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 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 84 |
In the infobox of Under Siege, Niteshift36 and I are having a disagreement about adding Erika Eleniak in the infobox, despite not being in the poster's billing board. Also, in the beginning credits of that movie, Gary Busey is above Eleniak, despite Niteshift36 putting her above Busey in the infobox. BattleshipMan ( talk) 14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
If anyone here knows how to up-load films for Wikipedia articles, would you look at doing it for The Tramp and the Dog. The film is from 1886. It was discovered last year in the Norway National Library and There are now several copies on You Tube [1]. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Please participate in this RFC. You comment is really needed there. Itcouldbepossible Talk 06:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
A user claimed that there is bias in the section Decline in popularity in an article about the erotic thriller film genre. The user has not been able to show how/why it is biased or explain what viewpoints are not being represented. That section exists to merely explain why the erotic thriller film is not as popular as it used to be in the heyday of box office hits such as Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, Disclosure (1994 film), etc. It also cites reliable sources that give reasonable reasons for the genre’s decline. I know I should discuss this on the article talk page, but the discussion may devolve into circular logic like arguments about “what counts as feminism” or something that has nothing to do with the actual matter at hand, which is that the erotic thriller genre peaked in the 1980s and early 1990s, and though it is still talked about today it is not as profitable or ubiquitous as it once was. Spectrallights ( talk) 12:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diary of a Camper/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I created A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell and multiple reliable sources such as this one verify that the film showed at the 1990 Cannes Film Festival. The article about the film festival mentions films that were nominated for awards, but I don't see the film mentioned there. Was I wrong to think that all films at the Cannes Film Festival are up for awards? SL93 ( talk) 00:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There is somewhat of a disagreement about the cast section format of Jurassic World Dominion. The InfiniteNexus has changed the cast format to this format and explained his reasons on the article's talk place in section Cast Order, which I don't entirely agree with because some of these actors had their names on the previous teaser poster for one. Secondly, InfiniteNexus's format has placed some actors who are notable in the Jurassic World trilogy, (Isabella Sermon, Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda) in the Additionally part of the list, which is not very subtle and appropriate for the actors who appeared in two of Jurassic World films. So I edited to this order, placing the names of Sermon, Campbell Scott, Smith, Scott Haze, Dichen Lachman and Pineda on the row list while leaving the rest in the addionally list, but InfiniteNexus reverted that edit. See what you think? BattleshipMan ( talk) 01:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Draft:Atanu Raychaudhuri and he has a number of films where he is credited as "Presented by: (name)" or "(name) presents..." but this is different from a television host or television presenter. Should these be renamed to Producer as this is more of a producer's role in the film, or just left as Presenter and explained with some notes? Any suggestions? It's kind of like: "A Spike Lee joint" Also, how should he or others be listed in infobox film? AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Just a heads-up that following this discussion a WP:BOTREQ was created to remove all the parent country categories ( example). Get ready for your watchlists to creak! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Can we have a separate article about box office admissions of animated films? NextEditor123 ( talk) 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that this dispute should be included in this talk page as it allows to discuss with others rather than by ourselves. Otherwise, we will never solve this dispute. NextEditor123 ( talk) 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for List of animated films by box office admissions. NextEditor123 ( talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
As per the header – is the TCM Movie Database gone?
A Google search only turns up the base TCM.com site. I think the database may be gone.
If so, the templates {{ TCMDb name}} and {{ TCMDb title}} need to go. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The film is basically called Deja Vu, I am not sure, but the current title seems wrong and it needs moving to a more correct title? Govvy ( talk) 15:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
A new discussion about user-generated scores is underway. Please weigh in at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#User Generated Content. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Do films count as "direct-to-video" if they were released on VOD and in theaters on the same day? A person in Georgia ( talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Morbius (film)#Paul Tassi on whether Forbes contributor pieces can be used as reviews despite being an unreliable self-published source per WP:FORBESCON. Please add your thoughts there so we can reach a consensus. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So I've seen here and there film articles that cite the American Film Institute (AFI), but I find that they can often be incorrect, whether it's incorrect production company name (ex. for Hulk they put Marvel Studios instead of Marvel Enterprises) or not putting all the studios, to even adding other crew members who were not credited in the final film. It just makes me question whether we should still use them as a source. Iamnoahflores ( talk) 23:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) has received two "Satisfactory" notations at WP:URFA/2020A and we are looking for a third reviewer to ensure this article still meets the FA criteria. Can someone review the URFA/2020 instructions and make a notation indicating if it still meets the FA standards? Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks, Z1720 ( talk) 16:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on using template to ref awards at Template talk:Awards ref please Indagate ( talk) 17:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not around much anymore so I missed this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Should "films by country" categories remain all-inclusive?. First off I agree with its conclusion. I've noticed that removal of the category has begun and congrats to the enterprising editors doing the work. My suggestion/question is shouldn't there be updates to the parts of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film that this consensus has impacted? Especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization. I think it will help both veteran and new editors to have things spelled out. If I'm wrong than no worries. Regards to all. MarnetteD| Talk 00:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Per title Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Could somebody with better access to decade-old US media coverage than I've got do a bit of research into the documentary film My Nappy Roots: A Journey Through Black Hair-itage? In its current state, our article is making three different claims about its release year -- 2008 in the introduction, 2009 according to the infobox, and separate categories for both 2009 and 2005 -- and IMDb claims 2010, while AllMovie claims 2006, so even those aren't much help. Obviously our article needs to be accurate and consistent, so it would be helpful if somebody with the right tools to solve it could look into this. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, film fans.
I was just checking out 1977 in film and felt compelled by force of habit to change the "Notable films released in 1977" section into a "Notable releases" section. It's not a strange compulsion or habit, it's based on a true guideline. But I then noticed the same standard style in a few other arbitrary film years, leading me to suspect there are about 140 of these lengthy headers, probably on purpose.
I'm sure we can agree one centralized discussion beats even five petty and scattered squabbles. Beyond that, I don't know what we agree on, so I'm asking. Is the 1977 reference obvious in context? Does the same apply to an explicitly reiterated "film"? Should we tackle this problem (if it is a problem) as a team, everywhere, for all time?
Anyway, no pressure. I've had some pretty strong feelings about this whole editing genre in the past (check my summary history for "implied"), but I'm old now and wise enough to know my place where local consensus rules. Feel free to pass on even considering this proposal, if that's the way it is. But, of course, any show of cooperation is also quite welcome.
Sincerely, InedibleHulk ( talk) 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
For anyone who'd like to weigh in, there is a discussion about "widespread critical acclaim" being used to describe Top Gun: Maverick. See Talk:Top Gun: Maverick#Widespread critical acclaim. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm in the right place. Where is the place to start a discussion of NPOV and balance between audience ratings/polls reviews vs positive/negative reviews from critics? --
Valjean (
talk) (
PING me)
18:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK, the decision of which film reviews to mention is entirely subjective. If there are guidelines, please point me to them.
Film reviews that are very far removed from the audience reception should be discounted as fringe views and statistical outliers that should not be mentioned. That doesn't mean they don't make any good points, but using them too much, and using reviews more in harmony with the audience reception too little, creates an unbalance that violates NPOV. We should use a balance of positive and negative reviews that is more in harmony with the audience reception.
I realize that my assumption that critics' reviews and audience reception should be tied to each other in this equation may not be entirely valid, but I'd like to explore this possibility. Let's discuss this and see if some guidelines can be established to address principles to follow in this area. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
As previously notified, the "war drama" category hierarchy has been nominated for merging to war films. There was a unanimous precedent last year to merge Western dramas to Westerns. So far two editors have opposed this nomination, but since then three have supported it. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Category:War drama films. – Fayenatic London 07:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Anyone wants to participate in writing a new article, Open movie database, which is currently in my sandbox? I'm glad to see any contribution. Later we can move in into the main pagespace. -- Alexey Vazhnov ( talk) Alexey Vazhnov ( talk) 19:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed a majority of streaming films list the streaming service as the distributors but this isn't accurate. They're just services, not actual distributors; think of it like they were brought TO, not brought FROM. I propose we make the following changes to these streaming films:
Feel free to express your thoughts. Iamnoahflores ( talk) 18:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Pursuant to the past discussions around removing "Country films" categories from films that were already subcategorized, the bot that was working on this now seems to largely be done -- although I have caught a few stray pages (most commonly but not exclusively redirects) that got missed for one reason or another, virtually everything that's still in the base categories is the stuff that was always going to need human editor attention anyway, because either the film hadn't been fully subcategorized in the first place or the genre subcategories for that country don't even exist at all yet.
So if anybody's willing to help out, it's time for real humans to start cleaning up the leftovers. Bearcat ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Somebody has been adding them to the main list of lost films. I was going to move them to the appropriate half-decade sublists, but then I saw that one of the sources states "All films produced in the Philippines during the silent era, from 1912 to 1932, were believed to have been lost or destroyed". [2] So that makes things difficult. I am toying with the idea of moving them to List of silent Filipino films and then linking that to the sublists instead. Comments? Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested to know that this month Women in Red is focusing on Comedians, many of whom are associated with the cinema. Please feel free to join in.-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As a follow up to User talk:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist/Archive 7#Film category removal, the following pages need to be added to appropriate subcategories of Category:American films
I started by adding 75 pages from the same set to the parent category, thinking there would be just a few stragglers that could be caught the normal way, but when I realized how many there were I decided a post here was better than making 400 busywork edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I will acknowledge that there are probably going to be some cases where a film that wasn't actually "American" at all had been miscategorized as such. In my own cleanup efforts, I have caught instances where a film had been categorized as "Nationality films" for a country that was not named in the introduction or the infobox at all — in which case I checked the film's IMDb profile, and found that sometimes the category was supported over there and thus just needed to be added to the text, while other times it was still not supported there either, and thus needed to have the category removed outright. This wasn't only in the United States, for the record, but happened in several other countries as well.
I think there's probably a mix of reasons why this might have happened; in some cases the only basis for the category I could guess at was that maybe the film had been screened at a film festival in the mystery country, and was thus being misapplied on the basis of "this category should be on any film that has ever been screened in this country at all", while in others it appeared to have been applied on the basis of the filmmakers having done some location shooting in that country. So obviously some caution will be needed; if you're working on cleaning up a national category and that country isn't named in the article's introduction, then check IMDb.
And, of course, even IMDb can make mistakes sometimes too — but obviously an article would need to show a reliable source to support any claim that the film's production nationalities included one or more countries not reflected by IMDb. And also, as much as it may suck having to take that extra step sometimes, cleaning up errors like that is one of the reasons why this is a good project, because the errors might simply never have been caught otherwise.
All of that said, however,
Más sabe el Diablo por viejo clearly is listed, both in its infobox and on IMDb, as a Mexico-US co-production, so it's not an example of this problem.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Done I did the above list AND all the ones that went back into the category. I can't say I did it all perfectly or that there aren't a few more categories that could apply for some of these articles, but where I found truly necessary they are now all in at least one subcategory of American films without exception. A few were left off because they genuinely did not belong there after all, at least so far as I could substantiate (a symptom of my highly scattershot approach the first time; broken clocks and all that). I don't expect anyone to doublecheck my work, but I certainly hope if I've overlooked anything others will simply add it sooner or later. I must point out my astonishment that there were so many films, even well known and utterly famous ones, that were not already in some manner subcategorized here. I'm also a little bit shocked I myself was not personally approached to fix all of this on my own talk page; I had been notified of the damage I'd done when it was speculated that there weren't nearly this many things now broken to fix, but I was not further notified of anything and had to come here to see for myself. If it were my mess, why was I not specifically asked to clean it up? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
If a film category is too big for all films from each country, why can't we split it by decade and have like Category:1970s Argentine films? I can see the argument to split by genre but I thought it was important to be able to browse films from each country in one place and not have to sift through dozens of categories. Would most of the categories be unfeasibly large if split into like 12 or 13 by decade? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Bearcat @ Lugnuts: Should be manageable that way I think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Dr. Blofeld: Accept, as in add to my list to work on? Sure - no problem at all. I can get started in the next few days. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 08:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao! It would mean readers can browse films by era by country and at least have A-Z for that. It seems manageable. I may consider doing some A-Z lists of films, but the problem is maintenance. I think the time would be better spent working on the year lists and creating missing entries. Enjoy the rest of your trip! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you're safe to move ahead with this when you're ready Ser Amantio di Nicolao. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to bring something to the project's attention.
In the ongoing process of recategorizing laggard films that hadn't been subcategorized, today I attempted to tackle Category:Nigerian films, only to run into one of the worst frightfests of bad miscategorization I've ever seen. I ran into literally dozens of people that were being categorized as films, films that were being categorized as people, people and films that were being categorized as film awards, male actors filed in actress categories and vice versa, people duplicate and triplicate and quadriplicate categorized as Category:Nigerian film directors and Category:Nigerian filmmakers and Category:Nigerian film people and Category:Nigerian people all at the same time, films being added to "YYYY in Nigerian cinema" categories instead of "Nigerian [genre] films" categories, television series miscatted as films, films being categorized as Category:Nigerian films based on actual events without any claim in the article that the film in question had been adapted directly from a true story, and on and so forth.
I've already cleaned up a lot of the mess I found, but I just wanted to alert the rest of you because this may require ongoing monitoring. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Dolby Cinema films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an IP hopper ( contributions) who is persistently adding unsourced parentheses like these to various articles which mention dead actors. I know that we have a guideline about that: what is it, so that I can link it next time that I revert. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Veera Madakari#Requested move 26 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
There is disagreement at Talk:Untitled Godzilla vs. Kong sequel § Working title on whether the working title of a film should be noted in the lead of untitled films. Please feel free to chime in there, thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing more and more articles throwing these kinds of statements into the lead based on sources like a Metacritic "best-of" list, which aggregates lists from multiple film publications into one. The question is, should these statements be handled with care using proper attribution, even in the lead? Comments are welcome here, but a specific discussion about this is happening right now at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Lead if you'd like to weigh in there as well. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a request to move An Cailín Ciúin to The Quiet Girl. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:An Cailín Ciúin#Requested move 16 August 2022. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
File:Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man.jpg, File:Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man.jpg and File:Tom Holland as Spider-Man.jpg have the "copyrighted screenshot" license but none of them are actually screenshot. I do not find these scenes neither in the movies, nor in the trailers nor in the deleted scenes of the movies. Probably we have to change the licenses. 151.70.68.75 ( talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Manticore: I personally checked and this frame is not present in any film, you can check it by watching the scene when Peter talks to MJ in SM3. Redjedi23 ( talk) 01:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
What do editors here think of the mention of an album release in the lede of All Too Well: The Short Film, an article about a short film? The short film is inspired by the title song, which is from a 2012 album. The artist has been famously re-recording all her past albums, the latest of which is that 2012 album. The current lede of this short film is wanting readers to know that the artist also recently released a re-recording of that album. Is noting this relevant or irrelevant to the short film article? Is it just shoehorned promotional trivia, or is there a legitimate reason to insert this album trivia in the lead? Lapadite ( talk) 22:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
So I happened to come into possession of a PDF of a film poster. Normally I focus on SVG logos, but this was interesting to me as I know SVG files can contain embedded raster images, and it was an interesting opportunity to see a vectorized film poster on the project. The poster is: File:Birds of Prey (2020, One-sheet Poster, Domestic B0, English, v3).svg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The most obvious advantage is that the text is all stored as vector images, while only the background is stored as a raster. This should improve readers ability to read the "fine print" on the poster, as well as ensure the logos and other trademarks are treated respectfully by our project. As this is, as far as I know, the first time a movie poster has been uploaded as an SVG I'm interested in feedback (if this is not the first time, or if there was something similar done (e.g. music cover, book cover, etc) I'd be curious about pointers to those prior discussions). If this is acceptable/popular, I will pursue doing other posters like this, but before I go researching that, I wanted to make sure I wasn't running afoul of any policies/guidelines/legal issues. Thank you! — Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The question is moot because that SVG version of the poster is the "Coming Soon" teaser poster, and the precedent was to use the Theatrical release poster. -- 109.78.202.76 ( talk) 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release postershould be used. By all means discuss further but please first restore the WP:STATUSQUO at Birds of Prey (2020 film) (before the bots delete the previous image and restoring it becomes even more hassle). -- 109.79.174.68 ( talk) 13:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Box-office bomb#Requested move 20 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Wanted to ask a question about Category:Argentine films, because in the process of attempting to clean categories up for the recent deprecation of all-inclusiveness in the base national films categories, I've found that particular category to be uniquely (so far) cluttered up with a lot (and I mean a lot a lot) of titles that exist only as redirects to "List of Argentine films of YYYY" lists.
Wikipedia does not ordinarily have an established practice of redirecting film titles to mere lists of the year's films, however -- the blue links obscure the fact that the articles don't exist, and therefore frequently stand in the way of getting articles created about notable films. So this simply isn't done as a rule; I've encountered no other country that had dozens upon dozens of such redirects polluting the main category, and for added bonus the redirects don't always represent titles that are actually appearing in the lists they're being redirected to. For example, My Home, My Prison does represent an Argentine film released in 1993 per IMDb, but that title does not actually appear in List of Argentine films of 1993 at all, either as My Home, My Prison or as Mi casa, mi prisión, despite the presence of a redirect from that title to the list. Plus, in at least one other case, I found that the title Los Hijos de Lopez existed as a redirect to a list (for the wrong year, no less!), simultaneously with the accented-but-otherwise-identically titled Los Hijos de López existing as an actual unreferenced stub about the film itself -- and, in some other cases, the list is wikilinking the film title that's redirecting back to it, even though we also have a rule about recursive redirects where clicking on the link would just take you right back to the same page you were already reading.
Accordingly, I wanted to ask if other people here agree with me that such redirects should be deleted, before I go ahead and do anything rash without support. Bearcat ( talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
There's been a bit of an issue at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, which I wanted to ask for some input about.
There's been an ongoing edit war between multiple editors over the past several days about whether it's solely an American film alone, or an American, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Turkish coproduction. IMDB, for the record, does say it's the latter -- but while we all know that IMDb can make mistakes sometimes, there's no obvious reason to presume that it's wrong about this in the absence of any reliable source proof that it's wrong about this.
The more important problem is that because of the continued project of cleaning out base national film categories, I had to create a Category:Lithuanian animated films category to move it to -- but because there aren't any other films in that category, the edit war causes that category to get repeatedly emptied, thus flagging it for speedy deletion as an empty category and causing me to get notified that it's being deleted. But then editwarrior #2 puts it back into Category:Lithuanian films again, causing the film to get moved back into the animated subcategory again, before edit warrior #1 pulls it back out again and thus reinitiates the speedy-deletion cycle again.
Accordingly, this needs additional watchlisters and/or somebody to investigate whether IMDb is right or wrong so that we can throw a lid on this nonsense, because I'm not putting up with even one more second of this. Bearcat ( talk) 22:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to take IMDb for granted per WP:IMDB. It's ideal for a quick lookup of released mainstream films, but beyond that, if only IMDb seems to have that information, it needs to actually be verified elsewhere in reliable sources. It's possible that this information could be valid, but we don't know the context of it. Maybe this film got a little non-American funding, or something else. In the meantime, seems appropriate to keep it American until we see reliable sources mention these other countries. Even then, it does not necessarily mean we would stop calling it an "American film" or that we would list these countries in the film infobox. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose to create Bangladeshi cinema task force for Wikiproject Film. Bangladesh is one of biggest film industry. Bangladeshi cinema should have a task force in this wikiproject. Mehedi Abedin 22:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Just an update, pursuant to my above post from last week about Category:Argentine films.
I've listed one specific batch of the film-to-list redirects for deletion at WP:RFD, specifically the ones that were redirecting to List of Argentine films of 1982. However, due to the sheer size of the job, and the need to facilitate cleaning up the base Argentine films category, for the moment I've also moved all of the redirects that were filed in the base category from there to a project maintenance category at Category:Argentine film redirects so that they're all in one place for both ease of investigation and decluttering of the mainspace category. So if anybody wants to help out, namely by checking whether there's an alternative redirect target available, and either deleting it yourself or listing it for deletion at RFD if not, then it could certainly use a few willing hands even if you just tackle a few per sitting. Bearcat ( talk) 02:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#RfC on Sequel section regarding when it is appropriate to omit an entry in a film series from a sequel section. Additional input is appreciated. Argento Surfer ( talk) 15:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
New stub: Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud. Improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I've created a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/By-country cleanup to facilitate the process of cleaning up the base national film categories. I've sorted all of the categories into one of four groups:
Obviously group 3 is the main priority at this time, but group 4 can still be tackled if you choose. But if you do tackle a category from either group 3 or 4 and get it emptied out, then please also edit the work list to move that category to whichever of group 1 or 2 is applicable. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding The Woman King, which is released in theaters this weekend, editors are invited to watchlist the article since there will likely be a lot of coverage about its critical reception and its historical accuracy, which are both covered in fairly new sections. The talk page has related sections devoted to both for discussion, and additional feedback about either subtopic is welcome at Talk:The Woman King. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding two films featuring Harry Styles, Don't Worry Darling and My Policeman (film), editors are invited to review each article's "Reception" section and the amount of text written about Styles. There is one discussion underway at Talk:Don't Worry Darling#Reception and Styles. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, the two editors who advocated for disproportionate text about Styles compared to other aspects of either film have been blocked as sockpuppets. Editors are still welcome to review the film articles' current "Critical reception" sections to edit as needed, whether to add more content touching on other aspects, or whittle down anything that currently exists. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:They All Laughed#Requested move 10 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 18:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Silent film director and screenwriter Joseph A. Golden is suffering from a lack of reliable sources, and apparent conflation/incorrect info on IMDB (unreliable) and other databases and mirrors of IMDB. His IMDB profile previously ( as of 2015) gave his lifespan as c. 1897 - 8 July 1942, which is implausible if he began directing films in 1907 and looked like this in 1909. IMDB has currenlty omitted the birth year, and simply gives a death dat of 8 July 1942. However, IMDB apparently has historically and currently conflated Joseph A. Golden with Robert A. Golden (Q114033627) ( IMDB), who verifiably did die in Hollywood 8 July 1942 ( choked to death on a piece of steak). Find a Grave (less credible than IMDB) also conflates the two Goldens. So basically, the vital dates and location of birth and death of Joseph A. Golden are open questions needing reliable sourcing. I've found some tantalizing scraps and hints and primary records, but hopefully more corroborating/significant info could be found by someone with access to newspaper archives (especially New York newspapers). Here's what I've found or believe so far:
That's about all the vital info I can find, aside from film magazine chatter and routine reporting of roles or films in the middle of his career. I don't have New York Times or Newspaper.com access. Hopefully there are some more nuggets out there that can more solidly tie these strings together. Any help would be appreciated. Even if sources aren't WP:RS, they might be added to Wikidata to help counter/correct years of misinformation. Thanks! --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
References
b. Wash., D. C.; educ. Wash.; stage career, public reader, Monroe Players, Frohman and other prods., and various stock cos.; screen career, Centaur, Biograph, Selig, Powers, Famous Players ("Monte Cristo"), Crystal, of which he is Pres. and director of prods.
Twenty-two years ago, under Dion Boucicault, he became initiated in this profession, and has since played every kind of character, young and old, and of every nationality. For years he served as stage manager to Charles Frohman... and was for many years the stage director and manager of Stock Companies and other large productions.
Q. Mr. Golden, what is your business? A. I am a playwright and director of plays. I am also the president and treasurer of the Crystal Film Company.
Miss Erna Margaret Weiss, daughter of Dr. Joseph Weiss of Zurich. Switzerland, was married to Mr. Joseph A. Golden, a playwright, yesterday, in Delmonlco's by Judge Aaron J. Levy. The maid of honor was Miss Edna Sylvia Garden. The best man was Dr. Frank Joseph Edelstein. Mrs. and Mrs. Golden will sail for Europe by the Rohambeau Saturday. After May 1 they will live at 55 West Seventy-fourth street.
At Midnight: a play in 1 act by J. A. Golden... Joseph Aron Golden, New York
When I cleaned up Category:Italian films last week for subcategorization of all films that were still in the parent category, a user revert-warred me on one specific film, Shatterer, on the grounds that the genre isn't sufficiently sourced for his standards. But then, when I reverted it back on the grounds that the film can't be left in Category:Italian films (or Category:Swiss films or Category:Japanese films), and has to be moved to one or more subcategories of each, the user then responded by simply removing those three categories so that the article now has no nationality categories on it at all anymore.
But some form of categorization for "Italian [something] films", "Japanese [something] films" and "Swiss [something] films" must be on it, because films must have nationality-based catgories on them, so some form of each of those three categories has to be readded to the page -- but the editor is simply refusing to listen to anything I have to say, so it's not an issue I can simply resolve on my own if they're just going to keep editwarring me over it, and I don't have access to any databases of archived Italian media coverage from which I could retrieve 35-year-old reviews of an Italian film, which means I'm strictly at the mercy of what I can find in a quick Google search.
So can somebody help figure out what categories the page can be readded to so that it's categorized properly? It simply can't be left with no nationality categories on it at all, but it can't be left in the base "national films" categories either. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 16:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Would appreciate if more editors could weigh in here about the "inherited notability" argument and possibly try to find more refs to show whether GNG/NFILM is met. Many thanks for your help and time! VickKiang 02:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I recently created an article for the documentary Jihad Rehab. There has been some controversy around the film. I would appreciate it if experienced editors would keep an eye on the article. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I came across this Buzzfeed South Africa article that mentions Sandra Bullock's 1994 Jupiter Awards win for Best International Actress for Speed. Would it be fine to use? There's also this Screenrant piece, which mentions that she won her first Jupiter Award for Speed but not the year or category. For the 1996 awards, Business Insider has this piece that mentions her win for A Time to Kill but it's stated in an image caption. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 06:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
If available, could editors possibly try to find refs for An Innocent Kiss, and comment on notability (IMHO it's borderline, contested notability tag, though I feel uncomfortable about AfDing it)? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
If anyone could try to find refs for The Slave Ship (film) and comment on whether it is notable that would be great! VickKiang (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with the film The Last Color please take a look at the Plot section? I was doing some gnomish terminology clean-up and came across this article. The content of the plot section was expanded over several edits back in April/May 2021, however the way that it's written leads me to suspect that this summary may not be accurate. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the film to determine if the summary is accurate or not, nor to be able to fix it if it is not accurate. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This refers to the current discussion which is open on the talk page for Bette Davis Talk:Bette Davis. In summary, User:Dancingtudorqueen invited comments on which of four photos of Ms Davis should be used in the infobox for the Bette Davis article. I voted for a ‘mature’ image from the 1940s aged around 35-40, which I thought the most representative of her career. Since no one else commented, User:Dancingtudorqueen made that change. Subsequently, User:Shshshsh changed the image again to a younger photo of Ms Davis in 1935 aged 27, arguing it is more ‘flattering’ and shows her in her ‘prime’. He correctly points out that the later photo which I favour is not accurately dated, but only described as ‘1940s’.
I think this requires a wider discussion about infobox images for film actors with long careers. Ms Davis’s film career lasted between her ages 22 to 80. She was most famed for her acting, star quality and personality rather than her looks. I don’t know how to assess when she was in her ‘prime’ – if it's any measure, her Oscar awards are fairly evenly spread from 1934 to 1962.
I think an infobox image should give a fair and balanced representation of an actor’s whole career, rather than a youthful or flattering image. The rest of the article can include images showing an actor chronologically or illustrating specific points.
What do others think? Masato.harada ( talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Does International Online Cinema Awards appear to be notable? There is no Wikipedia article, but there is no history of an article being created. This shows this award being mentioned in 118 articles. I wanted to get other opinions before removing these, due to a lack of any prior notability testing. While we have MOS:FILMACCOLADES, most of them are actors' articles, and WP:ACTOR does not have any MOS with similar guidance. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Borat for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Wretchskull ( talk) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm very confused at what's going on at Black Adam. I managed to find two reliable sources (approved by WP:RSP) that verify negative reviews for the article, not mixed reviews. [3] [4]. I changed "mixed reviews" to "negative reviews" in the lead and critical response section to reflect the sources but everyone keeps switching it back to mixed stating that the 55% score on Rotten Tomatoes is enough to warrant calling the reviews mixed. But isn't that WP:SYN? Saying the reviews are mixed when the sources does not say that is WP:SYN, is it not? Also MOS:FILM states "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews" and "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly". Or am I missing something? Is there a new guideline stating to determine positive/negative/mixed reviews from RT's score? Am I in the right or the wrong here? I'm confused. Armegon ( talk) 01:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Mixed or average reviewsas per here. Note that a) it's RS per WP:RSP, b) it's endorsed by MOS:FILM,
Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews.Therefore, it should be considered as a reliable source for indicating that the film received mixed reviews. With one ref suggesting mixed reception and another two suggesting negative reception, IMHO we need an in-depth discussion on the talk page instead of reverting between mixed and negative IMHO. Still, I disagree that the "mixed" violates WP:SYN as it's supported by at least one source. VickKiang (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Black Adam (film)#Critical reception. Maybe it's me, but it seems like articles of recent films have gotten worse in editors thinking more than before that they can synthesize individual reviews into summaries. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 03:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
What's the appropriate way to cover the criticism by some sources that Top Gun: Maverick is American military propaganda? Discussion on the article talk page. -- KnightMove ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saturday's Children#Requested move 15 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dinosaurs! – A Fun-Filled Trip Back in Time!#Requested move 22 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Template:Romeo and Juliet has been nominated for merging with Template:Romeo and Juliet film adaptations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tick, Tick, Tick (film)#Requested move 15 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Notability (films), the "Other evidence of notability" section has this element, "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." There is a discussion about the meaning of nationally known critics that can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) § "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India. Editor are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a major consistency problem at Category:Fantasy comedy films, which needs some kind of resolution. The issue is that some of its subcategories are named "fantasy comedy" without a hyphen, while others are named "fantasy-comedy" with a hyphen -- with the result that redlinked categories often pop up at Special:WantedCategories because articles have been categorized in the hyphenated version for countries where the category isn't hyphenated or in the unhyphenated version for countries where the real category is hyphenated. And even worse, that doesn't only result from editors adding the wrong form to a new article off the top, but sometimes even results from editors flipping a category that was already on a page from the existing form to the non-existing one.
And for the cherry on top, there have been multiple attempts, in both directions, to resolve this at WP:CFR by listing one set or the other for renaming to the other form for consistency, which always fail no matter which direction is proposed. If the unhyphenated set is listed for renaming to the hyphenated form, then the nomination fails on the grounds that the parent is unhyphenated -- but if the hyphenated set is listed for renaming to the unhyphenated form, then the nomination founders on the argument that the parent is named wrongly and should have the hyphen added to it.
Obviously, however, this has to be resolved one way or the other, with a consensus to settle on one form or the other and apply it across the board to the outliers, so some discussion is needed to determine which form should be used. Bearcat ( talk) 15:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding the plot summary of Grave of the Fireflies at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#Plot summary format. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Editors may want to keep an eye on Kimaleec ( talk · contribs), who as recently as this afternoon was adding cast names to plot summaries for multiple articles despite being asked to stop three days ago. I've left two additional warnings today, the second after they did not apparently heed the first. It looks like they're editing from a mobile device, so they may not be seeing their Talk page notifications, but that's not a blank check to continue editing disruptively. I'll try to catch up on things when I'm back. DonIago ( talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Roman Polanski § Second sentence of the lede paragraph. The discussion is about whether to mention the sexual abuse case in the lede paragraph.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 00:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
00:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Many films' lead paragraphs don't say what the movie is about. The film style guide specifies that it should. When viewing the page for a specific film, I think I'm far from the only one who wants to refresh my memory with a quick sentence or half sentence. Also, I don't know whether we consider that web searches for titles sometimes display the first paragraph in the found results, and it would be nice to have that info there. For examples of some that do and some that don't, check out the films in List of Tony Award- and Olivier Award-winning plays.
Is there already a task about this? (If so, I might be interested in helping with that specifically. Sadly I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days.) Elf | Talk 19:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It may be that if a film has no particularly noteworthy context when it comes to the cast and crew and source material, the premise could go in the first sentence. For example, Prey for the Devil has nothing particularly noteworthy about it, and seeing the premise upfront may be the best way to identify the topic at hand. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. There's an ongoing discussion at the talk page of The Incredibles, which might be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. The discussion is at Talk:The Incredibles#Syndrome's Death. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I found in an old video that the film seemed to premiere at Grauman’s Chinese Theater, so I may I change the word, “Premiere” to Grauman’s Chinese Theater please? DrkWebber ( talk) 05:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Coco (2017 film) § Plot summary revamp. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
So I realized after editing Starship Troopers (film) that despite Sony Pictures Releasing is known on the Wiki for being THE distributor for all Sony Pictures Entertainment films, they always "hide" under a different label, as seen in the end credits of every movie (ex. "A Columbia Pictures Release"). Here are further examples:
I just wanted to make this notice to make sure editors to double check whether a Sony Pictures company is actually a production company or just a distributor. For the upcoming Dumb Money, I predict Sony will eventually label it under one of their banners, so put it as a distributor unless sources say otherwise. IAmNMFlores ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Murder in Reverse#Requested move 12 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I randomly came across the fact that Jeremy Konner's article was removed for lack of notability. See [6]. This guy seems pretty notable to me (but what do I know). Do you know where to go in wikipedia to have the issue looked at by people to assess notability? I had a tough time figuring out whether there is a place (besides once an article is being chosen for deletion. Can anyone else take a look at this guy and see whether he is notable or not? Remember ( talk) 14:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Check out WP:SUBSCRIBE! Looking forward to using this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 03:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
With the death of director Albert Pyun, I revisited the film and wanted to find more sources on the filim. I found a bunch of reviews, but Rotten Tomatoes lists two 2005 newspaper reviews for the DVD release. I can't find either in any newspaper archive however. Would there be any ideas how to get them? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just as a user, I wondered why so many film posters in Wikipedia articles are very small files. I get that they need to be fair use, but is there a reason why they're so small? I ask because I often click on them hoping to be able to read the taglines and other notable info that's exclusive of the poster, but they're too small for me to read anything, or at least not comfortably. Kumagoro-42 ( talk) 17:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cinema Snob 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 until the discussion has finished.
Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has requested for Willow (film) to be moved to Willow (1988 film). Since you had some involvement with Willow (film), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Before this month, IMDb changed the "Filmography" section heading that it has used for film, TV, and even video games. Now it uses "Credits" for the section heading. This, coupled with the fact that filmography is universally defined as a list of films, we should strive to move away from using "Filmography" section headings in Wikipedia articles unless all credits are only film-related. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone tried ChatGPT? There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content about using it. I think it could be useful on at least a couple of fronts for film articles: pasting a section or at least a paragraph in and ask for it to be copy-edited (and implementing changes), and asking it to summarize overlong plot summaries to around 400-700 words and reviewing the shorter summary before implementing. (I would probably suggest around 400 words or in the middle with 550 due to inevitable detail creep.) I'm also hoping that it could be used by review aggregator websites to summarize reviews more fully and in prose. In the same vein, I've used ChatGPT to convert certain Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores (with as much numerical detail as possible) into prose, and the results look pretty good, so hope they can do something like that at least. Anyone have thoughts on any of the above? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussions related to action comedy below. Editors are invited to comment.
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mike Allen 03:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The article Zencoder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Per WP:SIRS, I do not think the sources shown on the article count for notability criteria, along with the fact that it seems that one product created (the Flix Cloud mentioned in the article) by this company also had a Wikipedia article created by the same person who did this article that was then speedy deleted.
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.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Future of Technology 2010 | No mention of sponsorship with Zencoder. | Bloomberg is a trusted source, although it does lean left-wing according to AllSides ( https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias). | The article is over angel investors, some of which happened to invest in Zencoder, but it does not concern Zencoder at all. | ✘ No |
On2 Technologies and Zencoder Partner to Create On-Demand Video Encoding Service | Following accsess via the Internet Archive, the story comes from On2's PR Newswire. | Bloomberg is a trusted source, although it does lean left-wing according to AllSides ( https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias). However, the story being from the On2 PR newswire means that we cannot trust if this was true. | Concerns a large project partially started by Zencoder | ✘ No |
Google Closes On2 Technology Acquisition | The article is about Google buying the partner company for their product, and this is from Google's own Investor news. | This is Google's own Investor page, they cannot be trusted to provide reliable details on their acquisition. | ~ If talking about how the product was shut down because of this acquisition, then yes, it is significant. | ✘ No |
Encoding Performance: Comparing Zencoder, Encoding.com, Sorenson & Panda | First sentance in the post states that it was paid for by Zencoder. | First sentance in the post states that it was paid for by Zencoder. | Directly talks about the performance of Zencoder. | ✘ No |
Brightcove Acquires Zencoder | The article is from Zencoder's own blog. | The article is from Zencoder's own blog, so we cannot trust the reliability of the statments. | Directly talks about Zencoder being bought. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
You all are the group said to be taking care this page, so that is why I am informing you all of this. WikipeidaNeko ( talk) 00:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Post-closure, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
To anyone that's working in this WikiProject: If anyone's working on articles from Skydance, i have a task force opened up at the WikiProject Animation article called Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group. This task force is open for Video Games, Animation, Film and Television, and Sports. If anyone is interested in this, we have some slots open up. BMA-Nation2020 ( talk) 23:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
On two separate occasions in 2022, anonymous IPs have edited our article about the 2021 film Drinkwater to add "Mike Drinkwater" as the name of a cast member in, and/or writer of, the film. As one can probably guess from the film's title, however, this is actually just the name of the film's lead character rather than a cast or crew member involved in the production. However, both times slipped my notice initially and were only caught and reverted months after the fact, and the article appears to only have one other watchlister, so I wanted to ask if a few willing editors here could help keep an eye on this in the future. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 00:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
What's another way to say this neutrally in Wikipedia's voice? Because I think no matter how sourced the fact that a movie garnered "great reviews", it will always be a subject of dispute. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy ( talk) 05:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention based on an edit to Harold and Kumar go to White Castle that we have Category:Korean-American films and similar categories. I'm a little concerned that we have a logic disjunction here. We've previously used categories such as "X films", where X was a country, to indicate the country of origin of a film. This category, though, is using a category with this format to indicate that one or more primary cast members are of the described ethnicity. To me, this could lead to potential confusion, i.e. "Are they saying this film was a joint Korean-American production, or that it includes Korean-American characters?"
It seems to me as though the most appropriate option might be to rename this category and related categories to Category:Films about Korean-Americans, or something similar. Thoughts? DonIago ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:I Wanna Dance with Somebody (film)#Requested move 20 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, all. I was wondering if I could get some help writing Draft:Jones (fictional cat) and getting it to have enough sources to pass the GNG and be suitable as an article. Thanks, Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion about the page moves of Avatar 3 and Avatar 4 on the Avatar 3 talk page if anyone from the project has an opinion. Mike Allen 19:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pinocchio (2022 live-action film)#Requested move 22 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed Category:Box-office bombs for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Category:Box-office bombs. Comments (either way) welcome. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a pet peeve of mine, but this vague, uncommon phrase has made its way into dozens, if not hundreds of movie articles. Aside from “emotional weight” not being a common term or praise for a film, it’s actually just straight up being added to virtually any film under the sun regardless of actual critical consensus - we seriously need to trim down the usage of it. Toa Nidhiki05 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The CSD criterion proposal has failed. I've made an alternate proposal at WT:NCFILM § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, all comments are welcome. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
To all who are available: I have opened up a task force for Skydance Media and i'm looking for some editors who might be interested in joining Skydance Media task force. There's a lot of topics from Skydance and i need editors who are fans of Skydance and it's divisions from Television to Animation. We're only a three membered team getting started and we need 6 more members to join in. If anyone wants to come and work for us on Skydance Media, please put your name on the members list on what division you wanna join by and we'll get started. BMA-Nation2020 ( talk) 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Fully concur with the above discussion. While we're on that subject, we also need a moratorium on the amateurish phrase "had its premiere", which has the bizarre implication that the film itself has agency in the philosophical or sociological sense. No, a film does not premiere itself. As I explained on this talk page a few years ago, professional journalists write that a film "premiered" at a location or that its premiere occurred or was held at a location.
I've noticed that this obnoxious phrase is being introduced predominantly by British English editors into WP film articles. As I've pointed out elsewhere on Wikipedia, my suspicion is that such verbal tics probably arise from the UK government's gross mismanagement of the country's educational system since World War II.
We have quite a number of British expats here in Silicon Valley fleeing their country's badly underfunded educational system in search of greener pastures. For decades, Silicon Valley parents have been happy to pay a premium to have their children taught English and Latin by such expats with their plummy British accents and Oxbridge degrees. (For example, I read The Canterbury Tales my senior year of high school with a Cambridge graduate.) -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
While filming has not begun, the topic arguably already meets GNG due to existing coverage. Ex. inverse, variety, gizmodo, collider, plus the sources in the draft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
short articles that consist of only product announcement information". When the amount of "encyclopedic knowledge" is limited, CRYSTAL encourages the merging of that information into a larger topic (e.g. Avatar franchise), when such a solution exists and makes sense without overburdening the target article.Looking at the draft, it appears that a large portion of the content is general information that applies to multiple sequels; there is very little specific to only Avatar 5. That doesn't seem to change much even after a quick glance at the additional sources (and if I'm missing something, perhaps it would be better to expand the draft further and revisit afterward). -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 07:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, could someone well versed in WP:NFILM please take a look at Draft:More Than I Want to Remember and advise whether the festival wins make it notable? The article has a COI, and the sources don't cover the film in depth. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1133184336, MovieWeb is used to source a claim that a film has a cult following. It's a listicle from a website that I suspect to be a content mill. Anyone have thoughts about the reliability of this source? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello folks. Could you please check out Cinema of Serbia? It is currently rate stub-class, which seems wrong considering the current status of the article. Any additional help with the article is appreciated. Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Not a Film but uses the same boilerplate text as many film articles, please see Talk:The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series)#Percent_vs_%_sign. Thanks, Indagate ( talk) 13:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the correct native name approach for the infobox? This one or this one, or both are correct? Armegon ( talk) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I've [ discussed this in the past, but can we get it set view on the validity of sites like Boxofficestory.com and JPBoxoffice. I've been through their site and can't find anything on how their sources are pulled, but often see them all over film articles, generally European ones. No one has really stepped forward, but I'm leaning towards we add it to sources we shouldn't use as it's not clear where the information is pulled from. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 20:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Y'all may want to take a crack at editing the recently added plot for this article 76.14.122.5 ( talk) 01:20, 17 January 2023 (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 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 84 |
In the infobox of Under Siege, Niteshift36 and I are having a disagreement about adding Erika Eleniak in the infobox, despite not being in the poster's billing board. Also, in the beginning credits of that movie, Gary Busey is above Eleniak, despite Niteshift36 putting her above Busey in the infobox. BattleshipMan ( talk) 14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
If anyone here knows how to up-load films for Wikipedia articles, would you look at doing it for The Tramp and the Dog. The film is from 1886. It was discovered last year in the Norway National Library and There are now several copies on You Tube [1]. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Please participate in this RFC. You comment is really needed there. Itcouldbepossible Talk 06:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
A user claimed that there is bias in the section Decline in popularity in an article about the erotic thriller film genre. The user has not been able to show how/why it is biased or explain what viewpoints are not being represented. That section exists to merely explain why the erotic thriller film is not as popular as it used to be in the heyday of box office hits such as Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, Disclosure (1994 film), etc. It also cites reliable sources that give reasonable reasons for the genre’s decline. I know I should discuss this on the article talk page, but the discussion may devolve into circular logic like arguments about “what counts as feminism” or something that has nothing to do with the actual matter at hand, which is that the erotic thriller genre peaked in the 1980s and early 1990s, and though it is still talked about today it is not as profitable or ubiquitous as it once was. Spectrallights ( talk) 12:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diary of a Camper/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I created A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell and multiple reliable sources such as this one verify that the film showed at the 1990 Cannes Film Festival. The article about the film festival mentions films that were nominated for awards, but I don't see the film mentioned there. Was I wrong to think that all films at the Cannes Film Festival are up for awards? SL93 ( talk) 00:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There is somewhat of a disagreement about the cast section format of Jurassic World Dominion. The InfiniteNexus has changed the cast format to this format and explained his reasons on the article's talk place in section Cast Order, which I don't entirely agree with because some of these actors had their names on the previous teaser poster for one. Secondly, InfiniteNexus's format has placed some actors who are notable in the Jurassic World trilogy, (Isabella Sermon, Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda) in the Additionally part of the list, which is not very subtle and appropriate for the actors who appeared in two of Jurassic World films. So I edited to this order, placing the names of Sermon, Campbell Scott, Smith, Scott Haze, Dichen Lachman and Pineda on the row list while leaving the rest in the addionally list, but InfiniteNexus reverted that edit. See what you think? BattleshipMan ( talk) 01:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Draft:Atanu Raychaudhuri and he has a number of films where he is credited as "Presented by: (name)" or "(name) presents..." but this is different from a television host or television presenter. Should these be renamed to Producer as this is more of a producer's role in the film, or just left as Presenter and explained with some notes? Any suggestions? It's kind of like: "A Spike Lee joint" Also, how should he or others be listed in infobox film? AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Just a heads-up that following this discussion a WP:BOTREQ was created to remove all the parent country categories ( example). Get ready for your watchlists to creak! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Can we have a separate article about box office admissions of animated films? NextEditor123 ( talk) 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that this dispute should be included in this talk page as it allows to discuss with others rather than by ourselves. Otherwise, we will never solve this dispute. NextEditor123 ( talk) 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for List of animated films by box office admissions. NextEditor123 ( talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
As per the header – is the TCM Movie Database gone?
A Google search only turns up the base TCM.com site. I think the database may be gone.
If so, the templates {{ TCMDb name}} and {{ TCMDb title}} need to go. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The film is basically called Deja Vu, I am not sure, but the current title seems wrong and it needs moving to a more correct title? Govvy ( talk) 15:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
A new discussion about user-generated scores is underway. Please weigh in at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#User Generated Content. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Do films count as "direct-to-video" if they were released on VOD and in theaters on the same day? A person in Georgia ( talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Morbius (film)#Paul Tassi on whether Forbes contributor pieces can be used as reviews despite being an unreliable self-published source per WP:FORBESCON. Please add your thoughts there so we can reach a consensus. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So I've seen here and there film articles that cite the American Film Institute (AFI), but I find that they can often be incorrect, whether it's incorrect production company name (ex. for Hulk they put Marvel Studios instead of Marvel Enterprises) or not putting all the studios, to even adding other crew members who were not credited in the final film. It just makes me question whether we should still use them as a source. Iamnoahflores ( talk) 23:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) has received two "Satisfactory" notations at WP:URFA/2020A and we are looking for a third reviewer to ensure this article still meets the FA criteria. Can someone review the URFA/2020 instructions and make a notation indicating if it still meets the FA standards? Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks, Z1720 ( talk) 16:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on using template to ref awards at Template talk:Awards ref please Indagate ( talk) 17:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not around much anymore so I missed this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Should "films by country" categories remain all-inclusive?. First off I agree with its conclusion. I've noticed that removal of the category has begun and congrats to the enterprising editors doing the work. My suggestion/question is shouldn't there be updates to the parts of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film that this consensus has impacted? Especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization. I think it will help both veteran and new editors to have things spelled out. If I'm wrong than no worries. Regards to all. MarnetteD| Talk 00:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Per title Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Could somebody with better access to decade-old US media coverage than I've got do a bit of research into the documentary film My Nappy Roots: A Journey Through Black Hair-itage? In its current state, our article is making three different claims about its release year -- 2008 in the introduction, 2009 according to the infobox, and separate categories for both 2009 and 2005 -- and IMDb claims 2010, while AllMovie claims 2006, so even those aren't much help. Obviously our article needs to be accurate and consistent, so it would be helpful if somebody with the right tools to solve it could look into this. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, film fans.
I was just checking out 1977 in film and felt compelled by force of habit to change the "Notable films released in 1977" section into a "Notable releases" section. It's not a strange compulsion or habit, it's based on a true guideline. But I then noticed the same standard style in a few other arbitrary film years, leading me to suspect there are about 140 of these lengthy headers, probably on purpose.
I'm sure we can agree one centralized discussion beats even five petty and scattered squabbles. Beyond that, I don't know what we agree on, so I'm asking. Is the 1977 reference obvious in context? Does the same apply to an explicitly reiterated "film"? Should we tackle this problem (if it is a problem) as a team, everywhere, for all time?
Anyway, no pressure. I've had some pretty strong feelings about this whole editing genre in the past (check my summary history for "implied"), but I'm old now and wise enough to know my place where local consensus rules. Feel free to pass on even considering this proposal, if that's the way it is. But, of course, any show of cooperation is also quite welcome.
Sincerely, InedibleHulk ( talk) 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
For anyone who'd like to weigh in, there is a discussion about "widespread critical acclaim" being used to describe Top Gun: Maverick. See Talk:Top Gun: Maverick#Widespread critical acclaim. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm in the right place. Where is the place to start a discussion of NPOV and balance between audience ratings/polls reviews vs positive/negative reviews from critics? --
Valjean (
talk) (
PING me)
18:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK, the decision of which film reviews to mention is entirely subjective. If there are guidelines, please point me to them.
Film reviews that are very far removed from the audience reception should be discounted as fringe views and statistical outliers that should not be mentioned. That doesn't mean they don't make any good points, but using them too much, and using reviews more in harmony with the audience reception too little, creates an unbalance that violates NPOV. We should use a balance of positive and negative reviews that is more in harmony with the audience reception.
I realize that my assumption that critics' reviews and audience reception should be tied to each other in this equation may not be entirely valid, but I'd like to explore this possibility. Let's discuss this and see if some guidelines can be established to address principles to follow in this area. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
As previously notified, the "war drama" category hierarchy has been nominated for merging to war films. There was a unanimous precedent last year to merge Western dramas to Westerns. So far two editors have opposed this nomination, but since then three have supported it. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Category:War drama films. – Fayenatic London 07:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Anyone wants to participate in writing a new article, Open movie database, which is currently in my sandbox? I'm glad to see any contribution. Later we can move in into the main pagespace. -- Alexey Vazhnov ( talk) Alexey Vazhnov ( talk) 19:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed a majority of streaming films list the streaming service as the distributors but this isn't accurate. They're just services, not actual distributors; think of it like they were brought TO, not brought FROM. I propose we make the following changes to these streaming films:
Feel free to express your thoughts. Iamnoahflores ( talk) 18:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Pursuant to the past discussions around removing "Country films" categories from films that were already subcategorized, the bot that was working on this now seems to largely be done -- although I have caught a few stray pages (most commonly but not exclusively redirects) that got missed for one reason or another, virtually everything that's still in the base categories is the stuff that was always going to need human editor attention anyway, because either the film hadn't been fully subcategorized in the first place or the genre subcategories for that country don't even exist at all yet.
So if anybody's willing to help out, it's time for real humans to start cleaning up the leftovers. Bearcat ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Somebody has been adding them to the main list of lost films. I was going to move them to the appropriate half-decade sublists, but then I saw that one of the sources states "All films produced in the Philippines during the silent era, from 1912 to 1932, were believed to have been lost or destroyed". [2] So that makes things difficult. I am toying with the idea of moving them to List of silent Filipino films and then linking that to the sublists instead. Comments? Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested to know that this month Women in Red is focusing on Comedians, many of whom are associated with the cinema. Please feel free to join in.-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As a follow up to User talk:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist/Archive 7#Film category removal, the following pages need to be added to appropriate subcategories of Category:American films
I started by adding 75 pages from the same set to the parent category, thinking there would be just a few stragglers that could be caught the normal way, but when I realized how many there were I decided a post here was better than making 400 busywork edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I will acknowledge that there are probably going to be some cases where a film that wasn't actually "American" at all had been miscategorized as such. In my own cleanup efforts, I have caught instances where a film had been categorized as "Nationality films" for a country that was not named in the introduction or the infobox at all — in which case I checked the film's IMDb profile, and found that sometimes the category was supported over there and thus just needed to be added to the text, while other times it was still not supported there either, and thus needed to have the category removed outright. This wasn't only in the United States, for the record, but happened in several other countries as well.
I think there's probably a mix of reasons why this might have happened; in some cases the only basis for the category I could guess at was that maybe the film had been screened at a film festival in the mystery country, and was thus being misapplied on the basis of "this category should be on any film that has ever been screened in this country at all", while in others it appeared to have been applied on the basis of the filmmakers having done some location shooting in that country. So obviously some caution will be needed; if you're working on cleaning up a national category and that country isn't named in the article's introduction, then check IMDb.
And, of course, even IMDb can make mistakes sometimes too — but obviously an article would need to show a reliable source to support any claim that the film's production nationalities included one or more countries not reflected by IMDb. And also, as much as it may suck having to take that extra step sometimes, cleaning up errors like that is one of the reasons why this is a good project, because the errors might simply never have been caught otherwise.
All of that said, however,
Más sabe el Diablo por viejo clearly is listed, both in its infobox and on IMDb, as a Mexico-US co-production, so it's not an example of this problem.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Done I did the above list AND all the ones that went back into the category. I can't say I did it all perfectly or that there aren't a few more categories that could apply for some of these articles, but where I found truly necessary they are now all in at least one subcategory of American films without exception. A few were left off because they genuinely did not belong there after all, at least so far as I could substantiate (a symptom of my highly scattershot approach the first time; broken clocks and all that). I don't expect anyone to doublecheck my work, but I certainly hope if I've overlooked anything others will simply add it sooner or later. I must point out my astonishment that there were so many films, even well known and utterly famous ones, that were not already in some manner subcategorized here. I'm also a little bit shocked I myself was not personally approached to fix all of this on my own talk page; I had been notified of the damage I'd done when it was speculated that there weren't nearly this many things now broken to fix, but I was not further notified of anything and had to come here to see for myself. If it were my mess, why was I not specifically asked to clean it up? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
If a film category is too big for all films from each country, why can't we split it by decade and have like Category:1970s Argentine films? I can see the argument to split by genre but I thought it was important to be able to browse films from each country in one place and not have to sift through dozens of categories. Would most of the categories be unfeasibly large if split into like 12 or 13 by decade? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Bearcat @ Lugnuts: Should be manageable that way I think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Dr. Blofeld: Accept, as in add to my list to work on? Sure - no problem at all. I can get started in the next few days. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 08:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao! It would mean readers can browse films by era by country and at least have A-Z for that. It seems manageable. I may consider doing some A-Z lists of films, but the problem is maintenance. I think the time would be better spent working on the year lists and creating missing entries. Enjoy the rest of your trip! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you're safe to move ahead with this when you're ready Ser Amantio di Nicolao. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to bring something to the project's attention.
In the ongoing process of recategorizing laggard films that hadn't been subcategorized, today I attempted to tackle Category:Nigerian films, only to run into one of the worst frightfests of bad miscategorization I've ever seen. I ran into literally dozens of people that were being categorized as films, films that were being categorized as people, people and films that were being categorized as film awards, male actors filed in actress categories and vice versa, people duplicate and triplicate and quadriplicate categorized as Category:Nigerian film directors and Category:Nigerian filmmakers and Category:Nigerian film people and Category:Nigerian people all at the same time, films being added to "YYYY in Nigerian cinema" categories instead of "Nigerian [genre] films" categories, television series miscatted as films, films being categorized as Category:Nigerian films based on actual events without any claim in the article that the film in question had been adapted directly from a true story, and on and so forth.
I've already cleaned up a lot of the mess I found, but I just wanted to alert the rest of you because this may require ongoing monitoring. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Dolby Cinema films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an IP hopper ( contributions) who is persistently adding unsourced parentheses like these to various articles which mention dead actors. I know that we have a guideline about that: what is it, so that I can link it next time that I revert. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Veera Madakari#Requested move 26 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
There is disagreement at Talk:Untitled Godzilla vs. Kong sequel § Working title on whether the working title of a film should be noted in the lead of untitled films. Please feel free to chime in there, thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing more and more articles throwing these kinds of statements into the lead based on sources like a Metacritic "best-of" list, which aggregates lists from multiple film publications into one. The question is, should these statements be handled with care using proper attribution, even in the lead? Comments are welcome here, but a specific discussion about this is happening right now at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Lead if you'd like to weigh in there as well. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a request to move An Cailín Ciúin to The Quiet Girl. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:An Cailín Ciúin#Requested move 16 August 2022. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
File:Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man.jpg, File:Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man.jpg and File:Tom Holland as Spider-Man.jpg have the "copyrighted screenshot" license but none of them are actually screenshot. I do not find these scenes neither in the movies, nor in the trailers nor in the deleted scenes of the movies. Probably we have to change the licenses. 151.70.68.75 ( talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Manticore: I personally checked and this frame is not present in any film, you can check it by watching the scene when Peter talks to MJ in SM3. Redjedi23 ( talk) 01:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
What do editors here think of the mention of an album release in the lede of All Too Well: The Short Film, an article about a short film? The short film is inspired by the title song, which is from a 2012 album. The artist has been famously re-recording all her past albums, the latest of which is that 2012 album. The current lede of this short film is wanting readers to know that the artist also recently released a re-recording of that album. Is noting this relevant or irrelevant to the short film article? Is it just shoehorned promotional trivia, or is there a legitimate reason to insert this album trivia in the lead? Lapadite ( talk) 22:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
So I happened to come into possession of a PDF of a film poster. Normally I focus on SVG logos, but this was interesting to me as I know SVG files can contain embedded raster images, and it was an interesting opportunity to see a vectorized film poster on the project. The poster is: File:Birds of Prey (2020, One-sheet Poster, Domestic B0, English, v3).svg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The most obvious advantage is that the text is all stored as vector images, while only the background is stored as a raster. This should improve readers ability to read the "fine print" on the poster, as well as ensure the logos and other trademarks are treated respectfully by our project. As this is, as far as I know, the first time a movie poster has been uploaded as an SVG I'm interested in feedback (if this is not the first time, or if there was something similar done (e.g. music cover, book cover, etc) I'd be curious about pointers to those prior discussions). If this is acceptable/popular, I will pursue doing other posters like this, but before I go researching that, I wanted to make sure I wasn't running afoul of any policies/guidelines/legal issues. Thank you! — Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The question is moot because that SVG version of the poster is the "Coming Soon" teaser poster, and the precedent was to use the Theatrical release poster. -- 109.78.202.76 ( talk) 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release postershould be used. By all means discuss further but please first restore the WP:STATUSQUO at Birds of Prey (2020 film) (before the bots delete the previous image and restoring it becomes even more hassle). -- 109.79.174.68 ( talk) 13:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Box-office bomb#Requested move 20 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Wanted to ask a question about Category:Argentine films, because in the process of attempting to clean categories up for the recent deprecation of all-inclusiveness in the base national films categories, I've found that particular category to be uniquely (so far) cluttered up with a lot (and I mean a lot a lot) of titles that exist only as redirects to "List of Argentine films of YYYY" lists.
Wikipedia does not ordinarily have an established practice of redirecting film titles to mere lists of the year's films, however -- the blue links obscure the fact that the articles don't exist, and therefore frequently stand in the way of getting articles created about notable films. So this simply isn't done as a rule; I've encountered no other country that had dozens upon dozens of such redirects polluting the main category, and for added bonus the redirects don't always represent titles that are actually appearing in the lists they're being redirected to. For example, My Home, My Prison does represent an Argentine film released in 1993 per IMDb, but that title does not actually appear in List of Argentine films of 1993 at all, either as My Home, My Prison or as Mi casa, mi prisión, despite the presence of a redirect from that title to the list. Plus, in at least one other case, I found that the title Los Hijos de Lopez existed as a redirect to a list (for the wrong year, no less!), simultaneously with the accented-but-otherwise-identically titled Los Hijos de López existing as an actual unreferenced stub about the film itself -- and, in some other cases, the list is wikilinking the film title that's redirecting back to it, even though we also have a rule about recursive redirects where clicking on the link would just take you right back to the same page you were already reading.
Accordingly, I wanted to ask if other people here agree with me that such redirects should be deleted, before I go ahead and do anything rash without support. Bearcat ( talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
There's been a bit of an issue at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, which I wanted to ask for some input about.
There's been an ongoing edit war between multiple editors over the past several days about whether it's solely an American film alone, or an American, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Turkish coproduction. IMDB, for the record, does say it's the latter -- but while we all know that IMDb can make mistakes sometimes, there's no obvious reason to presume that it's wrong about this in the absence of any reliable source proof that it's wrong about this.
The more important problem is that because of the continued project of cleaning out base national film categories, I had to create a Category:Lithuanian animated films category to move it to -- but because there aren't any other films in that category, the edit war causes that category to get repeatedly emptied, thus flagging it for speedy deletion as an empty category and causing me to get notified that it's being deleted. But then editwarrior #2 puts it back into Category:Lithuanian films again, causing the film to get moved back into the animated subcategory again, before edit warrior #1 pulls it back out again and thus reinitiates the speedy-deletion cycle again.
Accordingly, this needs additional watchlisters and/or somebody to investigate whether IMDb is right or wrong so that we can throw a lid on this nonsense, because I'm not putting up with even one more second of this. Bearcat ( talk) 22:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to take IMDb for granted per WP:IMDB. It's ideal for a quick lookup of released mainstream films, but beyond that, if only IMDb seems to have that information, it needs to actually be verified elsewhere in reliable sources. It's possible that this information could be valid, but we don't know the context of it. Maybe this film got a little non-American funding, or something else. In the meantime, seems appropriate to keep it American until we see reliable sources mention these other countries. Even then, it does not necessarily mean we would stop calling it an "American film" or that we would list these countries in the film infobox. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose to create Bangladeshi cinema task force for Wikiproject Film. Bangladesh is one of biggest film industry. Bangladeshi cinema should have a task force in this wikiproject. Mehedi Abedin 22:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Just an update, pursuant to my above post from last week about Category:Argentine films.
I've listed one specific batch of the film-to-list redirects for deletion at WP:RFD, specifically the ones that were redirecting to List of Argentine films of 1982. However, due to the sheer size of the job, and the need to facilitate cleaning up the base Argentine films category, for the moment I've also moved all of the redirects that were filed in the base category from there to a project maintenance category at Category:Argentine film redirects so that they're all in one place for both ease of investigation and decluttering of the mainspace category. So if anybody wants to help out, namely by checking whether there's an alternative redirect target available, and either deleting it yourself or listing it for deletion at RFD if not, then it could certainly use a few willing hands even if you just tackle a few per sitting. Bearcat ( talk) 02:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#RfC on Sequel section regarding when it is appropriate to omit an entry in a film series from a sequel section. Additional input is appreciated. Argento Surfer ( talk) 15:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
New stub: Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud. Improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I've created a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/By-country cleanup to facilitate the process of cleaning up the base national film categories. I've sorted all of the categories into one of four groups:
Obviously group 3 is the main priority at this time, but group 4 can still be tackled if you choose. But if you do tackle a category from either group 3 or 4 and get it emptied out, then please also edit the work list to move that category to whichever of group 1 or 2 is applicable. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding The Woman King, which is released in theaters this weekend, editors are invited to watchlist the article since there will likely be a lot of coverage about its critical reception and its historical accuracy, which are both covered in fairly new sections. The talk page has related sections devoted to both for discussion, and additional feedback about either subtopic is welcome at Talk:The Woman King. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding two films featuring Harry Styles, Don't Worry Darling and My Policeman (film), editors are invited to review each article's "Reception" section and the amount of text written about Styles. There is one discussion underway at Talk:Don't Worry Darling#Reception and Styles. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, the two editors who advocated for disproportionate text about Styles compared to other aspects of either film have been blocked as sockpuppets. Editors are still welcome to review the film articles' current "Critical reception" sections to edit as needed, whether to add more content touching on other aspects, or whittle down anything that currently exists. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:They All Laughed#Requested move 10 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 18:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Silent film director and screenwriter Joseph A. Golden is suffering from a lack of reliable sources, and apparent conflation/incorrect info on IMDB (unreliable) and other databases and mirrors of IMDB. His IMDB profile previously ( as of 2015) gave his lifespan as c. 1897 - 8 July 1942, which is implausible if he began directing films in 1907 and looked like this in 1909. IMDB has currenlty omitted the birth year, and simply gives a death dat of 8 July 1942. However, IMDB apparently has historically and currently conflated Joseph A. Golden with Robert A. Golden (Q114033627) ( IMDB), who verifiably did die in Hollywood 8 July 1942 ( choked to death on a piece of steak). Find a Grave (less credible than IMDB) also conflates the two Goldens. So basically, the vital dates and location of birth and death of Joseph A. Golden are open questions needing reliable sourcing. I've found some tantalizing scraps and hints and primary records, but hopefully more corroborating/significant info could be found by someone with access to newspaper archives (especially New York newspapers). Here's what I've found or believe so far:
That's about all the vital info I can find, aside from film magazine chatter and routine reporting of roles or films in the middle of his career. I don't have New York Times or Newspaper.com access. Hopefully there are some more nuggets out there that can more solidly tie these strings together. Any help would be appreciated. Even if sources aren't WP:RS, they might be added to Wikidata to help counter/correct years of misinformation. Thanks! --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
References
b. Wash., D. C.; educ. Wash.; stage career, public reader, Monroe Players, Frohman and other prods., and various stock cos.; screen career, Centaur, Biograph, Selig, Powers, Famous Players ("Monte Cristo"), Crystal, of which he is Pres. and director of prods.
Twenty-two years ago, under Dion Boucicault, he became initiated in this profession, and has since played every kind of character, young and old, and of every nationality. For years he served as stage manager to Charles Frohman... and was for many years the stage director and manager of Stock Companies and other large productions.
Q. Mr. Golden, what is your business? A. I am a playwright and director of plays. I am also the president and treasurer of the Crystal Film Company.
Miss Erna Margaret Weiss, daughter of Dr. Joseph Weiss of Zurich. Switzerland, was married to Mr. Joseph A. Golden, a playwright, yesterday, in Delmonlco's by Judge Aaron J. Levy. The maid of honor was Miss Edna Sylvia Garden. The best man was Dr. Frank Joseph Edelstein. Mrs. and Mrs. Golden will sail for Europe by the Rohambeau Saturday. After May 1 they will live at 55 West Seventy-fourth street.
At Midnight: a play in 1 act by J. A. Golden... Joseph Aron Golden, New York
When I cleaned up Category:Italian films last week for subcategorization of all films that were still in the parent category, a user revert-warred me on one specific film, Shatterer, on the grounds that the genre isn't sufficiently sourced for his standards. But then, when I reverted it back on the grounds that the film can't be left in Category:Italian films (or Category:Swiss films or Category:Japanese films), and has to be moved to one or more subcategories of each, the user then responded by simply removing those three categories so that the article now has no nationality categories on it at all anymore.
But some form of categorization for "Italian [something] films", "Japanese [something] films" and "Swiss [something] films" must be on it, because films must have nationality-based catgories on them, so some form of each of those three categories has to be readded to the page -- but the editor is simply refusing to listen to anything I have to say, so it's not an issue I can simply resolve on my own if they're just going to keep editwarring me over it, and I don't have access to any databases of archived Italian media coverage from which I could retrieve 35-year-old reviews of an Italian film, which means I'm strictly at the mercy of what I can find in a quick Google search.
So can somebody help figure out what categories the page can be readded to so that it's categorized properly? It simply can't be left with no nationality categories on it at all, but it can't be left in the base "national films" categories either. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 16:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Would appreciate if more editors could weigh in here about the "inherited notability" argument and possibly try to find more refs to show whether GNG/NFILM is met. Many thanks for your help and time! VickKiang 02:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I recently created an article for the documentary Jihad Rehab. There has been some controversy around the film. I would appreciate it if experienced editors would keep an eye on the article. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I came across this Buzzfeed South Africa article that mentions Sandra Bullock's 1994 Jupiter Awards win for Best International Actress for Speed. Would it be fine to use? There's also this Screenrant piece, which mentions that she won her first Jupiter Award for Speed but not the year or category. For the 1996 awards, Business Insider has this piece that mentions her win for A Time to Kill but it's stated in an image caption. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 06:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
If available, could editors possibly try to find refs for An Innocent Kiss, and comment on notability (IMHO it's borderline, contested notability tag, though I feel uncomfortable about AfDing it)? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
If anyone could try to find refs for The Slave Ship (film) and comment on whether it is notable that would be great! VickKiang (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with the film The Last Color please take a look at the Plot section? I was doing some gnomish terminology clean-up and came across this article. The content of the plot section was expanded over several edits back in April/May 2021, however the way that it's written leads me to suspect that this summary may not be accurate. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the film to determine if the summary is accurate or not, nor to be able to fix it if it is not accurate. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This refers to the current discussion which is open on the talk page for Bette Davis Talk:Bette Davis. In summary, User:Dancingtudorqueen invited comments on which of four photos of Ms Davis should be used in the infobox for the Bette Davis article. I voted for a ‘mature’ image from the 1940s aged around 35-40, which I thought the most representative of her career. Since no one else commented, User:Dancingtudorqueen made that change. Subsequently, User:Shshshsh changed the image again to a younger photo of Ms Davis in 1935 aged 27, arguing it is more ‘flattering’ and shows her in her ‘prime’. He correctly points out that the later photo which I favour is not accurately dated, but only described as ‘1940s’.
I think this requires a wider discussion about infobox images for film actors with long careers. Ms Davis’s film career lasted between her ages 22 to 80. She was most famed for her acting, star quality and personality rather than her looks. I don’t know how to assess when she was in her ‘prime’ – if it's any measure, her Oscar awards are fairly evenly spread from 1934 to 1962.
I think an infobox image should give a fair and balanced representation of an actor’s whole career, rather than a youthful or flattering image. The rest of the article can include images showing an actor chronologically or illustrating specific points.
What do others think? Masato.harada ( talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Does International Online Cinema Awards appear to be notable? There is no Wikipedia article, but there is no history of an article being created. This shows this award being mentioned in 118 articles. I wanted to get other opinions before removing these, due to a lack of any prior notability testing. While we have MOS:FILMACCOLADES, most of them are actors' articles, and WP:ACTOR does not have any MOS with similar guidance. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Borat for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Wretchskull ( talk) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm very confused at what's going on at Black Adam. I managed to find two reliable sources (approved by WP:RSP) that verify negative reviews for the article, not mixed reviews. [3] [4]. I changed "mixed reviews" to "negative reviews" in the lead and critical response section to reflect the sources but everyone keeps switching it back to mixed stating that the 55% score on Rotten Tomatoes is enough to warrant calling the reviews mixed. But isn't that WP:SYN? Saying the reviews are mixed when the sources does not say that is WP:SYN, is it not? Also MOS:FILM states "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews" and "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly". Or am I missing something? Is there a new guideline stating to determine positive/negative/mixed reviews from RT's score? Am I in the right or the wrong here? I'm confused. Armegon ( talk) 01:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Mixed or average reviewsas per here. Note that a) it's RS per WP:RSP, b) it's endorsed by MOS:FILM,
Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews.Therefore, it should be considered as a reliable source for indicating that the film received mixed reviews. With one ref suggesting mixed reception and another two suggesting negative reception, IMHO we need an in-depth discussion on the talk page instead of reverting between mixed and negative IMHO. Still, I disagree that the "mixed" violates WP:SYN as it's supported by at least one source. VickKiang (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Black Adam (film)#Critical reception. Maybe it's me, but it seems like articles of recent films have gotten worse in editors thinking more than before that they can synthesize individual reviews into summaries. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 03:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
What's the appropriate way to cover the criticism by some sources that Top Gun: Maverick is American military propaganda? Discussion on the article talk page. -- KnightMove ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saturday's Children#Requested move 15 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dinosaurs! – A Fun-Filled Trip Back in Time!#Requested move 22 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Template:Romeo and Juliet has been nominated for merging with Template:Romeo and Juliet film adaptations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tick, Tick, Tick (film)#Requested move 15 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Notability (films), the "Other evidence of notability" section has this element, "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." There is a discussion about the meaning of nationally known critics that can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) § "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India. Editor are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a major consistency problem at Category:Fantasy comedy films, which needs some kind of resolution. The issue is that some of its subcategories are named "fantasy comedy" without a hyphen, while others are named "fantasy-comedy" with a hyphen -- with the result that redlinked categories often pop up at Special:WantedCategories because articles have been categorized in the hyphenated version for countries where the category isn't hyphenated or in the unhyphenated version for countries where the real category is hyphenated. And even worse, that doesn't only result from editors adding the wrong form to a new article off the top, but sometimes even results from editors flipping a category that was already on a page from the existing form to the non-existing one.
And for the cherry on top, there have been multiple attempts, in both directions, to resolve this at WP:CFR by listing one set or the other for renaming to the other form for consistency, which always fail no matter which direction is proposed. If the unhyphenated set is listed for renaming to the hyphenated form, then the nomination fails on the grounds that the parent is unhyphenated -- but if the hyphenated set is listed for renaming to the unhyphenated form, then the nomination founders on the argument that the parent is named wrongly and should have the hyphen added to it.
Obviously, however, this has to be resolved one way or the other, with a consensus to settle on one form or the other and apply it across the board to the outliers, so some discussion is needed to determine which form should be used. Bearcat ( talk) 15:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding the plot summary of Grave of the Fireflies at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#Plot summary format. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Editors may want to keep an eye on Kimaleec ( talk · contribs), who as recently as this afternoon was adding cast names to plot summaries for multiple articles despite being asked to stop three days ago. I've left two additional warnings today, the second after they did not apparently heed the first. It looks like they're editing from a mobile device, so they may not be seeing their Talk page notifications, but that's not a blank check to continue editing disruptively. I'll try to catch up on things when I'm back. DonIago ( talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Roman Polanski § Second sentence of the lede paragraph. The discussion is about whether to mention the sexual abuse case in the lede paragraph.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 00:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
00:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Many films' lead paragraphs don't say what the movie is about. The film style guide specifies that it should. When viewing the page for a specific film, I think I'm far from the only one who wants to refresh my memory with a quick sentence or half sentence. Also, I don't know whether we consider that web searches for titles sometimes display the first paragraph in the found results, and it would be nice to have that info there. For examples of some that do and some that don't, check out the films in List of Tony Award- and Olivier Award-winning plays.
Is there already a task about this? (If so, I might be interested in helping with that specifically. Sadly I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days.) Elf | Talk 19:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It may be that if a film has no particularly noteworthy context when it comes to the cast and crew and source material, the premise could go in the first sentence. For example, Prey for the Devil has nothing particularly noteworthy about it, and seeing the premise upfront may be the best way to identify the topic at hand. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. There's an ongoing discussion at the talk page of The Incredibles, which might be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. The discussion is at Talk:The Incredibles#Syndrome's Death. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I found in an old video that the film seemed to premiere at Grauman’s Chinese Theater, so I may I change the word, “Premiere” to Grauman’s Chinese Theater please? DrkWebber ( talk) 05:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Coco (2017 film) § Plot summary revamp. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
So I realized after editing Starship Troopers (film) that despite Sony Pictures Releasing is known on the Wiki for being THE distributor for all Sony Pictures Entertainment films, they always "hide" under a different label, as seen in the end credits of every movie (ex. "A Columbia Pictures Release"). Here are further examples:
I just wanted to make this notice to make sure editors to double check whether a Sony Pictures company is actually a production company or just a distributor. For the upcoming Dumb Money, I predict Sony will eventually label it under one of their banners, so put it as a distributor unless sources say otherwise. IAmNMFlores ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Murder in Reverse#Requested move 12 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I randomly came across the fact that Jeremy Konner's article was removed for lack of notability. See [6]. This guy seems pretty notable to me (but what do I know). Do you know where to go in wikipedia to have the issue looked at by people to assess notability? I had a tough time figuring out whether there is a place (besides once an article is being chosen for deletion. Can anyone else take a look at this guy and see whether he is notable or not? Remember ( talk) 14:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Check out WP:SUBSCRIBE! Looking forward to using this. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 03:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
With the death of director Albert Pyun, I revisited the film and wanted to find more sources on the filim. I found a bunch of reviews, but Rotten Tomatoes lists two 2005 newspaper reviews for the DVD release. I can't find either in any newspaper archive however. Would there be any ideas how to get them? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just as a user, I wondered why so many film posters in Wikipedia articles are very small files. I get that they need to be fair use, but is there a reason why they're so small? I ask because I often click on them hoping to be able to read the taglines and other notable info that's exclusive of the poster, but they're too small for me to read anything, or at least not comfortably. Kumagoro-42 ( talk) 17:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cinema Snob 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 until the discussion has finished.
Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has requested for Willow (film) to be moved to Willow (1988 film). Since you had some involvement with Willow (film), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Before this month, IMDb changed the "Filmography" section heading that it has used for film, TV, and even video games. Now it uses "Credits" for the section heading. This, coupled with the fact that filmography is universally defined as a list of films, we should strive to move away from using "Filmography" section headings in Wikipedia articles unless all credits are only film-related. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone tried ChatGPT? There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content about using it. I think it could be useful on at least a couple of fronts for film articles: pasting a section or at least a paragraph in and ask for it to be copy-edited (and implementing changes), and asking it to summarize overlong plot summaries to around 400-700 words and reviewing the shorter summary before implementing. (I would probably suggest around 400 words or in the middle with 550 due to inevitable detail creep.) I'm also hoping that it could be used by review aggregator websites to summarize reviews more fully and in prose. In the same vein, I've used ChatGPT to convert certain Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores (with as much numerical detail as possible) into prose, and the results look pretty good, so hope they can do something like that at least. Anyone have thoughts on any of the above? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussions related to action comedy below. Editors are invited to comment.
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mike Allen 03:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The article Zencoder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Per WP:SIRS, I do not think the sources shown on the article count for notability criteria, along with the fact that it seems that one product created (the Flix Cloud mentioned in the article) by this company also had a Wikipedia article created by the same person who did this article that was then speedy deleted.
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.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Future of Technology 2010 | No mention of sponsorship with Zencoder. | Bloomberg is a trusted source, although it does lean left-wing according to AllSides ( https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias). | The article is over angel investors, some of which happened to invest in Zencoder, but it does not concern Zencoder at all. | ✘ No |
On2 Technologies and Zencoder Partner to Create On-Demand Video Encoding Service | Following accsess via the Internet Archive, the story comes from On2's PR Newswire. | Bloomberg is a trusted source, although it does lean left-wing according to AllSides ( https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias). However, the story being from the On2 PR newswire means that we cannot trust if this was true. | Concerns a large project partially started by Zencoder | ✘ No |
Google Closes On2 Technology Acquisition | The article is about Google buying the partner company for their product, and this is from Google's own Investor news. | This is Google's own Investor page, they cannot be trusted to provide reliable details on their acquisition. | ~ If talking about how the product was shut down because of this acquisition, then yes, it is significant. | ✘ No |
Encoding Performance: Comparing Zencoder, Encoding.com, Sorenson & Panda | First sentance in the post states that it was paid for by Zencoder. | First sentance in the post states that it was paid for by Zencoder. | Directly talks about the performance of Zencoder. | ✘ No |
Brightcove Acquires Zencoder | The article is from Zencoder's own blog. | The article is from Zencoder's own blog, so we cannot trust the reliability of the statments. | Directly talks about Zencoder being bought. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
You all are the group said to be taking care this page, so that is why I am informing you all of this. WikipeidaNeko ( talk) 00:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Post-closure, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
To anyone that's working in this WikiProject: If anyone's working on articles from Skydance, i have a task force opened up at the WikiProject Animation article called Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group. This task force is open for Video Games, Animation, Film and Television, and Sports. If anyone is interested in this, we have some slots open up. BMA-Nation2020 ( talk) 23:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
On two separate occasions in 2022, anonymous IPs have edited our article about the 2021 film Drinkwater to add "Mike Drinkwater" as the name of a cast member in, and/or writer of, the film. As one can probably guess from the film's title, however, this is actually just the name of the film's lead character rather than a cast or crew member involved in the production. However, both times slipped my notice initially and were only caught and reverted months after the fact, and the article appears to only have one other watchlister, so I wanted to ask if a few willing editors here could help keep an eye on this in the future. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 00:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
What's another way to say this neutrally in Wikipedia's voice? Because I think no matter how sourced the fact that a movie garnered "great reviews", it will always be a subject of dispute. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy ( talk) 05:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention based on an edit to Harold and Kumar go to White Castle that we have Category:Korean-American films and similar categories. I'm a little concerned that we have a logic disjunction here. We've previously used categories such as "X films", where X was a country, to indicate the country of origin of a film. This category, though, is using a category with this format to indicate that one or more primary cast members are of the described ethnicity. To me, this could lead to potential confusion, i.e. "Are they saying this film was a joint Korean-American production, or that it includes Korean-American characters?"
It seems to me as though the most appropriate option might be to rename this category and related categories to Category:Films about Korean-Americans, or something similar. Thoughts? DonIago ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:I Wanna Dance with Somebody (film)#Requested move 20 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, all. I was wondering if I could get some help writing Draft:Jones (fictional cat) and getting it to have enough sources to pass the GNG and be suitable as an article. Thanks, Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion about the page moves of Avatar 3 and Avatar 4 on the Avatar 3 talk page if anyone from the project has an opinion. Mike Allen 19:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pinocchio (2022 live-action film)#Requested move 22 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed Category:Box-office bombs for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Category:Box-office bombs. Comments (either way) welcome. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a pet peeve of mine, but this vague, uncommon phrase has made its way into dozens, if not hundreds of movie articles. Aside from “emotional weight” not being a common term or praise for a film, it’s actually just straight up being added to virtually any film under the sun regardless of actual critical consensus - we seriously need to trim down the usage of it. Toa Nidhiki05 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The CSD criterion proposal has failed. I've made an alternate proposal at WT:NCFILM § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, all comments are welcome. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
To all who are available: I have opened up a task force for Skydance Media and i'm looking for some editors who might be interested in joining Skydance Media task force. There's a lot of topics from Skydance and i need editors who are fans of Skydance and it's divisions from Television to Animation. We're only a three membered team getting started and we need 6 more members to join in. If anyone wants to come and work for us on Skydance Media, please put your name on the members list on what division you wanna join by and we'll get started. BMA-Nation2020 ( talk) 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Fully concur with the above discussion. While we're on that subject, we also need a moratorium on the amateurish phrase "had its premiere", which has the bizarre implication that the film itself has agency in the philosophical or sociological sense. No, a film does not premiere itself. As I explained on this talk page a few years ago, professional journalists write that a film "premiered" at a location or that its premiere occurred or was held at a location.
I've noticed that this obnoxious phrase is being introduced predominantly by British English editors into WP film articles. As I've pointed out elsewhere on Wikipedia, my suspicion is that such verbal tics probably arise from the UK government's gross mismanagement of the country's educational system since World War II.
We have quite a number of British expats here in Silicon Valley fleeing their country's badly underfunded educational system in search of greener pastures. For decades, Silicon Valley parents have been happy to pay a premium to have their children taught English and Latin by such expats with their plummy British accents and Oxbridge degrees. (For example, I read The Canterbury Tales my senior year of high school with a Cambridge graduate.) -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
While filming has not begun, the topic arguably already meets GNG due to existing coverage. Ex. inverse, variety, gizmodo, collider, plus the sources in the draft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
short articles that consist of only product announcement information". When the amount of "encyclopedic knowledge" is limited, CRYSTAL encourages the merging of that information into a larger topic (e.g. Avatar franchise), when such a solution exists and makes sense without overburdening the target article.Looking at the draft, it appears that a large portion of the content is general information that applies to multiple sequels; there is very little specific to only Avatar 5. That doesn't seem to change much even after a quick glance at the additional sources (and if I'm missing something, perhaps it would be better to expand the draft further and revisit afterward). -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 07:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, could someone well versed in WP:NFILM please take a look at Draft:More Than I Want to Remember and advise whether the festival wins make it notable? The article has a COI, and the sources don't cover the film in depth. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1133184336, MovieWeb is used to source a claim that a film has a cult following. It's a listicle from a website that I suspect to be a content mill. Anyone have thoughts about the reliability of this source? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello folks. Could you please check out Cinema of Serbia? It is currently rate stub-class, which seems wrong considering the current status of the article. Any additional help with the article is appreciated. Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Not a Film but uses the same boilerplate text as many film articles, please see Talk:The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series)#Percent_vs_%_sign. Thanks, Indagate ( talk) 13:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the correct native name approach for the infobox? This one or this one, or both are correct? Armegon ( talk) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I've [ discussed this in the past, but can we get it set view on the validity of sites like Boxofficestory.com and JPBoxoffice. I've been through their site and can't find anything on how their sources are pulled, but often see them all over film articles, generally European ones. No one has really stepped forward, but I'm leaning towards we add it to sources we shouldn't use as it's not clear where the information is pulled from. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 20:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Y'all may want to take a crack at editing the recently added plot for this article 76.14.122.5 ( talk) 01:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)