Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 76

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.

So here's the film poster: [1]. I know that I have to use Wikimedia Commons to upload but could someone please assist me or walk me through the whole thing please? I tried doing it myself but I seem to have done it wrong: [2]. Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Factfanatic1: -- Wikipedia Commons is for free content. If it's a non-free image (which it appears to be), then you can follow the steps listed here. The short version is you just need to create a file name (ex: File:Whitechamberfilmposter.jpg) and then hit "preview" at the bottom of the editing page. This will let you see if you did it correctly. Then you can click the link (I usually put it in another tab) from there and upload the image, fill out the fair use rationale (just look to other film posters for examples of what you need to put), and make sure that the size of the image is roughly 250x400 resolution.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bignole: I just created the article for the film and added the poster. I looked at several other uploads of movie posters for reference. Could you let me know if I did this correctly please? If not, what must I modify for it to be correct? Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This question is making me wonder whether we ought to create a simple tutorial on how to properly upload a poster, including the typical dimensions and how to properly categorize it. We could add a link to it in the {{infobox film}} documentation. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

 – Nardog (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, film posters you upload directly to Wikipedia, since Commons only hosts content in the public domain or released under certain licenses. To upload a file to Wikipedia, just click "Upload file" on the left of your screen, in the "contribute" section. I would recommend checking out some other previously uploaded movie posters to see the kind of information that must be provided in support of a movie poster upload. BD2412 T 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: I just created the article for the film and added the poster. I looked at several other uploads of movie posters for reference. Could you let me know if I did this correctly please? If not, what must I modify for it to be correct? Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• The simpler version is just to go to
  Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, linked as "Upload file" in the left sidebar. Kingsif (talk
  ) 17:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@

the fair use criteria just because of its size. It needs to be scaled down to about 250 x 400.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

17:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I use this bookmark to upload images. Typically, posters I find online are too large so it is preloaded to tag it with a non-free reduce request. You also need to select the correct licensing. Make sure that if you are uploading a DVD/Blu-Ray cover, you change the types to video cover. I have not uploaded a title card, but I assume this would work for that as well. Other things to keep in mind: If you are replacing an older version of an image, you should not upload an entirely new file, but instead should replace the file with a new image (there is a link in the file history of the file description page). Also, I like to tag the talk page of the file with {{WikiProject Film}} so that it is included in the Project's count of images. BOVINEBOY2008 19:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I have a question for how directors should be stated for a visual album, whereby there is one or two directors for the film overall but several directors of music videos that are included in the film. In the infobox on the Black Is King article, it currently states that the directors of the film are Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, Kwasi Fordjour and 7 others. The credits of the film stated in one frame that the film was "directed by" Knowles-Carter, in the next frame it stated that Fordjour was "co-director", and in the next frame stated that those 7 others were "directors". I was wondering if those 7 should be removed from the infobox. I was leaning toward yes, because Beyonce's previous visual album Lemonade had the same scenario with 5 other music video directors, and when nominated for best director awards, only the two film directors (Knowles-Carter and Kahlil Joseph) were nominated, such as in the Emmys, while the additional 5 music video directors were not nominated. I am also not certain about whether co-directors should be included in the infobox also, so should Fordjour be removed as well? Thank you!Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

There’s a discussion over at Talk:World War Z (film) in regards to inclusion of two images and the name of an actor in the infobox currently going on. I have said all I can. The opposing editor is dedicated to being nasty and bad faithed as possible so I think other editors should access the issue and see if they’re correct or not. Rusted AutoParts 20:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just added a plot summary for the page

Hi, thanks for adding the plot summary! The length looks good. I'm not familiar with the film, so I can't speak for the details. One thing I'd like to point out is that there seem to be some blue links that don't seem necessary per

WP:OVERLINK. I don't think anything besides US Armed Forces really needs to be linked. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 20:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Some assistance is kindly requested over at

This is a request for eyes at the List of dystopian films. An editor is removing sourced info seemingly based on their opinion. A discussion has begun on the talk page so any input anyone has will be of help. MarnetteD|Talk 04:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

New french film about 11 year old dancers is generating some attention and controversy. There was a controversy section alleging it promotes the sexualization of children, but it was all sourced to metro, independent, and heavy.com. For that reason I removed it because it just looks like faux tabloid outrage. If reliable sources cover any controversy then it should be included. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source, and I see that Observer Media's Observer is covering this matter too. There should be coverage in the article, and I find it likely that there will be additional coverage from more reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

BBC is now covering it and their coverage is more even handed than the pearl clutching from the tabloids. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ohhh, won't somebody please think of the children! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Editors are invited to review how the content should be presented. For example, I don't find the controversy to belong in a "Reception" section but rather its own section, with the film itself coming out next month. Others are welcome to agree or disagree with that approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

To be honest the film was never a popular article in Wikipedia until 18 August 2020 with only a mediocre pageviews since June 2020. Well there have been discussions regarding the addition of reception and promotional poster controversy. Is it really the film poster the most controversial one compared to the Netflix trailer? I just noticed that the [version] seems to be longer than the English version. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost sounds if the creators deliberately generated some controversy to get some free hype on a film no-one would actually watch in the first place... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been seeing Meaww.com pop up here and there as a citation some editors are using, and I'm curious if others think it passes as a RS. It looks like they have a staff including an editor according to their About Us, but it also looks like most of their info is just copied from other websites. For example this article about The Crimes That Bind appears to have copied it's plot from Film Affinity. Thoughts? BOVINEBOY2008 12:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done a complete overhaul of this article and expanded it pretty much to the nth degree. I was doing a little project where I work on one single film from each year from 1980 onwards, but I realize that this film will be having it's 40th anniversary in a little under a year. It is already a GA, and I have already signed it up for a Copy Edit and will be moving forward with an FA nom after that. If you are interested in this film and there is anything else you can add or sources you can improve please do. Also any book sources you can provide that may have info I missed, or info on its legacy would be appreciated. Thx Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see

Hi. For anyone interested, please see this discussion about the genre for the film. Curiously, it's the shot-for-shot remake, and not the original. Anyho, it also goes back to a previous discussion, some five years ago, that had some brief input on the same talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As I'm sure many of you are aware, Chadwick Boseman died yesterday and he portrayed Black Panther in the MCU. A sequel is planned for the franchise, and I have been removing additions of his death to the first film's sequel section, as well as the sequel's draft. My thinking is, there needs to be some sort of source/additional information contextualizing his death as it relates to the project, otherwise we are simply stating an actor who appeared in the project died, which doesn't necessarily fit in the subject matter at hand for either article. For example, I feel that there has to be a source in the immediate saying something like Marvel is exploring their options etc (of which I have not seen, only official condolence statements) and then eventually the role will be retired, recast, or somehow archival footage will be utilized, etc. Am I correct in my thinking? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, yes, I think that is the safest approach. Popcornfud (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. — Starforce¹³ 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, if no such source exists, do we keep it as it is without any mention of it for as long as there's no official statement regarding the state of the franchise? Even if months go by? El Millo (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's already sources mentioning that there's a planned sequel, it probably won't take long until Marvel makes a short statement. To mention another recent example, after Naya Rivera died during production of Step Up, it wasn't long before it was announced they would rewrite. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: My thought is we reevaluate in the coming weeks/months. The impedes of this discussion is more so in the immediate aftermath of an event such as an actor's death. And as Kingsif said, and I feel, Marvel will hopefully make some indication as to what their plans are at some point, but obviously not immediately after Boseman's death since that isn't the most important right now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How about this EW piece, which reports fan sentiment on the question, and that it is unknown whether Boseman already recorded his part for Marvel's What If...? BD2412 T 21:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Coogler's statement includes text discussing the next film, so that has been included in appropriate places at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Editors might be interested in discussing the recently created Category:Films released during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I had created this template to use on pages after noticing people write the template's content on drafts. Starzoner (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That should live at a more recognizable name. At the present name it is also not sufficient generic.

Template:NFF DNS might fly at least as a redirect. --Izno (talk

) 14:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I had the same feeling, that the naming should be better. I was thinking perhaps Template:Film draft notice or Template:Film draft move notice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What about

Template:NFF notice? Starzoner (talk

) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Having the acronym in the template name still seems too generic, but could work as a redirect. As NFF is about moving/creating film names, I felt the 2 options I presented would be descriptive enough to convey what the template is for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I agree. although I'm more partial to Template:Film draft notice. Shall I move the template? Starzoner (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I think you can, and make the NFF notice a redirect (along with your original DNS name). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

undent: I would recommend moving the template without redirect. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I did with leaving a redirect. Starzoner (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Starzoner: I'm not quite sure why you made multiple moves. Are you aware you can create redirect simply by using the proper text ie #REDIRECT [target location]? I now agree with Izno (if I am reading their comment correctly) that given the move, any uses should use the new template name, and DNS should ultimately be deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

For those who are interested, I have requested help with an AWB task here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to ask if Netflix's daily top 10 chart per country can be used on pages? I'm not sure if the same standers are applied to TV series charts, but per Wikipedia:Record charts, "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used", meaning you can't add Amazon, Spotify, and iTunes charts. So I'm not sure if this applied to TV series and Netflix's daily top 10 charts. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it. Kingsif (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Daily" strikes me as pretty granular, especially when juxtaposed by country. Does Netflix not do a Top 10 for a given year? That would be more pertinent, it seems. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: They give out their yearly data at the end of the year. But people have been trying to show achievement now instead of waiting by either adding data from flixpetrol, which I’m told is unreliable by multiple editors here and elsewhere, or by adding that the series trended in XYZ country. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I've posted at this project before and someone was kind enough to help with my request, so I wonder if editors here might help with a new request to update film producer Jeff Skoll's filmography. The filmography in his article is missing some entries and has not been updated in a couple of years. My request to update is at Talk:Jeffrey_Skoll#Request_for_Filmography As I've mentioned before, I work with the Jeff Skoll Group. With my conflict of interest, I will be careful to work with Wikipedia editors to build consensus on updates in place of directly editing the article. Thank you. JSG Lindsey (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The article has gone through much expansion and smoothing recently. From what is there (and from all the research I had to do), it looks like the subject has a very close connection with movies. While there are material in the article about how the word itself was a contribution of the film industry, how it was influenced by movie stars in 1950s, and how open chested men are a movie phenomenon, there is next to nothing about the impact of the movies on cleavage culture, or how movies across the world has often fell back on exposed cleavage to generate audience interest.

Can members of the project take a look, suggest sources, or, even better, lend a hand in incorporating material about cleavage in the movies (without, of course, falling back on movie trivia, some of which I removed myself)? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a sense of how many film articles are tagged by long plot related templates, because the template is shared by other works, such as literature. There have been

Looking at what links to the template now, I'm guessing that we have several thousand film articles with long plot problems. Does anyone here support modifying the template so that we can specify its use for the film project and get a word count reported in the template itself to allow other editors to see the problem and fix it? Obviously, the summary generator is a separate task, but focusing on the first one would allow us to narrow the set of articles that need work. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I support adding a parameter to differentiate film from literature and any other media that this template reaches, and I support the word-count report as well. The summary generators proposal, not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facu-el Millo (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I was just throwing that out there because the technology is accurate and robust. It might be more palatable if I said, "any summary generated content must be reviewed by a human editor before being added to Wikipedia." But let's put that idea on the back burner for now and focus just on the template. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are about 6,000 articles that are in both Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention and Category:Films. Obviously not every single article in Category:Films is a film article, and the plot category doesn't differentiate between long and short plots, so 6,000 is an upper-bound approximation. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Narrowing further, there are 3,512 English-language films with the plot tag. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a few editors, who oppose calling Tenet (film) a science fiction film. Please comment at Talk:Tenet_(film)#Why_isn't_'science_fiction'_listed_as_one_of_Tenet's_genres?. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It might be a done-deal, but please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place regarding the addition of the science fiction genre to the Tenet article. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I am glad to inform you that

WP:DRV, or re-write a better article in your draft space. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

18:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(ツ)--RZuo (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ILM is expanding their virtual production services that was pioneered on The Mandalorian, and I was wondering how, if at all, we could cover this? Should an article be created, have something added to ILM's article, or maybe make a category? Thoughts are welcome, since this seems to be a growing aspect of filmmaking that I feel will gain more traction now given precautions surrounding COVID. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

add it to ILM or spin it off separately https://www.ilm.com/hatsrabbits/ilm-stagecraft/ --RZuo (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a makework project because that's life now, I've recently discovered that full film programs for the Vancouver International Film Festival are available on Issuu as far back as 2014. This is a significant enough festival to warrant the "full article about each year listing most or all of the films that screened that year" treatment, and the only reason articles never actually existed before (with the exception of 2018) is that nobody ever really took on the job. Older years prior to 2014 will still require additional research, but we have lots of film festivals where some years have standalone articles and others don't yet, so I don't see not having all of the past programs at our disposal yet as a reason to avoid working on articles for the ones for which we do have programs, either.

So I've already finished articles for 2019 and 2020, and am currently working on finishing the preexisting but incomplete article for 2018. Accordingly, I just wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help out by starting the articles for the years from 2014 through 2017 — if so, the programs are available at this link, and the award winners can be extracted from our longstanding List of Vancouver International Film Festival award winners. If anybody does take one or more of these on, don't worry too much about trying to track down media coverage to source the article with — particularly for the older years, that will probably require searching a news database, because at the time coverage may not Google, so I can always pop in later and do a ProQuest run to add sources. But I'd very much like some help with them if possible, so that I'm not doing all of them exclusively by myself. It's also not necessary to tackle an entire year by yourself if you don't want to put in that much time all at once — even if you just want to help out by getting part of the article done and letting other people finish the rest, that would still be a great help.

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely Zangro is a notable producer as he.is a Frenchman who has won a Cesar award ?Dwanyewest (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The RM discussion resulted in the article being moved to

It has indeed been followed by a move review, Erik. The disucssion is here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In the American films category, there is a template that says that all American films should be included in this category, including the ones found in the subcategories. Because of this, I plan on copying all films from American television films into American films using Cat-a-lot. I'm reluctant to do this because something tells me that this is an exception to the rule. Should I not do this?

Ugh. I would suggest not doing that. It will flood my watchlist with hundreds of trivial edits. If this really needs to be done, get a bot to do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

How exactly would I get a bot to do this without causing disruption? Forgive my lack of experience with bots. I'm a bit of a

talk

) 09:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There's an option in Special:Preferences to hide bot edits to your watchlist. This is useful if you don't want to be inundated with constant alerts about busy work, such as a bot that moves every film from "ghosts in film" to "films about ghosts". Bot requests can be made at Wikipedia:Bot requests. In general, I think people should more often consider leaving well-enough alone when it comes to categories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What about this compromise: I had a feeling that cat-a-lot edits are flagged as minor, and they are, so you could change your watchlist settings to hide minor edits while Scorpion goes about his business, and thus taking the sting out of it (ho ho). If Scorps could give us some timeframes of when they are thinking about doing this, and approx. how long it would take, would that help? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@

talk

) 19:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just woke up. It doesn't really impact me when this is done, as I don't work in the television film area. Maybe just have a quick chat with NRP to discuss it further. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to go to bed myself. I think I'll leave a message on NRP's talk page when I wake up. However, before I do, I'd like to ask you something. Have you noticed my automated edits? If you did, how much inconvenience did it cause you? I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking any rules when I do this, but I don't want to screw up someone's watchlist at random parts of the day. That's not something I'm willing to do. If they disapprove of my editing, I will refrain from using Cat-a-lot for this purpose.

talk

) 09:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@

talk

) 13:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I made the request.

talk

) 06:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Can people add Netflix, Cuties, and Criticism of Netflix to their watch list and examine the recent edits? There's been a lot of editing on these articles over the controversy over Cuties and I would like more people to weigh in on them. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over at Talk:Netflix#cuties about the section of that article dealing with the film.Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I can't find this in the MOS, but I'm sure we don't just list production credits in an article such as this. Can anyone point me to the relevant MOS about this, if indeed, there is one? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) IMO there absolutely should be no such prohibition. Why in the world would we allow a list of cast members but prohibit an anologous listing of the principle artists and craftsman (art directors, film editors, directors of photography, costume designers, special effects artists, screenwriters, directors) who actually create the film? These folks are important enough to be listed up front on the big screen when the film is displayed; what basis is there from excluding their names from the article? Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this popping up on franchise articles more and more. I don't think we have ever specifically addressed it in the MOS, mostly because I don't think it's ever come up to this degree. The short version on the small scale has always been that IMDB keeps track of all the credits and Wikipedia isn't a place to just list credits for production crew unless there is some noteworthy aspect to it (mentioning a costume designer that won an award for his/her work).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This approach seems seriously misguided to me. What basis is there for treating actors (Who also have their credits listed on imdb) differently than the key production artists? Cinematographers, art directors, editors, directors, composers, choreographers, screen writers, etc. are the artists who create the film. Hitchock knew that and considered the actors to be mere "cattle". ;) Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we allow long lists of every minor production credit, but we ought to at least include the principle production credits: directing, writing, cinematography, art direction, film editing, musical score, costume design, sound recording/editing, makeup, and special effects. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think adding these names is in contradiction of

WP:FA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

19:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:IINFO??? This is no way an "indiscriminate" list of information. These are the artists responsible for creating the film! The identities of a film's cinematographer, editor, and art director are key aspects of the film's creation. And if it's limited to the key positions, it takes up very little space. I really don't understand the resistance to this -- other than "that's just not the way we've done things". Cbl62 (talk

) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I was thinking more on the opening line that states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" which this list of credits clearly does not meet. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s a slippery slope imo. It makes sense to have a cast list. There’s thousands of people involved in the making of a film. Thousands. Why don’t we add the key grips? The best boys? The production assistants? This is info one can find elsewhere. Rusted AutoParts 20:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's advocating listing minor crew members. We're talking here about the principle artists who are responsible for the film. These roles are readily narrowed down by looking at the nine (yes, nine, not "thousands") categories for which Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awards Oscars: directing, writing, cinematography, art direction, editing, sound, special effects, makeup, and costume design. Cbl62 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a better way to try and integrate it into prose in some sort of Production section, with at least a little bit of information on their work on the film apart from just their name and their position. El Millo (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So you’re saying the contributions of the camera department aren’t important? Also when you chalk it up to those nine categories there’s still countless people involved in those departments, just look at the crew names involved in something like an Avengers movie. Rusted AutoParts 20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

More information would be preferable, of course, but the process of building an encyclopedia is incremental. Take the case of Virginia which began this debate and remains a stub. Does anyone truly believe that the article would better serve a reader interested in the film if the "production credits" were stricken? Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, but that information is of very little relevance to a general audience. Who's the sound designer of a film isn't of general interest unless it is of particular relevance to that film. The very least we can ask for is for the work they did on the film to have been covered by reliable sources as a threshold for their inclusion. The cast, on the other hand, is what a general audience is generally more interested in when looking for information on a film. El Millo (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, nothing about Virginia (1941 film) (including the fact that Louise Beavers played the part of Ophelia) is of "general interest" to a "general audience". But that's not the test. Every element of a Wikipedia article need not appeal to a general audience. Indeed, the only people interested in a little-known film from the 1940s are film buffs. And, yes, film buffs are interested in the principle production credits. Moreover, the role of such key contributors is core encyclopedic content to an article on a film. Cbl62 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Are these roles typically covered in

due weight given to the topic? --Izno (talk

) 21:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. One of the most significant reliable sources is the American Film Institute's on-line "Catalog of Feature Films". AFI includes only the principle production credits (of the type I seek to include) but does not include every minor contribution from a key grip or best boy (the slippery slope that Rusted AutoParts was worried about). This is not rocket science -- it's objectively determinable which are the major credits on the film. AMPAS does it. AFI does it. These are notable contributions to a film and inclusion is far from undue. Cbl62 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So what information does the reader learn from adding in the sound designer aside from they were the sound designer? Elements like music and cinematography and film editing tend to be covered far more than sound design unless the sound design was a big part of the film heavily talked about in reliable sources. AFI, AMPAS, they inherently act as archives so it makes sense they catalogue these names. What encyclopedic value can most (since other members aren’t as important it seems) crew being listed add? Rusted AutoParts 21:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• (1) What is the "encyclopedic value" of information on the nine key production credits? These are the individuals responsible in very significant ways for the work being discussed. The identify of the major contributing artists is core information in the encyclopedic treatment of a collaborative work of art or creative endeavor. By way of comparison, in the music sphere, we include "Personnel" sections in articles about albums that list not only the musicians, but also of the key production personnel. See, e.g.,
  Hotel California
  .

(2) The design of

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

, an infobox should summarize the most important information at a glance. If key production credits are important enough for the infobox, it would be anomalous to exclude such information from the article text. Indeed, INFOBOXPURPOSE expressly states that an infobox should not "supplant" key facts; to the contrary, "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored."

(3) "What information does the reader learn" from the inclusion of production credits? Like acting credits, key production enhances learning about the film and the roles played by key contributors. An example (one of a million that we could posit) demonstrates the point: A person watches For Whom the Bell Tolls or Kings Row and is amazed by the creative vision of those films. Yet, when that person then turns to Wikipedia for more information, they will be poorly served because the Wikipedia articles on those films make no reference to the films' art director. If such production credits were included, that reader could click on William Cameron Menzies and see that Menzies was one of the first inductees into the Art Directors Guild Hall of Fame, an artist with a huge body of great work to his credit. This ability to cross-reference and learn more about the key contributing artists greatly enriches the Wikipedia experience. Cbl62 (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Yet, when that person then turns to Wikipedia for more information, they will be poorly served because the Wikipedia articles on those films make no reference to the films' art director." Maybe said person would look at IMDb instead. I know I would. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, Lug! As you say, "maybe" said person would look at IMDb (a notoriously unreliable source), maybe they wouldn't, but why would we force them to do that to obtain core information? Do you actually believe that articles on films art directed by a legend like William Cameron Menzies should omit any mention of him? Do you think a film's editor should be mentioned in the infobox but omitted from the body of the article? Do you not believe that a cinematographer is a key contributor to a film who ought to be referenced in the film's Wikipedia article? Do you believe that key production credits are relevant on albums but not on films? Cbl62 (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

But they would look at IMDb. I know this for a fact from casual conversations in the workplace, etc. You average person doesn't know about the reliabilty of IMDb in relation to WP (or indeed cares), and looks at IMDb first. Or, as I often do, read the film article on here first, before clicking on the IMDb link to read all the extra stuff that isn't on here (trivia, goofs, wasn't that the guy in that other film..., etc). You take (art) directors on a case by case basis. I've just looked at all of the articles on WP for Menzies' films he directed, and apart from Things to Come, they are typical of the situation I alude to. An article on here that serves as the jumping off point to another film site. I'm not picking fault at anyone, that's just how it is! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't merely be "the jumping off point" to an unreliable site. A reader shouldn't have to navigate back-and-forth to such a site to secure core encyclopedic information. Cbl62 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't, but it is. 250 million people view IMDb each month (according to a quick Google search). It's only unreliable in terms of citing things here, which does not equate to it should not be viewed by anyone. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"It shouldn't, but it is." If it shouldn't be, then let's fix it! Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes content deemed relevant by coverage by reliable sources. If there's no reliable sources that cover a subject, we don't include it. If someone ones specific information on the crew of a film, they can go to the appropriate place, which is IMDb. El Millo (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And if there are reliable sources, we can cover it, which is the case here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources that address the work they did, not just the position they had on the film as part of a bullet list. Let's say a site of high-reliability in the vein of Variety reports as news the inclusion of X person as, for instance, the production designer of a film. That would make it worthy of inclusion amidst the Production section. If information like that is reported by a source as reliable as Variety, then it's most likely that the work that person did on the film will also be covered by reliable sources. Take for example Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, an article I worked on fairly recently. Within the Production section, there's a subsection named Costume and set design that details the work of costume designer Jany Temime and production designer Stuart Craig. That's the way they should be integrated into the article, not just as a bullet point. If there isn't enough information for a whole section, then it could be a few lines in a general Production section without any subsections, but that's the kind of coverage that, in my view, makes any of those positions worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. You can look for official Production Notes, interviews, set reports, etc. El Millo (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: So, under your view, should we also then delete production credits like editor, cinematographer and musical composer from the infobox? Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox should only summarize the most important information at a glance. If it's in the infobox, INFOBOXPURPOSE says it's supposed to be in the body of the article as well. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is general for all the film articles, the parameters don't change based on the specific film. The positions considered generally most relevant for films are director, cast, and writer, then composer, cinematographer, and editor, and then the rest. These are the most likely to be covered by reliable sources, composer and cinematographer more so than editor, in my experience. But we are talking about the body of the article here, not the infobox, which is a different matter. El Millo (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. If the director, writer, composer, cinematographer, and editor are sufficiently important to be in the infobox, INFOBOXPURPOSE says it should also be in the body -- "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored." Moreover, I'm not sure what consensus there was for which credits to include in the infobox, but most industry professionals would tell you that the art director (more commonly production designer on modern films) is one of the key production credits. AFI treats it that way. AMPAS treats it that way. Omission of the art director is something that should be addressed. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Overall reaction: A system is remarkably wrong that routinely accepts minor acting roles (even uncredited acting roles) appropriate for inclusion in a film article, but which then prohibits disclosure of the identify of the top-line creators like the cinematographer and art director! Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If you don't think some credits belong in the infobox, then start a discussion at the film infobox page to see if there's a consensus to remove some, all, none or more of them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, current

Yes, that would make sense BB. If I see an overly-long cast, esp. one of redlinks, then I just trim it, per

WP:FILMCAST. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

10:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: My thrust here is that things are seriously out of whack when editors in this project add the trivial, uncredited acting parts, but at the same time object to inclusion of the identities of even the MAJOR behind-camera contributors. I understand the preference for narrative text over lists. So, in the case of Virginia (1941 film), I intend to add a narrative "Production" section which provides at least a modicum of fully-sourced information as follows:

"Virginia was a Paramount Pictures production. Edward H. Griffith directed and produced the film and is also credited with the story. Virginia Van Upp wrote the screenplay. Bert Glennon and William V. Skall were the directors of photography. Hans Dreier and Ernst Fegté provided the production design, and Eda Warren was the film's editor.^[1][2]

Thomas Jefferson reportedly played a part in designing the four historic homes used in the picture. This led the director to suggest that, if the art directors guild would permit, Jefferson's name should be added to the art direction credits along with Dreier and Fegte.^[3]"

This short narrative takes the credits from the infobox (with the addition of production designer), places it in narrative form into the body of the article, and provides reliable sourcing to the AFI and TCM. By adding this sourced text, we bring the article into compliance with

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which expressly states that an infobox should not "supplant" key facts and that "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored." I trust there is no objection to this. Cbl62 (talk

) 14:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, now that is much better. El Millo (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Genre film has become a disambiguation page. We laymen can't always tell a classic of its genre from a B movie. Please can an expert help disambiguate the incoming links? Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Now fixed. Thanks to those who helped. Certes (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone can find any sources showing notability for Barbara Gilewska. The article is at AfD and if sources exist it can be kept. The AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Gilewska

Thanks for any help.   // Timothy :: talk  19:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, friends. I used to edit here under a different user name, but it's been many years. There were no "task forces" as whatnot then. So I'm trying to get used to everything. As in most places in the film world, the experimental/avant-garde area of cinema is largely neglected here. I see Absolute Cinema and cinéma pur all jammed together into one page called "Non-narrative film," which focuses on George Lucas, absurdly, as much as anything else (yes, I know his early work as a film student was experimental). And there is a separate page for experimental/avant-garde cinema, which does not make sense. Both pages' lists of noted filmmakers are illogical to the point of being rendered meaningless. So with the permission of the more experienced editors around here, I'd like to do some work on these pages. I have studied film for a very long time, both academically and autodidactically, and, for instance, Federico Fellini is simply, by no means whatsoever, an experimental filmmaker. I love him, and an arthouse filmmaker? Sure. But to see names like Fellini and Malick and Tarkovsky and Bergman (and Woody Allen?!) or Steven McQueen on this list is absurd and is miseducating anyone coming to these pages to learn. These are important filmmakers, of course, but not experimental filmmakers by any academic definition of the term ever given. Over half the names on both lists would never be considered by any film scholar in the world.

These lists should include Absolute Cinema names such as Walter Ruttmann and Hans Richter; Cinéma pur names like Man Ray, Dudley Murphy, Fernand Léger, René Clair and Viking Eggeling; Structuralist names like Owen Land, Michael Snow, and Hollis Frampton; Abstract animation names like Oskar Fischinger, Len Lye, Mary Ellen Bute, Norman McLaren, Jordan Belson, and Jules Engel, early Soviet names like Dziga Vertov and Dimitri Kirsanoff, more recent names such as Peter Bo Rappmund, video artists like Matthew Barney and Pipilotti Rist, animators like Suzan Pitt, Ishu Patel, Iris Paabu, and the Quay Brothers, Lettrist filmmakers like Isidore Isou, dozens of other essential avant-garde movements, and, of course, essential names like Stan Brakhage, Phil Solomon, Ken Jacobs, Martin Arnold, Maya Deren, Barbara Hammer, Kenneth Anger, Jonas Mekas, Storm De Hirsch, Lewis Klahr, Yvonne Rainer, Rudy Burckhardt, James Broughton, et alia. Not one of these names appear on the experimental film list; some of them are on the non-narrative film list, but not most of them. And the distinction is problematic in itself. The pages, as they exist now, do not present any kind of cohesive or even remotely clear understanding of what experimental cinema is, and what it is not.

I should also mention that I don't mean to come across as arrogant, or to be disrespectful to anyone has contributed more to this place more than I have. But I consider Wikipedia an invaluable resource and when I saw how much these pages were in desperate need of help, well, I wanted to help. So I thought, out of courtesy, I should declare my intentions here first, and then I will go to work. Rest assured, I know this material extremely well, will cite my sources, and of course if anyone disagrees with any of my changes they can override them any time.

Thanks so much for your time and attention. Hope everyone and is safe and well during this problem-filled time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MayaUnbound (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the easiest and quickest problem that you could solve is probably the list of filmmakers. Unsourced lists tacked on to the end of articles often accumulate dozens of dubious entries, like this is

example farms should be sourced and worked into the prose naturally. For example, if Jim Jarmusch is important to American independent cinema, don't stick his name in a list at the end of the article – write about why this is so and give us some context. I doubt that anyone is really going to care all that much what you do in obscure articles, but you might consider posting to the article's talk page if you'd like input on your proposed changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 01:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Genre film is now a disambig? Or has it always been one? Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It was turned into a disambiguation page by Sparkie82 earlier this month. At a guess I would say Sparkie doesn't consider "genre film" and "B movie" to be synonymous. I am ok with it being a disambiguation page but if other editors are not then they are free to revert and start a discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit...is it valid to say that Mamma Mia! (film) is a film based on songs, or is it misleading to say that because the film is more properly based on the musical? DonIago (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it probably is. The stage musical certainly was so the songs are a derivative source. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. DonIago (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the move from

I can't recall, do we use "universal acclaim" even when quoting Metacritic? I don't think we typically say don't say "it received a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes indicating 'rotten'". Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't clarify if it's either rotten or fresh with Rotten Tomatoes because it's self-evident and it's just two categories, whereas Metacritic has several, and the numbers at which one starts and another one finishes are a bit more arbitrary. For Rotten Tomatoes, we inform the percentage, the average, the number of reviews, and the critic consensus. For Metacritic, we inform the score, the number of reviews, and this label. Think of Metacritic's "universal acclaim" (or any other label) as an equivalent to Rotten Tomatoes' critic consensus. El Millo (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, one difference is that Rotten Tomatoes' critical consensus is usually a bit more analytical than Meta's stamp of hyperbole, which "universal acclaim" sounds like to me. But if that's the way the community prefers it... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Metacritic's label of "universal acclaim" is dumb. I don't include it. It's obviously false in most cases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with paraphrasing that into something like "widespread acclaim". I don't mind quoting it directly, though, since Metacritic can be unpacked to indicate the number of reviews and how they are categorized. Manchester by the Sea has "universal acclaim" as seen here, with 51 positive reviews and one mixed. With that unpacking, I think it can be clear that saying "universal" should not be taken so literally. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone verify if filmmusicreporter.com can be used as a reliable source? It looks like back in 2011, there was a short discussion about it, and it looked like the two editors who commented did not think it was as they were not clear where their information came from. It looks like the source is popping up again, specifically at Spontaneous, and a few other upcoming film articles that I can't recall at the moment. BOVINEBOY2008 23:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Unfortunately, I feel that might be a bit difficult, when the first 3 you mentioned are the major trades for the industry and have the most reliability when it comes to sourcing information. I understand you point, it just might be difficult to diversify source options, especially for the larger tentpole/blockbuster movies with those trades all basically reporting the same info when it breaks/is announced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this is a general problem with sources. On the flip side, a lot of these companies have very different editorial apparatus, etc.—while it doesn't solve the potential conflicts of interest, it's not like they all become innately equal in terms of reliability either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

I found this press release cited in

Warner Bros. Home Entertainment which said on 7 Aug 2020 that "Warner Bros. Interactive remains part of the Studios and Networks group". Does that help? –xeno^talk

17:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there is a discussion at

Currently Titanic (film) redirects to Titanic (disambiguation), but I have to think the 1997 film is the primary topic. (I don't remember how to check the stats for that but I suspect they'd bear me out.) Any objections to retargeting that redirect? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of noticeboard chatter about related topics right now that it is probably not a good idea. Certainly not so arbitrarily as to do so without a requested move discussion. --Izno (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Good luck.

-- Calidum

03:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The redirect on average gets 3 hits per day. Even if those hits are all for the 1997 film the hit rate is so low it barely registers. I think it is better off left as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I find, incidentally, that Titanic (movie) goes right to the 1997 film. I don't see any reason to leave it as is, even with a low hit rate. Izno, Calidum, is there some context I'm missing here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There's been a recent Requested move related to this, which is also linked to Parasite's Requested move and its subsequent Move review. El Millo (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, el Millo. I didn't know about the recent move proposal. Obviously I strongly disagree with the reasoning and believe that "this is the article that 95% of users want to see when looking for this title" is a reason to move/retarget, but for some reason the consensus seems to be against it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at the Village Pump. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Enola Holmes about making an exception to include a second link to Millie Bobby Brown in the infobox. Please add input there. Rusted AutoParts 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Years and decades in Punjabi cinema, where I have proposed deleting 35 categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A user created an article about a Canadian actress at the title

Now, I know that I'm correct that we disambiguate women as actresses rather than actors — all one needs to do is observe all the women who are disambiguated as actresses, and the lack of any evidence that there's ever been any mass move campaign by a bad faith user to defy any consensus that "actor" was preferred. And there's no grounds to argue that some women should be dabbed as actresses and others should be dabbed as actor based solely on the page creator's personal preferences. But I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so I wanted to ask if anybody here can offer some outside input. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because the way it's always been done doesn't mean it's the way it should continue to be done. See

WT:ACTOR#Actor vs Actress for a related discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 16:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That may be the case, Erik, but using (actor) to disambiguate actresses is inconsistent with how it is currently done and also inconsistent with the categorization of actresses. There are good arguments for maintaining the distinction or dropping it, but I cannot think of any advantage of having inconsistent disambiguation. I have reverted the move for now. Those editors who believe there should only be a single disambiguator need to gain a consensus for that poistion. If that is the way it goes then a bot can be deployed to fix the disambiguation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the dab should be "actress" in this case, and matches the category structure, such as Category:Canadian film actors and its sub-cats. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Others have surely had a similar problem, older pre Internet non anglosphere films. Often difficult to find decent sources online yet the films have some notable actors/production company/director, making it an obvious mainstream film at the time and likely to have had newspaper reviews at the time which are not accessible. How do we stop editors like User:Donaldd23 mass nominating such film stubs for older Indian, Italian and Mexican films? An example

07:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If you haven't tried archive.org, that can help sometimes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

TCMDb snafu

So the template for TCMDb in the EL's for the Rio Bravo (film) article {{tcmdb title|16103}} goes to a 404 page but the reference ^[1] goes to the proper page at their website. Does anyone know why this is? Also is this just a problem on that article or might it be a larger situation with the template. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Stafford, Jeff (2020-10-05). "Rio Bravo overview". Turner Classic Movies. Retrieved 2020-10-05.

They're two different URLs:

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/16103/rio-bravo from the inline cite

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/title.jsp?stid=16103 link in the TCMDb template

Although neither of them seem to load in the UK! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems TCMDb has altered their URL formatting from the second example (what it currently does), to the first example. In which case, the template would need to be updated for this, as it does appear all instances are broken. It seems by using the template you need the id number plus the film name formatted as "film-name" for the link to work. You can't just use the id number as TCMDb will not redirect itself with just that info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts and Favre1fan93. Does this mean a bot request is needed? If so can someone who has done those before please file the necessary paperwork. MarnetteD|Talk 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of template tinkerin' that needs to be done just to fix the URL syntax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Template adjustment, yes, but also probably a bot pass afterwards because I'm assuming most articles like Rio Bravo are only using the template as {{tcmdb title|16103}}, when it would now need to be {{tcmdb title|16103|rio-bravo}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted the template in its sandbox here. It takes the PAGENAMEBASE of the article, and replaces spaces with "-" to match TCMDb's url style. I also needed to create a new parameter |url_title= for any film that has an & in our titles, the urls at TCMDb use "and", and I couldn't figure out how to make the template make that replacement automatically. I'm going to put in a template edit request to adjust that, and see if someone can make that change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Belated thanks for your work on this Favre1fan93. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with article about director Shira Piven

I have proposed some updates about Shira Piven, the director of Welcome to Me. They are here: Talk:Shira Piven#Request Edits October 9. I’d appreciate any help with a review of these proposals for the live article, as I have a conflict of interest. I have also added these to the official Request Edit official queue, but it appears that almost no one is answering this queue anymore. Please feel free to reach out with questions. Thanks! Bobcat8730 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on SAG film awards

More input appreciated at Abigail Savage#RfC: SAG Awards. Glee^anon 19:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The Last House on the Left page move

Please see

this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

19:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Film nationality in lead

An editor wishes to describe Skyfall as a "British film" in the lead of the article, despite the fact sources such as the British and American Film Institutes and Variety etc consider it a UK-US production. He argues these are not valid sources because they don't describe the film as an "artistic" product. I contend that taking such a limited view of a film's nationality would put Wikipedia at odds with how most sources deal with film nationality. I think the discussion would benefit from more participants, especially since it has implications for other film articles. The discussion is at Talk:Skyfall#Nationality. Betty Logan (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tom Brown's School Days (1940 film).jpg at FFD

The file File:Tom Brown's School Days (1940 film).jpg was relisted once and is currently nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion, where I invite you for input. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A "BOMB" rating

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#A "BOMB" rating. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice that Trading Places is a FA candidate

Needs more eyes on this one way or another. Great seasonal film, perfect for this time of year, one of Murphy's early films that brought him massive fame. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexis Texas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexis Texas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Texas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes reporting an outrageous number of reviews for a show's season

Thoughts are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Rotten Tomatoes reports 305 reviews for season 10. What?. A permalink for it is here. Yes, this is a show matter, but this WikiProect has a lot of experience with Rotten Tomatoes issues. And, so, your help would be appreciated. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Piraya Film up for deletion, notable production company?

Is there a guideline about when a film company is notable? Glee^anon 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 19:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll check it. Glee^anon 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent

I need additional feedback at Draft talk:The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. The project has received significant coverage, and is also now filming, despite this it was quickly pushed back into draftspace. Rusted AutoParts 20:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The draft is sourced, but most of its sections consist of one or two sentences. There does not seem to be in-depth coverage. Since it has not been completed yet, there is no chance of covering its reception or impact. If rated in its current state, I would suggest this is no more than a start-level article.Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

New film article - Bloodlust Zombies

I created a new film article, about Bloodlust Zombies. Let me know if you want to help out with further research! Thanks very much, Right cite (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Is TheWrap an acceptable source to cite Alexis Texas appeared in the movie Don Jon?

• Gilman, Greg (25 September 2013), "Joseph Gordon-Levitt's 'Don Jon' Reviewed by a Porn Star", TheWrap, retrieved 22 October 2020, And Haze was grateful that a number of her colleagues got "a little showtime on the screen" in the scenes where Gordon-Levitt surfs the web for his favorite kind of movie (keep an eye out for Alexis Texas, Sunny Lane, Danni Daniels, Misty Stone and Isis Taylor making computer-screen cameos.)

Is this an acceptable source to cite that Alexis Texas appeared in the movie, Don Jon?

Asking WikiProject Film for your expertise, thank you! Right cite (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If it said she is in it, then yes, The Wrap is a decent film source. Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif:Thank you. Does that seem like something noteworthy for inclusion in the article, and in the lede? When a pornography actress appears in mainstream cinema like that? Right cite (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate to just include the various pornographic actors in a cameo section here. Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Right cite (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Double World

I started an draft article for Double World which is on netflix, if anyone is interested in helping it, please do, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Film date proposed to be merged

Template:Film date has been nominated for merging with Template:Start date. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 10:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New improved article Aroused (film)

I researched and improved the page Aroused (film) - let me know if you want to help out with further research, thank you! Right cite (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion

Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion

Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. Can someone experienced please take a look at

Draft:Jarhead: Law of Return, since you are experts in this area? See Draft talk:Jarhead: Law of Return. It would be a shame to lose all that - the actors, etc. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:943E:8385:E170:7619 (talk

) 06:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Cinephilia & Beyond

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Cinephilia & Beyond (cinephiliabeyond.org). If you are interested, please participate at

WP:RSN § cinephiliabeyond.org/. — Newslinger talk

08:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

New article on Terry English: tagged for notability and sources

Hello,

I started a new article on armourer Terry English, and before I expanded it, it was tagged for both notability and sources. I believe Mr English is notable enough to warrant a page (he has worked on many very high-profile films; has had articles written about him on the BBC website, New Scientist, Country Life, etc etc; has been described as 'widely acknowledged as the best armourer in the world'; has appeared in several 'making-of' documentaries about the films he worked on; and his work is featured in the collections of several museums, including the UK's Royal Armouries). (Also Adam Savage is such a fan he spent eight days with him learning how to make armour).

Could someone have a look and see if they agree with me that the article a) sufficiently proves his notability and b) is properly sourced. And then remove the tags?

Thanks. Stronach (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

💬

03:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The user who tagged it wrote on the article's talk page: "The problem here is that notability is not about what he has done. Notability is determined by substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, sufficient to write a reasonably detailed article about the subject. I certainly don't see anything approaching that here." I strongly disagree with that: the Country Life article (a reputable, long-established UK weekly magazine) is certainly in-depth and provides plenty of information. (Also I see so many biographical stubs that have minimal sourcing that are deemed acceptable ...) I think part of the problem is that, despite all his achievements, he's not given many interviews so there is a poor level of source material to choose from. Stronach (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

November focus on women in behind-the-scenes occupations

This November,

wp:Women in Red is focusing on women working behind the scenes in theatre and broadcasting. As film is an important component here, we hope members of WP Film will be inspired to participate. You can find further details at Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast

. The Women in Red invitation for November is copied below. Please feel free to send it to any potentially interested participants or projects.

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

IP hopper edit warring with unsupported claim about title of a film

Please see Talk:Beetlejuice#Title. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Film franchise box office records

@

Nergaal, TompaDompa, and Favre1fan93: Following the discussions at Talk:List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War#Expand this article to MCU box office records, Talk:List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Should this list be moved to "box office records by Star Wars franchise"?, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War, was there any further progression or discussion on making an article on a film franchises box office records? I have centralised the discussion here, because I think it is a better place to talk about something like that. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 13:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge/recollection, no. Nergaal is no longer active on Wikipedia, by the way. TompaDompa (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I am aware they are not active. Just thought I would ping them if they ever return. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Immortal (2019 film)

I have just added a 'Plot' to The Immortal (2019 film). I would be grateful for an overview of what I have written. There is the start of a constructive discussion on the film's Talk page. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter

Minor dispute occurring over whether to define Hannibal Lecter as a character from a series of novels or to broaden the definition. Popcornfud (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why you are taking issue with the opening sentence of this one article. Hannibal Lecter was created for literature. If you look at the page of any character from literature that has been adapted, I’m sure you’ll see it’s written the same way there. I really don’t understand why I have to waste my time defending this. Hannibal Lecter deserves the same treatment as every other literary character on this site. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

All of the films were just adaptations of the novels which came before them. It is right to talk about the novels first, on every article of characters that were created for literature, not just every article but this one. Leave it alone. And, for the record, you can’t “broaden the definition” of a character—the character in the novels is not the characters in the films, they were just inspired by him. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And it’s really odd that you would come here to try to argue that Wikipedia’s treatment of characters that were created for literature should change. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood reference help

For the Good Article review of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, references 107-116, 118, and 206 be archived. The first several references I cannot seem to locate in the Edit page. I'm wondering if anyone is able to help me here. Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 05:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you asking specifically? For the references to be archived? Kingsif (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I ran a bot through that archived majority of sources except those ones. The issue I’m presently having is not being able to see where those sources are in the edit field in the Charts section. Rusted AutoParts 21:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: As I've viewing the article with this response, 107-116 and 118 are handled by {{Album chart}}, 206 is an inline ref called "jacobshuffington". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So how would I go about archiving those sources under the Album chart template? I feel like I'm probably missing something glaring, so apologies if I'm being exasperating lol. Rusted AutoParts 22:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The template doesn't appear to have the functionality. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hannibal (2001 film)

I and another editor have become involved in numerous disagreements over several articles related to Hannibal Lecter (see previous entry above), most recently the Hannibal (2001 film) article. Discussions don't seem to be resolving anything, so some further perspectives would be useful. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion, I agree with your assessment that discussions don't seem to be resolving anything, but I disagree with your proposed solution. The editor in question is admitting to

WP:CONDUCT problems and that message has fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps it will work if it comes from an administrator (and they'll also be able to decide if any actions should be taken, though I think blocks and the like would be overkill at present). TompaDompa (talk

) 23:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Jungle Cruise

At Jungle Cruise (film), there is some confusion over the correct writing credits. Based on [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc., it seems that it is not appropriate to credit Golstein and Norville as writers (as recent edits have done), but instead to mention them in the way that the sources do. Perhaps someone more familiar with film credits can have a look? (Issue mentioned at Special:Permalink/988078642#Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references -- PLEASE FIX THIS CREDIT) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

British Screen Advisory Council rebranded to British Screen Forum

Hi,

I am quite new to editing and so need advice on how to proceed. Earlier this year

British Screen Advisory Council rebranded to become British Screen Forum. I have updated the content of the entry to reflect this but am unable to change the page heading - how would I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClareGS (talk • contribs

) 12:09, November 11, 2020 (UTC)

Should any of the Titanic (1997 film) characters have their own Wikipedia articles, or a "List of" article?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Should major fictional characters have their own articles, be in a list article, or JUST be in the main article?. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Mulholland Dr

Hi. There's a bit of back-and-fourth relating to how great this film is. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (

WP:PR

) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{

u

|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Aroused peer review

I've put the good article on the documentary film Aroused (film) for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aroused (film)/archive1. Feedback to help improve its quality further would be appreciated, thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Netflix films are Direct-to-video films?

Are Netflix films straight to video films, and should they be listed as such in the actors' filmography? User:IJBall and User:Amaury have been arguing that they are. However, I feel that they are completely different, as they often have much higher budgets then straight to video films and get much more media coverage. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are. "Digital releases" are included in the

WT:FILMBIO. --IJBall (contribs • talk

) 20:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Not all of them. "El Camino" was released to limited screens (enough to make the Oscars' requirements) alongside its release to the service. I wouldn't call it a "theatrical film" just from that, but it would also wrong to flatly call it a VOD release only. --Masem (t) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but that's no different than any other film – if you open/premiere in theaters, even one, you're a "theatrical release". But if your film goes straight to a streamer to premiere, you are some variant of "direct-to-video"/"direct-to-digital"/"direct-to-streaming". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not just call them "feature" films? Rather than theatrical versus DTV distinctions? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the method of classifying films by media of first release is increasingly archaic. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

So, you would be in favor of dropping "Direct-to-video" and "Direct-to-DVD" type designations as well? And we still designate "Television films" as such, and should continue to do so. Indeed, we have always specified distribution media up to this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not an easy question. Direct-to-X used to mean something, and I don't think it means the same thing now. For the '80s through 2010s, sure; direct-to-video was a notable categorization and it would be weird to erase that from history. It comes from a time when theatrical release was the goal of all films but only some made the cut, for whatever reason, usually attributed to quality. But going forward? It's obvious that a film like Roma had a theatrical release purely to satisfy certain award criteria and not for any other reason, so calling it out as a theatrical release has a different meaning than it did ten years ago. I don't have a clear answer here but this question is not going to go away. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair.... No matter what, though, I think the differentiation for "television films" (and television in general) will still need to be made. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It used to be the case that the primary types of releases were "A" and "B" movies. The advent of video saw the "B" movie replaced by DTV movies. It was a fairly tautological transition. That clearly isn't the case with streaming, because we are also seeing premium content being released on VOD platforms. That equivalence between "B" movies and DTV movies (i.e. lower-grade content) doesn't really hold up for Netflix, which has aspirations of being a major film studio, albeit with just a different distribution model. I think Erik's proposal works best for VOD content; I have no objections to the "theatrical film" and "TV film" labels if the release patterns still follow a typical release structure. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We have been using older terms for new things and so the terms no longer mean what they used to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

So, can we come to a consensus on this? – Do we all agree that so-called streaming films simply should not have an identifier at all in Filmography tables, in the same way that "theatrically released" films don't? And can we definitely agree that these should never be identified as "Netflix film", "Disney+ film", etc.? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is consensus, we should also consider what categories to use for the films. Currently, we have Category:2020 direct-to-video films and other similar categories. I have noticed many that are streaming films (especially coming from the Indian film industry). Should they have a different categorization? BOVINEBOY2008 20:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "streaming film" would be appropriate, the same way we recently changed several television series' lead sections from web television series to streaming television series after the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#web-television? (see Stranger Things as an example). El Millo (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, one of my original suggestions is that we label these "Direct-to-streaming" films in Filmographies. We could definitely make/rename the cats "streaming film" too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel there's any need to include the term "direct" in it, as that still sounds like we're trying to equate it to direct to video releases, which we already established is different. We don't call television films "straight to TV films". Just "Streaming film" is fine. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Just "Streaming film" sounds weird to me – "Direct-to-streaming film" is, I feel, more accurate (i.e. "released directly via streaming" rather than "theatrically released"). But it is consistent with "Television film". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Category:Netflix original films is currently a subcategory of Category:American television films, which I feel is especially inaccurate since it contains films that had a limited theatrical release, like Roma and The Irishman. I suggest that we create a container Category:Streaming films that will contain Category:Disney+ original films, Category:Netflix original films, etc, that will be a subcategory of Category:Films by type. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if a film is released/debuts via streaming, it is not really a "television film" – they really are in a different category than that. I would support the creation of cats like Category:Streaming films and Category:American streaming films. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I like JDDJS's suggestion. Also agree that streaming films should not be treated as television films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Would seem that Category:Streaming films is a duplicate of Category:Internet films, unless I'm missing a distinction here? --Gonnym (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That category seems to apply to web films, i.e. films that were released on platforms similar to YouTube. While not a duplicate, I could see Category:Internet films becoming a subcategory of Category:Streaming films. El Millo (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Calling films "streaming films" is as bad as "direct-to-video" in the modern era. Maybe for modern (last 5 years?) releases we should just call films films unless they were specifically made for broadcast television (I'm thinking Hallmark Christmas specials). As Betty said, really what was previously meant by "theatrical" vs. "direct-to-video/VOD" was an elided subjective notion of quality and that is an increasingly poor fit for current releases, a distinction which is being erased even more quickly because of our friend the virus. Because major films are now being released on streaming services or on streaming/VOD/PVOD as well as theatrically, it doesn't seem like a good distinction to try to maintain. The made-for-TV film is possibly still a reasonable distinction since the way such films are made, the expectations for them, and their budgets are still substantially different enough from other films to make the distinction useful. For now. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this proposal, and would fight it – the method of release/distribution matters. Maybe in 5 years time, if the movie theaters never recover, we can revisit whether there is a meaningful distinction between "theatrical releases" and "direct-to-streaming/VOD". But in the meantime, there definitely is still a difference, and any suggestion otherwise is basically just propaganda from Netflix and the others... On the specific issue, I think either "Direct-to-streaming film" and "Streaming film" are acceptable, and either should be accepted for use in Filmography tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What infobox?

Continung on from the above, we now have ourselves an inconsistency issue with regards to infoboxes and the various types of films. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: Kimmy vs the Reverend which was only released on Netflix uses {{Infobox film}}, while Kim Possible Movie: So the Drama use {{Infobox television}}. Other examples of TV films using Infobox film are Man-Thing (film) and Sometimes in April. Seeing as how the current distinction is lost on some editors, it would seem to make more sense for all films to use the same template and style, which has the added benefit of eliminating the need to decide each time which template to use. --Gonnym (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No – TV movies are supposed to use {{

MOS:TV. But I pretty certain that is how it's supposed to work. --IJBall (contribs • talk

) 20:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

RT scores, awards, etc. listed in the articles on DVD distributors?

GKIDS seems like a highly problematic article, not least because a number of the claims made appear to relate to those films' receptions before the distribution rights passed to GKIDS from some other US distributor. Until I made this edit the article openly took credit for, for instance, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya's receiving a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature at the 87th Academy Awards over The Lego Movie, but in reality all but one film directed by either Hayao Miyazaki or Isao Takahata had been nominated for that award since the award's introduction -- the Academy just love Studio Ghibli, especially its founders.

I don't know how much further it should go, though: I'm a little uncomfortable with listing RottenTomatoes scores, given that the reviews are for the films themselves, none of which had anything to do with their American DVD distributor, and I'm not sure if there is a review aggregator that specializes in DVD reviews (many of the films also predate GKIDS's founding by years or even decades). But ... well, I actually thought I had checked List of Criterion Collection releases about a month ago and it listed RT scores, but it doesn't seem to now, nor did it a month ago, so I guess I was looking at a different page. (Masters of Cinema doesn't either.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Distributors... distribute. Adding scores related to the production seems wrong to me! :) --Izno (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to include Rotten Tomatoes scores on distributors' lists of works because I don't think the distributor is a strong and direct link across the board (since it may produce some films or acquire them from elsewhere). The scores seem to make better sense within a particular film series, where the distributor is incidental, and it is more about comparing more intrinsically linked films. For a distributor's body of releases, even if a batch of films was recognized as having high scores, is that really reason enough to cover every other film's score? More directly related facts would be release dates, whether or not they produced it themselves, and involved companies. Not sure if I would even name individuals involved since it seems best to maintain a corporate scope.

As for awards, I'd probably argue against their list-based inclusion for the same reasons. I never liked filmography tables where some films out of a whole bunch have a fat "Notes" cell of awards and nominations, where other cells are empty. The awards could be covered in running prose, though, where it is suitable. (Not sure if anyone linked GKIDS to the Princess Kaguya win.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New film article - Women of the White Buffalo

I created a new article about the documentary film, Women of the White Buffalo. Let me know if you want to help with further research, Right cite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Input request

Any thoughts and comments that anyone would like to add to this Talk:List of Criterion Collection releases#Including a "country" parameter? discussion will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 05:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of future films notability guidelines

There is a discussion about the future films notability guidelines and how to interpret them. Please see the discussion

here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion at a GA nomination regarding Box Office Mojo

Chris troutman has requested a second opinion for the Good Article nomination of Avengers: Endgame in regards to if Box Office Mojo, which is used to cite the box office grosses and budget in the infobox and box office section, is a reliable source. If any one wishes to comment, you may do so at Talk:Avengers: Endgame/GA1#Discussion. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

TCM Movie Database semi-decade update?

Actually, looking through the great records you WikiProject Film folks keep, more like one update every three years?

The templates {{

Tcmdb name}}, for linking to a page at the TCM Movie Database, are not working. Looks like they updated their system such that it has wandered away from the templates' connections. A warning: going directly into the TCM site, I notice that they might not be finished working out their own kinks yet, as their page for The Defiant Ones (1958)

has multiple lines of code associated with some error (starts with "Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in Drupal\tcm_controller\Controller\TCMController->tcm_participant_page() (line 249 of modules/custom/tcm-controller/src/Controller/TCMController.php)"), but scrolling past that does bring up the normal info for that film. Might have to wait for them to get straight before the wiki templates are adjusted?

You're all smarter than me, so I know it'll get worked out - and I thank you for that. Jmg38 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The TCM database has been causing problems for a couple of years now. There have been multiple efforts to fix the URLs but they keep breaking! Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The page for The Defiant Ones seems to load fine for me at this time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is accessing it from Europe if I recall, something to do with GDPR. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the title template was updated back in October. The problem with The Defiant Ones, at least as I saw just now, was it had the wrong ID number in the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Blindness poster

There is a dispute at Blindness (2008 film) about the poster image. The thread can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with revision of article on YouTube racial equity special

Hello. There is a discussion about revising the lead to the article Talk:Bear_Witness,_Take_Action#Request Edit November 19th, a series of livestreams being put on by YouTube as part of its $100 million initiative to support Black creative and to address racial inequity and civil unrest in America following the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others. Bear_Witness,_Take_Action This article has been rated start-class for the Film Project. Your participation in the discussion would be welcome. I have a disclosed COI on the page. Oceans87 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User adding Category:Film controversies to articles

Pricegeorge212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. The above user is adding tons of films and related articles to the

WP:CATVER. Bringing it here so others can cast their eye over the inclusion of this category to specfic articles. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

17:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts. I saw a few of these user's edits pop up. Some looked legitimate as the film did have a Controversies section; in other cases the editor was adding the category to films that were already appropriately sub-categorized. DonIago (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted many where there is no mention of a controversy. It sometimes feels like this is just a search for any occurrence of the stem "controvers-" and then the category is automatically added without really looking at the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI: This recent edit summary reveals how many of these insertions are the editor's

opinion and not based on a sourced claim that a controversy exists. --ZimZalaBim ^talk

20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested moves of declined drafts

At least two drafts of future films that have begun filming were declined at

Draft:Cry Macho (film). (There may be other drafts declined.) There are requests to move these drafts into the mainspace as seen here: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. A related discussion about the draft-declining rationale can be seen here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Future Film Comments. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Hi. I completely baffled by the idea that WikiProject Film uses redundant categories such as XXXX films. The thing is, is that when a reader clicks on say XXXX drama films it will automatically lead to XXXX films, which makes me wonder why such redundancy exists in this sub project? Thanks.--97.116.115.87 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some more background relating to the IP's comment. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This practice is not unique to WikiProject Film; see

WP:DUPCAT. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there is a reason behind it? Obviously redundancy of categories doesn't help anyone.--97.116.115.87 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. See that page's talk-page archives here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: Well I read a few in the link you gave me and found no explanation other then (and that's my opinion, I guess), is that the consensus was in favor of keeping the subcats not main cats in the articles. That's the impression I get from reading the discussions. Any clarification will be appreciated.--97.116.115.87 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't deal much in categories or care much for them in general to really articulate the why of that particular notion. However, because it supersedes WikiProject Film, if you'd like to challenge that section, it would need to be done at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-diffusing categories are useful for navigating primary sets of data. Personally I would like to see intersecting categories scrapped because they can be trivially navigated by "in category" searches (for example, 2016 Swedish films). However, if you want to search through all 2016 films you shouldn't have to search through all the sub-categories. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

YouTube Free movies

During this Covid crisis,YouTube has made many complete films available for free streaming, such as Man Up and Elf is this fact ok to add to the film article under release? Lexein (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent

WP:EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 13:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I hauled off and did it, boldly. Lexein (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps introduce long term protection on the list articles

I think there should be long term protection on some of the list draft articles for films. Many times, they are problematic and introduce a lot of hoaxes. Especially, those pages such as

Draft:List of American films of 2023

and the 2022 page, and their corresponding 2022 in film. etc. All fake instances are just ips adding fake films and such, and they are too spread out to consider blocks, it seems.

To reiterate, I think there could be some long term protection of these drafts. Starzoner (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Morshower

There's an issue with the article of Glenn Morshower. Somebody has added source from IMDb. I had to fixed the TV filmography because it didn't have the roles table, which also needs expansion. The issues on it should be solved. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ellen/Elliot Page

Please see this discussion about Page's past works. I know we had long discussions about a similar case with Wachowskis in the past. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wheels of Fortune (film)

Wheels of Fortune (film) is in AfD for the 2nd time due to no consensus closing. Please weigh in here. BOVINEBOY2008 10:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Universal Classic Monsters

Template:Universal Classic Monsters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. I've given a lot of thoughts about this one, but please read my response to why I don't think it should be used before responding. Thank you all in advance! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of film title card instead of film poster

Is there specific guidance/a sample NFCC rationale for using a film title card in place of a film poster in Template: Infobox film in cases where a poster for the film does not exist? Morgan695 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is. What about a home media cover, though? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There are film articles that use stills from the film in the absence of a poster, and it's still just a non-free image with a fair use rationale. El Millo (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The only factor that may come into play may be that a film's title card may be a simply text block on screen w/ no background, which under US law would fail the threshold of originality; this means for US films, this would be a uncopyrightable work uploadable to commons, while for foreign films this would be PD-USonly uploadable to en.wiki. Cover art on home media releases likely would have more art that would be fully copyright and thus be non-free completely. We want to avoid the use of non-free if we can and if the choice of available art is between the film's title card and a home media release, the title card that may be free would win out. --Masem (t) 18:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

For context, this question is prompted by The Other Side of Aspen, where the reviewer in its ongoing good article review does not believe the title card meets NFCC. Morgan695 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a question of if the title card could be a free image (the background on it makes it immediately non-free for all areas). --Masem (t) 19:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Film genres

Early this year, the "genre" column was removed from a random partial selection (but not the vast majority) of lists of films, on the basis of a talk page discussion at Talk:List of American films of 2019#RfC: Genre columns. In the United States, for example, genre columns have been removed from the lists since 2016, but not from any list prior to 2016; in Canada, they were removed from 2019 and 2020, but not from 2018 or before; in France, they've been removed only since 2018, and not from any year before that. And on, and so forth: literally across the board, they've been removed from a few of the most recent lists of films, but not from older ones.

Well, I've just hit the ultimate speed bump: I have just had to add a new documentary film to List of Canadian films of 2020 that has the exact same English title (The Decline) as a thriller drama film that was released back in the spring, leaving me with literally no choice but to add their genres in the "notes" column (where that information does not belong) for clarity, precisely because the genre column, where that information does belong, has been removed.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that genre columns are inappropriate — if there's actually editwarring happening over film genre, the correct solution is to insist on sourcing the genre rather than removing the genre — but would obviously understand and obey if there were a properly constituted WPF consensus against them. But the talk page of one article isn't really the right venue for a discussion with such huge project-wide implications, six people aren't enough participation to deem it a project-wide consensus, and among those six people I fail to see any participation from even one person whose name I recognize as an active participant at WPF. So I'm not convinced that a proper, binding consensus against genre columns has actually been established — it looks to me much more like somebody's personal preferences got flown in under the radar.

And even if there is a project consensus established that genre columns aren't wanted, there's no legitimate argument that genre columns should be retained in older lists and only removed from recent ones: it has to be removed from all film lists if it's removed from any film lists.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask for some imput: is the genre column unwanted, in which case it needs to be removed from the film lists that still have it, or is it desired and thus needs to be restored to the handful of lists from which it was removed in March? Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would remove it just on the grounds that it's on a list with non-subjective material (release date, director, film, year of release) and is the only information included which is up for interpretation from viewers can be difficult to find proper citations for. For simplicity of the lists, i'd say its better to keep it information that is less up for interpretation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, then what am I supposed to do about the two The Declines? The only option available to me, piling their different genres into the Notes column, is inappropriate and invites people comprehensively misusing that column to add genre markers for all films — but with two identically titled films in the list, their different genres have to be specified for clarity. So if a genre column is deprecated across the board, then what the bleeding fudge am I supposed to do about that unresolvable dilemma? Genres aren't hard to source; they can quite easily and routinely be extracted right from the film reviews that a film has to show to even be deemed notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be covered in the notes section, and this can be used as the exception to the rule. Plus they have different directors too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

People aren't going to read them as "exceptions to the rule" — people are going to read them as "the genre is supposed to be in this column for all films, so I must now add the genre in this column for every other film too". So putting the genres there isn't the solution: it's the problem that needs to be solved. And different directors don't fix the issue either, because if you don't already know which director made the thriller film and which director made the documentary film then the directors' names fail to help you determine which film you're looking for. Clarifying their genres, somewhere other than the notes column, is the only solution that works at all. I put the genres in the notes column only because there was nowhere else to put them — but it's both unavoidably essential that the documentary vs. thriller distinction be explicitly clarified in the list, because the director distinction does not cut it, and equally essential that it be moved from the notes column to somewhere else, because editors will misunderstand why it's there and start adding genres in that column for every other film too. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

To avoid that confusion, you can use just one note and put it in both films, stating that the film directed by one person is the documentary and the one directed by the other person is the thriller drama. El Millo (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Use "one note" how, and put it in both films where? Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

One footnote, next to the title of both films if you prefer. Based on your question, it might help you to check

WP:FOOTNOTE. El Millo (talk

) 20:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The clarifier needs to be visible directly in the table's body text, not buried down in the references. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Toy Story page move

Please see this discussion. And quick, before Lotso puts you in the fire. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Blu-ray.com home video release database

Hey all. I've put up a discussion here -> Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Blu-ray.com_for_blu-ray_releases <- about using Blu-Ray.com's home video database. I like the site and use it myself, but the database itself that includes film release dates, home video release dates etc. is updated by its users and pretty much gets implemented immediately with no real back checking. I don't really have a source to back that up other than I've added to the database myself. Their main page announcements seem to be done by staff and are probably fine, but I'd like to hear some more on the talk page if we could! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice that Die Hard is a Featured Article Candidate

Neutral notice about the above, as it is of relevance to this project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice that it is now on the Urgents list. The article is of relevance to this project and we should want to see the best articles under our watch to be elevated if applicable so comments would be appreciated whether they are comments to improve the article or not. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Batman Forever GAR

Just so everyone in this project is aware,

good article reassessment at Talk:Batman Forever/GA1. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Criteria for including actor awards?

Hey there I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It raises the question of whether MOS:BIO should include clear criteria about what sort of awards to include in actor biographies. Please comment if you are interested! Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should be of interest to many regulars here, so if you have opinions one way or the other, please comment.

MOS:FILM. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 21:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding sources to our reliable sources page

Since I figured more eyes would be watching here than

/Film, and TheWrap to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#List of potential references (preferably the "General" table)? - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 17:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No objection to all of those; I'd suggest RogerEbert.com as a recommended reception site, if individual reviews (as well as aggregate sources) are acceptable on the resource list. I'd also mention Letterboxd in the questionable section - it is primarily for social reviews but also has editorial staff writing articles, though some of those are self-promotional, so each article should be taken case-by-case. Kingsif (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to include Collider? I saw that discussion about the Spider-Man casting, and the point was raised about why the trade papers haven't reported on it. From what I've seen, when one of them has an exclusive report, the others follow. It doesn't seem like Collider is as reliable as these. Including it in the table on the resources page won't show a distinction, and I'm not sure that page really needs to be exhaustive. We could at minimum add a note that the lists of reliable sources aren't comprehensive. I don't really have any thoughts on Slashfilm and TheWrap other than they seem to be closer to Collider than the trade papers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The way I’ve always assessed Collider and Slash were they were solid fallback sources/reliable sources for smaller scale castings, not so much breaking massive headlines. TheWrap I’ve recently felt are on par with Deadline and THR, so I’d be receptive to their addition to the reliable sources list. Rusted AutoParts 18:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add Slashfilm and TheWrap and will hold off on Collider at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek Generations at FAC

Just a heads-up that I've nominated Star Trek Generations at Featured article candidates. I know doing good reviews is time-consuming and a pain, but anyone who does a review gets one IOU good for a GAN, FAC, or peer review of your choice in the future, so if you want a helping hand down the line or just my eternal gratitude for making a film article better, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek Generations/archive1 is thataway. Thanks in advance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Offer still stands, and nomination could use the help :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

2019 in film, directors cut

Hello, film people.

Some may remember that there was an Rfc at Talk:2019_in_film#Request_for_comment that resulted in the article removing a long (but far from long enough) list of films, and instead keep a list like 2019_in_film#2019_films. The current number of 2019 films with WP-articles is about 2 600.

Recently, afaict, Chompy Ace decided to use this approach in more YYYY in film articles, like here: [8]. A later ES stated "Reflects via RFC for 2019 in film". Well enough, and I don't really disagree, but it is BOLD (at least I don't know of any preceding discussion on implementing this wider) and an ES would have been nice. Today an IP reverted/edited some (maybe all) of these and have been mostly reverted in their turn (I did the 2019 one) [9].

So, editors, how do we want this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The logic applies to all articles, but only 8 editors participated in that discussion so I think the editors who oppose it have a good argument that it is a

WP:YEARSINFILM, and arguably an RFC should be started at that page and advertised here at this page. Betty Logan (talk

) 03:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

I have nominated

talk

) 20:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Beaches (film) page move

Please see

this move request about another film move about shared titles. BOVINEBOY2008

10:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Prequel

At Talk:Kuruluş:_Osman#Prequel_or_predecessor we have a disagreement on if something should be described as prequel or not, please help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Mass film AFDs

Is everybody here happy with this [10] ? Looks a bit manic..†

Encyclopædius

21:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems very suspect. While the articles themselves are not in good shape, the nomination statements are almost always cookie-cutter and do not seem like they comply with

WP:BEFORE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 23:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and he's being rewarded for it by Spiderone who is supporting the deletions at a time of crisis where very few people are turning up to comment. Most of the films have notable actors and directors, some of them the top Indian actors. Most older Indian films have very poor coverage online anyway. The articles are typically like

Encyclopædius

15:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Only three more deletion days to Delete-mas Day! Must be the season. To quote myself from the other day, there are 107,000+ articles on types of moths. 107,000! 99,000 of them are stubs. But once you move from science to pop. culture, then the bug spray comes out. Ho, ho, ho, merry Christmas! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The Empty Classroom

Extra eyes could be used at The Empty Classroom. The film's website claims it has won a UNICEF award for best film on childhood, but I can't find any corroborating sources, makes me dubious about the other claims the film has made. BOVINEBOY2008 13:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:EGG

or not?

I've had repeated discussions with users deleting (example)

WP:EGG. I don't see it this way, as a) this link leads to annual film overviews which might be useful to visitors and b) I couldn't find anything in these WP manual sites saying this shouldn't be done. Some of these users could see my point, others wouldn't. Is there any consensus on this? Thanks Robert Kerber (talk

) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't be linking the year to 1955 in film per

WP:EGG. I personally have been adding see also templates to the release section for readers to be able to go see more context around that year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeated discussions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(

WP:EGG because a reader cannot tell from "1955" if it links to 1955 or 1955 in film. The same logic applies when saying something like "followed by a sequel" where the reader can't tell if the link is just sequel or a link to the sequel's article. I have no objection to having that link in a "See also" section because it is tangentially related. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 18:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Akira (planned film)

I have initiated a move discussion at Talk:Akira (planned film) in regards to moving this unmade production into draftspace. Please chime in if you wish. Rusted AutoParts 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Former featured topics

Hello. I was wondering if anyone was looking to repromote

Wikipedia:Former featured topics for films. Pirates of the Caribbean films can be repromoted as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides just became a GA. Spider-Man films could potentially be repromoted as both Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse are GAs. I'm not 100% sure if Spider-Ham: Caught in a Ham counts as a Spider Man film as part of the Spider Verse films (it's not a GA at the moment). Otherwise: Halloween film series, X-Men films and Star Wars episodes need a lot of work to return to Featured topic. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk

) 19:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it

WP:CRYSTALBALL to say No Time to Die

is Daniel Craig's final Bond film?

Discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfud (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 13:41, January 2, 2021‎

Dimple Kapadia FAC

Please consider posting comments on this FAC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Film maudit - a stub or redirect would be appropriate

Would anyone like to create a stub for Film maudit (the category of film)

(or define this term within an appropriate existing article and make a redirect?).

Refs - https://harvardfilmarchive.org/programs/le-film-maudit --- https://www.filmlinc.org/daily/heavens-gate-and-the-film-maudit/ --- https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2014/01/12/weekly-top-five-the-film-maudit

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:9407:7C87:2F1:D0FE (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Film

I have recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Paraguayan cinema task force and I need to modify the Template:WikiProject Film to include what kind of category the articles related to films from Paraguay belong to. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's going to be a tough one; when the Venezuelan cinema task force was set up I tried to add it to the template but since it was only discussed at the Venezuela WP and not here, the edit wasn't accepted. Since I can't see a Paraguayan task force discussion here, they won't let you, either. I don't know why there's bureaucracy on this, but there is, and it's hardly worth fighting if you can add the parameter to the WP Paraguay template and have it be more prominent anyway. Kingsif (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Skoll Honours and awards

Hello! I've posted a new request to update film producer Jeff Skoll's article, specifically "Honours and awards". My request to update the section is at Talk:Jeffrey_Skoll#Request_for_Honours_and_awards. As I've mentioned before, I work with the Jeff Skoll Group. With my conflict of interest, I will be careful to work with Wikipedia editors to build consensus on updates in place of directly editing the article. Thank you. JSG Lindsey (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Unusual use of italics in

Godfather Part II

plot summary

Discussion here. Popcornfud (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Link to the film in an article

Is the link to the whole film in the article Ask Grandma acceptable? I've never seen this before, so I'm not sure about fair-use, etc. Or the fact it's very intrusive! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you the fair use question is not an issue; as a 1925 work it has now fallen into the public domain. Whether its appropriate to link in full like that, that's a separate issue. --Masem (t) 08:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My concern is the formatting and the fact that there's basically no other article content, so it's effectively an article to host the film rather than give encyclopedic coverage. A GA article with the whole film inserted as media is Assignment: Venezuela, so having it there in itself shouldn't be an issue: there aren't many quality-assessed articles on films that are in the public domain, but when the whole film is available to have on the article it is good for depth of coverage and illustration. Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Including a link to the film is fine, but you don't need a massive thumbnail. Something along the lines of Debbie_Does_Dallas#External_links would be fine. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Er, we're not talking about an IMDb link here... Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

She's referring to the "Full film available at Wikimedia Commons" right-aligned template in that section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If a film has entered the public domain I am strongly in favor of including some kind of link in our articles. The Big Parade has just entered the public domain, so I am going to have a look around for that. Wikipedia has an important role to play in disseminating our historic media. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Betty, once again I'm in your debt. I've changed it to an external/commons link. Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, y'all don't want even a thumbnail of the full video in the article? This seems like the most fundamental information you could have in an encyclopedia article about a creative work, is a copy of the work itself (if copyright allows it). @

WP:UNDUE issue with having the video without extra encyclopedic material around it? It seems to me the way to resolve that concern is to expand the article, not to remove the video. Toohool (talk

) 05:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. When we have articles about pieces of still art, we include an image of the artwork even if it's only fair use. A whole film is less likely to come under fair use, but when it's PD there is no reason not to include it in the article. However, if there is no encyclopedic coverage, the article itself should probably not exist, etc.

I think treating a free video, especially for a short film, as an external link when we can do better is not a good idea and don't think Betty should have suggested that as the ideal alternative. Kingsif (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings either way, but on a desktop view, the thumbnail seems out of place without much text surrounding it. I agree with the visual appeal of having the media more available. I guess the challenge is cleanly presenting it. While it could go in the "Plot" section, that thumbnail and the infobox on the side (in desktop view, anyway) makes it cluttered. Furthermore, I think the thumbnail should at least be smaller than what I saw. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The primary purpose of an article is to provide encyclopedic coverage, and I honestly don't think including the work in its entirety supports that aim. By embedding the whole film you are simply distributing it, it has no encyclopedic goal. That is essentially what the Commons is for. There are plenty of articles where the whole film is embedded: Night of the Living Dead is one example off the top of my head, but the article is offering something substantial beyond just distribution. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the above, with the desire not to "host" the movie in the article itself, you should feel free to take screencaps/stills from that film to use as images to help in the cast section, since those are free too. One or two, keeping the images at least relevant. --Masem (t) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If the video is PD, we can and should provide it directly to our users. Whether or not Commons has a job hosting it is irrelevant. That we are an encyclopedia does not prohibit us from providing rich media to our readers (and rich media is in fact what they want, per SomeWMFReportFromAFewYearsAgo).

I think this is the case even if the article is a stub. An article is a stub whether it has pictures or video or figures and whether it has those things won't affect whether someone needs to expand the article. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Are we going to have a similar set of films be in public domain at the beginning of every year, and more than ever before? Maybe it is time to come up with guidelines or at least recommendations on handling such media. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I imagine, since the PD is opening up (maybe we'll finally snag Mickey), that yes, the practice of inclusion will continue. Maybe it should even have an infobox parameter for film articles with an infobox. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, barring any new laws, each year, all works published in the US prior to (Year-95) enter the PD regardless of authorship, so expect a new copyright law in the next two years. But that said, using Night of the Living Dead as an example, its placement of the film link the plot summary makes full sense as long as the rest of the work is notable. For Ask Grandma here, the notability is still in question - just because its an Our Gang short doesn't make it notable on its own. Here, it may make more sense to have a list of Our Gang/Lil Rascals shorts which a column can include a link to the PD version of the film on commons , if available. (We clearly should be making sure that's available when the resource is there) This would eliminate the notability issue if there's no further way to expand this article. --Masem (t) 23:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ninja Scroll character section

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the characters section in Ninja Scroll. It can be found at Talk:Ninja Scroll#Characters section. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox add Visual Effects by

Hi,

I wondering if it's possible to consider to add the Visual Effects Company in the infobox. There are around 10 major company in the world and so many small others. There are millions of people working on the Visual post-production industry. Some times, and most frequently in the latest years, the working people on the postproduction Visual effects doubling the production team (unfortunately, almost all the time, most of the people are cut out from the credits). Every company have it's own speciality, they have also their own category in the academy awards. I believe it would be good if we add that.

Star Wars Example: Visual Effects by : Lucas Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cily35 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes typically just cover the poster billing blocks. Rusted AutoParts 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably, but off the top of my head, I know there's no consensus to include because many times, the credits can be fringe/ceremonial (see Stan Lee on all Marvel films) and they generally do not have much weight in terms of say in how the film turns out. If there are any notable ones for a particular film, it can be mentioned in prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox cannot be everything to everyone because if it was, then we as a whole would be plugging details into parameters that don't readily apply. While it could apply for Star Wars, would it apply for a drama film where VFX was used for some background touching-up? No, but in my experience, when a field exists, the editorship as a whole strives to fill all possible fields. So I agree that such details should be mentioned in prose, where it can be combined with sources that indicate its relevance or importance. EDIT: The same argument applies to executive producers. Some could be worth naming, but there are so many more that aren't. Best to save it for prose. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Using IMDB template in cast lists

I was editing Faces of Children and the cast list had several red links:

Cast

• Jean Forest as Jean Amsler
• Victor Vina as Pierre Amsler
• Pierrette Houyez as Pierrette Amsler
• Rachel Devirys as Jeanne Dutois
• Arlette Peyran as Arlette Dutois
• Jeanne Marie-Laurent as the neighbour
• Henri Duval as Canon Taillier, godfather of Jean
• Suzy Vernon as the mother of Jean and Pierrette

so I replaced them with IMDB links using the IMDB template:

Cast

• Jean Forest at
  IMDb
  as Jean Amsler
• Victor Vina as Pierre Amsler
• Pierrette Houyez at
  IMDb
  as Pierrette Amsler
• Rachel Devirys as Jeanne Dutois
• Arlette Peyran as Arlette Dutois
• Jeanne Marie-Laurent as the neighbour
• Henri Duval at
  IMDb
  as Canon Taillier, godfather of Jean
• Suzy Vernon as the mother of Jean and Pierrette

I would argue this provides the reader a chance to get handy additional information.

This was reverted to black links:

Cast

• Jean Forest as Jean Amsler
• Victor Vina as Pierre Amsler
• Pierrette Houyez as Pierrette Amsler
• Rachel Devirys as Jeanne Dutois
• Arlette Peyran as Arlette Dutois
• Jeanne Marie-Laurent as the neighbour
• Henri Duval as Canon Taillier, godfather of Jean
• Suzy Vernon as the mother of Jean and Pierrette

with the arguments:

• Wikipedia doesn't link to external sites in the body of the article.
• The veteran editor of film articles has never seen cast links like that before.
• The IMDB template is for external links only.

I would argue that though possibly innovative, it seems to me to provide the page reader easy access to information about cast members that probably will never have a wiki page and, in my opinion, using the IMDB template looks fine while signalling that it is an external site. And IMDB isn't any external site but a primary source for most film articles cast lists.

Is this technique against policy or film style guides? Should it? Or can it be used as an alternative to red/black links?

Thoughts? SmallRepair (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

See

WP:Links in lists will be of use. —El Millo (talk

) 17:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(

WP:ELLIST. Remember IMDb links are allowed in the external link section at the bottom of the article. MarnetteD|Talk

17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

For info, the user raised this with me on my talkpage. I knew this way of linking was not allowed, but I couldn't find the precise page. Thanks to El Millo for the link. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple genres for a film

A discussion is taking place at the talk page of

talk

) 21:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Jeepers Creepers (2001 film)#Mystery for those wishing to join the conversation. DonIago (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Info about Basil Pouldeuris score for RoboCop

Does anyone have any good sources for info about this or solid places to go to find it? It's an important score and yet I've not managed to find one single site on Google that discusses it or features any interviews about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drafts created by User:Hedgeswayd

I'm referring to the following drafts.

• Draft:List of 2006 films
• Draft:List of 2008 films
• Draft:List of 2010 films
• Draft:List of films released in 2005
• Draft:List of films released in 2006
• Draft:List of films released in 2007
• Draft:List of films released in 2008
• Draft:List of films released in 2009
• Draft:List of films released in 2010
• Draft:List of films released in 2011
• Draft:List of films released in 2012
• Draft:List of films released in 2013
• Draft:List of films released in 2014
• Draft:List of films released in 2015
• Draft:List of films released in 2017
• Draft:List of films released in 2018
• Draft:List of films released in 2019
• Draft:List of films released in 2020
• Draft:List of films released in 2021

They were created a while ago and as a content fork. It seems he's working as a draft but I dunno if its worth keeping. Thanks. Just to note, they were all nominated for deletion by me and can be seen here. Starzoner (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Automated statement quality predictions

Hi, we are working on an

FAR for more information. Sumit (talk

) 17:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Although produced in Taiwan after Hu had left Hong Kong, the international accolades for this film brought the‚ new cinema of Hong Kong much greater visibility, while providing an art house alternative to the enormous international popularity of Bruce Lee (A_Touch_of_Zen#Review_and_criticism)
• The reasoning is immoral, but the characters claim special privileges above and beyond common morality. (Pickpocket_(film)#Critical_reception)

  Sumit.iitp, this instance is within a quote from a film critic. So maybe ignore statements that are within the quotation marks? The other instances (EDIT: other than Crash, per TenTonParasol) seem correctly assessed as problematic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• The girl is at home with her surroundings, but after a mysterious sailing ship approaches offshore, all the rocks of the cove seem to come alive and sing to her in one voice. (Red_Desert_(film)#Plot)
• Cronenberg has made a movie that is pornographic in form, but not in result... (Crash_(1996_film)#Release)

  This one is also a direct quote, within <blockquote>. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• They chat until sunrise in a sequence that culminates in the iconic shot of the Queensboro Bridge.(Manhattan_(1979_film)#Plot)
• All About Eve received overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics upon its release on October 13, 1950, at a New York City premiere. (All_About_Eve#Critical_response)

Missing Citations:

• Although no script was finalized, he and cameraman Christopher Doyle had been to Tiananmen Square and other areas of the city to do a small amount of unauthorized shooting. (In_the_Mood_for_Love#Development_and_pre-production)

Another cast list question

I seem to remember previous discussions where is was decided that WikiP's film article cast sections did not need to list every person who was in a film. I know I've seen edit summaries noting that as a reason to pare down a cast list. As I look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Cast I don't see anything about that. It could be one of those discussions where the consensus did not get transferred to the MOS - or I could be wrong. In relation to the thread just above removing some (though not necessarily all) of the red linked or unlinked actors in a cast section might be a way to handle things. If anyone wants to work on the wording to add to MOSFILM that would be helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST encourages filtering, like for named roles only. Unnamed roles would need a pretty good reason to be included. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

But if an actor has an article and did play a minor role in a film, does that film article have then listed in cast to help with backlinks? Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Gads I looked right at section one including "most relevant actors and roles" and it didn't register. Thanks for that Erik. That section covers my concerns. Kingsif I think there is some flexibility in this. If an actor has an article they could be listed but they don't "have" to be included. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, #1 says "blue links (in some cases)". But we can't achieve 100% cross-navigation. While an actor's filmography may link to 100% of films, it is not the case that all films' cast sections should link back to that actor. It's only most likely for the top-starring ones. So it helps to see if sources have found the actor worth mentioning while writing about a film. (Haven't really thought about how to handle top-starring actors who had bit roles early on, though. We can discuss that separately.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Juana, la virgen (you know, the original) and now a lot of sources mention her involvement in Macu. Or even a lot of the smaller roles in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - tertiary roles like that of Ben Lewis probably wouldn't usually be included, but since he's now quite famous and discusses the role, it's there: though Scott Pilgrim is in the remarkable situation where all of its secondary cast are now A-list and most of its tertiary cast are well-known, so it seems fair that almost all of its (relatively small) speaking cast are listed. Then we have animated movies full of cameos, which I imagine have a different set of rules. Kingsif (talk

) 19:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

How many reviews should it take to be on the list? Your input is welcome.

Discussion is at Talk:List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes#How many reviews? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I archive sources?

I am working on improving The Tree of Life film page and getting it to good article status. The review of the page for good article status said all the sources need to be archived. I asked on the talk page for The Tree of Life film how to archive sources, but nobody has responded. How do I archive sources? Pineapple4321 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

They don't need to be archived for GA status, that's absolutely not in the criteria. It's something preferable and ideal for any article, but a reviewer shouldn't be holding you to it. The review was done last year, and that was the least of the problems, though. A quick archive tool for common refs is the toolforge IABot, which you can search quickly. Kingsif (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I fixed most of the reviewer's problems with the page, so if I don't need to archive sources, should the page be renominated? Pineapple4321 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Archiving, however, does help maintain GA status. Dead sources may lead to de-listing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Archiving prevents

WP:LINKROT. As Kingsif mentioned, you User:InternetArchiveBot may be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Is They Shoot Pictures Don't They" Reliable?

The site finds tons of votes for best films ever or best films of the 21st century and aggregates them. They also have director's pages where it says some director's favorite films. Would saying "According to They Shoot Pictures Don't They, The Tree of Life is the fifth most critically acclaimed film of the 21st century." Or I am thinking of using their list of Miyazaki's favorite films and using that to create a favorite films section on his page similar to the one on Scorsese or Schrader's Wikipedia page. They Shoot Pictures Don't They doesn't have a wikipedia page itself. The Wikipedia page for Wreckmeister Harmonies (which hasn't been granted good or featured article status) says "According to They Shoot Pictures, Don't They, a website which statistically calculates the most well-received movies, it is the 21st most acclaimed movie since 2000." Pineapple4321 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This sites name is ringing a bell. I think it was discussed years ago so those of you whose search skills are better than mine might take a look. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion in 2016 and a subsequent RFC that, if my understanding off a skim of both, determined not to use the website as a primary source for critical opinion. Though, peeking around the archives, it seems it's been used in the past as a water mark to generally gauge importance of a film, i.e. what went onto the core articles list. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TenTonParasol. Much appreciated. Things can change in five years (don't we know it) so we should reassess the situation. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 23:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yea, it's been a long time. I agree that it may be worth revisiting the matter, especially if the site itself has changed a lot since then. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The key question is do other reliable sources (such as Variety) ever refer to the "They Shoot Pictures" rankings? It's a good site, well researched etc and I enjoy reading it, but does its opinion truly matter? In a sense it is like an aggregator: it may be based on solid, reliably sourced polls but it has created its own methodology for how to weight those polls and rankings. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone good at writing critical reception sections?

Anyone good at reception sections that can take a look at Die Hard's? It's all there, but it's not my forte and it was an issue at fac. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well what were the specific comments at FAC? The things I see most issues with at GAN are paragraphs built of 'X said Y'. Without getting into SYNTH, a better reception section will identify the topics across reviews and summarize, i.e. 'X, Y, and Z commented on the A of the film; X said B, while Y and Z felt that C'. That kind of thing. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

They said the opening paragraph was largely he said, she said, but I had written it as an overvall commentary on the film, so comments relating to the action, violence, etc. So maybe it is my writing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, I can have a look at this later - if I don't get to it in the next day or so ping me, it just means I've forgotten about it as I'm poorly organised and extremely dim. Popcornfud (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks pop, I have rewritten it, but I think it's the opening paragraph or so that is the biggest bugbear.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud pinging as requested. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, thanks. Do ping me again over the weekend if I haven't got to it by then. Popcornfud (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Aliens nationality

Neutral notice about a discussion of the production country/nationality of Aliens is here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Hiroshi Shimizu

The template Template:Hiroshi Shimizu consists of 4 (four) existing pages/film entries, the rest are red links to non existing pages. Apart from the fact that one might question the sense of a template with four films: shouldn't the red links be deleted for clarity only? Robert Kerber (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed a lot in the past, but I'm not sure what the consensus is. I feel like if the colors were the other way around, it would be okay to keep the red links to maintain consistency. But if this template has this many red links, there's very little point to having one. Unless editors think that these are very likely articles if one can access Japanese-language sources. Thoughts from others? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A short addition: said template does not even contain a complete filmography (the main article does), so it's pretty arbitrary. Robert Kerber (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)