Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 80

Thoughts on using template to ref awards at Template talk:Awards ref please Indagate (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not around much anymore so I missed this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Should "films by country" categories remain all-inclusive?. First off I agree with its conclusion. I've noticed that removal of the category has begun and congrats to the enterprising editors doing the work. My suggestion/question is shouldn't there be updates to the parts of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film that this consensus has impacted? Especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization. I think it will help both veteran and new editors to have things spelled out. If I'm wrong than no worries. Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 00:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those places should probably be updated to reflect this change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Was wondering this myself. Οἶδα (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have already recategorized a lot of articles. Please stop me if I'm going too fast.

talk

) 01:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious, isn't there a bot available to perform this task (basically removing everything from Category:American films)? Seems that would make the process much easier. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not the only category involved here...but it would be a start. DonIago (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am okay with your work removing the cats

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing them as well. I note that its edit summary does include a link to the archived discussion and you mighty consider adding it to yours Scorpions13256. I am also okay with any changes to the MoS sections that any of you want to make. MarnetteD|Talk

14:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added an update to the MOS.

As for the bot, it is working on the project, but there are inevitably going to be some films that it misses for one reason or another (e.g. the film hasn't actually been subcategorized by genre at all), and the largest categories (British, American, etc.) are going to remain populated with some films for quite a while yet as there's a lot of work to deal with still. So while nobody needs to take on the job of comprehensively smashing through the entire tree at this time, it is helpful and appreciated to contribute some cleanup work as you happen to come across it — for example, if you're working on a set of films for other reasons, and happen to notice that they're still all-included in the parent category, then do feel free to include removing the parent category and/or adding genre categories (if necessary) at the same time as your other edits — and if you come across smaller country categories where not all of the subcategories exist at all yet and thus those films won't get touched by the bot at all, then feel free to create the appropriate genre categories, especially since that's the pending work that human editors will eventually have to do anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Per title Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Could somebody with better access to decade-old US media coverage than I've got do a bit of research into the documentary film My Nappy Roots: A Journey Through Black Hair-itage? In its current state, our article is making three different claims about its release year -- 2008 in the introduction, 2009 according to the infobox, and separate categories for both 2009 and 2005 -- and IMDb claims 2010, while AllMovie claims 2006, so even those aren't much help. Obviously our article needs to be accurate and consistent, so it would be helpful if somebody with the right tools to solve it could look into this. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

All I have is the Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine but I have added some information to the article talk page. The documentary was showing at film festivals in 2007. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Bearcat, this from 2006 mentions the film. This says, "Kimball says she finished her movie in early 2006, but has never released it for commercial audiences." I think in general, the guidelines want the first public release, but considering the particular history here, I'd be okay with "2006" as the earliest marker if the film was completed by then. The article can reflect what happened since completion. EDIT: Hah, this calls it a 2005 film... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well, this is a hornet's nest, isn't it? I've gone with 2006 for now; obviously we can change that if we can find genuinely solid evidence that it should really be seen as a 2005 or 2007 film instead, but the article being consistent is important here, and there clearly wasn't a case for going with 2008, 2009 or 2010. Thanks for the help. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, film fans.

I was just checking out

I'm sure we can agree one centralized discussion beats even five petty and scattered squabbles. Beyond that, I don't know what we agree on, so I'm asking. Is the 1977 reference obvious in context? Does the same apply to an explicitly reiterated "film"? Should we tackle this problem (if it is a problem) as a team, everywhere, for all time?

Anyway, no pressure. I've had some pretty strong feelings about this whole editing genre in the past (check my summary history for "implied"), but I'm old now and wise enough to know my place where local consensus rules. Feel free to pass on even considering this proposal, if that's the way it is. But, of course, any show of cooperation is also quite welcome.

Sincerely, InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Should like a right change for the headings, table captions should probably include year per

MOS:TABLECAPTION. Thanks, Indagate (talk

) 17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no appreciable interest in table captions, so that's fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

For anyone who'd like to weigh in, there is a discussion about "widespread critical acclaim" being used to describe Top Gun: Maverick. See Talk:Top Gun: Maverick#Widespread critical acclaim. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm in the right place. Where is the place to start a discussion of NPOV and balance between audience ratings/polls reviews vs positive/negative reviews from critics? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't do audience reviews per

WP:USERG. Only bona fide polls like CinemaScore and PostTrak are appropriate. Anything from the Internet is ripe for abuse. WP:USERG even mentions not including Rotten Tomatoes user ratings. You'd need to challenge WP:USERG itself, I think, and I don't see why that would be needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 18:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the only times an audience score (aside from CinemaScore and PostTrak) should be noted is if it heavily contrasts the critics score, but ONLY if a secondary (news) source mentions it.

talk

) 18:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am thinking of those polls. Sorry about using the wrong word, now stricken. Where is the place to start a discussion? Discuss below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN? Not sure what the specific situation is, but I've seen a bad practice of putting these items side-by-side. It insists on comparison, and that is a POV violation. Polls are based on opening-weekend audiences who want to see the movie, and have certain expectations. In contrast, film critics review whether or not they wanted to see the film. I've also noticed that audience poll info is dumped in the Critical reception section. Audience polling is directly connected to a film's theatrical release and associated box-office information. It's like the POV violation of putting the production budget next to the box office gross in the lead section to insist on comparing the two when that is comparing apples to oranges (e.g., failing to consider P&A and tax benefits). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 18:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Film reviews that are very far removed from the audience reception should be discounted as fringe views and statistical outliers that should not be mentioned. That doesn't mean they don't make any good points, but using them too much, and using reviews more in harmony with the audience reception too little, creates an unbalance that violates NPOV. We should use a balance of positive and negative reviews that is more in harmony with the audience reception.

I realize that my assumption that critics' reviews and audience reception should be tied to each other in this equation may not be entirely valid, but I'd like to explore this possibility. Let's discuss this and see if some guidelines can be established to address principles to follow in this area. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Film reviews that are very far removed from the audience reception should be discounted as fringe views..." The audience is not the core arbiter of a film's quality. Nor are the critics. There are metrics for both, and both should be included. Are you seriously advocating to exclude negative reviews for something like The Emoji Movie because it did well at the box office? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am exploring ideas and am a neophyte in this area, so please be patient. I'm also here to learn. The discussion of "Where the Crawdads Sing" here is good. It touches on the points I mention above, where there is a very wide disparity between critics and audiences. Please read it before replying. Start at "Crawdads is another example this summer of a harshly reviewed movie beating its projections. Critics piled on Crawdads at 37% rotten, and here’s the pic’s opening, 70% ahead of where tracking thought it would be. That’s a wonderful thing for the business when Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t ruin a movie’s ticket sales." and read on.

I am definitely NOT proposing excluding negative reviews. Not at all. I'm proposing we exclude only those that are VERY far out of touch with audiences, which are the most important metric in the real world. We should include a spread of positive and negative reviews, but like all other content at Wikipedia, NPOV and balance are policies that apply, so let's figure out how to do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you have reviewed

MOS:FILM#Critical reception, but this may be a helpful starting point. Please review this guidance, and if you see areas for improvement, we can certainly have that discussion. Generally, we encourage NPOV balance of reviews that skew accordingly to the film's overall reception. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's excellent guidance. This part seems relevant here:

"To maintain a

neutral point of view

, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used."

Would it be legitimate to add something about using audience response to guide the choice in spread of positive/negative critical reviews, especially with a view toward excluding clear statistical outliers? Anyone who has studied statistics knows that such exclusion is not only valid, it is absolutely essential, otherwise the results are very misleading. That's a pretty significant POV to adopt here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

My initial reaction here is that audience reception and critical reception are two different beasts. If there is a need to point out a disparity of sorts, especially when the disparity receives significant coverage, then a separate "Audience response" subsection could be created to cover that in more detail. Of course, more than one approach works, therefore it's probably not necessary to codify it in the MoS. What verbiage are you suggesting? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to remember that while we can give an accurate view of what the critical response is, we do not know what the actual overall audience response is (unless you've talked to everyone who has seen it). All we can do is present the reliable data that we do have (box office, opening weekend polls, streaming viewership, etc.) and maybe some commentary on that if appropriate. As long as we are not using the unreliable USERG online polls. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

adamstom97, you are absolutely right. We can't use USERG or OR. We can only use what RS say about critics' reviews and audience reception, and we do have certain types of RS which specialize in exactly that info. The current situation that got me thinking about this is the Where the Crawdads Sing (film) article. We have been dealing with how to balance coverage in the Critical response section, without any discussion on the talk page or any serious edit warring(!). Things seem to be working out pretty well, but I wanted to see if there was any guidance or policies for the subject, and I have gotten some good help here, for which I am very grateful.

Fortunately, there is a really good source with lots of info and statistics, that examines the wide disparity between the generally negative critical reviews and the very positive audience reception, as well as the factors contributing to those differences. You might find it interesting. Look at the Critical response section first, as it points out where in that source to look. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As previously notified, the "war drama" category hierarchy has been nominated for merging to war films. There was a unanimous precedent last year to merge Western dramas to Westerns. So far two editors have opposed this nomination, but since then three have supported it. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Category:War drama films. – Fayenatic London 07:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Anyone wants to participate in writing a new article,

Wrong title. It's "Open media database". Read the source more carefully. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this! It is confusing — in some places, I see "Open movie database" name is used. Maybe it was used at the beginning. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed a majority of streaming films list the streaming service as the distributors but this isn't accurate. They're just services, not actual distributors; think of it like they were brought TO, not brought FROM. I propose we make the following changes to these streaming films:

• Netflix Streaming Services
  are ok name alternatives (except the latter if the film is released simultaneously in theaters).
• Disney+: Change to Disney Platform Distribution.
• Warner Bros. Discovery Global Streaming & Interactive Entertainment
• Paramount Global Distribution Group
• Amazon Studios
  .
• Apple Studios
• Peacock: Change to NBCUniversal Syndication Studios

Feel free to express your thoughts.

It has been proposed at Template talk:Infobox television#Any support in removing 'Distributor' parameter? that we stop displaying the distributor in the infobox and only mention it in prose if especially noteworthy. I think a similar, but not quite the same, discussion may be needed for film articles. For theatrical films the distributor is usually prominent and noteworthy (it is often a big studio like Disney or Universal, etc.) which means we don't have the issue of TV or streaming where it is a random company/subsidiary/division that no one has heard of or that users may be adding without sources (as could happen based on this siggestion). For streaming films it is the opposite, and I think it would make more sense to ask what should actually be displayed for these films: the distributor that no one knows/cares about, or the streaming service (clearly editors have been preferring the latter)? If others agreed that the streaming service is more noteworthy than the distributor for streaming series, then perhaps instead of making this change we could add a new parameter for streaming service that can be used for streaming films instead of the distributor parameter. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll deal with that separately, but for now should we just put these as the distributors for these streaming films?

talk

) 22:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I was just thinking if we were going to go to the effort to update these for all streaming films we might as well make sure it is the right change. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh I get that, I just think this is a more simpler solution at the moment. Changing an infobox is a big step, especially when removing something, especially since a lot of editors will need to remove distributors grow about every film article.

talk

) 17:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Pursuant to the past discussions around removing "Country films" categories from films that were already subcategorized, the bot that was working on this now seems to largely be done -- although I have caught a few stray pages (most commonly but not exclusively redirects) that got missed for one reason or another, virtually everything that's still in the base categories is the stuff that was always going to need human editor attention anyway, because either the film hadn't been fully subcategorized in the first place or the genre subcategories for that country don't even exist at all yet.

So if anybody's willing to help out, it's time for real humans to start cleaning up the leftovers. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect there will be quite a few articles with NO country-genre subcat too, based on creating about a dozen of these in the last few days alone (Swiss mystery films, Nigerien drama films, Bolivian drama films, etc). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of infobox coding?

Following on from this, there's also an idea to drop the hard-coding from the infobox regarding the language parameter. Please see this request. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request to the template to de-code the infobox field has been logged. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And this has now been done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Somebody has been adding them to the main list of lost films. I was going to move them to the appropriate half-decade sublists, but then I saw that one of the sources states "All films produced in the Philippines during the silent era, from 1912 to 1932, were believed to have been lost or destroyed".[2] So that makes things difficult. I am toying with the idea of moving them to List of silent Filipino films and then linking that to the sublists instead. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Members of this project may be interested to know that this month Women in Red is focusing on Comedians, many of whom are associated with the cinema. Please feel free to join in.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As a follow up to User talk:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist/Archive 7#Film category removal, the following pages need to be added to appropriate subcategories of Category:American films

I started by adding 75 pages from the same set to the parent category, thinking there would be just a few stragglers that could be caught the normal way, but when I realized how many there were I decided a post here was better than making 400 busywork edits. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing to add here except an apology for all this. I was skeptical it was too easy to just empty the category, and it turns out I should have listened to that first impulse. I won't be doing this type of thing again. I'll leave it to everyone else who actually knows what they're doing. Cheers. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel I should at least try to fix this, do what I should have done in the first place the right way. But I won't go monkeying around with Cat-a-lot anymore for sure. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be a few entries here that were not American films to begin with. I'm going to list them here and see what others might know about them (will add to it as I sort through the mess):

*Más sabe el Diablo por viejo

Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that there are probably going to be some cases where a film that wasn't actually "American" at all had been miscategorized as such. In my own cleanup efforts, I have caught instances where a film had been categorized as "Nationality films" for a country that was not named in the introduction or the infobox at all — in which case I checked the film's IMDb profile, and found that sometimes the category was supported over there and thus just needed to be added to the text, while other times it was still not supported there either, and thus needed to have the category removed outright. This wasn't only in the United States, for the record, but happened in several other countries as well.
I think there's probably a mix of reasons why this might have happened; in some cases the only basis for the category I could guess at was that maybe the film had been screened at a film festival in the mystery country, and was thus being misapplied on the basis of "this category should be on any film that has ever been screened in this country at all", while in others it appeared to have been applied on the basis of the filmmakers having done some location shooting in that country. So obviously some caution will be needed; if you're working on cleaning up a national category and that country isn't named in the article's introduction, then check IMDb.
And, of course, even IMDb can make mistakes sometimes too — but obviously an article would need to show a reliable source to support any claim that the film's production nationalities included one or more countries not reflected by IMDb. And also, as much as it may suck having to take that extra step sometimes, cleaning up errors like that is one of the reasons why this is a good project, because the errors might simply never have been caught otherwise.
All of that said, however, Más sabe el Diablo por viejo clearly is listed, both in its infobox and on IMDb, as a Mexico-US co-production, so it's not an example of this problem. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done I did the above list AND all the ones that went back into the category. I can't say I did it all perfectly or that there aren't a few more categories that could apply for some of these articles, but where I found truly necessary they are now all in at least one subcategory of American films without exception. A few were left off because they genuinely did not belong there after all, at least so far as I could substantiate (a symptom of my highly scattershot approach the first time; broken clocks and all that). I don't expect anyone to doublecheck my work, but I certainly hope if I've overlooked anything others will simply add it sooner or later. I must point out my astonishment that there were so many films, even well known and utterly famous ones, that were not already in some manner subcategorized here. I'm also a little bit shocked I myself was not personally approached to fix all of this on my own talk page; I had been notified of the damage I'd done when it was speculated that there weren't nearly this many things now broken to fix, but I was not further notified of anything and had to come here to see for myself. If it were my mess, why was I not specifically asked to clean it up? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If a film category is too big for all films from each country, why can't we split it by decade and have like Category:1970s Argentine films? I can see the argument to split by genre but I thought it was important to be able to browse films from each country in one place and not have to sift through dozens of categories. Would most of the categories be unfeasibly large if split into like 12 or 13 by decade? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Bearcat @Lugnuts: Should be manageable that way I think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That would certainly be possible — it would be relatively easy to do an AWB batch run that compared all contents of "1970s films" to all contents of "Argentine films", and on and so forth. But that would be a big job that couldn't be implemented in five or ten minutes, and would likely be a long-term project, so it would probably require discussion.

I still continue not to buy that film has a special need for "A-Z" that comprehensively list all films in one master category, greater than any need for television series to be A-Zed in one master category, or for novels to be A-Zed in one master category, or for albums to be A-Zed in one master category, or for politicians to be A-Zed one master category. I still haven't seen a convincing argument that film has a greater need for this than any other category tree that doesn't do it. But that's not an argument against by decade categories as such, as some (not all) of the other trees do have that categories of that type — I just don't see why a purported need for A-Z master lists would or should have anything to do with it one way or the other when so many other similar category trees aren't deemed to need that. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao is very efficient with AWBing, I hope it's something he would be interested in doing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

{Dr. Blofeld, Bearcat, and Lugnuts: Sure - I'd be happy to help out with something like this, should it come to fruition. Many hands make light work, and all sorts of other cliches like that. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: - I'd just be bold and go ahead with it TBH. These kind of ideas don't get much discussion these days, and I can't see there being any real push-back. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The question is whether Ser Amantio di Nicolao could accept a few thousand articles for the US if we had 13 or 14 decade categories? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Accept, as in add to my list to work on? Sure - no problem at all. I can get started in the next few days. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao! It would mean readers can browse films by era by country and at least have A-Z for that. It seems manageable. I may consider doing some A-Z lists of films, but the problem is maintenance. I think the time would be better spent working on the year lists and creating missing entries. Enjoy the rest of your trip! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I should be finished with English-language films in the next couple of days. Once that's done I'll do a test category for you and see if it's what you're talking about. Then we can go from there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm currently in Santa Fe with limited access to AutoWikiBrowser. (I can get online at the business center at the hotel, but that's a different matter.) I'm about done with English-language film sorting, so I'll run a test category for you in a few days and you can tell me if that's the sort of thing you have in mind. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I thought I'd run into this before, and ran into the following: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_3#American_films_by_year_and_by_decade. I grant that it's been over a decade, but I suspect there will be problems if we go ahead and try to recreate right now. I'm willing to do it, but I'd rather be at home where I can handle the defense (if need be) relatively quickly, rather than seeing things blow up while I'm not available to work on them.

Meantime, I solicit the opinion of Lugnuts and Bearcat: will this discussion be sufficient to establish consensus should I recreate the categories? My own argument is that the recent discussions have changed things, and these categories are now no longer as useless as they may have seemed in 2007. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, recent discussions have changed things. That was 2007. Things were a lot different on here back then and a lot more people would comment and object to things. You could never call splitting thousands of films into just 12 or 13 categories "over categorization".♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're safe to move ahead with this when you're ready Ser Amantio di Nicolao. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Sorry - I didn't want to undertake anything long-term while I was traveling, and I've been doing a lot of driving the past couple of days. Just got home after a nine-hour-plus haul from Indianapolis (this after the saga, the day before, of looking for a hotel in Wisconsin). Not sure when I'll begin, but I'm hoping in the next couple of days I can get that first category started and you can have a look at it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah I thought you might be back by now Ser Amantio di Nicolao! No rush, hope you're enjoying yourself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring something to the project's attention.

In the ongoing process of recategorizing laggard films that hadn't been subcategorized, today I attempted to tackle Category:Nigerian films, only to run into one of the worst frightfests of bad miscategorization I've ever seen. I ran into literally dozens of people that were being categorized as films, films that were being categorized as people, people and films that were being categorized as film awards, male actors filed in actress categories and vice versa, people duplicate and triplicate and quadriplicate categorized as Category:Nigerian film directors and Category:Nigerian filmmakers and Category:Nigerian film people and Category:Nigerian people all at the same time, films being added to "YYYY in Nigerian cinema" categories instead of "Nigerian [genre] films" categories, television series miscatted as films, films being categorized as Category:Nigerian films based on actual events without any claim in the article that the film in question had been adapted directly from a true story, and on and so forth.

I've already cleaned up a lot of the mess I found, but I just wanted to alert the rest of you because this may require ongoing monitoring. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Dolby Cinema films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an IP hopper (contributions) who is persistently adding unsourced parentheses like these to various articles which mention dead actors. I know that we have a guideline about that: what is it, so that I can link it next time that I revert. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a guideline specific to this case, but it can be considered

WP:INDISCRIMINATE details from a film-based perspective. Like it has pretty much nothing to do with the film in most cases, unless reliable sources make this observation in the context of the film. Like I feel like this happened with Driveways (film) and Brian Dennehy, and even so, his passing isn't just shoehorned next to his name in the "Cast" section. It's better woven into the lead section and article body. So in essence, if reliable sources are not making note of it in context of the film, it isn't necessary. I assume obituaries of actors may name their last films, but that can just be covered on the actor's article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 13:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to agree — an actor's death is usually only relevant to a film he or she was in if their death was somehow tied to the film, e.g. they died on set or it was the last film they completed before their death, and even then its relevance would need to be supported by

reliable sources establishing that relevance for us by talking about it. It's just not necessary to specify an actor's alive-or-dead status if there isn't a reason why it's relevant to that particular film. Bearcat (talk

) 17:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Veera Madakari#Requested move 26 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is disagreement at

I'm seeing more and more articles throwing these kinds of statements into the lead based on sources like a Metacritic "best-of" list, which aggregates lists from multiple film publications into one. The question is, should these statements be handled with care using proper attribution, even in the lead? Comments are welcome here, but a specific discussion about this is happening right now at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Lead if you'd like to weigh in there as well. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should state in the lead section that it was Metacritic's assessment especially because it is not a straightforward count. The more first-place rankings, the more points the film gets in the list. So for The Last Jedi, we have 11 film critics that ranked it in their top-ten, including one second-place ranking. (The omission of first-place ranking can inform readers that that one instance was as high as it goes.) As for contextualizing it, I'm not sure the best way. Mad Max: Fury Road is at the top of the list with over 57 film critics putting it on their top-ten list. Maybe there can be extra text in the inline citation for The Last Jedi's Metacritic inline citation, writing, "For comparison, the topmost film for 2010s was Mad Max: Fury Road which appeared on over 57 film critics' top ten lists." I did work on The Social Network sometime ago and put this in the "Post-2010s assessment" section: " Metacritic reported that it was listed on over 30 film critics' top-ten lists for the 2010s, including eight first-place rankings and four second-place rankings. Metacritic ranked The Social Network third overall, following Mad Max: Fury Road and Moonlight." I didn't try to put this in the lead section, though. And not really feeling like wading directly into another TLJ discussion, props to you for keeping up with all that... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead at all, best of lists are more subjective than even critical reviews. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't get this take. If you're arguing against subjectivity, are you saying no critic-type information should be in the lead section at all? If anything, counting top-ten lists is easier than trying to identify the trends in what critics said about a film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're including reviews or awards, then the person has, presumably, seen that film and is able to comment on it. Top 10 lists are based on what that person saw, and doesn't include ones they didn't see. If I only saw Morbius all year, it'd be number 1 on my top 10 list for example. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't buy that. It implies that no list or collection of any sort is ever valid because of the unrealistic requirement that a person must evaluate everything for there to be a fair ranking. Film critics watch many more films than the average person, and they also watch films whether they want to see them or not. This kind of perfectionist logic could apply anywhere, like rejecting any summary of what critics overall thought of a film because the summarizer probably did not read every single review out there. Top-ten lists come from reliable sources, and reliable sources talk about them, so the content is valid, and it should be about the best way to present that content in articles, lead section or otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with

WP:LEAD seems really dubious. TompaDompa (talk

) 21:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that being named to various critics' top-ten lists isn't valid information to be present in the article, but it should be in a critical reception section rather than being pasted into the lead. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a request to move

File:Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man.jpg, File:Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man.jpg and File:Tom Holland as Spider-Man.jpg have the "copyrighted screenshot" license but none of them are actually screenshot. I do not find these scenes neither in the movies, nor in the trailers nor in the deleted scenes of the movies. Probably we have to change the licenses. 151.70.68.75 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Andrew Garfield one is a promotional image. The other two may be as well, but they also look like they could be taken from scenes in the films (I say based on memory). - adamstom97 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I rewatched the scenes (Peter talks to MJ in SM3 and Peter meets Mysterio in SMFFH) and these frames are not in the films. Neither the trailer nor the deleted scenes have these frames. 151.70.68.75 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Manticore: I personally checked and this frame is not present in any film, you can check it by watching the scene when Peter talks to MJ in SM3. Redjedi23 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What do editors here think of the mention of an album release in the lede of All Too Well: The Short Film, an article about a short film? The short film is inspired by the title song, which is from a 2012 album. The artist has been famously re-recording all her past albums, the latest of which is that 2012 album. The current lede of this short film is wanting readers to know that the artist also recently released a re-recording of that album. Is noting this relevant or irrelevant to the short film article? Is it just shoehorned promotional trivia, or is there a legitimate reason to insert this album trivia in the lead? Lapadite (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the short film was made/released alongside the new version of the album seems pretty relevant, and is supported by the article body. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The short film is not for or about the rerelease of that album, according to the article. They're separate entities. As noted above, Swift is re-releasing all her past albums, not just that one. What is the encyclopedic relevance of that album being re-released on the same date as this short film? A same day release is just a marketing strategy; there's no established importance of the album to this short film; this piece of trivia only serves to promote the album's release. This short film is inspired by a song, not an album. The article is on the short film, not the song or the album. The song (not the album) is relevant to the short film. So why would album release info be in the lead of the article as if it's notable? That's my question: what is the importance of the album's release to this short film, what is the context? A lead should summarize an article's most important points. This promotional trivia is not an important point, according to the body of the article. Lapadite (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The short film takes its title and inspiration from a song that is on that specific album, so I'd say relevant to the short film. The film comes from the song, and the new recording of that song is the one that features in the film itself. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

So I happened to come into possession of a PDF of a film poster. Normally I focus on SVG logos, but this was interesting to me as I know SVG files can contain embedded raster images, and it was an interesting opportunity to see a vectorized film poster on the project. The poster is: File:Birds of Prey (2020, One-sheet Poster, Domestic B0, English, v3).svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The most obvious advantage is that the text is all stored as vector images, while only the background is stored as a raster. This should improve readers ability to read the "fine print" on the poster, as well as ensure the logos and other trademarks are treated respectfully by our project. As this is, as far as I know, the first time a movie poster has been uploaded as an SVG I'm interested in feedback (if this is not the first time, or if there was something similar done (e.g. music cover, book cover, etc) I'd be curious about pointers to those prior discussions). If this is acceptable/popular, I will pursue doing other posters like this, but before I go researching that, I wanted to make sure I wasn't running afoul of any policies/guidelines/legal issues. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend NOT using SVG non-frees of posters. We do allow SVGs of non-free logos, but on the basis that the logo is tied to the brand and while copyrighted, it is better to use the official SVG over a low-res version, but with posters, that's different. Also, I doubt the entire image is "vectorized", in that the SVG is basically a wrapper around a JPG or similar format with the text elements part of the SVG. That part of the image is a JPG or raster version means that we can't use that at high resolution. Masem (t) 04:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, the background part of the poster is a raster image (it is simply base64 encoded within the SVG). If that background were lowered in resolution to match what is prescribed in

WP:IMAGERES, would that suffice to address your concerns? I'll upload a revision with that implemented for your review. —Locke Cole • t • c

04:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I would still just use a JPG/PNG version to avoid any possible problems with the change (that might be taken as a copyright violation). Masem (t) 12:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need, so I would oppose. The point of having the movie poster on a movie's article is largely in regards to branding, not in regards to conveying 'fine print' details about the film. Anything of significance about the film that would appear in the fine print should otherwise already be on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As regards branding, you can see that the movie logo renders better in this SVG compared to a raster JPG/PNG. If our goal is to present the branding in the best light possible, wouldn't this be a net improvement while still abiding by

WP:IMAGERES for the photographic elements? —Locke Cole • t • c

15:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The argument that "the best branding possible" should be the goal has always seemed bad, especially since lots of the SVGs we use seem to be poorly traced rather than sourced EPS or SVG files from the copyright holders. In no case is it important to have that stuff on a low-res film poster, where the point is just to demonstrate an aspect of marketing. The studio logo is irrelevant. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This is why I source vector logos from PDFs provided by manufacturers or organizations that represent the logo or symbol being discussed. As in this case, the poster is a studio-produced asset, so it represents the branding exactly as they intended (the final PDF I worked from was produced in Adobe InDesign). If you view my file uploads, for vector images I typically go out of my way to provide direct PDF/EPS/SVG links (at least for the past couple of years, prior to that I wasn't as good at documenting exact sources) and also include archive.org archive links for future editors to confirm the veracity of my work. For these posters, I'd need to inquire about permissions for archiving the PDF files, but I assure you, this is from the studio's marketing department. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

But what is the purpose? Our goal is not slavish replication of branding and marketing efforts for companies, but minimal use for a freely-reproducible encyclopedia. What is an SVG film poster doing that a smaller raster image is not, per NFCC? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose is to provide something our readers can view and scale with legible text/shapes that a raster image cannot. I've reduced the background image to comply with IMAGERES requirements, so now the only difference between this SVG file and a similar JPG/PNG is the text and logos can scale and still be legible at any resolution. Does this not meet the spirit of NFCC still? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the design for the title of the poster could be above the threshold of originality so it might need to be downscaled as well. Even though it improves readability for the 'fine print', I am uncertain of the details in regards to legal issue. I am not opposed to this if the legal issues are of no concern. 0xDeadbeef 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:FUR for the entire work/file, I think this would fall under whatever logic is used to allow company/organization logos as vectors. —Locke Cole • t • c

15:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, while there doesn't seem to be strong objection to this, there also isn't strong support. My enthusiasm at the possibility notwithstanding, I'll take this discussion as a "no consensus" for what I was suggesting. If anyone wants to raise this issue again, please ping me or leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Meta

The question is moot because that SVG version of the poster is the "Coming Soon" teaser poster, and the precedent was to use the Theatrical release poster. -- 109.78.202.76 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand the discussion then, and should sit this one out. I didn't ask about this specific poster, I only provided it as an example for editors to review and give an opinion on. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In the abstract the suggestion has already been opposed by

WP:STATUSQUO at Birds of Prey (2020 film) (before the bots delete the previous image and restoring it becomes even more hassle). -- 109.79.174.68 (talk

) 13:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:REFUND exists, and this isn't a content question under discussion here, but one with technical/legal implications about the broader question of formats for film posters. While it's under discussion, and given it's something people should be able to "see" and interact with in the app and elsewhere, I'd like to have a live demo. Usage of NFCC content for such a demo outside of article space would likely not be allowed. Once this discussion is complete, I'll restore the original poster and go from whatever consensus is reached here. —Locke Cole • t • c

18:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

NFC does not allow for "live demos", eg we do not allow NFC in draft space gor article development. ‐‐Masem (t) 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Box-office bomb#Requested move 20 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to ask a question about Category:Argentine films, because in the process of attempting to clean categories up for the recent deprecation of all-inclusiveness in the base national films categories, I've found that particular category to be uniquely (so far) cluttered up with a lot (and I mean a lot a lot) of titles that exist only as redirects to "List of Argentine films of YYYY" lists.

Wikipedia does not ordinarily have an established practice of redirecting film titles to mere lists of the year's films, however -- the blue links obscure the fact that the articles don't exist, and therefore frequently stand in the way of getting articles created about notable films. So this simply isn't done as a rule; I've encountered no other country that had dozens upon dozens of such redirects polluting the main category, and for added bonus the redirects don't always represent titles that are actually appearing in the lists they're being redirected to. For example,

Accordingly, I wanted to ask if other people here agree with me that such redirects should be deleted, before I go ahead and do anything rash without support. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Anybody? Bueller? Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There's been a bit of an issue at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, which I wanted to ask for some input about.

There's been an ongoing edit war between multiple editors over the past several days about whether it's solely an American film alone, or an American, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Turkish coproduction. IMDB, for the record, does say it's the latter -- but while we all know that IMDb can make mistakes sometimes, there's no obvious reason to presume that it's wrong about this in the absence of any

The more important problem is that because of the continued project of cleaning out base national film categories, I had to create a Category:Lithuanian animated films category to move it to -- but because there aren't any other films in that category, the edit war causes that category to get repeatedly emptied, thus flagging it for speedy deletion as an empty category and causing me to get notified that it's being deleted. But then editwarrior #2 puts it back into Category:Lithuanian films again, causing the film to get moved back into the animated subcategory again, before edit warrior #1 pulls it back out again and thus reinitiates the speedy-deletion cycle again.

Accordingly, this needs additional watchlisters and/or somebody to investigate whether IMDb is right or wrong so that we can throw a lid on this nonsense, because I'm not putting up with even one more second of this. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the talk page of the article, the only production companies we know involved with the film are

Mikros Image supports this,^[6] and even official press websites from Paramount and Nick support this^[7][8] Both production companies and the distributor are located in California, so everything is pointing at it being an American production. There are no Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Turkish production companies involved according to any sources, so I believe it was just vandalism. Averyfunkydude23 (talk

) 06:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the only people we know involved creatively in the film are the director Jeff Rowe, co-director Kyler Spears, screenwriter Brendan O'Brien and producers, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and James Weaver (who operate Point Grey). All other names added have never been mentioned in any articles, including the ones I referenced. So it is definently vandalism. Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to take IMDb for granted per

I propose to create Bangladeshi cinema task force for Wikiproject Film. Bangladesh is one of biggest film industry. Bangladeshi cinema should have a task force in this wikiproject. Mehedi Abedin 22:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Just an update, pursuant to my above post from last week about Category:Argentine films.

I've listed one specific batch of the film-to-list redirects for deletion at

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#RfC on Sequel section regarding when it is appropriate to omit an entry in a film series from a sequel section. Additional input is appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

New stub: Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud. Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've created a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/By-country cleanup to facilitate the process of cleaning up the base national film categories. I've sorted all of the categories into one of four groups:

1. "Fully cleaned", for categories which have already been fully emptied of individual films (however, these should still occasionally be spotchecked to ensure that new films aren't getting readded to them now),
2. "Only lists", for categories which have been emptied of individual films but still contain lists of films that cannot be moved to a "lists of X films" subcategory because one does not exist yet (and would not be justifiable at all if there's only one list to file in it, although if there are multiple lists it would be fine to create one if you wish),
3. "To be cleaned", for categories which still have individual films to be cleaned up,
4. "Very few films", for categories which still have individual films to be cleaned up but they meet the dual criteria of both having less than ten films total and not actually having any genre subcategories to move them to yet, thus opening the question of whether it's worth even bothering to diffuse them at all yet.

Obviously group 3 is the main priority at this time, but group 4 can still be tackled if you choose. But if you do tackle a category from either group 3 or 4 and get it emptied out, then please also edit the work list to move that category to whichever of group 1 or 2 is applicable. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at

We haven't gotten much feedback on this, so I'd appreciate it if more editors would weigh in. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding The Woman King, which is released in theaters this weekend, editors are invited to watchlist the article since there will likely be a lot of coverage about its critical reception and its historical accuracy, which are both covered in fairly new sections. The talk page has related sections devoted to both for discussion, and additional feedback about either subtopic is welcome at Talk:The Woman King. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding two films featuring Harry Styles, Don't Worry Darling and My Policeman (film), editors are invited to review each article's "Reception" section and the amount of text written about Styles. There is one discussion underway at Talk:Don't Worry Darling#Reception and Styles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Styles has some pretty dedicated fans. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted both adds/restores. For My Policeman specifically, it doesn't help the reception is already the longest section of the article. Adding more about Styles doesn't do it any additional favors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, the two editors who advocated for disproportionate text about Styles compared to other aspects of either film have been blocked as sockpuppets. Editors are still welcome to review the film articles' current "Critical reception" sections to edit as needed, whether to add more content touching on other aspects, or whittle down anything that currently exists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Erik, you may or may not like this article I started: Larries. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hah, thanks for sharing. We sure have articles for everything. Can't beat toilet paper orientation, though... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a good one. I'm sure Annie Rauwerda has mentioned it at some point. Armored mud ball? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:They All Laughed#Requested move 10 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Silent film director and screenwriter Joseph A. Golden is suffering from a lack of reliable sources, and apparent conflation/incorrect info on IMDB (unreliable) and other databases and mirrors of IMDB. His IMDB profile previously (as of 2015) gave his lifespan as c. 1897 - 8 July 1942, which is implausible if he began directing films in 1907 and looked like this in 1909. IMDB has currenlty omitted the birth year, and simply gives a death dat of 8 July 1942. However, IMDB apparently has historically and currently conflated Joseph A. Golden with Robert A. Golden (Q114033627) (IMDB), who verifiably did die in Hollywood 8 July 1942 (choked to death on a piece of steak). Find a Grave (less credible than IMDB) also conflates the two Goldens. So basically, the vital dates and location of birth and death of Joseph A. Golden are open questions needing reliable sourcing. I've found some tantalizing scraps and hints and primary records, but hopefully more corroborating/significant info could be found by someone with access to newspaper archives (especially New York newspapers). Here's what I've found or believe so far:

• Joseph A. Golden was born in or near Washington, D.C.^[1]
• If a 1909 advertisement is to be believed, he entered the theatrical business circa 1887, under Dion Boucicault, later was a stage manager to Charles Frohman. ^[2]
• In addition to screenwriting and film directing he was also a playwright and theatrical director.^[3]
• He lived in New York City.
• In 1922 he married Erna Margaret Weiss, daughter of Dr. Joseph Weiss of Zurich.^[4][5][6]
• His original name may have been Joseph A. Goldstein, as parents are named Simon and Rosa Goldstein on his marriage certificate^[6] and in 1910 a New York name change was granted from a certain Joseph A. Goldstein to Joseph A. Golden.^[7] The name Joseph A. Goldstein appears in the household of Simon and Rosa Goldstein in New York City census records in 1880 and 1900, and as an amateur Brooklyn actor in 1903.
• He was born circa 1866, per his marriage certificate.^[6]
• His middle name may have been Aron or Aaron, as suggested by this (unverified) signature and copyright records.^[8]
• Note: In 1950 the
  Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported the death of a Joseph A. Golden, former vaudeville comedian
  , but the obit does not mention film directing/writing, and spouse and family does not match other info, so I believe it is a different person.