Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 61

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.

If anyone has a spare moment, please take a look at

Primary would be if the producer tweeted out the budget. In this case, it's a secondary source, because it was an interview with someone else. Either way, being the producer I think that's fine. The other two are probably unnecessary. Now, whether or not FirstPost is reliable and actually spoke to him I cannot say. Also, it looks like it says 65 to 70 crores.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi B, I'm pretty sure that I've seen editors flag content like this as "primary by proxy" and I don't see how it's any different from regurgitating a press release. From what I understand, the whole point of using a secondary source is that they are presumably checking data through their own channels, instead of just swallowing what the producer says or parroting other articles. Indian sources tend to be really lazy about this. And to give you an example of why this is problematic, I'll use MSG-2 The Messenger as an example. Reliable sources at the time were saying that the film did very poorly, placing gross at around ₹4 crore, noting also that there were some venues that were completely empty. In contrast, the production company made claims of 500 crore, which would put them in about the #5 spot across all Indian films. Now if that's not questionable enough, check out the film's trailer, which is "based on true events" and includes things like the real-life godman surviving a boulder smash to his head, flipping an elephant mid-air, and single-handedly kicking the asses of a massive indigenous population and a military battalion. Just sayin'. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the interview, it is a primary source. In order for it to be considered secondary, the source would need to provide an "author's own thinking" or analysis, interpretation, etc., which isn't the case here. The information is simply being gathered and distributed. It makes no difference if that distribution comes directly from the primary source or through a third-party. Your analogy of it being similar to a press release is spot on. As for the second part of your question, I would say that when the data isn't available from secondary sources or when secondary sources do not disagree with the primary source, then the primary source can be referenced. This isn't a concept that is controlled by a WikiProject; this is how it is site-wide. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I just want to clarify, because I will be referencing this discussion down the road: you are saying that it would be unsuitable to reference a primary source for controversial data like film financials unless secondary sources are in agreement on the value? (That makes sense to me, but here's my prediction: crappy reporters will at some point fail to mention that the source of their data is the primary source, and we will wind up regurgitating those numbers as indisputable facts.) Regards and thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe there are two conditions in which a primary source is acceptable in support of a controversial element (whether that be financial data, descriptions, specifications, etc.):

1. When the information is not currently available from a secondary source.
2. When the information is available from a secondary source, and both the primary and secondary are in agreement. In these situations, primary sources work well as complementary citations.

These aren't hard and fast "rules", per se, but in discussions I've been involved in, this is generally the consensual approach to citing primary sources in support of controversial information. We want to be careful when we use them, but they are certainly acceptable in many situations just as long as we recognize that secondary sources are almost always preferred over primary sources when both are available. Also, the way they're published can be a factor. Showing up on some website may be less reliable than showing up in a book, for example, with the factor there being editorial oversight. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, guys, there is a disagreement between me and

Yes. Since this is English Wikipedia, I think it would be good to clarify the guideline. I don't see the benefits of using posters from non-English-speaking countries when there are usually English-language alternatives. Both the image and foreign language are unlikely to provide visual identification for the majority of visitors, which is the whole point of the infobox image. — Film Fan 11:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I would express a preference for the actual original release, not something later just because it happens to be in English. You're identifying the work as created, not as some later re-distributor felt was best locally. This is especially the case if the film's article uses its original title, as any other title in the poster would be jarring. GRAPPLE ^X 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, this is a two-parter: 1) What's the community's stance on describing films as being a "cult hit" or "cult favorite" or having a "cult following" or anything related to "cult"? 2) Is anyone willing to consider adding something to MOS:FILM to address "cult" labels? This comes up often, particularly for bad films, and it would be nice to have a guideline on it. From my perspective, if all that's required to label something as having a "cult following" is a source that indicates a small loyal fanbase exists for it, wouldn't that describe just about every film, mainstream or obscure? Lipstick was being described as a cult film. Donnie Darko is described as a cult hit, Premam was described as a cult hit. Grandma's Boy attracted a cult following. Dhool is a cult masala entertainer... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you read

WP:PEACOCK. If your eyes start to glaze over at my dense, jargon-filled writing (I've been strongly tempted to write a companion article on the Simple English Wikipedia), "cult film" has, over time, come to mean different things to different groups, none of whom can agree on a definition or inclusion criteria. This is why I think we need solid sourcing when labeling something as "cult": it's an inherently contentious designation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 18:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a content dispute on Thora Birch about whether a film that began filming a few days ago should be given an entire paragraph of description in the article. If anyone wants to read more or comment, go to Talk:Thora Birch#Above Suspicion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I made an edit on the article for Amber Heard where two pre-production films were listed. I was reverted due to the fact she was confirmed to star in the projects listed. Aren't projects suppose to be filming before they are included in the infobox? I'm just double checking for future editing.

Productions are supposed to be filming before they get their own article, but beyond that it's a bit of a grey area. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of announcements either, but it's probably encyclopedic and factual to say that somebody has signed on for something if an official announcement has been made. Whether a film in pre-production should be added to a filmography is debatable if the film has not actually started filming. Personally I wouldn't add films until they start shooting but as far as I am aware there is no universal guideline that prohibits it. If somebody cares enough to revert you they probably care enough to keep the filmography up to date anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. A new user, Captnmorgz, has being adding the field "genre" to the infobox on film articles, despite it not being supported. I've dropped a note on their talkpage asking them not to do this. However, there's about 100 articles that they have edited with this (example). If there's a quick way to undo this, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Fortdj33 has done the hard slog. You'd think somebody would check the first article before doing it to a hundred, wouldn't you? Have you ever used Twinkle? It is under "Gadgets" in your user preferences. I have a feeling you would really enjoy that tool. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I’ve just opened an RFC at

I brought this up earlier at

Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk

) 14:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

They're sneaking in everywhere... --

talk

) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you, I requested a move

That's no moon. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see this move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey y'all I've been noticing a lack of really good production sections for a while, and part of it, I've come to realize is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people working on them.

I've been working on, I guess you could say, the "beat" for a couple years now and I find it to be super rewarding. You basically go in and find out info about what makes a movie tick. Generally what I do is I try to find interviews with actors, directors etc. and then put the relevant info into the article. If that seems like too much work, we could always use more people to convert

It's true that there aren't that many active editors in this area, but there aren't all that many active editors to begin with. There are only around 3000 logged-in editors who make 100+ edits per month. Anyway, I try to work on production sections as I can, but it's soul-crushing tedium to rewrite entire paragraphs of proseline. I've seen a few people simply remove it. That's tempting. Anyway, User:NinjaRobotPirate/sandbox has a few sources for use with classic horror films of the 1970s and 1980s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just found out that the Silent Era website is no longer live. The homepage has this message: "Silent Era has discontinued publication. We thank you for your readership and support." All the links are dead, but can be found via the web archive. Rats. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

At least, we'll always have the Wayback Machine. Here's looking at you, kid. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to think we need to archive the archive the way these sites keep folding. We have lost two important resources within weeks of each other. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Update on this. There's this BFRA currently open that is planning to fix links that are dead, without them needing to be tagged first. Currently there's a bot that adds the web archive links to dead links that are flagged as such, but this should look at all links and do the necessary. Hopefully this fixes the problem for this and the NY Times sources that are now dead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It's back! I think the site owner has seen sense. Phew. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

So I've been noticing that a lot of our articles for films that screened at Cannes mention that the film received a standing ovation. Two examples: 1, 2, and a Google search with tons of hits. Is this really something worth mentioning? The fact that there are so many incidences of these makes me think that it is just done as a matter of course rather than to distinguish a single film. Some of the mentions try to distinguish it by noting the length of the clapping, like "seven minutes long" or "fifteen minutes long" but we have to remember that it's just clapping which everyone follows along with. Lastly, in many of these cases it isn't actually the film itself receiving the clapping, but the appearance of the director or the cast. Opencooper (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact searching for the phrase itself, it seems Cannes has a reputation for these ovations. Vox says they don't mean anything either. Opencooper (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

...which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found at Talk:Stark Mad#Unsourced material. BMK (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This editor is going about changing a lot of categories, removing the general year ones in favour of by genre and year. Annie Hall the recent change, removing Category:1977 films. I think he needs to be stopped, can you look into it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've not removed any cats from Annie Hall. Look at the bottom of the page - Category:1977 films is still there. I've improved the cats by adding more specific ones - why do you think that's not an improvement? Jim Michael (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I raised this on his talk page, too. I don't think we need this hyper-exact categorization. We already have too many of these genre-by-individual-year categories. Bad idea to make even more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The primary categories such as "1977 films" should be retained on all articles per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Practical_instructions. If we are going to do change that the decision needs to be taken at project level not editorial level. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Look again - the 1977 films cat is already there automatically, without it being added. All you did is remove the valid cats I added. Jim Michael (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The infobox automatically adds the cat, but that is a catch-all for articles where the category isn't manually added, it is not a substitute. If the infobox code is altered at some point in the future to remove this feature then we will lose the main categories if they solely depend on the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's still no reason to remove the valid cats I added. Jim Michael (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This editor has created a huge mess. We now have categories such as Category:2004 thriller films, Category:2009 thriller films, Category:2009 crime films, Category:1992 thriller films, Category:1977 romance flims (not even spelt right!), Category:1977 comedy films, Category:2001 drama films... The list is endless. If this is done for every genre for every year then we are going to end up with thousands of under-populated categories. They need to be all deleted. I suggest we round up all the categories here and then nominate them for mass deletion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are the holder categories: Category:Crime films by year, Category:Drama films by year, Category:Horror films by year, Category:Comedy films by year, Category:Romance films by year, Category:Science fiction films by year, Category:Thriller films by year. Is it possible to just nominate the "holder" categories and get the subcats deleted automatically? Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that deleting the container category will not affect the subcategories. I think we have to nominate each individual category for deletion – but, on the positive side, they can be bundled. The way I'd do it is to bundle each of the subcategories together in Category:Thriller films by year into one nomination, each of the subcategories in Category:Comedy films by year into another nomination, and so on. Or, I guess you could do everything all at once, but that would get a few procedural keep votes from malcontents who hate large bundled nominations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd support upmerging these cats of year by genre as overkill. I guess if a few others voiced their support here, then we can link back to this discussion at the CfD as a local consensus has been reached. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

People on wikipedia have the tendency to overcategorize which at times is irritating when browsing. I want to see an A-Z of every film from 1977, not have to sift through 10 categories to find a few entries! If people want a list of thriller films from 1975 or whatever then we have lists of films by genre for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Horror films by year should never have been allowed to develop like that, that should be deleted too I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition to horror films being categorised by year, there had already been a few years of drama films by year, so I'm merely extending that in other genres. Why would it be useful for one or two genres, but not for others? Jim Michael (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps those were created without the knowledge of other editors at the project, who knows, but now that this practice has been extended into other genres, it is certainly gaining the attention it deserves now. I concur with others that we should be careful not to over-categorize, as that defeats the purpose of categorization in the first place. It should be helpful not exhausting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it helpful and not overcategorisation. Many of the cats I've created are eligible to have many articles in them. If it's overcategorisation for one film genre then it's overcategorisation for all of them. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

JM

WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other kinds of editing. MarnetteD|Talk

14:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There's consensus against me in this discussion now, but there wasn't prior to it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• How do we go about this? Do we manually add the films back to the "1960s horror films" and delete them from the individual catgeories such as "1961 horror films", or can a bot replace "1961 horror films" with "1960s horror films"? Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

They can be group bundled at CfD and upmerged there. I could help with that. Note that while this discussion is ongoing, and there's a clear consensus not to have these categories, Jim continues to create them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Jim stopped on 31 May after I asked him to discuss it here and get consensus. It not that big of a deal; we just need to delete some categories. I don't think Jim has done anything disruptive. Also, there are a lot of animated film categories that go by year. Don't know if people want to clean them up, too. For example, Category:2015 animated films and its subcats. But there might be consensus for that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I will try and make a list this weekend of all the spurious categories and then Lugnuts can guide us through the process next week. We may as well do it all in one job lot rather than drip feeding categories to CfD. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is relevant to this discussion. J 1982 has just expanded a lot of the [Decade] science fiction films cats to yearly ones. See their contributions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Favre1fan93. I think it's only fair to let this run until Tuesday (IE seven days since the thread was started) to get any further input, and then I'll help out with the CfD work. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• These are the categories which need to be deleted and the categories they need to be upmerged to. I have just concentrated on the genre categories and left out categories such as Category:Short films by year‎ and Category:Direct-to-video films by year. There may be some merit to those since they are exceptionally broad categories, but they can be discussed after we've dealt with the genres. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You mistyped some of the sci-fi films, Betty. Probably just from missing during copy/paste. I've corrected them above. Thanks for compiling though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CfD

All categories are now listed at CfD here. Please can people comment there? I'll notify people who've been involved in this discussion too, so they don't miss it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CfD outcome

Since this CfD outcome is relevant to the project, please see my close here. ~ Rob^Talk 22:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Two pages exist for the same film. Both of them need to be merged into one.

• Be Yourself!
• Be Yourself (film)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babji2000 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@

take a crack at it yourself. Opencooper (talk

) 17:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

An IP who appears to be from Alberta, Canada has been causing disruption by repeatedly adding POVish material to the critical reception sections of Gravity and the Star Wars prequel trilogies. This is a clear violation of

Sometimes it's easier to locate a citation than to remove the unsourced editorializing. That way, the article gets improved, and you hopefully avoid the edit warring. If the disruption gets bad enough, you can try your luck at

WP:RFPP. Another thing you can do is, every few days (or once a week), remove all the minor POV/OR that accumulates in the articles. It's not a huge deal if "the film received positive reviews" sits in the article for a few days. It's not always easy to be this patient, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 03:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, a couple of weeks ago I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film to propose a minor tweak to the film lead guidance, specifically to address how languages might be treated in the lead. This may not be a daily issue for those of us who speak English and work in English-language film articles, but it has relevance internationally and for coverage of non-English films. Please take a look at the discussion if you can spare a few minutes. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In the article

The thing that I have seen that seems to make sense is "English intertitles" or "French intertitles" - you are right that using the term "language" is misleading since they are silent film. Other editors will have different suggestions. MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe move towards something like this: "Camille (1917), an American silent film starring Theda Bara", instead of stating the language, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The following wiki page combines two different movies.

1. London in the Raw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Primitive London (this is currently a redirect to the above film)

The page contains 2 infoboxes and is very confusing. Can they be separated out? Babji2000 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Dutchy85 created the article in September of 2013 and then added the second infobox with this edit in November of 2014. I've pinged that editor in hope that they can explain what is going on. MarnetteD|Talk 02:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

One film seems to be a sequel of the other. Either way, that article(s) looks highly deletable. In fact, most of the 3739 articles this user has created are non-notable stubs: [4]. Here's a prime example: Prison Ship. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This user has a long history of making incredibly short, unreferenced articles that have little or no content and/or context (including not adding any categories). Take a look at their talkpage before most of it was archived off. They have been told time and time again not to continue creating rubbish. I think the time for action has come. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly needs some kind of wake-up call, as his behavior doesn't seemed to have changed one iota. It's not OK for a highly experienced user to create unreferenced articles, much less unreferenced stubs of a few sentences that establish no notability. And fail to leave edit summaries -- and every other critique on his talk page. An admin recently gave an indef block to someone who had failed to respond to a single issue on their talk page (which was full of notices, requests, and warnings) -- until such time as the user responds to the issues. I think that is a brilliant move. Should be used (after a very direct final warning) for all kinds of editors who fail to respond to tangible major issues that they have been repeatedly notified of on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently there is a pole to add Ben-Hur and Titanic to the list of 10,000 vital articles on Wikipedia. The poll is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Modern_visual_arts The list already includes 30+ films. Arman ^(Talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I've opened a discussion on the above at the following talkpage. Talk:List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road. I welcome any comments on it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding White savior narrative in film‎, there has been a discussion this past week about including The Matrix on it and cross-linking both articles. The discussion can be found here. Editors are welcome to review the discussion and endorse what should be included or excluded in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been the subject of a slow-burn edit war for years. I think it would benefit from a discussion and a decisive consensus so I have started a survey at Talk:Jaws_(film)#What_genre_should_go_in_the_lead.3F. I haven't formalized it as an RFC because I don't want to waste the formal RFC procedure on a genre war, but if enough film editors add their preference then hopefully we can get a decisive outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I recently created an article for CHIEF ZABU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Zabu. Shortly thereafter it was reviewed and I received this notice: "(This article or section may have been copied and pasted from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094859/ (DupDet · CopyVios), possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. (June 2016)" However, I myself wrote both the IMDb blurb as well as the Wikipedia article, so there is therefore no copyright infringement, as I am the owner of both. How can I get the notice taken off the Chief Zabu article page? Thank you! Matzohboy (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Matzohboy (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• (｡◕‿◕｡)
  08:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Tokyogirl79 Thanks for your response! I have now replaced the article in question with a completely new entry; would it now be possible to please remove the potential copyright violation notice? Thanks so much, Matzohboy (talk
  ) 03:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• It looks like all you did was closely paraphrase the source material. This is still considered to be a copyright violation and the article needs to be re-written again. I'll try to go in and clean it up.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing needs to be

nuked IMO. It reads like a press-release. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

08:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice rescue job! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tokyogirl79 Hi! I really appreciate all your help and the reworking/rewording of the Chief Zabu article to make it more acceptable/appropriate for Wikipedia. I would like to replace a couple of the citations you used, as they refer to articles with misleading information. Also, I'd like to add additional cast members and their credits, providing citations for each. Hope this is okay! Matzohboy (talk
  ) 01:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• @
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the original cat discussion for Category:Pinewood Studios films, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_28#Category:Pinewood_Studios_films, where this new discussion is stemming from. It provides additional context to the new discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had meant to add that here. Thanks.

talk

) 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, a couple of weeks ago I opened a discussion at MOS:FILM to propose a change to WP:FILMLEAD. The guideline doesn't presently offer any advice on how to deliver info about a film's language in the lead, so I wrote something up and Betty and NinjaRobotPirate refined it. If any of you have any thoughts, your comments would be appreciated, otherwise, I'll just boldly make the change in about a week. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor is repeatedly changing the genre to "romantic sports drama film". I have started a discussion at Talk:Rocky#Genre. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Very odd, but this exact issue has come up at Sultan (2016 film), where a user has changed a film's genre to "romantic sports-drama" because the lead actor describes it as a love story. Though I understand why he'd use a primary source, that seems odd to me because the lead actor is obviously trying to sell tickets by making the film as appealing to the widest audience as possible. Not sure if that justifies the change of genre. And there's also the issue of genre-chaining. Titanic (1997 film) is an "epic romance disaster film". Barfi! was a "period romantic comedy drama". Ick. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A discussion concerning the proposed renaming of

This article was recently split into Marianne (1929 silent film) and Marianne (1929 musical film), though the two are clearly related and neither has any substantial content. Is it wise to have two separate articles, or would they be better re-merged? PC78 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are physically different films that both satisfy the notability criteria they probably should be left as separate articles, otherwise you are going to end up with two cast lists and two infoboxes in the same article i.e. two articles scrunched together. It is cleaner to keep them separate even if they are stubs. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Indo-Bangladesh joint production#The state of this article in July 2016

Thank you, all.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see this and this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move busters. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would expect to find articles about the score of the film in the sub-categories under

I have some concerns about the coverage of the reception at The Dark Knight Rises. Discussion at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Reception_needs_to_be_changed._Source_not_good_enough. Bottom line I think we need to add more neutral commentary to the reception section (i.e. sources that do not describe the reception as "overwhelmingly positive") to balance it out a bit or the non-neutral stuff needs to come out. I don't mind either solution, but it would be great if we could get some comments/suggestions about how to resolve the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbolic fluff. Who's getting overwhelmed? Are critics fainting? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Imho that's reading more fluff into it then there might be in the way it is commonly used. I read "overwhelmingly positive" simply as the overwhelming majority of the reviews (as in "almost all"/ a very high percentage) are positive.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested comments would be appreciated for this move request from High-dynamic-range imaging to High dynamic range. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a request for comment underway regarding whether or not to include The Matrix in the list of films at white savior narrative in film. The RfC can be seen here: Talk:White savior narrative in film#Inclusion of The Matrix. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an

You may find the discussion at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Description_of_the_reception of interest where I point out that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are too "English-centric" and are not statistically representative of the global reception. In short they have their place, but if the reception is summarised differently in other parts of the world then we should at least try to include that. I do believe this is a flaw we definitely need a broad discussion about. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• You both raise a very good point. I don't know what to do except to start to better describe the geographical scope of these review aggregator links in the article. I think the really frustrating situation that Betty links to can be chalked up to one POV-pushing inexperienced editor. I read Metacritic regularly it's mostly US critics, with a smattering of Canadian and British stuff. I'm not as big a fan of giving much weight to, say, the horror film review sites. Perhaps that's my snobbery. But that's a different issue...
  talk
  ) 12:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To the first part of your question, the litmus test for me is when there are several sources in agreement with each other – RT, MC, and at least one other reliable source that has attempted to summarize the film's overall reception. When they disagree, or the results aren't as clear cut, then it's best to avoid a summarizing statement and just let the numbers speak for themselves. In past discussions, some editors have stated they don't like "in-text attribution", because it makes it sound like you're giving undue weight to a certain sample of reviews or sources. However, the problem raised above surrounding "English-centric" perspective in our sources shows that there may be situations in which in-text attribution is required or would alleviate confusion. When we know a different perspective exists in another part of the world, properly attributing the film's reception would help us adhere to a

WP:WORLDVIEW. I don't believe this needs to be done in every article moving forward; it should only be done when necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as the intext attribution goes I don't see any reason for not using an intext attribution when using Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I'm not really sure supposed WP:UNDUE issue here. Are we talking about appearances only? I.e. being undue but appearing so on first glance with being undue and easily recognozable as such? If that is case the latter version is imho the more honest one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there are proper ways to do "

Flyer22 was one of the most outspoken editors on this concern. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 00:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In view of the inconsistency in regards to how the transgender Wachowskis are credited in film articles I have started a discussion at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded#The Wachowski credit in the lead in attempt to address the problem. Your project has a stated interest in at least one of the articles so please feel free to join the discussion if you would like to have your say or if you can offer a constructive solution to the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Three Leslie Nielsen films A Choice of Two, Foxfire Light and Murder Among Friends.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see this CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A requested move discussion at

After a bit of move warring at Comedy horror, there were several CfDs for horror comedy/comedy horror film categories. The most recent two closed with no consensus and a suggestion that an RM be held at the main article's talk page. The RM did not officially happen, but there's a discussion at Talk:Comedy horror#"Comedy horror" or "horror comedy"?!. The result of this discussion will probably decide whether the categories under Category:Horror comedy films should be renamed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was reading the article about the Wilhelm scream and reminded me of a question that is keeping me busy for some years. There is a sound wich I first heard in the final level of the video game DooM. In this level you're in a large (square) room and from the opposite wall rockets shoot towards you accompanied by some kind of schwoop sound. Later this sound returned in many, MANY movies. Every time something explodes and something comes flying across the screen, or when (for example) an RPG is fired this sound can be heard. My question is; did the creators of DooM make this sound especially for the game and did the film industry "borrow" it, or did the game makers take it from some library themselves? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 13:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

See this in the "Trivia" section where it starts with, "The launch sound of the spawn cube..." Is that the sound effect you mean? While that Wikia is not a reliable source, it can be used as a jumping-off point to find better sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: I'm restricted by a whitelist so I'm unable to click on the link offered, but from the provided information I can make up that this is the one. Still the question remains... Did they create this sound themselves? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 14:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here is the full passage that shows that it was from a preexisting sound library: "The launch sound of the spawn cube (DSBOSPIT) comes from Sound Ideas' General series sound library: Disc 6015, track 28-1: 'Fire,Ball - Impact and large fire burst, rumble.'[1] It is a very widely used sound effect that has also been used in several movies (such as Dragonheart) television series (for example, ReBoot and Xena: Warrior Princess) and documentaries (like The Hawking Paradox from BBC Horizon)." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the fact that you were willing to do what you did. I mean, it's not your problem that I'm restricted so once again, thanks! Finally after so many years (20 at least...) I know now that this sound already excisted. In the Dutch Wilhelm scream article you can read that after you've noticed this effect, it stands out like a sore thumb in every movie who has included it. That's the "problem" I've got with this sound. Problem solved. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help! You may want to check out Wikipedia:Reference desk in the future. WikiProject talk pages are not for such questions, but this page is not really plagued with that issue, so I did not mind answering. Cheers! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing films in Malaysia. The article could use some community guidance for scope. Currently it appears to be a giant list of American, Indian, Chinese and other nation's films, rather than on Malaysia's films. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears there is a newly registered genre warrior (Hotndead (talk · contribs)) in our midst. I see Lugnuts has already had the pleasure of making his acquaintance. Anyway, I don't think Hotndead is in any danger of becoming an asset to the Film project so I would appreciate it if other editors periodically check his contributions over the next few days. If the activity is ongoing we may have to get him canned. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove this. I find it insulting and innapropriate. hotndead (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't engage in edits that validate the concerns expressed above then the way I see it you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If you are worried about editors paying attention to edits you make...why is that? DonIago (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You are a single purpose account engaging in genre-warring. SPAs are a problem for this project. Genre warring is a problem for this project. I appreciate that good editors sometimes can get caught up in genre-warring but it is problematic when a new account is singularly dedicated to that purpose. I suggest you make edits unrelated to genres for a few weeks to put your account in good standing. Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Their very first edit was to "source" the genre to Jaws, which I know is in the middle of a discussion about this very issue. So a brand-new user goes straight in, first edit, and "sources" this. Certainly one to keep an eye on, before an SPI report is logged. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• There is a discussion started by Hotndead at Talk:American_Psycho_(film)#Genre. A brand new account has popped up as well to support his point of view. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear film experts: This article: The Weinstein Company describes the company as "one of the largest mini-major film studios in North America". Is "mini-major" some kind of specialized studio-related jargon? If so, what does it mean, exactly? I'm tempted to change it to "mid-sized" or just leave out the descriptor altogether, but since I am not knowledgeable about the film industry I thought I'd ask first.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick check, and it was changed in October 2013 by an IP editor (surprise, surprise) to say "mini-major". I'd support it being changed back to omit the word "mini". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not one of the major studios, so that would be less accurate. I would support losing "studio" (and thus also "mini-major"), and instead saying it is a major independent film production and distribution company. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Mini-major" does indeed seem to be "specialized studio-related jargon". The article

Major film studio#Mini-majors the first time it is used in the Weinstein Company article so it is more clear what is meant by the term. Calathan (talk

) 15:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's film jargon that Variety likes to use. For example, this article. I guess it depends on how much jargon you want to include. I'd just leave it alone, but linking it sounds good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this film notable? My google search didn't turn up much in reliable sources or show that the film won any major awards. Many of the hits were about an animated version or the previous films in the sequence.Mdtemp (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Google Books is showing sufficient results to indicate notability. (I used the Spanish title and added the director's name and the release year.) See results here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Short answer is yes. The film was nominated for three Ariel Awards (the Mexican Oscars). I've updated the article with this and several other sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to look at them more in-depth but at first glance, it looks like another genre warrior who especially disagrees with where these genres exactly link to. It looks to be generally in good faith, though. Mostly changing links, with occasional removals of genres (in some cases, there are too many) and sometimes changing them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

186.28.77.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have made similar edits. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with many of the films, so I can't do much. But I

AGF reverted some of the changes from romantic comedy to comedy on films I was familiar with, or could ascertain based on plot summary, because I do think romantic comedy is one of those "necessary" subgenres to note, and typically unlinking from the romantic comedy article, which I don't see why it should link to "romantic film" and "comedy film" over the subgenre article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol

01:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really looking to stir up a hornet's nest here, but I'm a little concerned that with several film-related list articles, the word "featuring" is being used in an ambiguous manner. For instance, List of films featuring dinosaurs. It appears to me that "featuring" may be being used as a synonym for "including".

The best analog I have, off the top of my head, is that I imagine that if we were to say that a film "features" certain actors, we would be talking about the actors who were top-billed, or close to it, not merely every actor who appears in the film. King Kong features a giant ape, but does it "feature" the various other creatures that appear in the film?

Any thoughts folks might have would be appreciated. I freely admit I may be being overly-pedantic on this. DonIago (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you're right. This is a diffusion problem that can occur with categorization by themes for fictional works. If one says "featuring dinosaurs", it should be that you cannot describe the film without mentioning dinosaurs (as a rough test), such as Jurassic Park, Land before Time, The Good Dinosaur, or the Flintstones movie. A work like Toy Story, where one secondary character is a dino toy but not as essential to the plot, should not be included to avoid diffusion. So on that light, for example, the three Night at the Museum entries seem to be pushing it, because while there's a dino skeleton used as a character, it is not a plot-essential element as dinos are in Jurassic Park. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question then becomes whether these lists should really be "featured" lists and inappropriate entries should be removed, or whether the lists should be renamed to make it more clear that they cover any film in which the subject of the list appears. DonIago (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would remove the offending entries (but making sure to engage in discussion to narrow that down). I'd also consider that the list might want to adopt the format like List of films featuring time loops (ignoring issues with what "is" a time loop on its talk page), where a brief reasoning why the film is on the list, relavent to the plot, is given, so that the reader understand how (in this case) dinosaurs are "featured". Otherwise, there is almost no reason for the list where a category could serve that purpose. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, all. I was just wondering whether there is a pre-existing consensus with respect to whether http://www.filmaffinity.com/ is considered a reliable source or not. As I understand it it has both self-generated and user generated content, so it is a bit of a grey area. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Very funny actor, last seen in "Keanu". Could somebody please create an article Jamar Malachi Neighbors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:9CC0:25AC:601C:DFDF:F0DB:E25 (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter:

There's a collaborations section on James Gunn that has become unwieldly and is stretching the page considerably. Should it be removed or is there some other protocol to deal with this? Nohomersryan (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the value of the table itself is, especially if many of these are only cameo roles, and I would say remove it, or trim it down to be notable collabs, i.e. co-whatevering or lead roles. Otherwise, it comes across as trivia. Perhaps, in the mean time, you could switch the x and y axes, so that actor goes along the top and the films go down the side. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WT:Review aggregators#Phrasing in examples regarding the standardization of film aggregator summary statements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maritime science fiction media. This also involves the newly created Category:Maritime science fiction films, which was used to justify changing the genre in the lead of at least three articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

CfD:Maritime science fiction

We now have Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 1#Category:Maritime_science_fiction. Note that this category was used to justify repeated edit warring in the lead of several articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And there is a third one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maritime science fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the inclusion of cast/crew names on TV/film navboxes

• Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films
• Talk:List of highest-grossing Tamil films

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone tell if this 3 minute short has any notability independent of the recent feature film, or can it be merged to Lights Out (2016 film)?

I've already redirected

The billing block would be the small text in a terrible font on the bottom of the poster. See this guide from The New York Times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If you do a Google search of "Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse budget" every link that shows up says the budget was $15 million. Talking about dozens of links including Forbes, IMDB and Box Office Mojo. None say $24 million except this document an editor found - https://indd.adobe.com/view/87976431-f650-4be0-a9c3-392d676b5514 Which is correct? 2.102.187.157 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is not RS. Per the infobox rules, BOM is not generally RS since it does not give a source. The Forbes article you mentioned is part of their contributor blog section, and not the official edited version. The annual FilmLA report is not "some document", it is an authoritative report prepared by industry sources and it is covered by the top trades and international news outlets. The final budget on the film was subject to an audit, as it was part of the CA tax credit program. The CFC, which helps prepare the FilmLA report CONFIRMED the actual budget. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of confirmed fact. Depauldem (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

People on your talk page keep asking you to stop using filmla and local boards and instead use secondary sources. 2.102.187.157 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean the one person who asked that and was actually wrong on that issue? The Feature Film Study is WIDELY reported on, including in your beloved Forbes and countless news outlets. Again, the article in Variety (supreme RS on these issues) confirmed the amount. Depauldem (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Him, as well as others on your talk page, sockpuppet page and many article discussion pages who keep asking you to stop replacing budgets reported by secondary sources with primary sources. But maybe you're right this time, let's see what others say. Also Variety quoted the amount, didn't confirm it. 2.102.187.157 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, it was one person. You can keep borderline slandering me, or you can argue using facts. Both the report and Variety are current reliable sources...unlike IMDB and a google search. BTW, IMDB appears to be the source of the older (incorrect) budget amount and the plainly claim it is an ESTIMATE. Depauldem (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Depauldem, "Per the infobox rules, BOM is not generally RS since it does not give a source." I don't know this to be true. Might I please trouble you to clarify that with the infobox instructions you mean? I see "Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, with the latter usually listing a mainstream website as the main source of the budget, such as the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc." but I don't interpret that to mean that BOM is not RS unless it provides a source. If that's the intention of that phrasing, it's not clear and should be changed. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Numbers is given preference over BOM, because they generally list a source. For this film, neither site lists a source because the amount they list is just a budget estimate that originated at IMDB (which is the non-RS source, not the other two--my mistake). But in this case, we have two secondary reliable sources listing the actual budget, which again, was confirmed by the CA Film Commission. Since we have the actual, final confirmed budget amount reported by two very recent secondary sources of extremely high authority on this subject, I am baffled 2.102 wants to disregard reality for a budget estimate that originated from IMDB. If he wants to edit the body of the article to say the original budget was estimated to be $15 million, but was later confirmed to be $24 million after the final spend was audited by the California Film Commission, that's fine with me.Depauldem (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Numbers is not given preference over Box Office Mojo since that is not how verifiability works on Wikipedia i.e. there isn't a source "hierarchy" except in the case of scholarly sources. The Infobox guidelines are just giving advice on where the information can be found, and a reliable source doesn't have to give a source because it is a source! By no means should the guidance be taken as a revision of policy. If a source complies with

WP:RS (as Box Office Mojo does) then it is reliable source (while IMDB does not). Obviously, being a reliable source doesn't always mean the source is correct, and if different sites give different figures then we need to review them. It's true that Box Office Mojo tends to add budgets before the film is released and does not revise them at a later point meaning the figures can be out of date but this can be true of any source, including The Numbers. If a source gives a little bit more information on where the information came from (i.e. the publication talked to a producer on record or obtained the film's accounts from HMRC) that can help us ascertain which figure is correct. If it is not possible to draw to a conclusion about which source is correct then we don't cherry-pick, we just go with a range i.e. $15-24 million. Betty Logan (talk

) 09:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that The Numbers also say the budget was 15 mil. 2.102.187.157 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This started as a discussion on Talk:Selma_(film). The film is described as 'British-American', evidently because one of the many production companies is based in the UK. That seems to me to be an extremely weak standard for calling a film from another country. When I look movies up on Wikipedia and see 'British-American film' I presume it's set in Britain, has British actors etc. This movie made me do a hard double take as it's so clearly American.

If there is agreement, I would propose setting some standard for what constitutes an American film (or a film from any country) and what it takes to add additional countries to that description, particularly in the lede. Perhaps a reliable source has already laid out criteria we could use. Then I would propose articles be updated to reflect this standard. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire is a contradiction with Selma. It has American production companies but it listed as just a British film, due to the British director. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• I found this: "The country of origin is defined as that of the principal offices of the production company by whom the work was made." It's cited in Wikipedia here: Country_of_origin#Film_and_television_production. Source. That seems reasonable but it does not specify how to handle multiple production companies. It implies there is only one. I would suggest that Wikipedia go by the main production company, and not any production company attached to the film in some way. The result for Selma and Slumdog Millionaire would appear to be that both would be classified as American films. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors forming their own judgments on the nationalities of films would be

WP:FILMLEAD states "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." {{Infobox film}} states "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article." Betty Logan (talk

) 10:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A genre warrior has been repeatedly changing the lead at Lost in Space for the last month. More comments would be useful at Talk:Lost in Space#Space Western/Science Fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I say we take all our genres, roll them up in a carpet and throw them off a bridge. GRAPPLE ^X 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tell me about it. While we are on the subject the genre of American Psycho is still under dispute at Talk:American_Psycho_(film)#Genre. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Subgenre problem

Genres properly belong in an encyclopedia. It is subgenres that are causing the problem. I would support making it clear at

Something needs to be done. All I've done this past week is argue about genres. We can't have editors going from article to article altering genres willy nilly. We need to stress

WP:FILMLEAD guideline; part of the porblem is that editors are digging up sources that are unrepresentive of the general view i.e. you can probably find a source somewhere that describes Schindler's List as a comedy but that isn't a free pass to add the genre to the lead. We have a policy that already tackles this problem but our guidelines don't use it effectively. Betty Logan (talk

) 17:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there any authoritative source that classifies film by genre? Not IMDB, but something like the UK film registry? Even if this ends up highlighting a genre that is not popularly associated with the film, this is a better solution than constant infighting that I can see easily going on. (At the VG project, we've made sure to eliminate the thematic genre as a lede statement for this very reason, since we have no authority to help decide on disputes like this. However, thematic genre is almost necessary for films). --MASEM (t) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There is the AFI Catalog which is a well-respected database, although they do have some counter-intuitive terminology i.e. they use "suspense" in place of "thriller". Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That's still a good point to start. I would agree that "thriller" is generally the more common term to describe suspenseful films than "suspense", and any issues like that, as long there's consensus that you just map the AFI term to the more common genre term here, you should be good. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Betty - We need to stress

WP:FILMLEAD. We should put together a proposal and get this implemented. If this had been done five years ago it would have saved me untold hours dealing with genre warriors. - Gothicfilm (talk

) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think authoritative sources such as the AFI should always be consulted first, but we have to ensure the MOS doesn't paint itself into a corner whereby something like the AFI gives an aberrant genre and other sources are unified against it. I will give it some thought over the weekend. The wording needs to be straightforward and not open to misinterpretation. The genre warring has escalated in recent months so we definitely need to get on top of it because it is eating up too much time. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:DUE and therefore should be representative of the majority of the sources that are regularly used to source film articles. Obviously it doesn't need to be that exact wording, but something along those lines to get the point across that we want general classifications, not cherry-picked ones. Basically we need to make genre classification a mechanical task: there are a bunch of sources (AFI, Allmovie, TCM etc) that are used in articles, and we should just go with the most commonly cited genre. I am not sure we can completely eliminate sub-genres because the primary gernes for a romantic comedy would be Romance and Comedy, but I still think it would be better to call such a film a "romantic comedy". Provided it it is backe dup by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources I think that would eliminate the cherry-picked sub-genres. Betty Logan (talk

) 20:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. (I wonder if using

WP:DUE as the point we want to emphasize is the weight of all the relevant sources.) We cannot prevent all future conflicts, but we can cut them down. I believe romantic comedy is a legitimate genre that should be used when the majority of sources agree on it, but occasionally it's used for works where it doesn't apply in its original definition. Those disputes can be worked out case-by-case. The main point here is we should be able to immediately close down a genre warrior who wants to use one or two sources to label a work some subgenre when the majority of sources classify that work as a primary genre, like science fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk

) 06:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have filed the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Clarify_genre_guidance. I have made the alteration you suggested. Betty Logan (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No progress for five days, but everyone supported the proposal in some form. We should finalize the wording. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Return of the genre warrior

Despite being repeatedly warned

I noticed the discussion there before you posted this. I've left my thoughts on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Evita award list is newly created and nominated for Featured list status. Please feel free to comment. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey All We have a new bot that detects potential copyright concerns. You can sort them by WikiProject. Here is the link to the list for WP Film. Of course follow up requires some common sense as it could be the source copying from us. Ping me if you are interested in more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Members of this Wikiproject may wish to post their input here Talk:Dr. Strangelove#Misc improvements. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Do any of you think Finding Dory is a spin-off? I really think so on account that the film centers on Dory who was originally a supporting character in Finding Nemo. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources around that describe it as both. In reality though a spin-off is still a sequel, just an indirect one. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A sequel take place after the events of a story whereas a prequel take place prior. A spin-off does not necessarily take place before or after the events of a story, it has more to do with the characters. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A sequel is just the next installment in a series. A prequel is a still a sequel, as is a spin-off. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion that I have started at Talk:Finding Dory#Not a spin-off. Plenty of sources call it a sequel. Ellen Degeneres herself said it was a sequel. The film follows the events of the original film. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the article for spin-off which I wikilinked above, "The new protagonist generally appears first as a minor or supporting character in the main story line within a given milieu, and it is very common for the previous protagonist to have a supporting or cameo role, at the least as a historical mention, in the new sub-series." I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all but I'm starting to suspect those who authored those "reliable sources" you listed at Finding Dory's talk page are probably not familiar with the term spin-off. Come to think of it, the term spin-off does seem to fit the case of Finding Dory. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It can be both. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. However, it's primarily described as a sequel. I suggest

you drop the stick, or, at least take up the discussion at the section about this at the Finding Dory talk page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol

15:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you find a reliable source to state that the movie is a spin-off, otherwise it is not. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've set up a page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest. The idea would be quality improvement on our core articles for this period, improving actors, directors, films and related content and expansion work on stubs/undeveloped content which should be much better by now. The system would be partly based on the successful Awaken the Dragon and current West Country Challenge contests, with points and prizes allocated to certain tasks. If you think you might be interested in participating in the contest or editathon, or at least support the idea add your name to the Interested section at the bottom and we'll see how it progresses. I think it's time an annual contest was held for WP:Film. Potentially the film project could be running a few each year targetting different areas, one could be on French/Italian neo-Realist cinema etc. I wouldn't have the time to run them all but potentially I could help set things up and attract people to help run them. The Wales and West Country contests so far have seen 1400 article improvements, I think the same mechanism could be applied to film and potentially we see more participants and contests improved. The thinking would be a daily prize for most work, like a DVD, or book, something related to film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people must be on holiday. I had thought a lot of people would jump at the chance to run this sort of thing for WP:Film! Does nobody here support running a drive to improve the core articles at least, even if you might not edit?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This topic again! An attempt to codify the consensus of not including cast and crew in navboxes, and not having filmographies in navboxes is at

Hi all, can anyone please take a look at

Permalink to the version of the article with the distribution list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability for film distributors can be tricky. They usually get mentioned in articles about the films they've distributed, but significant coverage can be difficult to find. This article calls the company a "big money player", and this article, though gushy enough to be a press release, calls it "popular". So maybe there's enough coverage out there to warrant an article. As far as lists of distributed films go, I guess I'm ambivalent. We seem to catalog that stuff, given articles like

List of theatrically released Lionsgate films, but I've seen people remove embedded lists as promotional fluff. When I start a new article, I might include a list of films if I can easily source it, such as XYZ Films. Otherwise, I just skip it, as in XLrator Media. I don't think it's a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on this, NRP. I appreciate your input. I've indeffed most of the people involved in that article (for sock/meat) but I suppose I'll leave it for someone else to decide whether it's cool or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I am looking for someone who can archive the sources for the Steve Jobs article in order to comply with the GA recommendation. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The quickest method is to use the Webcite comb. It will bring up a checklist and you need to select all the non-Wikipedia links. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The website won't load up for me for whatever reason. Rusted AutoParts 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Above category is up for discussion here. Additional opinions are welcome. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

CfD: Category:War action films

Similarly, another new category created by the same user can be discussed here. Input welcome. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I restored the nomination after it was blanked. Better get your votes in now before it disappears again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Gladiator (2000 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Needs lots of work. I did some basic copy edits and cleaned up a few simple issues, but I don't know if I want to dedicate the time to push a C-class article to GA status. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just reading the April and the Extraordinary World article and see that only the French voice actors are listed. I was going to add the voice actors' names for the English version, but I am not sure whether that is standard and if so how to list them. The French language is clearly the original language, but the release in English is probably more significant for readers of the English Wikipedia, since they will likely only ever hear the English voiced version. 99.192.90.233 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that since this is the English-language Wikipedia, it is probably appropriate to list the non-English voice actors and the English voice actors. My Neighbor Totoro's "Cast" section has a table that lists both that you could copy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I just added the table. Thanks for the help. 99.192.83.80 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.90.233)

You're welcome! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

On

I am veering to the view it is notable (multiple references in other reputable sources and also the fact that it's a legitimate poll of international film critics, undertaken in a similar fashion to the Sight & Sound poll, rather than a bunch of BBC hacks coming up with filler as Empire Magazine is prone to doing). It is certainly no less notable than something like the Time Out 100 best British films at any rate. Reproducing the list in its entirety may constitute a copyright violation. The Guardian reproduces the list up to the top 25, so it's probably safe for Wikipedia to go up to that number too. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TOP100 says, " Lists that have acceptable free licensing (as with AFI 100 Years... series) may be reproduced in their entirety as long as proper citations and sourcing are included." Looking at AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, there was an OTRS ticket submitted, and AFI responded saying their list was in the public domain (response was shared on the talk page). Maybe an OTRS ticket submission could be done here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 12:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation of this about fair use is that we can reproduce a single article or a single chart so I think it's ok. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am here mainly because of large absences AFI's recognitions in film sites though it is missing in neglecting or in famous films. Because it is just good for my opinion and film fans will welcome it. I know you tried to educate me about my edits and I somehow did not listen because I am new here. But I am starting to handle this huge system and I need your advise in my next editing. In the Manual of Style for film articles in Accolades section states that you can mix prose and bullets. I am trying to do it in this way and I hope you will welcome it as my first steps. Yesterday, it has taken me about four hours to remake. I have three reasons why. First, it is more comfortable for me because they are so many backlogs for doing it in prose. Second, it is more panoramic because you can find every AFI recognition already in "Contents" and click straight in this section. And third, almost every AFI recognition which was already done (not by me) was in the points way and it seems you do not worry because it is still there (I can show you hundreds of examples). Plus, I have already recieved a few thankful notices for my editing and I have also added three articles about films which they were not here before because of it. Please, I have spend lots of hours to prepare this system for my editing. Allow me to do it in this way and I promise I don't disappoint you.Dr.saze (talk) 10:23, 07 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it looks like you're arguing that AFI recognition should be added to film articles, and this should be in list/table format instead of prose. For the first part, sure, go ahead. I doubt many people will complain if you add properly sourced content form AFI. For the second, it's complicated. Creating tables and lists for a single entry can make an article look ugly, and

MOS:FILM#Accolades encourages prose format for a small number of accolades. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 17:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think this is a little less straightforward than that. For some of the AFI lists, we're talking nominations only (a few hundred films considered per list) to boil down to the final 100. The nominations on these lists seem trivial to me, and not worthy of mention. I'm unconvinced that the nominations of something as lightweight as the lists should be included in articles. – SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the nominations are too trivial to add, and since there are 350 nominations for each of the 13 AFI lists, we are talking thousands of trivial additions to Wikipedia articles. Moreover, it confuses the reader because nominations for these lists, no matter how one words it or formats it, are too easily confused with the items that made the final lists. I vote not to add them to articles. If in a pinch we need a compromise, I would say add a nomination only to an article that had no other notability (or an item that had no other AFI result) -- that is, if the article needs some sort of notability and doesn't yet have much notability, an AFI nom could conceiveably push it over the edge. But even in that case we really must make it clear that the item did not at all make the list. Softlavender (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As opposed to the various awards - which limit the nominations to five (or so) - the AFI nominations butt up against

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. IMO only those films that made the final list should be noted in the articles. MarnetteD|Talk

22:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The AFI nominations are of virtually no significance, given the sheer number of nominations for each list, as above. Inclusion in an actual list could be significant - but even here, these are lists generally of a top 100, which again mitigates the notability of the inclusion, to a degree at least. For that reason, I would suggest that mere nominations never be included in an article, as of themselves they have no genuine notability. While I appreciate Softlavendar's willingness to compromise above, I would say that a) only one editor seems to be pushing inclusion of nominations, despite a substantial number of other editors rejecting the importance of these as "accolades," and b) if a mere nomination to an AFI list is a film's only claim to an accolade or notability, then it does not indeed have any actual notability beyond what is included in its article.Sensei48 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Before my coming, there had been already many mentioned AFI nominations in each article by many many other editors. I do not want to make problems with implementing new orders. My intention is only to add missing AFI accolades (and -not to say- nominations) because I just simply think it is a great harm that this work is done only in half. So do not be angry, please. I promise I will make in the future another notable revisions (I have already made three articles about missing films and I want to continue) and then we can still have discussions about this problem and I promise I will help you as the most as possible.... And I must mention that I am helping to another articles because I am adding missing or "dead" links by their recognition and I also repair some problems this articles have and no one has cared about them before. Dr.saze (talk) 7:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

topic-banned. -- Softlavender (talk

) 09:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, do not be so cruel, please. We can make a settlement in some way, cannot we? If you want to delete some AFI nominations by some films I swear I can do it. Also I can EVERY AFI nominations ever mentioned rewrite in prose form (even the most of them which have been written before my coming). You can use my skills and film knowledges for another projects so I can be more useful for you. I am here to help Wikipedia, not to destroy her. But I am begging you for the only thing... Do not ruin my work. I am here for you and I coul do anything. - Dr.saze (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia operates by consensus and policy, and it is the consensus of at least seven very experienced editors (both here and on your talk page) citing Wikipedia policy that the AFI nominations do not belong. You've been told from the beginning to stop until a consensus is reached. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, but it has taken so many preparations. I had lots of big plans. I thought you will welcome my huge work. And now it seems to be restless and lost. - Dr.saze (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No fault but your own, and your own refusal to listen. Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand to all of you (I mean blocking for adding nominations of well-known list) but I can listen. Even when you threaten me I will listen you. I will from now only edit AFI winning films and repair damages. I hope you are content... (Redacted) - Dr.saze (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Drsaze if I see you make any more personal attacks on other editors (contrary to

• But he insulted me, too (for example something about my English skills). And I do not attack him. I wrote I would listen him. I have lost. It is optimal reaction. - Dr.saze (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, they did not attack you. You are not a native speaker of English, and it shows in what you write. As this is a text-based medium, to point out that your English is not strong is not an insult. Either way, you should still not insult other editors. Your time on Wikipedia will be short and uncomfortable if you continue to 1. insult others; 2. edit war continually or 3. threaten others. – SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am sorry. - Dr.saze (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have some good idea for all of you. will not add nor AFI nominations neither wins further here and I will also delete every single edit concerning AFI information. Instead, I will make a huge list of films prized by the American Film Institute on PDF format and offer you to include it on main AFI's lists articles as a reference to all the AFI accolades but ranked according to the films. It will be more comfortable and compliant for all of us. I think it is a good splution when I am not allow to edit AFI nominations. And I want to supply that offer of my favours is still valid. - Dr.saze (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have links to the PDFs from the AFI itself. Please do not make one and do not link to your version of it anywhere. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Couldn't I only send you that and then you will make your opinion. Please, just give me a chance. I am deleting every my AFI edit instead of you. Dr.saze (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have links to the PDFs from the AFI itself. Please do not make one and do not link to your version of it anywhere. Softlavender (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a real good idea, Dr.saze. We (from AFI) want to do some scheme already plenty of years. But please, you have to share the link to that PDF file on this talk page at first. We will then advise you if there are some mistakes. And we are also glad to see you have alread charge yourself and you will delete all your AFI edits because me, Davemck and other editors do not have so much time to do this kind of work. Regarding to the offer of your we are sure you will be useful for many our projects. After your huge work on AFI scheme, write a message to us (ww.afi.com) or here, on this talk page. - TobRob (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure you will appreciate it. And I know I have to send the link here at first, so be sure that I will do so. Dr.saze (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've been working on removing the AFI nominations. I've noticed that other editors (besides Dr.saze) have added nominations; below is a list of those I've noticed. (I'm currently working through Cryptozoologist3's additions.)

Special:Contributions/Cryptozoologist3
Special:Contributions/Drunkenpeter99 — from about January 21, 2011 to August 20, 2011
Special:Contributions/Skywalker80100 — from about September 12, 2011 to June 30, 2012
Special:Contributions/StewieBaby05 — from about October 20, 2012 to June 6, 2015

(According to User:StewieBaby05, the last 3 are the same person.) Davemck (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed something strange with Category:English-language films: When I use the category page to try to find films that begin with a letter, it directs me to a list of films that begin with a different letter entirely. Just recently, for example, I clicked on "P" in the "Contents" banner at the top of the page, only to be directed to a list of films starting with "E". Do project members have any idea what is causing this?

I think it is connected to this Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days FreeKnowledgeCreator. I am not very conversant with this techno stuff so my apologies if I have steered you wrong. Hopefully it will clear up soon. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember if there has ever been a discussion about items like this before. As I stated in my edit summary these "As of DATE actors x, y and z are the only surviving cast members" mentions are

I agree. What exactly does this add to the understanding of the film? Unless there was some exceptional reason to mention this--to make up examples that might not even be good rationales, only one member of cast survived to see it released, two members of cast survived to see 50th anniversary and this was a fact that was extensively covered by third-party sources and informed the way such anniversary was celebrated, or something--I don't see any particular reason to include it. There's no context for the information, there's no significance or weight attributed to it, and it just feels like trivia. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that if the decision is to keep them then I suggest that they do not belong in the lede. Again they have nothing to do with the film itself and they are part of any summary about the film. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with how the information is incorporated (it certainly doesn't belong in the lead) but as for whether it should be in the article at all depends on how significant the information is. For example, there is extensive reliable source coverage of the surviving cast members of Gone with the Wind (film) which makes the information WP:DUE in that particular case. In that article it is discretely tucked away in the cast section. In the case of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World does the media cover the "surviving" cast at all? If not then it simply is not significant for that particular film. It's really an issue of sourcing: if multiple sources cover it then it is presumably significant enough to cover and meets our criteria for inclusion; if it is not sourced then at best it is unsourced (and potentially fails WP:DUE) and at worst original research. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• These type of lists should be burned with fire. There's no useful information for readers except at all, purely trivial and inconsequential. If readers are interested in the status of actors, they can read articles about actors. --Jayron32 00:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A number of users have set up a task force for Pakistani cinema and have requested that it be added to the project banner. I know the creation of a new task force should probably have been discussed here first, but what's done is done and they already have five interested users (that's more than some of the existing task forces), so personally I think we should accept this request and let them get on with things. Just wanted to post here and give others an opportunity to comment before taking this any further. PC78 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here PC78, pursuant to the advice at

Bollywood industry of neighbouring India [11] [12]. Hope I didn't bore this section, just laying a little background as far as this task force's scope is concerned :) Mar4d (talk

) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• @PC78: Would appreciate any follow-up and input/suggestions from the project members. Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with the participants here, so feel free to invite any active members you are aware of to give their two cents. It'd help for my pending request re. parameters on Template:WikiProject Film. Cheers! Mar4d (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No-one has raised any objections so I don't see any harm in proceeding. I can take care of the banner but it will have to wait until tomorrow. PC78 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a double take seeing your handle and wondered if I was back in 2009-2010. Good to see you again, PC78. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@PC78: No worries, thanks! Mar4d (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

All sorted chaps, the task force is up and running in the project banner. PC78 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: Hey Eric, nice to see you're still around. I keep trying to leave but I always seem to get sucked back in! PC78 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, I don't see anything at

If it was up to me, only films that have actually been released would be added to such articles. That said, we could use the same principles applied to filmographies, and include anything that's a least in production or farther along in the process. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice that

I agree with your assessment. The so-called "theme" of these succession boxes is arbitrary; anything related to the age of a Bond girl appears to have to do with Bellucci. To paraphase Goldfinger, I expect this to be deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Betty and Erik's comments above and you can add the "Acting role" succession boxes that they are creating to this as well. Along with the OR, SYNTH and confusion problems they are

WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. In the case of the "Ar" boxes lets look at Roger Moore, Bond can be considered a defining role (and there is already a nav box covering that) but Ivanhoe and Clouseau are not. I know that these can be fun for an editor to create but they should be removed. MarnetteD|Talk

21:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

1. I noticed Luaza1313 adding "set in" dates for contemporary films. For example, Batman Begins set in 2005 and The Dark Knight set in 2008. I have never seen this done for "contemporary" films. It might makes sense for time travel films, or films where the date is an integral part of the plot but it seems purely incidental in cases like this. Apart from the fact that the editor may be simply assuming these dates (could Batman Begins not be set in 2004 for example?) what exactly is the procedure for applying these categories to contemporary films? Does the date have to be defining, or do we just add them if the date is revealed at all in the film?
2. In the case of The Dark Knight Rises the same editor replaced the "Films set in the future" category with "Films set in 2016" category. I don't have a problem with the 2016 category if it is explicitly set in 2016 (and not just the editor's assumption), but am I correct in assuming that we retain the "set in the future" category if the film is not contemporary? I checked the Blade Runner and that has both the "set in 2019" and "set in the future" catgeories, which makes sense to me, because if readers are searching for films that are set in the future then we will lose this nuance once we hit 2020 without the explicit "set in the future" category.

Answers on a postcard! Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Personally I think we should avoid the categories unless they're relevant (films set in the future being such a case, perhaps).
2. I would assume "set in the future" means relative to when the film was released, not relative to the current year; the latter makes no sense to me. That said, I'm not sure how it's relevant that TDKR was set in the future; have any sources referred to it as a futuristic film? DonIago (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR. It can also (as unlikely as it seems) lead to edit wars - i.e. why is the year matching the year it was released rather than the year(s) it was filmed. Again, unless a specific year is mentioned in the film cats with a specific year should not be used for the article. Well I have used up the room on my postcard so I will just add four tildes as my stamp :-) MarnetteD|Talk

21:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Although this page move is about the novel, it may interest some people here. If you've not got a pain in your Gulliver, you might want to contribute. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Bit disappointed that some of the WP:film veterans like Erik, Lugnuts, Shawn in Montreal, Bede, Andrez and some of the others haven't supported the idea of this at least. We could really bring about some major improvements, and then you could run one targetting different areas of film. I've postponed it until there is more support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor keeps splitting the 1966 Art Direction oscar (which also covered set decoration) into two separate categories and stating the film won six oscars rather than five. This clearly contradicts the Academy's own site as I point out at the talk page. Can I get a couple of third party comments at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film)#Art_Direction.2FSet_Decoration plz as I am going to apply for page protection if the IP attempts to change the information again. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There are currently at least three reliable sources that say the film Toni Erdmann is German-Austrain:

1. A Variety article
2. Official press kit of the film at Cannes Film Festival (PDF)
3. Cineuropa database

Per

WP:Original research to match up countries to production companies because as editors we do not know the extent or nature of the involvement of the company and their involvement may be marginal. The same goes for shooting locations and crew nationalities. Claims about nationality should be backed up explicitly by the sources i.e. to call the film a Romanian production a source is required to actually state the fact. Betty Logan (talk

) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

i saw the talk page of the article empty. it's better that you first try discussing the issue with him and if you can't reach a consensus, you bring it places like here. if the user doesn't have reliable sources for his claim, then he can't add the info. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

H, there are fewer than 30 editors (which can mean zero) with that article on their watchlist. So there is nothing wrong with coming to the film project to get wider input. One of the main WikiP policies is that info in an article must have

WP:SYNTH) is to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk

03:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you both have a point. Generally it's best if a dispute stays at the article talk page otherwise interested parties may not realize it is going on, but this is the correct place to inquire how things are determined on film articles, especially if you are being dragged into an edit war and are unsure of your own position. Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if the term meant a love story with a period setting. Does it mean that, or something else? The category Category:Historical romance films may also be reworked based on useful comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to add some context it appears that "historical romance" has an antiquated definition (along the lines of "scientific romance"). Kailash and I briefly discuss it at User_talk:Betty_Logan#Historical_romance. I guess the question is should we stick with the modern understanding of the term for the category or should we try to avoid the ambiguity and rename it? We could just avoid the problem altogether and bin the category and upmerge the films to "historical films" and "romance films". Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This revision of the article reads, "It is also a genre of mass-market fiction, which is related to the broader romantic love genre" and I thought this sentence means my original interpretation of the genre may be right in some way. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan: Sorry for not telling you earlier, but I do not want this discussion to be archived without a consensus. But is your suggestion about deleting the category final? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Two issues have come up at

1. Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#Frost Fight
   - does a non-notable film need to be limited to less than basic information based on table headers.
2. Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#Reception info - Should database sourced information be updated for insignificant changes in amounts. Spshu (talk
   ) 18:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

An editor has added Category:Epic films based on actual events to both Gone with the Wind (film) and Doctor Zhivago (film). They apply to some extent because the films are set during significant historical periods (i.e. the American Civil War and the Russian revolution) but the characters in both are fictional. They are not like Titanic when some of the key supporting cast have real-life counterparts. Using this rationale you could claim that every WW2 film is "based on real-life events" even if it has fictional characters undertaking a fictional mission/battle. So how should this category be interpreted? Do the "actual events" relate just to a setting, or should we interpret the events as being central to the plot with real-life character counterparts? Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

even if the actors portray real characters, they're still considered fictional characters in the fictional work. so this isn't about being fictional. if the film refers to a real event in history, it should be mentioned as "based on" that event. i support the categorization. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If actors portray real people then they are based on real people, even if they are fictionalised representations. With Lawrence of Arabia for example, you are fictionally depicting a real person's participation in a real event and are able to judge the accuracy of the depiction from a historical perspective, but that's not true of Scarlett O'Hara and Gone with the Wind. What you basically have is a completely fictional story that is just "set" during a well known historical war. It's no more based on a real event than say Apocalypse Now or The Dear Hunter, so it seems to me if we add Gone with the Wind to the category then why not Apocalypse Now since the same logic applies? If we add every war film then it seems to me the category would lose its intended purpose, because I don't think it was established to categorize articles with just a historical setting. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly to draw the line, but the film should probably have real-life characters who experienced something akin to the events in the film. For example,

WP:CATDEF. Articles should not have categories that are only marginally applicable to them. If you have to strain to come up with a justification, it's not defining. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the arguments made by Betty and NRP. Such categorization could very quickly become unwieldy. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The main point is that there are too many people fooled by critics and reviewers who [have] carelessly assign[ed] the film too much credibility, and linked the film with the Draft Riots. Martin Scorcese did not go out of his way to point out that the film is complete fiction conveniently tossed into the same year as the riots. Critics, most of whom swooned over the sets and period pieces, didn't place much emphasis on that either. As far as "It is not standard practice, in my experience, to point out in a lede that a film is "fiction," as this is assumed", this is neither here nor there, just a common-sense rule of thumb, but, as we all know, common sense does not always prevail, and it is the responsibility of an encyclopaedia to ensure the reader is aware.

Draft Riots are depicted mostly as acts of destruction but there was a lot of violence that took place during that week of July 1863. The violence resulted in more than one hundred deaths, most of which were African Americans. They were especially targeted by the Irish gangs, in part because they were afraid of the job competition that more freed slaves would cause in the city.^[7] The film references the infamous Tweed Courthouse, as "Boss" Tweed refers to plans for the structure as being "modest" and "economical".^{[citation needed}

]