Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 66

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

→

Music not included in the soundtrack

Recently, @Supermann: and I had a dispute involving the same section on two articles, Wonder Woman (soundtrack) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack). The crux of the issue is including a section detailing music that is featured (and credited) in the film but not included on the soundtrack. There has been some discussion on my talk page at You have sth against IMDb.com as a RS, too?

In this particular case, the sections (in their current version) are not sourced to secondary sources and seems to be putting together information by comparing film credits and the track listing, which feels to me to be OR. I don't think this is appropriate. Such a section should be sourced to a secondary, reliable source stating that this music used in the film but is absent from the soundtrack. If this sourcing doesn't exist, it seems to me this section cannot exist.

I also question the grounds on which this information is included. Like, if the omission of several songs in the film is commented on by secondary sources for whatever reason, like if it was widely expected to be included on the soundtrack, if critics felt the absence of multiple songs was an oversight, etc., then I could understand putting together a list. But without any information to properly ground and justify the list, I'm not sure it's appropriate. The article is about the soundtrack, rather than the film's score and usage of licensed music. Mentions of licensed music used in the film, which is verifiable and stating it was in the movie isn't OR, is probably best left to the film's main article music section.

At this point, I want to open up the discussion to a wider audience, seeing as myself and Supermann haven't gotten anywhere on my talk page. I also invite Supermann to summarize his rationale to inclusion and defense of the sourcing here. I have also included a neutral notice of this discussion at WikiProject Albums. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH can be added to WP:OR. IMO the info falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It isn't a defining feature of these - or any - films. MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond one last time: WP:Ignore all rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Supermann: Ignore all rules is not a carte blanche to do anything, and it's also not an explanation or justification or rationale for your edits. Why is your edit an improvement, which by definition should adhere to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. IAR doesn't circumvent VERIFY and OR. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IAR is not a license for editors to unilaterally do what they want. You need to be able to prove to the community that applying a particular guideline or policy is demonstrably getting in the way of improving Wikipedia. In all my years on Wikipedia I have only found myself once in a position where I advocated IAR. As for the issue at hand, a reliable source is needed for music in the film but not included on the soundtrack album and IMDB is not acceptable. WP:Citing IMDb is an essay—not a policy or guideline—that was mostly written a decade ago, and these days most editors defer to WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Could this be addressed by reframing the situation as "soundtrack releases" (based on information relating to the release) and "additional music" (based on the film credits)? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Betty and Ten. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That would require reframing what the primary topic of the article is, and I'm not sure if that idea would be necessarily a good one. Generally, soundtrack articles for films focus on the soundtrack release and leave additional music for the main article, or a "Music of [work]" article (more common for video games, television, and film series rather than an individual film). I'm thinking more broadly. Would it be desirable to set a precedent that this is how spun off soundtrack articles for a single film should be handled? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess the current formatting of the article titles has the potential to create some ambiguity regarding whether it's an article about the music heard in the film, or whether it's an article about music released from the film. Granted this hopefully becomes clear once you view the article, and at that point I'd agree that a section discussing music in the film but not on the soundtrack is probably out of scope. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia has no firm rules: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." Soundtrack.net belongs to "a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus, except where otherwise noted." Please see WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Soundtracks and video games. I only updated its current owner. Supermann (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to invite @TFunk: who added Alien: Covenant (soundtrack)#Additional music on his own to give his two cents. Thank you so much for identifying Ancient Flute by Harry Gregson-Williams. Sadly, this piece was not included in the soundtrack. Supermann (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the source is reliable, while is reassuring, doesn't address whether or not the material should be included in the first place per indiscriminate. Also, worth noting, the soundtrack.net pages don't have the soundtrack listing and the song credits in the same place anyway—I don't know if that counts as SYNTH or not. And, like, using "no firm rules" as a guide for potentially ignoring a forming consensus isn't the spirit of the pillar. That pillar cites IAR, which, as explained, does not mean do carte blache. What songs are credited in the film can be addressed at the music section on the main film article, and the soundtrack article can be left to what the soundtrack is rather than what it isn't. I don't think album scopes cover "what isn't here". ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It has become a trend that when the music section gets too wordy because of the listing of soundtrack, a separate dedicated page is created. I personally don't mind these extra song credits information end up on the main page of the film. It's definitely not WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:SYNTH or whatever charge you put on it. Having this information on wikipedia makes the film page/music section more complete, because WP's own internal pages could help add further background so that it's not just an excessive log or list. In fact, a page of mere soundtrack listing doesn't deserve to be on WP since one could find it elsewhere, say Amazon.com. I have never interpreted IAR as carte blanche because people would misuse it to vandalize. And I don't believe what I did is vandalizing. I just believe after all these discussions, we must compromise. And haven't I compromised enough? Music must not divide us! Supermann (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The music section is wordy doesn't really work when Wonder Woman (2017 film) #Music and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Music are as short as they are. Whether or not it make ls a soundtrack article "more complete" is up for debate, does an article really need a section saying what isn't part of the topic? And you're right about "a page of mere soundtrack listing doesn't deserve to be on WP". It needs to meet notability guidelines, an album article needs development and production information, sales, reception, reviews. Listing what isn't on the soundtrack doesn't work toward any of that. You don't have a source saying exactly that. I didn't call your edits vandalism, but you did absolutely interpret IAR as carte blanche, and continue to do so elsewhere, by invoking it constantly whenever a guideline is invoked or consensus starts forming against you.

At any rate, if you are alright with the song credits being moved to the main page, then they ought to be moved there, and removed from the soundtrack pages. What I'm calling OR is the specific line "this is in the movie but not on the soundtrack". So, that sentence ought not to be on the main page either, because it's just as OR there as it is on the soundtrack page. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If there aren't any more comments to be had about this topic, I'm going to re-remove the sections from the two articles in a few days, seeing as consensus slightly favors removing them on the basis of OR and INDISCRIMINATE, and attempt to implement them into the main articles, as consensus appears to agree that there is a place there for credited songs. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The sections have been removed from the soundtrack articles (Wonder Woman (soundtrack), BvS (soundtrack)) and implemented onto the main page (Wonder Woman), BvS). ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As I had said, I really don't mind seeing the info on the main page, but could you please present them in a list/table formatting? It's easier to read. Plus, you should do the same thing to the Alien:_Covenant_(soundtrack)#Additional_music edited by @TFunk: who doesn't seem to care to comment. Only doing this to BvS and Wonder Woman seems a bit discriminatory towards me. Many thanksSupermann (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I had simply forgotten about the Alien: Covenant one. And I personally think it doesn't read difficult as prose, but if it is such an issue, rewrite it yourself or try to see what editors at those pages think about it. I don't much care how it's presented. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar, I do want to reiterate that if editors at the articles think that listing the credits is inappropriate for whatever reasons, sourcing (my moving it to the Wonder Woman article was just reverted on that score), undue weight, whatever, that's a whole different discussion you ought to take up. I'm simply interesting in them not being on the soundtrack pages and suggested the main articles as a compromise. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed what you added simply because it's sourced to IMDb, no other reason. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I know. I don't dispute it, nor do I fault you. I'm just trying to name any other potential issues that may come out of the move before they come up. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize that it was part of this discussion till I saw you recent post. If this stuff is to be added, it needs to be better sourced. We can't use IMDb or other reliable sources to cite songs in a film that weren't on a soundtrack. Not to mention, should we even bother? It seems more like we're getting into minutia of a film by pointing out some song that played for 15 seconds. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is not the only source. Soundtrack.net as discussed above was also a source. Of course this stuff ought to be added! Either you don't appreciate the importance of music in a film or I don't know how to describe it. I have undone your deletion. Supermann (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"Of course this stuff ought to be added!" and "You don't appreciate the importance of music" aren't really rationale for it to stay. An argument would be stronger if there were secondary sources talking about the usage of the songs, much like how on the Alien: Covenant stuff there was an article from the New Yorker in part commenting on the use of Wagner (something something lack of irony something) provided. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

May I ask how many newspaper/magazine do you subscribe? They have downsized their staff because ad revenue has fallen and readers just aren't paying. I'm sure had we had a better environment in journalism these days, we would have had more secondary sources writing about this kind of stuff so that we could cite. Let's not make Wikipedia a tertiary source, shall we? Supermann (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've said this to you before, but... Wikipedia by definition is a tertiary source. Hell, that's even mentioned in the policy on the use of tertiary sources, WP:TERTIARY. So, that argument makes zero sense. And as much as I, too, lament the downsizing of newspaper and magazine staff, that's... just how it is. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, and we write things based on how important a secondary source thinks it is. The sad plight of modern journalism doesn't change that. And, well, I never said a secondary source had to be as renown as New Yorker, only that it be a secondary source. That was just the example on hand. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By that argument, Encyclopedia, Encarta, Encyclopædia Britannica should all have the word "tertiary" on their pages as well. Plus, those 15 seconds are not Sergeant Nick Morton's 15 seconds. In Wonder Woman's case, just take a listen to "Schatzwalzer Op. 4" written by Johann Strauss II and performed by the Berlin String Quartet at https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/strau%C3%9F-waltzes/id420267358. It is sooo beautiful. Not to mention in Batman v Superman --- "Shostakovich: Waltz II (Jazz Suite No. 2)" written by Dmitri Shostakovich performed by the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra available at https://itunes.apple.com/mz/album/jazz-suite-no.2-6.-waltz-ii/id39110201?i=39110296 It is sooo beautiful.Supermann (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

First, soundtrack.net is NOT a reliable source. Doesn't meet it per WP:RS. That said, just because something is in a film doesn't mean that it is important. If you cannot find a way of including it beyond saying "it was there", then that doesn't make a compelling argument for its importance. Existence does not equal noteworthy. Films use songs all the time that doesn't mean that we need to list every single song that was in a film. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. It seems like you are confusing the beauty of a song with its importance in a film, not to mention (which is separate) its importance in being mention on the film's Wiki page. Here is a basic question: "Is a reader hurt by not knowing that 15 seconds of this song appeared in the film?" There's no context for it, there's no discussion of its importance from a directing standpoint. You are literally just pointing out that it exists. That would be equivalent to pointing out every painting that appeared in Batman v Superman (which we don't do). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Soundtracks and video games. Soundtrack.net is an RS per consensus. Stop edit-warring! I am not confused by the song's beauty and its importance in the film. You simply have inability to appreciate it. There is no further context, because we can't do OR! It's not like I don't want it to have contexts! Take this to WP:DRN Supermann (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Context, again, is found by turning to secondary sources or to statements made by cast and crew. Appreciating something doesn't automatically mean finding it worthy of inclusion, nor just judging it not worthy of inclusion mean that one does not appreciate it for what it is. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you go get a real gig/job at those journalism places so that we could have good secondary sources in these area? Things are easier said than done. You guys are not making Wikipedia the last sanctuary from a tough economic reality. Supermann (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have such an issue with Wikipedia requiring secondary sources despite the ostensible lack of them industry wide, you ought to take it up at WP:SECONDARY or WP:VERIFIABLE or WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Telling us here at Wikiproject Film that we're asking too much isn't going to change a core policy.

Police films?

Inviting interested editors to comment at a CFD for Category:Police films and several related subcategories. We could use additional opinions on the best course(s) of action regarding merging/renaming. Discussion here. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Actors' names in Plot section

Is this really necessary? The Cast section names them anyway so I thought it's redundant. Slightlymad (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed. IIRC the consensus is to omit them. Popcornduff (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been debated quite a few times in the past. I do not believe anything was ever codified. Other than referencing MOS:RETAIN, I would suggest not worrying about it unless a plot summary is absolutely inundated with actors' names. We can spend our energy better elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. It's a stylistic thing that isn't worth changing in any case--if they aren't in the plot section, no point adding them; if they are, no point removing them. That said, a bulleted cast list that only lists names and no encyclopaedic information is something I personally avoid when writing articles. GRAPPLE ^X 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was certainly no consensus to omit them. Not all articles have "cast" sections anyway (so having the names in some form is useful), and even in the case of articlesthat do have cast sections—rendering the names in the plot summary redundant—there is a contingent of editors who like the convenience of having them. I'm with Erik on this: there are plenty of other issues on film articles that require more urgent attention, and if an article is under the care of an editor who wants cast names in the plot then it's going to take a lot of time and effort to do something (namely an RFC) that will have negligible benefit. It cuts the other way too: editors shouldn't "force" them in either if other editors are resistant to them. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Guess I'm misremembering the consensus then. Disagree with the claim above that " if they are [in the plot section], no point removing them" - they're redundant, we delete redundant things. I also don't like the argument that there are more important things to do, which dodges the issue - people should work on the things they find interesting and believe improve the project. Popcornduff (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors in favor of them argue their positioning makes them not redundnant, because it means you don't have to scroll up and down if you need the information while reading the summary. It's an "ease of use" issue basically. In truth I prefer them to a bare cast list although I would be in favor of not including them if the article had a comprehensive casting section. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I won't ever add them, but won't typically go out of my way to remove them except in the interests of compliance with WP:FILMPLOT. I have no issues with advising pro-inclusion editors that they're welcome to re-add the cast while removing other superfluous material if they're so inclined. (Hopefully) obviously, I won't remove them if they're not already listed elswhere. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Country for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

There's a dispute over the country of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Please see Talk:Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets#Countries and Budget. The article is currently fully protected, so we need to come to some kind of consensus on how to proceed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

La La Land awards page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dunkirk (2017 film) - Experienced Copy Editors Wanted

I would greatly appreciate any copy editing of the Plot and Critical response sections. The article has been semi-protected for two weeks, so your edits won't be reverted erratically. –Cognissonance (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: You might have good results by approaching the Guild of Copy Editors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: It usually takes a long time for them to accept a request, so I decided against it initially. But it wouldn't hurt. –Cognissonance (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast section and character descriptions of Die Hard 2

There's a edit warring regarding Die Hard 2 about character descriptions in cast sections and such, started by TheOldJacobite. Details in this section of the talk page and The page's recent revision history. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You are in error. I removed the information, you restored it. Another editor reverted you. I responded to your talk page post, along with two other editors, and the consensus is against restoring the information. I only reverted you once, and only after posting on the talk page. Those actions hardly qualify as edit-warring. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you hadn't removed that information, we wouldn't be in this argument in the first place. Brief character descriptions in cast sections doesn't hurt anything to the readers and you are doing it to them. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in an argument with anyone. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you're the reason this argument about this issue started when you removed the character descriptions in that article, not me. I wanted to reverted it to WP:STATUSQUO so we can discuss it without anymore incident and you & Deloop82 are being unreasonable about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anyone being unreasonable. I am folowing the discussion and I see that the one side focuses on "ease of use" of the cast section, while the other focuses on avoiding redundancy. They are both very valid views, and I;d rather see the article as it is at the moment until a consensus becomes clear. Hoverfish Talk 02:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A general BTW question: When the cast section contains casting information, isn;t it more precise to call it "Cast and casting"? Hoverfish Talk 23:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Technically it might be more precise but it might be a tad confusing at articles such as Alien (film) which has a "cast" section with casting information and a "casting" section. If the section is structured as a cast list (but with a bit of casting information thrown in) I think it is ok to just call it "Cast". Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I was not suggesting "cast and casting" where a "casting" section already exists, or in cases like the above where only some tivial details might be given. I am asking about cases where casting information is given only in the cast section, like in The Martian (film). Hoverfish Talk 23:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Update MOS:FILM on MOS:FLAG

Can we include a small paragraph in MOS:FILM about MOS:FLAG, especially on the section "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"? We have decided against them for infoboxes, but they keep appearing in film some award articles, where nationality of recipient should be mere parenthetical information. Hoverfish Talk 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We could add something under MOS:FILM#Clean-up since the bulk of MOS:FILM focuses on individual film articles. What do others think? We could just have the small paragraph refer to MOS:FLAG and perhaps do the shortcut WP:FILMFLAG. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, here are the milestones on the flag issue in the archives of this page: New Cinema navigation box - Flags in info boxes - Flags in Academy Awards articles - Use of flags makes information harder to read - Flag icons - flag icons in infoboxes - Poll about Icons - Formatting of Award category lists - Question about flags - Use of flags Hoverfish Talk 18:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have placed the proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Please, comment there. Hoverfish Talk 00:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

12 Monkeys

There's an ongoing debate on the 12 Monkeys article regarding the sources of the plot section of the article. It can be found at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Drive (2011 film)

It has been suggested by a GOCE volunteer after his copy edit that the Top-ten list section be reduced to a paragraph as it's overkill. He explains, "It's hardly important who was number two, let alone number seven!" Anybody agree? Slightlymad (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to argue that. However, I would expand on the Metacritic reference and say how many critics ranked it #2 and how many put it in their top ten lists. We don't have to name the critics or specify the ranks, but it seems like the general scope of the "best film of the year" claim could be clarified. Also, the link says there are seven critics, but I only count five named in the Wikipedia article? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"Rags" Ragland or Rags Ragland

Since Ragland spent the final six years of his life as an MGM contract character player, participation is sought for the discussion at Talk:Rags Ragland#Requested move 30 June 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Ninja Hattori-kun

Categorization of Category:Ninja Hattori-kun is a bit of a mess, or I miss something. The main article says it is a manga series; the catergory belongs to: 2003 Japanese television series debuts, 2004 anime television series, 2004 manga, 2005 anime films, 2006 films (!!), 2008 anime films, 2012 anime television series... I am removing category 2006 films, but the rest needs some cleanup IMO. Hoverfish Talk 11:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Chris Stuckmann (YouTube personality)

Today I noticed the existence of the Chris Stuckmann (YouTube personality) article. It was created earlier this July. I'm noting this here in case anyone besides me wants to add this to their watchlist and/or see if it can provide WP:Notability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hangover Part 2 Copyright issue

I'm not really great at dealing with copyright issues but the first paragraph of the production section for the Hangover Part 2 Clearly contains word for word content from this article. I suspect that there may be more instances. Could someone that knows how to do this, do the legwork for me. --Deathawk (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat added it here. It does not look like that paragraph existed here before the sequel article was set up. Wikipedia:Copyright problems can be read. Looking further, it appears that the fourth paragraph ("In March 2010...") violates copyright with ref #4. I hope an explanation or action is forthcoming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That was in my early days of editing. Please feel to remove/change any close phrasing. I would do it myself but I am not able at the moment.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, if there are other copyright violations from your early days, please address them ASAP. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, I removed the problematic content outright. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: I resorted the information without the close phrasing. According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector there are three other sources in the article which may include moderate levels of copyright violations. I'll begin immediately to address those issues. As for other pages from my early days its hard to recall since it was so long ago.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Diannaa who brought up copyright problems at Film censorship in China. What actions can be taken here? Is there any way to search sentences in film articles for matches in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Erik. There's ways to do these kinds of searches but I'm afraid you will get tens of thousands of results to wade through. Most will be false positives. See Help:Searching for technical advice on how to set up such searches. Alternatively, you could check the contribs of the one user, using the contribution surveyor, but with 44,000 diffs to be checked on 2420 articles this too would be extremely time consuming. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The action that needs to be taken,is to list the page on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, that way it can be investigated by admins who would have the necessary tools and experience to search the page for any other copyright issues. Unfortunatly it seems really hard to actually report a page. I did report a page there successfully like a year ago, but I forgot how to do it. --Deathawk (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Documentaries -- Director Doug Tirola and his films

Dear Film folks, Who on here is interested in documentaries? I am hoping to expand the coverage of Doug Tirola and his films. Anyone interested in helping with this? Many thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You might want to also inquire at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Documentary films task force. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Matrix

There is a discussion at The Matrix about whether or not to include White savior narrative in film in the article's "See also" section. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi Lugnuts, Erik, Hoverfish, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username	Recent Edits within Film	Recent Edits in Wikipedia	First Edit Date	Most Recent Edit Date
KatyCole17 (talk · contribs)	2	3	2017-7-19	2017-7-20
Tiber and Isis (talk · contribs)	4	4	2017-7-12	2017-7-18
Patrickroberts1105 (talk · contribs)	1	1	2017-7-16	2017-7-16
Adampizer (talk · contribs)	2	2	2017-7-19	2017-7-19
Umairkhaled19 (talk · contribs)	254	579	2013-10-4	2017-7-19
Gouravbhosale (talk · contribs)	266	718	2014-7-27	2017-7-15
Jerrylewis528 (talk · contribs)	316	3817	2006-6-11	2017-7-23
OscarFercho (talk · contribs)	428	6092	2008-8-30	2017-7-23
Baba i deda (talk · contribs)	456	510	2014-3-28	2017-7-22

Bobo.03 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bobo.03, I have looked into the meta-page you linked and I have tried to figure out what we as members of WP Films could do about it. In all the years I have known this project I don't think that recruitment was ever an issue. Editors came as part of how they felt, or how it fitted their line of work and at times editors stopped participating at the project although their work infilms continued. I think Erik offered the main clue in saying that the project used to be more structured but nowadays the focus is on having clear guidelines. I remember the time of newsletters and team work to bring a film article to GA or FA. Nowadays the former has been abandoned and the latter is mostly done individually, and when views differ or one runs against the grain of others they are dicussed in this page or in some related MOS pages. I have looked at the list you gave above. All I can say, talking only about myself, is that if any newcomer needs my general help, one is welcome to ask me on my user talk page, and if anyone wants to ask more editors, one is always welcome to do so here. Now from the users above, I can say that from the experienced ones, Umairkhaled19 could choose to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Pakistani cinema task force, Gouravbhosale could choose to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, Jerrylewis528 could choose to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Animated films work group, OscarFercho could choose to find assistence in this discussion page, I can't say about Baba i deda as the edits seem to point to one article only through the years. I hope this helps. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 00:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and carefully looking into those editors, Hoverfish! Yeh, I think our goal is to help your project recruit and retain new editors to contribute, and of course, we don't want to force you to do it as well. So I wonder when you look at those editors, What makes for a good candidate new editor for your project? It seems the ones you mentioned are based on their previous edits? Some of our ideas: they've edited lots of articles within your scope; they've edited talk pages of some of your existing members; they've edited articles on topics relevant to your project. Which of these you think are important and any other criteria you think would be useful. Bobo.03 (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Flu (film)

I was alarmed by how excessive and poorly written this article's plot is: 4,500 words! It goes without saying that it overwhelms the entire article. Could someone take a stab at copy editing it as well as cutting down the excess? Slightlymad (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, from how I see it, it would be good to take the plot back to how it was before these additions and work on that. Hoverfish Talk 12:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC) And then of course there is this one, so maybe while copyediting some of the points from the last verison can be integrated to keep it trimmed properly. Hoverfish Talk 13:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I take back my previous thoughts. The original plot was not good. Then each addition had something to add, but some things that are not made clear in the film seem to have been fleshed out more than they should. Better to start from the whole big huge story and try to summarize it. Hoverfish Talk 15:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion around WP:FILMNAV (and related)

Please see this discussion. Warning: the person who started this is known for writing lots of guff, so if you have the patience to wade through all of that, feel free to contribute. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Trollhunter help needed

Hi I just was looking at the production section for Trollhunter and the middle paragraph currently is almost entirely about a remake. The remake has it's own section in the article, and I feel that it would be much more appropriate to move the paragraph down. However the source for this paragraph are in Norwegian, so I can't really combine it seamlessly. I would appreciate it if someone who knows Norwegian could take a look at this. --Deathawk (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Deathawk, you'll probably get better results by posting related discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway. Slightlymad (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Deathawk: I speak Norwegian. What seems to be the officer, problem? –Cognissonance (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Hi, thanks for responding. I think that the second paragraph here, the one that starts "Producers John M. Jacobsen and Sveinung Golimo, " and mentions Max Manus could better be used by moving it to the "Remake" section. The thing is I just don't want to move it word for word as that might be sloppy. So I'm asking if a Norwegian speaker could help integrate it there.--Deathawk (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Deathawk: I went through the article and added what was relevant to the section, and reworded some things that came after it. Hope it helps. –Cognissonance (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we stop mentioning that post-credits scenes are post-credits scenes?

I think, judging on past experience, this'll get shot down, but I'm going to throw it out there just in case.

I'm strict when it comes to plot summaries. I think they should summarise the plot of a work of fiction and no more. That means nothing that describes the film's editing or structure, like "In the film's opening scene...", or "The film cuts to..." etc - these are irrelevant to summarising plot.

On this basis, I think we should avoid mentioning whether scene take place after credits ("In a post-credits scene, Batman wakes up and punches a camel."). If a scene is important enough to be included in the summary, then there's no need to mention whether it occurs before or after the credits. If the scene isn't important - post-credits scenes are often just throwaway gags - then it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I know there's a lot of nerd interest in knowing what's in post-credits scenes, or if a film has a post-credits scene at all, but satisfying nerd curiosity isn't the purpose of Wikipedia plot summaries. Popcornduff (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

They are plot summaries, so we shouldn't be describing specific scenes unless it furthers the understanding of the plot. I think in one of the Final Destination films I vaguely recall the film's survivor getting killed off after the end credits, so obviously something like that is worthy of a mention, but I agree that post-credit scenes generally contribute nothing to the main story so it is not necessary to mention them in such cases. Betty Logan (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case it would be totally appropriate to say "Peter is eaten by the monster", because it's plot-relevant, but IMO unnecessary to say "In a post-credits scene, Peter is eaten by the monster." Popcornduff (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

For my own curiosity, do you have a couple of examples of where this has happened? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Superhero movies are great offenders for this; see the Spider-Man: Homecoming, Captain America: Civil War, Guardians of the Galaxy (film) , or Avengers: Age of Ultron pages, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

We should not ban everything about the film's editing or structure from the plot summary. We are describing the plot from an out-of-universe perspective, so we are hardly beholden to purely the story. How should editors write summarize films that have anything other than a singular and linear narrative? It's unavoidable. I think when it comes to post-credits scenes, it is fine to include if it is part of the narrative, and with "In the post-credits scene" or whatever variation. Actually, looking into it, this is supported by MOS:PLOT's "Plot summaries of individual works" section which says, "Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language as to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer." It's appropriate, just that it needs to be done in a reasonable manner. The narrative-connection criteria is good enough. For the sillier stuff, not sure... put into a note? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is where I'd canvas for a change to the MOS, because I think describing editing is never appropriate and never useful. I've been trimming plot summaries for years now and I've never found a moment where I've had to resort to it. Even in the case of a famously non-linear story like Pulp Fiction can be accommodated by just inserting time descriptions when necessary ("Some time earlier" etc), or just writing things in chronological order, or whatever. I don't believe this has ever come at the cost of readability or comprehension. Seriously. If anything, I think it makes summaries far more concise and on-point. Popcornduff (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with inserting "editing language" when it is appropriate. Indicating that it is a post-credit scene itself I don't have a problem with. I do NOT agree with things like "the screen fades to black" or something like that where you're describing transition shots or something like that. All that said, I do think that most post-credit scenes are just quick references and not relevant to the overall plot. There are plenty of cases where it is, but I think we need to start looking more at these and saying "what does this impact"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A few comments. In my personal opinion, the summary at Pulp Fiction would have been improved if it had clearly identified it's episodic nature, instead of trying to tell a story from the point of view of its protagonists. I agree that referring to the editing (or out of universe writing) can be jarring but in some cases it's better. Secondly, there are a lot of post credit scenes that shouldn't be mentioned (the guardians of the galaxy is a particularly pointless example) because they're really unremarkable. However, I've not got a particular issue with identifying them explicitly as post credits in general, for the simple reason that I've often come to Wikipedia or elsewhere to find out if I missed anything. I know that 'I like it' isn't a very strong argument, but there you go. Scribolt (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I drastically rewrote the Pulp Fiction plot summary some time ago to remove the episode subsections, for the following reasons: 1) The episode headers describe the editing, not the plot. 2) There's a separate section that describes the episodic structure, so why duplicate content? 3) Some of the episodes comprise only short scenes that aren't worthy of mentioning in a summary, so sticking to the episodic structure commits us to summarising stuff we otherwise would omit as per WP:PLOT. 4) Brings the plot length under the recommended wordcount by WP:PLOT. The plot summary doesn't "tell the story from the point of view of its protagonists", I don't know what you mean by that. Popcornduff (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The plot section should summarize the plot, therefore, to the extent that it is possible, we have to spread it out equally through the section. And since we limit the plot to a maximum word-count, mentioning any one scene, just for the sake of mentioning it, is undue weight. This is where I would center my focus. I haven't ever seen any post-credits scene that was essential to the plot, though I have seen some that were unforgettable. Also, as per Erik, I see nothing wrong with including some out-of-universe language, if it is done in a reasonable manner.Hoverfish Talk 15:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you guys provide examples of when writing using out-of-universe is actually necessary? Because I've yet to see one on Wikipedia - just describing the events themselves has always been the simpler option. Give me some examples and I'll see if I can't improve them by rewriting it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Erik above and would probably oppose a MOS change in that regard. First of all it is always iffy to ban a certain approach in general or completely, because there tend some cases where that approach actually works fine. Secondly I prefer giving individual freedom/leeway in writing plot summaries rather mandating too many details or a style possibly preferred by few editors only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they can be removed if they aren't notable as with Sharknado 2 [1]. But some can be notable as with Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Ferris tells everyone to go home. The Marvel superheroes ones seem to connect them to further upcoming films. And horror monster films usually resurrect the monster who was killed, implying that the franchise isn't over yet. Some films put the epilogue scenes (dramatic reunion x years later) in the post-credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm not objecting to mentioning scenes where they're worth mentioning. I'm saying that mentioning whether or not they take place during, before or after the credits is pointless. Popcornduff (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If a scene in the post-credits suggests that the plot could have been different in some way (worth mentioning), then it should be OK to say where it was. But this is just in theory. I have no idea where such an example might be. Hoverfish Talk 16:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"If a scene in the post-credits suggests that the plot could have been different in some way (worth mentioning)" What does this mean? Popcornduff (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Like if a post-credit scene suggests there could have been an alternate twist somewhere in the plot or even an alternate ending. Again no examples in mind, though I'm sure I have seen some such scenes in the past. Hoverfish Talk 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course we need to keep this mid-credit scene or post-credit scene reference there. Nowadays, people generally leave their chairs once the movie ends. They don't respect the behind-the-scenes folks or the main theme song in the end credits. This reference could at least help them stay in their chairs a bit longer, once they refer to Wikipedia and know what to expect if they indeed go see the movie. This reference usually only happens to sci-fi movies, so it's not a lot. I am totally for keeping it! Supermann (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not the purpose of Wikipedia plot summaries. Popcornduff (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff. First of all, I want to be clear that I don't think Pulp Fiction as it is now to be badly written at all, what you've done is fine. My point was that I personally think retaining the episodic structure of the original film makes it clearer as to what actually happens, rather than the current approach which tries to describe the changing chronology with phrases such as some time earlier. If it's just prose it feels unnatural to suddenly start referring to events of the previous day for no apparent reason. I just wanted to highlight that certainly not everyone feels as though not referring to editing as you call it is beneficial. As to your points. 1. We disagree that referring to the structure of the film is automatically a bad thing, so this is basically it's bad because it's bad. 2 Wherever possible, the plot section should be standalone. I personally wouldn't have had that structural section there or presented like that, it seems more like an analysis section. 3 I can't remember or want to compare old versions with the current version. However, the consequence of your approach here in deciding that the opening section is best placed at the end (so mixing up the chronology of the story and the order in which it's told) means the plot summary doesn't start with the events that are shown first in the film. 4 I wasn't claiming the old version as written was better than the current, rather that I disagree with how you chose to present it. I apologise for the phrase "tell the story from the point of view of its protagonists" this was poorly worded I'm not surprised you didn't understand what I meant. What I was getting at, was that the prose style and the decision not to refer to the film structure at all, made the summary more about what happened to the characters, not summarising the story as it what presented in the film. Hope that clarifies things. (BTW, how would you have handled Memento? Please don't change it, it's already GA as is, but I'd be interested to hear your approach) Scribolt (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. The perspective is that the credits and post-credits are still technically part of the movie's theatrical release, as it counts towards the runtime, and it's comparable to adding phrases like "prior to the opening credits" or "during the opening credits". But I think the out-of-universe verbiage is okay for notable scenes, and for those superhero films that still present plot, those readers would find it useful. Posting that the closing credits feature outtakes or cute animations summarizing the film is the kind of detail that would not be needed. But whether it can be worded without the actual phrase "in the post-credits scene", yes, that's worth an attempt, like "The survivors leave the town, but later the (monster) sticks its hand out of the grave." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example that I've always thought was irrelevant. The Shwarma scene at the end of Avengers. Doesn't lend anything, yet it was deemed that it needed to be put in the plot summary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this discussions comes back to issues relatively recently at WP:WAF. We want editors to write out-of-universe (read: avoid writing from the perspective of a character actually in the work, but instead from that of a person watching the work), so critical scene direction, such as flashbacks, in medias res scenes, and the like are extremely useful to establish describing the work from a viewer's perspective, but we also don't want editors adding "At the start of the film..." which wastes time if the narrative is otherwise straight-forward. There's a balance of using these "scene direction" terms but it really all does depend on the complexity of the plot among other things. The example AngusWOOF gives of teasing a monster's return with the post-credit grave scene is a good case where not to use it since it flows with the story. In contrast, the various Marvel films have scenes that are non-sequitur to the film's narrative (but feed the MCU) so it is a good idea to ID as post-credits. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

From reading everyone's comments, I understand the reasoning of the different options. When I read a wikipedia article about a film, I'm hoping for all-encompassing about its subject - from the development processes, through its casting and to its post-production and legacy. I'm sure we're all in agreement about that. For me, the mid-credits and post-credits scenes have become a major part of that and I'm sure there are papers which will talk about how the MCU have popularized its use. Now whether or not it should be in the plot section, the question I would ask, where would it move to? In any other section of the article it would seem out-of-place. And to remove it completely would essentially remove all reference from it ever appearing in the film. I don't believe that would be a good move. This is unique style of film-making, even if the scene in question is a trivial one. --Gonnym (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Potentially changing or not changing the DAB (Second call)

Since the previous notice was archived and the discussion has slowed down (I.E. arbitrarily stopped without a clear result) in the last several days, I want to once again let everyone know of the relevant discussion that is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Franchise and Film series: Changing the DAB for those who don't already know about it. Dark Knight 2149 01:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Star Wars split

There has a discussion about splitting the Star Wars article. The discussion is... a bit all over, but it seems to be meant to be at Talk:Star Wars#Way too big. There has been very few comments regarding the proposal to split, and additional comments would be appreciated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is undergoing some discussed splitting and moving of content across articles, though some elements are still under discussion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Template use for film series?

Someone has added Template talk:Infobox film to the Our Gang article, and used it to include composite information for all 220 Our Gang short films and the feature General Spanky. Is this a proper use of this template? Is there another better suited to it, or is this an opportunity for a new Infobox template dedicated to short film series? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The above editor initially started the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Use for film series?, and other editors can comment there (so discussion is not split in two places). So consider the above a notice. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Production Designer Addition to Film InfoBoxes

Hello,

I’m reaching out urging for an amendment on all individual film InfoBoxes that would add Production Designer credits. Since Wikipedia’s inception, Production Designers have not been credited on individual film pages, while both Cinematographers and Editors—who are equal peers—are credited at the top of the page, along with the Director and Producers.

I've been looking through the archives in the discussion on this and have seen a lot of support. What needs to happen to make this addition? I’m a film and TV Production Designer; there are many people in the industry who are advocating for this change. Addressing this issue and having Wikipedia make this addition would give designers the proper credit that reflects the great contribution Production Designers make in film. As you of course know, Wikipedia is a powerful information tool and having these credits listed would be an extremely positive addition to design recognition.

Thank you, Meredith Meredithlipp (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meredith, from my point of view, the primary concern here should be to make sure Production Designer is credited in the main article. The infobox is then supposed to give a summary of what is already in the article. And it is not suposed to give information that is not already in the article. So if we have enough articles that mention this credit, the argument of adding a position for it in the infobox template would be much stronger. I am not aware of statistics here. Do we already have enough articles mentioning this credit in the appropriate section? Hoverfish Talk 22:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The infobox does not necessarily have to have the details in the article. MOS:INFOBOX says, "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." However, I do think one thing we've been lacking in film articles is a devoted "crew list" (like how we have a cast list). It could either be under a "Production" section or a stand-alone "Crew" section. I've tried to encourage the former approach in some articles but have not really done that in a widespread manner. Such a list would give more flexibility in identifying crew members depending on the kind of film. For example, for musical films, dance choreographers could be listed there, for effects-heavy films, visual effects supervisors could be listed, etc. I think it's better to do this than to add more parameters to the film infobox to make it one long sidebar. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support It's a very good idea to have a Crew section. If it's standalone, I don't doubt that, given all the arguments about the Cast (list) section, we'll have plenty more for Crew, but still in articles where this information is not somehow presented in the text of Production, it would be very informative to have it. Good to know about the infobox exception too. Hoverfish Talk 15:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support inclusion of a Crew section per Hoverfish, but also Support inclusion within infobox of Production Designer credit per Meredithlipp. Academy Award for Best Cinematography and Academy Award for Best Production Design (renamed from Academy Award for Best Art Direction [and Interior Decoration] in 2012) are the only Academy Awards of this type to have continued from the 1st Academy Awards, held in May 1929 to the most recent 89th Academy Awards, held in February 2017. The Academy Award for Best Film Editing was not bestowed until the 7th Academy Awards in February 1935. I accept the arguments against extension of infobox credits for other professions (choreographers in musicals, special effects in sci-fi), but the three key contributions — Cinematography, Editing and the currently-excluded Production Designer are central to every film. In fact, other than Cinematography and Art Direction/Production Design, the only Academy Awards which have continued uninterrupted, since day one, are the standard ones honoring Best Films, Directors, Actors and Writing. Thus, without opening the floodgates for other infobox inclusions, it is clear that the Production Designer parameter is uniquely justifiable alongside those for "Cinematography" and "Editing". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

THis isn't a straw poll, but I would not be in support (Oppose) to the inclusion of production designer in the infobox. That's because I would rather trim the info and get rid of editors and cinematographers, ect. I'd more inclined to see a brief crew table in a production section than adding to an already too long infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at past discussions, I see the point that infoboxes should be rather trimmed than expanded to contain more crew, has a lot of support. So basically we should be talking (OK, not polling) about having a Crew section rather than any infobox additions. But then by the same reasoning editing and cimatographer should also be excluded from the infobox. My opinion however is that cinematographer should stay, because in practice his role in a movie comes very close after that of the director. Hoverfish Talk 23:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak Support because cinematographer and editor credits are on the infobox and not the production designer. Editors and Cinematographers should get credited in infoboxes, so I think maybe Production designers too. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Logan (film) to Logan (2017 film)?

Hello, fellow editors! Shouldn't we change its name from Logan (film) -> Logan (2017 film)? Because there is Logan (2010 film) which includes "2010" in its name. I mostly edit video game articles and whenever there are games of the same name we usually add the specific year in its article's name. I'm new in this field and wanted opinions regarding this matter. Thanks! ☺ - Pure conSouls (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If the 2010 film is notable for Wikipedia, then yes. I am not sure if it is notable. It looks like NinjaRobotPirate expressed notability concerns on the 2010 film article's talk page. We should determine its notability first before making a move (or just deleting the article). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean in order to keep "Logan (film)" as a dab page just for such a marginally notable -if at all- Logan (2010 film)? - Logan is the dab page for all. I think, though I may be wrong, that the 2017 should be considered the primary topic. BTW, there is also a 2013 9-min. short animation, and a medium length 2005 film called Logan, but we don't have articles on them. Hoverfish Talk 17:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no primary topic to be had, so the film topics (all which are secondary) have to be disambiguated from each other. There is no need to engage in hierarchical organizing, to claim a primary topic within a set of secondary topics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I may not be understanding WP:Primarytopic right but from the page it states: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." People searching for the film Logan are 99% of the time be searching for the 2017 film. The other test is that proposed by the page is "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Being as it is the last X-Man film to star Patrick Stewart and given the acclaims it's gotten. I would say it also passes this test. --Deathawk (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be in support of this. If articles end up created for some of the other films, we'd either have to create a Logan (film disambiguation) page or some such, or have Logan the dab page have two primary topics. Neither is an appealing option. Daß Wölf 18:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So then [[Logan (film)]] will have to redirect to Logan, right? Hoverfish Talk 19:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Should now be moved to (2017 film), per WP:NCF. See also Titanic (disambiguation)#Film. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Support per WP:NCF. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support this change as well, but perhaps the first order of business is determining whether or not Logan (2010 film) is a notable topic. The concern has been raised that it isn't, but it hasn't yet been nominated for deletion. If that's not going to happen, then yes, we definitely need to disambiguate the 2017 film as suggested above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And what happens in a case like Rabid Dogs / Rabid Dogs (2015 film)? Just dab hatnotes? Hoverfish Talk 14:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks like the Italian one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the other one is really a one-line stub. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

We have other such examples, for instance Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula & Bram Stoker's Dracula (1973 film). I don't think we have any "X (film)" & "X (YEAR film)" combinations, however. Daß Wölf 20:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Emperor Motion Pictures

Emperor Motion Pictures, a Hong Kong film producer and distributor, was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Concerns at the AfD are that the subject is not notable and the Wikipedia article is an advertisement. Would editors be able to look for more sources and help clean up the article to remove any promotion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Categorization of article in GA nom

Hi there, I just have a quick question on categorization for a (future) GA nomination (once I have worked more extensively in expanding and improving The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon). I am wondering, when it is eventually submitted for GA review, should it be done so under film or music? It is a documentary film about a concert by the Rolling Stones. I am leaning towards it indeed being categorized as a film, but want to double check since it is a film about a musical performance. Thanks in advance for your help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, if it should be eventually submitted as a film, are there any examples of documentary films like this that I could use as a formatting/style reference (that are already GAs)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Under category concert films, here are the GA's I could spot, I hope some of these might be of help.

Hoverfish Talk 09:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Film censorship in China

There is an RfC at Talk:Film censorship in China#RfC about the runtime columns regarding the adding columns to a table showing the original runtime of a film and its runtime upon release in China. This RfC comes after multiple discussions and a recently closed DRN. Comments would be appreciated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A related ANI post about User:Supermann resulted in him "leaving" WP in a huff. That didn't prevent the ANI thread from being closed with a one-year topic ban for that user. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ballerina (2016 film): Help please!

I think there is a major mistake in the article for the animated film Ballerina (2016 film). The film was first released in French, and then, a week later, in English, but an editor has deleted all mention of the French version. I collected some French sources on the Talk page, but I do not read French. Can people familiar with dual releases please take a look at the Talk page, and see what you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I responded at Ballerina, but I will also say here that both Ballerina [2] and The Little Prince [3] have to be corrected to original language French. Both are Original French-language productions: Yes. Unifrance is quite reliable as far as I can tell. Hoverfish Talk 20:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lip sync on Little Prince is too vague to tell if it was meant for one particlar version, however in Ballerina it is clearly French. Hoverfish Talk 20:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, what a nice experience, Film Fan has just reverted and taken away the citation that says it's Original French-language productions. I'm out. Hoverfish Talk 21:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Film Fan is not exactly renowned for his congeniality. Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinion is split at Talk:Ballerina_(2016_film)#Original_language. The discussion would benefit from further third-party input. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Input request

Please also see the Talk page for Jimknut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this subject. It may well be that looking at wording, shouting (caps) etc; the IP and this person may well be the same person? Any help would be much appreciated. David J Johnson (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Frequent collaborators"

I found this weird draft article DRAFT:Frequent collaborators that is contextless and seems to crossreference actors across multiple unrelated films; does anyone know what this is about? -- 67.70.35.17 (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No context, not edited since it was created by an anonymous editor in February. It looks like it should follow the IP's other draft Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ST.Hoverfish Talk 14:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Including criticism of Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) at Scarlett Johansson article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Including criticism regarding Ghost in the Shell (2017 film). A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

List of animated films considered the worst at AfD

A spin-off of an old favourite. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Cast list for Leslie Howard movie "The Animal Kingdom" is incorrect

The cast that is listed for "The Animal Kingdom" starring Leslie Howard is actually the cast list for the Robert Montgomery movie "When Ladies Meet". The movies are very similar so I can see why they are mixed up. I don't know the entire cast listing for "When Ladies Meet" and I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia. I tried to go to the talk page for "The Animal Kingdom" but it directed me here instead. I can't fix the error (I am computer illiterate) but I wanted to point out the error so someone else may be able to fix it. Thanks. The mistake is on the Wiki page "The Animal Kingdom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.238.66 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I clicked the "View history" tab and have reverted an edit from yesterday which mixed up the cast for When Ladies Meet (1933 film) and The Animal Kingdom.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Highest grossing films in China pagemove

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Watch" request

Urgently needing someone who would put The Getaway (1972 film), an article I have significantly expanded, onto their watchlist and review revisions made in it; sometimes I'm pretty busy and I won't be able to do so. SLIGHTLY^mad 13:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty plot

Can an uninvolved editor take a look at the recent plot changes at Zero Dark Thirty, please? I have removed the film from my watchlist because I have tired of arguing with the anonymous editor who keeps rewriting the plot. Someone objective should take a look and see if it is an improvement. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the stand that this experience has been characterized as "arguing". The primary use of this article is not for the person that has seen or is well acquainted with the film but with someone otherwise. Do the unilateral reverts reintroduce inaccuracies or confusion? Are the changes inaccurate? Do the changes tighten the text? Do the changes reduce confusion for those that have not seen the film? Is it necessary despite WP policy to list every detail instead of providing an overall view of the plot? Each time I see a film different aspects get more introspection. Since when has it been absolutely necessary to justify edits only by justification on the talk pages when so many edits in WP never go beyond explanation except in the edit box? As far as I understand this article has yet to reach star status. I hope that my "anonymous" standing has nothing to di with how the edits are received.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't watched the film so it is difficult to make generalized observations for or against the IP's edits. The IP for what it's worth is attempting to keep his edits tight which always wins favor in my book. Is there something specific that you have a problem with or do you just dislike the tone of the summary? Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the plot is at a point that more could be added that just increases word count at the cost of changing from a plot to a story line. It does present the ever jarring presence of those that want a guarantee (photograph of bin Laden) and those that evaluate probability based on behavior and culture that Maya uses. It clears up some factual mistakes. It eliminates some word gymnastics. Sometimes a good plot has to consider losing the "party list" approach to plot development. The who what when where & why is not for every incident in a timeline but for the entire timeline, especially a fictionalised account of non-fiction. A plot probably has to be a grammarian's chief antagonist (Innuendo comes a close second) because there are some people that have to move to the teaspoon to the saucer instead of leaving it in the cup, no matter how hot the tea. They can never change their sense of regret.00:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk)

List of the longest gaps between film sequels at AfD

Please see this discussion. And a warning that the article itself has an interesting colour-scheme... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Template BFI Explore

When searching for a template of British-Film-Institute-ID I only found Template:BFI Explore. To take this example I want to show the difference between http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b26838c and the more precise http://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150039217. This template should be modified. -- MovieFex (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How precisely should it be modified? The BFI Explore template links to entries in the BFI Explore database. Thast is what it was created to do. The BFI may have other more informative pages about the film but that is beyond the scope of the template. There are several options here; you could just add the link manually or if there are enough pages and links to justify a new template then perhaps one could be created. Betty Logan (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Dolby Atmos films needs review/upkeep

Category:Dolby Atmos films appears to list numerous film articles that make no mention of using this technology. Per WP:CATV then, it is likely inappropriate for the films to be in this category unless/until the articles can be improved to make mention of this tech. I also question whether this is really a defining feature of the films, as at this point this sound technology appears to be fairly widely-adopted, but I figured I'd get some feedback here before taking further action. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If the category is not helping to organize the articles themselves by content then there is no reason for it to exist. If the technology is notable and it is useful to know which films utilise it then perhaps the information would be best suited to a list. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading this as an implicit support for deleting the category... DonIago (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

At best we should decide/define what should be in its parent Category:Films by technology and what not. Deleting one child doesn't solve the mess. There's also the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 10#Category:Mobile Phone Movies that is stuck midways between delete and merge and even if merged there's the camcorder cat as well. I think the key is in the range of inclusion of parent category. Hoverfish Talk 19:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I was having thoughts along those lines after raising the initial question, but I guess when it comes to CfDs I prefer to start with the most outlying branches first. I was about to suggest that Dolby Atmos could be upmerged, but now I'm not sure what these categories are really trying to accomplish. If they're supposed to be a way to view significant instances where these films utilized the various technologies, then right now I'm leaning towards Lists being a better option. People who don't know better or don't care to do the work will persistently add films to these categories without any regard to whether the film articles support the categorization, much less whether it's a significant usage. DonIago (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone else care to weigh in on this? I can work on moving articles out of the category per WP:CATV as time permits, but that won't stop anyone else from adding articles to it, and it's unclear to me from the limited participation here that we'd have enough of a consensus for anything to be done about the category. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I support making a list to include the articles of this category and deleting the category. Hoverfish Talk 20:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

~~Ask and you shall receive[5]. DonIago (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)~~ See below. DonIago (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This Category:Auro 11.1 films looks to be a related item. I am working my way through both and most of the articles have no sourced info about either tech. I agree that a list article (separate or together) is preferable to a category. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You have my blessing to piggyback on my CfD, if that's acceptable protocol. DonIago (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doniago. I would suggest that you go ahead and add it. That way we can be sure that I don't mess things up at the CFD :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

SIGH. Fiiiiiine. I'll add it shortly after leaving this note. :p DonIago (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion is now here. DonIago (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Gone Girl (film) nominated for WP:GA

The Gone Girl (film) article has been nominated for WP:GA by MagicatthemovieS. Interested editors might want to work on any improvements the article may need before the review begins. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, WP:FILMLEAD

I have previously posted here of issues with User:Taeyebar. He continues to edit war over subgenres, putting in his preferred version in film article leads. He has been repeatedly warned about this regarding Snow White and the Huntsman and other pages. He says things like this movie was titled high fantasy before being changed without discussion. Calling something fantasy is different from saying "it's not high fantasy" as that's the subgenre. even though it's been discussed there and at Talk:The Huntsman: Winter's War.

I gave him notice: As you've been told before, WP:FILMLEAD, which says Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. Most sources call this film a fantasy, not a "high fantasy". You've been told this many times before. Claiming authority from another guideline that has nothing to do with films or genres does not entitle you to ignore the clear intent of WP:FILMLEAD. Get consensus or leave it alone. You also need to stop your WP:STALKING on numerous pages.

His announced intention to stalk me can be seen here. A number of his reverts of my work were immediately reverted by other editors, like this one and this one. Others here have had run-ins with him as well, like Betty Logan. Last June User:TenTonParasol warned him here As a third and uninvolved party, I'm going to firmly warn: systematically undoing Gothicfilm's edits as part of an announced vendetta sparked by an unrelated issue is unconstructive battleground behavior (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). She backed up the warning here. But still, he persisted. If you look at his edit history, over 90 percent of his edits since August 18, 2017 have been reverts of the last edit I did at certain pages. I posted another warning on his Talk page as seen here. He has lately taken to saying things like They both mean the same thing don't they? So whats the point and But i told you it can fit in one sentence. How is this change necessary? after repeatedly undoing my fix to a very long run-on sentence. Since being warned by DonQuixote yesterday regarding The Wicker Man (film series), he is now demanding discussion over my edits, trying to present himself as a responsible party watching over my activity.

As he has backed off when others have reverted him, I'm asking editors here who would like to see WP:FILMLEAD respected to address the situation at Snow White and the Huntsman, and also take a look at the less visited articles where he continues to revert my edits, such as Niki Caro and Isabelle Fuhrman. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Gangs of New York

I brought this up here at the Filmproject last year, but the issue has resurfaced and I want to get other editor's opinions on this so we can (hopefully) make a final determination. Rms125a@hotmail.com insists on adding the word "fictional" to the lede in place of "historical," arguing that the film is not historical but a complete work of fiction. I don't think anyone confuses this film for a documentary, and the point of saying "historical period film" is to point out that it happens during a given historical period, in this case, the Civil War era, not to argue that every claim in the film is historically accurate. The article has a historical accuracy section that is more than sufficient for pointing out the errors made or liberties taken in telling the story. It is simply not necessary to add the word "fictional" to the lede, and I see this as Rms125a@hotmail.com pushing his particular PoV about the film. This needs to stop. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy dropping "historical" because of the story being fictional, but "period drama" and "historical period drama" seem to be synonymous anyway. A quick search engine test shows "period drama" used in reference to the film (regardless of historical vs. fictional). The setting of the film's period is defined in the very same sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think traditionally fiction that has a purely historical setting and concerns fictional characters and events is regarded as "period" fiction, whereas fiction based upon historical events is regarded as "historical" fiction so I can understand where Rms125a is coming from. In the case of Gangs of New York the line is blurred but since it primarily deals with fictional characters I would personally categorise it as a "period film". That said, genre classifications on Wikipedia should be consistent with what reliable sources categorise it as and it is described as a "historical epic" by the AFI, while Allmovie describes it as a "crime drama", "historical epic" and "period film". In this case we can't really discount the fact it is a "historical epic" because we have two sources describing it as such, and neither source qualifies those genres as "fictional". Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The lede currently defines it as an "epic period drama," which I believe to be accurate and in keeping with the sources. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan -- with all due respect Betty Logan to call this one dimensional film an "historical epic" does violence to the term "historical" as it is almost entirely fictional. Gone With the Wind was more historically accurate, but would we call it "Historical"? What about the ridiculous Night and Day (1946 film) purportedly about the life of Cole Porter but so heavily sanitized that it bears little resemblance to the real thing. Obviously every film takes liberties with its material, even material based on non-fictional sources, that's why they are not documentaries. Quis separabit? 16:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The lede currently defines it as an "epic period drama" which I believe to be accurate and in keeping with the sources as per @TheOldJacobite (who accused me of being "obstructive" but if you read my edit summary, I think it's clear I am not being obstructive). Thus, @TheOldJacobite and I are in agreement. I just want the term "historical" removed, as in Historical period drama, which is unnecessary as period drama is perfectly OK. That's all. What is the problem? Quis separabit? 16:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that film genres are just as subject to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements as any other claim. If you are going to discount the opinion of the American Film Institute then you need a source more authoritative than your own opinion here. Look, writing from my own knowledge I would have categorised it as a period drama like you but ultimately you know we don't have that luxury on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

REPLIES

@Betty Logan, @TheOldJacobite -- thanks for your clarifying information. The AFI review's lengthy disclaimer is disingenuous, however I found in National Geographic Online ("Gangs of New York: Fact vs. Fiction") and the Gotham Gazette what are far more intellectually honest and ethical discussions based on actual evidence, which show the film was almost wholly fictional. It didn't even stick to Herbert Asbury's original depiction, which was heavily flawed as it was.

Gotham Gazette

Gotham Gazette had a far more intellectually honest and serious discussion than anything you are going to find from beneficiaries and interested parties inextricably linked to the nexus of the film industry, like AFI.

A) "David Denby writes in the New Yorker: "Gangs is an example of the fallacy of research: they got the hats and knives right, but the main lines of the story don't make much sense".
B) Screenwriter Jay Cocks, when asked "[H]ow closely does the movie [Gangs of New York] follow Asbury's book, or other historical accounts?", replied "Hi....thanks for having me around. Doesn't follow the Asbury book at all. We supplied the story. Asbury supplied inspiration and a little history."^[1]
C) Historian Tyler Anbinder, who overall gave the film positive reviews, said of the lead character played by Daniel Day-Lewis: The real Bill Poole was something like Bill Cutting, but only a bit."^[2]
D) "How about the building called the Old Brewery. Did it look like dark Roman caves?"
Cocks: "That's the way we dreamed it."
E "Some critics, Mr. Cocks, have said the movie has depicted the neighborhood as worse than it actually was. Is this true, and what was your incentive?"
Cocks: "Incentive was solid drama. Inspiration was Fellini's 'Satyricon', Peckinpah's 'The Wild Bunch' and Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' as much as fact. Probably more." Quis separabit? 17:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
F Tyler Anbinder: "And as they say, it's only a movie. "Scorsese knows much more history than is portrayed in the movie ... He wanted to make a dramatic statement, he didn't want to make a documentary."

National Geographic report^[3] on Gangs of New York

A: Rebecca Yamin: "Taken together, the artifacts and historical records paint a picture of hard-working immigrants trying to make the best of a bad situation, and to make a home of a hovel. 'They were doing what they could do for their families to live respectably' ... They had ornaments on their mantels and pictures on their walls and teapots and teacups, and they were eating very well ... Even here meat was often on the table three times a day, animal remains and historical accounts show.
"In the Scorsese movie you have these scenes in a basement where there are skulls in the corners and people are draped in rags ... We didn't see anything to suggest that people were living like that. There were certainly no skulls rolling around in people's rooms." And few pewter cups, for that matter. Watching the movie, Yamin says, "the thing I really noticed was those pewter mugs everyone was drinking out of. Well, they stopped drinking out of those in the 18th century." Yamin recalls showing movie researchers, who visited her team to research period furnishings, the little glass tumblers Five Pointers drank from. Laughing, she says, "In other words, they didn't learn anything from us."
Historian Anbinder agrees with Yamin's appraisal of Five Pointers: "Most of them had real, legal jobs ... Many were shoemakers, tailors, masons, grocers, cigarmakers, liquor dealers, and laborers."
B "Writing in the Al Capone era, Asbury interpreted the Five Points gangs as the precursors of 1920s organized-crime mobs, Anbinder says. Scorsese, the director of Mafia classics such as Goodfellas and Mean Streets, seizes on this idea in Gangs. "That's one of the big problems with the movie ... In fact, gangs like the Dead Rabbits and Bowery Boys were political clubs that met at nights and on weekends to promote their candidates. 'They would fight at the polls and sometimes beat up their opponents, but not just for fun or plunder'", Anbinder says. "So why fight? Nearly every scuffle was designed to help a gang's chosen candidate into public office. Once there, the candidate would reciprocate, bestowing good, steady-paying patronage jobs and municipal funds on his constituency." Anbinder also faults the movie for its emphasis on Catholic-Protestant conflict. Most fighting was among gangs of Irish-Catholic Five Pointers. And it was rarely as bloody or deadly as in the movie. "Rioters did not go about with swords and broadaxes. Every once in a while one person would have one, but never whole mobs armed like that."^[4] Quis separabit? 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So, can we remove Historical period drama and replace it with period drama?? Quis separabit? 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the historical accuracy of the film—as far as I can see nobody has argued it is historically accurate—but rather you are taking a narrow view of "historical" fiction compared to its common application. For example, the AFI counts Cabaret, Chinatown and Citizen Kane as "historical" films, so they don't seem to distinguish between authentic history and fiction films with period settings. If a film is biographical in nature it is generally categorized as a biography. Likewise, Allmovie take a very liberal view of what counts as a "historical epic" describing it as "A type of movie with great historical sweep, usually focused on some important figure or events", counting the likes of Gone with the Wind, Ran and Doctor Zhivago as historical epics. Personally I would have been happy with "period drama" but it's not our call. Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, with all due respect, how is it not "our call"? We are all editors on this collaborative encyclopedia and I know of no rule which says the AFI or Allmovie sites take precedence over our consensus, should we reach one, barring, of course, legal issues, of which none present themselves. This is a little bit of a tempest in a teapot, which I may have stirred, but which now seems to have raised new issues of where our writ ends, an issue on which I respectfully disagree with Betty. Were I to unilaterally cite WP:IAR to remove the offending word, which I will not do, but am merely mentioning hypothetically, what would happen? This may be a tempest in a teapot, which I acknowledge stirring, but if so, why then is this trivial conceit of such paramount importance?? My own low personal opinion of the film, as referenced by @TheOldJacobite, can obviously be discerned from my text, but I have backed it up with reliable and more than merely reliable sources (Yamin, Arbinder, Denby, and Cocks above), which are not being given due weight. Yours. Quis separabit? 20:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources you have brought up are discussing the historical accuracy of The Gangs of New York, not whether the genre of "historical film" can include highly fictionalized period films or not. Now, when I joined this debate I thought I was going to agree with you but after looking at various databases I don't think reliable sources support such a rigid position on genre classification. Most if not all take a liberal view of what constitutes a "historical" film. The AFI catalog is one of the most reputable film databases out there (compiled by film academics) and its "history" category includes many fictionalized films with a period setting. The rather less prestigious Allmovie do likewise. Even the IMDB—which I appreciate is not a reliable source—include fictional period films in its "history" genre, categorizing Gone with the Wind as a historical film. The biggest problem here is that I cannot find any catalog or database that separates films into period and historical films along the lines of authenticity. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Usually focused on some important figure or events" --- @BettyLogan -- Ok. So who is the important figure in a film in which the only character who actually existed is Boss Tweed. Maggie the Cat was not a bouncer and or an owner of a pub -- that was, in real life, Gallus Mags. If the film were about Tweed I probably would not be dissenting. But it isn't. It is primarily about almost exclusively fictional persons committing, at an unspecified but hinted timeframe which thus tacitly avoids actual horrific events of that time that would qualify today as war crimes, and likely would today as well, to wit, burning orphanages, lynching, murders, arson and ethnic cleansing. So fictional characters committing fictional acts is "historical"!!

I understand I haven't attained a consensus but I just wanted to close out the thread with my remaining thoughts. I understand and respect your position. Yours. Quis separabit? 02:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger (Begotten and "Din of Celestial Birds")

There is a discussion at Talk:Din of Celestial Birds#Merger Proposal to merge the short film article with its feature length predecessor, Begotten (film). Dark Knight 2149 20:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal of removing plot section from films articles

There are issues about the Plot section ok the film's article first of all the Screenplay and Story of a film is a copyright of it's production house so it would be copvio and plagarism if we allowed to write plot in films article, and secondly most plots on wikipages about films are unsourced, despite being unsourced they still are there, mispresentation of plot by original research can simply change the theme of film, and original research is forbidden in the Wikipedia. Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have a specific example of mispresentation of a film plot in a certain article, it should be discussed and corrected locally. In general lines, this project has guidelines on what should be in film plot sections and how it should be formulated to avoid OR, copivio and plagiarism. There are no issues I know of with production companies in respect to plot sections of film articles. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 09:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of misconceptions here. Retelling/summarizing some plot in your own words, is usually not a copyright violation. And retelling basic content/facts based on primary sources usually isn't original research either. Plot summaries are in doubt always based on an (implicit) primary source, that is the film itself. So there is also no issue of the plot summary being unsourced.

However in individual cases when somebody cuts & pastes a plot summary from elsewhere, then of course it would be a copyright violation, but it that case not the plot summary as such such but the cut &paste job is the problem. Similarly somebody might mix a mere plot summary with analysis and interpretation, then that would constitute original research (at least if no sources other then the film itself are provided for the analysis/interpretation part).

Lastly content/plot summary sections are a well established and essential part on articles about films, books, plays or even songs and we're certainly not going to remove them over questionable or disputed interpretations of policy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please also take a look at WP:FILMPLOT. Most people write a plot based on what they've just watched. As long as they don't add their own opinion, there's no danger of WP:OR. And to put it bluntly, there's no way in hell all the film plots will be removed from WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not going to happen. Unless the plot includes direct quotes (which one could argue is permissable under fair use) there isn't really a copyright concern. I don't know of any law that prohibits writing a summary of a work based on your own recollection. Betty Logan (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A detailed scene by scene recap may be a problem (the Harry Potter compendium book lawsuit), but as FILMPLOT targets plots no longer than 700 words, this is near impossible to achieve on WP. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast tables in film series articles

A dispute has arisen at Rocky (film series) about whether the details for Creed 2 should be added (along with a credit issue). I removed the column because the film has not started filming so a Creed 2 article would not meet the notability requirements. Of course, items added to tables do not need to meet notability requirements so I was wondering what the protocol is for this, and whether I was correct to remove the entry?? It seems to me that we would be just documenting speculation until the thing actually starts so do we have a project stance on this? Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Which lead image to use at the Alycia Debnam-Carey article?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Alycia Debnam-Carey#Which lead image to use?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Category cruft

Category:BBC's 100 Films of the 21st Century up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_3#Category:BBC.27s_100_Films_of_the_21st_Century. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Franchise and Film series: Changing the DAB

The proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Franchise_and_Film_series:_Changing_the_DAB to alter the (film series) disambiguator needs to be resolved. The discussion is going around in circles so I think the most clear-cut way to resolve this is to take a survey, which can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Survey, if you don't want to trawl through the discussion. For those editors who have been involved in the discussion it would be helpful to briefly summarise your position. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Uma Thurman stalking case

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Uma Thurman#Request for comment. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

List of cult films and article size

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Article request

Could someone write an article about the Paramount film Booloo, 1938? I don't know where generally to look for good sources, and a Google search is complicated by the existence of a porn website with the same name. It has an IMDB entry, and bizarrely, this American film with no en:wp article has an article in the Malay Wikipedia, complete with a poster image. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a review in The New York Times, but I don't see anything at Variety. Other sources: BFI, AFI, AllMovie, the Singaporean National Library. The last one probably has the most information. Maybe it was more popular in Southeast Asia than in the US. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Took a few days to get around to it, but I made a stub, Booloo. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Crush fetish article

I Killed My Lesbian Wife

Well, I didn't, but Ben Affleck's film I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney is at AfD, and has been relisted a couple of times. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone with a WSJ subscription?

Can anyone with a Wall Street subscription provide me the text for this article? It's being used to source the box office of the Shawshank Redemption but I believe it's being used erroneously since every other source says 16 million. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Archiving seems to bypass it. Cognissonance (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cog, I tried it on the wayback machine and it wouldn't load! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wording for using secondary sources to gauge an older's film's change in reception

We need some opinions on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"secondary sources" for the film's reception are NOT the same thing as what many editors are likely to read "secondary sources" as. A permalink for it is here. There's also a discussion higher up on the talk page about using Rotten Tomatoes for significantly older films. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I'd like to weigh in on this. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Back to the Future: Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack

I proposed a merger of the Back to the Future sountrack article into the parent article, "Back to the Future" two weeks ago. I invite you to comment at Talk:Back to the Future#Merger proposal. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FA nomination for We Are X

Hi there. Sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place - I'm not part of this WikiProject so I'm not sure where everything goes - but I thought I should mention that I have nominated the documentary film We Are X for Featured Article status. Any help with the nomination would be great. Thanks very much. ISD (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

British film studios categories

Hi all. I've brought up various British film studios categories to CfD to be discussed for renaming. The crux of these are the names should be "Films shot at X Studios" over the current naming of "X Studios films", which suggests they are a production company (ie Marvel Studios) and not a physical location that films come to shoot. The discussion can be found here, plus one that was nominated by Trivialist, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird issue with The Greatest Showman

Twice now I've had to revert an edit to The Greatest Showman, that states that the film was somehow inspired by Jackman's Hosting of the 81st Oscars. The first time this was simply added without a source, the second time this was added they cited an Indiewire article that did not state this at all. The user is also trying to imply that my, well sourced, article about the film not being a musical initially is untrue. It might be worth keeping an eye on the page. --Deathawk (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Cameos in cast section

Is there actually a policy or guideline in place somewhere that says whether cameo appearances should be listed in film sections? I have seen a lot of back-and-forth about this in a lot of film articles, but I've never seen anyone quote an actual policy. Personally, I am against them as I think they are generally unimportant roles. But, is there any consensus on this question? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am coming to appreciate the use of prose in cast sections to cover non-main actors which would include bit-cameos and the like. It keeps the key actors clear and removes clutter of long cast lines of bit parts. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issues at Paranormal Activity: The Marked One and Scout's Guide to The Zombie Apocalypse

Can someone check the "Release" sections for both, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse and Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. The text, in it seems to crib from the sources, maybe not word for word, but definitely close to it. --Deathawk (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)-=

^Note I initially forgot to sign this, and this was left unsigned for about a day. So the time stamp is not accurate.

Oscar categories

Hi. Are categories such as Category:Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film a case of WP:OVERCAT? One one had, I can see how it's defining for the film, but the other arguement is that dozens of films don't even make it to the final Oscar ceremony for a nomination, and as far as I know, we don't create cats for films/people who just got a nomination. I'd like thoughts on this before I go to CfD with this (and similar cats). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think so. Basically a submission is a nomination for a nomination so I don't see how that can be considered defining. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that any film submission for any festival/award is an unimportant piece of information so long as it was not nominated, therefore any such category should go. Hoverfish Talk 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both. I've listed them at CfD here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: and @Hoverfish: (and anyone else who wishes to comment) - please can you comment on the CfD (either keep or delete). Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Boarding school films at CfD

Category:Boarding school films is at CfD and would benefit from additional opinions. Discussion here. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If anyone has a few moments, I believe this CfD could use some additional insights. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominating the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article for GA?

If anyone is interested, we could use some opinions at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#GA nomination?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Who to trust?

I'm working on The Shawshank Redemption, and I'm struggling to evidence the truth about the maggot scene. Most sites claim that they weren't allowed to use a live maggot and had to find one that died of natural causes. But the American Humane associations website says the maggot was made of babyfood. It seems like maybe the maggot story has kind of taken on an urban legend vibe, but then the maggot in the film doesn't look like baby food. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would include both explanations. Unless one of the sources has clearly corroborated the claim we are not obliged to take a side. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd go so far to say it's not even worth mentioning! And searching for it brings back lots of mirrors of IMDb trivia. Now, on the other hand, how did Andy re-attach that poster perfectly in all four corners... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

With baby food. GRAPPLE ^X 11:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Booooooooooooooo! Nerds. It doesn't have to be mentioned, but it's just one of the few kind of technical behind the scenes details that exist, so it'd be nice for completions sake. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Expanded universe stuff in cast and crew sections in film universe pages

I like to point out something that I'm concerned. I don't think cast and crew members in many shorts and expanded universe stuff in many universes, including the Jurassic Park universe and the Die Hard film series, should be listed, except some things, including the Marvel Cinematic Universe and such, under some circumstances. My problem of that is it tends to cramp up some spaces to those tables and I don't the majority of them are canon, like what you see in the Die Hard film series when one of the games Die Hard: Vendetta is not canon and some animated shorts in Jurassic Park series as you can see in this diff don't look canon, despite having actors who did the films in both universes lending their voices on it. I think we should figure out how to settle this issue in someway we could. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more interested in being comprehensive. What is canon and non-canon is largely WP:INUNIVERSE detail which should have little bearing on the coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Good Night, and Good Luck or Good Night, and Good Luck.

A discussion as to whether the on-screen period in Good Night, and Good Luck. should be part of the main title header of this film's Wikipedia article is at Talk:Good Night, and Good Luck#Requested move 21 September 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for help with Shawshank Redemption

I'm sure some of you have this on your watchlist, I've been expanding it massively over the last 2 weeks with an eye towards making it a GA/FA. I'm hitting a plateau because I'm now struggling to find sources for things that although are on reliable websites, they end up sourcing us and IMDb. If anyone can help me find a few final sources, mainly for the music and lasting legacy it would be much appreciated. I don't need you to write it up, just provide a link. The music itself is really hard, I'm surprised given it's apparent lasting impact, while the lasting legacy is talked about a lot but not really provided in much detail. Also just any behind the scenes stuff that isn't cited to the IMDb trivia section would be great. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you've looked at it, but would suggest you look at Mark Kermode's BFI book on the film. In particular on the themes of the film.yorkshiresky (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, can see a copy for 4p on Amazon, so gonna get that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE

In case anyone here does not already know, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Replacing tables with infoboxes

An editor is moving through franchise articles replacing section tables with infoboxes. See the following examples:

Table (original): [6]
Infobox (new): [7]

I have reservations about this new direction and would appreciate a few more opinions at Talk:Superman_in_film#Replacing_table_with_infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This makes no sense with the breadth of the "film series". If it were a limited film series of interest (for example, grouping the 3 Nolan Batman films as a whole), then an infobox would make sense, but the point of the table is to indicate the breadth of ppl involved on these over the decades. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree; if a series is homogenous in the sense that it is more or less a creative whole with a core group of collaborators (i.e. The Dark Knight/Lord of the Rings/Back to the Future) then an infobox brings some structure and simplification to the layout but it over-complicates series that have a more diffuse production history. Betty Logan (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

For anything other than a couple of items infoboxes are as ugly as sin and crucially makes navigating through the information extremely difficult. Not to be encouraged. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Although I am against the overuse of tables (when lists or prose can do the job), in the case shown above, the table is most helpful as no list would make the material as presentable and easy to grasp. The infobox here is not easy to follow visually, if not confusing. One has to go through all the numbering and try to combine the info mentally to get what the table shows at a glance. For me, this is a case that justifies the use of tables over lists or prose. Hoverfish Talk 10:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Tartan Films releases at AfD

This has been relisted twice, with no input. If anyone has any strong feelings for keep or delete, please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Film runtime in infobox

Over at the Ronin talk page, I posted about a discrepancy between sources as to the film's runtime. Another editor changed the runtime, which had been 122 min., to 116 min. and added a source from the BFCC, which was legitimate. But, looking at IMDb, Box Office Mojo, and AllMovie, they didn't agree with the BFCC. So, my question is, what do we do when different reliable sources disagree on something like this? Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be mentioned in prose rather than infoboxed at that point. DonIago (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Variety review for that film says 118 minutes, but it was reviewed after the Venice Film Festival. Maybe the festival runtime is being mixed up with the commercial runtime? Could check for other reviews to see what they report. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we should stick to what Variety said about that film's runtime until further notice on reliable external sources of that movie's runtime. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBFC actually measures the physical length of the film and calculates the time from that. It is the most accurate source for running times. Disparities can sometimes result if a cut version of the film has been submitted, but that does not appear to be the case here. The BBFC put the running time at 121m 23s; the other BBFC source (giving the 116 minute time) is actually for the video version, and PAL speedup has shaved a few minutes off the time. The 121m 23s time is the actual time span of the film; distributor logos always add on a few seconds which is why IMDB times are sometimes a minute longer than BBFC times. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast lists Yet Again

Sorry if this exact suggestion has been made before, but there's way too much past discussion about cast lists to read every single comment. I'm new to this issue, so I've only read a few past comments about it.

IMHO (to be quite frank) the current {{Cast list break}}-based solution for cast lists with long descriptions makes the lists look ugly and amateurish:

Tom Skerritt as Dallas, the captain of the Nostromo.
Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]
Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, the warrant officer aboard the Nostromo.
Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]

Especially when lists include entries with and without the break, this actually makes it harder to parse [i.e., scan] cast lists than if each entry was just one long line.

For comparison with what I'm going to suggest, here's the wikicode that generates the above list:

* [[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''. {{Cast list break|Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]}}
* [[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''. {{Cast list break|Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]}}

It seems the only reason definition lists are discouraged is the bold it gives to the actors and their roles (see last sentence in the "Cast" section of WP:CASTLIST and WP:TVCAST):

Tom Skerritt as Dallas, the captain of the Nostromo: Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]
Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, the warrant officer aboard the Nostromo: Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]

(Personally, I think the bold text makes it easier to scan the list. But anyway…)

So why not use a definition list structure but use a template to suppress the bold?

Tom Skerritt as Dallas, the captain of the Nostromo: Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]
Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, the warrant officer aboard the Nostromo: Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]

This would be accomplished with code such as the following:

; {{cast list entry|[[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''}} : Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]
; {{cast list entry|[[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''}} : Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]

Or:

; {{cast list entry|[[Tom Skerritt]] as Dallas, the captain of the ''Nostromo''}}
: Skerritt had been approached early in the film's development but declined as it did not yet have a director and had a very low budget. […]
; {{cast list entry|[[Sigourney Weaver]] as [[Ellen Ripley|Ripley]], the [[warrant officer]] aboard the ''Nostromo''}}
: Weaver, who had Broadway experience but was relatively unknown in film, impressed Scott, Giler, and Hill with her audition. […]

(The actual name of the template can be anything, of course. Also, note that this is only for cases where an ordinary bulleted list is not sufficient.)

This has several benefits, including:

It allows for a two-line-per-entry format that makes it easier to work with in the plain wikitext editor, sans syntax highlighting. (I assume it would also work well in the visual editor, but I never use that.)
It is arguably no harder to edit even in the one-line-per-entry format, as the text inside the {{cast list entry}} template call is usually shorter and more "structured" than the description that would be inside the {{cast list break}} template call (thus making it "relatively easy" to find the end of the template).
Consistency: the {{cast list entry}} template would be used on every entry, not just the "long" ones (again, making it easier to edit).
The overall def-list structure: descriptions in cast lists are often (I think) used to define the roles being played by the actors (see, for example, Star Trek: Discovery#Cast and characters), so it makes sense to use def-list markup. I assume this would also improve the way screen-readers handle the content, but I don't know much about that, really.

The one negative I can see is having the text flush with the left margin. This is not a problem if the cast list is the only thing in a section (as it usually is), but may be awkward if a paragraph of introductory text precedes the list. (Perhaps in that case {{cast list begin}} and {{cast list end}} could be used to indent the list slightly?)

So, dare I ask… Opinions? - dcljr (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast lists are not definitions. And {{cast list break}} works fine with screen readers, that was why it was created. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that breaks in general are undesirable. I don't like the existence of {{Cast list break}} and I certainly don't like the way it is applied arbitrarily with no formal guidelines for when it should be used. About the only good thing I can say about it that at least it is MOS:LISTGAP compliant and, more importantly, WP:ACCESS-friendly. I don't support the use of definition lists (based on the same reasoning as Adamstom97 above): the character blurbs do not describe the "X as Y" parts. A plain list, no linebreaks, is more than sufficient. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, cast lists with descriptions arguably do fit the official description of a definition list:

The dl element represents an association list consisting of zero or more name-value groups (a description list). [...] Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value data.
— 4.4.8 The dl element, W3C's HTML5 specification

I think people have gotten hung up on the word "definition" and overlooked the fact that deflists can be used for more than simply defining words in a dictionary sense. - dcljr (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

So, no response to this? - dcljr (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm not sure if that formatting idea for character descriptions will help much. I'm all for character descriptions in cast sections, unlike other users including, TheOldJacobite and Masem only see it as redundant which displeases me, but I don't know if your idea will work and it may cause some issues with readers and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have never said cast lists were redundant. I do have concern when editors try to force a plot summary to include every credited character so there's a 1-to-1 to the cast list ala Die Hard currently. The cast list gives the place and space, outside of 700 words, to explain the role of minor characters that are not critical to the plot. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: That is not relevant to this topic. What is relevant is the format of the character descriptions for what dcljr is concerned about and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"it may cause some issues with readers and such" — OK, so does anyone know for sure whether it will cause problems for screen readers "and such"? It would be nice to know what specific, real issues may arise from using deflists rather than basing decisions on unspecified, hypothetical problems… - dcljr (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Cinematic Universes and "Future" sections

Both The Mummy (2017) and Tomb Raiders (2018) have sections titled "Future". Both sections are about subsequent films in a cinematic universe and so "Sequels" doesn't really fit. However I have concerns, with the title, it sounds unprofessional and it's also not futureproof (IE: As soon as one film from these sections is released the title is no longer accurate) Can we think of a better name? --Deathawk (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I would go with "Franchise" or "Potential franchise" ("Franchise plans"?) I guess "Potential franchise" isn't future-proof either but really it's not always clear a franchise will develop, despite producers' plans (e.g. Terminator Genisys). But given this is Wikipedia, do we really need to worry too much about future-proofing? Certainly either of these are better than the generic "Future" thought (in my estimation). —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Further films". Popcornduff (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Franchise" and "Further films" are good. Also maybe "Related films". --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

How to report box office performance

Probably the most common way to present a film's box office performance is in the style "X grossed $Y on a $Z budget". When reporting this, some editors like to add their own opinions on whether the film is a "box office success" or not. That's obviously original research, and I remove that. Lately, I've been wondering whether the budget should even be mentioned in the same sentence as the gross. It's completely irrelevant to how much money the film made, and it seems to mostly serve the purpose of indicating whether the film was a "success" or not. This is perhaps compounded by the widespread belief that if a film grosses more than its budget, the studio made a profit, which is not necessarily true. As this New York Times article states, the reality is a lot more complicated. So, my question is: are we leading people to a possibly erroneous conclusion? If a film cost $50 million and grossed $75 million, it could still very well be a net loss. However, the way we're phrasing it, it sounds like a resounding success. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

There are films that grossed more than their budget and lost money (John Carter) and films that grossed less and ended up with good profits due to strong ancillary sales so I agree we should try to avoid implying success and failure through a very weak causal relationship. I think what mostly happens though is that many editors just opt to bung all the financials in one section to keep it clean. I usually place the budget information in the production section–which every C class article should have–but in the end though I'm not sure it will make much difference to how readers interpret the information because you have the budget and gross next to each other in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As with any claim, it should be backed by a reliable source. And even if it can be shown to have made a profit, it's subjective as to whether it was a success or not, especially when the margin is small. I would say multiple sources are needed to describe a profit margin as a success. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates for future films and TV series

Hello. I am a participant from Russian Wikipedia and I have a question for Wikiproject Film: How will you consider the initiative of introducing templates about future films, cartoons and TV series? These templates will be assigned to indicate in the article information that the movie, cartoon or TV series is future or planned and information about it will change. These templates are present in the Russian Wikipedia and other language Wikipedia and are always inserted into articles about future creations of cinematographic and television studios, but this template is removed in the article only when a film, a television series or a cartoon has already appeared on the big screen in the country. Write what do you think about this. --Bogolub (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We did have a future template for films, but it was removed 8 years ago, as it wasn't needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, technically that was for categorizing articles on the talk page. I think this is more about Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, of which I think "future films" was a part. (The name of that template eludes me at the moment. Anyone?) Bogolub, we do not have such templates, but a similar feature we have is Category:Upcoming films, which can be automatically categorized if a film infobox's {{film date}} template is in the future. However, this means the category will go away if a film appears at a festival, even if it has not been commercially released. Before this automation, we had disputes about when a film was no longer "upcoming". Hope this helps. You can use the category to navigate for such topics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing anon.

I want fellow Filmproject editors to be aware of an anonymous editor who has repeatedly removed "whitewashing" links from the see also sections of numerous articles, always with an edit summary that says "doesn't seem necessary," or similar. These are the five addresses I have found so far:

2602:306:32A2:C7A0:388E:6C7F:C44A:AC5E
2602:306:32A2:C7A0:6C48:7C99:63B3:1881
2602:306:32A2:C7A0:480D:6340:D929:DDFA
2602:306:32A2:C7A0:E883:EF2D:2B72:7738
2602:306:32A2:C7A0:ED7F:B5A5:E558:D6F6

Be on the lookout for this guy, as he is a tedious pain in the neck. This is clearly the same person and I wonder if a range block isn't warranted. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The anon might have a valid point, but one that should be fixed. I looked at one example A Beautiful Mind (film) and there is one part that talks about the lack of mention of the homosexual angle, which is sourced. However, looking at the whitewashing in film page, as it reads, does not seem to suggest that a change/lack of mention of a real person's sexual preference in the film version is "whitewashing" - although the source that supports its on A Beautiful Mind does use that term to defend the claims against it. In other words, I think the see also link is appropriate, but this requires that whitewashing page to include other forms, rather than focus on the racial version only. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And spot checking even further, the whitewashing in film list includes ABM for the fact Alicia was racially whitewashed, but this is not at all mentioned (that I can see easily) on the ABM page. Hence the issue that anon is properly identifying. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that there are inconsistencies between the articles that have the link in the see also section and the films that are discussed in the article itself. It's another matter altogether to simply say it's irrelevant and delete every instance he can find with no further attempt to discuss the issue. That indicates to me that he has a problem with the very idea of whitewashing as a real phenomenon. Simply deleting the link solves nothing. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The key is with at least ABM is that there is nothing that meets WP:V that discusses whitewashing on its page presently; what is considered whitewashing related to ABM is in the list article but for some reason not in the ABM article. Yes, this is easily fixed, but at the same time, it's also an unsourced contentious link and anon's remove seems reasonable. Now if they are edit warring over it, that's behavior, but as a BOLD removal, it seems reasonable and should be an impedus to fix. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Does the "see also" link really make a claim though? If the link were "Films containing whitewashing" or some other declarative form then that might be a valid objection, but the article is simply called "Whitewashing in film" and contains sourced commentary about ABM. It seems reasonable to me to link to an article if it includes sourced commentary on the subject of the article that readers may find informative. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We try to treat each page as self-contained, so if I have to flip to a second page to learn why whitewashing is important, that's a problem. Again, there's an easy solution - incorporate the sourced whitewash claims into the ABM article and then the see also link is 100% justified (unless we link that in text). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

On the note about a disruptive editor jumping between addresses, make a note of them in your sandbox. Build your evidence around them and ask an admin for a rangeblock. It takes time and can be a lot of work, but the end result is worth it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I did precisely that before I posted here, and I will continue to keep my eyes open. If the pattern continues from that same range, I think a block will be necessary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ladybird

I added a Request for comment request over at Ladybird, You can view it here --Deathawk (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

If they are particularly relevant to discuss in a film article, which section should they be put? SLIGHTLY^mad 04:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the context. If the director is discussing why they were left out then the production section would probably be the best place. If they were cut by a censor or distributor then the release section. If they turned up on a DVD release then the home video section would be as good a place as any. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Section on post-production/editing if there is one. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond Paradise film (2016)

Dear Wikipedia editors, contributors, colleagues,

Normally I live/work in New York and Los Angeles. Right now I work in Paris until 16th Nov 2017, 9 hours behind LA time. So please forgive any delay in responding to your queries. I came across my written, produced and directed film Beyond Paradise (2016) post at Wikipedia.

There were a number of small and medium errors and omissions. So I created a Wikipedia user in my name @JJAlani in the name of which I edited my film with the corrections of errors and omissions, but only adding strictly factual data that are verifiable on IMDB.com and Internet research of independent professional sites.

I chose @JJAlani my real name as the contributor so it will be transparent to all concerned that I'm connected with this film, as its single Writer, Producer, and Director.

Moreover, in the edit box I declared my COI = Conflict Interest as follows: COI disclosure: Contributor JJAlani is the writer/director of this film Beyond Paradise. He is only contributing factual data from independent sources like IMDB.com. Contributor JJAlani is NOT compensated and will NOT be compensated for this film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JJAlani (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@JJAlani: thank you for being so transparent and forthright about your conflict of interest. Many people don't care about this at all. I wish more people would take an interest in maintaining factually accurate articles on Wikipedia, though it can be frustrating to deal with shills, marketers, and spammers. If I can give one bit of advice, we generally don't consider the IMDb to be an authoritative source. It can be edited by anyone, much like Wikipedia, which makes it unreliable for most content. Audience ratings, for example, can be manipulated either positively or negatively through ballot-stuffing. If you instead pointed people to trade magazines, like Variety, that would help more. You can do so via inline citations, such as <ref>http://www.variety.com/example-article.html</ref>. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Film MOS

I'd like to invite you to comment on my RFC here --Deathawk (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like I'm constantly running into bad production sections

This is a problem that's really been on my mind for a while and I brought it up before, A lot of these film sections are just poorly written and seem like a wall of text spitting unrelated facts at you. I think we can do better than this, and I've for my part been trying to tidy up sections but it's hard when hundreds of movies come out a year.

I feel like part of the problem is that production sections are started too early (often times with the articles) when there really isn't much about the film known other than when cast members join and rote business news, so in an effort to make a "complete" article, editors often just fill it with every bit of news they can find, and often this is never cleaned up.

I don't know what I'm asking or proposing,l But it's just frustrating and somewhat depressing that the quality of these sections is so low, but I do feel something should be done. Any ideas --Deathawk (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is production can last longer than a year (or a decade in the case of Avatar 2) so you tend to get WP:PROSELINE. There is no way of preventing this so there is no point going down that route. All I can suggest is that articles should not be passed at GA level if they contain proseline and that will force a cleanup during a review (if that is not already the case). Maybe highlight the problem at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#Film_grading_scheme? Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Bringing it to Wikifilm Assesment, is a good idea, I do think we can do more to discourage the style to begin with however. We're probably going to have to bring something up to the MOSFILM which we were unable to gain a consensus on last time. Reading it now it seems like much of that denial was due to the use of the word Proseline and people not exactly understanding what it meant and/or fears that people reading the new policy would not understand it. --Deathawk (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

See related RfC (a "what should we do about this?" opinion-seeking one, not a "let's change this exact wording" one) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RFC on proposed production section guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 00:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian task force

Hi everyone! I suggest that we add the Egyptian Cinema to the task force as it is one of the earliest countries to be introduced to film as the Lumière Brothers screened their short film in Alexandria in 1896, and it has been reported that Egypt produced more than 3000 films since 1918. It also has a great influence over the middle east and africa. Some useful links to show the need for this task forces: Cinema of Egypt, Lists of Egyptian films and Category:Egyptian films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdslkd (talk • contribs) 08:44, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

Hello! In general, I would agree, but it's worth noting that most task forces are not active. They tend to be glorified labels at this point. A task force should exist to be used, meaning that there is already group interest. In my experience, the existence of a task force does not really draw editors together. It would exist more as a result of editors already pooling together. There's nothing to prevent anyone from working on Egyptian cinema, and without a group, managing a task force is more trouble than it's worth. That's my take, anyway. Others can weigh in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the existence of a sub-project page on a national task force does help to get some things organized, even if it starts with one person. It may or it may not succeed in attracting members, or even stay active for very long, but it may inspire a few members to get some things improved for a time. In any case, I wish all best for the newly created task force. Hoverfish Talk 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I also support the idea of an Egyptian task force. While it's true that most task forces are not very active, they are still useful for organizing film articles by a particular subject. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that Fortdj33 moved it to "potential task forces", so I read the prerequisites and indeed it has to go some more way before it is considered an "official task force". Even so, I think it is a good start. Hoverfish Talk 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but both of the members of the new Egyptian film project have recently appeared on WP, with little edit history between them. But they now how to create articles from the get-go, and knew how to create the task force itself. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does ring a few alarm bells. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For those who care, both have been blocked on WP:COMMONS for "abusing multiple accounts" - aka WP:SOCKing ([8], [9]). I'm convinced they are the same person using the those accounts here too. To quote Joe in Reservoir Dogs - "You don't need proof when you have instinct". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, I do care (I did notice their simultaneous appearance) and I have been on the watchout for any abuse of multiple accounts. To this point I see only helpful edits. I hope it stays that way. If not, there is always indefinite blocking... Hoverfish Talk 19:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth it to send "The Other Woman" For GA reassessment

I noticed today that the 2014 film The Other Woman had received a GA rating back in 2015, however the production and release section seem rather poorly worded. I'm not really sure if it's worth sending it back over two sections though. Can I get some eyes on it. --Deathawk (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The GA criteria aren't really all that strict, unfortunately. One thing we can do is crack down on original research, such as proclamations that a film is a "box office success". Unless a source explicitly says this, it doesn't belong in our article – and Box Office Mojo does not label films like this. Another problem is that editors really like adding their own personal analysis of the film's reception. We already have two review aggregators, so we don't need something like "it received negative reviews, which criticized it's plot and acting". Yeah, the five reviews you have listed might have done that, but we need a reliable source to state that this was a majority consensus. It's better to simply quote what Rotten Tomatoes says in its consensus. And, of course, we have the ubiquitous Mad Libs production section: "on [date], [magazine] confirmed that [actor] was cast in the role of [character]." I tried to do some copy edits, but it's still proseline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlisted Owner (film)

Would someone from WikiProject Film mind taking a look at this and assessing it? Much of the recent editing has been done by IP SPAs who might be connected to the film in some way. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

Cordially inviting everybody in this project to participate in my current peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ronin (film)/archive1 SLIGHTLY^mad 06:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

R.S.V.P. (film)

R.S.V.P. (film) is a pretty bare-bones article right now. A cursory search for sources on my part didn't yield anything that I considered especially promising. If anyone's got some free time and feels like bulking this one up, their efforts would be appreciated. As it stands the article's been tagged since 2010 for a lack of sourcing. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Who deciced to do elaborate plot summaries instead of reasonable length synopses?

These extended length plot summaries are not serving human needs. I can't even tell if a movie has a happy ending from a typical plot summary. It appears the choice was made to serve a tiny sector of the encyclopedia audience. How about a decent synopsis so readers can determine whether they are interested in seeing the movie? An incredibly basic question. Rtdrury (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Film synopses are recommended to be 750 words at most, and as sticking to the most important plot points. Frankly, that doesn't really allow for overly elaborate summaries. If it's impossible to tell if the ending is a happy one, then it's an improperly written summary, and that isn't a problem with the guidelines themselves. Also, well, plot summaries aren't written for the purposes for readers to determine if they want to watch the movie? It's written to... summarize the plot. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There's usually a brief summary in the lead, but a lot of editors will fight to keep out any spoilers. If you're looking for a quick yes/no on whether it has a happy ending, I don't think we have anything like that. The genre will probably tell you something about the tone and content, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

How about YOU writting a decent synopsis so readers can determine whether they are interested in seeing the movie. An incredibly basic solution. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think TenTonParasol was on the money here: Wikipedia plot summaries aren't there to help readers decide if they want to see a movie. Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. Popcornduff (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly if I have any intention of seeing a film, the very last thing I would do is read the WP plot summary. My late grandmother always used to read the last page of a book before buying or borrowing it; if it didn't have a happy ending she would refuse to read it. Personally I would rather leave what happens in a plot as a surprise. MapReader (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Like others have said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource to tell you what movies to see. Plot summaries are intended to complement what Wikipedia summarizes from independent sources about a movie. This is based on Wikipedia's policy at WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia treats creative works... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." Why not a source like Rotten Tomatoes? It shares the premise in addition to the score. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on actresses/women filmmakers etc during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Genre category for The Artist

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Semple McPherson (film)

Would welcome more input on this AFD. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast (2017) categories

Hello WT:Film,

Over at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization we're discussing the application of a number of categories to this article. I can't request a 3O because there are already more than two users here, and I think starting an RFC over eleven categories would probably be unwise, but we appear to be at a standstill, so I turn to you. Hope you can help! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cinemascore and inability to link to specific films

Bestfilmclips2016 (talk · contribs) recently added Cinemascore results to a number of films' reception sections. However, the citation they provided simply points to the homepage for the site. My initial conclusion was that this isn't acceptable in that the citations should point to pages for the specific films. However, in this case it appears that the site doesn't offer specific pages for films; rather, if you key a film's name into the drop-down box they provide, you can view the result for the film.

Could I get some feedback as to whether it's acceptable, or a good idea, to provide these results when the only sourcing data we can provide is to Cinemascore's main page? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, even that kind of dynamic source should be acceptable. The Oscars database does not provide stable URLs to reference, but I think it is appropriate to reference that source anyway. CinemaScore, though... it's not as noteworthy, and I am not sure if we should include it if independent sources don't mention it. I find that it should go into a box office section to avoid misinterpretation because their grades are based on opening-weekend audiences, not a random sample. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like it, and I find the user's sudden interest and that username suspicious, but a lot of mainstream press mentions CS and their scores. If you filter out Darren Aronofsky from a Google News search you'll get a wider view of its mention in press: The Atlantic, LA Times, Vulture, EW, TRH, IGN, W Magazine, AOL News, etc. JesseRafe (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I really don't like it either, I think all the edits should be reverted. Freikorp (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

On what basis exactly should the edits be reverted? Until now the Film project has treated Cinemascore as a WP:Reliable source for the audience response and until that consensus changes then it is eligible for inclusion. If there are good reasons to exclude the data then I am receptive to hearing the argument for that position, but if it is simply because it is not possible to provide a direct link then the citations can easilybe modified to include instructions such as "Type the film's title into the 'Find Cinemascore' search box". That would be no different to providing a page number for a book. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't like it, either. An audience score from the opening weekend might be interesting, but I don't know that it's particularly revelatory, except, perhaps, as a way to show how general perceptions of a film have changed over time. I would be in favor of its removal, or, if there is no consensus for that, at least moving it to the box office section, not the critical response. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The methodology used to generate these scores is not particularly suitable for encyclopedic inclusion. While they may ask random memebers of the audience, the fact that the audience itself is self-selected (that is to say, the respondents are people who chose to see the movie, and therefore already were more likely to have a favorable opinion) means that it's not scientific. In short, they're junk statistics. Combine that with the inability to directly link the film, and we're talking a reference that doesn't add value to our reader's knowledge. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

From a WP:V point, there is no immediate issue with such references. You can go to the site, search on the unique film name, and get the page, you can't just get a link to get there. Ideally, these should be WebCite'd to provide an archive link but the link very much meets WP:V (in that I'm not guessing where, once one the site, where I need to go out of thousands of pages). --MASEM (t) 23:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment – The film project has treated Cinemascore as a valid audience poll covering initial reaction. However, its relevance to a particular film should probably be determined by other reliable sources. If a newspaper or magazine article, for example, mentions the film's Cinemascore rating, then we could (and probably should) include it. Adding it to every film article for the sake of including it, however, seems inappropriate and may give undue prominence to the rating itself. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote its relevance to the industry. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, is it really any worse than Metacritic? We report Rotten Tomatoes fairly often because it's often mentioned, but Metacritic is never talked about. CinemaScore is being mentioned a lot more nowadays, which is why I assume they've finally made their grades publicly accessible. I guess upon reflection, I don't have a problem with including it with box office content and specifying it is a grade from opening-weekend audiences. If we want further detail, we would need to reference another source that has access to the details of the poll (e.g., demographic breakdown). It just feels different here because someone wants to proliferate in a widespread manner the grade in articles for films that have such a grade since that option was not available before. Once we are up to date with that grade being reported, it can be added organically like RT and MC. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the text Bestfilmclips was adding was along the lines of "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A-" on an A+ to F scale." along with, as noted, the site's homepage as the ref. My sense from the above is that this statement doesn't provide sufficient context, but I think we have at least a couple of questions:

Should the CS grade only be mentioned if a third-party source notes it (and can itself be used as the reference)?
What would the preferred wording be? (I think it at least needs to mention that the polling is non-random and only during the opening weekend).
In the end, should these edits be entirely reverted (without prejudice to re-adding w/improvement), or can they be cleaned-up?

Thanks everyone for your feedback thus far. DonIago (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify that I mean that the grade is not random in the sense of being the opening weekend audience's opinion. However, I see no reason to doubt that it is a fair sample of the general opinion of that particular audience. So we should be clear in Wikipedia's voice that it is the opening weekend audience, not a general audience. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Should the CS grade only be mentioned if a third-party source notes it?

For the reason Erik points out (comparing MetaCritic to Cinemascore in reliable sources), it probably wouldn't be wise to set that requirement. The fact that it is sometimes mentioned by third-party reliable sources makes Cinemascore a reputable source that can generally be used anytime. However, there may be situations where its removal is warranted, and if that's ever the case, its removal can be discussed on the article talk page.

What would the preferred wording be?

Perhaps something along the lines of: "Audiences polled by CinemaScore during opening weekend gave the film an average grade of A- on a scale ranging from A+ to F."

Also as a FYI, the polling itself is somewhat random as indicated at CinemaScore#Rating. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether these scores can really be considered random, given Oknazevad's point above. I don't really have an opinion on whether third-party sourcing should be required; it just seemed a salient point to raise. I'd be okay with your wording assuming others agree as well. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to, "the respondents are people who chose to see the movie, and therefore already were more likely to have a favorable opinion"?

This subjective viewpoint has a flipside. The respondents have bought into the hype and went to see the movie opening weekend. While they may be more lenient on the grade they give, they are also likely going in with high expectations. So a middle-of-the-road B may not tell us a whole lot, but an A likely means it met or exceeded expectations, just like a C or lower should sound an alarm. It is debatable how much value this really provides potential moviegoers, but it's dishonest to say they provide no value in every situation (which is what Oknazevad seems to imply). The fact that reliable sources continue to cite Cinemascore is further evidence that the scores matters to some extent.

I'm generally cautious about Wikipedia being used as a pedestal for promotion, but after taking some time to consider opposing viewpoints, I've softened my stance against its inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm implying nothing. Just stating the fact that a truly scientific random survey includes no self-selection of any sort by the survey respondents, which, because they only poll people who selected to see the movie (and on opening weekend, too), Cinemascore doesn't quite fulfill. That they've become increasingly reported just tells me that there's many reporters who don't understand that aspect of surveys. Conversely, one does need to actually see a film to give a valid opinion of the film, so it may be a neccessary condition of having any sort of survey. The phrasing that makes clear that it's a survey of opening weekend filmgoers at least informs the reader of the nature of the results, and isn't too bad. oknazevad (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Umberto Lenzi filmography

How should we apply WP:FILMOGRAPHY to Umberto Lenzi#Select filmography? Please comment at Talk:Umberto Lenzi#Filmography. --wooden superman 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? We're at an impasse over there! --wooden superman 14:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Little John, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

When is a film article ready for GA?

If all but Home media and Awards information is complete, could one nominate that article to GA? Where is the line that says it's complete? Cognissonance (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment helpful. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You can nominate an article at any time, but you should consider WP:GACR, namely #3 "Broad in its coverage", before you do so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan and TriiipleThreat: In your honest opinion, is Dunkirk (2017 film) ready to be reviewed against the GA criteria? This is what I've been debating, whether to wait for Home media and Accolades to come, or consider the article complete given its contents. Cognissonance (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Just an FYI, please do note that film articles cannot be nominated until they are no longer in theaters/their box office has been completed. So Dunkirk would not be able to even be nominated yet, as it is still in theaters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Favre1fan93, I did not know that. Will wait. Cognissonance (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is noted somewhere, but at the moment I can't seem to find it, so I apologize, but yes this is the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.gothamgazette.com/government/1380-is-gangs-of-new-york-historically-accurate

[2] ttp://www.gothamgazette.com/government/1380-is-gangs-of-new-york-historically-accurate

[3] ttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0320_030320_oscars_gangs_2.html

[4] ttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0320_030320_oscars_gangs_2.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]