![]() | 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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 |
Hey everyone,
I was working away on Charles Bronson's page, where I stumbled on a page named " Lola (1969 film)" also known as Twinky. However while the film was made in 1969 it was released in 1970. So the page should be called "Lola (1970 film)". On the Charles Bronson filmography page the person who originally wrote it as a 1969 release, it was also the case in his article before, so it creates confusion. It's minor film so on the large scale of things who cares, but if I do notice such mistake how can I resolve them. Thank you.
Filmman3000 ( talk) 18:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
What’s the guidelines/policy on adding film trailers to film articles? I can’t seem to find anything that either forbids or encourages their inclusion. Armegon ( talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Please move all further conversations to the MOS talk page ( Found here), as that is the more appropriate location to discuss how to handle content being added to film pages in general. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion on how we should summarize the reception in the lead on Fantastic Four (2015 film). It can be found at Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)#Summary of reviews in the lead. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I've just noticed that there are a lot of articles miscategorised under Category:Rediscovered films and its subcats. Many were added by User:Espngeek, for whom I've left a message asking to stop. I've emptied Category:2010s rediscovered films and removed Category:2000s rediscovered films from all but one article, but help is needed to check the rest.
On another note, these should probably be titled Category:Rediscovered 2000s films, etc., but that's a matter for CfD. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, in a similar way to MCU articles, I would suggest to decide a color to use for every DCEU articles. Also, do you think that DCEU and future DCU articles should have the same color? Redjedi23 ( talk) 15:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RfC on reliability of pinkvilla. — Archer1234 ( t· c) 13:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
With this edit to Citizen Kane, Themashup ( talk · contribs) added a critical reception score from a review aggregator called CherryPicks (redlinked to establish there's no WP article on the site), which is new to me. Are other editors familiar with this site? Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there support for the addition of all these foreign and minor/non-notable aggregator sites being added by themashup? Where will that end? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have discovered through the reliable source American Film Institute that the movie "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" (1998) is a co-production between the United States, Germany and Mexico, however when I add the information it is removed because I'm not a Wikipedia librarian. For this reason I decided to write to you in the hope that you add the true information that I mentioned and which you can verify, within the "countries" category in the "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" fact sheet. 201.168.135.194 ( talk) 05:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
On the talk page for List of highest-grossing films based on television series, there is a dispute over whether or not films based on short films like Mickey Mouse, Looney Tunes and Wallace and Gromit should be included on the list, with one argument being that they are dissimilar to television series and another being that the scope of the page could be expanded to include them. Should these be included or not? 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 14:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I created this page too be a sister page to List of highest-grossing films based on video games could this be defined better probably if anyone wants to help improve this page go ahead whiles creating this page I ask for help on the talk page for highest-grossing films based on video games but not no response Fan Of Lion King 🦁 ( talk) 21:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Being Mortal (film) ( article | history). The discussion concerns whether it's appropriate for the article to state the film has been canceled. Nardog ( talk) 11:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Drama films by year.
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)—
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:Metacritic_album_prose#Subst'ing and weigh in. Thanks. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 14:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Could I get more eyes on this discussion about text being copied from a Fandom page. Particularly if you are knowledgeable with copyright policies. Thanks. Mike Allen 18:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
A Pilipino Movie JuanTejada19 ( talk) 12:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Talk:Spider-Man:_Across_the_Spider-Verse#Cast_section, about the cast section for this film if anyone feels like inputting. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman: Legacy (2025) 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.
Additional comments would be welcome. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Enjō#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I want to report here this deletion proposal initiated by myself after the last discussion in this WikiProject. Redjedi23 ( talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the article for Dexter Fletcher looks like it's been rewritten in a heavily promotional, non-encyclopedic tone, mostly by Khan Zak13. I'm traveling today so I can't look too much into it, but a deeper dive into possible COI violations might be warranted – if someone has a moment for that, that would be great. I'll also notify Khan Zak13 at their talk page. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 20:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if anybody here is a fan of his, but it's currently up for delisting as a GA. It just needs somebody to write an account of his film work since 2011. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I notice that the plot or synopsis sections of film articles seem to typically not have references. This is in specific reference to this discussion. "At the talk page for the documentary Ukraine on Fire I am finding some very problematic stuff, including that the film is pushing a "fringe" POV and as such, "The whole synopsis is based on the film itself (as a primary source), and should be removed as pro-fringe." This editor wants the whole Synopsis section removed because they don't like what it says. Is that okay? Is the plot or synopsis section not always based on the primnary source of the movie its self? Carptrash ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Are editors in this discussion aware that the subject film of Ukraine on Fire purports to be a documentary? It is not fiction, uses footage of real events and purports to interpret them. The article has a synopsis, not a “plot summary,” because if there is a plot (narrative), it is not the creation of the filmmaker. I see cited guidelines MOSPLOT, PLOTSOURCE, and PLOTCITE, which appear to apply only to works of fiction.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Documentaries, the synopsis can include analysis of aspects of the documentary’s subject from secondary sources, and can have a separate “Analysis” section, and reviews by authorities on its subject and not just film critics. — Michael Z. 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Since a documentary deals with real-life topics and figures, provide wikilinks to them wherever useful. See the guidelines on link clarity and specificity, and link to terms that match the topic precisely if not closely. If coverage from secondary sources focuses on a specific aspect of the documentary, that aspect can be elaborated to provide context for the coverage. For example, the documentary may mention some statistics, and there is coverage from secondary sources analyzing these statistics, which are not detailed in the synopsis.
andInstead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT).
An "Analysis" section can be written to detail the statistics from the documentary and to report the analytical coverage from secondary sources.
Some movies which grossed more than their budget are declared flops. I found out that the budget includes only film budget but not cist of movie promotion and other costs.
Also producer share, distributer share, there share is not mentioned.
The film info box must give details, so that we can easily find out that the movie is flop Vampswefg ( talk) 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
easily find out that the movie is flopas it's often not known how much a studio actually spent on a film. Infoboxes are for simple information, nuances are for the body of the article. — El Millo ( talk) 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer 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.
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The table for DVD, Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD releases in the List of Criterion Collection releases article has the following columns which I feel is totally irrelevant: LD No. (Criterion LaserDiscs have been out of print for decades, there is a separate article covering those LaserDiscs and most importantly, the overwhelming majority of entries for that column have this field blank), Art House (same as the last logic for the previous one), Box set availability (same), UK release (same and Wikipedia is not a retail site anyway so not sure what purpose this one is serving here). The Blu-ray column can be removed too by just color-coding the spine numbers to indicate whether the release is a DVD, a Blu-ray, a UHD or a combination of any two. The table is too huge already. Would request other editors to comment on this and let us know about their opinions. Jovian Eclipse 17:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The "Art House" column notes stand-alone releases of a film within the "Essential Art House" series. Some films are available through the "Essential Art House" 50-DVD set, but not as a stand-alone package.) But of course, this does not merit its justification for being included in the table. Jovian Eclipse 06:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Criterion has created new restorations, recorded interviews and commentaries, commissioned essays for their releases, besides setting industry standards for releasing home cinema releases.Jovian Eclipse 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Just for my own sanity: do descriptors in the lead of a film article new RS citations? ie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring "epic fantasy adventure film", Star Wars "epic space opera", La La Land "romantic musical film", American Graffiti "coming-of-age comedy-drama film", Nixon (film) "epic historical drama film". In full disclosure, this is in tandem with the current discussion at An American in Paris: Talk Page. I am having difficulty with the concept of citing descriptors in the lead for films. Maineartists ( talk) 04:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This RFC at RSN may be of interest to project members. Abecedare ( talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
An anonymous editor keeps inserting random cherry-picked examples into the lead at List of most expensive films. There is no logic to the examples (i.e. most expensive/record-holders etc) and one of the films does not even qualify for the list on the basis it didn't cost enough. I would appreciate a third opinion at Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films#Recent_changes_to_lead, because until that happens it's just two editors having a content dispute rather than one editor editing against a consensus. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Nimona (film)#Studio dispute over the studios credited for this animated film. Some want to credit only Annapurna Pictures (who produced it after it was revived), while others wish to credit Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Studios, and Vertigo Entertainment, with the latter three producing it before it was cancelled, along with Annapurna. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be appreciated. Historyday01 ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor tonight has created all of these categories for a genre he calls "rape films" and "rape thriller films" (see Category:Rape films by decade). Now is it just me or this completely made up film genre? A major classification in the type of films is not whether or not there is a rape scene in them. This editor is so persistent, I think it will take more than me to challenge his efforts. Some of these categories are not populated yet so I have tagged this as CSD C1 but I think they'll find a way to fill them up.
What do you do when an editor invents a film genre? I'm sure it's happened before. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill Bill. Popcornfud ( talk) 10:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:The Angry Birds Movie#Rotten tomatoes "negative" or "mixed" over whether to describe a "rotten" rating as "negative" or "mixed". NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) which may interest the regular readers of this talk page. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I recntrly created a draft for Invitation to the Wedding. Are there any good sources out there? Some big names had roles in it. Thriley ( talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor has been warring with me at Carmen (2021 film) over the starring= field in the infobox; the rule has always been to list only the handful of top-billed stars who are playing the film's main characters in that spot, and use the body of the article to list the rest of the supporting cast, but the other user is arguing that the rule is that starring= has to list every single actor whose name appears on the poster at all, even if that runs to 13 or 14 "stars".
I can't find a version of the poster that's HD enough to read the poster in fully clear detail, but I have found this, in which Natasha McElhone and Steven Love are the two top-billed actors, and then there's a half-height word I can't quite make out ("featuring"? "introducing"?) before any other actor is named, then several actors later there's another group set apart as "with" and the only other actor with a Wikipedia article at all appears last and is set off with an "and". So it's clear that the film is positing McElhone and Love as the principal stars and everybody else as supporting, and our rule has never, ever been to let the starring= field in the infobox run on to 13 or 14 people — especially because that extends the infobox so badly that the page is now close to half dead whitespace because the amount of body text doesn't even come close to matching the extended length of the infobox.
So could somebody else weigh in on what the infobox is supposed to contain, so that this doesn't turn into an unresolvable one-on-one edit war? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of this newly created project here, which appears relevant to this project as well.
I already have concerns about some categorization categories that have been created in conjunction with that project, and at its Talk page I have noted that it seems more appropriate for those categories to either be moved to the appropriate Talk pages or hidden. Additional opinions would be welcome there. DonIago ( talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This entry ( /info/en/?search=Three-two_pull_down) contains the following information:
The term "pulldown" comes from the mechanical process of "pulling" (physically moving) the film downward within the film portion of the transport mechanism to advance it from one frame to the next at a repetitive rate (nominally 24 frames/s). This is accomplished in two steps.
The first step is to slow down the film motion by 1/1000 to 23.976 frames/s (or 24 frames every 1.001 seconds). This difference in speed is imperceptible to the viewer. For a two-hour film, play time is extended by 7.2 seconds.
The explanation about "pulldown" is incorrect. "Pulldown" refers to the 0.1% slow down from 24fps, not the physical action of a Telecine. This description of "pulldown" is just describing what a film projector does, and a Telecine is a special-use film projector.
If this definition were true, an older European film shot at 25fps and transferred to PAL for broadcast in Europe would be called a "1/1 pulldown" or something, but it is not.
Pulldown refers to the speed change between "film speed" and "video speed". You pull-down to go from Film to Video and you pull-up when you go from Video to Film. DisquietHorizon ( talk) 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd also note that when searching for a reference for the "pulldown" definition given I seem to only find references to the Wikipedia entry. Is there any other source for the given definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisquietHorizon ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, some research has shown maybe I am incorrect. It is still quite vague, but I take back my dispute. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DisquietHorizon (
talk •
contribs) 15:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
An RfC of possible interest to the members of this WikiPRoject can be found here.
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
We're currently using {{
dagger}} † as key for pending films, but that's extremely similar to {{
extinct}}
† and other symbols for death, e.g. {{
KIA}}
†. I think that {{
await}} would be much more intuitive, so I propose to substitute the symbol in
Template:Pending films key and all pages linking to it.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film)#Undue weight or original research in the lede over whether it is original research to describe a "rotten" rating as "negative" or "mixed", or undue weight to mention specific aggregate sites in the lede. Unnamed anon ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Barbenheimer, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC on whether a certain instance of humor is appropriate on Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how to describe this so I'll just call it the Travis Scott problem.
Look how weird this looks. I knew there would probably be a good reason, but at the time I thought the best option was to get rid of the extra Travis Scott.
Someone looking at this is going to wonder why it looks like that. In this case, would "(star)" work?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I've proposed that
ESPN 8: The Ocho be split off from the film article
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, as it is a real TV programming segment on the real ESPN, and not just something in a fiction film. You may be interested in the discussion. For the discussion , see
talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story#Split off ESPN 8
--
67.70.25.80 (
talk) 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
After creating an article today about the Swedish film Opponent, I went to try to add it to a list of Swedish films and found that no list existed at all yet for the 2020s, so I followed up by creating List of Swedish films of the 2020s. I'm mostly not all that knowledgeable about Swedish film, however — basically the only Swedish films of the 2020s I know about at all are what's been to either TIFF or Inside Out, and even a lot of those were multinational copros rather than distinctively Swedish films per se — so I just wanted to let the project know in case somebody with more knowledge on the subject can pad the list out further with additional entries. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 23:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for French filmmaker Claire Simon. Is there a single database that I can use as a reliable source for all her films? Thriley ( talk) 22:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Is a reference/inline citation nescessary for every single film listed in a filmography? I have an argument about this with User:55go in this article: Ineko Arima.
1.I think that references/inline citations in filmographies are NOT nescessary, as they are not only not demanded in MOS:FILM and WP:CS, I even think this is a clear case of WP:OVERKILL.
2. Even IF they were, placing a "more citations needed" template would be more useful instead of making the whole filmography or parts of it invisible by comment tagging it while working on the article, as said user did. One can do this on his/her personal blog site, but not in a public online encyclopaedia, in my opinion. While doing this, said user also reverted ALL my changes, including a corrected referencing and adding of a nihongo template in the intro. I regard said user's way of working questionable. My invitation to said user to discuss this topic here instead of reverting my edits and making the filmography temporarily invisible was ignored.
3. And again, IF references/inline citations were obligatory, wouldn't it be more useful to place ONE reference in the filmography head section, e.g. to the Japanese Movie Database or Kinema Junpo in this case, instead of producing unnescessary clutter in the filmography?
Would like to hear some opinions. Many thanks Robert Kerber ( talk) 13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion would have been more appropriate at WT:ACTOR, though that WikiProject does not have a MOS like this one does. (And this WikiProject's MOS would not cover filmographies anyway.) I think the core matter is verifiability, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." I think that many editors and readers focus on the most popular and mainstream actors (and films). For example, to cite that Cillian Murphy was in Oppenheimer seems absurd because it's so obvious. I guess there could be an argument that the primary source, the work, is being cited to support the credit, and the link is available to see the details of the film's personnel. A lot of films could be found and their credits directly checked. For lesser-known cast and crew members, though, this is murkier. Like what if some of them became famous later in their career, but their early career involved non-notable works for which there aren't Wikipedia articles, and the works aren't available via home media?
I think as a matter of course, if an editor wants to start adding inline citations for all the works, let them. We have no idea what the future holds, especially in this age of generative AI that could involve RS websites going out of business or sneaky automatic mass-vandalism to insert actors' names, so I find it no big deal to anchor every detail as best as we can. Like Betty said, the so-called "clutter" concern is within the article body, so it's fine if we have dozens more listings in the "References" section at the bottom of the article. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
A released work is a published primary reliable source reference for both its existence and for internal details such as credits that are in the work itself so those facts don't need to have additional references. Information external to what is in the work such as uncredited roles, details about the subject's role beyond the credits, and the initial release year of the work should have a source, particularly if the work doesn't have an article. A column reference for the release year should be sufficient for that info if there is a directory source available and will also back up existence and name. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing actors#Paul Bettany (again), and a proposal to remove the erroneous content about him that could benefit from further input. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Allspark (company)#What exactly happened on October 9, 2020, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Since it's a high profile movie (and there seems to actually have been a drawn out dispute on the plot section), noting this discussion for additional participation. Thanks. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, I'm a new contributor to a talk page like this but long time lurker!
Should or could films generally include a section which contains information regarding their current intellectual property status and history of such: - 1997->2005 ip rights were owned by x company - 2005->2009 IP rights were owned by y - 2009-> in the public domain
Unsure if this is the right place for this type of suggestion, and also unaware if this has ever been suggested before or goes against Wikipedia guidelines around notability, scope or similar.
kind regards Chris 194.56.198.54 ( talk) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a dispute at
Talk:1917 (2019 film)#Nationality regarding the opening sentence of the lead. The infobox states that the film is an American-British co-production, but an editor claims that the lead should say British film
per sources. Input is appreciated, thanks.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 04:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Ronald Reagan filmography has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Mika1h (
talk) 11:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Category: Sundance Film Festival award-winning films was made to differentiate from Category: Sundance Film Festival award winners, which is supposed to be a list of persons only. There are still plenty of film titles in the latter category, so any help in moving these titles to the new category (and any titles not already listed) would be great. Spectrallights ( talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The River Wild (1994 film)#Requested move 29 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
All, this is a fairly interesting RM discussion. You're invited to review the discussion and weigh the policies and guidelines and related coverage. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Dropping a notice that a recent discussion was started at WP:RSN#Rotten Tomatoes revisited. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
A recent article in Vulture describing both the manipulations of Rotten Tomatoes by film studies and the shifts in the review aggregation policies raises some serious questions about the site as a barometer of critical success. At the very least, the site that established itself widely on Wikipedia operates differently today and would have prompted very different conversations about its inclusion. Given how central these aggregators are to the "Critical Response" section of film wikipedia pages, is it time to rethink the idea that it is a reliable source? If so, what is an alternative? Infocidal ( talk) 17:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to change B-class checklist behaviour — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Comments are appreciated at this move request. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to get other editors' thoughts on this. It seems to me that there is a consistent rigidity to many film articles' opening sentences, that they always name the director and the writer before any other contexts, which can be undue weight when other contexts are more appropriate, like with directors and writers who simply aren't household names or headline-makers. This rigidity is self-perpetuating because any attempt to change the opening is overridden with the claim that this approach is done everywhere (despite no guideline supporting that it has to be this way). I cover this in an essay here: User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films, identifying policies and guidelines that allow flexibility in how to "open" the given topic. Curious what editors' impressions are, as readers, and their interpretations of the policies and guidelines. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a 2015 film in the Star Wars franchiseor
King Kong is a 2005 film featuring King Kongsound right to you? In these cases, the lead would flow better if the franchise was named in the second sentence or later. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
spread[ing] the relevant information out over the entire lead, so there isn't a hard rule to put the "most" notable element of something in the first sentence anyway. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Justice League is a 2017 American superhero film based on the DC Comics superhero team of the same name.I do agree that a list of production companies has no business appearing in the first sentence, but that isn't the case here and subsequent sentences is a separate issue from the one under discussion. Justice League was only intended as an example of a film where the director (or in this case, directors) is not the equivalent of a book's author . TompaDompa ( talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject – the essential facts that every reader should know." So this would support moving less relevant details out of the opening sentence or opening paragraph, but despite the guidance, it's not an absolute requirement. It also doesn't mandate that the most important details be given in any particular order, just as long as they are front and center near the top. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Above the Speedway is apparently a short silent film made by Frederick S. Armitage in 1900. All I've been able to find out about is a placeholder entry at Turner Classic Movies and an equally stubby IMDB entry. Any ideas on where I might find a copy of the film? It would make an outstanding addition to Fleetwood Park Racetrack (which I'm currently trying to push through as an FA). I drew a blank at https://www.loc.gov/film-and-videos. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey everyone, comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/To Fly!/archive3. Gerald WL 08:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Bit of a situation that may require ongoing monitoring.
A few days ago, an editor tried to add an Indian-Bangladeshi film, Mujib: The Making of a Nation, to the Special Presentations lineup at 2023 Toronto International Film Festival — however, TIFF's own self-published calendar shows absolutely no trace of that film screening at TIFF at all. I searched for both the film's stated and "working" titles, and for the name of the director just in case it had a completely different title here, and there's just zip. I suppose there's a remote possibility that it was a late addition to Industry Selects, because those films aren't in that main calendar due to their "industry-only, no public ticket sales" status, but that's not promising because it isn't actually in the separate Industry Selects list either.
Meanwhile, there are Indian and Bangladeshi news sources claiming the film screened at TIFF, but absolutely none of the sources that covered any of TIFF's program lineup announcements in July and August name that film, or its director, as having been part of any program announcement either. (Not even the sources that covered Industry Selects, either.) These sources further claim that it screened at Lightbox 7, which is a pretty impressive trick given that the Lightbox only has 5 screens — you've gotta screen at the Scotiabank, not the Lightbox, if you want to get the word TIFF and the number 7 into the same sentence.
Realistically, my best theory at this point is that maybe some Indian or Bangladeshi film PR flack sent out a press release claiming that the film screened at TIFF as a publicity stunt, and some Indian/Bangladeshi media bit without verifying. At least, that's much likelier than TIFF screening a film while somehow completely forgetting to name it in any programming announcements or list it on the ticket-buyers calendar at all, and yet the film somehow sold out anyway, as the Indian-Bangladeshi sources claim. But I just can't find a shred of evidence that this was actually screened at TIFF at all, so the film's and the festival's articles may require monitoring to ensure that the claim doesn't get readded without better verification. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Expend4bles, an editor has unilaterally moved it to The Expendables 4, and now there is an RM discussion to move it back. This seems inappropriate and flipped around; the editor should have started a RM discussion to make the move. There's no reason for it to be the other way around. Can an admin (or someone better with page-moving) undo this mess? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Oppenheimer (film), there is an ongoing issue with the lead section and how it covers the overall critical reception. See discussion here: Talk:Oppenheimer (film)#Critical reception in lead section. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I've recently noticed that User:Artemis Andromeda has been moving/translating numerous foreign-language television and film titles to English. Many of these are obscure, so it's not clear to me in what language they are more commonly known to English readers. The editor in question has been somewhat reticent on the subject, as can be seen here: Talk:07 Come In#Name change, so I thought I would try and find out whether these types of moves are approved/recommended, or if a stop should be put to the activity. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 03:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Today I made some changes to Queer Palm, a sidebar award at the Cannes Film Festival, both formatting changes to improve its readability and adding missing sourcing to improve its verifiability — however, I'm having trouble locating adequate sourcing for a couple of the very oldest years where archival sourcing might very well exist that just doesn't google anymore.
(The source for 2013's nominees is also not ideal, as it's a blog rather than real media, but unlike the 2012 source it fully matches the nominees that were sourced to it — so it could also stand to be replaced if possible, but isn't as much of an issue as the other three.)
The interlangs weren't much help, either: they all either don't list nominees at all, do list nominees but don't cite any sources for them, or list nominees sourced only to IMDb (which is not a reliable source).
So I wanted to ask if there's a project member with better access to archived French media coverage than I've got, who can do a quick search to see if they can locate improved sourcing for the nominees in those years. This only pertains to the nominees, as the winners in all three of those years have been fully sourceable. Bearcat ( talk) 23:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Directly challenges WP:PFILM. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown#Requested move 21 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't seen this discussed here (and apologies if this is the wrong place) but I learned this week from a query I made to BFI that it is shutting down its long-term website (random example for the 1959 film Action Stations: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6e822633, now broken) in favour of their new search site https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web, which for the example film eventually gets you to https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150102495 -- nb a different id number. BFI said in reply to my query "we have reduced the number of pages about films, TV programmes, people and companies that existed on the old BFI website. We are in the process of turning off this old website. A smaller number of these pages exist in a new form on the current website, for example https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time". So while the old BFI web has never been the greatest source of info, and I know it is debatable whether it counts as a reliable source or not, the fact remains that this web change is going to kill an awful lot of WP links! I mentioned the id numbers above when thinking about whether a bot could automatically make edits, but it looks unlikely. Tobyhoward ( talk) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Vertigo (film)#Requested move 29 September 2023 may be of interest. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)#Requested move 3 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This Petscan link should give you a list of all the film-related articles that are in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs page. At the moment, there are 10 in the list tagged by WP:FILM. Some of them might still be stubs (this happens, e.g., if there are long lists of sources). Please take a quick look at update the Wikipedia:Content assessment ratings this week. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I came across an editor earlier today adding unsourced records to articles such as this one. Looking down the "Notes" column, virtually every claim (bar one or two exceptions) is unsourced. This is symptomatic of all the articles in this series, which must amount to hundreds of unsourced claims. Clearly, box-office articles and records are not exempt from WP:V and the article cannot remain in this state, so I was wondering about how to approach this. I could go through the article tagging them, but it would mean tagging pretty much every article; I'm not a fan of tagging anyway because they never seem to address the problem unless somebody is taking an article through the GA/FA process. I could go through every single claim and remove all unsourced claims (which would be most of them). This would be a painstaking process and an unproductive use of my time.
Another solution would be to simply remove the "Notes" column completely, because it mostly invites non-relevant trivia. To take week #47 as an example, I am not sure how much encyclopedic value the claim "The Rugrats Movie broke Beavis and Butt-Head Do America's record ($20.1 million) for the highest weekend debut for a non-Disney animated film" has. It seems tangential to the topic. Pretty much the only notable on-topic information in there, is Titanic's record-equaling 15th week, which could be retained using a footnote (and with a source). Betty Logan ( talk) 10:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like SIA-class from your project banner. Would you like to automatically reclassify these as List-class or Disambig-class perhaps? Alternatively it could just be removed and then the articles in Category:SIA-Class film articles would inherit the quality rating from other projects (or just become "unassessed" if there were no other projects) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Just to note that SIA-class has been removed and SIA will now classify as List-class. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
There are conflicting reliable sources on the release year and date of the film " Eaten Alive". For example, Rotten Tomatoes lists the release year as 1976, while AFI lists a release year of 1977 (with a premier date of November 30, 1977). The article also currently cites October 18, 1976, as the release date, citing AFI, but I cannot find any WP:RS to support this, and it is in direct conflict with what AFI actually says. These conflicting sources have resulted in disagreements among editors. Thanks! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 21:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I've proposed adding some general guidance about our naming conventions to WP:NCFILM, which I find strange to be missing, but apparently no one watches that talk page anymore? I would appreciate it if some editors could take a look. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an editor trying to crowbar a fan film into the Starship Troopers 3: Marauder article and I cannot believe this is appropriate at all. Other opinions? Talk:Starship_Troopers_3:_Marauder#Fan_film? -- 109.79.64.12 ( talk) 16:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi; I was wondering if this project still finds B-class criteria useful? (the B1-B5 ratings in the project banner)?
If so, as a result of the global switch to project-independent quality assessments, we're planning to move these B-class criteria to the WikiProject banner shell so they're not duplicated across projects. Just trying to see whether there's any interest in keeping them. DFlhb ( talk) 00:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) within its banner template.
DFlhb (
talk) 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible film locations 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.
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 23:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
i've been procrastinating editing the article on
mockbusters at a slow pace, and got tired of it not having an image, so i asked about adding one in the teahouse
per colinfine's answer, there might be legal issues with adding a mockbuster's cover or a side by side comparison of a movie and its mockbuster's covers, but it might also be perfectly okay
opinions? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Wanted to ask for project input on a category problem.
While obviously I understand that there's a genuine distinction between a film soundstage or backlot facility and a film production company, in actual practice the category system's distinction between Category:Film studios (which is, at least in theory, meant for facilities) and Category:Film production companies is just utterly failing to respect or uphold it at all — in the real world, "studio" is so widely used in both senses that the entire "studios" tree is just teeming with entries that are more properly described as production companies, and in fact many, though not necessarily all, of them are dual-catted as both studios and production companies at the same time.
Obviously this needs to be resolved somehow: we need to either more strictly uphold the distinction between a facility and a production company, or just blow it right up if we can't. So I wanted to ask for opinions about which direction we should go in:
Any input? Bearcat ( talk) 21:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Re-listed three times at AFD, needs more feedback: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Politigato. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Am I just now noticing this, or did Screen Rant recently add a free-account paywall? I clicked on a handful of their articles and got a popup asking me to "create an account to keep reading". Articles that cite Screen Rant should add |url-access=registration
to their refs — if not retroactively, going forward.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable way to cite VHS and other home video releases? [1] I can't seem to find anything on what sources are acceptable to cite home video releases. Armegon ( talk) 04:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
References
I would like to help getting this article to good article status. Can I get some tips on what I can do to improve it? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ( talk) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
When contradictions arise between sources, which should be treated as the most authoritative? For example:
To be clear, we are not talking about the film's common name or the article title, which are independent from the film's lead. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Borat! Cultural Learnings [...], or simply Boratand
Borat, also known as Borat! Cultural Learnings [...]. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Birdman, officially titled Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), is a 2014 American...
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), often shortened to Birdman, is a 2014 American...
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), officially titled Birdman, is a 2014 American...
Birdman, also known as Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), is a 2014 American...
![]() | 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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 |
Hey everyone,
I was working away on Charles Bronson's page, where I stumbled on a page named " Lola (1969 film)" also known as Twinky. However while the film was made in 1969 it was released in 1970. So the page should be called "Lola (1970 film)". On the Charles Bronson filmography page the person who originally wrote it as a 1969 release, it was also the case in his article before, so it creates confusion. It's minor film so on the large scale of things who cares, but if I do notice such mistake how can I resolve them. Thank you.
Filmman3000 ( talk) 18:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
What’s the guidelines/policy on adding film trailers to film articles? I can’t seem to find anything that either forbids or encourages their inclusion. Armegon ( talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Please move all further conversations to the MOS talk page ( Found here), as that is the more appropriate location to discuss how to handle content being added to film pages in general. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion on how we should summarize the reception in the lead on Fantastic Four (2015 film). It can be found at Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)#Summary of reviews in the lead. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I've just noticed that there are a lot of articles miscategorised under Category:Rediscovered films and its subcats. Many were added by User:Espngeek, for whom I've left a message asking to stop. I've emptied Category:2010s rediscovered films and removed Category:2000s rediscovered films from all but one article, but help is needed to check the rest.
On another note, these should probably be titled Category:Rediscovered 2000s films, etc., but that's a matter for CfD. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, in a similar way to MCU articles, I would suggest to decide a color to use for every DCEU articles. Also, do you think that DCEU and future DCU articles should have the same color? Redjedi23 ( talk) 15:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RfC on reliability of pinkvilla. — Archer1234 ( t· c) 13:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
With this edit to Citizen Kane, Themashup ( talk · contribs) added a critical reception score from a review aggregator called CherryPicks (redlinked to establish there's no WP article on the site), which is new to me. Are other editors familiar with this site? Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there support for the addition of all these foreign and minor/non-notable aggregator sites being added by themashup? Where will that end? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have discovered through the reliable source American Film Institute that the movie "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" (1998) is a co-production between the United States, Germany and Mexico, however when I add the information it is removed because I'm not a Wikipedia librarian. For this reason I decided to write to you in the hope that you add the true information that I mentioned and which you can verify, within the "countries" category in the "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" fact sheet. 201.168.135.194 ( talk) 05:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
On the talk page for List of highest-grossing films based on television series, there is a dispute over whether or not films based on short films like Mickey Mouse, Looney Tunes and Wallace and Gromit should be included on the list, with one argument being that they are dissimilar to television series and another being that the scope of the page could be expanded to include them. Should these be included or not? 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 14:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I created this page too be a sister page to List of highest-grossing films based on video games could this be defined better probably if anyone wants to help improve this page go ahead whiles creating this page I ask for help on the talk page for highest-grossing films based on video games but not no response Fan Of Lion King 🦁 ( talk) 21:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Being Mortal (film) ( article | history). The discussion concerns whether it's appropriate for the article to state the film has been canceled. Nardog ( talk) 11:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Drama films by year.
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)—
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:Metacritic_album_prose#Subst'ing and weigh in. Thanks. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 14:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Could I get more eyes on this discussion about text being copied from a Fandom page. Particularly if you are knowledgeable with copyright policies. Thanks. Mike Allen 18:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
A Pilipino Movie JuanTejada19 ( talk) 12:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Talk:Spider-Man:_Across_the_Spider-Verse#Cast_section, about the cast section for this film if anyone feels like inputting. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman: Legacy (2025) 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.
Additional comments would be welcome. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Enjō#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I want to report here this deletion proposal initiated by myself after the last discussion in this WikiProject. Redjedi23 ( talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the article for Dexter Fletcher looks like it's been rewritten in a heavily promotional, non-encyclopedic tone, mostly by Khan Zak13. I'm traveling today so I can't look too much into it, but a deeper dive into possible COI violations might be warranted – if someone has a moment for that, that would be great. I'll also notify Khan Zak13 at their talk page. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 20:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if anybody here is a fan of his, but it's currently up for delisting as a GA. It just needs somebody to write an account of his film work since 2011. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I notice that the plot or synopsis sections of film articles seem to typically not have references. This is in specific reference to this discussion. "At the talk page for the documentary Ukraine on Fire I am finding some very problematic stuff, including that the film is pushing a "fringe" POV and as such, "The whole synopsis is based on the film itself (as a primary source), and should be removed as pro-fringe." This editor wants the whole Synopsis section removed because they don't like what it says. Is that okay? Is the plot or synopsis section not always based on the primnary source of the movie its self? Carptrash ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Are editors in this discussion aware that the subject film of Ukraine on Fire purports to be a documentary? It is not fiction, uses footage of real events and purports to interpret them. The article has a synopsis, not a “plot summary,” because if there is a plot (narrative), it is not the creation of the filmmaker. I see cited guidelines MOSPLOT, PLOTSOURCE, and PLOTCITE, which appear to apply only to works of fiction.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Documentaries, the synopsis can include analysis of aspects of the documentary’s subject from secondary sources, and can have a separate “Analysis” section, and reviews by authorities on its subject and not just film critics. — Michael Z. 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Since a documentary deals with real-life topics and figures, provide wikilinks to them wherever useful. See the guidelines on link clarity and specificity, and link to terms that match the topic precisely if not closely. If coverage from secondary sources focuses on a specific aspect of the documentary, that aspect can be elaborated to provide context for the coverage. For example, the documentary may mention some statistics, and there is coverage from secondary sources analyzing these statistics, which are not detailed in the synopsis.
andInstead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT).
An "Analysis" section can be written to detail the statistics from the documentary and to report the analytical coverage from secondary sources.
Some movies which grossed more than their budget are declared flops. I found out that the budget includes only film budget but not cist of movie promotion and other costs.
Also producer share, distributer share, there share is not mentioned.
The film info box must give details, so that we can easily find out that the movie is flop Vampswefg ( talk) 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
easily find out that the movie is flopas it's often not known how much a studio actually spent on a film. Infoboxes are for simple information, nuances are for the body of the article. — El Millo ( talk) 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer 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.
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The table for DVD, Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD releases in the List of Criterion Collection releases article has the following columns which I feel is totally irrelevant: LD No. (Criterion LaserDiscs have been out of print for decades, there is a separate article covering those LaserDiscs and most importantly, the overwhelming majority of entries for that column have this field blank), Art House (same as the last logic for the previous one), Box set availability (same), UK release (same and Wikipedia is not a retail site anyway so not sure what purpose this one is serving here). The Blu-ray column can be removed too by just color-coding the spine numbers to indicate whether the release is a DVD, a Blu-ray, a UHD or a combination of any two. The table is too huge already. Would request other editors to comment on this and let us know about their opinions. Jovian Eclipse 17:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The "Art House" column notes stand-alone releases of a film within the "Essential Art House" series. Some films are available through the "Essential Art House" 50-DVD set, but not as a stand-alone package.) But of course, this does not merit its justification for being included in the table. Jovian Eclipse 06:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Criterion has created new restorations, recorded interviews and commentaries, commissioned essays for their releases, besides setting industry standards for releasing home cinema releases.Jovian Eclipse 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Just for my own sanity: do descriptors in the lead of a film article new RS citations? ie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring "epic fantasy adventure film", Star Wars "epic space opera", La La Land "romantic musical film", American Graffiti "coming-of-age comedy-drama film", Nixon (film) "epic historical drama film". In full disclosure, this is in tandem with the current discussion at An American in Paris: Talk Page. I am having difficulty with the concept of citing descriptors in the lead for films. Maineartists ( talk) 04:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This RFC at RSN may be of interest to project members. Abecedare ( talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
An anonymous editor keeps inserting random cherry-picked examples into the lead at List of most expensive films. There is no logic to the examples (i.e. most expensive/record-holders etc) and one of the films does not even qualify for the list on the basis it didn't cost enough. I would appreciate a third opinion at Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films#Recent_changes_to_lead, because until that happens it's just two editors having a content dispute rather than one editor editing against a consensus. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Nimona (film)#Studio dispute over the studios credited for this animated film. Some want to credit only Annapurna Pictures (who produced it after it was revived), while others wish to credit Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Studios, and Vertigo Entertainment, with the latter three producing it before it was cancelled, along with Annapurna. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be appreciated. Historyday01 ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor tonight has created all of these categories for a genre he calls "rape films" and "rape thriller films" (see Category:Rape films by decade). Now is it just me or this completely made up film genre? A major classification in the type of films is not whether or not there is a rape scene in them. This editor is so persistent, I think it will take more than me to challenge his efforts. Some of these categories are not populated yet so I have tagged this as CSD C1 but I think they'll find a way to fill them up.
What do you do when an editor invents a film genre? I'm sure it's happened before. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill Bill. Popcornfud ( talk) 10:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:The Angry Birds Movie#Rotten tomatoes "negative" or "mixed" over whether to describe a "rotten" rating as "negative" or "mixed". NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) which may interest the regular readers of this talk page. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I recntrly created a draft for Invitation to the Wedding. Are there any good sources out there? Some big names had roles in it. Thriley ( talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor has been warring with me at Carmen (2021 film) over the starring= field in the infobox; the rule has always been to list only the handful of top-billed stars who are playing the film's main characters in that spot, and use the body of the article to list the rest of the supporting cast, but the other user is arguing that the rule is that starring= has to list every single actor whose name appears on the poster at all, even if that runs to 13 or 14 "stars".
I can't find a version of the poster that's HD enough to read the poster in fully clear detail, but I have found this, in which Natasha McElhone and Steven Love are the two top-billed actors, and then there's a half-height word I can't quite make out ("featuring"? "introducing"?) before any other actor is named, then several actors later there's another group set apart as "with" and the only other actor with a Wikipedia article at all appears last and is set off with an "and". So it's clear that the film is positing McElhone and Love as the principal stars and everybody else as supporting, and our rule has never, ever been to let the starring= field in the infobox run on to 13 or 14 people — especially because that extends the infobox so badly that the page is now close to half dead whitespace because the amount of body text doesn't even come close to matching the extended length of the infobox.
So could somebody else weigh in on what the infobox is supposed to contain, so that this doesn't turn into an unresolvable one-on-one edit war? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of this newly created project here, which appears relevant to this project as well.
I already have concerns about some categorization categories that have been created in conjunction with that project, and at its Talk page I have noted that it seems more appropriate for those categories to either be moved to the appropriate Talk pages or hidden. Additional opinions would be welcome there. DonIago ( talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This entry ( /info/en/?search=Three-two_pull_down) contains the following information:
The term "pulldown" comes from the mechanical process of "pulling" (physically moving) the film downward within the film portion of the transport mechanism to advance it from one frame to the next at a repetitive rate (nominally 24 frames/s). This is accomplished in two steps.
The first step is to slow down the film motion by 1/1000 to 23.976 frames/s (or 24 frames every 1.001 seconds). This difference in speed is imperceptible to the viewer. For a two-hour film, play time is extended by 7.2 seconds.
The explanation about "pulldown" is incorrect. "Pulldown" refers to the 0.1% slow down from 24fps, not the physical action of a Telecine. This description of "pulldown" is just describing what a film projector does, and a Telecine is a special-use film projector.
If this definition were true, an older European film shot at 25fps and transferred to PAL for broadcast in Europe would be called a "1/1 pulldown" or something, but it is not.
Pulldown refers to the speed change between "film speed" and "video speed". You pull-down to go from Film to Video and you pull-up when you go from Video to Film. DisquietHorizon ( talk) 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd also note that when searching for a reference for the "pulldown" definition given I seem to only find references to the Wikipedia entry. Is there any other source for the given definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisquietHorizon ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, some research has shown maybe I am incorrect. It is still quite vague, but I take back my dispute. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DisquietHorizon (
talk •
contribs) 15:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
An RfC of possible interest to the members of this WikiPRoject can be found here.
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
We're currently using {{
dagger}} † as key for pending films, but that's extremely similar to {{
extinct}}
† and other symbols for death, e.g. {{
KIA}}
†. I think that {{
await}} would be much more intuitive, so I propose to substitute the symbol in
Template:Pending films key and all pages linking to it.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film)#Undue weight or original research in the lede over whether it is original research to describe a "rotten" rating as "negative" or "mixed", or undue weight to mention specific aggregate sites in the lede. Unnamed anon ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Barbenheimer, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC on whether a certain instance of humor is appropriate on Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how to describe this so I'll just call it the Travis Scott problem.
Look how weird this looks. I knew there would probably be a good reason, but at the time I thought the best option was to get rid of the extra Travis Scott.
Someone looking at this is going to wonder why it looks like that. In this case, would "(star)" work?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I've proposed that
ESPN 8: The Ocho be split off from the film article
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, as it is a real TV programming segment on the real ESPN, and not just something in a fiction film. You may be interested in the discussion. For the discussion , see
talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story#Split off ESPN 8
--
67.70.25.80 (
talk) 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
After creating an article today about the Swedish film Opponent, I went to try to add it to a list of Swedish films and found that no list existed at all yet for the 2020s, so I followed up by creating List of Swedish films of the 2020s. I'm mostly not all that knowledgeable about Swedish film, however — basically the only Swedish films of the 2020s I know about at all are what's been to either TIFF or Inside Out, and even a lot of those were multinational copros rather than distinctively Swedish films per se — so I just wanted to let the project know in case somebody with more knowledge on the subject can pad the list out further with additional entries. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 23:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for French filmmaker Claire Simon. Is there a single database that I can use as a reliable source for all her films? Thriley ( talk) 22:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Is a reference/inline citation nescessary for every single film listed in a filmography? I have an argument about this with User:55go in this article: Ineko Arima.
1.I think that references/inline citations in filmographies are NOT nescessary, as they are not only not demanded in MOS:FILM and WP:CS, I even think this is a clear case of WP:OVERKILL.
2. Even IF they were, placing a "more citations needed" template would be more useful instead of making the whole filmography or parts of it invisible by comment tagging it while working on the article, as said user did. One can do this on his/her personal blog site, but not in a public online encyclopaedia, in my opinion. While doing this, said user also reverted ALL my changes, including a corrected referencing and adding of a nihongo template in the intro. I regard said user's way of working questionable. My invitation to said user to discuss this topic here instead of reverting my edits and making the filmography temporarily invisible was ignored.
3. And again, IF references/inline citations were obligatory, wouldn't it be more useful to place ONE reference in the filmography head section, e.g. to the Japanese Movie Database or Kinema Junpo in this case, instead of producing unnescessary clutter in the filmography?
Would like to hear some opinions. Many thanks Robert Kerber ( talk) 13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion would have been more appropriate at WT:ACTOR, though that WikiProject does not have a MOS like this one does. (And this WikiProject's MOS would not cover filmographies anyway.) I think the core matter is verifiability, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." I think that many editors and readers focus on the most popular and mainstream actors (and films). For example, to cite that Cillian Murphy was in Oppenheimer seems absurd because it's so obvious. I guess there could be an argument that the primary source, the work, is being cited to support the credit, and the link is available to see the details of the film's personnel. A lot of films could be found and their credits directly checked. For lesser-known cast and crew members, though, this is murkier. Like what if some of them became famous later in their career, but their early career involved non-notable works for which there aren't Wikipedia articles, and the works aren't available via home media?
I think as a matter of course, if an editor wants to start adding inline citations for all the works, let them. We have no idea what the future holds, especially in this age of generative AI that could involve RS websites going out of business or sneaky automatic mass-vandalism to insert actors' names, so I find it no big deal to anchor every detail as best as we can. Like Betty said, the so-called "clutter" concern is within the article body, so it's fine if we have dozens more listings in the "References" section at the bottom of the article. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
A released work is a published primary reliable source reference for both its existence and for internal details such as credits that are in the work itself so those facts don't need to have additional references. Information external to what is in the work such as uncredited roles, details about the subject's role beyond the credits, and the initial release year of the work should have a source, particularly if the work doesn't have an article. A column reference for the release year should be sufficient for that info if there is a directory source available and will also back up existence and name. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing actors#Paul Bettany (again), and a proposal to remove the erroneous content about him that could benefit from further input. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Allspark (company)#What exactly happened on October 9, 2020, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Since it's a high profile movie (and there seems to actually have been a drawn out dispute on the plot section), noting this discussion for additional participation. Thanks. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, I'm a new contributor to a talk page like this but long time lurker!
Should or could films generally include a section which contains information regarding their current intellectual property status and history of such: - 1997->2005 ip rights were owned by x company - 2005->2009 IP rights were owned by y - 2009-> in the public domain
Unsure if this is the right place for this type of suggestion, and also unaware if this has ever been suggested before or goes against Wikipedia guidelines around notability, scope or similar.
kind regards Chris 194.56.198.54 ( talk) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a dispute at
Talk:1917 (2019 film)#Nationality regarding the opening sentence of the lead. The infobox states that the film is an American-British co-production, but an editor claims that the lead should say British film
per sources. Input is appreciated, thanks.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 04:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Ronald Reagan filmography has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Mika1h (
talk) 11:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Category: Sundance Film Festival award-winning films was made to differentiate from Category: Sundance Film Festival award winners, which is supposed to be a list of persons only. There are still plenty of film titles in the latter category, so any help in moving these titles to the new category (and any titles not already listed) would be great. Spectrallights ( talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The River Wild (1994 film)#Requested move 29 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
All, this is a fairly interesting RM discussion. You're invited to review the discussion and weigh the policies and guidelines and related coverage. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Dropping a notice that a recent discussion was started at WP:RSN#Rotten Tomatoes revisited. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
A recent article in Vulture describing both the manipulations of Rotten Tomatoes by film studies and the shifts in the review aggregation policies raises some serious questions about the site as a barometer of critical success. At the very least, the site that established itself widely on Wikipedia operates differently today and would have prompted very different conversations about its inclusion. Given how central these aggregators are to the "Critical Response" section of film wikipedia pages, is it time to rethink the idea that it is a reliable source? If so, what is an alternative? Infocidal ( talk) 17:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to change B-class checklist behaviour — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Comments are appreciated at this move request. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to get other editors' thoughts on this. It seems to me that there is a consistent rigidity to many film articles' opening sentences, that they always name the director and the writer before any other contexts, which can be undue weight when other contexts are more appropriate, like with directors and writers who simply aren't household names or headline-makers. This rigidity is self-perpetuating because any attempt to change the opening is overridden with the claim that this approach is done everywhere (despite no guideline supporting that it has to be this way). I cover this in an essay here: User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films, identifying policies and guidelines that allow flexibility in how to "open" the given topic. Curious what editors' impressions are, as readers, and their interpretations of the policies and guidelines. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a 2015 film in the Star Wars franchiseor
King Kong is a 2005 film featuring King Kongsound right to you? In these cases, the lead would flow better if the franchise was named in the second sentence or later. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
spread[ing] the relevant information out over the entire lead, so there isn't a hard rule to put the "most" notable element of something in the first sentence anyway. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Justice League is a 2017 American superhero film based on the DC Comics superhero team of the same name.I do agree that a list of production companies has no business appearing in the first sentence, but that isn't the case here and subsequent sentences is a separate issue from the one under discussion. Justice League was only intended as an example of a film where the director (or in this case, directors) is not the equivalent of a book's author . TompaDompa ( talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject – the essential facts that every reader should know." So this would support moving less relevant details out of the opening sentence or opening paragraph, but despite the guidance, it's not an absolute requirement. It also doesn't mandate that the most important details be given in any particular order, just as long as they are front and center near the top. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Above the Speedway is apparently a short silent film made by Frederick S. Armitage in 1900. All I've been able to find out about is a placeholder entry at Turner Classic Movies and an equally stubby IMDB entry. Any ideas on where I might find a copy of the film? It would make an outstanding addition to Fleetwood Park Racetrack (which I'm currently trying to push through as an FA). I drew a blank at https://www.loc.gov/film-and-videos. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey everyone, comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/To Fly!/archive3. Gerald WL 08:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Bit of a situation that may require ongoing monitoring.
A few days ago, an editor tried to add an Indian-Bangladeshi film, Mujib: The Making of a Nation, to the Special Presentations lineup at 2023 Toronto International Film Festival — however, TIFF's own self-published calendar shows absolutely no trace of that film screening at TIFF at all. I searched for both the film's stated and "working" titles, and for the name of the director just in case it had a completely different title here, and there's just zip. I suppose there's a remote possibility that it was a late addition to Industry Selects, because those films aren't in that main calendar due to their "industry-only, no public ticket sales" status, but that's not promising because it isn't actually in the separate Industry Selects list either.
Meanwhile, there are Indian and Bangladeshi news sources claiming the film screened at TIFF, but absolutely none of the sources that covered any of TIFF's program lineup announcements in July and August name that film, or its director, as having been part of any program announcement either. (Not even the sources that covered Industry Selects, either.) These sources further claim that it screened at Lightbox 7, which is a pretty impressive trick given that the Lightbox only has 5 screens — you've gotta screen at the Scotiabank, not the Lightbox, if you want to get the word TIFF and the number 7 into the same sentence.
Realistically, my best theory at this point is that maybe some Indian or Bangladeshi film PR flack sent out a press release claiming that the film screened at TIFF as a publicity stunt, and some Indian/Bangladeshi media bit without verifying. At least, that's much likelier than TIFF screening a film while somehow completely forgetting to name it in any programming announcements or list it on the ticket-buyers calendar at all, and yet the film somehow sold out anyway, as the Indian-Bangladeshi sources claim. But I just can't find a shred of evidence that this was actually screened at TIFF at all, so the film's and the festival's articles may require monitoring to ensure that the claim doesn't get readded without better verification. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Expend4bles, an editor has unilaterally moved it to The Expendables 4, and now there is an RM discussion to move it back. This seems inappropriate and flipped around; the editor should have started a RM discussion to make the move. There's no reason for it to be the other way around. Can an admin (or someone better with page-moving) undo this mess? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Oppenheimer (film), there is an ongoing issue with the lead section and how it covers the overall critical reception. See discussion here: Talk:Oppenheimer (film)#Critical reception in lead section. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I've recently noticed that User:Artemis Andromeda has been moving/translating numerous foreign-language television and film titles to English. Many of these are obscure, so it's not clear to me in what language they are more commonly known to English readers. The editor in question has been somewhat reticent on the subject, as can be seen here: Talk:07 Come In#Name change, so I thought I would try and find out whether these types of moves are approved/recommended, or if a stop should be put to the activity. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 03:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Today I made some changes to Queer Palm, a sidebar award at the Cannes Film Festival, both formatting changes to improve its readability and adding missing sourcing to improve its verifiability — however, I'm having trouble locating adequate sourcing for a couple of the very oldest years where archival sourcing might very well exist that just doesn't google anymore.
(The source for 2013's nominees is also not ideal, as it's a blog rather than real media, but unlike the 2012 source it fully matches the nominees that were sourced to it — so it could also stand to be replaced if possible, but isn't as much of an issue as the other three.)
The interlangs weren't much help, either: they all either don't list nominees at all, do list nominees but don't cite any sources for them, or list nominees sourced only to IMDb (which is not a reliable source).
So I wanted to ask if there's a project member with better access to archived French media coverage than I've got, who can do a quick search to see if they can locate improved sourcing for the nominees in those years. This only pertains to the nominees, as the winners in all three of those years have been fully sourceable. Bearcat ( talk) 23:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Directly challenges WP:PFILM. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Town That Dreaded Sundown#Requested move 21 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't seen this discussed here (and apologies if this is the wrong place) but I learned this week from a query I made to BFI that it is shutting down its long-term website (random example for the 1959 film Action Stations: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6e822633, now broken) in favour of their new search site https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web, which for the example film eventually gets you to https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150102495 -- nb a different id number. BFI said in reply to my query "we have reduced the number of pages about films, TV programmes, people and companies that existed on the old BFI website. We are in the process of turning off this old website. A smaller number of these pages exist in a new form on the current website, for example https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time". So while the old BFI web has never been the greatest source of info, and I know it is debatable whether it counts as a reliable source or not, the fact remains that this web change is going to kill an awful lot of WP links! I mentioned the id numbers above when thinking about whether a bot could automatically make edits, but it looks unlikely. Tobyhoward ( talk) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Vertigo (film)#Requested move 29 September 2023 may be of interest. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)#Requested move 3 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This Petscan link should give you a list of all the film-related articles that are in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs page. At the moment, there are 10 in the list tagged by WP:FILM. Some of them might still be stubs (this happens, e.g., if there are long lists of sources). Please take a quick look at update the Wikipedia:Content assessment ratings this week. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I came across an editor earlier today adding unsourced records to articles such as this one. Looking down the "Notes" column, virtually every claim (bar one or two exceptions) is unsourced. This is symptomatic of all the articles in this series, which must amount to hundreds of unsourced claims. Clearly, box-office articles and records are not exempt from WP:V and the article cannot remain in this state, so I was wondering about how to approach this. I could go through the article tagging them, but it would mean tagging pretty much every article; I'm not a fan of tagging anyway because they never seem to address the problem unless somebody is taking an article through the GA/FA process. I could go through every single claim and remove all unsourced claims (which would be most of them). This would be a painstaking process and an unproductive use of my time.
Another solution would be to simply remove the "Notes" column completely, because it mostly invites non-relevant trivia. To take week #47 as an example, I am not sure how much encyclopedic value the claim "The Rugrats Movie broke Beavis and Butt-Head Do America's record ($20.1 million) for the highest weekend debut for a non-Disney animated film" has. It seems tangential to the topic. Pretty much the only notable on-topic information in there, is Titanic's record-equaling 15th week, which could be retained using a footnote (and with a source). Betty Logan ( talk) 10:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like SIA-class from your project banner. Would you like to automatically reclassify these as List-class or Disambig-class perhaps? Alternatively it could just be removed and then the articles in Category:SIA-Class film articles would inherit the quality rating from other projects (or just become "unassessed" if there were no other projects) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Just to note that SIA-class has been removed and SIA will now classify as List-class. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
There are conflicting reliable sources on the release year and date of the film " Eaten Alive". For example, Rotten Tomatoes lists the release year as 1976, while AFI lists a release year of 1977 (with a premier date of November 30, 1977). The article also currently cites October 18, 1976, as the release date, citing AFI, but I cannot find any WP:RS to support this, and it is in direct conflict with what AFI actually says. These conflicting sources have resulted in disagreements among editors. Thanks! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 21:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I've proposed adding some general guidance about our naming conventions to WP:NCFILM, which I find strange to be missing, but apparently no one watches that talk page anymore? I would appreciate it if some editors could take a look. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an editor trying to crowbar a fan film into the Starship Troopers 3: Marauder article and I cannot believe this is appropriate at all. Other opinions? Talk:Starship_Troopers_3:_Marauder#Fan_film? -- 109.79.64.12 ( talk) 16:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi; I was wondering if this project still finds B-class criteria useful? (the B1-B5 ratings in the project banner)?
If so, as a result of the global switch to project-independent quality assessments, we're planning to move these B-class criteria to the WikiProject banner shell so they're not duplicated across projects. Just trying to see whether there's any interest in keeping them. DFlhb ( talk) 00:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) within its banner template.
DFlhb (
talk) 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible film locations 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.
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 23:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
i've been procrastinating editing the article on
mockbusters at a slow pace, and got tired of it not having an image, so i asked about adding one in the teahouse
per colinfine's answer, there might be legal issues with adding a mockbuster's cover or a side by side comparison of a movie and its mockbuster's covers, but it might also be perfectly okay
opinions? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Wanted to ask for project input on a category problem.
While obviously I understand that there's a genuine distinction between a film soundstage or backlot facility and a film production company, in actual practice the category system's distinction between Category:Film studios (which is, at least in theory, meant for facilities) and Category:Film production companies is just utterly failing to respect or uphold it at all — in the real world, "studio" is so widely used in both senses that the entire "studios" tree is just teeming with entries that are more properly described as production companies, and in fact many, though not necessarily all, of them are dual-catted as both studios and production companies at the same time.
Obviously this needs to be resolved somehow: we need to either more strictly uphold the distinction between a facility and a production company, or just blow it right up if we can't. So I wanted to ask for opinions about which direction we should go in:
Any input? Bearcat ( talk) 21:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Re-listed three times at AFD, needs more feedback: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Politigato. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Am I just now noticing this, or did Screen Rant recently add a free-account paywall? I clicked on a handful of their articles and got a popup asking me to "create an account to keep reading". Articles that cite Screen Rant should add |url-access=registration
to their refs — if not retroactively, going forward.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable way to cite VHS and other home video releases? [1] I can't seem to find anything on what sources are acceptable to cite home video releases. Armegon ( talk) 04:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
References
I would like to help getting this article to good article status. Can I get some tips on what I can do to improve it? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ( talk) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
When contradictions arise between sources, which should be treated as the most authoritative? For example:
To be clear, we are not talking about the film's common name or the article title, which are independent from the film's lead. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Borat! Cultural Learnings [...], or simply Boratand
Borat, also known as Borat! Cultural Learnings [...]. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Birdman, officially titled Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), is a 2014 American...
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), often shortened to Birdman, is a 2014 American...
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), officially titled Birdman, is a 2014 American...
Birdman, also known as Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), is a 2014 American...