Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 81

Hello everyone. Due to a specific IP editor who is determined, I have posed a question on the talk page of our MOS about the possibility of addressing "mixed-to-whatever" and how RT reception scores are reported. The articles that brought this up today both have content in the lead related to this, which is making it harder to edit around. If this was in dispute in an actual reception section, I'd normally just edit out the "mixed" text entirely and jump straight to the scores and reviews. But alas, not the case here. I'd appreciate any input on if we can update the MOS and if so how we should. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

So I've started noticing stuff with the people behind

Alson they seem confused about the use of the company's and Sony's TSG Entertainment II label. In the end credits of Bullet Train (some reason TSG was removed from both the film and company pages), it says "made in association with TSG Entertainment" while the copyright is to "TSG Entertainment II". I feel like if it was just the latter shown I could accept it being named as is on the infoboxes, but since the former appears it should be credited without the "II".

All in all, just thought we should all be noticed about this. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Per title Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick question. Can someone clarify if we round down run-times or round to the nearest full minute? I had always assumed we rounded to the nearest minute (e.g. a film that runs 3:14:36 would round to 195 min, but it is being challenged at Titanic (1997 film). Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoever's challenging it clearly has little knowledge about editing film articles, since they're using IMDb as a reliable source when it's widely known it isn't within the film-articles-editing community. They were also uncivil in their edit summary (Take a math class?). Their challenge, both on arguments alone and judging by other factors, isn't to be taken very seriously. —El Millo (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are other problematic aspects to their edit, I just wanted to clarify the rounding. We should probably make it clear at

WP:FILMRUNTIME. Betty Logan (talk

) 18:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Once you hit the first second of the next minute, it should be rounded up to that next minute. A film that's 41:03 would be a 42 minute film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about that. It seems best to me to treat it as any other number and stick to whatever round number is closest to its actual runtime, just as we would do with a box office number. —El Millo (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with that comparison; we definitely shouldn't round $999,999,999 to $1 billion. I can see arguments for rounding runtimes consistently up, consistently down, or consistently to the nearest whole minute. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, in that exceptional case, we would be doing whatever reliable sources did with that number. In virtually every other case, we would just round up. That could only be comparable to a hypothetical very reduced group of films longer than, e.g. 6 hours and a film that's 5:59 hours long. —El Millo (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

My point was just that rounding requires consideration of context. Sometimes rounding should be done to the nearest number, sometimes rounding should consistently be done up, and sometimes rounding should consistently be done down. And of course sometimes rounding simply shouldn't be done at all. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also tend to agree to use standard rounding techniques as described at

MOS:UNCERTAINTY; we should round to the nearest significant number dropping seconds or use the number that is most prevalent in reliable sources (when prevalence can be agreed upon). --GoneIn60 (talk

) 22:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films". The discussion concerns how to list films as episodes for a television series, where films are considered major works and television episodes are considered minor works. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I noticed in

I suppose there are two questions at hand here: (1) do the background colors need to be changed, and (2) what would be an acceptable alternative? Since we would have to update many articles with new colors, I figured some form of consensus before making changes would be good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have shared this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I would personally hold off on any changes to accommodate Vector 2022 until

the RfC has concluded. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 19:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I considered that, but even if the default returns to Vector 2010, Vector 2022 will remain as an official alternate, so shouldn't we adjust something (either in the skin itself or within articles) to ensure accessibility? As far as I know, accessibility doesn't only apply to the default skin. (Obviously someone could come up with their own CSS or skin with crazy changes that we can't reasonably account for, but this doesn't feel like that.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is not just about whether to bring back the old default, it's also about what needs to be changed before the community is satisfied with Vector 2022 potentially being a default. The ill-advised changing of link colors is one of the recurring concerns I've seen raised, so I'm hoping the WMF will listen and restore the old link colors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Vector 2022 uses the same colour (Vector 2010's interwiki link colour) for both interwiki and local links. I'd expect (hope) that this will be reverted if Vector 2022 remains default. Daß Wölf 11:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Or an

intadmin could just go to MediaWiki:Vector-2022.css and change the colors back themselves, assuming they get community consensus first. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs

) 05:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We would need a separate discussion after the RfC closes to justify going behind the WMF's back. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just informing people of a discussion at Talk:Cocaine Bear#Genre about what genre to call it in the lead. It can use some wider participation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this is in the film industry?

Context is a film distribution rights being purchased, this is the quote "No money up front, bottom release commitment, and that was it." Tried Googling without success. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No, i do not know either. But my guess would be something to do with the commitment agreement or maybe following through with a contract. Franklyn101 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hellboy (2019 film) is starting to steer towards an edit war. Which version of the lead should remain? Option A or Option B? Option A felt a little rough in need of a polish and that’s what I did but the IP keeps reverting it.

Consensus is desperately needed here to avoid an all-out edit war. Armegon (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps we can come up with a third option that everyone agrees to? Armegon (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Option B is better. IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a notice that per

• 50 Documentaries to See Before You Die
• List of the 100 best films in the history of Ukrainian cinema
• BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century
• BBC's 100 Greatest Foreign-Language Films
• List of Czech films considered the best
• Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time
• BFI Top 100 British films
• Bibliotheca Alexandrina's 100 Greatest Egyptian Films
• Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists
• Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films
• Top 100 Egyptian films
• International Documentary Association top 25 documentaries
• National Board of Review: Top Ten Films
• National Board of Review: Top Ten Independent Films
• Sight and Sound
• The Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2012
• The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022
• The 100 Greatest Films of Argentine Cinema
• Time Out 100 best British films
• Top 10 Canadian Films of All Time
• Vatican's list of films

Note: Not including the lists from

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I've seen many films have been given a short description in the format "[year] film by [director]" - this looks like a mass-add action that was done some years ago. Is there an easy way to request a bot to change this format to read "[year] film directed by [director]"? This would give sufficient context for non-film experts to understand what it means for a film to be "by" someone and would also correct a bias toward

This is currently auto generated by {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox film/short description}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

And let's make it clear not to include a list of genres, please. Mike Allen 17:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me expand. I incorrectly remembered what the infobox auto generates. The short description there will in essence give the SD of "<year> <country> film". That is the current consensus for the project. Any other descriptions have overridden this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay - is that a recent consensus? I am seeing some of the additions I was altering are 3-4 years old. Chubbles (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A quick archive search pulls up [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74#Short_descriptions this from December 2019 on this talk], and there was also [Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_32#Short_description_tweak_needed this on the infobox talk]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that two IPs are making unconstructive and disruptive edits to various mockbuster-related articles, them being

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently, there is a

There is a discussion on Talk:Prestige picture#Downfall discussion about how the wording of the article’s last paragraph can be improved. The sentence “in which audience behavior towards these types of films was altered into viewing them as Oscar bait, resulting in moviegoers refusing to see them in theaters” implies audiences did not see the films because of their perception as Oscar bait, though this was not stated in the articles referenced. The discussion can use some wider input from those familiar with the subject. Spectrallights (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force § Using trailers to verify cast lists

In Bagheera (film) and at the articles for actors Yuvarani and Yashika Aannand, two versions of the film's trailer are being cited to verify that they are in the film.^[1][2][3] Note that one trailer is from October 2021 and the other is from March 2023. It is not unusual for a trailer to include scenes and actors who do not appear in the final cut of the film. So far, I have not been able to find any published reliable sources to verify those actors are in the film.

My question for this community is: "Are trailers, on their own, suitable sources to verify an actor's appearance in a film?"  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not unless their names appear (e.g. in a billing block). Otherwise I'd consider it falling under OR, but shouldn't it be not difficult to find secondary sources that note their appearances? Nardog (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

shouldn't it be not difficult to find secondary sources that note their appearances? That's what I thought, but was not able to find anything. There are a lot of unreliable sources in the Indian cinema world, so it takes a fair amount of effort, sometimes, to find a source that is usable and that verifies the cast, especially for those that are not top-billed. The film was just released so maybe more sources will report on it.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Archer1234: There should be a different criteria for Indian films, imo. These films are filled with a ton of characters with names. If you want a source, you can cite the film's end credits (where her name would appear). It is difficult to find reliable sources other than the film itself. Also with Indian films (due to their length of 2 hours+) characters that appear in the trailer are in the film (the end credits in the film itself can be used for confirmation). DareshMohan (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I would note that even though this is the English Wikipedia and English sources are preferred,

WP:RS citeria. Betty Logan (talk

) 17:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Trailers should generally not be used to cite cast members. For an upcoming release, while it still shouldn't be used, in theory it could be a last resort if there truly are no reliable sources covering that person's inclusion. As noted, that would ultimately need to be replaced once the film has released or another source comes out that can be used confirming their inclusion in the final film. For films that have since released, there are better options than the marketing trailers to cite a cast member, such as the film itself and its cast list if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As the film Yesterday proved, no , we can't use trailers for cast lists. --Masem (t) 05:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just launched Talk:List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees#Merger request about a merger with List of Academy Award winners and nominees of Asian descent. Your input would be appreciated. QuietHere (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

An editor has moved

Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Bloody Hell (film) is about a 2020 film. A 2023 film of the same name was premiered at the South by Southwest festival and has a 100% Tomatometer rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Should we put up a stub and a disambiguation page, moving the current Bloody Hell (film) to Bloody Hell (2020 film)? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's got coverage in reliable sources, sure. It was reviewed in Variety, so signs point to yes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers Yes, please do. I see several reviews - Variety, The Daily Beast, Collider - to start with — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The cast layout in the film The Rock should be talked about. I don't agree with the changes done by Jmg38. This diff cast section is what I think it should have since it has more notable actors who have uncredited cameos and such. Jmhh38 made the cast section like this, which takes away some necessary details needed in the cast sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Changed as explained in edit summary "

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The edit made does already include "in addition" of characters played by actors Stuart Wilson (a strong representation of secondary military/Pentagon bit players) and David Marshall Grant (a strong representation of secondary executive branch bit players), as these two characters have longer narration than others in those two "sidebar areas" of the plot. This covered the collective high level aspects happening away from the director/producer's main cast of the plot, as defined by them in the main credits – the main cast driving plot at the prison and at the police/FBI/SEAL situation control center near the prison. A brief appearance from non-main credits performers – such as character actor Stanley Anderson, late in the film, or Anthony Clark, the barber for a lead character – are not "notable actors" nor plot synopsis "necessary details". Thus, all actors included in the main credits, plus two (not 15, as in original edit) of the more screen time/dialogue plot-representative actors from the remaining scroll, are included. Not brief appearances of barbers. Jmg38 (talk

) 22:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Those credited in the billing block or main titles should be in a bulleted list, and everyone else should go in an "additionally" paragraph underneath. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", you do mean everyone else of note, beyond the main titles credits? If so, that has already happened, 14 bulleted main titles credited actors plus two notable "In addition" actors in the paragraph, as discussed in my comment above. Jmg38 (talk

) 06:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not everybody listed in the end credits, everybody who is notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jmg38: I pretty much agreed with InfiniteNexus. People are who are notable should also be listed in credits also. You act like you're dominating this wiki with your rule sticker ways and the messages you sent make you look like a robot. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, be calm and cool. Only looks dominating because it is a one sided conversation. You have not entered the discussion yet, only asked others to impose Admin rulings or asked others to arbitrate. Nothing to arbitrate until long after you step up with suggestions on who amongst the other 50 non-main credit actors should be included, and even then the help of others comes into play only if you and I are still in different places (though they have provided helpful guidance already in a number of threads you have started on this issue). I’ve laid out, in all the places you started this discussion, what criteria – rules and otherwise, such as including a couple of particular extras and the exclusion of the other bit players, such as the barber and the character actor who appears briefly near end of film – I followed in doing the edit. Still waiting for you to slow up on canvassing (the concern an admin raised, before they closed the AN) and actually enter this discussion with input on which secondary actors, their impact on plot, the major cameos by Academy Award winners, or whatever else is behind your thoughts, for a potential few more that might go in the "In addition… " paragraph, beyond "status quo" of original much longer list. Jmg38 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

So I had been under the impression that a company labeled with the "in association with" credit was automatically applicable to the production companies section, of the infobox. However, a user claims that I shouldn't have put them there because it doesn't specifically labeled as "production company".

The two examples were (both British Film Institute sources):

• Hulk where Marvel Enterprises is put under "in association with", leading me to find some other source.
• Dawn of the Dead which puts Toho-Towa and Metropolitan Filmexport under "produced in association with", which also left me confused as it specifically put "produced".

These companies are definitely involved, and those credited with "in association with" have never been distributors and had usually been paired with other production companies for the longest time here like common practice, but I was wondering what y'all think. IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've had disputes with this. Template:Infobox film says to use secondary sources, specifically databases. The problem with this is that many secondary sources inaccurately bundle a certain company or studio as one of the production companies and is typically not the case. When I disputed the issue at Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film), I argued that Legendary Pictures is the sole production company credited as such in the billing credits and that the infobox should reflect that.

But per Template:Infobox film, they added Toho and Wanda Qingdao Studios as the production companies (per a Variety review), despite the fact that Toho is only given an "associating with" credit and Wanda Qingdao Studios is never mentioned in the billing credits nor is it a production company, it's a filming facility.

I'd say there should be a complete reform on how production companies should be listed in the infobox (just use the poster billing block or the film's opening credits). But I doubt anyone is eager or enthusiastic as I am to make that change. Armegon (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I like that we can use secondary sources to point out uncredited production companies, but if there was a reform I feel they should be marked separately from the rest in some way. I also feel like those in credited under "in association with" must've produced a significant amount if they were to be named anyways so I feel they should be included anyways. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the "In association with" credit automatically denotes a production company. It could also denote a financier or a rights-holder (which IIRC was the case with Hulk because Marvel had sold the film rights and wasn't actively involved in production), so drawing an inference from ambiguous text would be original research. The "In association with" credit is a bit like the "executive producer" credit—they can both denote a wide range of involvement. Sometimes secondary sources can get this things wrong so we shouldn't follow them blindly, but we must also avoid leaping to conclusions as far as primary sources are concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it's just confusing since it's sandwiched with the distributors and production companies, like it's in limbo. There should probably be an "in association with" section or something IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you can add "in association with" in the lead. In the case of HULK (2003), it can read like "the film was a co-production between Valhalla Motion Pictures and Good Machine, in association with Marvel Enterprises." Or add a footnote in the infobox. Either way, both options are neither supported nor condemned by Wiki's guidelines/rules. Armegon (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit late with this, but this article here goes into details about how funding works with these kind of credits. I believe different countries have their own rules on if a film can be claimed as part of the main country of production depending on how much finances were donated though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Great info. Thanks for the PDF! Mike Allen 02:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I miss you 174.251.208.74 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I would love to see more information about the music in films when I look them up 2.103.49.55 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Would request editors to check the above section on

) 11:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Please word this better and present a proposal (why you've put this up as an RfC) and/or a solution. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Thanks for your suggestion. Tried to improve it. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Better, but still not specific enough so editors don't really know what to discuss. What do you want to point out, change, or accomplish with this RfC? Maybe blank this one and start over? thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The discussion that I am looking forward to is mainly supposed to concern about how much copying (if any) must be allowed from lists which are inarguably non-factual and meant to represent the subjective opinions of a person or a group. I have explained my case in further detail in the above section #Creative lists. I hope editors also take notice of that. Will wait for others to comment. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I still don't really know what I'm discussing, even after reading the above. An RfC isn't just "be aware that there is a discussion ongoing / a topic needs to be discussion" but presents, like, some sort of proposed goal that is being discussed OR a matter of contention. It generally requires a discussion having taken place first, which clearly did not happen. It's inappropriate to open an RfC just to alert editors to something, and I think you should read

WP:RFCBEFORE. And, again, I genuinely don't know what the matter at hand is even with the context of the above section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol

22:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe Jovian Eclipse is seeking confirmation on whether list articles in the list above should include the list items themselves. As this is a problem of non-free content, it is not a question for an RfC, though I appreciate that JE was seeking to draw eyeballs to the potential problem.

I have removed the RfC tag, and because I am not certain about the answer to JE’s question, and because this is not the best forum for the question, I strongly urge posting the same list and asking the question at

WP:CLIST?" will do. — HTGS (talk

) 04:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Took my own advice: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Potential violation of TOP100 and CLIST — HTGS (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@HTGS: Truly appreciate your help. Yeah, I wasn't aware of the right forum where I should have taken up this issue. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR for But I'm a Cheerleader

I have nominated

featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk

) 02:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s a rather thin article for FA, I’d have thought? MapReader (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It was promoted in 2007, when article standards across the board were much lower. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of RfC re: Gene Kelly

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gene_Kelly#RfC_about_description_in_opening_of_article_and_infobox . -- Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:John_Wick_(film)#Ford_Mustang_Mach_1

Talk:John_Wick_(film)#Ford_Mustang_Mach_1

Could I please get some neutral input on the above discussion involving myself and DiogenesNY. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Allfilm

I don't know if this was a prank call from Allmovie.com, but allmovie has been listing the films with strange genres, for example, The Shining as an Action and Adventure film. Firefoxhd (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Their genre classifications appear to have become totally screwed up. Apparently, The Godfather was a crime film, but now it's a Drama thriller. Clearly this is not an improvement, and neither is the change to The Shining. I don't dare to look up Schindler's List. There really isn't much we can do about this, but I hope editors will have the good sense to not start adding unrelated genres to film articles. Hopefully this will be fixed in the next few days. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Is a long string of 'micro-edits' disruptive?

I asked this at

WT:DE yesterday but haven't heard back yet: Could other editors (perhaps admins) take a look at the editing history for 2012 (film) and advise as to whether the recent edits to the plot summary constitute disruptive editing? It's an exceedingly long string of what I'd call 'micro-edits' unaccompanied by edit summaries, and I personally find it nearly impossible to determine the net effect of the editor's changes or anticipate when they intend to be finished. I left them a note at their Talk page but I don't believe they've responded. I'm not pinging that editor at this time in case the prevailing view is that this doesn't constitute disruptive editing. Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk

) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You can compare revisions to see the net changes made. I have seen this habit before, I'm curious if they're doing lots of small edits to hit autoconfirmed status. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Doubtful, as they're not a new editor. I agree in principle, but at this point we're talking about dozens or hundreds of small edits over days. Rollback wouldn't even be a practical option (not that I'm advocating for it) as other editors have slipped in other changes in the meantime. DonIago (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If you had to, I would open a tab comparing the version from before the changes to the most recent, and in another tab edit the last good version and just put back in positive changes made by other editors. Oh wait, it's NeoBatFreak, yeah he does that. Straight away there are things like easter egging "Global catastrophic risk" behind "sequence of events" that need to go. He does tend to make constant micro edits to plot sections, I assume it's not malicious based on his history, just not focused enough to make one large edit. He does have a habit of

WP: OR. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters

20:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I was honestly considering whether this merits an ANI filing, especially as I did leave them a note at their Talk page that they've seemingly either failed to notice or openly ignored; I was coming here first (after trying at

WT:DE) because if there was a strong sense that their edits are entirely above-board then I would try to let it go, but if they're slipping in OR in the process and it gets buried in the ream of tiny edits, that's a problem. Pinging NeoBatfreak (talk · contribs) so that they can weigh in at this point. DonIago (talk

) 21:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to trim unnecessary details per Wikipedia plot rules. RIGHT NOT IT IS LESS TGAN 662 WORDS. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The edits look reasonable to me at first glance. I think Doniago's concern is that the sheer quantity of your edits makes it difficult to evaluate what you have done. Is there a reason why you save your edits every few minutes? If you need to evaluate your work as you go along then the "Preview" function may be a better choice than saving every few minutes, and that will help prevent the edit history from becoming clogged up. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I keep forgetting, and i will try to remember. It just I don't think we need excessive details, otherwise reader would have difficulty reading them. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

But...your edits aren't really trimming excessive details, that I can see? As you said, right now the plot summary is ~660 words, which is still pretty hefty when the generally accepted maximum is 700. In any case, I think most editors would prefer fewer, well-summarized edits to the large number of small-scale edits that you're making without any clear indication as to your goal or at least an ETA...especially when, as has been noted, you may be inserting

original research in the process. I've seen you do this in other articles as well, but not on the scale that you've been doing so here. Thank you for responding here and for understanding our concerns. If you'd like to speak up here or at my Talk page when you're done, I'd be happy to take a look over it. DonIago (talk

) 02:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its revision control system, and think it's fine to use it at whatever granularity that an editor is comfortable with. If it's other behavior that's the problem, such as including OR or the lack of edit summaries, then that should be the focus. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it kind of goes hand in hand...singular or small numbers of edits without edit summaries are easy to review for potential issues, but large numbers of non-consecutive edits make it harder to tell what's going on and whether or not there's any problems, especially when unaccompanied by edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to stop; when I started it the summary was full of grammatic errors and even said " Adrian begs..." which was not accurate and suspecting it a racial attack on Chiwetel Ejiofor and his character. I AM GOING TO LEAVE IT TO Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability of unreleased films

Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Clarification on notability of films currently filming/in post-prod. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hashtag in title issue

I am creating a draft article for the announced film Juror #2. However I am being prohibited from creating the draft in the correct namespace due to the hashtag being unsupported. Presently, I have it located at

Draft:Juror No. 2, if there's a means of titling it to accurately reflect it's title, I would like to see that done. Rusted AutoParts

16:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There isn't. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Forbidden characters. Nardog (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll keep it at the No. 2 and specify its stylized with a hashtag. Rusted AutoParts 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If it can be useful, Action Comics 1 is a thing Redjedi23 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the "No. 2" approach. In spoken language, jurors (in the US, which is the scope of the film) are commonly referred to as "juror number X". (Comics too, in my experience, but I'm not going to go there if there's an already established convention.) Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible overcategorization?

I think this may be getting a bit out of hand... Category:English-language adventure drama films, Category:English-language fantasy drama films, Category:English-language Christmas comedy films NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The categorization of film articles has essentially become useless thanks to over-use of diffusing and intersecting categories. For example, you used to be able to bring up a list of Swedish films from 2016 using this "incategory" search, but now it's impossible to do. It is impossible to carry out very basic searches these days, which arguably renders categorization pointless. I used to push back against unhelpful diffusion and pointless intersecting categories but I just can't be bothered any more. Betty Logan (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's technically possible to use bots to fix categorization issues. That said, this has gone unchecked for so long that the number bot runs required to undo it all would probably be unrealistic. I'm not really sure what to do. Maybe all we can do is just complain about the modern world like a bunch of grumpy fossils? Music was better back before you kids were born, and you could go shopping with a single coin in your pocket and buy something! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You can also use

WP:CFD to nominate these for upmerge (deletion). Gonnym (talk

) 16:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees headings

There is discussion on the appropriate headings for on the Jason Voorhees article. If anyone would like to weigh in, your input would be welcome. here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of Blane McDonough/McDonnagh's last name in the Pretty in Pink film

I've started a discussion on the spelling of Blane McDonough/McDonnagh's last name from the film Pretty in Pink talk page at Talk:Pretty in Pink#Spelling of Blane McDonough/McDonnagh's last name if anyone would like to weigh in to reach consensus. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Future film template

Is there a template for future films to slap on drafts so they don't get moved into main article space before their time? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Film draft notice may help. Mike Allen 00:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Bingo! Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: It won't help prevent someone coming by and trying to go through the article creation method, but it's something to point to if tried. Also within {{Draft article}}, use |noafc=yes, as that will suppress the "submit article button". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate film articles

Resolved

We have a duplicated film topic.

Iron Moon are the same film -- 64.229.90.172 (talk

) 04:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Western film (genre)#Requested move 25 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western film (genre)#Requested move 25 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone want to watch Blood Ransom?

I just cleaned up the Blood Ransom article, but it's not really my kind of film and the plot section needs a rewrite. Posting here in case anyone feels like watching a schlocky thriller vampire romance film. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User_talk:Audiblefeast#April_2023

Would anyone be available to help a film director sort out what they're trying to do with an original film, recent directors' cut? The film in question is The Misadventures of the Dunderheads and there is some confusion about how to move forward. They're trying to edit within policy, and the second account was an accident. I'm not sure how to proceed as I don't edit in this content area and wasn't ure where else to send them. The PROD was challenged, but I don't feel comfortable at AfD given that I'm not sure how directors' cuts are handled with regard to the original film. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Useless superhero character articles

I support superhero character articles, but... Is an article about

Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe) necessary? I’m afraid it might be funcruft. What do you think about it? Redjedi23 (talk

) 02:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well this is funny, we were just discussing this at

WT:MCU#Mystique (film series character)‎. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 04:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say that in those two cases it is a bit unnecessary, since they both appeared in essentially one film (two very versions of one film), and all the information on them can be contained within the articles on that film. —El Millo (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've always looked at the growing Category:DC Extended Universe characters with concern, and I have suggested adopting a guideline similar to MCUCHARACTERS in the past (see Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 9#Naming superheroes), but that didn't happen. Courtesy ping @WuTang94, who created most of the DCEU character articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Neither of those characters would come close to qualifying for an article under our MCU criteria, which requires multiple substantial and/or tentpole appearances. BD2412 T 05:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize how many pages were in Category:DC Extended Universe characters. I'd argue Victor Stone, Steppenwolf, and the majority in the category probably don't need pages. But I'm also basing it on the MCU character requirements, which doesn't currently affect DC characters. -- Zoo (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Redjedi23 BD2412 While Steppenwolf and Victor Stone/Cyborg only had starring appearances in one work plus the director's cut of that work (and were given brief cameo appearances in another), the two characters' development were both notably affected by the troubled production of Justice League and were very different in the director's cut, and arguably are very different than their comics counterparts. Despite my initial hesitation in creating their pages but due to the unusual circumstances regarding their characters behind the scenes, I went ahead and created their pages.

The same argument could be made about Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight and Michelle Pfiefer's Selina Kyle/Catwoman, as both of those characters only appeared in that one film and no other films in their respective film series, but were still one of the most influential versions of the character in film history. These two would also fail the MCU standards, but there is merit to keeping their pages due to how influential they were in the real world.

If you guys really want to delete the pages, then I'd redirect to their sections in

Supergirl (1984 film character)

from the Donner/Salkind Superman series, would also then fail if Steppenwolf and Victor Stone fail using the current MCU criteria. Many of these in my opinion are unnecessary not just because they only appeared in one but have little to no real-world application. If you want my opinion of which pages I think are unnecessary I can provide a list. I'd also be careful of simply applying the MCU standards to all film characters, as you cannot simply compare apples to oranges.

InfiniteNexus The way I see it, the upcoming DC Universe, which is a reboot of the DCEU, will essentially be a different franchise, as all characters aside from Amanda Waller and select others will be a new incarnation from their DCEU counterparts. Thus a new category of DCU characters should be created, as the DCEU will not continue past this year and Characters of the DC Extended Universe likewise won't keep growing after Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.--WuTang94 (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, we shouldn’t have either the Zod (both DCEU and Donnerverse) or the Supergirl page. Anyway, it should be ok to move the content of the Cyborg and Steppenwolf pages to the JL production one. I also think that we should define criteria for this kind of page, or we will get pages like Matt Murdock (2003 film character) one day. Redjedi23 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe Marvel will let Ben Affleck reprise his role from the 2003 film one day in a number of future MCU films, which would then allow the character to pass MCU standards... just kidding, that's

Daredevil (2003 film) or Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)

.

I think that the three appearances or more/starring role threshold that the wiki pages for Marvel's characters currently have is a good starting point, but would also argue that the distinctiveness/influence/social commentary/behind-the-scenes details of certain character portrayals that currently don't meet this criteria, such as any of the Jokers (yes, even

Mera

, which won't meet the threshold until later this year, was notable due to Heard's controversial standing with Warner Bros. and the fanbase, though I can also see where it may be a bit iffy.

Other ones such as 1984 Supergirl, as well

Dick Grayson/Robin

from that series, though I also see some value in those two), can be redirected in my opinion, unless the articles clarify why those performances were notable.

Either way, I'll revisit some of the other DCEU character pages such as Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe), and to answer InfiniteNexus's concern about why I haven't implemented a more organized system for the DCEU, I've been quite busy in real life and hadn't had as much time to devote to it. I'd be welcome to any help/advice in this regard, and also see merit in establishing a standard for the DCU once it picks up steam. WuTang94 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is to be a project-wide guideline, it wouldn't be exactly the same as MCUCHARACTERS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about a project-wide guideline for separate articles on specific film-series adaptations of characters with articles on their original media versions, then I think it should not look too different from the MCU guidelines. BD2412 T 05:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Joker from the Dark Knight is notable, but I don’t think that the two Zods, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor are encyclopedic. The information about the Amber Heard controversy might be put on the “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” page. Maybe we should define new criteria because there are some characters with a single apparition (i.e. Joker from The Dark Knight) more relevant than characters with 3+ apparitions (i.e. DCEU Zod). But this is just my opinion, maybe the MCU criteria could work for any other franchise, the important is that we decide to establish criteria. Redjedi23 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Imo, we can start with these criteria (based on

WP:MCUCHARACTERS

):

• Notable original character.
• Character that has appeared with a titular/lead role in at least three films.

Any other case must be discussed in this Wikiproject.

I’m pretty sure that we have to change the criteria that I have just proposed, so let me know what you think about it. Redjedi23 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good start, but rather than "three titular/lead roles", I think we should go with "three non-cameo appearances, including one in lead or titular capacities". InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be fine. In this way we can keep pages such as Magneto (film character) (imo a notable character). Redjedi23 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so for clearness the proposed criteria are:

• Notable original character.
• Character with three non-cameo appearances.

Any other case must be discussed in this Wikiproject.

What do you change? Redjedi23 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I'd also like to propose a third criterion (or rather a subset of "notable original character") being "notable interpretation of a character", especially if a certain interpretation is talked about and unique. This way, Heath Ledger's Joker, who really only had one appearance in film, can fit into this category.

For the "three appearances" criteria, would comics appearances count towards this?

Also, would these be DC-specific criteria, or for film characters in general? WuTang94 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess these are for film characters in general. For the three appearances maybe, if it’s a tie-in I wouldn’t count the appearance, but if it is a notable comic book (such as Smallville Season 11) maybe it can be ok to count that appearance. Redjedi23 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a comic appearance should count. Comics are not nearly as widespread as films and television currently. —El Millo (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree comic appearances should not count, only film. Instead of "notable original character", I think we can just change it to "character has received extensive coverage and commentary from reliable sources". I'm hoping this guideline will be project-wide and cover everything from DC to X-Men to other adaptations (e.g. hypothetical spinoffs from Hercule Poirot, Alita (Battle Angel Alita), etc.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Added to

WP:FILMCHARACTERS was taken). InfiniteNexus (talk

) 16:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following text be added to

WP:NFICT

regarding articles about film or television characters adapted from another medium or work?

If a film or television character was adapted from another medium or work, and the original incarnation of the character already has an article, a new article should not be created for the adptated version unless one of the following criteria has been met:

• This interpretation of the character has received extensive coverage and commentary from
  reliable sources. For example: Joker (The Dark Knight)
  .
• This interpretation of the character has made three or more non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity. For example: Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight trilogy).

Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is

WP:MCUCHARACTERS

, have franchise-specific criteria which expand on this guideline.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the discussion above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion above. Redjedi23 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I have a question. I the text will be added to NFILM, what we will do with the existing articles (such as General Zod (1978 film series character))? Redjedi23 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  A discussion should be held here to determine whether to send those to draftspace, or a mass AfD should be started. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. After the suvery I can try to report here all the articles that shouldn't meet the criteria. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking into this. I already have an idea of what to do with certain articles, such as potentially merging the two Zod articles into one such as General Zod in film, but we'll discuss then.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the discussion above. -- Zoo (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Generally support per the above. It's good to finally define standards for these articles, especially the one on extensive coverage.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – I haven't really been following this discussion, but I just noticed
  WP:NFICT (an essay). Was this discussed somewhere outside of an edit summary? I assume others are aware that essays don't have any teeth? If the goal is to eventually make changes to NFILM, it would be best to have the discussion at its talk page beforehand. --GoneIn60 (talk
  ) 22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm aware NFILM is a guideline and NFICT is an essay, but I crossed NFILM off because that page seems to solely cover articles about individual films and not anything else (not film series articles, not soundtrack articles, and not character articles). Is that not correct? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  The opening mentions "film-related" articles and topics, which would include examples being discussed here, although the rest of the guideline seems to be focused on film-only examples. The focus on the page may have diverted at some point, not sure, but ultimately an essay isn't going to enact any real change. Editors are free to ignore essays. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – Pinging @BD2412, SNUGGUMS, Facu-el Millo, and Gonnym, who participated in the above discussion and/or the one at WT:MCU. Do you support this proposal? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah sounds fine. I agree that this should be added to the film guideline (and cross linked from the essay) as an essay does not have any real meaning. If at any point in the future the essay becomes a guideline, then this can then move there. Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, provided that it is understood that being a part of a titular team (e.g., in the Justice League, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Defenders) constitutes a titular role. With respect to General Zod (1978 film series character), I'd be willing to bet that the character did in fact receive extensive coverage in reliable sources, probably primarily in books in print rather than websites. BD2412 T 17:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  We will probably need to AfD that article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I poked around a bit looking for sources on that one and found that the results were a bit one-note, so I don't disagree. BD2412 T 04:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• We simply don't need more than one article for the same fictional character period, regardless of what incarnations they spawn, and I oppose the proposal's implication that those from Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy deserve some special exceptions/treatment. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not giving it any special treatment. Ledger's portrayal of Joker was critically acclaimed and widely discussed by sources, and Bale headlined three films that were also critically acclaimed and widely discussed by sources. They are clearly notable for their own articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Advocating for them to have separate pages actually is by itself a form of special treatment (or at the very least wanting to give this for them). I'm not going to sugarcoat how their existence is fancruft when the essentials can sufficiently be summed up with respective general Batman/Joker articles. Let's not be overly lenient here. Neither acclaim nor the sheer number of references can mask how unnecessarily redundant such pages are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• The treatment is commensurate with the extensive coverage in reliable sources given to the medium-specific aspects of these characters as film characters portrayed by actors. There is nothing here that compares unfavorably with the coverage in
  US Senate career of Barack Obama as subjects separate from Barack Obama as a biography. BD2412 T
  17:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support the proposal, it seems reasonable, it includes articles we already deem independently notable and it puts the threshold reasonably high yet reachable. —El Millo (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Characters that might not meets the criteria:

  DCEU

  • Zod (DC Extended Universe)
  • Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe) (we do not count JL and ZSJL as two separate installments, right?)
  • Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe)
  • Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe)
  • Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)
  • Lex Luthor (DC Extended Universe)
  • Mera (DC Extended Universe)
  • Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe) (BvS and JL/ZSJL should be his only two non-cameo appearance)
  • Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe) (not sure about that)

  Other DC characters

  • General Zod (1978 film series character)
  • Supergirl (1984 film character)

  Are there any characters that I forgot? Redjedi23 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Affleck's appearance in The Flash is not a cameo, and JL counts as a lead role. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're right. But does ZSJL counts as a different appearance than JL? Redjedi23 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would say no. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, there are also:

  Sony

  • Gwen Stacy (The Amazing Spider-Man film series)
  • Otto Octavius (film character)
  • Harry Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
  • Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
  • Mary Jane Watson (Sam Raimi film series)
  • Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe)

  Fox

  • Peter Maximoff

  Redjedi23 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Maximoff was in three X-Men films (effectively as a member of the X-Men throughout), with celebrated scenes in two, plus cameos in two other media (a blink-of-an-eye appearance in Deadool 2, and a multi-episode arc on WandaVision). BD2412 T 01:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    Wasn't the Maximoff in WandaVision (fake)

    Pietro Maximoff, though? Granted, played by the same actor (Evan Peters) who played Peter Maximoff in the Fox films, but not meant to be the X-Men films version of the character (although the casting was a deliberate, and ultimately vastly unsatisfying, stunt). —Joeyconnick (talk

    ) 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    Oh you're right. I forgot Dark Phoenix. Redjedi23 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    He was never a lead character in any of those films/projects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    They were X-Men films, and he was a member of the X-Men team. There is a degree of ensemble work within the films in which he is included, but his first two appearances at least were substantial roles. With respect to the WandaVision casting stunt, that is intentionally ambiguous on the part of the producers, again with a substantial role in the Halloween episode, at least. The ambiguity of the casting (and the coverage it received) makes a more involved explanation helpful to readers, which favors coverage in the freestanding article. An alternative solution might be to combine

    Quicksilver in other media. BD2412 T

    17:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support proposal. It's a concise way to manage which articles are notable and why, as not every version of a character is required to have one, though that doesn't mean ones with enough coverage of the subject itself cannot exist with reason. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey aftermath

What we have to do now with the articles that fails the new criteria?

DCEU

• Zod (DC Extended Universe)
• Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe)
• Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe)
• Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe)
• Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)
• Lex Luthor (DC Extended Universe)
• Mera (DC Extended Universe)
• Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe)

Other DC characters

• General Zod (1978 film series character)
• Supergirl (1984 film character)

Sony

• Gwen Stacy (The Amazing Spider-Man film series)
• Otto Octavius (film character)
• Harry Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
• Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
• Mary Jane Watson (Sam Raimi film series)
• Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe)

Fox

• Peter Maximoff

Redjedi23 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone except for Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe), Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe), and Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe) can be redirected/merged, as there's no point in draftifying them. Allen, Waller, and Venom can be moved to draftspace until they are eligible for mainspace, if ever. It has also been suggested to merge certain characters into XXX in other media or XXX in film (if they don't already exist), which is also an option. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series) satisfies the first criterion of "extensive coverage" and should no be touched. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of your messages. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur with InfiniteNexus. Any notable info on the characters that don't meet the requirements can be moved to their respective media or film sections or separate "in media/film" articles where applicable. Gotta say, I'm not a fan of tons of in-universe information pages coming into this encyclopedia over the past few years, and an established system and process should help to ensure only what is notable will be included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I expect that

Quicksilver in other media and combined with content on the Age of Ultron-specific Pietro Maximoff, and other non-comic Quicksilver depictions. BD2412 T

18:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Otto Octavius can meet the criteria, but I don't think that DCEU Waller had an extensive coverage. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Also, by the way, Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe) is four weeks away from being the lead character in a tentpole film, so I don't see much point to taking that article down in the interim. BD2412 T 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Barry have two non cameo appearance: JL/ZSJL and The Flash. Redjedi23 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The character will almost certainly receive extensive coverage as centerpiece of what is probably the most controversial superhero film this decade. BD2412 T 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the definition of extensive coverage? DCEU Waller has received relatively considerable character analysis even outside of the sources in the current article, such as here, here, and here, and here. I think what makes DCEU Waller's coverage especially notable is that is tends to analyze the character across a much larger context than just a single movie or franchise. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that there's a TV series centered around Waller in the works, so if the article happened not to qualify yet, it will surely qualify after that series is released. —El Millo (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit late to register this in the survey, but I think the problem I have with this change is the idea that number of appearances somehow confers notability (you can have a single appearance like Heath Ledger's Joker that will get a ton of mainstream ink, and then multiple appearances that generate nothing but listicle coverage), and the fact that it encourages ruleslawyering about what counts as appearances. Whether or not significant sources exist about that incarnation of the character beyond the usual film coverage should be the only guide in that respect. The latter point just tacitly encourages these sorts of spinouts, which we should try to avoid as much as possible. And then we're left with the result that this is duplicating the basic inclusion criteria anyhow, or alternatively offering a way for the GNG to not apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That's why I added Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. to the guideline. Just like with

WP:NFILMCHAR, topics must also meet GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 18:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think what's being stated here is that bullet point #1 essentially says the same thing as GNG: the article topic (i.e. the film character) must have significant coverage in reliable sources. But then bullet #2 offers an alternative: three or more non-cameo appearances, with one of those being in a lead role. So if this new guideline says you only need one of these criteria, it is essentially saying either pass GNG or pass this newly-formed bullet #2 that was agreed upon by a handful of editors at a WikiProject talk page.

NFILM is an extension of the Notability guideline, and as such, this proposal should have received more vetting through a published RfC at either

village pump. In addition, some of the support offered above occurred after NFILM was crossed out. Not sure how it went from that to being inserted into NFILM. Did I miss something? --GoneIn60 (talk

) 05:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As @InfiniteNexus said, an article MUST meet GNG. Also: "Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is notable to justify a split of the original incarnation's article."

Anyway, can we proceed to put to draftspace these articles:

• Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe)
• Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe)
• Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe)

? I mean, maybe these characters will be relevant. I know that some of you stated that Waller is already relevant, but the article doesn't cite any source that make me think of that. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFILM, at least not without significant review and vetting. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 23:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure but "Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is notable to justify a split of the original incarnation's article." Redjedi23 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Then explain what the "above criteria" is even doing. What is the point of having it? Why not just say, in order to create an adapted character article, it must be discussed first (which rubs up against

WP:BOLD)? Essentially what's being said is that if you meet one of the criteria, then it can go to discussion and get approved. So if it meets bullet #2, but does not meet GNG, it can still go through eventually through discussion. That's sidestepping GNG no matter how you slice and dice it. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 15:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

NFILMCHAR does not contravene GNG. "Extensive commentary" means an even greater level of coverage than GNG requires. Characters must still satisfy GNG in addition to NFILMCHAR; this new guideline builds on GNG, it doesn't replace or subvert it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back. So previously, I had asked how we went from crossing out NFILM mid-discussion to ultimately inserting it later on. Aside from being on the wrong talk, this wasn't even a published RfC. Did I miss something?

Secondly, GNG already says "significant coverage", so it would seem we are being repetitive here in bullet #1. You're splitting hairs if you're trying to say there's a difference between extensive and significant, or even between coverage and commentary. That confusion is a

WP:CREEP concern. Others here have even noted the confusion. Was "commentary" even really discussed? In its current form with very little vetting, I doubt citing NFILMCHAR in an AfD holds much water. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 22:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ECREE

demands. If there is confusion, we can do this instead (bolding denotes changes):

• This interpretation of the character has received extensive coverage and commentary from
  reliable sources, at a level that exceeds what is normally required by GNG. For example: Joker (The Dark Knight).
• This interpretation of the character has made three or more non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity, as long as notability can be proven for them. For example: Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight trilogy)

.