Category talk:American epic films

Anything goes on this list?

I saw this category and thought "are all these films considered epic by critics and scholars?" Of course, the word has a vague meaning (as discussed in the article itself), but my sixth sense told me that something was up. I checked some titles at random in the list, and I found that many of the films in the category doesn't actually reflect in their respective articles that they are epic. Here's a few arbitrary examples of such: The English Patient (film), Pearl Harbor (film), Dracula Untold, The Island at the Top of the World, The Dark Knight (film), Zodiac (film), The Summer of Massacre, Epic (2013 film)

It feels like this category is not very well monitored and that people can label films as "epic" at whim. I feel that we need {{Citation needed lead}} and {{Category unsourced}} painted all over this category - go through the articles and considering whether each film are epic or not. The word is definitely a medal of honor for films, so in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:V, I believe films should only be in this category if they are said to be epic in their articles, and in turn, only said to be epic through references.

And. The problem could very well be shared by other countries' categories, but since American cinema is the biggest of them all, it is perhaps most prevalent here.

Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 21:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The category has definitely been spammed. It is regularly abused and subject to WP:Original research. Most of this is good faith though, with editors confusing its use as a genre (which is acceptable and encouraged) and editors using it as an adjective (not particularly helpful). If a film is going to be added to the category then it must meet WP:CATVER. There are several good places to look: all films on the AFI list of top 10 epics should definitely be added to the category, and arguably the other epics they have listed should be included too. Films included in the Encyclopedia of Epic films should probably be added also. There are also the sub-genres of "biblical epic" and "epic/high fantasy" that may qualify too if appropriate sourcing can be found. Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of reliable sources then. Good. However, since this is only a category, I feel that the referencing should be done at the articles themselves rather than here. And the fact that not all films reflect epicness in their respective articles, I believe this CAT should mainly take that as its point.
Tell ya what I think should be done - all films that are not described as "epic" per their articles should be uncategorize from here right away, as uncontroversial reverting of unsourced peacock claims. I'll wait for a little bit more input from editors, and then I'll singlehandedly do said cleanup if no objections are raised. After such cleanup, I/we can look through the sources and add to the articles slowly and calmly. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 10:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing it. If anyone wants to scream "mah dear film" or discuss sensibly, let them come. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 09:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

An interesting project. I just re-added The Vikings (film) with a source but I can see where what is and what is not is a problem of . . . ...well.... epic proportions. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that it would have been far better if Gaioa had initiated a discussion on She Wore a Yellow Ribbon Talk page regarding the "epic" category and left more time for discussion, rather than immediate reverting. I, for one, was unaware of any discussion here. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon is part of John Ford's cavalry trilogy and is an important work. I have not the time at the moment, but will check for sources for the category. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Gaioa is still confusing terminology. An epic in terms of storytelling (or film) is described at Epic (genre) and Epic film. Epic in this case is a noun, not an adjective (the latter being cases of kiddos having a tendency of calling something epic, gnarly, etc.). If someone is trying to add a film to this category because it is solely because adjective epic (and very subjective), that would be grounds for removal, not inclusion as they argue above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, Kingofaces43 and David J Johnson. My intention was never to judge whether or not these films are epic or not - I only meant to do a quick cleanup of this obviously misused category. What I did was simply Ctrl+F each article in the category and search for "epic". If that came up empty (aside from the categories list), I removed it straight away. I saw it as uncontroversial cleanup - if an article don't verify a film as epic, the category should not carry that burden. This has NOTHING to do with my idea about what is epic and what is not - I have no such personal conviction, and as seen on the epic talk page(no pun intended), Wikipedia as whole has trouble reaching a conviction.
All I ever wanted was a clearup of this category. If you believe I did wrong in one of the films, I won't category-war to keep them out. Just try to get the articles to reflect that the film is epic so that the category won't have to. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 21:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop using caps in your reply, it is considered shouting and is not acceptable in Wikipedia. If you have "no personal conviction", I fail to see why you started this exercise. As I stated above, it would have been far better if you had started a discussion first. David J Johnson (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have NEVER had a problem with an editor using capitals for emphasis here and there. SHOOUTING IS WHEN ONE DOES A WHOLE SECTION IN CAPS. Or more. As far as when the discussion was started, that's past. Over. It has been started now. Can we all agree that any film listed needs to be referenced? Preferably by some outside source, but if wikipedia calls it an epic it's a start. Then perhaps we need to look at the sources of that movie article. it is too bad that a used copy of the Encyclopedia of Epic Films cost $150 or so. US. Carptrash (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Google Books has a search box on the left so you can search the book for terms. It's a bit fiddly but if you search on the movie title and get a hit then I think we can assume the film satsifies the criteria. You may get a few false positives but on the whole if a film is mentioned in the book it is more likely to be an epic than not an epic. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)