![]() | 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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 |
Those of you who work on the film articles regularly will have encountered Flyer22 Frozen at some point. Maybe you collaborated, or maybe you just noticed her making an improvement (and she may have been a hard-ass on one or two of you), but it is my sad duty to inform you of her passing earlier this week. She was a great, level-headed editor who made a massive contribution to Wikipedia and she will be sorely missed. RIP Flyer 22. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Anybody got any opinion about what sources could be used to make a horror film meet the GNG? I'm contemplating the nomination of Islamic Exorcist for deletion, because of the dearth of reliable mainstream sources. The only stuff I see at Google News are sites like Dread Central (which at least appears to be potentially notable and used in at least 1000 articles at the English Wikipedia). The only other source that I could find that talks about the film in detail is pophorror.com, which feels bloggy to me. Neither source appears to have been discussed at RSN, so I have little to go on. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a question. Someone added the Template:Infobox filmography list to List of Leeteuk performances which I've brought to FL last year, and the editor also added it to other filmography articles. The infobox is not currently inline with FL criteria and I saw that an editor had reverted the edit in Akshay Kumar filmography saying such. Should I do the same too? Lulusword (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
, so it really depends on editors of an article whether to use infobox or not. I was also quite on the fence whether to undo or not because I don't know if it lower the value of an article, but I saw User:HAL333 who participated a lot in FL discussion revert here with WP:BOLD so I did. Lulusword (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. They should be added as part of content creation; they should not be added systematically to articles.
Side note, I see on the infobox template, you say that using the "television" parameter is not recommended but during my article promotion, they explicitly asked me to combine the TV series and TV shows table into one large table here. In fact, I think only Korean filmography article make distinction between these two, so I think the "not recommended" remark is not appropriate. Lulusword (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Panavision for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I've currently started a discussion at Template talk:Cite rt#Convert to Citation Style 1 wrapper template to discuss converting the {{ cite rt}} (Rotten Tomatoes) template to a wrapper of {{ cite web}}. Please join the discussion there. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about plural parameters in regard to Template:Infobox film that can be found here: Template talk:Infobox film#Plural parameter. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see and add to the discussion about the poster blocks used for the Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Poster block. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I recently nominated an article for a vanity award for deletion. I laid out some reasons as to why it's a vanity award and some explanation as to why this was pertinent, and MarnetteD suggested including this information somewhere.
I've started on a draft about identifying vanity awards, which can be found here. Right now it's in a rough draft format, so I thought it would be good to get some feedback and see if anyone would be interested in working on it as well. Film is one of those areas where there are often a ton of vanity awards, so this is one of the WikiProjects I wanted to reach out to. Books and companies are two of the other areas. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about adjusting the Rotten Tomatoes template here: Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes#Specifying reviews page. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This stub has been unreferenced and tagged for nine years. Please, either fix the issues, or I shall nominate it for deletion. Template or tag me. Bearian ( talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please can a subject expert check whether the references to
R. Porcar's Olorama added by
Rporcar olorama are helpful? Thanks,
Certes (
talk) 10:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As an example, Superior (film) premiered at 2021 Sundance Film Festival.
I tagged it for "notability" but another editor said that because 9 critics were quoted at Rotten Tomatoes (there are now 14, including 3 "top critics"), that was enough to qualify under Wikipedia guidelines.
For films like this, which are not historical, not in wide release, and not nominated for any awards, are there "cutoff points" for "number of professional critical reviews"/"number of 'top' critical reviews" below which the film can be considered "very unlikely to be notable" on the low end, "very likely to be considered notable" on the high end, and "further investigation is recommended" in the middle? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
John Cummings ( talk) 10:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
We now describe the 2020 Amazon documentary series The Last Narc (TV series) as "fictional," because some editors on the talk page argue that the documentary is contradicted by trial transcripts from the 1990s. I have objected, to no avail. Outside input appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 21:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Music_(2021_film)#RfC_about_the_neutrality/balance_of_this_article,_and_which_type_of_English_to_use.? - A discussion on which form of english should be used, and also about the ongoing controversy surrounding the film 188.220.86.46 ( talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This discussion has been relisted twice, so feel free to chip in if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello friends. I've been working on a user script that highlights sources based on quality. It's called CiteHighlighter. Today I added the list of reliable and unreliable sources located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. I will continue adding sources to it until hopefully I've added all of WP:RSP, the WP:NPPSG, and several WikiProjects. Feel free to install, give feedback, etc. Hope you find it useful. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, does this addition seem typical for a director's award section? I see one at Martin Scorcese, but at first glance, it seems odd to me that the directors are getting credit for stuff like best actor noms and best sound mixing. Am I being too critical? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi fellow Wikipedians. I come here to propose the creation of the Uruguayan cinema task force. There are already some 70 films which are Uruguayan, and/or set in Uruguay, and/or shot in Uruguay. Further looking into the Spanish-language es:Categoría:Películas de Uruguay there are some 170 Uruguayan films which could be translated into English. So, there is plenty of work to be done! What do you think about this? Regards, -- Fadesga ( talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi people. There happens to be a half-made Paraguayan film task force that seems not to be fully operational. There are already two of us users working on it, Bruno Rene Vargas and me. I am bringing you this into consideration in order to validate what is needed, for instance, including Paraguayan-task-force in the {{ WikiProject Film}} template. Best regards to everybody, -- Fadesga ( talk) 19:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Cool World, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wanted to ask for a bit of assistance with a film article that's got something a little bit weird going on — over the past couple of weeks, the article Heart of a Dragon has been attracting an extremely large and steady stream of weird edits from newly created single-purpose accounts that mostly seem to have been created solely to fuck around with that specific article. There isn't necessarily a consistent pattern to what they do — some edits are clearcut vandalism, such as this and this and this, while edits like this aren't so bad, so I don't know if there are solid grounds for an WP:SPI request, but it's still somewhat strange that an article about a fairly obscure film is attracting such a constant stream of edits by users with little or no prior edit history.
Even checking its pageview statistics, prior to February 6 it attracted very little traffic at all — it would get four views a day at its peak, and zero views a day was not unknown. Since February 6, however, it averages between 30 to 60 views per day, and as I already noted a large proportion of that sudden traffic influx involves the commission or reversion of vandalism.
I applied pending-changes review to the article about a week ago, and had to bump it up to two weeks of autoconfirmed sprot today because pending changes didn't slow down the barrage very much at all — so I wanted to ask if anybody else has any insight into what's going on here and how we can make it stop without applying permanent protection if we don't absolutely have to. Bearcat ( talk) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleven Arts, and see if you can help editors figure out whether the sources mentioned are independent. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, so there's this guy Faisal Saif who mostly makes Hindi horror films. He also seems to "make" films that never get released. There are at least three:
Now, I'm starting to suspect that this guy might be a bit of a publicity hound, and these film announcements might be stunts to keep him relevant, but assuming that they're totally legit, it seems odd to have articles about unfinished/unreleased films in perpetuity, unless they're notable for why they are unfinished, like Midnight Rider. Thoughts? Should I merge the relevant content to the Saif article? What's the normal procedure on this? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. And quick, before the asteroid hits! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The article name is not grammatical, and should be changed to "List of filmmakers' signatures" (plural apostrophe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.114.93 ( talk) 06:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a draft where a film received a nomination for Best Horror Film at the 30th Saturn Awards. Now, I know some award ceremonies don't get much attention "media-wise", but I think there has to be at least one, active, website out there. Just wanted to see if anyone could help me search for a link or archive about the ceremony and its nominees. Any help at all will be greatly appreciated. Some Dude From NC wanna talk? 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Fangoria, NinjaRobotPirate mentions here being able to look up Fangoria back issues. Not sure if that helps. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:Star Wars spinoffs has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -
adamstom97 (
talk) 07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes added a new feature "Audience says", where it seems like the RT staff writes a consensus from user reviews similar to critics consensus. Here is an example. I'd like to see your thoughts on this, especially on whether it should be included in the Reception section of film articles. nyxærös 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"'Audience Says' is a short blurb that summarizes what fans think of a movie, drawing on common points made in user reviews written for the title. Want to know, at a glance, whether audiences think a film is funny, scary, disappointing, or mindblowing? Check it out.... Plus, if we become aware of any external factors impacting the Audience Score and user reviews, such as a controversy affecting sentiment around a title, we may address that in the Audience Says blurb – all in an effort to equip you with the best and most relevant info to help make your viewing choices... Note that for now we will only have Audience Says blurbs for new films with a significant number of user reviews; we will not initially have them for older movies, nor for TV and streaming seasons or episodes. But: Watch this space."
TropicAces, please see above. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Miroir (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Single, weak source exists for this subject, little other information exists for this subject. No further information available and without a doubt fails WP:NOTABILITY
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.
Theprussian (
talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miroir (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Theprussian ( talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming to America (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Formal request has been received to merge: Jojo Rabbit (soundtrack) into Jojo Rabbit; dated: 24 February 2021. Proposer's Rationale: This article has no reason to have it's own, as there is enough space to place it in the original Jojo Rabbit article, as you can see in its Music subsection. It also has little things to say here. User:Gerald Waldo Luis. Note: target article is 122k size. Discuss >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest "scribble" 01:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Film,
I'm not sure exactly what is going on but some editor is depopulating director categories on Wikipedia. Starting with the "A"s (first name) yesterday, 5-10 director categories are being emptied out a day. You can see the daily list on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. At WP:CFD, this is called "emptying out of process" because the correct way to delete categories en masse like this is to post a proposal at CFD and argue for deletion. And it's difficult for editors, like me, who are unfamiliar with film to know what films are being removed from these categories or to know whether this editing is following a decision made by this members of this WikiProject to eliminate these categories for lesser known directors.
For those who are not familiar with how empty categories are handled on Wikipedia, they are tagged CSD C1 and sit for a week at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion...if they are still empty after 7 days, they are deleted. However, categories deleted simply for being emptied can be restored whenever they are needed. What we try to avoid though is for individual editors to set about doing mass changes that then have to be undone later. So, I hope someone with this WikiProject could ferret out what's going on, see if it has any widespread support and who might be doing it so we can check in before this starts involving hundreds of categories. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Escape to Victory#Requested move 8 March 2021 aims to resolve whether the entry for the American production Victory (1981 film) should have its main title header under its British release form, Escape to Victory or under its American release form, Victory (1981 film). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
For the image in the infobox of an article about a film, if more than one film poster is available, which one should be used? I was thinking that the best one to use was the poster for the main theatrical release. I'm asking because an editor has recently changed the infobox poster for Hugo Pool, replacing the poster for the main theatrical release with the poster for the Sundance premier (which presumably was earlier), as can be seen here. @ QuestFour: Hello! I thought I'd start this discussion here, where more interested editors will see it. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've boldly added film series guidelines to the MOS. See it at MOS:FILM#Film series and discuss at WT:MOSFILM#Film series. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Since this was reverted twice over the past few months and the topic is open at Talk:Army of the Dead, I wanted to give everyone a head's up.
Army of the Dead (Zack Snyder) was in development hell for a while until around 2018. When it was first announced in 2006, a number of reliable publications reported it as a sequel to 2004's Dawn of the Dead (same director). This led to the widespread misconception that the film was originally intended to be a DotD sequel. However, this isn't actually true. In an overlooked interview from 2007, the screenwriter actually debunked any connection to DotD:
"It’s not a sequel. It’s its own being, its own film,” he said, clearing up any confusion that this is a sequel to Snyder’s 2003 remake of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. “I think what Zack wanted to do was make the ultimate zombie movie. If you could do anything, what would be the epic be-all-end-all of zombie films, which is a hell of a challenge but very exciting to do. We took it to the next level. I’m extremely pleased with it. It’s definitely out there, it’s crazy, and — much like Awake – it’s not just a straight-up genre film. There’s a lot of action elements, there’s a lot of horror elements, it’s not just your traditional every day zombie movie. We really take it and run with it." [5]
Likewise, it was also originally going to include rape zombies that impregnate women, giving birth to zombie/human hybrids [6]. This actually contradicts the zombies depicted in Dawn of the Dead, which were human corpses whose brain function was partially reanimated by either (according to writer James Gunn) an unexplained supernatural occurrence or (according to the DVD box) an unexplained viral infection. In that interpretation, calling a "human/zombie hybrid" is as nonsensical as saying "bread/sandwich amalgam."
But aside from the screenwriter debunking the proported connection, nobody attached to the film has ever referred to it as a sequel. It's just a Chinese Whisper that started from one reliable third party publication and then got spread over to several more. Like a viral infection in itself... "The misreports are coming to get you, Barbra. Look, there comes one of them now!" Dark knight 2149 05:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. On the article for Pasolini (film) the same editor insists on adding Salvatore Ruocco's name to the infobox as starring in the film. I don't think that's right based on the character he plays being listed as "Socialist politician". However, they say that it's like that on the Italian page, so therefore the same applies here. Can anyone help with this? Also raised on the article's talkpage. THanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Editors with the time and inclination to do so may want to review edits by CejeroC ( talk · contribs). I first noticed that this editor was misusing the color_process parameter, which is intended to only be used for animated films; the documentation clearly states this. I warned Cejero about that previously, and warned them again today as they apparently did not heed my prior warning. I've also noticed that they've applied unsourced and potentially inaccurate genres (notably neo-noir), and in at least one case they changed a film's runtime from what's listed at AllMovie to another value. Because they also don't leave edit summaries, it's difficult to know what their intentions are.
In any event, I'm cleaning up what I can; most of it's not recent enough that it would likely warrant a block, but I think it definitely merits review. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to let the community know, although I have not made any nominations, I have started discussions on Talk:Battlefield Earth (film) and Talk:Tank Girl (film) on why those FAs may no longer meet the criteria. Please join if you have the time. Thanks. HumanxAnthro ( talk) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Collider in the context of the article Alien (film). If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Collider. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the awards navigation templates are getting out of hand. At Chloé Zhao, there are nearly 30 such templates in the article footer alone. See screenshot here. Is it time to come up with guidelines disallowing them based on the related disadvantages listed at WP:CLNT and start posting them at WP:TFD? A case could be made for the most well-known awards, but without specifications like here, the whole matter gets out of hand. Pinging SibTower1987 and Charge2charge as involved editors. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 00:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
What's the polite way of saying burn it all to the ground?
WP:NAVBOX "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers." More than half of users already go without Navboxes, I suggest getting rid of them for the other half too. That's what I'd like to see happen.
WP:NAVBOX also says "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article."
What is probably more likely to actually happen is that existing rules such as
WP:DONTHIDE or
WP:NOTABLE or maybe even
WP:OVERLINK will be applied and NAVBOXES will be treated with at least as much discipline as we would expect from links being added to the See also section, or the External links (which I hope is essentially reiterating what
Erik has said already). I can understand including a Navbox when you actually want to show the Navbox, but I cannot understand why anyone argues to include NAVBOXES and them immediately hides them! If you don't want to show the contents of the Navboxes you include why exactly do you want to include it at all? It is particularly egregious when editors include Navboxes for things that are otherwise not mentioned anywhere in the article. They are already not supposed to do this, but they do it anyway (see
WP:NAVBOX "Do not rely solely on navboxes"). As I have already mentioned Navboxes are not shown to most users, so anything actually worth noting should be included in the article as
WP:PROSE. Wikipedia is supposed to be about
WP:PROSE, not lists and tables, and just as I would prefer to see bloated Accolades tables split out of film articles and into separate list articles, so too would I like to see Navboxes (which are another tables full of links) relegated to list articles only.
Deep breath. I rant but I grudgingly admit it can sometimes be reasonable to include a few (say three) of the most relevant Navboxes (eg. A Navbox for the director, and maybe one for the topic, see
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)) but when we get past 5 navboxes in total we are making excuses for list cruft and tedious tables we would not allow otherwise, and editors have developed a blind spot, a bad habit of accepting Navboxes as normal. We don't include
every category possible we only include the most notable ones, why must we include anything more than single most notable Awards Navbox? (Hint: There is no requirement to include any Navbox at all.) I urge you to pick some of the existing sensible rules and apply them to Navboxes, or preferably ban them entirely, because very little of value would be lost (again more than half of user already never see those navboxes). I'd be happy to see Navboxes relegated to the list of things Wikipedia doesn't do anymore.
As Erik has suggested, I think the existing guidelines already give plenty of of justification to reduce the number of Navboxes to only the essentials. --
109.76.128.149 (
talk) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated 300 (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HumanxAnthro ( talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion on whether categories of villains should be divided by gender or lumped together, in case any one has an opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Since there's no request page in WP:Film. Apparently some reddit user said the article for Shiva Baby looked astroturfed, and while I was just trying to get it to the formatting/coverage standard of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World on my TIFF binge (still working on Pieces of a Woman, months later), I can see adverse reactions since it just came out today. I know people thinking an article looks too good is no reason to change anything, but if it looks promotional that would be an issue. I'd just open a peer review but would like to see if the film project would leave comments or not first. Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 21:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Battlefield Earth (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I’m wondering if anyone has seen the Oscar-nominated documentary short A Love Song for Latasha (on Netflix in the US). I noticed an IP editor replaced the synopsis with what read like PR copy, so I’ve been trying to fix it up from what I can read in secondary sources, but would be a great help if someone who’s seen it could contribute to the synopsis section (and of course anything else). Thank you in advance to whomever might have the time/interest! It’s already 5x expanded so we could make a DYK of it pretty easily, too. Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional eyes are requested at Themes in Avatar, where there's a disagreement over whether Avatar should be reported as the highest or second-highest grossing film in history. I believe the key issue is whether not adjustments for inflation should be considered. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 03:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback thus far. I agree with Betty that the inflation-adjusted list seems more meaningful ultimately, but there appears to be an emerging consensus that that's not the gold standard, and I'm happy to defer to that. Perhaps another question worth considering: How is this relevant to the article at hand? Will the Themes article suffer in any way if this information isn't included? I'm not trying to move the goalposts, just raise an additional (minor) concern. DonIago ( talk) 23:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I just saw a tumbleweed blow past... Given that at least one other editor shares my question regarding the need to discuss the film's gross record in an article about the themes of the film, and that that sentence could, in our estimation, be removed with minimal (if any) disruption the rest of the article, is there any objection to that text being removed? DonIago ( talk) 13:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My reading of the above is that Nikki's statement of concerns regarding removing the statement aren't shared by other editors. I'll give it a few more days for additional comments or additional concerns to be raised before I remove the statement in question. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello from CCI! this case recently wrapped up at CCI. The page is courtesy blanked, but the previous revision contains the full record of articles and their removals. I am letting you know since this case largely concerned film and its related BLPs. The removals weren't as harsh as others, luckily. Hopefully the content can be restored in full confidence of the copyright policy. Happy editing, and kind regards, Sennecaster ( What now?) 03:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I have proposed a move for the article for the film Midsommar. If you are interested, please contribute to the discussion
here.
Sock
(tock talk) 23:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Comparing biopics to WP-articles. Trend?
I'm in the middle of a GAN for Zombie Nightmare and it was brought up that the run time should be sourced. I have never had that brought up as an issue and don't think run times should have sources. Are runtimes supposed to have sources to them or are they, as the reviewer puts it, "original research"? GamerPro64 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Is List of films considered the worst/Removed films appropriate for article mainspace? It seems more like a non-encyclopedic subpage of List of films considered the worst to retain some of its previous history. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It was brought up last year that the "see also" lists on articles like the 73rd British Academy Film Awards are too long. I suggested at the time a list article about ceremonies in a given year with some prose on e.g. repeated wins, but other editors felt it would be too similar to the 2020 in film article. Seeing the issue again this year, I boldly created the Template:2021 Film award ceremonies that I feel can be used to replace the long see also list, and hopefully the year in film articles will be able to handle any prose about repeated wins. Would it be valuable to create similar navboxes for previous years, and for television? Kingsif ( talk) 21:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it acceptable after establishing something like Raiders of the Lost Ark to alternately refer to it as just Raiders later on for brevity? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This film is at AfD. If anyone can help with sourcing, or agrees with deletion, please comment there. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice that Raiders of the Lost Ark is up at FAC because it is relevant to this project. It's unlikely but it'd be nice if it could get enough attention to improve/pass it before it's 40th anniversary on June 12 so could maybe swing it to the Featured Article of the day. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Can others please review Special:Contributions/José Moreno Téllez? They are screwing up films' release years and are adding film companies. The latter behavior reminds me of similar behavior in the past. Is this a sockpuppet of a previous vandal? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There's an edit war going on with the film Exit Wounds. There's been an edit war with addition of Jill Hennessy's character Annette Mulcahy was killed in the car chase scene that is kept being removed and brought back by various users, including IP users and such, in the plot summary. BattleshipMan ( talk) 00:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Development of Star Trek 4 seems like an end-run around WP:NFF by calling itself "development" instead of the film itself (which has no official title) and is not anywhere near close to actually entering production. Shouldn't this just be merged into the List of Star Trek films article? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Sound of Metal, there is a dispute about what should go in the opening sentence. Please see the discussion here: Talk:Sound of Metal#Opening sentence. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 03:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
If you will, have a look at User talk:Adtigpta01. Cyphoidbomb, Ab207 and I have all tried talking with Adtigpta01 in the pages' contribution histories and on their talk page. Fylindfotberserk has tried in the contribution history. Example exchange: [7] Adtigpta01 seems to ignore us. They add back their changes no matter what we say. Any advice? For example, does the Jennifer Garner page really need all those films in the introduction? Film Bio Legacy ( talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing Some Dude From North Carolina and Chompy Ace remove external links to Box Office Mojo, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, citing WP:ELRC. Some Dude From North Carolina is already aware that RT can serve as an exhaustive list of reviews from a template discussion here but persists in removing the RT ELs anyway.
Per MOS:FILM#External links, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body." Now, if we had to narrow it down, we could simply use RT and not MC, since MC's reviews are likely covered by RT anyway. Due to the ongoing overzealous behavior, I want to check in with other members of WikiProject Film to see what is preferred by others. I've never found Allmovie to be a unique resource as an EL and would be fine with it vanishing from EL sections. Box Office Mojo, I would have advocated for it as an EL before with so much data beyond the opening weekend and total grosses, but now most of its data is paywalled, so I'd be fine with excising BOM too. I don't think TCM or AFI are unique resources to have as EL. I find RT to be the most important one because it has two distinct roles: 1.) inline citation to provide score and consensus, and 2.) listing the largest set of reviews out there. Readers shouldn't have to track down the RT link in a "References" section (especially with dozens or hundres of citations) to get to the RT page for the reviews. Thoughts from others on RT and the other EL templates? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 20:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Some outside input would be appreciated at Talk:Roe v. Wade (film)#Release date as to whether the film should be considered a 2020 film after its premiere at the VIFF Vienna Independent Film Festival or a 2021 film based on its theatrical/streaming release date. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we use Box Office Mojo to cite release dates? I've come across the issue that the release date information seems to be just pulled from IMDb (see the discussion on the topic Talk:Friday_the_13th_Part_2#Release_Date here.) Basically it boils down to Box Office Mojo stating the release date is April 31, but doing some searching on Newspapers.com I found six release dates confirming its release on May 1 (which is Friday, which would make more logical sense) and the AFI also backs up that it premiered in New York and Los Angeles on May 1. As Box Office Mojo appears to be pulling this date from IMDb (which states April 31), I feel we shouldn't be using Box Office Mojo for anything but, well, box office info per WP:RS/IMDb. Do we have some more thoughts on the topic? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
We are having a talk about whether to decrease the minimum word limit determined by WP:FILMPLOT. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#PLOT word minimum to comment. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I've run into a bit of a dilemma with the titling of our annual articles about a film award ceremony — but it's one without an easy or straightforward answer, so I wanted to ask for some input into the best way forward.
As of last year, all of our articles about the Canadian Jutra/Iris Award ceremonies, up to and including the 22nd, were ordinated correctly per the ordinal number assigned by their media coverage at the time. However, because last year's award gala was cancelled for the obvious reason and replaced on the fly with a webcast to announce the winners, the presenting organization seems to have retroactively decided that it didn't count as a "gala" — and so instead of calling this years' ceremony the 23rd gala because it's being held the year after the 22nd awards, they seem as far as I can tell to have kicked last year's not-a-gala out of line so that they can call this year's awards the 22nd gala again. Basically, even though last year's awards were called the 22nd at the time, they now seem to have declared that last year was a special outlier, not to be ordinated at all because they're counting "number of times that physical galas have been held in an auditorium" instead of "number of times that awards have been given out".
But what that means is that we're now out of phase with the "official" numbering of the awards: the upcoming 2021 ceremony is the 23rd time that awards have been presented, but is officially now the 22nd awards because it will be only the 22nd time there's been an actual public event instead of just a livestream.
So I don't know what to do about this:
Any ideas? Bearcat ( talk) 17:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts: received two messages on his talk page about his recent edits that have begun going against the Manual of Style. They have started adding citations using "publisher" (for sources from The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline Hollywood) and have skipped over my comments to try following MOS:CURLY. Their edits are also frequent so following and fixing them would be hard to do alone. Should they be reported since I've already sent a message? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 21:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Due to my failure to get participation from more than just one person when I posted here two weeks ago, I've posted a full RFC to Talk:23rd Quebec Cinema Awards for input on how to handle a titling problem. I'd appreciate, if possible, if some people could actually read my RFC and offer their thoughts, because it's not an issue that we can just ignore and do nothing about — it's an issue that needs to be resolved somehow. Bearcat ( talk) 14:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am a student currently enrolled in a subject which requires the improvement of a stub article. I am writing on the 2017 Elvis Presley documentary 'The King'. I would really appreciate your advice and feedback over the coming weeks as our edits and contributions will make up our final grades for the subject. Thank you so much! Husseyp
An AFD for the film Boat Trip 3D has been started here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boat Trip 3D. MarnetteD| Talk 19:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Would someone mind taking a look at Destination Marfa (film) and assessing it, in particular to see whether the {{ COI}} template is needed? I came across this article at WP:THQ#Destination Marfa Page which is the start of a series of Teahouse posts between the article's creator and others about WP:PAID, WP:COI among other things. I have no reason to believe the creator is not telling the truth about not being a "paid contributor" and I'm willing to even give him (he seems to be identifying as being male) the benefit of doubt when it comes to the apparent COI; however, if someone from this WikiProject could just look over the article and then remove the COI template if everything is OK, then that would be great. If someone could also assess this as to whether it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON#Notability for films and WP:NFF, then that would be appreciated as well. The film hasn't been released yet, but a release date has been announced for August 2021. I'm assuming that mean that the film has for the most part been shot and is right now just going through the post-production phase. I'm not sure what any of that means in terms of WP:NFILM so perhaps someone more familiar with those criteria would be better off assessing the Wikipedia notability. FWIW, the article was approved via WP:AFC, but the reviewer seems to have felt that at least WP:GNG was being met. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Any WikiProject Film members with 10 minutes spare could make a dent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment#New requests, which seems to have otherwise been left to decay a bit. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk) 23:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone willing to take a look at this edit to Piranha (1978 film)? AllMovie lists the film as a comedy horror film, but we have an editor claiming that TCM and Rotten Tomatoes do not list it as such. It doesn't make a big deal to me, but I would like a better understanding of whether TCM or RT are considered reliable sources for genre classification. I'm leaning toward No on RT, but I don't know much about TCM. Thanks for your help! DonIago ( talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't planning to challenge it unless there were strong arguments in favor of restoring "comedy" here, which there don't seem to be. I still have reservations about TCM and RT as genre sources, which I don't feel we've exactly addressed here, but I'm not involved in enough disputes where those sources come up to be especially concerned. I do wonder whether another editor will reinsert "comedy" at some point, but if that happens I think I might just steer clear. DonIago ( talk) 16:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm struggling on the best way to fix an article, or perhaps to determine if it is unfixable, and was hoping others may have thoughts. The page List of LGBT-related films by storyline is currently entirely uncited, and held up what seems to be only by OR and individual editor discretion. It has a more straightforward section of lesbian and gay relationships (although these aren't necessarily "storylines" in many cases) and quite a number of entirely arbitrary categories. While these could be deemed "storylines," there's not really any set standard for how that is determined -- what prompts whether a film goes under "with tragedy" or "persecution" or "historical event" or just "with LGBT characters"? When in the relationship a storyline, vs. being a biographical LGBT film?
I'm wondering if:
To be very clear, I am not proposing a problem with lists of LGBT films -- we have List of LGBT-related films (although there are issues there on sourcing what counts as LGBT-related, by year, with women directors, as TV films, etc. All things that can be sourced and not rely on OR and editor judgement. But the "list by storyline" concept seems tricky to fix, and perhaps not solvable.
Appreciate any thoughts!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I posted a few months ago on the talk page of the American cinema task force a question regarding the assessment of the importance of the American films inducted to the National Film Registry. It went unnoticed ever since, so I'm here to try to bring some attention to it and maybe some comments.-- GDuwen Holler! 21:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please leave comments for this? SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Incase anyone hasn't seen this discussion, and there's an RfC too. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Run (2020 American film) 581,093 19,369 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated B movie for featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie/archive2. Please join the discussion! 👨x🐱 ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Gotti (1996 film)#Franzese reverts as to whether to include non-film critics in reception section where YouTube is primary source. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm no expert in film, but I read about this magazine and believe it warranted an article (it was already a redirect). If anyone here has any more information on the magazine I would appreciate their help. Thank you! -- Bangalamania ( talk) 10:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, stumbled on ZIGMUND_JHAEY's edits while doing recent change patrol and honestly I lack the background with film/movies to evaluated/research these effectively. They mostly seem to be making edits around release dates and changing the names/captions of movie posters, etc. If all of these edits are good, great! I just thought that a set or two of eyes that are familiar with the material would be helpful. zchrykng ( talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli ( talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the most intuitive form for the main title header of Taylor's entry is currently active at Talk:Robert Taylor (actor)#Requested move 7 June 2021. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I initially posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but nobody seemed to want to dive in and help.
I stumbled on an editor or editors who put the same wall of fake credits into numerous articles. So far I have found:
Examples of the edits:
I thought it would be a good idea to notify the project to keep an eye out for these edits. The vandal appears to enjoy adding Jessica Lundy and Alex Mckenna to acting credits. Those come up a lot. Also adding William Brent Bell and Rick Friedberg to production credits as fake writers and/or directors.
There may be more. I am slowly working my way through by using one of the names in their list and seeing what articles it is linked in. It is a very slow process but if anyone wants to help I would appreciate it. Notfrompedro ( talk) 14:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The article says that the film proceeds linearly, with the third segment following the first two. However, I think that the first two segments are current, with everything else taking place in the past. For example, the character Kyle talks about how in a previous relationship, Marissa (who we later find out is his ex-wife) made him get a "Rob Thomas haircut." HiImDannyGanz ( talk) 12:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Does the project have an opinion on a new style of film data introduced by Bhushan m bhandari, for example here and here? I've raised the issue at User talk:Bhushan m bhandari# Film tables but it's possible that they can't hear me. Certes ( talk) 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The date format of Action Jackson (1988 film) is on DMY format. It should be MDY format since it's an American film. BattleshipMan ( talk) 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, all. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Classical Hollywood cinema#Proposed deletion of excessive listings. As project members, please feel free to take part. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
So Bovineboy2008 ( talk · contribs) recently removed the rating template in the reception section of Living in the Age of Airplanes, stating it is against consensus to put it. And in his talk page, he stated it was a long-ago discussion, and that it could be revisited, considering tempus fugit. And so here. What do you think regarding the film rating templates (review scores, not MPAA)? Gerald WL 02:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is not entirely clear to me. Editors have commented generally but not said that they are opposed to including film ratings tables but also they have not proposed how things should be done properly if such tables were allowed. Would editors please make it clear if the recommendation is to remove the tables that Gerald Waldo Luis (or others) have added, or are editors are going to actively encourage their use by providing clearer guidelines on how best to include these ratings tables in film articles? -- 109.79.179.206 ( talk) 00:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
#Tabulated data below discusses a similar issue with cast, earnings, etc. rather than ratings. Certes ( talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be getting nowhere; I think an RfC would do better. @ Bovineboy2008, Alaney2k, Betty Logan, Kingsif, and Bignole:, would like to notify you all of Template talk:Film and game ratings, where I have placed an RfC. Gerald WL 05:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Can be found at Template talk:Film and game ratings#RfC about existence of Film and game ratings template. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional viewpoints would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doomsday_Prophecy. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Engagement. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I have an idea to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Tasks and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Announcements and open tasks into Template:WikiProject Film, in order to increase awareness of what stuff is going on, like GANs, FACs and particularly PRs, which gets little attention. Template:WikiProject Video games has done this, and their PR sees faster response rate. Gerald WL 16:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gamers: Hands of Fate. BOVINEBOY 2008 01:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
It was me who was adding the story of Ejen Ali The Movie: Mission Neo, with all those strange, and lengthy IP addresses. I think that it is almost more than half year since the movie is released. I prefer "EVERYONE" to first read the story, and then edit concisely. It is really "pain straining" job for me to adjust within the word limit, as the editor (probably an administrator), Arjayay removed the "extra phrases". I tell you, the long plot template was even put up by me. So, how can you follow that template, but not keep patience to first complete the plot summary, and then concise it? Utkarsh555 ( talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
If a film is included on a listing of the best one thousand movies ever made, does that merit inclusion in the article for the film as shown here? DonIago ( talk) 17:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks folks. It seems that we have a general consensus on this even if our specific reasons may vary. I'll give it a few more days for additional comments before I take any further actions. Thanks again! DonIago ( talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Are the categories for "produced by", (for example, Category:Films produced by Andrea Sperling), intended to strictly refer to producer credits, or are EP credits included, as well? BOTTO ( T• C) 11:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack of the Sabretooth, we are having the discussion of notability. Specifically, does a star rating from a reliable source like Allmovie constitute that the film meets notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Additionally viewpoints would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I've opened a proposal to merge the articles for individual AFI Award ceremonies into a single article. If you're interested, any comments would be much appreciated at Talk:American Film Institute#Merger proposal for AFI Awards. Thanks! RunningTiger123 ( talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Opinions are sought here about whether lists of one-shot films should be confined only to notable examples, such as those that can either cite a source or link to a Wikipedia article. Meticulo ( talk) 09:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This is about film article Creep 2. As can be seen in the history and, later on, the talk page for that article, user User:Bluerules and I engaged in a discussion about our respective edits in order to avoid edit warring.
This is a sequel to an earlier film about a clever, quirky serial killer who toys with his victims passive-aggressively before killing them. He is compulsively mendacious, manipulative and prone to projecting a deceptive air of vulnerability in both films. Thus a fundamental leitmotiv throughout the series is the impossibility of knowing when, if at all, he is being sincere. Reducing the number of potential interpretations of the killer's intentions would diminish the number of potential outcomes of his actions--and that impacts the plot directly.
My edits in the Plot section were aimed at describing the events of the film from a skeptical distance, avoiding particular interpretations and taking into account the aforementioned character's inscrutability. User Bluerules erased most of those edits and in our subsequent discussion proved that their reason for doing so was the fact that a number of motivations on the killer's behalf, notably this film's plot centerpiece which was his alleged midlife crisis, is a blatant, established fact that admits no discussion. I contend it could very well be as much of a lie as the cancer diagnosis in the first film, and that every single one of the killer's statements or mannerisms could be deceptive.
By taking the killer's statements at face value without questioning them, this user was summarily reducing the entire gamut of potential interpretations of the character to his or her own restrictive interpretation. The killer, I emphasize, is a sociopath, a compulsive liar, a master manipulator and a narcissist who films his exploits and edits them into warped "dramas" for his own enjoyment; user Bluerules believes that such behavior is not enough evidence and if the serial killer states (to his victims or to the camera) that he is going through a midlife crisis, then there is no reason to doubt it. Equally important is the fact that user Bluerules then proceeds to draw what they believe is an incontrovertible line between truth and lie in other instances of the killer's behavior, not just this one. I have tried to convince Bluerules that they had molded the plot to THEIR interpretation of the film, not to an aseptic plot contemplating all interpretations of such a complex and unreliable character, but so far this task has proved useless.
In short, we need more opinions and more editors here. I have taken the matter to Dispute Resolution and have been redirected here by a volunteer. AnyDosMilVint ( talk) 08:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
one shouldn't make films featuring children or animalsis unsourced and I haven't found any indication of it, either by Google search, in the Alfred Hitchcock article, or in The Birds article. Second, if there's disagreement between a director and an actor, then it's clear the director's opinion has more weight. — El Millo ( talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
a constructive debateto decide for ourselves what we use to describe him if we have interviews from creatives that we can use. If this is a more complex matter, where different creatives disagree, then it doesn't belong in the plot at all, and should be addressed elsewhere in the article. — El Millo ( talk) 18:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The "midlife crisis" aspect of it seems to be quite relevant. Other reliable sources, this time secondary, highlight it in their reviews.
The Hollywood Reporter states: Mark Duplass is a serial killer facing a midlife crisis
,
[1]
Decider includes it in the title of the article: ‘Creep 2’: Mark Duplass Is A Serial Killer In The Midst Of A Midlife Crisis In This Psychologically Mesmerizing Sequel
,
[2]
GQ states: Creep 2 takes the slasher sequel to a logical next step—one I've never seen before: the serial killer midlife crisis
.
[3] If it's not mentioned in the plot, it seems like it should be mentioned somewhere else. We could use the proposed alternative has become dissatisfied with his killings after turning 40
in the plot though, and I think it wouldn't make much of a difference. —
El Millo (
talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
References
which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film" and "
(incidentally, to defend himself from another murderer)", both of which should be rephrased or dropped altogether. I actually prefer the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the proposed version over the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the current. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
He eventually manages to horrify Sara by staging a suicide attempt, which almost causes her to leave. However, after Aaron reveals that his life was not in danger, she remains to hear Aaron share intimate details about himself, culminating in the two sharing a kiss.
Aaron brings Sara outside to announce that the documentary will end with them committing suicide together. Sara attempts to escape when she sees Aaron stab himself, but Aaron stabs her and drags her into an open grave he dug.
unsure whether the grave was intended for her or for himself" and that he stole a knife from Sara. Yes, we know serial killers aren't right in the head, but not all serial killers are alike. Revealing that he was facing some kind of internal conflict in deciding the ending, and the fact he steals a knife as opposed to coming prepared with one, can add some meaningful context about a character and the level of suspense. It would help ease the transition between the announcement and the stabbing. The proposed version also mentions being stabbed in the stomach, not just stabbed anywhere like the arm – a detail that helps describe the seriousness behind his intentions to commit suicide.I wouldn't necessarily use the exact phrasing from the proposed version, but I'd take details like these into strong consideration for inclusion, especially when I know the plot summary is hanging at less than 300 words. A little excess can go a long way without going overboard. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm for adding new information if it's not an awkward point-by-point description of what takes place ... we need to avoid mentioning nearly every detail in a scene"
Remember, I don't have a horse in this race: well neither do I because like I said above, bones are more adequate an analogy than races here. No edit or reasoning will satisfy this person, and to be honest it's not worth the effort. Better let them have this little victory here; by doing so goodness knows what headaches this will spare other people in real life. AnyDosMilVint ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this disucssion, which is also a RfC. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I've developed two wikidata templates which can be useful for the film wikiproject : d:Template:Generic queries for filmmakers and d:Generic queries for actors. Both are embedded in d:Template:Item documentation.
Those templates gives access to useful SPARQL queries for filmmakers and actors. For instance, d:Template:Generic queries for filmmakers gives the list of actors who have played with the filmmaker, the list of places where movies takes place, etc.
Let me know if you want find it useful.
Feedback is welcome.
PAC2 ( talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There's currently a WP:RM at Talk:Back to the Future (soundtrack)#Requested move 21 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I think the topic merits a larger, more genral discussion about article titles of film soundtracks, but if this one in particular has a large amount of participant maybe it could set a precedent for the rest. — El Millo ( talk) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Love Begins is at deletion here and has now been relisted three times to generate more discussion and develop consensus. More opinions would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:49, 25 July 2021 (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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 |
Those of you who work on the film articles regularly will have encountered Flyer22 Frozen at some point. Maybe you collaborated, or maybe you just noticed her making an improvement (and she may have been a hard-ass on one or two of you), but it is my sad duty to inform you of her passing earlier this week. She was a great, level-headed editor who made a massive contribution to Wikipedia and she will be sorely missed. RIP Flyer 22. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Anybody got any opinion about what sources could be used to make a horror film meet the GNG? I'm contemplating the nomination of Islamic Exorcist for deletion, because of the dearth of reliable mainstream sources. The only stuff I see at Google News are sites like Dread Central (which at least appears to be potentially notable and used in at least 1000 articles at the English Wikipedia). The only other source that I could find that talks about the film in detail is pophorror.com, which feels bloggy to me. Neither source appears to have been discussed at RSN, so I have little to go on. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a question. Someone added the Template:Infobox filmography list to List of Leeteuk performances which I've brought to FL last year, and the editor also added it to other filmography articles. The infobox is not currently inline with FL criteria and I saw that an editor had reverted the edit in Akshay Kumar filmography saying such. Should I do the same too? Lulusword (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
, so it really depends on editors of an article whether to use infobox or not. I was also quite on the fence whether to undo or not because I don't know if it lower the value of an article, but I saw User:HAL333 who participated a lot in FL discussion revert here with WP:BOLD so I did. Lulusword (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. They should be added as part of content creation; they should not be added systematically to articles.
Side note, I see on the infobox template, you say that using the "television" parameter is not recommended but during my article promotion, they explicitly asked me to combine the TV series and TV shows table into one large table here. In fact, I think only Korean filmography article make distinction between these two, so I think the "not recommended" remark is not appropriate. Lulusword (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Panavision for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I've currently started a discussion at Template talk:Cite rt#Convert to Citation Style 1 wrapper template to discuss converting the {{ cite rt}} (Rotten Tomatoes) template to a wrapper of {{ cite web}}. Please join the discussion there. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about plural parameters in regard to Template:Infobox film that can be found here: Template talk:Infobox film#Plural parameter. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see and add to the discussion about the poster blocks used for the Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Poster block. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I recently nominated an article for a vanity award for deletion. I laid out some reasons as to why it's a vanity award and some explanation as to why this was pertinent, and MarnetteD suggested including this information somewhere.
I've started on a draft about identifying vanity awards, which can be found here. Right now it's in a rough draft format, so I thought it would be good to get some feedback and see if anyone would be interested in working on it as well. Film is one of those areas where there are often a ton of vanity awards, so this is one of the WikiProjects I wanted to reach out to. Books and companies are two of the other areas. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about adjusting the Rotten Tomatoes template here: Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes#Specifying reviews page. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This stub has been unreferenced and tagged for nine years. Please, either fix the issues, or I shall nominate it for deletion. Template or tag me. Bearian ( talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please can a subject expert check whether the references to
R. Porcar's Olorama added by
Rporcar olorama are helpful? Thanks,
Certes (
talk) 10:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As an example, Superior (film) premiered at 2021 Sundance Film Festival.
I tagged it for "notability" but another editor said that because 9 critics were quoted at Rotten Tomatoes (there are now 14, including 3 "top critics"), that was enough to qualify under Wikipedia guidelines.
For films like this, which are not historical, not in wide release, and not nominated for any awards, are there "cutoff points" for "number of professional critical reviews"/"number of 'top' critical reviews" below which the film can be considered "very unlikely to be notable" on the low end, "very likely to be considered notable" on the high end, and "further investigation is recommended" in the middle? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
John Cummings ( talk) 10:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
We now describe the 2020 Amazon documentary series The Last Narc (TV series) as "fictional," because some editors on the talk page argue that the documentary is contradicted by trial transcripts from the 1990s. I have objected, to no avail. Outside input appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 21:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Music_(2021_film)#RfC_about_the_neutrality/balance_of_this_article,_and_which_type_of_English_to_use.? - A discussion on which form of english should be used, and also about the ongoing controversy surrounding the film 188.220.86.46 ( talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This discussion has been relisted twice, so feel free to chip in if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello friends. I've been working on a user script that highlights sources based on quality. It's called CiteHighlighter. Today I added the list of reliable and unreliable sources located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. I will continue adding sources to it until hopefully I've added all of WP:RSP, the WP:NPPSG, and several WikiProjects. Feel free to install, give feedback, etc. Hope you find it useful. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, does this addition seem typical for a director's award section? I see one at Martin Scorcese, but at first glance, it seems odd to me that the directors are getting credit for stuff like best actor noms and best sound mixing. Am I being too critical? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi fellow Wikipedians. I come here to propose the creation of the Uruguayan cinema task force. There are already some 70 films which are Uruguayan, and/or set in Uruguay, and/or shot in Uruguay. Further looking into the Spanish-language es:Categoría:Películas de Uruguay there are some 170 Uruguayan films which could be translated into English. So, there is plenty of work to be done! What do you think about this? Regards, -- Fadesga ( talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi people. There happens to be a half-made Paraguayan film task force that seems not to be fully operational. There are already two of us users working on it, Bruno Rene Vargas and me. I am bringing you this into consideration in order to validate what is needed, for instance, including Paraguayan-task-force in the {{ WikiProject Film}} template. Best regards to everybody, -- Fadesga ( talk) 19:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Cool World, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wanted to ask for a bit of assistance with a film article that's got something a little bit weird going on — over the past couple of weeks, the article Heart of a Dragon has been attracting an extremely large and steady stream of weird edits from newly created single-purpose accounts that mostly seem to have been created solely to fuck around with that specific article. There isn't necessarily a consistent pattern to what they do — some edits are clearcut vandalism, such as this and this and this, while edits like this aren't so bad, so I don't know if there are solid grounds for an WP:SPI request, but it's still somewhat strange that an article about a fairly obscure film is attracting such a constant stream of edits by users with little or no prior edit history.
Even checking its pageview statistics, prior to February 6 it attracted very little traffic at all — it would get four views a day at its peak, and zero views a day was not unknown. Since February 6, however, it averages between 30 to 60 views per day, and as I already noted a large proportion of that sudden traffic influx involves the commission or reversion of vandalism.
I applied pending-changes review to the article about a week ago, and had to bump it up to two weeks of autoconfirmed sprot today because pending changes didn't slow down the barrage very much at all — so I wanted to ask if anybody else has any insight into what's going on here and how we can make it stop without applying permanent protection if we don't absolutely have to. Bearcat ( talk) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleven Arts, and see if you can help editors figure out whether the sources mentioned are independent. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, so there's this guy Faisal Saif who mostly makes Hindi horror films. He also seems to "make" films that never get released. There are at least three:
Now, I'm starting to suspect that this guy might be a bit of a publicity hound, and these film announcements might be stunts to keep him relevant, but assuming that they're totally legit, it seems odd to have articles about unfinished/unreleased films in perpetuity, unless they're notable for why they are unfinished, like Midnight Rider. Thoughts? Should I merge the relevant content to the Saif article? What's the normal procedure on this? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. And quick, before the asteroid hits! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The article name is not grammatical, and should be changed to "List of filmmakers' signatures" (plural apostrophe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.114.93 ( talk) 06:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a draft where a film received a nomination for Best Horror Film at the 30th Saturn Awards. Now, I know some award ceremonies don't get much attention "media-wise", but I think there has to be at least one, active, website out there. Just wanted to see if anyone could help me search for a link or archive about the ceremony and its nominees. Any help at all will be greatly appreciated. Some Dude From NC wanna talk? 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Fangoria, NinjaRobotPirate mentions here being able to look up Fangoria back issues. Not sure if that helps. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:Star Wars spinoffs has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -
adamstom97 (
talk) 07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes added a new feature "Audience says", where it seems like the RT staff writes a consensus from user reviews similar to critics consensus. Here is an example. I'd like to see your thoughts on this, especially on whether it should be included in the Reception section of film articles. nyxærös 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"'Audience Says' is a short blurb that summarizes what fans think of a movie, drawing on common points made in user reviews written for the title. Want to know, at a glance, whether audiences think a film is funny, scary, disappointing, or mindblowing? Check it out.... Plus, if we become aware of any external factors impacting the Audience Score and user reviews, such as a controversy affecting sentiment around a title, we may address that in the Audience Says blurb – all in an effort to equip you with the best and most relevant info to help make your viewing choices... Note that for now we will only have Audience Says blurbs for new films with a significant number of user reviews; we will not initially have them for older movies, nor for TV and streaming seasons or episodes. But: Watch this space."
TropicAces, please see above. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Miroir (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Single, weak source exists for this subject, little other information exists for this subject. No further information available and without a doubt fails WP:NOTABILITY
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.
Theprussian (
talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miroir (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Theprussian ( talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming to America (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 02:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Formal request has been received to merge: Jojo Rabbit (soundtrack) into Jojo Rabbit; dated: 24 February 2021. Proposer's Rationale: This article has no reason to have it's own, as there is enough space to place it in the original Jojo Rabbit article, as you can see in its Music subsection. It also has little things to say here. User:Gerald Waldo Luis. Note: target article is 122k size. Discuss >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest "scribble" 01:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Film,
I'm not sure exactly what is going on but some editor is depopulating director categories on Wikipedia. Starting with the "A"s (first name) yesterday, 5-10 director categories are being emptied out a day. You can see the daily list on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. At WP:CFD, this is called "emptying out of process" because the correct way to delete categories en masse like this is to post a proposal at CFD and argue for deletion. And it's difficult for editors, like me, who are unfamiliar with film to know what films are being removed from these categories or to know whether this editing is following a decision made by this members of this WikiProject to eliminate these categories for lesser known directors.
For those who are not familiar with how empty categories are handled on Wikipedia, they are tagged CSD C1 and sit for a week at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion...if they are still empty after 7 days, they are deleted. However, categories deleted simply for being emptied can be restored whenever they are needed. What we try to avoid though is for individual editors to set about doing mass changes that then have to be undone later. So, I hope someone with this WikiProject could ferret out what's going on, see if it has any widespread support and who might be doing it so we can check in before this starts involving hundreds of categories. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Escape to Victory#Requested move 8 March 2021 aims to resolve whether the entry for the American production Victory (1981 film) should have its main title header under its British release form, Escape to Victory or under its American release form, Victory (1981 film). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
For the image in the infobox of an article about a film, if more than one film poster is available, which one should be used? I was thinking that the best one to use was the poster for the main theatrical release. I'm asking because an editor has recently changed the infobox poster for Hugo Pool, replacing the poster for the main theatrical release with the poster for the Sundance premier (which presumably was earlier), as can be seen here. @ QuestFour: Hello! I thought I'd start this discussion here, where more interested editors will see it. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've boldly added film series guidelines to the MOS. See it at MOS:FILM#Film series and discuss at WT:MOSFILM#Film series. Editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Since this was reverted twice over the past few months and the topic is open at Talk:Army of the Dead, I wanted to give everyone a head's up.
Army of the Dead (Zack Snyder) was in development hell for a while until around 2018. When it was first announced in 2006, a number of reliable publications reported it as a sequel to 2004's Dawn of the Dead (same director). This led to the widespread misconception that the film was originally intended to be a DotD sequel. However, this isn't actually true. In an overlooked interview from 2007, the screenwriter actually debunked any connection to DotD:
"It’s not a sequel. It’s its own being, its own film,” he said, clearing up any confusion that this is a sequel to Snyder’s 2003 remake of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. “I think what Zack wanted to do was make the ultimate zombie movie. If you could do anything, what would be the epic be-all-end-all of zombie films, which is a hell of a challenge but very exciting to do. We took it to the next level. I’m extremely pleased with it. It’s definitely out there, it’s crazy, and — much like Awake – it’s not just a straight-up genre film. There’s a lot of action elements, there’s a lot of horror elements, it’s not just your traditional every day zombie movie. We really take it and run with it." [5]
Likewise, it was also originally going to include rape zombies that impregnate women, giving birth to zombie/human hybrids [6]. This actually contradicts the zombies depicted in Dawn of the Dead, which were human corpses whose brain function was partially reanimated by either (according to writer James Gunn) an unexplained supernatural occurrence or (according to the DVD box) an unexplained viral infection. In that interpretation, calling a "human/zombie hybrid" is as nonsensical as saying "bread/sandwich amalgam."
But aside from the screenwriter debunking the proported connection, nobody attached to the film has ever referred to it as a sequel. It's just a Chinese Whisper that started from one reliable third party publication and then got spread over to several more. Like a viral infection in itself... "The misreports are coming to get you, Barbra. Look, there comes one of them now!" Dark knight 2149 05:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. On the article for Pasolini (film) the same editor insists on adding Salvatore Ruocco's name to the infobox as starring in the film. I don't think that's right based on the character he plays being listed as "Socialist politician". However, they say that it's like that on the Italian page, so therefore the same applies here. Can anyone help with this? Also raised on the article's talkpage. THanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Editors with the time and inclination to do so may want to review edits by CejeroC ( talk · contribs). I first noticed that this editor was misusing the color_process parameter, which is intended to only be used for animated films; the documentation clearly states this. I warned Cejero about that previously, and warned them again today as they apparently did not heed my prior warning. I've also noticed that they've applied unsourced and potentially inaccurate genres (notably neo-noir), and in at least one case they changed a film's runtime from what's listed at AllMovie to another value. Because they also don't leave edit summaries, it's difficult to know what their intentions are.
In any event, I'm cleaning up what I can; most of it's not recent enough that it would likely warrant a block, but I think it definitely merits review. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to let the community know, although I have not made any nominations, I have started discussions on Talk:Battlefield Earth (film) and Talk:Tank Girl (film) on why those FAs may no longer meet the criteria. Please join if you have the time. Thanks. HumanxAnthro ( talk) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Collider in the context of the article Alien (film). If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Collider. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the awards navigation templates are getting out of hand. At Chloé Zhao, there are nearly 30 such templates in the article footer alone. See screenshot here. Is it time to come up with guidelines disallowing them based on the related disadvantages listed at WP:CLNT and start posting them at WP:TFD? A case could be made for the most well-known awards, but without specifications like here, the whole matter gets out of hand. Pinging SibTower1987 and Charge2charge as involved editors. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 00:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
What's the polite way of saying burn it all to the ground?
WP:NAVBOX "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers." More than half of users already go without Navboxes, I suggest getting rid of them for the other half too. That's what I'd like to see happen.
WP:NAVBOX also says "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article."
What is probably more likely to actually happen is that existing rules such as
WP:DONTHIDE or
WP:NOTABLE or maybe even
WP:OVERLINK will be applied and NAVBOXES will be treated with at least as much discipline as we would expect from links being added to the See also section, or the External links (which I hope is essentially reiterating what
Erik has said already). I can understand including a Navbox when you actually want to show the Navbox, but I cannot understand why anyone argues to include NAVBOXES and them immediately hides them! If you don't want to show the contents of the Navboxes you include why exactly do you want to include it at all? It is particularly egregious when editors include Navboxes for things that are otherwise not mentioned anywhere in the article. They are already not supposed to do this, but they do it anyway (see
WP:NAVBOX "Do not rely solely on navboxes"). As I have already mentioned Navboxes are not shown to most users, so anything actually worth noting should be included in the article as
WP:PROSE. Wikipedia is supposed to be about
WP:PROSE, not lists and tables, and just as I would prefer to see bloated Accolades tables split out of film articles and into separate list articles, so too would I like to see Navboxes (which are another tables full of links) relegated to list articles only.
Deep breath. I rant but I grudgingly admit it can sometimes be reasonable to include a few (say three) of the most relevant Navboxes (eg. A Navbox for the director, and maybe one for the topic, see
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)) but when we get past 5 navboxes in total we are making excuses for list cruft and tedious tables we would not allow otherwise, and editors have developed a blind spot, a bad habit of accepting Navboxes as normal. We don't include
every category possible we only include the most notable ones, why must we include anything more than single most notable Awards Navbox? (Hint: There is no requirement to include any Navbox at all.) I urge you to pick some of the existing sensible rules and apply them to Navboxes, or preferably ban them entirely, because very little of value would be lost (again more than half of user already never see those navboxes). I'd be happy to see Navboxes relegated to the list of things Wikipedia doesn't do anymore.
As Erik has suggested, I think the existing guidelines already give plenty of of justification to reduce the number of Navboxes to only the essentials. --
109.76.128.149 (
talk) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated 300 (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HumanxAnthro ( talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion on whether categories of villains should be divided by gender or lumped together, in case any one has an opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Since there's no request page in WP:Film. Apparently some reddit user said the article for Shiva Baby looked astroturfed, and while I was just trying to get it to the formatting/coverage standard of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World on my TIFF binge (still working on Pieces of a Woman, months later), I can see adverse reactions since it just came out today. I know people thinking an article looks too good is no reason to change anything, but if it looks promotional that would be an issue. I'd just open a peer review but would like to see if the film project would leave comments or not first. Thanks, Kingsif ( talk) 21:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Battlefield Earth (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I’m wondering if anyone has seen the Oscar-nominated documentary short A Love Song for Latasha (on Netflix in the US). I noticed an IP editor replaced the synopsis with what read like PR copy, so I’ve been trying to fix it up from what I can read in secondary sources, but would be a great help if someone who’s seen it could contribute to the synopsis section (and of course anything else). Thank you in advance to whomever might have the time/interest! It’s already 5x expanded so we could make a DYK of it pretty easily, too. Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional eyes are requested at Themes in Avatar, where there's a disagreement over whether Avatar should be reported as the highest or second-highest grossing film in history. I believe the key issue is whether not adjustments for inflation should be considered. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 03:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback thus far. I agree with Betty that the inflation-adjusted list seems more meaningful ultimately, but there appears to be an emerging consensus that that's not the gold standard, and I'm happy to defer to that. Perhaps another question worth considering: How is this relevant to the article at hand? Will the Themes article suffer in any way if this information isn't included? I'm not trying to move the goalposts, just raise an additional (minor) concern. DonIago ( talk) 23:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I just saw a tumbleweed blow past... Given that at least one other editor shares my question regarding the need to discuss the film's gross record in an article about the themes of the film, and that that sentence could, in our estimation, be removed with minimal (if any) disruption the rest of the article, is there any objection to that text being removed? DonIago ( talk) 13:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My reading of the above is that Nikki's statement of concerns regarding removing the statement aren't shared by other editors. I'll give it a few more days for additional comments or additional concerns to be raised before I remove the statement in question. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello from CCI! this case recently wrapped up at CCI. The page is courtesy blanked, but the previous revision contains the full record of articles and their removals. I am letting you know since this case largely concerned film and its related BLPs. The removals weren't as harsh as others, luckily. Hopefully the content can be restored in full confidence of the copyright policy. Happy editing, and kind regards, Sennecaster ( What now?) 03:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I have proposed a move for the article for the film Midsommar. If you are interested, please contribute to the discussion
here.
Sock
(tock talk) 23:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Comparing biopics to WP-articles. Trend?
I'm in the middle of a GAN for Zombie Nightmare and it was brought up that the run time should be sourced. I have never had that brought up as an issue and don't think run times should have sources. Are runtimes supposed to have sources to them or are they, as the reviewer puts it, "original research"? GamerPro64 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Is List of films considered the worst/Removed films appropriate for article mainspace? It seems more like a non-encyclopedic subpage of List of films considered the worst to retain some of its previous history. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It was brought up last year that the "see also" lists on articles like the 73rd British Academy Film Awards are too long. I suggested at the time a list article about ceremonies in a given year with some prose on e.g. repeated wins, but other editors felt it would be too similar to the 2020 in film article. Seeing the issue again this year, I boldly created the Template:2021 Film award ceremonies that I feel can be used to replace the long see also list, and hopefully the year in film articles will be able to handle any prose about repeated wins. Would it be valuable to create similar navboxes for previous years, and for television? Kingsif ( talk) 21:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it acceptable after establishing something like Raiders of the Lost Ark to alternately refer to it as just Raiders later on for brevity? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This film is at AfD. If anyone can help with sourcing, or agrees with deletion, please comment there. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice that Raiders of the Lost Ark is up at FAC because it is relevant to this project. It's unlikely but it'd be nice if it could get enough attention to improve/pass it before it's 40th anniversary on June 12 so could maybe swing it to the Featured Article of the day. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Can others please review Special:Contributions/José Moreno Téllez? They are screwing up films' release years and are adding film companies. The latter behavior reminds me of similar behavior in the past. Is this a sockpuppet of a previous vandal? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There's an edit war going on with the film Exit Wounds. There's been an edit war with addition of Jill Hennessy's character Annette Mulcahy was killed in the car chase scene that is kept being removed and brought back by various users, including IP users and such, in the plot summary. BattleshipMan ( talk) 00:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Development of Star Trek 4 seems like an end-run around WP:NFF by calling itself "development" instead of the film itself (which has no official title) and is not anywhere near close to actually entering production. Shouldn't this just be merged into the List of Star Trek films article? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Sound of Metal, there is a dispute about what should go in the opening sentence. Please see the discussion here: Talk:Sound of Metal#Opening sentence. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 03:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
If you will, have a look at User talk:Adtigpta01. Cyphoidbomb, Ab207 and I have all tried talking with Adtigpta01 in the pages' contribution histories and on their talk page. Fylindfotberserk has tried in the contribution history. Example exchange: [7] Adtigpta01 seems to ignore us. They add back their changes no matter what we say. Any advice? For example, does the Jennifer Garner page really need all those films in the introduction? Film Bio Legacy ( talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing Some Dude From North Carolina and Chompy Ace remove external links to Box Office Mojo, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, citing WP:ELRC. Some Dude From North Carolina is already aware that RT can serve as an exhaustive list of reviews from a template discussion here but persists in removing the RT ELs anyway.
Per MOS:FILM#External links, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body." Now, if we had to narrow it down, we could simply use RT and not MC, since MC's reviews are likely covered by RT anyway. Due to the ongoing overzealous behavior, I want to check in with other members of WikiProject Film to see what is preferred by others. I've never found Allmovie to be a unique resource as an EL and would be fine with it vanishing from EL sections. Box Office Mojo, I would have advocated for it as an EL before with so much data beyond the opening weekend and total grosses, but now most of its data is paywalled, so I'd be fine with excising BOM too. I don't think TCM or AFI are unique resources to have as EL. I find RT to be the most important one because it has two distinct roles: 1.) inline citation to provide score and consensus, and 2.) listing the largest set of reviews out there. Readers shouldn't have to track down the RT link in a "References" section (especially with dozens or hundres of citations) to get to the RT page for the reviews. Thoughts from others on RT and the other EL templates? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 20:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Some outside input would be appreciated at Talk:Roe v. Wade (film)#Release date as to whether the film should be considered a 2020 film after its premiere at the VIFF Vienna Independent Film Festival or a 2021 film based on its theatrical/streaming release date. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we use Box Office Mojo to cite release dates? I've come across the issue that the release date information seems to be just pulled from IMDb (see the discussion on the topic Talk:Friday_the_13th_Part_2#Release_Date here.) Basically it boils down to Box Office Mojo stating the release date is April 31, but doing some searching on Newspapers.com I found six release dates confirming its release on May 1 (which is Friday, which would make more logical sense) and the AFI also backs up that it premiered in New York and Los Angeles on May 1. As Box Office Mojo appears to be pulling this date from IMDb (which states April 31), I feel we shouldn't be using Box Office Mojo for anything but, well, box office info per WP:RS/IMDb. Do we have some more thoughts on the topic? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
We are having a talk about whether to decrease the minimum word limit determined by WP:FILMPLOT. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#PLOT word minimum to comment. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I've run into a bit of a dilemma with the titling of our annual articles about a film award ceremony — but it's one without an easy or straightforward answer, so I wanted to ask for some input into the best way forward.
As of last year, all of our articles about the Canadian Jutra/Iris Award ceremonies, up to and including the 22nd, were ordinated correctly per the ordinal number assigned by their media coverage at the time. However, because last year's award gala was cancelled for the obvious reason and replaced on the fly with a webcast to announce the winners, the presenting organization seems to have retroactively decided that it didn't count as a "gala" — and so instead of calling this years' ceremony the 23rd gala because it's being held the year after the 22nd awards, they seem as far as I can tell to have kicked last year's not-a-gala out of line so that they can call this year's awards the 22nd gala again. Basically, even though last year's awards were called the 22nd at the time, they now seem to have declared that last year was a special outlier, not to be ordinated at all because they're counting "number of times that physical galas have been held in an auditorium" instead of "number of times that awards have been given out".
But what that means is that we're now out of phase with the "official" numbering of the awards: the upcoming 2021 ceremony is the 23rd time that awards have been presented, but is officially now the 22nd awards because it will be only the 22nd time there's been an actual public event instead of just a livestream.
So I don't know what to do about this:
Any ideas? Bearcat ( talk) 17:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Rusted AutoParts: received two messages on his talk page about his recent edits that have begun going against the Manual of Style. They have started adding citations using "publisher" (for sources from The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline Hollywood) and have skipped over my comments to try following MOS:CURLY. Their edits are also frequent so following and fixing them would be hard to do alone. Should they be reported since I've already sent a message? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 21:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Due to my failure to get participation from more than just one person when I posted here two weeks ago, I've posted a full RFC to Talk:23rd Quebec Cinema Awards for input on how to handle a titling problem. I'd appreciate, if possible, if some people could actually read my RFC and offer their thoughts, because it's not an issue that we can just ignore and do nothing about — it's an issue that needs to be resolved somehow. Bearcat ( talk) 14:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am a student currently enrolled in a subject which requires the improvement of a stub article. I am writing on the 2017 Elvis Presley documentary 'The King'. I would really appreciate your advice and feedback over the coming weeks as our edits and contributions will make up our final grades for the subject. Thank you so much! Husseyp
An AFD for the film Boat Trip 3D has been started here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boat Trip 3D. MarnetteD| Talk 19:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Would someone mind taking a look at Destination Marfa (film) and assessing it, in particular to see whether the {{ COI}} template is needed? I came across this article at WP:THQ#Destination Marfa Page which is the start of a series of Teahouse posts between the article's creator and others about WP:PAID, WP:COI among other things. I have no reason to believe the creator is not telling the truth about not being a "paid contributor" and I'm willing to even give him (he seems to be identifying as being male) the benefit of doubt when it comes to the apparent COI; however, if someone from this WikiProject could just look over the article and then remove the COI template if everything is OK, then that would be great. If someone could also assess this as to whether it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON#Notability for films and WP:NFF, then that would be appreciated as well. The film hasn't been released yet, but a release date has been announced for August 2021. I'm assuming that mean that the film has for the most part been shot and is right now just going through the post-production phase. I'm not sure what any of that means in terms of WP:NFILM so perhaps someone more familiar with those criteria would be better off assessing the Wikipedia notability. FWIW, the article was approved via WP:AFC, but the reviewer seems to have felt that at least WP:GNG was being met. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Any WikiProject Film members with 10 minutes spare could make a dent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment#New requests, which seems to have otherwise been left to decay a bit. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk) 23:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone willing to take a look at this edit to Piranha (1978 film)? AllMovie lists the film as a comedy horror film, but we have an editor claiming that TCM and Rotten Tomatoes do not list it as such. It doesn't make a big deal to me, but I would like a better understanding of whether TCM or RT are considered reliable sources for genre classification. I'm leaning toward No on RT, but I don't know much about TCM. Thanks for your help! DonIago ( talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't planning to challenge it unless there were strong arguments in favor of restoring "comedy" here, which there don't seem to be. I still have reservations about TCM and RT as genre sources, which I don't feel we've exactly addressed here, but I'm not involved in enough disputes where those sources come up to be especially concerned. I do wonder whether another editor will reinsert "comedy" at some point, but if that happens I think I might just steer clear. DonIago ( talk) 16:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm struggling on the best way to fix an article, or perhaps to determine if it is unfixable, and was hoping others may have thoughts. The page List of LGBT-related films by storyline is currently entirely uncited, and held up what seems to be only by OR and individual editor discretion. It has a more straightforward section of lesbian and gay relationships (although these aren't necessarily "storylines" in many cases) and quite a number of entirely arbitrary categories. While these could be deemed "storylines," there's not really any set standard for how that is determined -- what prompts whether a film goes under "with tragedy" or "persecution" or "historical event" or just "with LGBT characters"? When in the relationship a storyline, vs. being a biographical LGBT film?
I'm wondering if:
To be very clear, I am not proposing a problem with lists of LGBT films -- we have List of LGBT-related films (although there are issues there on sourcing what counts as LGBT-related, by year, with women directors, as TV films, etc. All things that can be sourced and not rely on OR and editor judgement. But the "list by storyline" concept seems tricky to fix, and perhaps not solvable.
Appreciate any thoughts!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I posted a few months ago on the talk page of the American cinema task force a question regarding the assessment of the importance of the American films inducted to the National Film Registry. It went unnoticed ever since, so I'm here to try to bring some attention to it and maybe some comments.-- GDuwen Holler! 21:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please leave comments for this? SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Incase anyone hasn't seen this discussion, and there's an RfC too. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Run (2020 American film) 581,093 19,369 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated B movie for featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie/archive2. Please join the discussion! 👨x🐱 ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Gotti (1996 film)#Franzese reverts as to whether to include non-film critics in reception section where YouTube is primary source. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm no expert in film, but I read about this magazine and believe it warranted an article (it was already a redirect). If anyone here has any more information on the magazine I would appreciate their help. Thank you! -- Bangalamania ( talk) 10:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, stumbled on ZIGMUND_JHAEY's edits while doing recent change patrol and honestly I lack the background with film/movies to evaluated/research these effectively. They mostly seem to be making edits around release dates and changing the names/captions of movie posters, etc. If all of these edits are good, great! I just thought that a set or two of eyes that are familiar with the material would be helpful. zchrykng ( talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli ( talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the most intuitive form for the main title header of Taylor's entry is currently active at Talk:Robert Taylor (actor)#Requested move 7 June 2021. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I initially posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but nobody seemed to want to dive in and help.
I stumbled on an editor or editors who put the same wall of fake credits into numerous articles. So far I have found:
Examples of the edits:
I thought it would be a good idea to notify the project to keep an eye out for these edits. The vandal appears to enjoy adding Jessica Lundy and Alex Mckenna to acting credits. Those come up a lot. Also adding William Brent Bell and Rick Friedberg to production credits as fake writers and/or directors.
There may be more. I am slowly working my way through by using one of the names in their list and seeing what articles it is linked in. It is a very slow process but if anyone wants to help I would appreciate it. Notfrompedro ( talk) 14:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The article says that the film proceeds linearly, with the third segment following the first two. However, I think that the first two segments are current, with everything else taking place in the past. For example, the character Kyle talks about how in a previous relationship, Marissa (who we later find out is his ex-wife) made him get a "Rob Thomas haircut." HiImDannyGanz ( talk) 12:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Does the project have an opinion on a new style of film data introduced by Bhushan m bhandari, for example here and here? I've raised the issue at User talk:Bhushan m bhandari# Film tables but it's possible that they can't hear me. Certes ( talk) 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The date format of Action Jackson (1988 film) is on DMY format. It should be MDY format since it's an American film. BattleshipMan ( talk) 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, all. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Classical Hollywood cinema#Proposed deletion of excessive listings. As project members, please feel free to take part. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
So Bovineboy2008 ( talk · contribs) recently removed the rating template in the reception section of Living in the Age of Airplanes, stating it is against consensus to put it. And in his talk page, he stated it was a long-ago discussion, and that it could be revisited, considering tempus fugit. And so here. What do you think regarding the film rating templates (review scores, not MPAA)? Gerald WL 02:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is not entirely clear to me. Editors have commented generally but not said that they are opposed to including film ratings tables but also they have not proposed how things should be done properly if such tables were allowed. Would editors please make it clear if the recommendation is to remove the tables that Gerald Waldo Luis (or others) have added, or are editors are going to actively encourage their use by providing clearer guidelines on how best to include these ratings tables in film articles? -- 109.79.179.206 ( talk) 00:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
#Tabulated data below discusses a similar issue with cast, earnings, etc. rather than ratings. Certes ( talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be getting nowhere; I think an RfC would do better. @ Bovineboy2008, Alaney2k, Betty Logan, Kingsif, and Bignole:, would like to notify you all of Template talk:Film and game ratings, where I have placed an RfC. Gerald WL 05:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Can be found at Template talk:Film and game ratings#RfC about existence of Film and game ratings template. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional viewpoints would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doomsday_Prophecy. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Engagement. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I have an idea to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Tasks and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Announcements and open tasks into Template:WikiProject Film, in order to increase awareness of what stuff is going on, like GANs, FACs and particularly PRs, which gets little attention. Template:WikiProject Video games has done this, and their PR sees faster response rate. Gerald WL 16:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gamers: Hands of Fate. BOVINEBOY 2008 01:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
It was me who was adding the story of Ejen Ali The Movie: Mission Neo, with all those strange, and lengthy IP addresses. I think that it is almost more than half year since the movie is released. I prefer "EVERYONE" to first read the story, and then edit concisely. It is really "pain straining" job for me to adjust within the word limit, as the editor (probably an administrator), Arjayay removed the "extra phrases". I tell you, the long plot template was even put up by me. So, how can you follow that template, but not keep patience to first complete the plot summary, and then concise it? Utkarsh555 ( talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
If a film is included on a listing of the best one thousand movies ever made, does that merit inclusion in the article for the film as shown here? DonIago ( talk) 17:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks folks. It seems that we have a general consensus on this even if our specific reasons may vary. I'll give it a few more days for additional comments before I take any further actions. Thanks again! DonIago ( talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Are the categories for "produced by", (for example, Category:Films produced by Andrea Sperling), intended to strictly refer to producer credits, or are EP credits included, as well? BOTTO ( T• C) 11:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack of the Sabretooth, we are having the discussion of notability. Specifically, does a star rating from a reliable source like Allmovie constitute that the film meets notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Additionally viewpoints would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I've opened a proposal to merge the articles for individual AFI Award ceremonies into a single article. If you're interested, any comments would be much appreciated at Talk:American Film Institute#Merger proposal for AFI Awards. Thanks! RunningTiger123 ( talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Opinions are sought here about whether lists of one-shot films should be confined only to notable examples, such as those that can either cite a source or link to a Wikipedia article. Meticulo ( talk) 09:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This is about film article Creep 2. As can be seen in the history and, later on, the talk page for that article, user User:Bluerules and I engaged in a discussion about our respective edits in order to avoid edit warring.
This is a sequel to an earlier film about a clever, quirky serial killer who toys with his victims passive-aggressively before killing them. He is compulsively mendacious, manipulative and prone to projecting a deceptive air of vulnerability in both films. Thus a fundamental leitmotiv throughout the series is the impossibility of knowing when, if at all, he is being sincere. Reducing the number of potential interpretations of the killer's intentions would diminish the number of potential outcomes of his actions--and that impacts the plot directly.
My edits in the Plot section were aimed at describing the events of the film from a skeptical distance, avoiding particular interpretations and taking into account the aforementioned character's inscrutability. User Bluerules erased most of those edits and in our subsequent discussion proved that their reason for doing so was the fact that a number of motivations on the killer's behalf, notably this film's plot centerpiece which was his alleged midlife crisis, is a blatant, established fact that admits no discussion. I contend it could very well be as much of a lie as the cancer diagnosis in the first film, and that every single one of the killer's statements or mannerisms could be deceptive.
By taking the killer's statements at face value without questioning them, this user was summarily reducing the entire gamut of potential interpretations of the character to his or her own restrictive interpretation. The killer, I emphasize, is a sociopath, a compulsive liar, a master manipulator and a narcissist who films his exploits and edits them into warped "dramas" for his own enjoyment; user Bluerules believes that such behavior is not enough evidence and if the serial killer states (to his victims or to the camera) that he is going through a midlife crisis, then there is no reason to doubt it. Equally important is the fact that user Bluerules then proceeds to draw what they believe is an incontrovertible line between truth and lie in other instances of the killer's behavior, not just this one. I have tried to convince Bluerules that they had molded the plot to THEIR interpretation of the film, not to an aseptic plot contemplating all interpretations of such a complex and unreliable character, but so far this task has proved useless.
In short, we need more opinions and more editors here. I have taken the matter to Dispute Resolution and have been redirected here by a volunteer. AnyDosMilVint ( talk) 08:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
one shouldn't make films featuring children or animalsis unsourced and I haven't found any indication of it, either by Google search, in the Alfred Hitchcock article, or in The Birds article. Second, if there's disagreement between a director and an actor, then it's clear the director's opinion has more weight. — El Millo ( talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
a constructive debateto decide for ourselves what we use to describe him if we have interviews from creatives that we can use. If this is a more complex matter, where different creatives disagree, then it doesn't belong in the plot at all, and should be addressed elsewhere in the article. — El Millo ( talk) 18:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The "midlife crisis" aspect of it seems to be quite relevant. Other reliable sources, this time secondary, highlight it in their reviews.
The Hollywood Reporter states: Mark Duplass is a serial killer facing a midlife crisis
,
[1]
Decider includes it in the title of the article: ‘Creep 2’: Mark Duplass Is A Serial Killer In The Midst Of A Midlife Crisis In This Psychologically Mesmerizing Sequel
,
[2]
GQ states: Creep 2 takes the slasher sequel to a logical next step—one I've never seen before: the serial killer midlife crisis
.
[3] If it's not mentioned in the plot, it seems like it should be mentioned somewhere else. We could use the proposed alternative has become dissatisfied with his killings after turning 40
in the plot though, and I think it wouldn't make much of a difference. —
El Millo (
talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
References
which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film" and "
(incidentally, to defend himself from another murderer)", both of which should be rephrased or dropped altogether. I actually prefer the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the proposed version over the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the current. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
He eventually manages to horrify Sara by staging a suicide attempt, which almost causes her to leave. However, after Aaron reveals that his life was not in danger, she remains to hear Aaron share intimate details about himself, culminating in the two sharing a kiss.
Aaron brings Sara outside to announce that the documentary will end with them committing suicide together. Sara attempts to escape when she sees Aaron stab himself, but Aaron stabs her and drags her into an open grave he dug.
unsure whether the grave was intended for her or for himself" and that he stole a knife from Sara. Yes, we know serial killers aren't right in the head, but not all serial killers are alike. Revealing that he was facing some kind of internal conflict in deciding the ending, and the fact he steals a knife as opposed to coming prepared with one, can add some meaningful context about a character and the level of suspense. It would help ease the transition between the announcement and the stabbing. The proposed version also mentions being stabbed in the stomach, not just stabbed anywhere like the arm – a detail that helps describe the seriousness behind his intentions to commit suicide.I wouldn't necessarily use the exact phrasing from the proposed version, but I'd take details like these into strong consideration for inclusion, especially when I know the plot summary is hanging at less than 300 words. A little excess can go a long way without going overboard. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm for adding new information if it's not an awkward point-by-point description of what takes place ... we need to avoid mentioning nearly every detail in a scene"
Remember, I don't have a horse in this race: well neither do I because like I said above, bones are more adequate an analogy than races here. No edit or reasoning will satisfy this person, and to be honest it's not worth the effort. Better let them have this little victory here; by doing so goodness knows what headaches this will spare other people in real life. AnyDosMilVint ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this disucssion, which is also a RfC. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I've developed two wikidata templates which can be useful for the film wikiproject : d:Template:Generic queries for filmmakers and d:Generic queries for actors. Both are embedded in d:Template:Item documentation.
Those templates gives access to useful SPARQL queries for filmmakers and actors. For instance, d:Template:Generic queries for filmmakers gives the list of actors who have played with the filmmaker, the list of places where movies takes place, etc.
Let me know if you want find it useful.
Feedback is welcome.
PAC2 ( talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There's currently a WP:RM at Talk:Back to the Future (soundtrack)#Requested move 21 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I think the topic merits a larger, more genral discussion about article titles of film soundtracks, but if this one in particular has a large amount of participant maybe it could set a precedent for the rest. — El Millo ( talk) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Love Begins is at deletion here and has now been relisted three times to generate more discussion and develop consensus. More opinions would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)