated this to the editor. I've explained this multiple times to them, but they don't appear to be listening. The previous time, they simply blanked their talkpage. Any further help with this matter would be helpful. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Watched this film on Amazon and see that the title was changed to "Salton Sea" upon it's release. The page's title should change with it. Also there is a poster image that can be added from their IMDB page https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2IzOWFhMzktNTczZS00YjQyLTg3NmMtNTU3N2IxOTFjYjJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI3MDU2Mzk@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,666,1000_AL_.jpg.
You can see the title change here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5884434/mediaviewer/rm3720714497 and here https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07TW9TK89?autoplay=1&ref=dvm_us_api_cs_hud_fb_GWRD-singleCW&pf_rd_p=e479604f-233b-4177-b107-fcfc45f79589&pf_rd_r=2344Y5N3JZNF3B6EA5S4
I'm not much of an editor so I couldn't do these changes myself but noticed they were wrong and want to support this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaredit ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Came across Quickening (Highlander) through some series of clicks that started with Starship Troopers and noticed it seemed pretty heavily reliant on primary sources. Clicking around to some other Highlander-related articles, I'm seeing a lot of that: Watcher (Highlander), Ahriman (Highlander), Four Horsemen (Highlander), Nick Wolfe, Immortal (Highlander), The Kurgan, etc. Could maybe use some attention from folks more familiar with the degree of sourcing available for this one. (I was a fan of Highlander 2 when I was a kid and didn't know better, being one of the first rated R movies I had seen, but that was the end of my knowledge of the series). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding The Lord of the Rings (film series), there is a dispute about whether or not the "Critical and public response" table should have an "Average" row. A discussion has been started here: Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Average row. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I am having trouble getting this draft approved and I'd be happy to have assistance. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
A move request at Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film)#Requested move 12 July 2019 might benefit from a few more eyes. See also an earlier discussion from 2016 at Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film)#Requested move 2 July 2016. PC78 ( talk) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because of this edit by an IP, which I followed up with this, this and this edit, I just found out that VanDerWerff has come out as transgender. As some or all of you may know, VanDerWerff is a critic we commonly use as a source in our articles regarding popular culture. I'm sure that there have been changes to a lot of Wikipedia articles regarding VanDerWerff, with respect to name usage and gender pronouns. And there is the MOS:GENDERID guideline to follow. At the article the IP popped up at, I chose to use the name "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" because, as seen here and here, it's currently what VanDerWerff uses, the source was changed to use that name, and because "Todd VanDerWerff" is still more recognizable than "Emily VanDerWerff." It seems that VanDerWerff is easing into the "Emily" name publicly because she is so well-known as Todd. But her blog commentary here indicates that she won't use "Todd" for long; she states, "I'm going to be publishing under the name Emily Todd VanDerWerff for a bit." She also states, "If you use my former name, well, I won’t like that very much." So maybe we shouldn't use "Emily Todd" at all, especially since she's likely to stop posting under "Emily Todd VanDerWerff"?
I'll alert WP:TV to this section for a centralized discussion per WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
whether to retroactively change their name when citing a work that has been published by their previous namebut I think the operative phrase is "has been". Both The A.V. Club and Vox only exist as websites, as I understand it, and their bylines have now changed to read "Emily Todd VanDerWerff", so it's no longer correct to cite the author's name as "Todd VanDerWerff", and I also don't believe it would make sense for the prose to not match the reference. "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" would be a correct way to cite it, but it's not mandatory to cite an author's middle name, and Emily has expressed the intention that they will be changed to "Emily VanDerWerff" in the near future, so in the interest of not having to make the same hundreds of changes again in the near future, that's how I came to the conclusion that "Emily VanDerWerff" / "VanDerWerff, Emily" was the appropriate name to provide in this context. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.It states to use context on a case-by-case basis. Therefore in following this MOS there is nothing wrong with the ones before the name change remaining Todd and the ones after remaining Emily. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Hunter Kahn and FloNight and to anyone reading this, whether they agree with my edits or not I welcome discussion. What I don't welcome is someone reverting 100 of my edits as I frantically ask them to stop so that we can have a discussion, but I'll deal with that at ANI in a moment. As for Galatz's comments, let's break them down:
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened?and
Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively.
Yes, you are wrong and a simple check against policy would have shown this, had you cared to spend 30 seconds before making 100 reverts. As the users including myself in the very discussion I linked to in each of my edit summaries pointed out,
MOS:GENDERID is the relevant policy and it says: Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis.
That is, no it does not say to go by someone's name "at the time something happened". Your subsequent examples are just that—examples of where context has been determined to provide former names. And this is a different context.
This should be no different.
Again, you're betraying that you didn't bother to read the above discussion. The bylines in the references you have changed are now factually incorrect, because if you follow the link you will see that the bylines contain "Emily" as the first name and "VanDerWerff" as the surname. "Todd" is a middle name but it is simply not correct to cite somebody by their middle name and surname. In fact, what you've restored is worse than factually incorrect (for Wikipedia's purposes)—it's unverifiable. We have discussed in this section that VanDerWerff plans to get the bylines changed in a short time to just "Emily VanDerWerff", at which point the references to "VanDerWerff, Todd" will no longer exist. With the sources in question, The A.V. Club and Vox, both exist only as online sources. It is standard, uncontroversial practice to update online references when they change—doing otherwise would simply make no sense. For instance, I've done it many times with these sorts of edits, in which a prior reference like "Ranking all 20 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror" no longer exists, having been replaced with a reference "Ranking all 23 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror". It is an uncontroversial change to update a reference to match the source it actually references. "Todd VanDerWerff" is no longer the name of the person who wrote the source and so it's not correct to cite them in the reference or in the prose; the references now say "Emily VanDerWerff", referring to a female contributor, and hence we need to use that name and female pronouns. MOS:GENDERID says to use context and the broader context of reference data integrity, which itself is fundamental to WP:V, is what makes the name changes the logical option in this case. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I ask the question of why does a gender change resulting in a name change take a different answer than a person marrying changing their name. If you were to ask Todd/Emily my assumption would be that they will tell you they have been a girl since they were born. Therefore they were a girl name Todd who chose a new name they more closely identified with. No one is changing Bruce Jenners medals to being won by Caitlyn, why is this different? If Bill Clinton came out and said he is changing his name to Jefferson Clinton would we change who was the president of the US? If he came out and said he was becoming Betty Clinton would that change your answer? What if the US government changed their website to say she now goes by Betty and showed the 42nd President as being Betty Clinton? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 11:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Gildir is deleting this category from a large number of film articles, presumably with a view to emptying and deleting the category.
However, the category describes a well-defined, relevant class of film, and provides a direct method of retrieving such films for study. The edit comment is overcat[egorisation], but no other category enables just this search, and the films I examined did not have a specially large number of categories. I would be interested to know what other editors think. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the ***** that had been added to identify actresses at least 80 years old, but the edit was reverted. Could someone from this project take a look and adjudicate. See the comments on the talk page. Thank you.-- 76.14.38.58 ( talk) 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the other comments here and have taken the liberty of removing it again. Arbitray and unnecessary. PC78 ( talk) 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
How comes this is rated back down to B class? Wouldn't FA drop to GA? Govvy ( talk) 13:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Captain_China presents Captain China as a movie.
It's actually also a comic from Excel comics (English version) translated to English, which appears to have quite some influence from Marvel's Captain America: https://www.excelcomics.com/store/c2/English_Version.html
Plot summaries can be found at https://comicvine.gamespot.com/captain-china/4005-110719/
The comic is (still in 2019) featured as a rare sample of non-Finnish comics in a Finnish comic book museum in Kemi up in Lapland, which is how I ran into it. Written source: https://www.excelcomics.com/english-blog/captain-china-exhibition-in-finland - the comic book museum is described at https://www.visitsealapland.com/en/sarjis-en-us/kemi-comics-center/the-arctic-gems-and-comics/ but that page does not detail the features.
Do you suppose it would be possible to split the current page into a disambiguation page splitting to the film and at least a stub about the comic? I don't edit Wikipedia regularly at all and don't want to risk annoying a project by a clumsy attempt at setting up a disambiguation split.
Sini Ruohomaa ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Kjell Knudde has been adding a lot of articles to Surrealist film categories for which there is no referenced basis. Some people might think that WB's Looney Tunes are "surreal," but that is irrelevant. No article should be added to a category unless the article in question clearly supports such categorization. In general, Kjell seems obsessed with over-categorization, as his contributions page shows, and he has been the subject of discussion here on the FilmProject for that problem. - 2602:306:37FF:C990:1CBA:A552:5147:9FB9 ( talk) 14:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a more clearly defined category of what a 'Surrealist Film' is might be a solution. Because if according to you Monty Python films, films by Fellini and the Fleischer Brothers don't fit in that category - which is an opinion - , even though their surrealism is mentioned in their respective articles, then one could wonder whether the category isn't too vaguely defined in the first place? In fact: the whole category Surrealist filmmakers seems rather vague. If we would only include films directed by representatives of the Surrealist Movement - which is fine by me - then there aren't that much films to begin with. Perhaps the entire category Category:Surrealist filmmakers could be removed altogether: for I didn't create it. - User:Kjell Knudde 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC).
Here's a genre inflationist on a small spree in case anyone wants to pad their edit count. Daß Wölf 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Avengers: Endgame is now the highest-grossing movie of all time, but only if one does not adjust for inflation. If you adjust for inflation, it still hasn't beaten Avatar, and the top film is Gone With the Wind. Most people don't think about inflation. Most readers will think that Endgame is literally the most profitable movie of all time, when it in fact isn't if you think about it. I know it's not customary for Wikipedia to list inflation-adjusted takes, but I think we should do that in certain cases. After all, in the article " List of highest-grossing films" there is a table of inflation-adjusted takes, and the article for Gone With the Wind explicitly mentions that it is the highest-grossing film when adjusted for inflation; S'so I don't see what's wrong with mentioning inflation in the article for Endgame. Kurzon ( talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Slipper and the Rose that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I am trying top this article off and insanely I am really struggling to find sources relating to it's cultural impact, fans, conventions, references in other media, influences on other directors, etc, etc. I thought it would be like EVERYWHERE, but I'm coming up with little to nothing. Masem has already supplied some but I can't help but feel there should be more info about this film. If anyone has better researching abilities in this area I'd be muchly appreciative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to let this project know that I am uploading a few thousand new public-domain images to Commons that might be useful to you. The images come from the collection of J. Willis Sayre and were digitized by the University of Washington. They date from the first quarter of the 20th century and are largely portrait shots of various people involved in theater, film, and other media at that time, and shots of scenes from plays and films.
You can make use of these images in articles, and we also need help categorizing them on Commons.
All the images are in Commons:Category:Images from the J. Willis Sayre Collection of Theatrical Photographs. The upload will be finished within the next day. – BMacZero ( 🗩) 20:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I've done a few updates, I wanted to try and find the two positive reviews online according to metacritic there was one by Chicago Tribune and one by Seattle Post-Intelligencer. They seem to be dead know, is anyone able to find these reviews online? Govvy ( talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone help fill in Highest-grossing musical films by year chart Fanoflionking 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A plot summary was added to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood following its brief showing at the Cannes Film Festival in May. The film plot has been permitted to stay despite the fact its veracity has been challenged. The plot was unsourced, and since the film had not entered release there was no mechanism for checking the plot.
I believe that the presence of the plot under this circumstance violates WP:V which states that "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I also believe it violates WP:FILMPLOT's condition for not requiring a secondary source:
Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.
We have traditionally only not required a secondary citation for films that are accessible to our readers in some form in some part of the world. For the past couple of months this has not been true of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I started an RFC on this issue but it failed to find any traction and those who responded were clearly unconcerned about the lack of verifiability and the "call out" in regard to the plot summary.
Now a film reviewer has posted a reply to the comments section on their own review: "That Wikipedia entry is completely wrong. Just utter made-up bullshit."
This does not reflect well on Wikipedia or indeed film project editors that we permitted such misinformation to be spread through our refusal to enforce Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Should we amend our MOS guidelines so that film must be publicly accessible in some form somewhere in the world to not a require secondary source? I feel this situation is a poor reflection on the hard work we do and we should take action to address it. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The article A Cowgirl's Story has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The page cites no sources and this has not changed in nearly two years
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
AutumnKing (
talk)
14:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I noticed lately that The Hollywood Reporter has had a couple of articles analyzing films' marketing campaigns, mostly recently Hobbs & Shaw here. The journalist Chris Thilk has written these kinds of articles for the past two years or so, so I wanted to highlight this as a worthwhile source to write "Marketing" sections of value. So if you work on a recent film's article, see if he has written about the film's marketing. Any other marketing-related sources you know of, feel free to share. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@ DisneyMetalhead: has been insisting that this film is apart of the Dark Universe, which had not had any announcements made about it in a few years. None of the recent news surrounding the film have made any reference to it being apart of or a new relaunch of the franchise. I’ve tried removing the sentence about the DU twice now but DMH keeps readding it. Am I wrong here? Rusted AutoParts 22:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@ TheJoebro64: are you kidding me? What issues have you had with me, and what 'behavior' do you reference? @ Rusted AutoParts: what I have repeatedly stated is that there is no statement from the studio stating that the Dark Universe has ended. Likewise to say that the Dark Universe never evolved past a concept is also incorrect. The only official statement is the one that you have stated before. they do not state that the Dark Universe is over/past idea/nor that they are moving on from it. They state that they are focusing on individual installments. @ Hunter Kahn: is exactly right in stating "Has the film ever been Dark Universe?" the answer is yes. Conversely, has the film officially been declared as "not a part of the Dark Universe?"...the answer is no. We cannot make decisions for studios based on tabloid commentary.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The factual sequence of events regarding this film is as follows:
As you can see here, I'm not just attempted to 'preserve my opinion' as you both have insinuated. I'm looking at all the facts here. At no point does the studio say that the franchise is dead, nor do they state that it is abandoned. They have simply 'reconfigured' the franchise to be standalone features in order to make each installment "the best versions of themselves". -- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 03:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I reference @ Hunter Kahn:'s input again: Has there been ANY reference to this being part of Dark Universe in the past? Yes in every instance/reference.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts: again, I have no beef with you. Do not tell me what to do, I will ping when appropriate. Refresh your memory to guidelines: WP:Don't be rude. Refer to WP:CIVILity-Avoiding Incivility, bullet 3: Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior". A reference being from 2018, does not render it inaccurate. Additionally I clarify - that I was not stating that Blum is running the Dark Universe. I stated that the facts are he had/has interest in the franchise. The resounding/defining statement comes from Universal President of Production: "We've learned many lessons throughout the creative process on Dark Universe so far...will move forward with these films when we feel they are the best versions of themselves." Your Variety source explicitly states: "The talent previously attached to various monster roles like Depp, Javier Bardem, Tom Cruise, and Russell Crowe still have the option to appear in the movies after a filmmaker with a new vision is brought on." All things I have stated have reliable sources, and quote the actual developers of the projects.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Hunter Kahn: I like your angle. This resolves the issue until there is direct answer one way or another from Universal. I did find this interview from yesterday. I originally mentioned it on my talk page and am bringing the same references here -- The UPDATE follows: Here is a recent interview that is noteworthy. iO9 recently did a press interview Chris Morgan during the release of Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. In the interview the discussion turned towards Dark Universe. Morgan had originally been tapped as one of the co-runners/co-architects of the franchise, only to walk away after the studio decided to re-evaluate the situation. Repeatedly in the article, it states that there have been a couple of attempts at a shared universe scenario, only to have various iterations of angles to take with it. Morgan said this: "I don’t [have] regrets or anything like that ... I think it’s just, you know, I think it probably was trying to come together too quickly, I would say. And I think everyone got to take a breath and take a step back and take a look at it, and now just focus on maybe doing it a little bit slower ... I think Universal’s going about the monster films the right way, which is to really focus on taking a good script, good story, put it out there, if you’re going to build a universe build it from something strong like that. And I think they’re not so much worried about putting a universe out there as they are making great monster films, so I’m looking forward to seeing them". All these things again re-state what I have been saying this entire time. The studio hasn't dropped the Dark Universe film studio, nor have they dropped the title of the name they have given this film franchise. Morgan states it plain as day here. This interview was from July 30, 2019. That's as recent as it can get. No more need to debate anymore. ...Thoughts? ([ https://io9.gizmodo.com/chris-morgan-talks-dark-universe-mistakes-and-fast-and-1836858662%7C reference).-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 05:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts: once again, what I have stated from the get-go, is that the franchise as a whole is titled Dark Universe. I have stated that the intentions of the studio have been to build individualized standalone features, before they build out into a shared universe situation. The fact that Morgan has left being involved with the franchise, is irrelevant - as he was talking about what the status was when he left. He obviously knows more about it than any of us do. He states what I have been saying the entire time, here as well -- I previously posted this on my talk-page, and am moving it here for this discussion:
@ Rusted AutoParts: I can ping you to the conversation whenever necessary. You don't get to boss other editors around, as though you have the authority to do so. This is an online encyclopedia contributed to by any and all editors. I would refer you once again to the regulation and guidelines here --> WP:CIVIL - Avoiding Incivility, 3. Try not to get too intense; 5. Take a Real-Life check; 6. Be professional; 8. Avoid condescension; & 9. Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. There is nothing wrong with pinging your username, when I have something to say - (see Help:Notifications... "pinging is a Wikipedia web-service designed to inform users about new activity on Wikipedia in a unified way.") There is no need to be Wikipedia:Rude in your responses to others. Assume good faith, and let's get back to the topic.
So recently I've been drafting a rewrite of the 1996 Adam Sandler comedy Happy Gilmore with intent to bring it up to GA status (you can see my work at User:TheJoebro64/drafts/HG). I just wanted to ask: does anyone know of any good sources about the production of the film? I've got a bit on its genesis and some casting, but more detailed information (such as principal photography) seems sort of sparse. JOE BRO 64 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There are currectly two different character lists of Halloween franchise characters, one named List of Halloween (film series) characters and another named List of Halloween characters. I can't imagine this is beneficial in any way or in line with Wikipedia guidlines. ★Trekker ( talk) 19:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I just created unfilmability. It's going to be a hit! Or a miss, I don't know... But there's this one scholar, Kamilla Elliott, who has written a lot about this which made me think the concept could sustain its own article. Haukur ( talk) 21:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Consider this lead intro:
Since the translation appears in the middle of the sentence, it seems weird to me to capitalise any aspect of the translation unless there is a proper noun. But does...
...look OK? Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood#Cast about who to include and how to format the list. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 23:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Just giving a shoutout to anyone who can maybe help out or expand on this article. It’s off to a rusty start but I believe it’s a notable topic that has been in various media including film. Jhenderson 777 04:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Netflix as external link. -- Sid95Q ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Dredd#Country_of_Origin regarding the production countries. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:2019 in film#Proposal. Thanks, DeluxeVegan ( talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice of discussion that is under this project’s scope regarding the naming of phases at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. All opinions are welcome.— TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
We could use more opinions at Talk:Ridicule#Requested move 14 August 2019. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed AllMovie and TCM Movie Database from the "External links" section of My Favorite Wife as maintenance and left comments on the talk page. The section has not yet grown as large as some but I didn't see that the two links offered anything extra, unique, not covered by the article and references, or the two other links in the section. It was reverted and after reflection I thought I would explore the editors rational but the edit summary was pretty clear on reasoning that stated "More or less de facto standard; if you don't like it, take it up at the film wikiproject.". As this seems like a personal opinion being advanced as a WikiProject "normal", that I didn't see, I thought I would inquire here. My issue isn't with any reversion but the reasoning advanced in the edit summary that I think is flawed and certainly didn't address any of my concerns. Otr500 ( talk) 03:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
If anyone has seen this film, and/or has time to help trim the plot length, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Punjabi cinema task force; this malformed "task force" was created without prior discussion by an indef blocked user and has no other participation. It is also redundant to the project's other task forces for Indian and Pakistani cinema. PC78 ( talk) 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The above category has been nominated for renaming to Category:Films about Romani people. We could use some additional opinions on this proposal. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. DonIago ( talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the Rfc at Talk:2019 in film#Request for comment. Thanks, DeluxeVegan ( talk) 08:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion here. Popcornduff ( talk) 09:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Death of a Nation (2018 film), there were recent changes that were reverted. A discussion was started on the talk page. Editors are invited to comment here: Talk:Death of a Nation (2018 film)#Recent changes. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
There's an RfC regarding the potential inclusion of composers for both the score and the songs to certain films. Project members are welcome to comment at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Asking for a friend. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
A heads-up that multiple editors have been applying this category to film articles that have no discussion of the film having a twist ending (at least, that I saw). For us to categorize a film in this manner without any verifiable discussion within the article is original research. I'm open to starting a CfD as to whether it would be better for this to be a list, or addressing in some other manner. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! DonIago ( talk) 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
There's an on-going debate in the talk page of the Crank: High Voltage article regarding the poster. Few weeks ago, I changed the theatrical poster ( http://www.impawards.com/2009/crank_two_ver2.html) into the ones currently used in the article because I personally find it visually appealing than the former and it was used at some multiplexes in the US. 109.79.190.97 then contested my uploading a different design, accusing me of violating Wikipedia's guidelines. I thought WP:FILMPOSTER said that it's only "ideal" to upload the official design and not necessarily a requirement. Nevertheless, IP insists I revert the official design (so did Erik) since it didn't have a billing block that could render it an official poster, among other reasons. I'd like to request for a second opinion from the regulars on here. You've gone incognito ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Similar to my last request, I think it'd be nice to have these long-overlooked articles at FA status by the time of the third film, but I've exhausted my ability to find sources for the sequel. It's significantly harder as it's the more overlooked film and there is a lot less interviews (or seemingly less) about the writing process. I would appreciate information on the design or music side of things, EDIT: This striked part is sorted and if anyone HAS or can help me get access to Cinefex #40 it would be appreciated as it apparently contains a lot of info from Aykroyd on writing the film. Thanks
Darkwarriorblake /
SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
13:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Another Tarantino-related AfD. Discussion here. Popcornduff ( talk) 19:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I found this website a while ago. It's great for VHS/DVD release dates(I've barely scratched the surface here). I propose we add this to WP:FILM/R. Timur9008 ( talk) 13:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earl_and_Edgar_McGraw, I have nominated another Tarantino article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Popcornduff ( talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The box-office section is very big, if someone is interested in putting a machete to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Fact-based historical films based on real-life events are more precisely defined by the genre ' docudrama', instead of simply 'drama'.
I believe making this distinction, and making it early, is important because it allows readers to instantly ascertain whether a film is fact-based, even when just viewing the small amount of text one sees when hovering the mouse over a film ref. e.g. 'The Report is a 2019 docudrama film written by ...'.
I am using the search "drama"+"historical"+"film" to find and update films. Search term suggestions welcome.
Films with largely fictionalized stories may not qualify as being a docudrama, instead being a 'historical drama'. Guidance on the distinction can be found
here and
here – some excerpts:
Please note that, by convention, the following genres take precedence over both 'docudrama' and 'historical drama', where a story leans strongly towards that category:
The genres are listed in order of priority, from highest to lowest — notice that Braveheart is a biographical film, as opposed to to being labelled a war film; and 'The Sound of Music' is a musical, as opposed to being labelled a biographical film.
========== Discussion: ==========
I'm fairly sure docudrama is the correct genre for 'The Report (2009)' as the script does seem to revolve around actual events... thoughts?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.151.249.156 (
talk)
05:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone look into these articles? Some IP-hopper's been insistently adding portraits of most if not all principal cast members, and I'd like your opinion on whether this is necessary or flat-out unneeded and unencyclopedic. Also tagging @ WayKurat: as he has also encountered such edits lately. Blake Gripling ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it for notability? It was prodded for deletion a few days ago, but de-prodded earlier today. I've been looking to see if I could find any WP:CORPDEPTH type coverage which might show that the company meets WP:NCORP, but haven't had a lot of luck. I'm finding official websites, some press releases/interviews and mentions on what appear to be questionable sources (i.e. sites which look to be WP:UGC type of stuff), but mostly these seems to be trivial or about the films the company is releasing. I'm not really finding anything significant about the company itself. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I've just created an article about the film The Obituary of Tunde Johnson, which premiered yesterday at TIFF, but I need a bit of help with something.
Since for the most part I normally only start articles about Canadian films (with the occasional exception for LGBT-related international films), I'm not familiar with the process of adding American films to the "List of American films of [Year]" lists since they're structured differently from the Canadian lists. Firstly, is the USian practice to list films under their original premiere date on the film festival circuit, in which case the film should be added to List of American films of 2019 under September 8, or is it to list them under commercial release dates, in which case we have to wait since a comercial release date isn't known yet? And secondly, even if we do go with the original premiere date, the American lists are coded so differently from the Canadian lists (rowspanning for month and days, whereas we just list the Canadian films alphabetically) that after several attempts to revise my prior attempts I still can't seem to add it without breaking the table.
So if the practice in the USian lists is to add the film at its initial film festival premiere date instead of holding off for commercial release, then could somebody who has more experience at editing the USian film lists add The Obituary of Tunde Johnson under September 8? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Doctor Sleep (2019 film), there is a dispute about whether or not to identify Cliff Curtis in the film infobox due to differing presentations in sources. Editors are invited to comment. See the discussion here: Talk:Doctor Sleep (2019 film)#Starring. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment to break a stalemate. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
For years Wikipedia film editors mentioned the name of critics in film articles' critical reception section. Nowadays there are many notable TV media, newspapers and entertainment channels, including notable youtube channels. We can't enter the name of every notable movie review in that "critical reception section" of movie page. Now the debate will be which reviews should be selected among almost 300 notable reviews in case of movies like Avengers, Harry Potter, Avatar, Lord Of The rings.
So, I suggest that if rottentomatoes final review is available, along with Metacritic score, let's avoid mentioning some individual critics in critical reception section as:"Peter Gomes from this channel gave this review"; "Wilson Scott from that newspaper gave this review".
There are some editors, who have preference for a particular movie critic, there are many movie critics who are not notable, but the news channel or newspaper, in which the post their review, is very notable news channel and newspaper. So, even they cannot be ignored.
Nowadays Hollywood movies are being reviewed by movie critics outside USA in countries as China, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Brazil, India, Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:6089:4CA7:7154:F13B:B7A0:6B49 ( talk) 06:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks, I'm looking at Category:2010s thriller drama films and Category:Indian thriller drama films. Aren't thrillers almost always drama films? Anybody know why we need the extra specificity? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks to me like the dates are wrong. For example Pans Labyrinth was released in 2006 but won the award in 2007. -- Neuhaus ( talk) 15:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Per the previous request this time last month, noone came to participate in this discussion. It is a Featured Article and needs input.
Previous message - "You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Dredd#Country_of_Origin regarding the production countries." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation#Lots_of_unsourced,_non-notable_articles. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Otr500: This started out at Talk:My Favorite Wife#External links, then was continued here (subsequently archived). User:Otr500 has claimed that one opinion supporting their view ( User:Erik) establishes consensus. I don't buy it; it should take more than one third opinion for something that is so entrenched in the majority of film articles. In the specific case of My Favorite Wife, TCM provides links to an article, reviews, notes, etc. which are not in Wikipedia. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I created a page for indie cinemas, since they seem like a distinct enough category of cinemas to merit coverage. It's pretty bare-bones right now, so I'd appreciate any contributions you all could make to help build it up. Thanks! Cheers, Sdkb ( talk) 07:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon the " Malaysian Cinema Task Force" which, like the recently deleted Punjabi cinema task force, appears to be a rogue page created by a now indef blocked user without prior discussion. It is, of course, redundant to the exisiting Southeast Asian cinema task force. I've nominated it for deletion at MfD if anyone wishes to comment: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force.
There is also the Venezuelan cinema task force and the Romanian cinema task force; these look a little better so I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there's any genuine interest in them perhaps we should add support to the project banner? PC78 ( talk) 23:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force has been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the article is short and could have more details. What age are the workers? Keirasullivan ( talk) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
See discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Upcoming films. I would welcome any thoughts on my suggestion for changing the current advice. PC78 ( talk) 03:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI to anyone interested, I've nominated The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari for featured article. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so this source [17] mentions street dates for a few of the films(which is good) but it doesn't say whether there released on DVD, VHS or both. Can I use this source to note all those films mentioned there were released on Both DVD and VHS? Timur9008 ( talk) 20:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this and possibly keeping it on their watchlist? About a month ago, someone claiming to be the film's director tried to make significant changes to the article that he felt were needed in order to protect the film's brand. Since then a WP:SPA and IP have showed up to try and do the same; these accounts might not only be WP:COI, but also WP:UPE accounts. The main cause of contention seems to be when the film was actually released; there are sources cited in the article which suggest one thing, but these might be wrong or whomever added them might have done a bit of WP:SYN when adding the content related to them. I guess it's possible for a film to have a "minor" and "major" release even years apart, but that's probably how the article should be written if that's the case. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at the discussion Talk:List of films considered the best#Rotten Tomatoes Updates. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 11:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea? I'm putting Ghostbusters through the FAC process and Columbia-Delphi isn't mentioned on the poster, it's presented as "Columbia Pictures presents an Ivan Reitman film, a Black Rhino/Bernie Brillstein production". But in the end credits it says "From Columbia-Delphi" at the end. I cannot ascertain what capacity of involvement they had and if it is warranting a credit in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hope you doing good. Kindly go through the below link and provide a solution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best#/talk/6
SchroCat doesn't really seem to care about it there and he even blocked in talk section once. Ashokkumar47 ( talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
TompaDompa and Kolya Butternut are agreeing about this but SchroCat seems to be intentionally ignoring.
Look I have been warned to not talk about User but I don't know what to know with this, so kindly look into this. Ashokkumar47 ( talk) 13:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I've set up a vital articles listing for this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vital articles. This is a bot generated listing of articles that are tagged for WikiProject Film which have also been selected by Wikipedia:Vital articles.
We don't necessarily have to do anything with this, it can quite happily exist as an FYI for anyone who is interested, or perhaps it might encourage members of the project to participate in the selection/deselection of vital articles. On the other hand, perhaps it could be used with (or even replace) Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Core which appears to have gone stale. Just a thought. PC78 ( talk) 15:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Timur9008 ( talk · contribs) has been adding material sourced to hive4media.com, which no longer exists as a website, to "Home media" sections in film articles. I revered the editor here and here, stating that there is no indication that this passes as a WP:Reliable source and that hive4media.com no longer exists. This comes across as WP:SPAMMING to me.
Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Quoting from http://dukefilmography.com/republic_pictures_library.html
"Although part of the rumor mill in 1935, Invincible Pictures Corp. and Chesterfield Pictures Corp. were not involved in Republic’s creation in any way—both companies were financed by Pathé. This myth still persists today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.80 ( talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I've just spotted that the page for Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film has been recently re-recreated. It was previously deleted in March 2014. I don't know if anything has changed since then. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I turn to this talk for ask you to give an opinion. I'm from it.wiki and I wanted further information here, where you are more experienced. Spielberg's War of the Worlds is a remake of Haskin film? Thank you.-- BincoBì ( talk) 14:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support. --- Coffeeand crumbs 02:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, me and another user, DiscoSlasher, have been reverting each other's edits at the Jojo Rabbit page for two reasons:
1. Production company and distributor. DiscoSlasher thinks Fox Searchlight is a distributor of the film rather than a production company of the film. He also removed TSG as a production company of the film. Fox Searchlight is now the production company of such films and Disney distributes such titles, as far as I know. 2. Country of production - Because DiscoSlasher thinks neither Searchlight or TSG are production companies of the film, he thinks America isn't a country of production. He also added New Zealand and Czech Republic as countries of production but the sources he added imo don't state them clearly. I added four sources to prove that the US is a country of production but he removed the sources and the US nonetheless.
Another issue is that DiscoSlasher refuses to respond to the entry I made in the article's talk page regarding the issue. (at least for the latter) Would like to see your input regarding these two issues. Daerl ( talk) 08:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a content dispute regarding Joker (2019 film) and what we should list for its budget range. You are invited to join the discussion here. JOE BRO 64 11:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the format changes with Rfc ruling of the thing they did with 2019 in film that was done by DeluxeVegan. It doesn't solve WP:WORLDWIDE and the new format just makes things more complicated and there has to be better ways for this while keeping the previous format intact. I want a revert of this ruling and make a discussion of this in better argument terms. BattleshipMan ( talk) 00:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That was done by DeluxeVegan–Please stop turning this into a personal issue. Consensus was determined on the talk page by an RfC. I fail to see how the current revision does not address WP:WORLDWIDE, and your argument does not touch upon anything to convince me otherwise. A neutral invitation was put up during the Rfc here. DeluxeVegan ( talk) 07:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Need more opinions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo DiCaprio/archive1. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:49, 15 October 2019 (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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
Can some project members take a look at the edit-dispute at {{ Film Studio}} and weigh in over which film studios should be included? Abecedare ( talk) 03:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
←It is not completely OR as Major and mini-major studios are those listed at Major film studio with sources and are from North America. For a while I had a source for the Independent financers group but that webpage disappeared with out any archive.org backup. The problem is that no real definition for mini-major exists and that its seems to be 3 groups at one point, select large foreign film company (Gaumont Film, Nordisk Film), actual production & distribution company able to compete (Lionsgate) and legacy majors or mini-majors (CBS, Amblin/DreamWorks). MGM was at one point a legacy as it did not have distribution in the US until it set back up Orion Pictures then completely with Mirror Releasing/United Artist Releasing joint venture. There is the major's slate partners, Legendary, RatPac Dune, TSG, with some that no longer fit that category. Probably should just dump the Producer-owned independents. Most should be redirects to the individual producers. Lots of the production companies are really not notable, but they get some fan who whips up an article. Possible other groupings for discussion:
...and all of which are worthy enough for that said template.
As for the Major film studio; I've been editing to check which studio is active or not. So if we include a French company like Gaumont or a Scandinavian company like Nordsk Film, but not Toho; despite that these three also have companies located in the US as well? Plus, I'm not here starting Wikipedia:Revert war or anything. It makes no sense. King Crimson the Third ( talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You have done terrible things for yourself, Spshu. You will be blocked for your childlike behaviour. -- GroupJWbackup ( talk) 11:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
More than half of you edits are reverts, Spshu. And i’d really expect better from a user who’s been on for 13 years. HurricaneGeek2002 ( talk) 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Spshu; necessary error fixing is needed in Template:Film Studio, such as placing said studios in alphabetical order, which studio is defunct or dormant, etc.; regardless of how many studios are added in there. Yet you still keep reverting the same articles as if you owned and/or created them. I suggest you let a lot of people edit before you consistently revert their edit history.-- King Crimson the Third ( talk) 23:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Should Second Glance (film) be nominated for deletion? Previous AFD was in 2011 with a "keep" consensus per "it looks good and is informative" sheep-votes. The Fresno Bee link doesn't even discuss the film. I could find no third-party coverage at all, and I've already redirected the director's page to it. Should this go to AFD again? I think it's pretty clear cut. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The FAC for Soultaker has been going on for over a month and I'm hoping that it can get some more eyes on it before it closes. GamerPro64 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Why it say that original soundtrack "is recorded music accompanying and synchronized to the images of a motion picture, television program, or video game."? OST it's "a commercially released soundtrack album of music as featured in the soundtrack of a film, video, or television presentation" (taken from lead of Soundtrack, where OST is also explained). Eurohunter ( talk) 09:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I need help with the production section. Since there is the page Production of The Lord of the Rings film series that covers the topic in detail, I think it should be shortened. I would do it, but I'm not that fluent in English and since I should rewrite things to make them shorter, I don't think I can do it. I was thinking in writing a small paragraph like this, which summarizes every production phase. I would appreciate if someone could do this. Thanks. -- Maze waxie 14:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this the best action film ever made or even the best film ever made in the history of cinema? Does this belong in the lead? Please see Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout#Puffery about being the best action film ever made. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding a potential WP:MOS on all fictional characters. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Manual of Style for fictional characters?. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Animator Suzan Pitt passed away a few days ago, and I finally found this obituary about her, which was helpful in adding some inline citations. Then I realized that some of the sentences appear to be lifted word-for-word right out of Wikipedia's (unreferenced) article about her. Is Animation Magazine reliable? Is this an instance of WP:CIRCULAR? Secundus Zephyrus ( talk) 14:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of film-related articles inappropriately using "cameo" as a verb. Not sure yet if it's vandalism or just plain ignorance, but cameo is an adjective or noun, not a verb. The trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are usually very consistent about this. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I just watched the 1927 silent film 'The Lone Eagle (1927)', and then read the Wikipedia article (here) - and there seem to be distinct errors in the plot description. In particular, it says that the leader of the German squadron was the character 'Lebrun' played by Cuyler Supplee, but it was 'von Buehl', played by Oscar Marion. It also says that near the end, the character Holmes commandeers a plane from his friend Sven Linder - but Holmes was with Linder as he died, and then got a plane from another character (not Linder).
There are a few other inconsistencies, but those ones jumped out.
My source is that I just watched a copy of the film from an archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.229.115.124 ( talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Input is requested at Talk:Super 35 § List in History section. Thanks. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 00:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. On the article Lantouri User:Sc wikinevis insists on adding details of every single film festival this film has been screened at, and all the awards it has ever been nominated for. This was the latest diff. I've removed all this, per the Film MOS and have communicated this to the editor. I've explained this multiple times to them, but they don't appear to be listening. The previous time, they simply blanked their talkpage. Any further help with this matter would be helpful. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Watched this film on Amazon and see that the title was changed to "Salton Sea" upon it's release. The page's title should change with it. Also there is a poster image that can be added from their IMDB page https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2IzOWFhMzktNTczZS00YjQyLTg3NmMtNTU3N2IxOTFjYjJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI3MDU2Mzk@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,666,1000_AL_.jpg.
You can see the title change here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5884434/mediaviewer/rm3720714497 and here https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07TW9TK89?autoplay=1&ref=dvm_us_api_cs_hud_fb_GWRD-singleCW&pf_rd_p=e479604f-233b-4177-b107-fcfc45f79589&pf_rd_r=2344Y5N3JZNF3B6EA5S4
I'm not much of an editor so I couldn't do these changes myself but noticed they were wrong and want to support this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaredit ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Came across Quickening (Highlander) through some series of clicks that started with Starship Troopers and noticed it seemed pretty heavily reliant on primary sources. Clicking around to some other Highlander-related articles, I'm seeing a lot of that: Watcher (Highlander), Ahriman (Highlander), Four Horsemen (Highlander), Nick Wolfe, Immortal (Highlander), The Kurgan, etc. Could maybe use some attention from folks more familiar with the degree of sourcing available for this one. (I was a fan of Highlander 2 when I was a kid and didn't know better, being one of the first rated R movies I had seen, but that was the end of my knowledge of the series). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding The Lord of the Rings (film series), there is a dispute about whether or not the "Critical and public response" table should have an "Average" row. A discussion has been started here: Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Average row. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I am having trouble getting this draft approved and I'd be happy to have assistance. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
A move request at Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film)#Requested move 12 July 2019 might benefit from a few more eyes. See also an earlier discussion from 2016 at Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film)#Requested move 2 July 2016. PC78 ( talk) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because of this edit by an IP, which I followed up with this, this and this edit, I just found out that VanDerWerff has come out as transgender. As some or all of you may know, VanDerWerff is a critic we commonly use as a source in our articles regarding popular culture. I'm sure that there have been changes to a lot of Wikipedia articles regarding VanDerWerff, with respect to name usage and gender pronouns. And there is the MOS:GENDERID guideline to follow. At the article the IP popped up at, I chose to use the name "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" because, as seen here and here, it's currently what VanDerWerff uses, the source was changed to use that name, and because "Todd VanDerWerff" is still more recognizable than "Emily VanDerWerff." It seems that VanDerWerff is easing into the "Emily" name publicly because she is so well-known as Todd. But her blog commentary here indicates that she won't use "Todd" for long; she states, "I'm going to be publishing under the name Emily Todd VanDerWerff for a bit." She also states, "If you use my former name, well, I won’t like that very much." So maybe we shouldn't use "Emily Todd" at all, especially since she's likely to stop posting under "Emily Todd VanDerWerff"?
I'll alert WP:TV to this section for a centralized discussion per WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
whether to retroactively change their name when citing a work that has been published by their previous namebut I think the operative phrase is "has been". Both The A.V. Club and Vox only exist as websites, as I understand it, and their bylines have now changed to read "Emily Todd VanDerWerff", so it's no longer correct to cite the author's name as "Todd VanDerWerff", and I also don't believe it would make sense for the prose to not match the reference. "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" would be a correct way to cite it, but it's not mandatory to cite an author's middle name, and Emily has expressed the intention that they will be changed to "Emily VanDerWerff" in the near future, so in the interest of not having to make the same hundreds of changes again in the near future, that's how I came to the conclusion that "Emily VanDerWerff" / "VanDerWerff, Emily" was the appropriate name to provide in this context. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.It states to use context on a case-by-case basis. Therefore in following this MOS there is nothing wrong with the ones before the name change remaining Todd and the ones after remaining Emily. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Hunter Kahn and FloNight and to anyone reading this, whether they agree with my edits or not I welcome discussion. What I don't welcome is someone reverting 100 of my edits as I frantically ask them to stop so that we can have a discussion, but I'll deal with that at ANI in a moment. As for Galatz's comments, let's break them down:
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened?and
Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively.
Yes, you are wrong and a simple check against policy would have shown this, had you cared to spend 30 seconds before making 100 reverts. As the users including myself in the very discussion I linked to in each of my edit summaries pointed out,
MOS:GENDERID is the relevant policy and it says: Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis.
That is, no it does not say to go by someone's name "at the time something happened". Your subsequent examples are just that—examples of where context has been determined to provide former names. And this is a different context.
This should be no different.
Again, you're betraying that you didn't bother to read the above discussion. The bylines in the references you have changed are now factually incorrect, because if you follow the link you will see that the bylines contain "Emily" as the first name and "VanDerWerff" as the surname. "Todd" is a middle name but it is simply not correct to cite somebody by their middle name and surname. In fact, what you've restored is worse than factually incorrect (for Wikipedia's purposes)—it's unverifiable. We have discussed in this section that VanDerWerff plans to get the bylines changed in a short time to just "Emily VanDerWerff", at which point the references to "VanDerWerff, Todd" will no longer exist. With the sources in question, The A.V. Club and Vox, both exist only as online sources. It is standard, uncontroversial practice to update online references when they change—doing otherwise would simply make no sense. For instance, I've done it many times with these sorts of edits, in which a prior reference like "Ranking all 20 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror" no longer exists, having been replaced with a reference "Ranking all 23 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror". It is an uncontroversial change to update a reference to match the source it actually references. "Todd VanDerWerff" is no longer the name of the person who wrote the source and so it's not correct to cite them in the reference or in the prose; the references now say "Emily VanDerWerff", referring to a female contributor, and hence we need to use that name and female pronouns. MOS:GENDERID says to use context and the broader context of reference data integrity, which itself is fundamental to WP:V, is what makes the name changes the logical option in this case. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I ask the question of why does a gender change resulting in a name change take a different answer than a person marrying changing their name. If you were to ask Todd/Emily my assumption would be that they will tell you they have been a girl since they were born. Therefore they were a girl name Todd who chose a new name they more closely identified with. No one is changing Bruce Jenners medals to being won by Caitlyn, why is this different? If Bill Clinton came out and said he is changing his name to Jefferson Clinton would we change who was the president of the US? If he came out and said he was becoming Betty Clinton would that change your answer? What if the US government changed their website to say she now goes by Betty and showed the 42nd President as being Betty Clinton? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 11:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Gildir is deleting this category from a large number of film articles, presumably with a view to emptying and deleting the category.
However, the category describes a well-defined, relevant class of film, and provides a direct method of retrieving such films for study. The edit comment is overcat[egorisation], but no other category enables just this search, and the films I examined did not have a specially large number of categories. I would be interested to know what other editors think. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the ***** that had been added to identify actresses at least 80 years old, but the edit was reverted. Could someone from this project take a look and adjudicate. See the comments on the talk page. Thank you.-- 76.14.38.58 ( talk) 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the other comments here and have taken the liberty of removing it again. Arbitray and unnecessary. PC78 ( talk) 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
How comes this is rated back down to B class? Wouldn't FA drop to GA? Govvy ( talk) 13:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Captain_China presents Captain China as a movie.
It's actually also a comic from Excel comics (English version) translated to English, which appears to have quite some influence from Marvel's Captain America: https://www.excelcomics.com/store/c2/English_Version.html
Plot summaries can be found at https://comicvine.gamespot.com/captain-china/4005-110719/
The comic is (still in 2019) featured as a rare sample of non-Finnish comics in a Finnish comic book museum in Kemi up in Lapland, which is how I ran into it. Written source: https://www.excelcomics.com/english-blog/captain-china-exhibition-in-finland - the comic book museum is described at https://www.visitsealapland.com/en/sarjis-en-us/kemi-comics-center/the-arctic-gems-and-comics/ but that page does not detail the features.
Do you suppose it would be possible to split the current page into a disambiguation page splitting to the film and at least a stub about the comic? I don't edit Wikipedia regularly at all and don't want to risk annoying a project by a clumsy attempt at setting up a disambiguation split.
Sini Ruohomaa ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Kjell Knudde has been adding a lot of articles to Surrealist film categories for which there is no referenced basis. Some people might think that WB's Looney Tunes are "surreal," but that is irrelevant. No article should be added to a category unless the article in question clearly supports such categorization. In general, Kjell seems obsessed with over-categorization, as his contributions page shows, and he has been the subject of discussion here on the FilmProject for that problem. - 2602:306:37FF:C990:1CBA:A552:5147:9FB9 ( talk) 14:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a more clearly defined category of what a 'Surrealist Film' is might be a solution. Because if according to you Monty Python films, films by Fellini and the Fleischer Brothers don't fit in that category - which is an opinion - , even though their surrealism is mentioned in their respective articles, then one could wonder whether the category isn't too vaguely defined in the first place? In fact: the whole category Surrealist filmmakers seems rather vague. If we would only include films directed by representatives of the Surrealist Movement - which is fine by me - then there aren't that much films to begin with. Perhaps the entire category Category:Surrealist filmmakers could be removed altogether: for I didn't create it. - User:Kjell Knudde 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC).
Here's a genre inflationist on a small spree in case anyone wants to pad their edit count. Daß Wölf 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Avengers: Endgame is now the highest-grossing movie of all time, but only if one does not adjust for inflation. If you adjust for inflation, it still hasn't beaten Avatar, and the top film is Gone With the Wind. Most people don't think about inflation. Most readers will think that Endgame is literally the most profitable movie of all time, when it in fact isn't if you think about it. I know it's not customary for Wikipedia to list inflation-adjusted takes, but I think we should do that in certain cases. After all, in the article " List of highest-grossing films" there is a table of inflation-adjusted takes, and the article for Gone With the Wind explicitly mentions that it is the highest-grossing film when adjusted for inflation; S'so I don't see what's wrong with mentioning inflation in the article for Endgame. Kurzon ( talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Slipper and the Rose that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I am trying top this article off and insanely I am really struggling to find sources relating to it's cultural impact, fans, conventions, references in other media, influences on other directors, etc, etc. I thought it would be like EVERYWHERE, but I'm coming up with little to nothing. Masem has already supplied some but I can't help but feel there should be more info about this film. If anyone has better researching abilities in this area I'd be muchly appreciative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to let this project know that I am uploading a few thousand new public-domain images to Commons that might be useful to you. The images come from the collection of J. Willis Sayre and were digitized by the University of Washington. They date from the first quarter of the 20th century and are largely portrait shots of various people involved in theater, film, and other media at that time, and shots of scenes from plays and films.
You can make use of these images in articles, and we also need help categorizing them on Commons.
All the images are in Commons:Category:Images from the J. Willis Sayre Collection of Theatrical Photographs. The upload will be finished within the next day. – BMacZero ( 🗩) 20:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I've done a few updates, I wanted to try and find the two positive reviews online according to metacritic there was one by Chicago Tribune and one by Seattle Post-Intelligencer. They seem to be dead know, is anyone able to find these reviews online? Govvy ( talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone help fill in Highest-grossing musical films by year chart Fanoflionking 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A plot summary was added to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood following its brief showing at the Cannes Film Festival in May. The film plot has been permitted to stay despite the fact its veracity has been challenged. The plot was unsourced, and since the film had not entered release there was no mechanism for checking the plot.
I believe that the presence of the plot under this circumstance violates WP:V which states that "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I also believe it violates WP:FILMPLOT's condition for not requiring a secondary source:
Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.
We have traditionally only not required a secondary citation for films that are accessible to our readers in some form in some part of the world. For the past couple of months this has not been true of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I started an RFC on this issue but it failed to find any traction and those who responded were clearly unconcerned about the lack of verifiability and the "call out" in regard to the plot summary.
Now a film reviewer has posted a reply to the comments section on their own review: "That Wikipedia entry is completely wrong. Just utter made-up bullshit."
This does not reflect well on Wikipedia or indeed film project editors that we permitted such misinformation to be spread through our refusal to enforce Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Should we amend our MOS guidelines so that film must be publicly accessible in some form somewhere in the world to not a require secondary source? I feel this situation is a poor reflection on the hard work we do and we should take action to address it. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The article A Cowgirl's Story has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The page cites no sources and this has not changed in nearly two years
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
AutumnKing (
talk)
14:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I noticed lately that The Hollywood Reporter has had a couple of articles analyzing films' marketing campaigns, mostly recently Hobbs & Shaw here. The journalist Chris Thilk has written these kinds of articles for the past two years or so, so I wanted to highlight this as a worthwhile source to write "Marketing" sections of value. So if you work on a recent film's article, see if he has written about the film's marketing. Any other marketing-related sources you know of, feel free to share. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@ DisneyMetalhead: has been insisting that this film is apart of the Dark Universe, which had not had any announcements made about it in a few years. None of the recent news surrounding the film have made any reference to it being apart of or a new relaunch of the franchise. I’ve tried removing the sentence about the DU twice now but DMH keeps readding it. Am I wrong here? Rusted AutoParts 22:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@ TheJoebro64: are you kidding me? What issues have you had with me, and what 'behavior' do you reference? @ Rusted AutoParts: what I have repeatedly stated is that there is no statement from the studio stating that the Dark Universe has ended. Likewise to say that the Dark Universe never evolved past a concept is also incorrect. The only official statement is the one that you have stated before. they do not state that the Dark Universe is over/past idea/nor that they are moving on from it. They state that they are focusing on individual installments. @ Hunter Kahn: is exactly right in stating "Has the film ever been Dark Universe?" the answer is yes. Conversely, has the film officially been declared as "not a part of the Dark Universe?"...the answer is no. We cannot make decisions for studios based on tabloid commentary.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The factual sequence of events regarding this film is as follows:
As you can see here, I'm not just attempted to 'preserve my opinion' as you both have insinuated. I'm looking at all the facts here. At no point does the studio say that the franchise is dead, nor do they state that it is abandoned. They have simply 'reconfigured' the franchise to be standalone features in order to make each installment "the best versions of themselves". -- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 03:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I reference @ Hunter Kahn:'s input again: Has there been ANY reference to this being part of Dark Universe in the past? Yes in every instance/reference.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts: again, I have no beef with you. Do not tell me what to do, I will ping when appropriate. Refresh your memory to guidelines: WP:Don't be rude. Refer to WP:CIVILity-Avoiding Incivility, bullet 3: Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior". A reference being from 2018, does not render it inaccurate. Additionally I clarify - that I was not stating that Blum is running the Dark Universe. I stated that the facts are he had/has interest in the franchise. The resounding/defining statement comes from Universal President of Production: "We've learned many lessons throughout the creative process on Dark Universe so far...will move forward with these films when we feel they are the best versions of themselves." Your Variety source explicitly states: "The talent previously attached to various monster roles like Depp, Javier Bardem, Tom Cruise, and Russell Crowe still have the option to appear in the movies after a filmmaker with a new vision is brought on." All things I have stated have reliable sources, and quote the actual developers of the projects.-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Hunter Kahn: I like your angle. This resolves the issue until there is direct answer one way or another from Universal. I did find this interview from yesterday. I originally mentioned it on my talk page and am bringing the same references here -- The UPDATE follows: Here is a recent interview that is noteworthy. iO9 recently did a press interview Chris Morgan during the release of Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. In the interview the discussion turned towards Dark Universe. Morgan had originally been tapped as one of the co-runners/co-architects of the franchise, only to walk away after the studio decided to re-evaluate the situation. Repeatedly in the article, it states that there have been a couple of attempts at a shared universe scenario, only to have various iterations of angles to take with it. Morgan said this: "I don’t [have] regrets or anything like that ... I think it’s just, you know, I think it probably was trying to come together too quickly, I would say. And I think everyone got to take a breath and take a step back and take a look at it, and now just focus on maybe doing it a little bit slower ... I think Universal’s going about the monster films the right way, which is to really focus on taking a good script, good story, put it out there, if you’re going to build a universe build it from something strong like that. And I think they’re not so much worried about putting a universe out there as they are making great monster films, so I’m looking forward to seeing them". All these things again re-state what I have been saying this entire time. The studio hasn't dropped the Dark Universe film studio, nor have they dropped the title of the name they have given this film franchise. Morgan states it plain as day here. This interview was from July 30, 2019. That's as recent as it can get. No more need to debate anymore. ...Thoughts? ([ https://io9.gizmodo.com/chris-morgan-talks-dark-universe-mistakes-and-fast-and-1836858662%7C reference).-- DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 05:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts: once again, what I have stated from the get-go, is that the franchise as a whole is titled Dark Universe. I have stated that the intentions of the studio have been to build individualized standalone features, before they build out into a shared universe situation. The fact that Morgan has left being involved with the franchise, is irrelevant - as he was talking about what the status was when he left. He obviously knows more about it than any of us do. He states what I have been saying the entire time, here as well -- I previously posted this on my talk-page, and am moving it here for this discussion:
@ Rusted AutoParts: I can ping you to the conversation whenever necessary. You don't get to boss other editors around, as though you have the authority to do so. This is an online encyclopedia contributed to by any and all editors. I would refer you once again to the regulation and guidelines here --> WP:CIVIL - Avoiding Incivility, 3. Try not to get too intense; 5. Take a Real-Life check; 6. Be professional; 8. Avoid condescension; & 9. Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. There is nothing wrong with pinging your username, when I have something to say - (see Help:Notifications... "pinging is a Wikipedia web-service designed to inform users about new activity on Wikipedia in a unified way.") There is no need to be Wikipedia:Rude in your responses to others. Assume good faith, and let's get back to the topic.
So recently I've been drafting a rewrite of the 1996 Adam Sandler comedy Happy Gilmore with intent to bring it up to GA status (you can see my work at User:TheJoebro64/drafts/HG). I just wanted to ask: does anyone know of any good sources about the production of the film? I've got a bit on its genesis and some casting, but more detailed information (such as principal photography) seems sort of sparse. JOE BRO 64 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There are currectly two different character lists of Halloween franchise characters, one named List of Halloween (film series) characters and another named List of Halloween characters. I can't imagine this is beneficial in any way or in line with Wikipedia guidlines. ★Trekker ( talk) 19:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I just created unfilmability. It's going to be a hit! Or a miss, I don't know... But there's this one scholar, Kamilla Elliott, who has written a lot about this which made me think the concept could sustain its own article. Haukur ( talk) 21:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Consider this lead intro:
Since the translation appears in the middle of the sentence, it seems weird to me to capitalise any aspect of the translation unless there is a proper noun. But does...
...look OK? Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood#Cast about who to include and how to format the list. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 23:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Just giving a shoutout to anyone who can maybe help out or expand on this article. It’s off to a rusty start but I believe it’s a notable topic that has been in various media including film. Jhenderson 777 04:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Netflix as external link. -- Sid95Q ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Dredd#Country_of_Origin regarding the production countries. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:2019 in film#Proposal. Thanks, DeluxeVegan ( talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice of discussion that is under this project’s scope regarding the naming of phases at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. All opinions are welcome.— TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
We could use more opinions at Talk:Ridicule#Requested move 14 August 2019. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed AllMovie and TCM Movie Database from the "External links" section of My Favorite Wife as maintenance and left comments on the talk page. The section has not yet grown as large as some but I didn't see that the two links offered anything extra, unique, not covered by the article and references, or the two other links in the section. It was reverted and after reflection I thought I would explore the editors rational but the edit summary was pretty clear on reasoning that stated "More or less de facto standard; if you don't like it, take it up at the film wikiproject.". As this seems like a personal opinion being advanced as a WikiProject "normal", that I didn't see, I thought I would inquire here. My issue isn't with any reversion but the reasoning advanced in the edit summary that I think is flawed and certainly didn't address any of my concerns. Otr500 ( talk) 03:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
If anyone has seen this film, and/or has time to help trim the plot length, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Punjabi cinema task force; this malformed "task force" was created without prior discussion by an indef blocked user and has no other participation. It is also redundant to the project's other task forces for Indian and Pakistani cinema. PC78 ( talk) 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The above category has been nominated for renaming to Category:Films about Romani people. We could use some additional opinions on this proposal. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. DonIago ( talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the Rfc at Talk:2019 in film#Request for comment. Thanks, DeluxeVegan ( talk) 08:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion here. Popcornduff ( talk) 09:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Death of a Nation (2018 film), there were recent changes that were reverted. A discussion was started on the talk page. Editors are invited to comment here: Talk:Death of a Nation (2018 film)#Recent changes. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
There's an RfC regarding the potential inclusion of composers for both the score and the songs to certain films. Project members are welcome to comment at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Asking for a friend. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
A heads-up that multiple editors have been applying this category to film articles that have no discussion of the film having a twist ending (at least, that I saw). For us to categorize a film in this manner without any verifiable discussion within the article is original research. I'm open to starting a CfD as to whether it would be better for this to be a list, or addressing in some other manner. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! DonIago ( talk) 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
There's an on-going debate in the talk page of the Crank: High Voltage article regarding the poster. Few weeks ago, I changed the theatrical poster ( http://www.impawards.com/2009/crank_two_ver2.html) into the ones currently used in the article because I personally find it visually appealing than the former and it was used at some multiplexes in the US. 109.79.190.97 then contested my uploading a different design, accusing me of violating Wikipedia's guidelines. I thought WP:FILMPOSTER said that it's only "ideal" to upload the official design and not necessarily a requirement. Nevertheless, IP insists I revert the official design (so did Erik) since it didn't have a billing block that could render it an official poster, among other reasons. I'd like to request for a second opinion from the regulars on here. You've gone incognito ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Similar to my last request, I think it'd be nice to have these long-overlooked articles at FA status by the time of the third film, but I've exhausted my ability to find sources for the sequel. It's significantly harder as it's the more overlooked film and there is a lot less interviews (or seemingly less) about the writing process. I would appreciate information on the design or music side of things, EDIT: This striked part is sorted and if anyone HAS or can help me get access to Cinefex #40 it would be appreciated as it apparently contains a lot of info from Aykroyd on writing the film. Thanks
Darkwarriorblake /
SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
13:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Another Tarantino-related AfD. Discussion here. Popcornduff ( talk) 19:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I found this website a while ago. It's great for VHS/DVD release dates(I've barely scratched the surface here). I propose we add this to WP:FILM/R. Timur9008 ( talk) 13:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earl_and_Edgar_McGraw, I have nominated another Tarantino article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Popcornduff ( talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The box-office section is very big, if someone is interested in putting a machete to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Fact-based historical films based on real-life events are more precisely defined by the genre ' docudrama', instead of simply 'drama'.
I believe making this distinction, and making it early, is important because it allows readers to instantly ascertain whether a film is fact-based, even when just viewing the small amount of text one sees when hovering the mouse over a film ref. e.g. 'The Report is a 2019 docudrama film written by ...'.
I am using the search "drama"+"historical"+"film" to find and update films. Search term suggestions welcome.
Films with largely fictionalized stories may not qualify as being a docudrama, instead being a 'historical drama'. Guidance on the distinction can be found
here and
here – some excerpts:
Please note that, by convention, the following genres take precedence over both 'docudrama' and 'historical drama', where a story leans strongly towards that category:
The genres are listed in order of priority, from highest to lowest — notice that Braveheart is a biographical film, as opposed to to being labelled a war film; and 'The Sound of Music' is a musical, as opposed to being labelled a biographical film.
========== Discussion: ==========
I'm fairly sure docudrama is the correct genre for 'The Report (2009)' as the script does seem to revolve around actual events... thoughts?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.151.249.156 (
talk)
05:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone look into these articles? Some IP-hopper's been insistently adding portraits of most if not all principal cast members, and I'd like your opinion on whether this is necessary or flat-out unneeded and unencyclopedic. Also tagging @ WayKurat: as he has also encountered such edits lately. Blake Gripling ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it for notability? It was prodded for deletion a few days ago, but de-prodded earlier today. I've been looking to see if I could find any WP:CORPDEPTH type coverage which might show that the company meets WP:NCORP, but haven't had a lot of luck. I'm finding official websites, some press releases/interviews and mentions on what appear to be questionable sources (i.e. sites which look to be WP:UGC type of stuff), but mostly these seems to be trivial or about the films the company is releasing. I'm not really finding anything significant about the company itself. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I've just created an article about the film The Obituary of Tunde Johnson, which premiered yesterday at TIFF, but I need a bit of help with something.
Since for the most part I normally only start articles about Canadian films (with the occasional exception for LGBT-related international films), I'm not familiar with the process of adding American films to the "List of American films of [Year]" lists since they're structured differently from the Canadian lists. Firstly, is the USian practice to list films under their original premiere date on the film festival circuit, in which case the film should be added to List of American films of 2019 under September 8, or is it to list them under commercial release dates, in which case we have to wait since a comercial release date isn't known yet? And secondly, even if we do go with the original premiere date, the American lists are coded so differently from the Canadian lists (rowspanning for month and days, whereas we just list the Canadian films alphabetically) that after several attempts to revise my prior attempts I still can't seem to add it without breaking the table.
So if the practice in the USian lists is to add the film at its initial film festival premiere date instead of holding off for commercial release, then could somebody who has more experience at editing the USian film lists add The Obituary of Tunde Johnson under September 8? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Doctor Sleep (2019 film), there is a dispute about whether or not to identify Cliff Curtis in the film infobox due to differing presentations in sources. Editors are invited to comment. See the discussion here: Talk:Doctor Sleep (2019 film)#Starring. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment to break a stalemate. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
For years Wikipedia film editors mentioned the name of critics in film articles' critical reception section. Nowadays there are many notable TV media, newspapers and entertainment channels, including notable youtube channels. We can't enter the name of every notable movie review in that "critical reception section" of movie page. Now the debate will be which reviews should be selected among almost 300 notable reviews in case of movies like Avengers, Harry Potter, Avatar, Lord Of The rings.
So, I suggest that if rottentomatoes final review is available, along with Metacritic score, let's avoid mentioning some individual critics in critical reception section as:"Peter Gomes from this channel gave this review"; "Wilson Scott from that newspaper gave this review".
There are some editors, who have preference for a particular movie critic, there are many movie critics who are not notable, but the news channel or newspaper, in which the post their review, is very notable news channel and newspaper. So, even they cannot be ignored.
Nowadays Hollywood movies are being reviewed by movie critics outside USA in countries as China, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Brazil, India, Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:6089:4CA7:7154:F13B:B7A0:6B49 ( talk) 06:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks, I'm looking at Category:2010s thriller drama films and Category:Indian thriller drama films. Aren't thrillers almost always drama films? Anybody know why we need the extra specificity? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks to me like the dates are wrong. For example Pans Labyrinth was released in 2006 but won the award in 2007. -- Neuhaus ( talk) 15:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Per the previous request this time last month, noone came to participate in this discussion. It is a Featured Article and needs input.
Previous message - "You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Dredd#Country_of_Origin regarding the production countries." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation#Lots_of_unsourced,_non-notable_articles. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Otr500: This started out at Talk:My Favorite Wife#External links, then was continued here (subsequently archived). User:Otr500 has claimed that one opinion supporting their view ( User:Erik) establishes consensus. I don't buy it; it should take more than one third opinion for something that is so entrenched in the majority of film articles. In the specific case of My Favorite Wife, TCM provides links to an article, reviews, notes, etc. which are not in Wikipedia. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I created a page for indie cinemas, since they seem like a distinct enough category of cinemas to merit coverage. It's pretty bare-bones right now, so I'd appreciate any contributions you all could make to help build it up. Thanks! Cheers, Sdkb ( talk) 07:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon the " Malaysian Cinema Task Force" which, like the recently deleted Punjabi cinema task force, appears to be a rogue page created by a now indef blocked user without prior discussion. It is, of course, redundant to the exisiting Southeast Asian cinema task force. I've nominated it for deletion at MfD if anyone wishes to comment: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force.
There is also the Venezuelan cinema task force and the Romanian cinema task force; these look a little better so I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there's any genuine interest in them perhaps we should add support to the project banner? PC78 ( talk) 23:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force has been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the article is short and could have more details. What age are the workers? Keirasullivan ( talk) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
See discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Upcoming films. I would welcome any thoughts on my suggestion for changing the current advice. PC78 ( talk) 03:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI to anyone interested, I've nominated The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari for featured article. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so this source [17] mentions street dates for a few of the films(which is good) but it doesn't say whether there released on DVD, VHS or both. Can I use this source to note all those films mentioned there were released on Both DVD and VHS? Timur9008 ( talk) 20:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this and possibly keeping it on their watchlist? About a month ago, someone claiming to be the film's director tried to make significant changes to the article that he felt were needed in order to protect the film's brand. Since then a WP:SPA and IP have showed up to try and do the same; these accounts might not only be WP:COI, but also WP:UPE accounts. The main cause of contention seems to be when the film was actually released; there are sources cited in the article which suggest one thing, but these might be wrong or whomever added them might have done a bit of WP:SYN when adding the content related to them. I guess it's possible for a film to have a "minor" and "major" release even years apart, but that's probably how the article should be written if that's the case. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at the discussion Talk:List of films considered the best#Rotten Tomatoes Updates. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 11:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea? I'm putting Ghostbusters through the FAC process and Columbia-Delphi isn't mentioned on the poster, it's presented as "Columbia Pictures presents an Ivan Reitman film, a Black Rhino/Bernie Brillstein production". But in the end credits it says "From Columbia-Delphi" at the end. I cannot ascertain what capacity of involvement they had and if it is warranting a credit in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hope you doing good. Kindly go through the below link and provide a solution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best#/talk/6
SchroCat doesn't really seem to care about it there and he even blocked in talk section once. Ashokkumar47 ( talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
TompaDompa and Kolya Butternut are agreeing about this but SchroCat seems to be intentionally ignoring.
Look I have been warned to not talk about User but I don't know what to know with this, so kindly look into this. Ashokkumar47 ( talk) 13:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I've set up a vital articles listing for this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vital articles. This is a bot generated listing of articles that are tagged for WikiProject Film which have also been selected by Wikipedia:Vital articles.
We don't necessarily have to do anything with this, it can quite happily exist as an FYI for anyone who is interested, or perhaps it might encourage members of the project to participate in the selection/deselection of vital articles. On the other hand, perhaps it could be used with (or even replace) Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Core which appears to have gone stale. Just a thought. PC78 ( talk) 15:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Timur9008 ( talk · contribs) has been adding material sourced to hive4media.com, which no longer exists as a website, to "Home media" sections in film articles. I revered the editor here and here, stating that there is no indication that this passes as a WP:Reliable source and that hive4media.com no longer exists. This comes across as WP:SPAMMING to me.
Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Quoting from http://dukefilmography.com/republic_pictures_library.html
"Although part of the rumor mill in 1935, Invincible Pictures Corp. and Chesterfield Pictures Corp. were not involved in Republic’s creation in any way—both companies were financed by Pathé. This myth still persists today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.80 ( talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I've just spotted that the page for Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film has been recently re-recreated. It was previously deleted in March 2014. I don't know if anything has changed since then. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I turn to this talk for ask you to give an opinion. I'm from it.wiki and I wanted further information here, where you are more experienced. Spielberg's War of the Worlds is a remake of Haskin film? Thank you.-- BincoBì ( talk) 14:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support. --- Coffeeand crumbs 02:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, me and another user, DiscoSlasher, have been reverting each other's edits at the Jojo Rabbit page for two reasons:
1. Production company and distributor. DiscoSlasher thinks Fox Searchlight is a distributor of the film rather than a production company of the film. He also removed TSG as a production company of the film. Fox Searchlight is now the production company of such films and Disney distributes such titles, as far as I know. 2. Country of production - Because DiscoSlasher thinks neither Searchlight or TSG are production companies of the film, he thinks America isn't a country of production. He also added New Zealand and Czech Republic as countries of production but the sources he added imo don't state them clearly. I added four sources to prove that the US is a country of production but he removed the sources and the US nonetheless.
Another issue is that DiscoSlasher refuses to respond to the entry I made in the article's talk page regarding the issue. (at least for the latter) Would like to see your input regarding these two issues. Daerl ( talk) 08:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a content dispute regarding Joker (2019 film) and what we should list for its budget range. You are invited to join the discussion here. JOE BRO 64 11:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the format changes with Rfc ruling of the thing they did with 2019 in film that was done by DeluxeVegan. It doesn't solve WP:WORLDWIDE and the new format just makes things more complicated and there has to be better ways for this while keeping the previous format intact. I want a revert of this ruling and make a discussion of this in better argument terms. BattleshipMan ( talk) 00:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That was done by DeluxeVegan–Please stop turning this into a personal issue. Consensus was determined on the talk page by an RfC. I fail to see how the current revision does not address WP:WORLDWIDE, and your argument does not touch upon anything to convince me otherwise. A neutral invitation was put up during the Rfc here. DeluxeVegan ( talk) 07:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Need more opinions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo DiCaprio/archive1. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)