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 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 84 |
If an official film poster does not have a billing block, or we supposed to add that version or a poster with a billing block? @ Iamnoahflores recently uploaded a new version of a poster for Godzilla vs. Kong (see the page history here) with a billing block when the official poster does not have a "full" billing block (see here). Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Madrigal family into Encanto (film). These articles are covered under the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion is located at: Talk:Encanto (film)#Merger proposal. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in the talk page of this article (
see here) regarding which dialect of English the article should use. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, —
Alpaca the Wizard (he/him) (
talk) (
contribs)
05:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC); struck 06:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Should the word "film" be linked in the lead? There are a number of IP users changing something like [[disaster film]] to [[disaster film|disaster]] film (take Moonfall for example). I am hesitant in reverting such edits because they do go along with WP:SEAOFBLUE. What do y'all think? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:FILM states that "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words." Since going on a film noir binge, I've noticed 45 film plot sections with word counts between 12-351 that have no template reflecting a need for expansion. I've also noticed 34 film plot sections with word counts between 704-1,004 that have no template reflecting the need to streamline. Should all these plot sections receive templates? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Looney Tunes Platinum Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article reads like an advertisement or press release, and has only one source for its 10.03-year history.
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. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fourthords (
talk •
contribs) 15:48, February 4, 2022 (UTC)
Input for this PR is welcomed. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a request to move Lesson of the Evil to Lesson of Evil. See the discussion here: Talk:Lesson of the Evil#Requested move 30 January 2022. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose § It is not clear that the reviews are from critics. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It is possible to make a link to imdb look like a wikilink, like Gillian Dobb (from Magnum,_P.I.#Recurring_characters) and Jonas Brothers: Live in London (from Jonas_Brothers#Television). A normal EL would look like Gillian Dobb.
All these uses [1] [2] may not be wrong, but I think these 2 examples clearly go against WP:EL, though in a sneaky way.
So my question is, is there any objection to remove linking like this on sight? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This [3] is the version I had written and this [4] is the output of User:KyleJoan's wholesale reversion. I am not convinced by said user's arguments, I believe there is a lack of compensation between the length of the film's first act (the mountain portion) and other scenes at the end, and I believe the plot as I had left it solved this and added material that was uncontroversial and useful to the plot.
I also think that some of the arguments presented by the other side of this discussion make no sense, e.g. removing the definition of Ennis' version of Jack's death as that of a homophobic murder. Of course he imagines a homophobic murder, otherwise why would he doubt Lureen's version of the events?
In a nutshell, I think the plot as it currently stands and the arguments used to defend its permanence seem to be indicative of people who did not understand this film. AnyDosMilVint ( talk) 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the "Starring" field in Template:Infobox film. The discussion can be seen here: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to ask about y'all opinions on List of most-watched Netflix original programming. This list is sourced primarily from Netflix's official website. Most readers could simply go there instead of this list, which is also the only list of its kind. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Saw Category:El Capitan Theatre premieres get added to an article I follow. Is this notable? I'm leaning towards no, but I wanted to get some other thoughts here before starting a CSD discussion. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls 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. GamerPro64 20:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I want to discuss the use of "Filmography" in a section heading because I do not believe we have had a clear-cut discussion about what that term means for Wikipedia's use. First, I think Wikipedia editors have interpreted "filmography" to include TV credits, and video game and even stage credits have been shoehorned under this label. (For example, see Andrew Garfield#Filmography having a "Theatre" subsection.) However, all real-world definitions of "filmography" indicate that it is supposed to be a list of films; the well-cited Wikipedia article for filmography covers this well. In addition, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Collins confirm this basic definition. I haven't come across any other definition that is broader than that. My sense is that Wikipedia's use of "Filmography" comes from IMDb, where actors' pages list their credits under "Filmography". IMDb used to be the Internet Movie Database, so their structuring seems to be a related leftover artifact of that past.
I'd like to encourage other editors to use other terms instead of "Filmography" when the person's background is in more than just film. I've noticed passerby editors' tendency to "correct" a different term back to "filmography", presumably because it is so prevalent across Wikipedia articles. Can we be open to accepting use of other terms? It could be "Credits", "Screen and stage", "List of performances", or some mixture of these and other possible words. I'd like others to share what they think and what should be considered in using this term or other terms. (Note: I started this discussion here and not at WT:ACTOR because it is more watched and because editors here are likely to have edited such sections. I'll put a notification there for this discussion.) Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a call for an experienced WikiProject Film editor to look in at Jackass Forever, for a possibly overdone plot summary. (It currently includes an in-section list of all of the film's stunts/gags.) Since I've never seen a plot summary that contained a comprehensive list of all of a movies scenes (the equivalent of the gags list), I though someone should look in on it. (It is also possible, given the very recent release date of the film, no Plot summary should yet appear, but instead a Premise section, as currently appears at other films.) Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:E05F:BFAD:304D:DDBC ( talk) 23:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that nearly every stunt/skit in the Jackass films, barring a few that last for only seconds, has its own dedicated title card, with unique titles; it's ridiculous to simply remove them all, even if they shouldn't be overly detailed, and we already have similar plot summaries for films like The Kentucky Fried Movie and Amazon Women on the Moon. 131.123.49.18 ( talk) 16:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I've recently opened two very similar discussions at Talk:Academy Award for Best Actress#Issues with OR and FLC status and Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Issues with OR and FLC status regarding the inclusion of supplementary lists with heavy levels of unsourced detail. I've done some more research to follow up, and there seem to be similar issues at Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, and (to a much lesser extent) Academy Award for Best Director (I won't open new discussions there to avoid confusion, and I'll probably note that one of the existing discussions should shift to the other). All five of these articles are FLs, so the original research issues are deeply problematic if they should maintain their status. Was there some kind of consensus to add these lists, and if so, why are they allowed to include so much unsourced detail? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 07:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOSFILM § Soundtrack track lists in film articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding Zombies (2018 film) and mention of the stylization Z-O-M-B-I-E-S in the opening sentence. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Zombies (2018 film)#Stylization and Hyphenating the title. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
So I thought that we already put this conversation to bed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_76#Netflix_films_are_Direct-to-video_films?, but apparently not. So we once again have to discuss if it is appropriate to label streaming films as "direct to streaming films" in actors infoboxes. Pinging IJBall, User:Masem, Erik, User:Orange Suede Sofa, Betty Logan, Emir of Wikipedia, BOVINEBOY, El Millo, Gonnym, Joeyconnick, User:Amaury
The phrase "direct-to-streaming" makes it seem like we're calling them direct to video. And direct to video used to be a meaningful descriptor about the quality and budget of the film, that's no longer the case with films made by streaming companies, and is completely misleading for us to try and compare them. Personally, I feel that there's no reason to label streaming films as anything in actor's filmography, but if it has to be labeled, then streaming film is fine as it's a completely accurate label that is not trying to give an impression about the quality of the film, one that might be completely inaccurate. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 04:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Film is a film imo, I don’t see a pertinent necessity to established whether it’s a streaming film or not. Netflix, Apple TV+, etc by and large wants their films to be in the discussion for mainstream accolades or festival recognition, so they’re still the same thing. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Not only has my opinion remained unchanged from the last time this was litigated, I feel even more strongly about it now. These labels no longer carry enough meaning to be encyclopedic. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Category:Fantastic Fest alumni could use input from this project's participants. Thanks. Nardog ( talk) 08:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Freaking old film box offices man. Bane of my existence. Almost worse than critical reception sections. Can anyone please provide me with a source for Terminator 2's international figure and where it places it ranking-wise? BOM says 312 million or so which is fine and it's undoubtedly the highest-grossing film OUTSIDE of the US and Canada but I can't source it, anything I find either talk about the North American BO or the Worldwide BO. BOMs worldwide ranking doesn't include foreign figures for the year and The Numbers includes every release ever, so Beauty and the Beast shows up as the highest-grossing film of the year despite having earned 90% of its money outside of 1991. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! There is a proposal for a sorely needed rewrite of that article. Since the article doesn't have a lot of editors looking at it generally speaking and the article itself has been, ah, contentious (to say the least) in the past, I'm requesting experienced editors to participate in the discussion or help keep an eye on the article as it undergoes significant changes.
Currently, there is talk about renaming the article to List of banned films in the People's Republic of China, restrict the article to post-1949 (with possible splits), and creating definitions for the scope. As this is a lot of proposed changes for what is currently two editors, additional help or eyes would be very much appreciated. Please see the discussion at: Talk:Film censorship in China#Preparation of Rewriting. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thank you. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. And maybe there's a better way to split the lists, rather than the random 2005 cut-off (maybe by decade?) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The Abduction of Jennifer Grayson a 2017 film, should have a wikipedia page. 74.89.212.125 ( talk) 05:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Now that most major studios seem to have pulled their current movie releases from Russia due to current events, I have seen several editors adding this to individual film articles. It doesn't seem to me to necessarily be something that we should note for every film (especially when we are generally talking about U.S. films that should have limited discussion about release in other markets), but I was wondering if anyone feels strongly otherwise. - adamstom97 ( talk) 06:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of 3D films (2005 onwards)#Requested move 27 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether or not to list the film Nomadland under List of Star (Disney+) original programming. See the discussion here: Talk:List of Star (Disney+) original programming#Should Nomadland be a Star Original or just even be included on this list? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it legitimate to use AllMovie as a source in the Reviews section of a movie's article? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hotstar#Requested move 2 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC), Adding WP Film to this. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Per previous discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_79#Masking_imdb_links_as_wikilinks, @ Michael D. Turnbull and myself have removed those we found on, I think, about 2000 pages, using these searchstrings: [6] [7]. There's probably editors who like to use them around.
I made an addition at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, see [8]. It's a little off-topic, but may be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Are there general thoughts on whether (director)
is sufficient disambiguation? It seems like it could be ambiguous with the general title "director" for multiple different disciplines. Checking various categories, it seems like there is a mix of both (director)
and (film director)
, but I think it looks like there are slightly more (director)
pages. -
2pou (
talk)
20:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Walter 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.
— Mahāgaja · talk 12:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gehraiyaan (film)#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NW1223 <Howl at me• My hunts> 23:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Author's Film Company#Requested move 13 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello everybody, usually I contribute to the german version of WP. Within our own film-related project pages we discussed to include an article about They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?, as it is a much-cited rating platform for films, many of us use as a resource, kind of like IMDb. To my surprise there was no english version, even though it is also a much-cited source. As I wrote the article about TSPDT, I would like to provide an english version - unless the reason why you don't have it, is that you decided against it. What I wrote includes the problematic aspects - such as favouring certain sources (like Sight & Sound) and the effect this has on the overall rating. Even though I'm actually a translator, I would be happy, if a native speaker, who is familiar with the subject could volunteer to be my proofreader. You don't need to know any German of course, I'm just including the link as a reference:
They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?
Greetings from Leipzig Llydia ( talk) 09:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
There is discussion on the talk pages of Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster and Talk:Mothra vs. Godzilla about the extra credits for crew within the article. If anyone could weigh in on these details, it would help a lot. Thank you! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
On January 14 2022, I posted to this talk page with a section entitled "Defining a film noir." I pointed out a RS had called the movie When Strangers Marry a film noir, although its Wikipedia article simply defined it as "a 1950 American suspense film". The reply from editor Facu-el Millo was:
Per WP:FILMGENRE, 'Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources", so just one reliable source isn't enough to justify including in the lead section, you need to show it is generally refered to as a film noir.
The issue came up again last night, when I saw that TCM's Noir Alley had featured the movie Guilty Bystander (originally broadcast on July 4 2021, Intro and Outro available on You Tube). The movie's Wikipedia article described it simply as "a 1950 American crime drama" in the lead section. Noir Alley may not be a RS, but I found the movie referred to as a film noir in several other places:
1) the AFI catalog
2) an AllMovie review by Bruce Eder
3) a Rotten Tomatoes review by Dennis Schwartz
4) the website at www.bynwr.com
5) in the Film Noir section at Internet Archive's Moving Image Archive
6) in the Guardian newspaper, "Lockdown Watch" by Nicolas Winding Refn (May 29, 2020)
7) in The Dark Page II: Books that Inspired American Film Noir (1950-1965) by Kevin Johnson, Oak Knoll Press, New Castle DE 2009, page 202
8) in Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style ed. by Alain Silver et al., Overlook Press, Woodstock NY 1992, page 115
9) in A Film Noir Guide: 745 Films of the Classic Era, 1940-1959 by Michael F. Keaney, McFarland & Company Inc., Jefferson NC, 2003, p. 172
(All three books are available for free at the Internet Archive.)
Is this enough to add "film noir" to Guilty Bystander's lead section? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 07:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
2020 American satirical comedy spy film" would turn into
"2020 American comedy film ... (a sentence or two later) It is a satirical take on spy films." That way, people can still have their cruft in the lead, but it stays outside of the opening sentence, which is sometimes unreadable an unreadable mess in film articles. For whatever reason, the opening sentence in video game and television articles are almost always much easier to parse and read. Plus, I think this might be less contentious with other editors, too, because you're not explicitly labeling the film as "X genre" in the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, please comment on Talk:List of films based on DC Comics publications#Theatrically released films Subheading regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_films_based_on_DC_Comics_publications&type=revision&diff=1078442456&oldid=1078397531. I gave section without subheading a subheading so clearer in TOC there's content, and made what appears as sub-heading a sub-heading. User 86 10 25 197 ( talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 15 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The templates {{ Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{ MC film}} have been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Review aggregator prose templates. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I would like to propose correcting the name of the Writer Akshat Saluja, his full name is Akshat R Saluja Also there are many articles available to be added in the wiki article.such as below.
https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/entertainment/2022/03/10/ent5-cinema-kapur.html https://theprint.in/features/aditya-roy-kapurs-om-the-battle-within-to-hit-theatres-in-july/866752/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatrsaluja ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The description has factually incorrect information regarding the aftermath of Sergio's death. Specifically this line - "Later, the US pulls out of Iraq leading to a long Civil War, but"
This needs to be corrected. The UN pulled out of Iraq after the bombing and deaths of Sergio and other UN workers.
The "civil war" was started by Al Queda bombings and began during US time and followed by ISIS. You cant really call it a true civil war, and the US did not pull out leading to it - so whoemver wrote this was smoking something funny or got their info only from the movies final credits scenes and twisted it around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.211.151 ( talk) 22:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
If a director criticizes a part of their film while on a press tour, is that relevant to include in an article? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Do other editors consider it erroneous to describe documentaries as having a "plot"? I'm wondering if I should change the section header to "Synopsis" or "Summary" for all such articles, since "plot" seems to me to connote fiction. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I posted an RfC entitled "Removing actors' names from plot summaries" to this page on February 5. The last comment was on February 9. I see now that the entire discussion has been archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, topic # 7, with no formal closure or consensus being determined. How do I get a consensus on this topic? The reason I started the RfC was because an editor had reverted a bunch of my edits, against an informal consensus on the talk page. I figure I need a formal consensus to get the reverts reinstated (and to know how to proceed in the future). What should I do? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 07:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
User:HM2021 keeps adding unsourced information about the Amazon-MGM merger. I've already told them about it but they keep doing it. The most recent example was on 30 March (see Special:Diff/1080201522). Also, they seem to be using IMDb as a source. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 01:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gunga Jumna#Requested move 24 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The project has long had an established practice of deeming each country's basic "[Country] films" category to be "all-inclusive", meaning that it had to directly include all films from that country even if they were otherwise extensively subcategorized by genre or other characteristics. However, I wanted to ask for some opinions about whether it should stay that way or not.
Going back to the original establishment of that practice, it's not at all clear that there was actually an overwhelmingly large discussion — rather, it seems to have been a relatively small discussion, led by an editor who was on an active campaign to have Wikipedia make all categories all-inclusive across the board. There weren't really compelling reasons given for why WikiProject Film had special needs in this regard that were different from other category trees — the rationale essentially seemed to boil down to "we should do it this way because every category should always be this way", but the editor tried in other projects as well and mostly failed to convince them, with Film being about the only WikiProject where he succeeded in imposing his view.
Now, fifteen years ago it wasn't really the end of the world: nearly all countries only had a few hundred film articles at most — but in 2022, a considerable number of the categories are now too large and in dire need of diffusion, because they far exceed the size at which a category in almost any other category tree would be deemed to need subcategorization on size management grounds. As of right now, Argentina has 1,907 films; Australia has 2,635; Britain has 11,802; Canada has 5,154; China has 1,580; France has 7,821; Germany has 4,715; Hong Kong has 1,931; India has 22,599; Italy has 6,767; Japan has 4,246; Mexico has 1,626; Russia has 1,223; the Soviet Union has 1,924; Spain has 2,180; and Sweden has 1,112.
And then there's the United States, with 57,542 — which is so large that even the basic task of ensuring that films from the subcategories are actually included in the parent category is literally impossible to look after. In any of the other categories, I can easily do a list comparison in AWB between the base Country films category and a Country genre films subcategory to ensure that all of the subcategory's films are appropriately categorized in the parent — but for the US I can't do that because the list comparer cuts off at 25,000, which literally only gets me to the letter I and renders everything from J through Z unbatchable.
So my question is, are there genuinely important reasons why we should keep the base Country films categories all-inclusive, or should we abandon that rule so that the categories can be better managed for size? Bearcat ( talk) 17:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
|language=
. If consensus is reached to diffuse that, we'd have to adjust the infobox coding, which likely would result in a massive drop in articles in the categories. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Bearcat, do you plan to act on this consensus? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Per title Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Is Eddie Muller a RS when he is hosting TCM's Noir Alley? His Wikipedia article says "Muller is considered a noir expert..", though no direct reference is given for this statement. He is the founder and President of the Film Noir Foundation, and is co-programmer of the San Francisco film festival. He writes commentaries for Fox's film noir series, and has written seven books about the cinema, although the only academic qualifications given are "Muller studied with filmmaker George Kuchar at the San Francisco Art Institute in the late 1990s". His profile at TCM also adds he curates museums, and "he has been instrumental in preserving America's noir heritage, which to date has included restoring and preserving more than 30 nearly lost classics in partnership with the UCLA Film and Television Archive." He has lectured on film noir at the Cinematheque Francaise in Paris, the Museum of Madern Art in New York, and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 19:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
If editors aren't aware, Rotten Tomatoes data can be used in articles from Wikidata with {{ RT data}}. It's pretty nifty and an overall positive in my view of switching that info over to Wikidata. However, Indagate has been going around changing articles of currently releasing films ( Morbius (film)) or those recently released in the last year (such as Ghostbusters: Afterlife) to use the template and Wikidata info. I have taken issue to this (and other editors have also reverted them), because Rotten Tomatoes is so volatile and in flux after a films initial release, and even up to a year after, that we shouldn't be sending editors to Wikidata to make such adjustments. I'm wondering if wording needs to be implemented (in MOS:FILM#Critical reception maybe?) to help curb this if others agree. I'm thinking the following:
Rotten Tomatoes information may be integrated to Wikidata with the template {{ Rotten Tomatoes data}}. This may be beneficial for films part of a franchise that list the information on multiple articles. For new or currently releasing films, changes in articles and tables to the template to access the information from Wikidata should not be done until at least 12-18 months following a film's wide release, given the constant fluctuation that can occur with a film's score. Additional information regarding setting up a film's Wikidata entry to house Rotten Tomatoes information can be found in the template documentation.
I've used may be
in the first sentence because even though this option exists, an article doesn't need to change over, and if the change is reverted, it shouldn't result in an edit war regarding it. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
we shouldn't be sending editors to Wikidata to make such adjustmentsWhy not? Editing on Wikidata is pretty user-friendly, arguably more so than on Wikipedia. The only possible hindrance is to learn that that's where the data is pulled from ( Notacardoor briefly put {{ EditAtWikidata}} in references with RottenBot at my suggestion but he changed his mind after one person complained). But that doesn't seem too big of a problem if who you're dealing with are regular editors (we could also add invisible comments pointing to Wikidata).
may beshould be used in MoS as think the template should be used wherever the data is in WP as bot wouldn't be able to update without it and data more likely to become inaccurate. Prose can be up to individual editors, but don't think the numbers should be. Think
12-18 monthsin MoS would create ambiguity, should have one number so clear. Indagate ( talk) 11:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Fram: has argued there isn't consensus for using Wikidata in this way regardless of time at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Indagate&diff=prev&oldid=1080923256 Indagate ( talk) 10:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Using Wikidata templates in the mainspace goes against current consensus, see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Inserting Wikidata values into Wikipedia articles. The info on Wikidata is often outdated, and people checking for vandalism here will not see vandalism on Wikidata. I see above that most people feel it shouldn't be used for "current" movies (good), but that it could be used for older ones. In many cases, this simply means replacing correct RT figures here, with a template from Wikidata which may have the same figures, or even outdated ones. I was reverting the addition of this template from many articles for these reasons, and was pointed to this discussion. See e.g. this, where the Wikidata data was identical to the already present ones, or this, which changed the March 2022 data to October 2021 data by using the Wikidata template. Please keep this stuff local, and at worst substitute the more recent figures into our articles if you are reasonably certain that the Wikidata ones are reliable and more recent. Fram ( talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, please see and respond Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#RfC:_PostTrak Indagate ( talk) 13:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
People don't "serve as director" or "serve as producer". They direct or produce a film. You wouldn't say "Saoirse Ronan serves as an actor", would you? Then don't say "Jason Blum serves as a producer". Jason Blum produced the film, not served as producer. This bizarrely verbose bit of
journalese seems to be imported from
Variety. Variety is a great source, but their tone is completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. The last thing we need are a bunch of people adding content to Wikipedia about "a new shingle on the Universal lot", "actioners that are tops with auds", and for every film to be described as some kind of "romp" (go ahead, do a google search of "romp" site:variety.com
– "exuberant romp", "regal romp", "energetic romp", and the Coen Brothers get "a gorgeously crafted romp").
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Toxic Avenger (2022 film)#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I often browse lists of films or filmographies of directors and actors, and for a lot of the films released prior to the 1930s, sadly quite a few of them are lost or are presumed to be lost. Some are being found even to this day, thankfully. But still, browsing these lists I think it's necessary to somehow highlight which films are considered lost, so as to differentiate them from those films on the list that we actually have the ability to view currently. See a trial attempt here: List of animated feature films before 1940. Would be nice if editors carried this over to other lists they edit or happen upon. Jmj713 ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the addition of the sequel to the lead section of the Ready Player One article. The discussion is at Talk:Ready Player One (film)#Sequel. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 08:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've had a discussion with users on the talk page for Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, but I feel like we should discuss it here as we've reached a stand-still and need to figure out where we should stand with this. there was a brief dicussion on this topic in 2017, but I feel we should address it again. Should we or should we not include a further section for crew in film articles? If so, when should they be included and to what extent? If not, why not (as we have a cast section?). Personally, I feel like crew sections would go against WP:TRIVIA which states "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." and "Research may be necessary to give each fact some context". A list of excessive crew members without context of what they have done in the production (opposed to a cast section, which is far more obvious to a general audience), does not help the average reader. Per WP:FILMPRODUCTION, which states, " Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process." I feel adding a list of crew members ranging from assistants to a director or special effects lighting are trivial unless you can provide context on how the individuals work contributed specifically to the production and how these individuals contributed. (i.e: even if we can't gather much into what a specific producer on a film did, it warrants an inclusion in the infobox as it's one of the most primarily contributors to the production of the film while a "special effects assistant director" is not, unless you can provide context on how it noteworthy. I'm not against going into detail on special effects artists on heavy special effects laden films (Godzilla films, Marvel movies, etc.) but I feel like that information can be provided without going into specifics in the prose which actually helps readers understand why you should know why an Eiji Tsuburaya is an important figure for a Godzilla production. I look forward to anyone else's thoughts on this. Thanks! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 06:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn’t apply here either because WP:PERSONNEL supports adding the same “indiscriminate” crew list for albums. So why not for films as well? But like I said above, a consensus has already been established in 2018 in favor of crew lists. It doesn’t make sense to have another consensus every time someone doesn’t like this/that, despite an established consensus. Armegon ( talk) 15:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey everyone at WP Film, There is a new Wikiproject proposal for 20th Century Studios. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/20th Century Studios) So if you are interested in joining please say so in the proposal, so we can see if there will be enough member to start a project. ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 20:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Diary of a Camper 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing content dispute at Morbius (film) regarding how to summarize the critical reception for the film. Please see Talk:Morbius (film)#"Leto and Smith's performances were praised". Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention by
this edit that the website Soundtrack Geek, which formerly published reviews for film soundtracks, is now a website on sex-related topics. So, for all of the articles listed
here, any links to Soundtrack Geek needs to be archived, have their URL statuses changed to url-status=dead
, or removed outright.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
15:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested in the following discussions:
Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I've created a new stub called Everything's Gonna Be All White. I've added 9 references to the article and have added the infobox as well as the overview, cast, episodes and reception sections, but the article still needs some work like expanding and the episode list reformatted to the correct format. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion regarding Japan's involvement in Legendary Pictures' Godzilla franchise. It can be found at Talk:Godzilla (2014 film)#Japan. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Indagate has created a CinemaScore template and is mass adding it to articles with an archive of the main CinemaScore page with its search bar alone. Looking at the page code it's just calling on an external database which to me means it isn't a proper archive since if the site, code, or database dies, there's no longer an archive. The archive as it is, is no different than going directly to CinemaScore.com. It wouldn't be an issue except the user is removing existing archives that definitively contain the info to add in this blank archive like this one which is a hard copy list of tonnes of cinemascores that will withstand any future changes to the actual CinemaScore site. Can I get some opinions please as the user and I disagree. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Related, I've nominated {{ Cite CinemaScore}} for deletion here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
|website=
makes little sense because the website is already the very thing that's being cited, so I put it in |publisher=
.
Nardog (
talk)
10:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
|work=
(which |website=
is an alias for) means is "the thing I'm citing is part of this larger work", e.g. the journal for an academic paper, the newspaper for a news article. That could not apply when the thing you're citing and the website are the same thing. And of course the company CinemaScore is the publisher of the website CinemaScore.
Nardog (
talk)
11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
|website=
or |work=
. —
El Millo (
talk)
17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
|website=
, which is for the name of the work containing the source. The website CinemaScore is not the work containing the source; it's the source itself. Nardog ( talk) 02:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Notification that Category:War drama films and its sub-categories are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_28#Category:War_drama_films. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Citizen Kane#Reception in lead where there is a dispute over how the film's critical standing should be characterized. 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I am updating the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article to talk about the film's recent re-evaluation. I know what sources I will use - but I was wondering if my sources can all be primary sources - or whether I have to use a mix of primary and secondary. If I do have to mix, I would like to know why as I don't understand that. 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Please be aware of new users such as KatBet ( talk · contribs)[noping] pasting unattributed machine-translated content word for word from German, Italian, or other Wikipedias into the Plot section of film articles in violation of the attribution requirements at WP:Copying within Wikipedia (in particular, WP:TFOLWP). For further details, see User talk:KatBet#Please stop adding translated plot summaries without attribution. In addition, there is some concern that KatBet may be a sockpuppet of indeffed User:Oldhedge (see this discussion) and so may return as a new user under some other name. The pattern appears to be: adding paragraphs sequentially to the Plot section of a film article, one paragraph at a time, with paragraphs appearing from one to four minutes apart (as if passing them through DeepL or Google translate one paragraph at a time, and pasting the result into the Plot section).
Please remain vigilant about film articles, in particular German or Italian films from the 1950s and 1960s, and please examine any updates that hit your watchlist, especially when they are to Plot sections and look like they might have stiff, or "translated-sounding" content. If you do notice anything suspicious, please add a comment to the CCI noticeboard, where there is already an investigation request pending. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the rule from WP:FILMPLOT "Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the `cast` section" be followed rigorously, or not at all? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 16:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Pursuant to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Should "films by country" categories remain all-inclusive?, I noted as of today that there still hadn't been any move by anybody else toward getting a bot going on the task. So just an update that I've now posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Film categories, so hopefully this will get started soon. Bearcat ( talk) 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Lately, some edits to Gordy have introduced unsourced home media edits that may or may not be true. I have started a discussion at the talk page. Then for Ringing Bell, this article on the other hand seems to need a large amount of improvement. On it, some statements have recently been removed that were sourced to dead links or to the wrong source, but one of those statements was left in while the reference was removed. Some citations meanwhile are crudely filled, and they should be filled in properly. Finally, both articles are missing production sections, and they are only start-class articles at most (for the most part at least). Further help would be appreciated. 2600:1700:53F1:5560:D438:2B7E:AEF7:4F8 ( talk) 19:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hubli (film)#Requested move 4 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 15:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I want to edit the page for Forrest Gump to talk more about its perceived conservative politics. I was wondering if I can use this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfmIOWY6go . It's an incredibly well-researched video but am not sure if it counts as a reliable source. Could someone please tell me if it is nor not? 78.150.129.45 ( talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Jack Sparrow 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. BloatedBun ( talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin here, or where this should go for wikiprojects, but this list which seems to have been maintained by two authors, is quite possibly the loosest interpretation of "sports film" to begin with. I would go in and clean it but I know, from reading the history, that I would be accused of vandalism or OR. The various edits show an ongoing war over whether to include pokemon, as it is a blood sport with cockfighting, whether or not Titanic counts due to featuring a poker game, the top of the list is The Hunger Games linking to battle royale which is a historical concept and pro wrestling thing but has no connection to the film outside of the "battle royale" greater genre of murder/horror films and games.
Sports films seems to be the template for the article, but if the average person came to read this (and I am one) they would be left befuddled by the disconnect between what they understand a sports film to be and a film that includes sport. Forrest Gump, Gladiator (2000 film), Alita: Battle Angel and Casino Royale (2006 film). I don't know where to begin but this has been tagged for over two years and it's only gotten worse. –– Lid( Talk) 13:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1087653835, an IP editor added some rumors and announcements about planned sequels to a film. If we pruned it down to the parts that are well-sourced, it wouldn't really amount to much. But my question is how much of this is even relevant? Do we usually report casting announcements for planned sequels? It seems to me like you'd end up with a section similar to the current one, full of repetitive statements like "This was planned to happen, but it didn't. Then something else was planned to happen, but it didn't." NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a RFC concerning the lede for a recently released film on Kashmir. Comments are welcome. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there still a film project newsletter? Or was that stopped ages ago? Govvy ( talk) 08:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been doing some work at List of accolades received by CODA (2021 film), and I noticed that a lot of awards are sourced to AwardsWatch ( website) and/or Next Best Picture ( website). From my browsing over the last few months, I've noticed these sites are used a lot to cite other films' awards, particularly when it comes to recent films. Are these websites sufficient to establish an award's notability? I have no reason to doubt their reliability, which is why I'm not bringing this up at WP:RSN, but it seems they cover pretty much every award they can find, which, to me, means it's impossible to tell which awards should be taken seriously for our purposes. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 00:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability.Nardog ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm a new editor and recently added text to the Plot section of Flashback (2001). That version of the Plot section was later edited with the comment "Plot: Drastically shortened this section - per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries of films should be between 400-700 words, and this was around 1600 words." The pre-edit version is at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Flashback_(2021_film)&oldid=1088512007 and the post-edit version is at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Flashback_(2021_film)&oldid=1088594453 (The first paragraph of Plot pre-dates my edit.)
I read WP:FILMPLOT and am unclear on how handle plots. This film has a non-linear storyline involving time-travel. Here is guideline language from /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:FILMPLOT that I would like some help with.
"Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, ..."
"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines ..."
Being a new editor, I'd appreciate advice on whether the non-linear complexity of the plot in this film justifies the longer plot section, and if not, would it be appropriate to present the information about the individual episodes in an additional section, such as "themes". Thanks, Labbrla ( talk) 15:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
In the talk of the page about one-shot movies I am arguing that Rope should be removed from the list of the movies "edited to appear as "one shot"". My point is that the movie actually it's edited to appear has four long takes given that half if the cuts are clear and undisguised. I have given the time of these cuts in the universal bluray (00:19:55; 00:34:24; 00:51:57; 01:09:51) and the film's page itself points out the timing for the version used by the page editor. In my opinion this movie clearly it's edited to look like it has four long takes, not one, but at least two users do not agree so I'm asking here for other opinions. -- PedroPistolas ( talk) 09:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently not and I invite you to the talk page of the movie Talk:Rope_(film)#Reliability_of_sources-- PedroPistolas ( talk) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This unreliable source has been cited 600 times and and enough is enough. I've started a discussion about it at RSN because it can't be continued to cite unreal rumors on film pages which need to have factual information. RanDom 404 ( talk) 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion at RSN seems to have fizzled out with a whimper and no action taken. [13] I've made a few small efforts to remove unnecessary references to WeGotThisCovered.com and replace them with better sources where possible. I was wondering would it be any help if I used Template:Cite interview to make it clearer when the WeGotThisCovered.com is actually the original source of the interview? Is there any other way I might make it clearer or in some way indicate to other editors that someone has actually looked at a reference and tried to replace it but decided to leave well enough alone? Is heavy use of the tag {{ Better source needed}} the way to go? -- 109.78.201.203 ( talk) 22:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
On this page a large amount of categories "Films featuring character X" have been nominated for renaming or deletion. More input in these discussions is very welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on the List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Bullock article again, and found that she rec'd 2 noms at the 1996 edition of the above. Problem is, I can't find anything to confirm whether she won or not. Are there any editors around who might know, or can direct me to somewhere I can check? Can't fill in the appropriate template in 'Result' column otherwise. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 02:37, 25 May 2022 (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 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 84 |
If an official film poster does not have a billing block, or we supposed to add that version or a poster with a billing block? @ Iamnoahflores recently uploaded a new version of a poster for Godzilla vs. Kong (see the page history here) with a billing block when the official poster does not have a "full" billing block (see here). Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Madrigal family into Encanto (film). These articles are covered under the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion is located at: Talk:Encanto (film)#Merger proposal. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in the talk page of this article (
see here) regarding which dialect of English the article should use. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, —
Alpaca the Wizard (he/him) (
talk) (
contribs)
05:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC); struck 06:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Should the word "film" be linked in the lead? There are a number of IP users changing something like [[disaster film]] to [[disaster film|disaster]] film (take Moonfall for example). I am hesitant in reverting such edits because they do go along with WP:SEAOFBLUE. What do y'all think? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:FILM states that "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words." Since going on a film noir binge, I've noticed 45 film plot sections with word counts between 12-351 that have no template reflecting a need for expansion. I've also noticed 34 film plot sections with word counts between 704-1,004 that have no template reflecting the need to streamline. Should all these plot sections receive templates? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Looney Tunes Platinum Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article reads like an advertisement or press release, and has only one source for its 10.03-year history.
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. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fourthords (
talk •
contribs) 15:48, February 4, 2022 (UTC)
Input for this PR is welcomed. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a request to move Lesson of the Evil to Lesson of Evil. See the discussion here: Talk:Lesson of the Evil#Requested move 30 January 2022. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose § It is not clear that the reviews are from critics. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It is possible to make a link to imdb look like a wikilink, like Gillian Dobb (from Magnum,_P.I.#Recurring_characters) and Jonas Brothers: Live in London (from Jonas_Brothers#Television). A normal EL would look like Gillian Dobb.
All these uses [1] [2] may not be wrong, but I think these 2 examples clearly go against WP:EL, though in a sneaky way.
So my question is, is there any objection to remove linking like this on sight? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This [3] is the version I had written and this [4] is the output of User:KyleJoan's wholesale reversion. I am not convinced by said user's arguments, I believe there is a lack of compensation between the length of the film's first act (the mountain portion) and other scenes at the end, and I believe the plot as I had left it solved this and added material that was uncontroversial and useful to the plot.
I also think that some of the arguments presented by the other side of this discussion make no sense, e.g. removing the definition of Ennis' version of Jack's death as that of a homophobic murder. Of course he imagines a homophobic murder, otherwise why would he doubt Lureen's version of the events?
In a nutshell, I think the plot as it currently stands and the arguments used to defend its permanence seem to be indicative of people who did not understand this film. AnyDosMilVint ( talk) 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the "Starring" field in Template:Infobox film. The discussion can be seen here: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to ask about y'all opinions on List of most-watched Netflix original programming. This list is sourced primarily from Netflix's official website. Most readers could simply go there instead of this list, which is also the only list of its kind. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Saw Category:El Capitan Theatre premieres get added to an article I follow. Is this notable? I'm leaning towards no, but I wanted to get some other thoughts here before starting a CSD discussion. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls 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. GamerPro64 20:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I want to discuss the use of "Filmography" in a section heading because I do not believe we have had a clear-cut discussion about what that term means for Wikipedia's use. First, I think Wikipedia editors have interpreted "filmography" to include TV credits, and video game and even stage credits have been shoehorned under this label. (For example, see Andrew Garfield#Filmography having a "Theatre" subsection.) However, all real-world definitions of "filmography" indicate that it is supposed to be a list of films; the well-cited Wikipedia article for filmography covers this well. In addition, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Collins confirm this basic definition. I haven't come across any other definition that is broader than that. My sense is that Wikipedia's use of "Filmography" comes from IMDb, where actors' pages list their credits under "Filmography". IMDb used to be the Internet Movie Database, so their structuring seems to be a related leftover artifact of that past.
I'd like to encourage other editors to use other terms instead of "Filmography" when the person's background is in more than just film. I've noticed passerby editors' tendency to "correct" a different term back to "filmography", presumably because it is so prevalent across Wikipedia articles. Can we be open to accepting use of other terms? It could be "Credits", "Screen and stage", "List of performances", or some mixture of these and other possible words. I'd like others to share what they think and what should be considered in using this term or other terms. (Note: I started this discussion here and not at WT:ACTOR because it is more watched and because editors here are likely to have edited such sections. I'll put a notification there for this discussion.) Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a call for an experienced WikiProject Film editor to look in at Jackass Forever, for a possibly overdone plot summary. (It currently includes an in-section list of all of the film's stunts/gags.) Since I've never seen a plot summary that contained a comprehensive list of all of a movies scenes (the equivalent of the gags list), I though someone should look in on it. (It is also possible, given the very recent release date of the film, no Plot summary should yet appear, but instead a Premise section, as currently appears at other films.) Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:E05F:BFAD:304D:DDBC ( talk) 23:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that nearly every stunt/skit in the Jackass films, barring a few that last for only seconds, has its own dedicated title card, with unique titles; it's ridiculous to simply remove them all, even if they shouldn't be overly detailed, and we already have similar plot summaries for films like The Kentucky Fried Movie and Amazon Women on the Moon. 131.123.49.18 ( talk) 16:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I've recently opened two very similar discussions at Talk:Academy Award for Best Actress#Issues with OR and FLC status and Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Issues with OR and FLC status regarding the inclusion of supplementary lists with heavy levels of unsourced detail. I've done some more research to follow up, and there seem to be similar issues at Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, and (to a much lesser extent) Academy Award for Best Director (I won't open new discussions there to avoid confusion, and I'll probably note that one of the existing discussions should shift to the other). All five of these articles are FLs, so the original research issues are deeply problematic if they should maintain their status. Was there some kind of consensus to add these lists, and if so, why are they allowed to include so much unsourced detail? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 07:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOSFILM § Soundtrack track lists in film articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding Zombies (2018 film) and mention of the stylization Z-O-M-B-I-E-S in the opening sentence. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Zombies (2018 film)#Stylization and Hyphenating the title. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
So I thought that we already put this conversation to bed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_76#Netflix_films_are_Direct-to-video_films?, but apparently not. So we once again have to discuss if it is appropriate to label streaming films as "direct to streaming films" in actors infoboxes. Pinging IJBall, User:Masem, Erik, User:Orange Suede Sofa, Betty Logan, Emir of Wikipedia, BOVINEBOY, El Millo, Gonnym, Joeyconnick, User:Amaury
The phrase "direct-to-streaming" makes it seem like we're calling them direct to video. And direct to video used to be a meaningful descriptor about the quality and budget of the film, that's no longer the case with films made by streaming companies, and is completely misleading for us to try and compare them. Personally, I feel that there's no reason to label streaming films as anything in actor's filmography, but if it has to be labeled, then streaming film is fine as it's a completely accurate label that is not trying to give an impression about the quality of the film, one that might be completely inaccurate. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 04:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Film is a film imo, I don’t see a pertinent necessity to established whether it’s a streaming film or not. Netflix, Apple TV+, etc by and large wants their films to be in the discussion for mainstream accolades or festival recognition, so they’re still the same thing. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Not only has my opinion remained unchanged from the last time this was litigated, I feel even more strongly about it now. These labels no longer carry enough meaning to be encyclopedic. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Category:Fantastic Fest alumni could use input from this project's participants. Thanks. Nardog ( talk) 08:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Freaking old film box offices man. Bane of my existence. Almost worse than critical reception sections. Can anyone please provide me with a source for Terminator 2's international figure and where it places it ranking-wise? BOM says 312 million or so which is fine and it's undoubtedly the highest-grossing film OUTSIDE of the US and Canada but I can't source it, anything I find either talk about the North American BO or the Worldwide BO. BOMs worldwide ranking doesn't include foreign figures for the year and The Numbers includes every release ever, so Beauty and the Beast shows up as the highest-grossing film of the year despite having earned 90% of its money outside of 1991. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! There is a proposal for a sorely needed rewrite of that article. Since the article doesn't have a lot of editors looking at it generally speaking and the article itself has been, ah, contentious (to say the least) in the past, I'm requesting experienced editors to participate in the discussion or help keep an eye on the article as it undergoes significant changes.
Currently, there is talk about renaming the article to List of banned films in the People's Republic of China, restrict the article to post-1949 (with possible splits), and creating definitions for the scope. As this is a lot of proposed changes for what is currently two editors, additional help or eyes would be very much appreciated. Please see the discussion at: Talk:Film censorship in China#Preparation of Rewriting. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thank you. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. And maybe there's a better way to split the lists, rather than the random 2005 cut-off (maybe by decade?) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The Abduction of Jennifer Grayson a 2017 film, should have a wikipedia page. 74.89.212.125 ( talk) 05:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Now that most major studios seem to have pulled their current movie releases from Russia due to current events, I have seen several editors adding this to individual film articles. It doesn't seem to me to necessarily be something that we should note for every film (especially when we are generally talking about U.S. films that should have limited discussion about release in other markets), but I was wondering if anyone feels strongly otherwise. - adamstom97 ( talk) 06:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of 3D films (2005 onwards)#Requested move 27 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether or not to list the film Nomadland under List of Star (Disney+) original programming. See the discussion here: Talk:List of Star (Disney+) original programming#Should Nomadland be a Star Original or just even be included on this list? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it legitimate to use AllMovie as a source in the Reviews section of a movie's article? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hotstar#Requested move 2 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC), Adding WP Film to this. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Per previous discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_79#Masking_imdb_links_as_wikilinks, @ Michael D. Turnbull and myself have removed those we found on, I think, about 2000 pages, using these searchstrings: [6] [7]. There's probably editors who like to use them around.
I made an addition at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, see [8]. It's a little off-topic, but may be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Are there general thoughts on whether (director)
is sufficient disambiguation? It seems like it could be ambiguous with the general title "director" for multiple different disciplines. Checking various categories, it seems like there is a mix of both (director)
and (film director)
, but I think it looks like there are slightly more (director)
pages. -
2pou (
talk)
20:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Walter 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.
— Mahāgaja · talk 12:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gehraiyaan (film)#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NW1223 <Howl at me• My hunts> 23:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Author's Film Company#Requested move 13 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello everybody, usually I contribute to the german version of WP. Within our own film-related project pages we discussed to include an article about They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?, as it is a much-cited rating platform for films, many of us use as a resource, kind of like IMDb. To my surprise there was no english version, even though it is also a much-cited source. As I wrote the article about TSPDT, I would like to provide an english version - unless the reason why you don't have it, is that you decided against it. What I wrote includes the problematic aspects - such as favouring certain sources (like Sight & Sound) and the effect this has on the overall rating. Even though I'm actually a translator, I would be happy, if a native speaker, who is familiar with the subject could volunteer to be my proofreader. You don't need to know any German of course, I'm just including the link as a reference:
They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?
Greetings from Leipzig Llydia ( talk) 09:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
There is discussion on the talk pages of Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster and Talk:Mothra vs. Godzilla about the extra credits for crew within the article. If anyone could weigh in on these details, it would help a lot. Thank you! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
On January 14 2022, I posted to this talk page with a section entitled "Defining a film noir." I pointed out a RS had called the movie When Strangers Marry a film noir, although its Wikipedia article simply defined it as "a 1950 American suspense film". The reply from editor Facu-el Millo was:
Per WP:FILMGENRE, 'Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources", so just one reliable source isn't enough to justify including in the lead section, you need to show it is generally refered to as a film noir.
The issue came up again last night, when I saw that TCM's Noir Alley had featured the movie Guilty Bystander (originally broadcast on July 4 2021, Intro and Outro available on You Tube). The movie's Wikipedia article described it simply as "a 1950 American crime drama" in the lead section. Noir Alley may not be a RS, but I found the movie referred to as a film noir in several other places:
1) the AFI catalog
2) an AllMovie review by Bruce Eder
3) a Rotten Tomatoes review by Dennis Schwartz
4) the website at www.bynwr.com
5) in the Film Noir section at Internet Archive's Moving Image Archive
6) in the Guardian newspaper, "Lockdown Watch" by Nicolas Winding Refn (May 29, 2020)
7) in The Dark Page II: Books that Inspired American Film Noir (1950-1965) by Kevin Johnson, Oak Knoll Press, New Castle DE 2009, page 202
8) in Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style ed. by Alain Silver et al., Overlook Press, Woodstock NY 1992, page 115
9) in A Film Noir Guide: 745 Films of the Classic Era, 1940-1959 by Michael F. Keaney, McFarland & Company Inc., Jefferson NC, 2003, p. 172
(All three books are available for free at the Internet Archive.)
Is this enough to add "film noir" to Guilty Bystander's lead section? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 07:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
2020 American satirical comedy spy film" would turn into
"2020 American comedy film ... (a sentence or two later) It is a satirical take on spy films." That way, people can still have their cruft in the lead, but it stays outside of the opening sentence, which is sometimes unreadable an unreadable mess in film articles. For whatever reason, the opening sentence in video game and television articles are almost always much easier to parse and read. Plus, I think this might be less contentious with other editors, too, because you're not explicitly labeling the film as "X genre" in the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, please comment on Talk:List of films based on DC Comics publications#Theatrically released films Subheading regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_films_based_on_DC_Comics_publications&type=revision&diff=1078442456&oldid=1078397531. I gave section without subheading a subheading so clearer in TOC there's content, and made what appears as sub-heading a sub-heading. User 86 10 25 197 ( talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 15 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The templates {{ Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{ MC film}} have been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Review aggregator prose templates. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I would like to propose correcting the name of the Writer Akshat Saluja, his full name is Akshat R Saluja Also there are many articles available to be added in the wiki article.such as below.
https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/entertainment/2022/03/10/ent5-cinema-kapur.html https://theprint.in/features/aditya-roy-kapurs-om-the-battle-within-to-hit-theatres-in-july/866752/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatrsaluja ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The description has factually incorrect information regarding the aftermath of Sergio's death. Specifically this line - "Later, the US pulls out of Iraq leading to a long Civil War, but"
This needs to be corrected. The UN pulled out of Iraq after the bombing and deaths of Sergio and other UN workers.
The "civil war" was started by Al Queda bombings and began during US time and followed by ISIS. You cant really call it a true civil war, and the US did not pull out leading to it - so whoemver wrote this was smoking something funny or got their info only from the movies final credits scenes and twisted it around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.211.151 ( talk) 22:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
If a director criticizes a part of their film while on a press tour, is that relevant to include in an article? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Do other editors consider it erroneous to describe documentaries as having a "plot"? I'm wondering if I should change the section header to "Synopsis" or "Summary" for all such articles, since "plot" seems to me to connote fiction. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I posted an RfC entitled "Removing actors' names from plot summaries" to this page on February 5. The last comment was on February 9. I see now that the entire discussion has been archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, topic # 7, with no formal closure or consensus being determined. How do I get a consensus on this topic? The reason I started the RfC was because an editor had reverted a bunch of my edits, against an informal consensus on the talk page. I figure I need a formal consensus to get the reverts reinstated (and to know how to proceed in the future). What should I do? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 07:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
User:HM2021 keeps adding unsourced information about the Amazon-MGM merger. I've already told them about it but they keep doing it. The most recent example was on 30 March (see Special:Diff/1080201522). Also, they seem to be using IMDb as a source. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 01:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gunga Jumna#Requested move 24 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The project has long had an established practice of deeming each country's basic "[Country] films" category to be "all-inclusive", meaning that it had to directly include all films from that country even if they were otherwise extensively subcategorized by genre or other characteristics. However, I wanted to ask for some opinions about whether it should stay that way or not.
Going back to the original establishment of that practice, it's not at all clear that there was actually an overwhelmingly large discussion — rather, it seems to have been a relatively small discussion, led by an editor who was on an active campaign to have Wikipedia make all categories all-inclusive across the board. There weren't really compelling reasons given for why WikiProject Film had special needs in this regard that were different from other category trees — the rationale essentially seemed to boil down to "we should do it this way because every category should always be this way", but the editor tried in other projects as well and mostly failed to convince them, with Film being about the only WikiProject where he succeeded in imposing his view.
Now, fifteen years ago it wasn't really the end of the world: nearly all countries only had a few hundred film articles at most — but in 2022, a considerable number of the categories are now too large and in dire need of diffusion, because they far exceed the size at which a category in almost any other category tree would be deemed to need subcategorization on size management grounds. As of right now, Argentina has 1,907 films; Australia has 2,635; Britain has 11,802; Canada has 5,154; China has 1,580; France has 7,821; Germany has 4,715; Hong Kong has 1,931; India has 22,599; Italy has 6,767; Japan has 4,246; Mexico has 1,626; Russia has 1,223; the Soviet Union has 1,924; Spain has 2,180; and Sweden has 1,112.
And then there's the United States, with 57,542 — which is so large that even the basic task of ensuring that films from the subcategories are actually included in the parent category is literally impossible to look after. In any of the other categories, I can easily do a list comparison in AWB between the base Country films category and a Country genre films subcategory to ensure that all of the subcategory's films are appropriately categorized in the parent — but for the US I can't do that because the list comparer cuts off at 25,000, which literally only gets me to the letter I and renders everything from J through Z unbatchable.
So my question is, are there genuinely important reasons why we should keep the base Country films categories all-inclusive, or should we abandon that rule so that the categories can be better managed for size? Bearcat ( talk) 17:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
|language=
. If consensus is reached to diffuse that, we'd have to adjust the infobox coding, which likely would result in a massive drop in articles in the categories. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Bearcat, do you plan to act on this consensus? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Per title Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Is Eddie Muller a RS when he is hosting TCM's Noir Alley? His Wikipedia article says "Muller is considered a noir expert..", though no direct reference is given for this statement. He is the founder and President of the Film Noir Foundation, and is co-programmer of the San Francisco film festival. He writes commentaries for Fox's film noir series, and has written seven books about the cinema, although the only academic qualifications given are "Muller studied with filmmaker George Kuchar at the San Francisco Art Institute in the late 1990s". His profile at TCM also adds he curates museums, and "he has been instrumental in preserving America's noir heritage, which to date has included restoring and preserving more than 30 nearly lost classics in partnership with the UCLA Film and Television Archive." He has lectured on film noir at the Cinematheque Francaise in Paris, the Museum of Madern Art in New York, and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 19:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
If editors aren't aware, Rotten Tomatoes data can be used in articles from Wikidata with {{ RT data}}. It's pretty nifty and an overall positive in my view of switching that info over to Wikidata. However, Indagate has been going around changing articles of currently releasing films ( Morbius (film)) or those recently released in the last year (such as Ghostbusters: Afterlife) to use the template and Wikidata info. I have taken issue to this (and other editors have also reverted them), because Rotten Tomatoes is so volatile and in flux after a films initial release, and even up to a year after, that we shouldn't be sending editors to Wikidata to make such adjustments. I'm wondering if wording needs to be implemented (in MOS:FILM#Critical reception maybe?) to help curb this if others agree. I'm thinking the following:
Rotten Tomatoes information may be integrated to Wikidata with the template {{ Rotten Tomatoes data}}. This may be beneficial for films part of a franchise that list the information on multiple articles. For new or currently releasing films, changes in articles and tables to the template to access the information from Wikidata should not be done until at least 12-18 months following a film's wide release, given the constant fluctuation that can occur with a film's score. Additional information regarding setting up a film's Wikidata entry to house Rotten Tomatoes information can be found in the template documentation.
I've used may be
in the first sentence because even though this option exists, an article doesn't need to change over, and if the change is reverted, it shouldn't result in an edit war regarding it. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
we shouldn't be sending editors to Wikidata to make such adjustmentsWhy not? Editing on Wikidata is pretty user-friendly, arguably more so than on Wikipedia. The only possible hindrance is to learn that that's where the data is pulled from ( Notacardoor briefly put {{ EditAtWikidata}} in references with RottenBot at my suggestion but he changed his mind after one person complained). But that doesn't seem too big of a problem if who you're dealing with are regular editors (we could also add invisible comments pointing to Wikidata).
may beshould be used in MoS as think the template should be used wherever the data is in WP as bot wouldn't be able to update without it and data more likely to become inaccurate. Prose can be up to individual editors, but don't think the numbers should be. Think
12-18 monthsin MoS would create ambiguity, should have one number so clear. Indagate ( talk) 11:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Fram: has argued there isn't consensus for using Wikidata in this way regardless of time at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Indagate&diff=prev&oldid=1080923256 Indagate ( talk) 10:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Using Wikidata templates in the mainspace goes against current consensus, see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Inserting Wikidata values into Wikipedia articles. The info on Wikidata is often outdated, and people checking for vandalism here will not see vandalism on Wikidata. I see above that most people feel it shouldn't be used for "current" movies (good), but that it could be used for older ones. In many cases, this simply means replacing correct RT figures here, with a template from Wikidata which may have the same figures, or even outdated ones. I was reverting the addition of this template from many articles for these reasons, and was pointed to this discussion. See e.g. this, where the Wikidata data was identical to the already present ones, or this, which changed the March 2022 data to October 2021 data by using the Wikidata template. Please keep this stuff local, and at worst substitute the more recent figures into our articles if you are reasonably certain that the Wikidata ones are reliable and more recent. Fram ( talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, please see and respond Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#RfC:_PostTrak Indagate ( talk) 13:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
People don't "serve as director" or "serve as producer". They direct or produce a film. You wouldn't say "Saoirse Ronan serves as an actor", would you? Then don't say "Jason Blum serves as a producer". Jason Blum produced the film, not served as producer. This bizarrely verbose bit of
journalese seems to be imported from
Variety. Variety is a great source, but their tone is completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. The last thing we need are a bunch of people adding content to Wikipedia about "a new shingle on the Universal lot", "actioners that are tops with auds", and for every film to be described as some kind of "romp" (go ahead, do a google search of "romp" site:variety.com
– "exuberant romp", "regal romp", "energetic romp", and the Coen Brothers get "a gorgeously crafted romp").
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Toxic Avenger (2022 film)#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I often browse lists of films or filmographies of directors and actors, and for a lot of the films released prior to the 1930s, sadly quite a few of them are lost or are presumed to be lost. Some are being found even to this day, thankfully. But still, browsing these lists I think it's necessary to somehow highlight which films are considered lost, so as to differentiate them from those films on the list that we actually have the ability to view currently. See a trial attempt here: List of animated feature films before 1940. Would be nice if editors carried this over to other lists they edit or happen upon. Jmj713 ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the addition of the sequel to the lead section of the Ready Player One article. The discussion is at Talk:Ready Player One (film)#Sequel. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 08:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've had a discussion with users on the talk page for Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, but I feel like we should discuss it here as we've reached a stand-still and need to figure out where we should stand with this. there was a brief dicussion on this topic in 2017, but I feel we should address it again. Should we or should we not include a further section for crew in film articles? If so, when should they be included and to what extent? If not, why not (as we have a cast section?). Personally, I feel like crew sections would go against WP:TRIVIA which states "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." and "Research may be necessary to give each fact some context". A list of excessive crew members without context of what they have done in the production (opposed to a cast section, which is far more obvious to a general audience), does not help the average reader. Per WP:FILMPRODUCTION, which states, " Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process." I feel adding a list of crew members ranging from assistants to a director or special effects lighting are trivial unless you can provide context on how the individuals work contributed specifically to the production and how these individuals contributed. (i.e: even if we can't gather much into what a specific producer on a film did, it warrants an inclusion in the infobox as it's one of the most primarily contributors to the production of the film while a "special effects assistant director" is not, unless you can provide context on how it noteworthy. I'm not against going into detail on special effects artists on heavy special effects laden films (Godzilla films, Marvel movies, etc.) but I feel like that information can be provided without going into specifics in the prose which actually helps readers understand why you should know why an Eiji Tsuburaya is an important figure for a Godzilla production. I look forward to anyone else's thoughts on this. Thanks! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 06:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn’t apply here either because WP:PERSONNEL supports adding the same “indiscriminate” crew list for albums. So why not for films as well? But like I said above, a consensus has already been established in 2018 in favor of crew lists. It doesn’t make sense to have another consensus every time someone doesn’t like this/that, despite an established consensus. Armegon ( talk) 15:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey everyone at WP Film, There is a new Wikiproject proposal for 20th Century Studios. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/20th Century Studios) So if you are interested in joining please say so in the proposal, so we can see if there will be enough member to start a project. ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 20:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Diary of a Camper 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing content dispute at Morbius (film) regarding how to summarize the critical reception for the film. Please see Talk:Morbius (film)#"Leto and Smith's performances were praised". Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention by
this edit that the website Soundtrack Geek, which formerly published reviews for film soundtracks, is now a website on sex-related topics. So, for all of the articles listed
here, any links to Soundtrack Geek needs to be archived, have their URL statuses changed to url-status=dead
, or removed outright.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
15:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested in the following discussions:
Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I've created a new stub called Everything's Gonna Be All White. I've added 9 references to the article and have added the infobox as well as the overview, cast, episodes and reception sections, but the article still needs some work like expanding and the episode list reformatted to the correct format. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion regarding Japan's involvement in Legendary Pictures' Godzilla franchise. It can be found at Talk:Godzilla (2014 film)#Japan. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Indagate has created a CinemaScore template and is mass adding it to articles with an archive of the main CinemaScore page with its search bar alone. Looking at the page code it's just calling on an external database which to me means it isn't a proper archive since if the site, code, or database dies, there's no longer an archive. The archive as it is, is no different than going directly to CinemaScore.com. It wouldn't be an issue except the user is removing existing archives that definitively contain the info to add in this blank archive like this one which is a hard copy list of tonnes of cinemascores that will withstand any future changes to the actual CinemaScore site. Can I get some opinions please as the user and I disagree. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Related, I've nominated {{ Cite CinemaScore}} for deletion here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
|website=
makes little sense because the website is already the very thing that's being cited, so I put it in |publisher=
.
Nardog (
talk)
10:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
|work=
(which |website=
is an alias for) means is "the thing I'm citing is part of this larger work", e.g. the journal for an academic paper, the newspaper for a news article. That could not apply when the thing you're citing and the website are the same thing. And of course the company CinemaScore is the publisher of the website CinemaScore.
Nardog (
talk)
11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
|website=
or |work=
. —
El Millo (
talk)
17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
|website=
, which is for the name of the work containing the source. The website CinemaScore is not the work containing the source; it's the source itself. Nardog ( talk) 02:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Notification that Category:War drama films and its sub-categories are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_28#Category:War_drama_films. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Citizen Kane#Reception in lead where there is a dispute over how the film's critical standing should be characterized. 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I am updating the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article to talk about the film's recent re-evaluation. I know what sources I will use - but I was wondering if my sources can all be primary sources - or whether I have to use a mix of primary and secondary. If I do have to mix, I would like to know why as I don't understand that. 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Please be aware of new users such as KatBet ( talk · contribs)[noping] pasting unattributed machine-translated content word for word from German, Italian, or other Wikipedias into the Plot section of film articles in violation of the attribution requirements at WP:Copying within Wikipedia (in particular, WP:TFOLWP). For further details, see User talk:KatBet#Please stop adding translated plot summaries without attribution. In addition, there is some concern that KatBet may be a sockpuppet of indeffed User:Oldhedge (see this discussion) and so may return as a new user under some other name. The pattern appears to be: adding paragraphs sequentially to the Plot section of a film article, one paragraph at a time, with paragraphs appearing from one to four minutes apart (as if passing them through DeepL or Google translate one paragraph at a time, and pasting the result into the Plot section).
Please remain vigilant about film articles, in particular German or Italian films from the 1950s and 1960s, and please examine any updates that hit your watchlist, especially when they are to Plot sections and look like they might have stiff, or "translated-sounding" content. If you do notice anything suspicious, please add a comment to the CCI noticeboard, where there is already an investigation request pending. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the rule from WP:FILMPLOT "Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the `cast` section" be followed rigorously, or not at all? -- Pete Best Beatles ( talk) 16:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Pursuant to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Should "films by country" categories remain all-inclusive?, I noted as of today that there still hadn't been any move by anybody else toward getting a bot going on the task. So just an update that I've now posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Film categories, so hopefully this will get started soon. Bearcat ( talk) 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Lately, some edits to Gordy have introduced unsourced home media edits that may or may not be true. I have started a discussion at the talk page. Then for Ringing Bell, this article on the other hand seems to need a large amount of improvement. On it, some statements have recently been removed that were sourced to dead links or to the wrong source, but one of those statements was left in while the reference was removed. Some citations meanwhile are crudely filled, and they should be filled in properly. Finally, both articles are missing production sections, and they are only start-class articles at most (for the most part at least). Further help would be appreciated. 2600:1700:53F1:5560:D438:2B7E:AEF7:4F8 ( talk) 19:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hubli (film)#Requested move 4 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 15:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I want to edit the page for Forrest Gump to talk more about its perceived conservative politics. I was wondering if I can use this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfmIOWY6go . It's an incredibly well-researched video but am not sure if it counts as a reliable source. Could someone please tell me if it is nor not? 78.150.129.45 ( talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Jack Sparrow 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. BloatedBun ( talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin here, or where this should go for wikiprojects, but this list which seems to have been maintained by two authors, is quite possibly the loosest interpretation of "sports film" to begin with. I would go in and clean it but I know, from reading the history, that I would be accused of vandalism or OR. The various edits show an ongoing war over whether to include pokemon, as it is a blood sport with cockfighting, whether or not Titanic counts due to featuring a poker game, the top of the list is The Hunger Games linking to battle royale which is a historical concept and pro wrestling thing but has no connection to the film outside of the "battle royale" greater genre of murder/horror films and games.
Sports films seems to be the template for the article, but if the average person came to read this (and I am one) they would be left befuddled by the disconnect between what they understand a sports film to be and a film that includes sport. Forrest Gump, Gladiator (2000 film), Alita: Battle Angel and Casino Royale (2006 film). I don't know where to begin but this has been tagged for over two years and it's only gotten worse. –– Lid( Talk) 13:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1087653835, an IP editor added some rumors and announcements about planned sequels to a film. If we pruned it down to the parts that are well-sourced, it wouldn't really amount to much. But my question is how much of this is even relevant? Do we usually report casting announcements for planned sequels? It seems to me like you'd end up with a section similar to the current one, full of repetitive statements like "This was planned to happen, but it didn't. Then something else was planned to happen, but it didn't." NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a RFC concerning the lede for a recently released film on Kashmir. Comments are welcome. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there still a film project newsletter? Or was that stopped ages ago? Govvy ( talk) 08:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been doing some work at List of accolades received by CODA (2021 film), and I noticed that a lot of awards are sourced to AwardsWatch ( website) and/or Next Best Picture ( website). From my browsing over the last few months, I've noticed these sites are used a lot to cite other films' awards, particularly when it comes to recent films. Are these websites sufficient to establish an award's notability? I have no reason to doubt their reliability, which is why I'm not bringing this up at WP:RSN, but it seems they cover pretty much every award they can find, which, to me, means it's impossible to tell which awards should be taken seriously for our purposes. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 00:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability.Nardog ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm a new editor and recently added text to the Plot section of Flashback (2001). That version of the Plot section was later edited with the comment "Plot: Drastically shortened this section - per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries of films should be between 400-700 words, and this was around 1600 words." The pre-edit version is at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Flashback_(2021_film)&oldid=1088512007 and the post-edit version is at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Flashback_(2021_film)&oldid=1088594453 (The first paragraph of Plot pre-dates my edit.)
I read WP:FILMPLOT and am unclear on how handle plots. This film has a non-linear storyline involving time-travel. Here is guideline language from /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:FILMPLOT that I would like some help with.
"Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, ..."
"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines ..."
Being a new editor, I'd appreciate advice on whether the non-linear complexity of the plot in this film justifies the longer plot section, and if not, would it be appropriate to present the information about the individual episodes in an additional section, such as "themes". Thanks, Labbrla ( talk) 15:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
In the talk of the page about one-shot movies I am arguing that Rope should be removed from the list of the movies "edited to appear as "one shot"". My point is that the movie actually it's edited to appear has four long takes given that half if the cuts are clear and undisguised. I have given the time of these cuts in the universal bluray (00:19:55; 00:34:24; 00:51:57; 01:09:51) and the film's page itself points out the timing for the version used by the page editor. In my opinion this movie clearly it's edited to look like it has four long takes, not one, but at least two users do not agree so I'm asking here for other opinions. -- PedroPistolas ( talk) 09:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently not and I invite you to the talk page of the movie Talk:Rope_(film)#Reliability_of_sources-- PedroPistolas ( talk) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This unreliable source has been cited 600 times and and enough is enough. I've started a discussion about it at RSN because it can't be continued to cite unreal rumors on film pages which need to have factual information. RanDom 404 ( talk) 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion at RSN seems to have fizzled out with a whimper and no action taken. [13] I've made a few small efforts to remove unnecessary references to WeGotThisCovered.com and replace them with better sources where possible. I was wondering would it be any help if I used Template:Cite interview to make it clearer when the WeGotThisCovered.com is actually the original source of the interview? Is there any other way I might make it clearer or in some way indicate to other editors that someone has actually looked at a reference and tried to replace it but decided to leave well enough alone? Is heavy use of the tag {{ Better source needed}} the way to go? -- 109.78.201.203 ( talk) 22:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
On this page a large amount of categories "Films featuring character X" have been nominated for renaming or deletion. More input in these discussions is very welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on the List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Bullock article again, and found that she rec'd 2 noms at the 1996 edition of the above. Problem is, I can't find anything to confirm whether she won or not. Are there any editors around who might know, or can direct me to somewhere I can check? Can't fill in the appropriate template in 'Result' column otherwise. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 02:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)