Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 62

If someone could create this article that would be really amazing, thank you ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. I didn't include the IMDb-listed awards because they look like they're the default status of every film that plays "in competition" at a festival. I don't see how it's notable to mention that something was nominated for "best documentary feature" if every film in competition was also nominated. Other people might disagree, but that's my understanding of the consensus that resulted in

MOS:FILM#Accolades. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 02:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the bottom of the Talk:The Godfather Part III page and figure out what the story is with those two references or ext. links? I don't know why they are there, where they are supposed to be, and/or how to move or get rid of them. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've insert the {{reflist}} template in the section that had these references. This makes the references appear there rather than at the end of the page by default. I don't know if this is the best practice, but that is what I've done in the past. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That works. Thanks, Erik. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(

reflist talk}} - is the way to deal with them on a talk page. Well, to be fair, you can also remove the <ref></ref> brackets and turn them into direct links but I prefer the first two choices as it makes it easier to read the link without having to click on it. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk

20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to remember that for the future. The thing is, though, when I searched the page, I couldn't find where the references were... does that make sense? Anyway, problem solved. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a thread on the use of a Rotten Tomatoes "rating" on It's a Wonderful Life (

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response elaborates slightly on this matter: "...caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates". Personally I would discourage the use of aggregetor scores when a significant number of the reviews are retrospective. Aggregators are a useful tool for recently released films where most of the reviews are contemporary and there isn't much else in the way of extended analysis, but in the case of classic films especially we can usually do much better than aggregators. So much has been written about Citizen Kane, for example, it is beyond me why we would resort to aggregator stats when there are far more credible alternatives available better placed to put opinion in a proper context. There is a fairly extensive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_12#The_use_of_aggregators_on_articles_about_older_films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Just wanted to make the project aware, if they were not already, of

Thanks for the heads up Favre1fan93 and for the helpful links. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

An ip editor at the article

Threats of a legal nature lead to an immediate block if you file an ANI report; given the state of comments by the IP on theIR talk page, that's would seem a sensible avenue to take. –

talk

) 06:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

talk

) 07:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a dispute whether or not The Great Wall (film) should be listed at Whitewashing in film despite verification from reliable sources. The discussion can be found here. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, that lead might need a trim - "... epic historical fiction action-adventure monster film..." Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll comment there, but I remember that this came up before (not necessarily wrt to The Great Wall), but it was the concept that as along as reliable sources or, moreso in this case, expert opinions believed a film was whitewashing, even if facts proved them wrong, it was still valid to include alongside the factual aspect that it really wasn't. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this particular film has not been released yet. Several of the sources seem to comment on its trailer. Dimadick (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A thread on the topic is ongoing (at

I'd like to get a wider idea of WP:FILM's consensus on this matter. Harry Potter articles, and many others in WP:FILM, tend to use the word "instalment" for describing films in a series. This word, of course, is spelled "installment" in American English. The question is whether we should use the word at all in articles where there is a high probability that it will be constantly and aggressively challenged and modified by uninformed, and sometimes young, editors. Harry Potter has a chronic problem with this - we chose to use an Anglocentric milieu for the topic and we use British English and the title Philosopher's Stone rather than Sorceror's Stone, and people try to "correct" these "errors" all the time. So what I am asking is whether we are just better off, as

WP:ENGVAR strongly suggests, using commonalities rather than uniquely-spelled terms, and just avoid writing "instalment" altogether where we could omit the word entirely or just say "film" when we mean it. Elizium23 (talk

) 21:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Avoid the use of the word "installment" per

WP:COMMONALITY, IMO. Surely there are satisfactory synonyms. --Izno (talk

) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• If this was written in American English, and people tried to change it constantly to the British English spelling, I expect we'd see strong resistance to the idea. Shall we ban the use of "instalment" in all articles because American IPs have been vandalising it to force the spelling their way? Shall we give way to every bully on all words they attack, or just those not spelled the American way?
• And COMMONALITY has nothing to do with this: instalment is a common term, with only the spelling an issue to a minority who are unwilling to acknowledge the hidden notices. –
  talk
  ) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what is meant by "common" in this context. And it's not a matter of "unwilling to acknowledge" the notes - they are actively acknowledging, attacking and disaparaging, and vandalizing the hidden notices! Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the terminology, thank you. So your approach to vandalism is to roll over and give in? That doesn't seem a wise path at all (and, again, if this was people trying to change I feel from "installment" to "instalment", Im sure many would be up in arms fighting it down, not giving in to it). The notes are not necessarily the best possible ones. They say that the spelling is correct in British English, but that means nothing without something that says the spelling is part of a wider ENGVAR guideline (i.e. explaining why it is in British English). –

talk

) 23:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Commonality in context means "use words and spellings of words which can be found in most major English dialects, where possible". Is "instal(l)ment" such a special words that there isn't a respectable synonym? --Izno (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to kowtow to vandals and bullies, then we can't start by removing all instances of "installments" and scrap most of our ENGVAR guidelines, or at least say "have a stab at using the appropriate variant until rolling over or running away when the culturally idiotic IPs start being stupid, then give up and write everything in American just to appease them". Which of those sounds like a suitable idea? –

You have yet to answer my question. Are you interested in collaborating or simply getting your way? :) --Izno (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should,focus on points in hand, rather than trying to personalise the matter against an individual who is saying something you don't like? –

talk

) 05:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You have yet to raise any significant points not otherwise balanced by counterpoints offered by myself as well as others here. As it is, you're the one ranting. I'm still waiting on an answer to my question; here it is again: Is "instal(l)ment" such a special words that there isn't a respectable synonym? --Izno (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

And now I am "ranting"? Again, perhaps you could not make personal comments about others (content not contributor, etc). Actually, if you look at what I have said, I have answered your point: "We are using a standard term, common in both languages and present both within the film industry and in common use". –

talk

) 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. My understanding is that the rule of thumb is that if a film is a British film (or from another jurisdiction which uses British English, like India) than British English is to be used. This is not an uncommon issue. It happens semi-frequently at films like Love Actually and The English Patient, where words using the British usage (e.g. travelled) are constantly being changed to "traveled", and then get reverted back. I've written a few articles about English and Indian films (the latter to help out some Indian wp friends who English was not their first language), and because my spell check uses American English, after the article was up, those words which were mis-spelled in British English were corrected by other editors, which I felt was proper. Anyway, that's my .02.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The variety of English is not at issue here. It is altogether settled that we should be using British English, for consistency with the rest of the Wizarding World universe articles. What the question is is whether we should not be seeking to narrow the gap by avoiding gratuitous use of Britishisms when it would better serve readers to simply eliminate them altogether or use a simple synonym. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"gratuitous use of Britishisms"? We are using a standard term, common in both languages and present both within the film industry and in common use, with only a minor spelling difference. –

talk

) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment For any article of a substantial length more often than not there will always be differences between the Brit-English and American-English versions, and commonality cannot reconcile everything. For instance, it is very hard to find a common word for "cinema" and "theater", both of which regularly occur in film articles. In principle I agree with pursuing commonality because it can help to reduce genuine confusion, that is editors "correcting" things they believe are spelt wrong. However, what I see on that article is editors deliberately ignoring the hidden note and changing to a spelling variety they know is incorrect for the article. This is a behavioral problem not a MOS issue and the solution isn't appeasing them. If you do that someone is invariably left with a huge clean-up job six months down the line across a ton of articles, simply because other editors have taken the easy way out and not confronted them over their conduct. It is best just to revert them, and if they continue you can always shop them at ANI or request pending changes protection. Betty Logan (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Let me get that straight. We have to Americanize Wikipedia further to appease American vandals? Does not the website already have tons of systemic bias to counter? Should we keep adding to it? And since when do vandals get to run the website? Dimadick (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So let me see if I have got this straight. The emerging consensus here is that one letter "l" is the hill we are going to die on, ignoring reasonable advice from a prewritten GUIDELINE in the

righteous cause of promoting British English via this article. Is that basically what we are saying in a nutshell? Elizium23 (talk

) 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think the summary is that vandals with a battleground mentality who deliberately act against our guidelines and policies should not be given the opportunity to continue; if they do, then page protection, ANI and other measures are available. -

talk

) 08:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Categorization needs to be supported by sources so I would just revert any unsupported additions. But I thing the overcategorization is becoming a major problem. If you have 100 categories (for example) and you start crossing them over with each other the effect is exponential: 10,000 possible combinations. If you cross those combinations with another 100 categories you end up with potentially 1 million categories. They cease being useful in any meaningful human way i.e. you'd need a computer program to search through them. As an example, Category:American horror thriller films crosses over two genres and a country (three pieces of information) so the potential number of such categories is mind-boggling. Cross-over categories should perhaps be limited to two items of information IMO: if you have Category:Horror thriller films, Category:American thriller films and Category:American horror films, is Category:American horror thriller films really needed? I don't work much on categorization so I might be out of step on this, but adding a new layer of categorization has a fundamental impact on all film articles and it should really be discussed before editors steam ahead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That American horror thriller cat is such a bad idea. I'm pretty sure triple-intersection categories are strongly discouraged. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sure you will be on board with

WP:NARROWCAT. Time for a topic ban? Betty Logan (talk

) 10:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that triple-intersection isn't allowed for film cats? Some of them existed before I started creating more of them. Why is American horror thriller films a bad cat? There are many films which are eligible for inclusion in that - it's not small or narrow. Jim Michael (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As I have explained, triple intersection by crossing over doubles genres with countries leads to the number of categories rising exponentially to the point that they cease to be a useful organizational structure. American horror thriller films are perfectly well organized by membership to American horror films, American thriller films and Horror thriller films. It is not necessary to form a third category to house this information! Per WP:NARROWCAT: "...an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful." In fact, such refinement is potentially unhelpful. More readers probably search American horror films or American thriller films than they do American horror thriller films, but by taking them out of those categories and adding them to American horror thriller films means that a reader or an editor who uses the categories to search out American horror films not only has to search through an extra category, but these films are now no longer in the category you would most expect them to be. You are fragmenting information to beyond its useful purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on that premise, most cats wouldn't exist; you could make such an argument in regard to most cats. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, based on that premise—and guideline—the triple-intersection categories you have created would not exist, and the films you have relegated to these obscure and useless sub-categories would still be in the categories where most people would expect to find them. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You could make the same argument for double-intersection cats.

Which guideline states (rather than possibly vaguely implies) that triple-intersection film cats shouldn't exist? Some of them were created by other people years ago and still exist without you challenging their existence. Jim Michael (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the need to limit these ever-expanding cats. I am glad this discussion is taking place as I'd recently noticed that this problem is getting out-of-hand. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Some triple-intersection film cats have existed for several years, created by other editors. Why didn't you challenge their existence? Jim Michael (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, support the idea of a topic ban. There's being bold and being disruptive. The burden would be with Jim to show how this would be a useful way to break categories down even further. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Their usefulness is to create useful subcats of existing large and expanding cats. American horror thriller films are certainly a recognisable and relevant intersection - so much so that a book could be written about them.

This conversation has veered away from the original issue which is the order that the cats should be in. I've been told off for putting them in alphabetical order, on the basis of that being wrong. However, a correct order isn't stated on any policy or guideline. Many film articles have long had their cats in alphabetical order. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

He's also apparently genre warring. In these edits, he removed a sourced category based on his own original research ("they infected, not undead"). The lead clearly cites a reliable source that calls the film a zombie film. I think maybe a topic ban on categories is the right answer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not genre-warring. 28 Days Later is about an infection outbreak, not dead people becoming reanimated. If you watch the film, you'll realise that. The Plot section of the article doesn't contain the word zombie, nor does it describe reanimated corpses. Some people misunderstanding / misremembering it doesn't mean that we should repeat what they say, even if they're journalists or film critics. Many people think that Sydney is the capital of Australia or that Elvis Presley and Tupac Shakur are alive.

Why didn't you challenge the existence of triple-intersection film cats that were created by other people years ago and which still exist? Jim Michael (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not having any triple-intersection film cats would mean not having Category:American comedy-drama films or Category:American romantic comedy films, which are common, valid intersections. Those were both created in 2009 (not by me). Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

• If Jim Michael wishes to create any more triple-intersection film categories he must first obtain a consensus for them here at WT:FILM

Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Creating triple-intersection categories isn't the same as just creating another category, it is adding another layer of organization to film articles on Wikipedia. It should be a Project decision as to whether there should be an extra layer of categorization. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support It's not a useful aid to navigation and adds category clutter. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment What's the difference between the triple-intersection film cats which I've created recently, compared to the many triple-intersection film cats created by other people over the years which still exist unchallenged? I don't see why mine might be inappropriate, whilst those created by other users are appropriate - they all appear to be valid intersections. I don't intend to create any more, but I'd like to understand what difference there is. Jim Michael (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  It is questionable for anyone to be creating triple-intersection categories but it becomes a problem when somebody starts indiscriminately creating them en masse. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Have there been any previous discussions about triple-intersection film cats? They've existed for several years. Jim Michael (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You've been around long enough that you should be aware of

other stuff exists and you should know that it is a lame response. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45}

16:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking if there have been any previous discussions about triple-intersection film cats during the years which they've existed so that, if there have, we can see what was said therein. It would likely be relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the comments made above. It is not helpful and over-categorization has become a problem across film articles. And, frankly, given the comments he has repeatedly made above, it is clear that Jim refused to understand our concerns and objections. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that, but had no idea of that prior to this month. The existence of many triple-intersection film cats, for several years, unchallenged, combined with no apparent policy/guideline against them, made me think that they were permitted. Had there been a policy/guideline against them, I wouldn't have created them. The only thing I still don't understand in this regard is why it's apparently only the triple-intersection film cats that I created which are being disapproved of. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

All of them need to be reviewed, regardless of who created them, but the reason this discussion is focused on you is because you are the editor mass-producing them at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Aside from ignoring
  WP:CATDEF and its requirement that there be sourced info in the article to support any category these triple-intersects water down the meaning of the individual genres. MarnetteD|Talk
  16:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Betty Logan, Lugnuts, et al. Over-categorization creates clutter. And at least one he created, Category:2010s thriller drama films, is not even a term commonly used. "Thriller drama" is awkward at best. Someone else created Category:American thriller drama films last year. Both are questionable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of films which are drama-thrillers - it's a common genre blend. Jim Michael (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I do not have a strong opinion on the subject. But if several editors have identified overly small or overly narrow categories, should not they nominate them for merging to their parents? Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Ideally yes they should, but there isn't much point doing the clean-up if these categories are proliferating. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Overly intersectional, overly minute categorization is as disruptive as mass creation of unnecessary redirects, and we've had editors sanctioned for the latter. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone had any interaction with Moe1810? He/she has been around for a while, but they do not respond (as far as I can tell) to talk page comments and they utterly refuse to use edit summaries. Most of his/her edits are ok, sometimes sloppy, sometimes wrong, but never straight-up vandalism. But, they do not use edit summaries, despite receiving multiple messages asking them to do so. As most of their edits are on film articles, I am bringing this here in hopes that some consensus can be reached about how to deal with them. We need to make it clear that they need to use edit summaries and need, in general, to be responsive to criticism and suggestions about their edits. I would like to hear other editor's thoughts on this. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they've been here 9+ years and have made a total of one edit to a talkpage (their own)! I'm not too concerned about the lack of edit summaries, I myself ditched using them about 5 years back. However, the fact they don't use article/project talkpages or acknowledge concerns on their own talkpage is worrying. There was another user who made bad edits (copyvios in the main), but refused to discuss them. Their lack of input eventually lead them to being blocked. See how this pans out. If they keep making bad/incorrect edits, but don't want to discuss the issue, then give them a friendly reminder about

WP:DE. Hopefully it won't come to that. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids}

15:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind blocking to facilitate discussion if the user chooses not to participate in discussion. Lemme know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking back on this discussion. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb, I'll keep that in mind. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet again,

One revert is not an edit war, and the content is sourced, obviously, by the media item itself, just as every "Plot" section in every Film article is. That NRP can't understand that and wants to keep bringing it up is not my problem. Perhaps he should give in to the clear community status quo and stop trying to enforce his own prejudices on the project. His edit upended a long-standing status quo in the article, so the burden is on him to show why his edit is correct, and not the reverse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:POPCULT says otherwise. Just because you can use the primary source for verification doesn't mean its appropriate for inclusion. It's why we look for a third-party source to note the importance of a work being used in another work, if that work is otherwise non-essential for understanding of the film. --MASEM (t

) 06:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FILM comments on this directly too: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Popular_culture. While a primary source may be acceptable to corroborate the actual content, a third party source is needed to corroborate the context, and it is the context that determines the merit of its inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, you are applying article-level notability requirements to content level information. Inclusion of content material - unless it breaks a primary policy such as BLP - is determined solely by editorial consensus, not by notability standards, which are applicable only to articles. Further, project-level decisions cannot be enforced as mandatory, as determined by ArbCom, as they are only advisory guidelines, just like MOS. Nor can the issue be settled by an RfC. You want it to be mandatory that every fact in Wikipedia needs a context in order to be included, gather up enough editors to create such a policy, there is not one at this time. Until there is, only discussion can determine content inclusion or exclusion, and "MOS says so" or its equivalent are not valid arguments for exclusion. You think I'm wrong, quote me a policy (not a guideline, not an RfC, not a project discussion) which mandates that every IPC must have a citation to provide context. Either delete every film and book plot section, or stop this crusade against obviously includable information, simply because of an unarranted prejudice against "trivial" material. If an item is untrue, take it out. If an item interprets or analyzes the media source without a citation, take it out -- all such materal is

WP:OR w/o a cite. If an item is incorrect, correct it. Otherwise, leave it alone. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 07:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 07:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ONUS (which is part of a core policy) states "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (my emphasis). Wikipedia policy is unequivocal in that it is up to those seeking to add content to obtain a consensus for its inclusion. Betty Logan (talk

) 08:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not asking for "notability" standards (which require significant secondary coverage), we're just asking for third-party sources, independent of either work, to go "oh, that was used there". That means the pop culture reuse was significant enough to be caught on by a third-party source. This helps prevent pop culture kudzu that tends to happen on sites like TV Tropes. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And on the nature of plot summaries and such pop culture, we do allow concise plot summaries to go implicitly sourced to the primary work in question as long as no interpretation is made in the summary. Key here is concise, particularly with the FILM project's goal of 700 words max; it prevents massive sections of information that are sourced only to the primary work. That level is acceptable. But if you start arguing that "but okay, pop culture references should be allowed by the same rational", then we have to consider how that additional text affects the conciseness of information presented that is implicitly sourced to the primary source. That becomes a problem. That's why the reliance on a third-party source is important as it eliminates the amount of text reliant on the primary source. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added inline citations for the two items in question. First, the policy

Thank you Betty, BightRoundCircle, Masem, and the others for highlighting the existing consensus that examples require proper sourcing. Also, thank you to Erik for providing sources. I provided most of the existing citations in that section, but I grew tired of it eventually and began simply reverting unsourced examples. I agree that the section needs to be rewritten, but pretty much the entire article needs to be rewritten. I'll get to it some day, but not any time soon. Anyway, I trust BMK will be reasonable and abide by consensus in the future. If not, a complaint at ANI may be necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In general, I favor the deletion of those kind of trivia sections. When I find unsourced content of that sort, I delete it. I would argue that, 90% of the time, nothing of value is lost by doing so. Even in cases when sources are provided, they only prove the existence of the particular song, movie, tv episode, etc., and say nothing about its actual notability or value. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

On the

What is the argument for omitting the United States from the infobox despite verification from reliable sources?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary from

talk

) 18:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've started a thread on the talk page about this matter. See Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)#Origin revisited. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, more learned minds would be appreciated here if you get a few moments to comment. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at

I'd like to request that fellow editors keep an eye on this category. Much like Category:Surrealist films, I found this category populated with dubious content. I ran across it in the Terry Gilliam article and removed it, because, though he might be influenced by Surrealism, Gilliam has no connection to the Surrealist movement, and, like any category, this category has to have a definition or it is worthless. Roughly half the directors who were in the cat did not belong there because their respective articles did not support their inclusion -- in some cases, as with Crispin Glover, they were clearly included because they are considered "weird," and weird and surreal are regarded as synonyms. Andy Dingley reverted my edit on Terry Gilliam, saying Parnassus is proof enough of Gilliam's "surreality". I reverted again, asking for a source that associates Gilliam with Surrealism qua Surrealism -- not just some vague, unencyclopedic definition of "surreal," which would be too subjective to be of any use. Ok, I've probably belabored this enough. As I said, more eyes on that category would be a good idea. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe that no-one post-war can be a Surrealist? The category is surely for those who have made films according to the precepts of Surrealism, not merely those who were part of the initial group? It would be usual for WP for such categories to accumulate cruft, but Gilliam is not part of it. Several of his works, Parnassus being the most obvious, are firmly within the canon of Surrealism, and are generally considered to be so, as a moment's searching will show.

A category that contains David Lynch ("weird") and Svankmeyer, but not Gilliam? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CATEGORY#Articles says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If Parnassus has been called a surrealist film, that should be indicated in the article, and the category can be included. Is this not verifiable? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not with a reversion time, against

WP:BRD, of mere minutes! Andy Dingley (talk

) 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Were it only a matter of time to find a reference, you could have said so in your edit summary. I rather think that was not at all the case, but if you are looking for a source, why not say so? As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with reverting the addition of unsourced content.

As far as categories are concerned, though, would one source in the Parnassus article justify adding Gilliam to the Surrealist filmmakers category? I can see the possibility of the film article being added to the Surrealist films cat, if such a reliable source was found, but would that make Gilliam a Surrealist filmmaker, per se? I am not simply trying to be difficult, I really want clarification on categorization, which, as other discussions on this page show, is an ongoing problem. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Look at it the other way: try finding a review of Parnassus which doesn't describe it as Surrealist, or at least surreal. Now most of Gilliam's work has tended to the Jungian and his surreal themes are almost as pervasive as over-use of the term "surreal" is in a cheap newspaper: but for Parnassus at least, this is classic Dali dreamworld. Nor is this a one-off. Look at Brazil and the escapist sequences, or the whole indeterminacy as to which is the final real world (even the editor couldn't decide this between the final releases). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That is entirely speculation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. I suspect most film critics would consider Gilliam to be a surrealist filmmaker, but it doesn't matter what I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks; we need reliable sources that substantiate our views. One or more of Gilliam's films being surreal doesn't necessarily make him a surrealist filmmaker, any more than Stephen King writing one trashy romance novel (were he ever to do so) would make him a romance writer. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Curious perspective here. This has little to do with film or film-related categories. It has to do with definitions of Surrealism and which works are considered parts of the wider movement. It is more of an art history and art criticism matter. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Film/Archive 62 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards,

There is a discussion at

I just want to ask whether the following style of writing for box office section of Dear Zindagi is correct or not. Actually I want to make the article GA. So if there is any wrong style of writing, please correct it here only. I would be thankful to you. I had discussed the matter with Cyphoidbomb on his talk page, and he asked me to come here.

Dear Zindagi opened well in multiplexes in Mumbai, Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala; in North India, it had low collections.^[1][2] The film collected ₹8.75 Cr. on its opening day. However, the numbers grew as Dear Zindagi collected ₹11.25 Cr. and ₹12.50 Cr. on its second and third day respectively, bringing the first weekend collections to a total of ₹32.5 Cr. In the weekdays, the film had a continuous fall with every passing day of the first week.^[3] Dear Zindagi carried a total of ₹46.75 Cr. in its first week.^[1] As of 4 December 2016^[update], the film earned a total of ₹79.31 crore in India and ₹41.10 crore from overseas, making its total worldwide collections to ₹120.41 crore.^[3]

Dear Zindagi released earlier in North America on account of the Thanksgiving weekend holidays. The film on its first day collected ₹1.19 Cr. from 127 screens in the United States and ₹8.29 lacs in Canada from 16 screens. In the extended two day, the film collected about ₹1.58 Cr. at the North America box office.^[4][5]

That's it. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 03:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

What's a "decent opening"? It's so vague that I don't think it adds anything useful. "while" shouldn't be used as a conjunction; instead, use a semicolon. "Managed to" is meaningless. Remove it. You don't need that "good growth" sentence. It's redundant to the following sentence. The repetition of starting several sentences with "the film" should probably be broken up with more variance. Don't link major land masses or well-known countries; it's

overlinking. Readers of English-language Wikipedia will know what the United States and Canada are. They might not know what Thanksgiving is, so that's a good thing to link. You should consider replacing "domestically" with "in India", which is more explicit. However, you're unlikely to get anyone as fussy as me in your GA review unless you're rather unlucky. It would probably pass as-is if you de-linked North America and replaced "the film carried" with "Dear Zindagi carried". By the way, I didn't check any of the sources. I assume Cyphoidbomb would have said something if they were unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 06:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zindagi opened well in multiplexes in Mumbai, Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala; in North India, it had low collections.^[1][2] The film collected ₹8.75 Cr. on its opening day. However, the numbers grew as Dear Zindagi collected ₹11.25 Cr. and ₹12.50 Cr. on its second and third day respectively, bringing the first weekend collections to a total of ₹32.5 Cr. In the weekdays, the film had a continuous fall with every passing day of the first week.^[3] Dear Zindagi carried a total of ₹46.75 Cr. in its first week.^[1] As of 4 December 2016^[update], the film earned a total of ₹79.31 crore in India and ₹41.10 crore from overseas, making its total worldwide collections to ₹120.41 crore.^[3]

Dear Zindagi released earlier in North America on account of the Thanksgiving weekend holidays. The film on its first day collected ₹1.19 Cr. from 127 screens in the United States and ₹8.29 lacs in Canada from 16 screens. In the extended two day, the film collected about ₹1.58 Cr. at the North America box office.^[4][5]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for your reply and figuring out errors from it. After correcting your said errors, the "Box office" section of the film will look like this in the article:-

Dear Zindagi opened well in multiplexes in Mumbai, Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala; in North India, it had low collections.^[1][2] The film collected ₹8.75 Cr. on its opening day. However, the numbers grew as Dear Zindagi collected ₹11.25 Cr. and ₹12.50 Cr. on its second and third day respectively, bringing the first weekend collections to a total of ₹32.5 Cr. In the weekdays, the film had a continuous fall with every passing day of the first week.^[3] Dear Zindagi carried a total of ₹46.75 Cr. in its first week.^[1] As of 4 December 2016^[update], the film earned a total of ₹79.31 crore in India and ₹41.10 crore from overseas, making its total worldwide collections to ₹120.41 crore.^[3]

Dear Zindagi released earlier in North America on account of the Thanksgiving weekend holidays. The film on its first day collected ₹1.19 Cr. from 127 screens in the United States and ₹8.29 lacs in Canada from 16 screens. In the extended two day, the film collected about ₹1.58 Cr. at the North America box office.^[4][5]

Is this now OK? Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 12:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good to me. Like I said, I didn't check any of the sources, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Does everyone agree that

2016 in film (or similar pages) have only American films released in that year. Isn't that too much bias for one country? My question is, why should those releases be included in the first place on the page when List of American films of 2016 exists and most of it is duplicate any way. 122.171.79.8 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The XXXX in film articles are not specific to any country. Any film released anywhere in the world can be added to the list. It could just be the case that American editors are maintaining the list so they are not adding French and Indian films and so on, but that's not really the fault of those editors but rather down to the systemic bias that favors editors from English-speaking countries. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And you can always add missing films that are within its scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to find out which animated films have been re-animated for different locales. I tried looking at the list of multiple-language version films, but that stops in the 60s and only covers real-life films (though it mentions that many Indian films are still produced in MLVs). I am thinking of things like lip-synch to different voice actresses, localised body gestures, replaced background signage / on-screen text (I first saw this one on the Wall-E blu-ray), et cetera. Is there an article already that covers this? If not, should the earlier-linked article do so? RSVP on my talk page. — Nicholas (reply) @ 11:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nickshanks. Your question isn't really what this talk page is for. While you may get some info here I would suggest that you post the question here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. MarnetteD|Talk 18:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Heads up that

Alma also likes to create odd

WP:EGGs like this. Now they have only edited under this account for two days so we can allow for a learning curve but the fact that they are ignoring messages on their page about what they are doing wrong is not an encouraging sign. MarnetteD|Talk

19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Same kind of edits are being made by 100.14.29.248 (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 20:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

After several warnings about their edits, I raised this ANI. Thanks to MarnetteD and NinjaRobot for their efforts. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at

I am disappointed that Erik chooses to personalise this issue. The 'mass changes' he refers to are individual edits to some movie pages (a very small proportion of the total) that generally also confuse the 'US and Canada' with

talk

) 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But I believe as was stated, and what the text in the MOS was changed to, if "territories" is used in sources, that term can also be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use "regions" or "markets" instead. Territory is a word with multiple meanings -- it can mean a region or a land, but also a political entity (e.g. Northwest Territory, British Antarctic Territory). There is no such confusion with "region" or "market", and both of those terms appear in sources as well. Daß Wölf 17:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN where you replaced "territories" with "countries" because as you said at WT:MOSFILM, the former "doesn't feel appropriate". It's clear both "territories" and "countries" are used in reliable sources, so there is no reason to unilaterally force standardization of your preferred term. Furthermore, in reverting your edits, I have no problem with changing "North America" to something else and left it alone, but a subset of your edits only changed "territories" to "countries", which seems to me to have been your baseline search. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no edit warring going on. You attempted to make widepsread changes despite discussion being underway, as you admitted on my user talk page. To get back on topic and advance the discussion toward a consensus, I've added an update on

WT:MOSFILM with some interesting details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 17:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is They Shoot Pictures, Don't They (theyshootpictures.com) a reliable source? AndrewOne (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say more so than not based on the following. It should be based on the person running the website. Bill Georgaris explains himself here but does not seem to claim any specific credentials. He is mentioned here as having voted in a critics' poll. IndieWire includes Georgaris with two others in a three-part interview starting here. Wall Street Journal mentions Georgaris here; Google's summary shows a later paragraph behind the paywall that starts with, "Bill Georgaris, who runs the Web site They Shoot Pictures, Don't They and who maintains the list, is always collecting top ten lists from qualified..." Criterion Collection highlights the list here. The Irish Times also writes about the list here. Yet he does not seem to appear much in Google Books results and not at all in Google Scholar results. Maybe the website should be referenced only in a narrow sense, to cite a film's placement on the website's main list. Not sure if I would go further to reference any critiques that Georgaris may have done. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't consider it a reliable source because it is essentially a self-published aggregator. When sources discuss the status of renowned films you are likely to encounter a Sight & Sound ranking (if it applies) but I have never encountered a TSPDT ranking which suggests to me that within the sphere of film criticism it has not yet been embraced as arbiter of a film's significance or quality. It's an interesting project for sure, but if we accept it as a reliable source I can foresee an instance where TSPDT ranks get added to 1000 film articles, and I disagree with that. It would be far more productive IMO to use the site to locate prominent polls and add those to the film articles instead. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In

WP:USINGSPS, it is said that a self-published source is reliable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Georgaris is an eligible critic for the Sight & Sound polls (the most prestigious of all film polls), and his site has been noted by film critics Jonathan Rosenbaum^[1] and Pat Graham,^[2] with Graham calling it a "strenuous compilation." I therefore consider TSPDT an exception to the general guideline against self-published sources. AndrewOne (talk

) 17:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing a film and the theory of critique are not the same thing IMO. Just because someone has knocked out a few reviews does not make them qualified to survey film criticism. Does the site owner have a scholarly background in the field? Have they published any books that are regularly cited? Do prominent secondary sources directly quote the poll when assessing a film's standing, in the way that Rotten Tomatoes and Sight & Sound are regularly cited? If the answer to all of those are no then I don't believe the SPS exemption applies. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I had previously explained some of this to the OP on my talk page. As i've looked further into the website I have to say that my opinion has not changed. Remember that WikiP operates by

consensus MarnetteD|Talk

18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Academic Michael Shapiro cites TSPDT,[3] as well as Michael J. Prince in a book about adaptations of the Beat Generation poets.^[4] Jonathan Rosenbaum once again praises it in a 2012 post,^[5] and Ian Cooper cites it in a book about Witchfinder General.^[6] AndrewOne (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In most of those examples TSPDT is mainly used as a convenient resource for citing various polls and quotes that it has culled from other publications, they are not actually citing the TSPDT as an arbiter of significance and quality. In other words I see little evidence of reliable sources using the site in the way you want to use it. As MarnetteD has already said, the TSPDT list is essentially the selection of one man. It's a good resource, but I think that's the limit of its usefulness. If you find a useful quote from someone it is better to go the original source. If a film has a high ranking on the list it is because it has featured in prominent polls, so it is better to simply cite the prominent polls rather than a mish mash compilation list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is used as a film list (not simply a resource for citing polls culled from others) in a book-length study on certain canonical films.^[7] Also, to reference Dimadick's earlier comment below, its page on Billy Wilder is cited in a study of Buñuel.^[8] AndrewOne (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan, besides films, the website provides biographical material on directors and sources about their works. The article on Mario Bava quotes a source on the similarities between the works of Mario, and those of his father Eugenio Bava. It also quotes various sources evaluating Mario Bava's works, though not all of them are comprehensible to me. A 1980 source compliments Bava for his "sub-Hitchcockian thrillers". No idea if this is a good thing. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)