Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 71

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 65

←

Archive 69

→

Edits to film industry articles

HugoSpin (talk · contribs) has made quite a few unsourced edits to various film company articles. I've just gone through their contributions and reverted the changes that appeared to be incorrect, but would appreciate further assistance from someone who knows more about the film industry. Λυδ α cιτγ 08:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Stage Door Canteen

I have initiated a request to move the article about this 1943 film from Stage Door Canteen to Stage Door Canteen (film). The article was moved recently, and I have asked that it be returned to its original article title. The title Stage Door Canteen had been redlinked until now, to encourage the creation of an article about the WWII New York City canteen that inspired the film. Please visit Talk:Stage Door Canteen#Requested move 7 August 2018 if you care to support or oppose the request. Thanks. — WFinch (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@WFinch: You don't need to start a move request to move an article back. It's a controversial move so you can just move it back yourself. If the other editor insists on moving the article to the new name then the onus falls on them to start the move request. Betty Logan (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you — I've moved it back. I'm afraid there might be cleanup associated with the Stage Door Canteen title, now, but I'll cross that bridge. — WFinch (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have requested that the redirect be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again, very much. The redlink will help prompt the creation of an article. I had hoped to create one some time ago, but while researching the topic I found that there's surprisingly little real information about the Stage Door Canteen. The American Theatre Wing was reportedly working on a book, but it hasn't materialized yet. — WFinch (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not immediately obvious that the page is being reserved for a primary topic (it could have quite easily have been me who moved it given the circumstances) so this may well happen again. My suggestion would be to simply create a stub-class article to lay claim to the primary name. There is probably enough information at http://www.stagedoorcanteen.co.uk/ww2-history.html to create a stub. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do. — WFinch (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Obscenity controversies in film

MagicatthemovieS (talk · contribs) has been applying Category:Obscenity controversies in film to multiple film articles in which "obscenity" or variations upon it appear nowhere in the article. I'd appreciate it if other editors could review the articles to which this editor has applied the category in the event that I may have erred, or if there are films to which this category has also been inappropriately applied. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Doniago: I am of the opinion that a film that is banned should be added to this category, no matter the reason why it was banned, as something that is banned is necessarily considered obscene by someone. Films that caused protests should indiscriminately be added to the category as well. All the films I added to the category inspired a ban or a protest or were controversial according to their articles. I wasn't trying to disrupt anything and I did not put original research into any article. Because we are all adults here, I will refrain from adding any more films to this category until this dispute is resolved and we agree on a definition of "obscenity."MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

No need to ping me; I've got this page on my watchlist, but I appreciate the gesture. I'll wait to hear from other editors before offering my own thoughts. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Films can be also be banned for political or religious reasons. I'd say a large amount of films in our list of banned films aren't necessarily obscene and/or sexual (or religious if you count heresy) content wasn't the reason for the ban. Daß Wölf 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally feel that if something is seen as so abhorrent from a certain religious/political worldview that is banned or protested, then it is viewed as obscene. Films can be seen as obscene due to 1) sexual content 2) racism 3) violence 4) blasphemy (e.g. some Muslims see visual depictions of Muslim prophets as obscene) or 5) political messages.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

Firstly, I did a spot check on the entries in the category to confirm what DonIago said and found it so. In fact, some of them did not even have the word "ban" or "controversy" in them. So, Magica's methodology is very loose, overly loose. In fact, there seems to be a recurring issue with Magica, as their talk page has multiple instances where other editors have objected to their addition of categories; their talk page history reveals even more notes that Magica ought to read WP:CATDEF. From what I've seen in the cat and based on their editing history, no matter how one defines obscene, most of these articles do not belong in the category anyway because obscenity controversies are not a defining feature of that film or its notability. I also, as many others have apparently done before, urge Magica to read WP:CATDEF. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Just because a film's article doesn't include the words "banned" or "controversy" doesn't mean that it wasn't seen as obscene. Perhaps the category itself is too nebulous; we can delete it and create new categories like "Banned films" or "Racism controversies in film", though I am satisfied with the original category. I also think that bringing up issues from my talk page from years ago is irrelevant and in poor taste. MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

For an article to be included in the category, the category needs to be defining. That is what WP:CATDEF is. Adding them to a "Racism controversies in film" or similar, maybe even "Banned fils", does not address the issue that such things are not defining elements of the work or coverage of it. For the articles to be placed in the obscene category, discussion of its obscenity needs to be in the article. I bring up the notices on your talk page—some of which are from three months ago, not years—because CATDEF has been mentioned to you multiple times before this discussion for a long time. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 01:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that a film causing controversy is always a defining attribute, the same way that a film being shot in a certain place or released in a certain year is a defining attribute. MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagiatthemovieS

It needs to be a notable controversy of this particular type described as such by multiple reliable sources and well-documented in the article itself. If it is not covered in the article a category cannot be justified. If the phrase "Obscenity controversy" does not show up at all in the article, it is fairly clear that it is not defining for that article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course it needs to be documented in the article; however, the phrase "obscenity controversy" is profoundly uncommon so it does not show up in articlesMagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthmovieS

But if there really was a controversy over obscenity, it doesn't seem to me that it should be so difficult to find a source referring to the film being banned or protests occurring because of something along the lines of "obscene content". You added a movie to this category on the grounds that the movie was called blasphemous, but blasphemous doesn't mean obscene. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that something is considered obscene if it is considered blasphemousMagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I don't believe you're going to get a consensus in favor of that line of thought. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar: Possibly picking at nits here, but is the category name misleading? I could see a reasonable argument that the name suggests the category is for films that discuss obscenity controversies. I'll likely let this drop unless anyone else feels it's a point of concern. DonIago (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the title of the category. MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

I believe the category name is not actually misleading. The category is for article that discuss obscenity controversies—though, I do believe that articles about works whose articles have a large portion of their article dedication to such controversies because the work's history is in large part defined by such a controversy. But I'm not talking three sentences mentioning it, I'm talking like "this film is mostly notable because of this controversy". ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think we need to tread carefully here. DasWolf is correct in that being banned and being obscene is a not a tautology. Films from the West were routinely banned in the Soviet Union purely for not being Communist enough. The Nazis also banned films that didn't espouse Nazi ideology. ET was banned in Sweden for being too "traumatic" for children. Monty Python's Life of Brian was partially banned in the UK for breaching blasphemy laws. Also, films can generate protest simply if they offend the sensibilities of some minority group: Basic Instinct was picketed by gay rights activists over its depiction of a gay character, not because it transgressed a moral standard. If this category is going to be added it needs to be compliant with WP:CATVER, and it needs to be clear that the film transgressed a moral standard in society, rather a political or religious one, or the sensibilities of a minority. It also needs to comply with WP:CATDEF: one can only imagine how many films get banned in a place like Saudi Arabia. Betty Logan (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We need a working definition of an "obscenity controversy."MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Anime production companies

There is a discussion regarding the production companies for anime films. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Regarding film production companies. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

A logo question

I recently uploaded a transparent logo for the film company A Band Apart (image can be seen here). I uploaded it as a transparent PNG, and it shows as such when visited on its own page or clicked on the article. However, I've tried looking at the Band Apart page in three browsers and all of them show it with a white background. What am I doing wrong here? I've been having this problem with a few other logos and rectified it by re-uploading them as SVGs, but I know for certain I've used transparent PNGs in the past. Anyone have any ideas? Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 18:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

When I hover over the image on the image's page, I see the gray-and-white checkerboard that indicates that it is transparent. My Wikipedia background is white, which I thought was the default color. Are you saying you have a different Wikipedia background color that means the image seems to have a white background? Maybe because of the combined configurations, the default white background comes through, and the image is technically transparent against it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: That might be possible, but if I look at something like Barry (TV series) or Plan B Entertainment, I see them on the slightly grey background with just the text displaying. But with A Band Apart, it shows a solid white background as if there's no transparent. I'm assuming it's something with my computer, but I'm not sure. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 19:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You mention a slightly grey background, I assume in the infobox. I am not sure if I see that in my main browser (Chrome) nor IE (meaning no extensions or add-ons interfering). Is this something unique to your configuration? I do notice that these two links' images are SVG, and their file pages say "Size of this PNG preview of this SVG file". Hovering over these SVG images on their pages also shows the grey-and-white checkerboard effect. Other editors can share what they see or don't see, so we can narrow down the possibilities. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For some reason the transparency breaks down in the 220–250 pixel range. I have set the image size to 230 pixels in the infobox (rather than the default of 220 pixels). The white box has disappeared in my browser (Vivaldi) but it could vary from browser to browser. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Still a white box in Internet Explorer though... Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
If you set the image size to 452 pixels (the upload size of the image) the transparency kicks in in Internet Explorer. Obviously we can't the have infobox 452 pixels wide but I wonder what would happen if you uploaded a 220 pixel wide image. That is the default width of images in the infobox so the browsers wouldn't need to resize it, which is what I think is causing the image to lose its transparency. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I appreciate you validating that I'm not crazy. I'll reupload a small size and we can check it from there. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Article about audience reception

This may interest other editors: CinemaScore, Rotten Tomatoes, and movie audience scores, explained at Vox

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Was hoping they'd touch on other polling methods such as PostTrak and newcomer SurveyMonkey, but it was interesting nonetheless. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I assume that these two are not big enough. I see PostTrak popping up more in sources like Deadline Hollywood, but I barely see SurveyMonkey out there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bridgette Andersen and Savannah Smiles

Hi. Can people please look over the Bridgette Andersen and Savannah Smiles articles? Thank you. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:One-location films

Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs) has set up and populated Category:One-location films recently. I'm concerned that multiple film articles which were added to this category don't explicitly describe their films as one-location films, and have asked NT to provide their sources for the categorization per WP:CATVER. I'm also concerned that this may not constitute a defining category, but I'm willing to let that matter lie unless other editors are similarly concerned. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A quick glance shows that the usual problems with ignoring the policies and guidelines at WP:MOSCAT. Along with the WP:CATDEF and WP:CATVER that Doniago has mentioned there is the fact that films like Cast Away don't belong in it since several locations are used in the film. Now it is possible that a film like 12 Angry Men would be suitable for the cat since it pretty much is a defining feature of that movie but sourced info regarding that needs to be entered into the article before adding the cat. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of a similar category that went to CfD a few years back: Films set within one day. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Even in cases where films are notable for their localised settings, I'm having trouble seeing how this category could be enforced to a reasonable standard. How big or complex does a location have to be before it stops counting as a location? —Flax5 12:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I'll give it another 1-2 days for additional feedback before starting a CfD. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The whole thing is nonsensical unless it is strictly enforced and sourced. For example how come Night of the Living Dead (which opens in a graveyard) is put into the category but Die Hard (which opens on an aeroplane) does not? Even in cases where the film actually qualifies it is not often a defining feature so would probably work better as a list anyway. I would support binning the cat. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I created the category. I figured it was a fitting category for films like All Is Lost (takes place entirely on a boat at sea), Locke (takes place entirely in an SUV, literally no other scenes other than the SUV). I can see some of the other choices I chose for this category might not fit this category (Die Hard). But there are a number of films literally with just one location only seen in a film, like Cube. I think it is a valid category for certain films. I'll do some clean up of the category for films that don't fit this strict one location category. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would benefit being a list instead of a category. It can then be expanded with notes, etc. I know that @Erik: has done similar lists for "Films featuring X..." etc, so could offer some advice in this area. I think the category will end up being nuked IMO. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this discussion and thought a list would work better. I hadn't weighed in because I'm a bit anti-category in my mind since it seems to involve gut-feeling work (especially when it comes to genres, which leads to so much overlap). If a category is non-obvious, then its appropriateness needs to be backed by sourced content in the article, yet there's no real accountability for that. With list articles, one can name a film and tie sources directly to it. So obviously, a list can be done here. As for the category's existence, it could "technically" work, it's more a matter of whether or not the inevitable lack of due diligence in proliferating the category is tolerable. It depends on the threshold of the "I know it when I see it" mentality in inserting the category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Neptune, the problem is that we can't assign categories based on our own interpretations, but must defer to reliable sources describing films accordingly. If you have sources, by all means expand the article(s) to include some appropriate discussion, but otherwise you're basically applying original research here. Thanks for understanding. DonIago (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

CfD has been opened here. I've opened it as a recommended conversion to a list, but editors who don't feel that's viable are welcome to recommend deletion instead; I don't have strong feelings either way. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Input requested

A discussion has begun here Template talk:IMDb title#More allowable values for "section" that is related to the MOS for this project. Any and all input is welcomed. MarnetteD|Talk 05:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

TCMDb title template nominated for deletion

Please see this discussion. It follows on from an earlier thread started by @Betty Logan: about the TCM site. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding "expected" release date in infobox

If a film is expected to premiere at a forthcoming film festival, can we add the anticipated month/year to the infobox? Example: "September 2018" has been re-added to the released field for this film. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you have a source for the date. I do this all the time with major film festivals (for example, Cannes is always in May, so you can use that as a guide). I then add it as prose in the body of the article ("The film is scheduled to be released..."), etc. Once the exact date is known, then this can be added. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Thank you. I was under the impression that it had to be a full date. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes it applies to films released 40 years ago (or more), when all we know is that it was released in August 1950 (for example), and nothing more. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

IMDb as a source for film credits and awards

Is IMDb acceptable as a source for an individual's film credits and awards? I always thought the entries were user-generated – I notice there is still an edit function on the site's pages, where it appears anyone can alter details for each entry. I would imagine this issue has come up quite a bit here, but I can't find a list of sources recommended by the project, as there is for say WP Albums. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It is always unreliable for awards as far as I know and unreliable for most credits. See WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and for that link also. JG66 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

My usual approach is to look through the list that IMDb has and then try find a reliable source for each one. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that approach. I haven't had cause to use the site other than to check film soundtrack composers and performers occasionally. An American songwriter, Joe Greene, composer of big band/jazz standards, is credited at IMDb as having written the funky 1970s instrumental "Outa-Space"; in fact, it was [co-]written by a different Joe Greene. Admittedly, the name's hardly unusual, so confusing the two songwriters might be easily done. But then one would expect a decent listings site to be just the type of source that avoids an error like that – because, presumably, any Oscar wins and other accolades will similarly be attributed to the wrong individual. JG66 (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree on all fronts about awards. Regarding credits, I don't think they are too questionable when it comes to recent mainstream films. You can always cross-check them pretty easily. When the film is older and/or more obscure, I would use greater caution and lean more on other sources. If there is an obvious discrepancy, go with the non-IMDb source and use an inline citation if the credit is likely to be challenged for some reason. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Just as an FYI in case it wasn't clear from above... IMDB should be cited alongside another reliable source whenever it is used as a reference. The information posted on IMDB is dynamic and can change at any given time, so therefore, I would advise against using it as a source for anything on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of reliable databases that can used for credits. See Category:Online film databases; most of them are fairly useful, at least in their niche. AllMovie is a decent choice – free, comprehensive, and not full of errors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Rogue One requested move discussion

A discussion to move Rogue One to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story as been opened on the article's talk page. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion

To protect the innocent/those at work, etc, there is a move discusion on the article unsimulated sex, which you can find here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about name usage over at Interstellar (film)

What's the policy when two characters share the same name - and are referenced in a film. Usually a character is referred to by their surname, and I generally refer to them by christian name if there are multiple shared surnames, but a user over at Interstellar (film) claims this to be sexist, due to one character being female.

What's the established process here? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

User the names of the characters as credited. No ambiguity there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I perhaps should have been clearer, this isn't about "Murph" / "Murphy" which I agree is clear cut, but there are two characters called "Brand": John Brand, and Amelia Brand. Usually we would simply say "Brand did this, and Brand did that" - but in this case it could be confusing as to which Brand we are referring to. So how do we distinguish between each? Do we use a full name "Amelia Brand", do we resort to first names "Amelia", or do we just continue with "Brand" and hope it's clear to the reader which it is?

My thought would be that in the first instance to introduce the character we say "Amelia Brand", and then in all following instances we use the first name "Amelia" - but I'm asking for clarification, as that's simply my feeling on the subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two characters, one is credited as Professor Brand and the other is credited as Brand. First names are not in the credits. Credits in the article don't seem to match the actual film credits as WP:FILMCAST recommends. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

In this instance I would be introducing them with their full names and then using their given names moving forward, otherwise it will just be too confusing and not make much sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that both the plot and the cast list should be comprehensible and non-sexist. And I consider it sexist to call an adult scientist by her first name as if she still were a child, while her Professor (whose first name we do know) and here father (whose first name we do know) are called by their last name. --Vigilius (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not sexist if it is not being done because of their sex... - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Usually the senior gets preference over the junior and that is because of seniority, not sex. Generally when there is name ambiguity we use as much of the name as need to remove the ambiguity which would mean full names for both. However, a I stated above, the credits say the names are "Professor Brand" and "Brand" and that is also not ambiguous if used consistently. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Professor Brand" is the credited name and not ambiguous so that can be used as is; however, "Brand" on its own (the credited name of the Hathaway character") is ambiguous so the plot summary requires clarification. The AFI synopsis refers to the character as "Amelia", so I would just go with that. While I sympathize with Vigilius's point we shouldn't obfuscate plot details to correct the inherent sexist bias of the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made changes based on discussion here. Thanks for clarification Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Subreddit formatting in articles

Figured I'd ask this question here, since I know our project has many active editors. Does anyone know if there is a preferred style method when talking about a Reddit subreddit in article? For example (and why I'm posting here), I've just put a little info on Avengers: Infinity War about the mass ban that happened last month. When talking about the subreddit in question, is it okay to use "r/thanosdidnothingwrong"? I'm currently going about it by saying something along the lines of "... with the subreddit, Thanos Did Nothing Wrong... ". I've quickly looked around various MOS pages I thought might have the info but came up empty. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe their actual names are "r/___", which is why we have pages like r/science. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that article existed. I've adjusted accordingly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking sources

While I'm trying to expand upon the The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking article to include the production section (there isn't a section yet) and expand the reception section using sources from sources from newspapers, the AFI and the BFI, I may need some help finding some more additional sources (i.e. Variety and Hollywood Reporter archives, etc.). Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a forgotten flop so I don't fancy your chances. IMDB has links to news stories so that may be an avenue worth exploring. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand where your concerns are coming from, Betty. Unfortunately, when I used IMDb to look for news stories on the subject, it doesn't show anything regarding the film's production, hence that's why I'm looking for literary sources that are readily available at libraries or online databases (such as Google, JSTOR or EBSCOHost). Maybe these Hollywood Reporter sources could work ([1], [2])? I've already contacted Erik and Lugnuts regarding the matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked in my local library databases, and couldn't find anything useful. The links you have above seem like they could make for a good source (but it looks like you may have copied the same link twice?) --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the links. I've already rectified this and have just added a production section; it may need some expansion. I'll plan get it up to a C-Class or a B-Class article at the very least. Maybe we can also use Ken Annakin's So You Wanna Be a Director? as a source, since his autobiography definitely includes his work on that film; or dig up the LA Times archives for production information? Just some thoughts I want to throw out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

AFI says it was shot in Jacksonville. That's a good sign. Local media will generally cover film productions when they're shot outside LA and NYC. A Google search turns up this newspaper article. That article in turn references "a 2005 Times-Union story" that has even more details. It shouldn't be too hard to find that. Plus, now you know more details about where it was shot, and you can feed that into more Google searches. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Using Highbeam Research, I found two Chicago Sun-Times articles for the film (unfortunately, it's not the full text, which is only available to subscribers): [3], [4]. And I've just received word from Erik that there are sources listed on the Film Literature Index here. Another possibility is Film Index International. And like I said, the director's memoir here also apparently covers the film in part. Google Scholar and Google Books list some results here and here (with director's name added to filter for the film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A quick update. I've also found some Variety sources that weren't available online, but at my local library; I've just now requested an assessment for at least a C-Class. I will continue to expand on it until it's at least a B-Class; that's my ultimate goal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Flintstones reception expansion

In The Flintstones, I discovered that there are very few critic opinions in the reception section, aside from Siskel and Ebert. I'm thinking about expanding it to include each critic's reviews (including the addition Ebert's own review), using Ben-Hur (1959 film) and Doctor Strange as a point of reference, such as including reviews from The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused what you're asking about exactly that is different from expanding any underdeveloped critical reception section. Are you asking about which reviews to pick, or balancing them based on the overall consensus, or what? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking about which reviews we should use to balance the negative and positive based on the overall consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

In some cases I look at Metacritic and how many reviews they mark as positive, mixed, or negative. It looks like there are five in each category. Considering that the "metascore" is 38 (meaning more weight toward the negative reviews than the other categories), maybe you could do three negative reviews and two of the others. You could also mention the number of reviews in each Metacritic category at the beginning, e.g., "Metacritic assessed 15 reviews and categorized five as negative, five as mixed, and five as positive." For me, it seems a reasonable rule of thumb to follow in striking a balance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Mocked by Rifftrax

204.148.41.182 and 107.19.188.58 are adding unsourced "the film was mocked by Rifftrax" claims to articles (example diff). The first problem, of course, is that this is unsourced. If it's true, it's probably not that hard to verify through the official Rifftrax website. But is there some special reason we should be listing this? We don't list when any number of YouTube channels mock a film, some of which are probably notable. If there were third party coverage, OK, but this just looks like advertising to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a clear case of spamming (probably by somebody connected to the site). I think you would be in your rights as an admin to issue blocks here. There is no content dispute, just spamming. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

72.227.186.112 just popped up on my watchlist. Daß Wölf 00:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Does everyone agree this is spamming? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I will note that some of the live show Rifftrax stuff does does get noticed in RSes that could be used (eg for Krull), but I 100% agree that the routine VODs they release are not mentioned in sources, and thus not necessary to document. --Masem (t) 01:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. Rifftrax riffs should be mentioned in film articles only if they have some notability themselves. For other cases List of RiffTrax should suffice. Daß Wölf 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Review aggregators discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Overlink. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Conjuring (film series)#Requested move 26 August 2018

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Conjuring (film series)#Requested move 26 August 2018. Joeyconnick (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC) —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Subsection headings

Not sure if other editors have noticed, but it seems like more and more (mainstream) film articles are getting out of control with the number of subsection headings despite minimal content under any given heading. This seems to be a result of an extremely cookie-cutter approach by some editors (possibly stemming in the superhero films, whose articles are the most trafficked). While it may work for a superhero film article that is almost always fleshed-out, it is highly unnecessary to shoehorn subsection headings into articles that barely have any content and has no guarantee of actually growing to fit the structure. So I invite editors to remove such headings where there is insufficient content to warrant them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested in the tangential discussion WT:MOS#RfC on single subsections. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

TCM.com

Following on from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_70#TCM.com and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_19#Template:TCMDb_title (regarding the TCM template being geoblocked in Europe) I have made a proposal to apply Lugnuts' fix. The discussion is at Template_talk:TCMDb_title. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Lupe Vélez → Lupe Velez

The above nomination is at Talk:Lupe Vélez#Requested move 28 August 2018. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sabu Dastagir → Sabu (actor)

Another name-related nomination is at Talk:Sabu Dastagir#Requested move 27 August 2018. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes update

Rotten Tomatoes announced here that they will be adding more critics. (There is also news coverage of this update, if you want to read some outside perspectives.) While I do not think this will impact us directly, I do think the continued emphasis on the binary approach of being only positive or negative means that we should continue to pair Metacritic results with this (not that we had a problem doing that anyway). We may also want to be more cognizant of updating RT scores and review counts if reviews will be added for past films. It does seem to mean that the likelihood of a film reaching and staying at 100% will become vanishingly small. The New York Times did say here that the RT "top critics" will be looked at next. As outlined at MOS:FILM#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics, we do not use this, but depending on the changes, we may want to revisit it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Albert Ritz → Al Ritz and Harold Ritz → Harry Ritz

One additional (dual) name-related nomination is at Talk:Albert Ritz#Requested move 23 August 2018. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rfc

If interested, please share your opinion on the Rfc on Character Names in plot summaries. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, August 29, 2018‎

Whether to update accessdate

User:Dan56 is asking User:IUpdateRottenTomatoes not to update the retrieved date of a citation to Rotten Tomatoes when updating an RT score. I've never heard of this idea nor have I witnessed it being recommended or practiced. As far as I'm concerned a retrieved date should indicate the date when the information was retrieved, not when the source was first added, especially when it comes to variable information like RT/Metacritic scores and box office revenues because otherwise there would be no way to know how old the information is. Is what Dan56 is advocating something recommended or put in practice? Is there an existing consensus or guideline? Nardog (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the opposite of what should be happening, the accessdate definitely should be updated if the data is. What @Dan56 gave as reasoning is that the accessdate indicates "the date that the URL was found to be working", but what the sentence in the template documentation actually says is "the date that the URL was found to be working and to support the text being cited" (emphasis mine). What that says to me is that the date needs to be when you retrieved the actual data that you are citing in the article, so if you update the RT score then the accessdate needs to reflect that RT has changed since the score was last updated. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The majority of the material--with the exception of the one numerical figure--had been retrieved earlier. Updating an accessdate does not prove how old the information is; it proves when the user revised material in an article to reflect said information. I was not asking them to do anything: My exact words to them were "You do not have to...", and I only made it a point because they had brought it up when I inadvertently reverted that portion of their changes in an edit to an article. I did not mean to start this; I just wanted to undo an inexplicable section-heading change. I have no further interest in this; let IUpdateRottenTomatoes change accessdates as they please. Dan56 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dan56, I realize you're backing off, but there's another good reason for updating the access date in situations like this. If for some reason, the URL to the reference breaks, an editor can search online archives like Wayback and pull an archived copy from a date closest to the listed access date. Granted, that's less likely to ever be needed for a Rotten Tomatoes reference, but it's another reason to make sure that parameter is updated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the accessdate should be a date where all the content attributed to that source was present, not 95% of the content or whatever. We should also assume readers may use the accessdate to think "that was the state of affairs on that date". For example, listing the box office after a month with an old Box Office Mojo accessdate three days into the run would be factually wrong. Many readers know that Box Office Mojo updates daily. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary of D-Tox

There's an issue about the film D-Tox in the plot summary which is a big summary. The user name Binksternet edit the plot summary of it way too short as it's beyond the 400 word limit as see in this diff and I reverted it back, but it is still very large summary. So we need it to at least shortened to while maintaining the plot summary of that movie without making way too short. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this has been attended to. DonIago (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, by NinjaRobotPirate. He shortened the summary down and I did a minor tune up to make it concise and somewhat cleaner. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Video games and soundtracks by director categories

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion and this one at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Unintentional redirect for It – Chapter Two

Please see here for a conversation regarding It: Chapter Two. When entering the title as displayed (It: Chapter Two), you're redirected to the Italian Wikipedia page for "Chapter Two", and myself and another user feel a note needs to be placed on the Italian page. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 19:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That's the weirdest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I think this is a WP:VPT issue quite honestly. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. You should made a discussion at VPT, because I feel like the article should be living at It: Chapter Two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This behavior is a consequence of how interwiki linking works. See WP:NC-COLON. The only way to fix that here is the template {{correct title}}. I would not edit the it.wp page directly, though you can leave a talk page note there and maybe someone there will agree that it is a problem they should do something about. --Izno (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Robin Williams

There's a discussion regarding a potential GA/FA push for Robin Williams. The discussion can be found at Talk:Robin Williams#Possible GA/FA push?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Amazon Video films and documentaries at TfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Starring/film poster

Hi. Please can someone take a second to look at this article with regards to the starring field parameter in the infobox? As far as I can tell, there are only two names on the poster, so these are the only two that should be listed here? Is that correct? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The billing block says this: A film by Laura Bispuri, with Albra Rohrwacher and Flonja Kodheli, Lars Eidinger, Luan Jaha, Bruno Shllaku, Ilire Celaj, Drenica Selimaj, Emily Ferratello, Produced by Marta Donzelli [...]. Hope this helps. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The extra-large version here shows the full set of names in the billing block. (Gonnym beat me to it) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I stand corrected. Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI to editors that confirmed the billing:
I added the names billed in the film poster to the article's infobox. User:Lugnuts kept deleting them.
His persistent deletions have been recorded in the article's talk page here. Even though I used the film poster to support my inclusion of the actor names, and User:Lugnuts consistently deleted them, he posted an edit warring warning on my talk page. Because of your confirmation of what the poster proves, he has now self-reverted his last deletion of the names (without providing a summary) and restored them to the infobox. However, he has not apologized for accusing me of edit warring when I had used the poster as the source — and he would not allow the names to be included. An editor that doesn't have my mettle is not going to subject her/himself to the intransigence of another editor and will stop trying to contribute to the improvement of this article, or any article in which another editor creates roadblocks. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Start date and age templates for film companies

I've noticed that in some articles for film companies like Paramount Pictures and Universal Pictures, the infoboxes include the {{start date and age}} template in the foundation dates. Is it necessary to list them if possible? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also IBM for example, seems appropriate if the company has been around for a long time as their age itself is somewhat notable and worth pointing out. For more recent companies seems trivial. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say not to worry about the precise date in most cases. Just the year would be useful to know roughly how long a company has been around. Even "recent" companies stop becoming recent as time goes by. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox character

I recently reverted the addition of a character infobox to the Falling Down article. I have never seen a film article with a character infobox, and assume there is a policy or consensus against their use. In case this is restored, can someone point me to the guideline or policy on this? Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline against their use but I agree they are impractical on film articles. Furthermore, the FUR for the image is invalid because it neither illustrates the subject of the article (which is the film) and nor does it facilitate critical commentary. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that character infobox would be most appropriate if the section containing it was actually focused on the character to some extent, like what happens with album infoboxes. Right now it is just shoehorned into the "Production" section. Furthermore, I think album sections and their infoboxes are pretty self-contained, where I think it is hard to have a character section and infobox because many different details about the character are scattered throughout the article. Basically, it seems most appropriate to have the character infobox in a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. In the case of Falling Down, this is one editor who seems obsessed with what he perceives as the singular importance of this character. If there is adequate information and sources for the character's importance, though, that would support a stand-alone article, not a section in the film article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Tried looking for any MoS guideline that deals with multiple infoboxes on a page, but couldn't fine one. My personal opinion is that 1 should be the max in most cases, with exception beings soundtrack albums. --Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The character infobox was restored again, and the editor has still not used the talk page. I may need some support over there. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2

Would someone mind having a look at the box office section of the above film. It seems excessively detailed and the weight given to this may be WP:UNDUE. It is updated alomst every day. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion at The Empire Strikes Back

For those who are interested, there is a move discussion at Talk:The Empire Strikes Back#Requested move 10 September 2018. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sixteen Candles sequel

There is currently a discussion underway at the Sixteen Candles talk page as to whether information about a proposed sequel should be included in the article. I removed the relevant section, arguing that the sources are several years old, and a Google search found no recent news about it. SummerPhD restored it, arguing that it is still relevant. I'd like some other editor's opinions on this, please. Is there a policy at the Film Project about such things? Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there are any guidelines about this. Considering how many not-quite-upcoming films I've merged to broader articles, I think it is worth keeping details of what was attempted in the past. Sometimes development can take a while, and sometimes news of development seems to pop up occasionally until something finally gets made (or never does). Is it possible to have a sentence about the lack of progress? I know it is not a "sourced" sentence to have, but it feels commonsense enough to say, "There have been no updates on the film's development since" or something along these lines. I don't know how old development news should be to take more drastic measures. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Erik that the info should be kept, providing it's all sourced, of course. There must be dozens and dozens of similar situations of films with planned remakes, sequels, preqels, etc. Just be careful of something like this, which follows the age-old problem of a non-reliable source saying something, which then gets picked up by a reliable source, and before you know it, stays in a WP article for years! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have to say, I've seen plenty of film articles in which information about projected sequels was removed when said film never materialized. It seems pretty clear that there's no consensus about how to handle such situations. How many sequels, remakes, reboots, etc., have been discussed in recent years and then never gained traction? In this case, the idea for the sequel came from Molly Ringwald herself, and was sourced the reliable sources, so that is not an issue. I truly do wonder how long we wait before such claims become stale. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It is stale. It just needs to be stated as such in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the coverage, it looks like it ranges from 2003 to 2008 at the latest (as far as I can tell). Maybe have a summary sentence at the beginning saying that a sequel was discussed from 2003 to 2008, and then get into details? Like 2003 with USA Network working on development, and 2008 with Ringwald still expressing desire for a sequel despite no traction. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the statement doesn't really tells us much. Was there a script? Finance? A shooting date? Or was it just a case of a washed-up star wanting to revive her career with a sequel to her biggest hit? If there was some development then by all means document it, but I don't really see much purpose to the section as it currently stands. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there was development as seen here in 2003, but there has been no development-related update since that year. This in 2012 mentions the sequel talk. This and this in 2014 mentions it as well. We would probably remiss to not mention it at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally, "interest" in a remake or project comes about when money shows up which is just one step higher than someone merely wanting a remake or project to be done. And to get to the next stage of that interest being published is of course much better than an actor waking up in the morning and thinking of ressusitating their career. We always hear about a project having been in the works since the invention of the clay tablet but few instances ever seem to be known at what times in the past have there been published notices of interest. And it is part of the film making process. And i am certain that for some films the history of the stop and go of money is a significant part of the process. At least WP have not scoured the listings of Craigslist to compile when filmmakers advertise for technical help to help bring their project along.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Page creations by User:Verifications

Verifications has been blocked for WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE per User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad#Possible block evasion. Before being blocked, the account was used to create a number of articles/drafts related to Pakastani films/actors such as Licence (1976 film), Lalay Di Jan, Majhu, Gujjar Badshah, Draft:Naghma, Draft:License (1976 film), etc. These probably can be deleted per WP:G5 unless anyone thinks there's anything worth keeping and which might be further developed as an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Departed and The Last Samurai

Can a previously uninvolved editor take a look at the recent edit history of these two articles and intercede on the side of reason? I'm going to step back from editing these two articles for a few days, lest an edit war begin. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The question is being begged. What is there to be resolved but to have others contribute to cinema articles without what appears to be universal unilateral revert of what is contributed and then in the end the changes are made at your behest? A review of the talk page will point this out. The whole point of editing is to bring about the star standard for every article. This is not going to be achieved without proper editing and content development of something such as the plot. A previously existing size advisory was posted on the plot. the plot, like many others was expressed in statements as they appeared in the film instead of general statements thus reducing the word count and making the article more concise. The plot continues to suffers from too much detail when it comes to the matter of its size. The proposed revisions were rejected on the basis that the matter had to be addressed in the talk page. The matter of a previous talk page incident was brought to fore to remind the contributor about actions from the past about thwarting talk page discussion by deleting the discussion. A review of archived teahouse content will show this happened 3 times. The contributor was advised against this action by others. Then when the plot size advisory was posted so that it appeared on the read screen of the article, unilateral piecemeal word reductions were made to reach the WP plot word count guideline. The contributor was reminded that the point of the WP plot size guidelines was not to reduce word count but create a concise plot. One change resulted in a grammatical error that has been corrected. When it was brought to the attention of the other contributor that the matter was under consensus discussion accusations of being an abusive contributor were made. I will not speculate as to why this was done but this same tactic has been used in the past with other contributor's edits. It is not a very cooperative means of encouraging cooperation in the community spirit especially when what is inflicted on others is what others wish to be followed in the process that has been established in WP to resolve article content--consensus. Yet it seems to be that this action of consensus is not applicable to some within the WP community. If there is WP content that shows that parts apply to some and parts do not apply to others then let the entire WP see this. TheoldJacobite is not a new contributor and should know better than to bully through the WP community. This is not a negative statement; it is a statement of fact. I can never change someone's attitude that if they see these actions as aggressive as it is shown that those who feel threatened react in ways that are not very cooperative as if personal territory is being usurped. I was unaware that WP was a personally owned organization. TheOldjacobite may not like what is going on; that is not the point of WP. And maybe TheOldJacobite may have a role in what he himself has described as his own "testiness" and what results. This is not a negative reaction on TheOldJacobit but a statement of fact. A review of ANIs and other boards will show that he has a tendency not to participate in questions being involved that are brought there. That contributor's talk page is restricted from non-registered users communicating. These are not actions that could be included as forms of aggression or being uncooperative within the WP community? WP is not set up to deal with bullies because it puts the bull's eye on you especially when someone has a following. You do not get promoted in WP if you make fellow administrators and higher echelon participants upset.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts: TheOldJacobite reverted these changes to the plot summaries because they made them less clear. For example, in The Last Samurai, Honor has a role in Japanese history - that's background, not plot; Fired by the Winchester, ... - what's the Winchester?; The village is watching kabuki, Algren raises the alarm to the infiltrating ninga and he saves Katsumoto - what ninja? The original does not have those issues. Reverting and suggesting discussion is not aggression, bullying, or a sign that edits to make the summary more concise are unwelcome, it's just WP:BRD. No discussion was deleted from Talk:The Last Samurai, as you suggested, nor from Talk:The Departed. The guidelines suggest an upper limit of 700 words for film summaries. Before any editing took place, the summary was 718 words long: not a big problem, even if that were a hard limit. Perhaps you could try making more moderate changes to plot summaries and, if you're reverted, explain your intentions on the talk page before re-reverting. Starting that discussion with an accusation did not help to establish a consensus. Neither did reverting TheOldJacobite's less extensive copy-edit without then explaining why you thought it was a problem. It's great that you want to help improve plot summaries, but these particular changes have not yet helped. › Mortee _talk 13:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the warnings on your talk page, that wouldn't be my own approach - at least if I was feeling calm - but from an outside perspective, reverting their copy edit on The Last Samurai and repeatedly inserting {{plot}} on The Departed does have a disruptive element to it. As the plot summary of The Departed was not beyond the word limit it would be better not to tag it, even if the language can be tightened. The visible warning is off-putting to readers and should be limited to cases that are bad enough that they need attention beyond starting a talk page conversation or making minor edits directly. As with The Last Samurai, I'd suggest trying to be a bit more patient, make changes, see if anyone objects, discuss them if so and, if not, carry on. We all want the same thing in the end, which is a crisp overview of each film's plot. It's entirely possible to work together to get there. › Mortee _talk 13:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, why does anyone waste any time with plot summaries? They are forever getting rewritten. We should have a sandbox mentality about the summaries, in letting newer editors play around with it as long as the changes are not detrimental. Plus I'm sure there is a degree of laziness in a protective editor's wholesale reverting where they can't be bothered to review the differences and only do a partial revert of potentially problematic elements. Editors who tend to "protect" plot summaries should beware; see recent relevant ANI thread here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not commenting on this current issue, but continuing on what Erik said, I've seen this "protection" attitude not only in the plot sections but in entire articles. There are some group of articles I know not to go near, as they are protected by the same person/group and content usually gets reverted in whole, good and "bad" together. --Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Most edits that I see to film plots (where the plot is already at or below 700words) is to add details of a "favorite" or "important" scene, or otherwise expand well past 700 words. These aren't helpful, though I do try to consider if the addition is something that might be necessary to be kept (without engaging in OR).

But I am worried about the actions on the The Departed summary. The edit brought the word count down, and only simplified some of the phases to do that. Jacobite's reversions to that, calling it non-helpful, is a bit troubling. I know a first reaction to seeing a change to a long-established plot would be to ask if it is necessary but here its clearly cutting down text count. It's not a perfect reduction, but its definiately not one to fight over reversion. --Masem (t) 14:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Some rspoinses--

I think that OldJacobite can answer for himself otherwise what you say he did someone is mere speculation. He has not commented on any detail.

Has the film been seen? Did you listen to the narrator who also is portrayed as the interpretor? Honor is taken directly from his words from the very beginning of the film. That is niot background, that sets the tone for the entire film.

Winchester--The whole reason he needs a job is because the Winchestor Rifle company has fired him. Like anything entered into WP it is all up for development. No one can insert that. Film dialogue says that the company has fired him.>BR>

Ninja--I never contributed the term ninga to the plot. That was pre-existing. If that is what had been standing before then I was willing to accept. Oh, the ninga (it can be a singular or plural term) were the guys crawling over the roof.

Deleted talk page content. Did you look a little further up in another post that includes a link to where TDJ has deleted talk page content on 3 other articles. It is all in the teahouse archive that also includes he being rebuked.

A review of my edits concerning plots continually are reverted by TOJ sometimes with no edit summaries. In fact the first revert this time was not made with an edit summary. I purposely did not complete my edit of the plot intending to see just what would be the reaction of the editor in question because if he is going to continue to automatically revert then why bother getting the job done.

If this is a community and cooperative effort then why not ask questions on the talk page to come to a consensus. Instead there is only a revert and referral to the talk page. I find a question with his edits, ask him to explain the situation and am accused of being a combatent. TOJ changes are moderate? Or are you more willing to give the power of doubt because of senior standing in WP?

I do not bring this forth willy nilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:1301:4462:904e:dc75:3814:4202 (talk • contribs) 13:50, September 10, 2018 (UTC)

Certainly honour is a theme, this just belongs in a section about themes, not as the first sentence of the plot summary, which should cover the events of the film. The plot summary you wrote mentions "the Winchester" without saying what it is. Saying "raises the alarm to the infiltrating ninja" without first mentioning that a/some ninja has/have appeared is a bit incongruous. Your change is this. TOJ's is this. I don't think it's biased on my part to say that the latter is a comparatively moderate change, nor that discussing this on the talk pages, quite separate from any accusations, would be a helpful step. Erik and Gonnym, I don't edit in this area (I came here from the Teahouse) so I don't doubt you when you say that protectionism of summaries is an issue in general. Looking at the specific change to The Last Samurai, I don't think protectionism is the issue in this case. › Mortee _talk 14:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The narration is not part of the film's actions? I never said protectionism is the issue. Reverting witout regard to cointent and providing an apporoirpiate edit summary is and not believing that they are subject to consensus building on the talk page is.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should have cautioned that I never indicated protectionism was the issue at had but certainly attempts at thwarting consensus building concerning plots when talk page discussion was deleted by TOJ. This was done to 3 separate WP film article talk pages. I did provide a reference to the first reference that I have found about that activity and it was never denied it having happened although they did say that they did not remember. I never knew that it was part of the WP experience to thwart consensus building by deleting discussions especially by someone that appears to have such regard in WP and I would think should know better especially as there was a reprimand in the tea house given at the time for such activity. At the time that this action was brought to the attention of TOJ I advised that i did not want to make an issue of it but then TOJ opened this discussion. I have been reviewing the histories to find the exact citations but there have with the articles involved been some deletions along the way.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Taxi Driver plot clarifications

If there are any forthcoming comments about the particulars made of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_Driver plot they would be appreciated as it seems to be a well attended article.2605:E000:1301:4462:122:4C87:1626:AD91 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Professional affiliations in infobox/lead

Hi all, please look at this version of the K. V. Anand article. Do you notice the "ISC" after his name in the lead and infobox, and "ISC" in the |title= parameter of the infobox? This stands for "Indian Society of Cinematographers". I've seen a flurry of these being added to articles over the last few months. I know that in film credits we'll often see these initials for casting people (C.S.A.) and directors occasionally (D.G.A.) and cinematographers (A.S.C.?), but how does the encyclopedia deal with these? Is there any established practice to add these affiliations to peoples' names? Will I find articles about American cinematographers that read "John Doe, A.S.C. is an American cinematographer."? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You will, both Americans and Brits, in at least leads: Roger Deakins, Gilbert Taylor, Jeff Cronenweth, Gilbert Taylor (Aussie), Dan Mindel, Russell Carpenter, Charles Rosher, Karl Strauss, Conrad Hall (has it in "title" in infobox), John Toll (has it under "organization" in infobox), Lionel Lindon. From a quick jaunt down Academy Award for Best Cinematography, it seems very common to put it after their name in the lead. I don't really know what the established way to do it is, really, and I can't think of a quality article of a cinematographer to look at . I sort of assume that the letters are stuck there by editors independently of each other in the lead because they happen to appear like that after their name all the time rather than any sort of properly established practice. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, TenTonParasol. I'm racking my brain to figure out what, if any, content guideline would cover this. Lots of people are affiliated with one society or another, yet we don't actively indicate that this way. Union writers in the US are WGA, actors are typically SAG, but we rarely indicate these. It seems reasonable to indicate something like a cinematography association in |organization= maybe, but after names just looks like it's some weird post-graduate degree, or a royal order. In the case of Roger Deakins, the organizations are mashed right after his Commander of the Order of the British Empire. Are these of the same weight? Anybody else have any thoughts? Some of these were added in ancient times (2007, 2008, 2009[5][6][7][8]) so I'm not sure what principles were in place back then and what's been done away with over time. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this would fall under WP:POSTNOM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting what the relevent section at POSTNOM says: The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead, as should superseded honors (e.g. the lesser of two grades in an order), and those issued by other entities (e.g. sub-national organizations). So they shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, but no it's silent about the infobox. Regardless, when used, they should be done with Template:Post-nominals. --Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Regarding Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I've made an edit in regard to casting controversy details for which I could use additional feedback. See my comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Sleeper (Plot)

Could someone tell me in just what way is the abridgment of the plot at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepers inadequate. A vert has again been made by TheOldJacobit on the basis that the word count was under the extreme 700 WP plot word advisory therefore there was no need to improve it. Thank you.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

He is right and you are wrong. The plot was 631 words, and it was suitable. Your version trimmed it down unnecessarily and included poor grammar. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Changing modern cinema to contemporary cinema

This is the same comment in the US Cinema talk channel. I need feedback on my comment since no one responded.

Here an idea that is definitely need on this article. Let change the name of modern cinema to contemporary and update the content of the article to add the current state of the film industry. The Modern section of the film industry is so outdated that I tired of waiting around for people to notice it. First off there is no mention of the films that are used to define the contemporary era of Hollywood in the early 2000s to the current decade. These film after there releases would still have an impact on film and I still don't see a single mention of them; such Star Wars, Harry Potter, Twilight and The Marvel Trilogy of films. Secondly, there are platforms on the internet that are influencing the film making industry, the biggest example is Netflix. Netflix is gaining as much of an audience as traditional Hollywood blockbusters. I'm not able to show examples, but I can point at the stock market value of Netflix; which is higher than Disney and the other Hollywood companies.

I will try to find sources that would define the current era of cinema and share it here. There properly a lot of info on contemporary cinema, I will make sure that I will look through it before posting. --User:Picaxe01 (talk) 5:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picaxe01 (talk • contribs)

50% Rotten Tomatoes

Hi, do we bother summarizing a 50% RT rating? Since they have a pass-fail system, would we note that this film's response is generally poor, or would we attempt to infer meaning by describing the response as mixed? Seems like WP:OR-potential here if we start applying labels to certain percentages. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

As you noted, it's original research to interpret the percentage or any meaning not explicitly stated at RT. At least, that's my take on it. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

RT only assesses reviews as positive or negative (with no in-between), so I would probably make that more clear in reporting its score. I would not extract any prose-based conclusion like "mixed" or "negative" based on the score alone. The critics consensus should be cited when available. I would look to secondary sources that draw a conclusion about the film's overall critical reception. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

50/50 is about as mixed as it can get on the face of it, but the RT summary clearly states it has not formulated a consensus as yet. This is because statistically speaking you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions about a film's reception based on just eight reviews, so we would be misrepresenting Rotten Tomatoes to present its findings as "mixed". Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We've been down this path many times. RT doesn't distinguish between a poor review and a mixed review. The Tomatometer score, which only represents the percentage of positive reviews, isn't good enough on its own to represent a "mixed" or "poor" summary statement in most situations, IMO. Only when there is a low Metacritic score to complement it, should a summary statement be considered. If it proves to be contentious within a given article, it's best to avoid one altogether or rely on other secondary sources as Erik mentioned. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"Mixed" isn't a good term full stop. It can indicate a significant number of good and poor reviews (i.e. split opinion), or it can indicate a lukewarm reception where the bulk of reviews are clustered around average ratings. The term itself doesn't really indicate the spread of critical opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "mixed" is a broad term, but it is one that sources use quite often. I don't think we'd have any luck with the suggestion it shouldn't be used. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Any Italian film fans? I've given The Stolen Children an overhaul

It's a very affecting and important early 90s Italian movie which I thought deserved a good write-up, but I may have put a bit too much detail into the plot. Films isn't my regular editing area so if any regulars who know this movie want to go over the article, maybe help bring it up to GA status, I'd appreciate it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Pokémon film companies

There is a discussion regarding how we should list the Pokémon film companies in the infobox. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Pokémon film companies. Input from project members would be appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on anime film articles

If anyone is interested, there is an RfC on whether to list only the main production companies or animation studios in the infobox of anime film articles. Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Request for Comment: Is it relevant to list all production companies or just main animation studios in the infobox of film articles?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars split discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Star Wars#Splitting to Star Wars (film series) about splitting coverage of the film series at Star Wars to a different article. The discussion is also generally covering how best to perform cleanup at the article, including how to handle tables and the length of the page. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Godzilla: King of the Monsters article naming

I have a pinch of confusion in regards to these three film's naming. I believe the "Godzilla: King of the Monsters in 3D" version is perfect as is, but I find it bizarre that a comma and an exclamation mark is enough to distinguish the 1956 film without any need for a title disambiguation. However, the differing punctuation with just a colon for the 2019 film does not earn the same separation. To me, this punctuation difference with the presence of hatnotes should be sufficient, but if not, both films should be disambiguated by year. Thoughts everyone? Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 02:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If the punctuation difference is enough disambiguation for one then it should be enough for both as well. If that plus hatnotes is not enough for some people and we are going to use the years to disambiguate, we should be consistent and give years to both. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the comma the first 3 times I searched for it. I've never found the small distinction a suitable guideline to follow. Yes, they are different titles which allow the Wikipedia title system to work, but for almost all readers there is no difference. I also don't believe that an average reader knows the correct punctuation of a title to be able to differentiate between the two. --Gonnym (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Jaws 2

Hello. I am in a disagreement with another - unregistered - user who reverts my edits to the plot summary of Jaws 2, which I was trying to make more concise and comprehensible. I would appreciate other opinions. Cheers. Mezigue (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Attempted a compromise between the two, as I felt they both had weaknesses. The IP (or another) made some further tweaks. If this doesn't bring it close enough to what you'd like to see, I would recommend starting a discussion at the article's Talk page. I've watchlisted the article. DonIago (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

List of natural horror films

I would encourage editors with the time and inclination to do so to take a look at List of natural horror films. My primary concern is that there are many, many entries there with no sourcing to establish that they are genuinely considered to be natural horror films. Some of the entries don't even have bluelinks, but my own attempts to clean up the article resulted in an edit-warring situation. To be fair, that's still in progress (I think), but right now I feel obligated to steer clear, and may ultimately feel obligated to remove the article from my watchlist. DonIago (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What is your concern, that the sources do not call it a "natural horror" but do call it horror with the article doing some small OR, or that they do not call it "horror" at all? --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page discussion can be found here so we can centralize discussion (if you don't mind, Gonnym): Talk:List of natural horror films#Sources needed? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, quite right. Sorry for the oversight! DonIago (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation problem

Looking at some recent edits to Beverly Hills Cop III, I noticed that the punctuation in this edit was incoherent. I'm generally loathe to alter punctuation in a direct quote, though, and, looking at the source, I see that the screwy punctuation is in the original. Evidently, something is wrong on the page, resulting in the repeated semi-colons. So, should they be removed from the quote, as they are clearly extraneous? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the semi-colons should be considered part of the quote. It looks like something has gone screwy with the HTML markup. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SIC, we're allowed to fix typographical errors in direct quotations. It's conceivable that punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence ("Let's eat, Grandma!" vs "Let's eat Grandma!"), but just use common sense. It's a bigger problem when people copy-paste text into Wikipedia articles. Long quotations should generally be paraphrased. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I wouldn't interpret that as punctuation. That seems like embedded page formatting that got rendered as visible, perhaps when the site started using fancier HTML and CSS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I wasn't aware of WP:SIC, NinjaRobotPirate, so I appreciate that. The text clearly was copied-and-pasted from the site and really should be paraphrased, especially since it's repetitive. At any rate, thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Roman Spinner

Roman Spinner has doing some lazy experiments on the cast section in film article again. This time, in Home Alone as seen with this diff. I cleaned up again as usual. He's been doing some unnecessary experiments on cast sections like he did with the In the Heat of the Night and is clearly not getting it. To tell you the truth, I'm really getting sick and tired of cleaning us this user's messes on the cast sections in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Since BattleshipMan also posted a similar complaint on my talk page, I replied there. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Using square brackets is a common practice for differentiating between the formal credit and a helpful description. Even the American Film Institute do this: https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/58544. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't find the brackets necessary at all, but it appears that these are no longer used at Home Alone? Wikipedia is not bound to present details in an "official" capacity since it is supposed to be based on secondary sources. As for removing the character descriptions, it really is not necessary to remove especially since not every role will be named in the plot summary. WP:FILMCAST supports concise descriptions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: The reason I cleaned up that was because Roman put brackets after the character's given name and placed them before McCallister, as for example: Kevin [McCallister, as you see it in that diff above. That's why I did that. It has nothing to do with character descriptions. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that here Roman does not restore the brackets, so is a moot point? And I was assuming since you removed the brackets and kept the concise descriptions that you were favoring that approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am in favor of concise character descriptions because they help provide better understanding of the characters seen in those movies for readers. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so there's another voice, and because I like to hear myself speak, I find the brackets to be obnoxious, even if AFI might do this. (No disrespect intended to Roman Spinner.) There is nothing wrong with writing in complete sentences, and regular prose shouldn't be "fixed" like this. Parentheticals are overused across the project and these are just square parentheses Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There has always been a temptation for fans of Home Alone to write extensive character descriptions under "Cast", such as this one from January 2016. However, by August 2017, such decriptions settled into an approximation of their on-screen credits form. Twelve days ago, on September 16, an IP editor expanded the character descriptions and, instead of reverting, I attempted to accomodate the expansion by bracketing the text which does not appear in the on-screen credits. In the cast list's current form, it is absolutely unnecessary to continue repeating "McCallister" for each family member, or to be redundant by describing Harry and, immediately thereafter, Marv as ", a thief who targets the McCallister's home", or to add, after Marley, ", Kevin's neighbor" or, after Gus Polinski, ", Kate's friend and helper". None of those descriptions appear in the on-screen cast list and are already covered under "Plot". Only the character name "Officer Balzak" has so far remained in the exact form that it appears on-screen. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The character list in that article is entirely too long. The very fact that the character descriptions are necessary for the cousins, etc., is because those parts are interchangeable. None of them are of great importance in and of themselves, and I think they can all be removed. The plot says that the whole family is there, and could go into slightly more detail about how many family members are in the house. The main characters are the mother, father, Kevin, the two crooks, and the old man down the block. One or two others are of minor importance, but all the other family members are unnecessary. This is not IMDb. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting real tired of arguing with you, TOJ. We're not IMDb, but your views of them are outdated and they are necessary for readers who are familiar of any movie they haven't seen. Kevin and the others you mentioned are the main characters and we're not a lot more characters, but the family members on it who appeared in the majority of the film are just as important, even though they share minor importance. They appeared as much as some other family members in that movie and it's sequel. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur that we don't really need to trim the list. Needing to have descriptions for characters that aren't specified in the plot summary is completely appropriate and does not qualify as grounds for exclusion from the cast list. We are not IMDb, and that means we don't throw the entire cast (or crew) into a Wikipedia article. There are many actors that are not included; the ones here are named roles. All except three are blue links as well. Both named roles and blue links are acceptable criteria under WP:FILMCAST #1. Essentially, it's not detrimental for Wikipedia to list these actors and roles. And we should not be extreme in claiming as such. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why we need descriptions in cast list, specifically for the ones that aren't specified in the plot summary and it would be inappropriate to remove character descriptions and trim down cast section in film articles for those reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with The Old Jacobite that the cast list is bloated with interpersonal relationships which belong in the "Plot" section, rather than under "Cast". As a remedy, I replaced under "Plot" the text "...his siblings and cousins. A fight with his older brother, Buzz, results..." with the more explanatory text "...his older siblings Buzz, Megan, Linnie and Jeff as well as his cousins Heather, Tracy, Rod, Sondra, Brook and Fuller. A fight with Buzz results...", thus making the cast list character descriptions unnecessary. We already know who Harry, Marv and Gus Polinski are because they are described in the plot, we know the family surmame and we now know all the family relationships. Here is a link to the on-screen cast crawl (the cast list starts at 1:17) which depicts everyone's name, including the confirmation that Kevin's youngest cousin is named "Brook", not "Brooke". Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

In case you forgotten, how about removing the names of the entire cast of actors on that section that no readers will ever know if that happens? Not to mention the plot of it doesn't have Uncle Frank and Aunt Leslie, As the result of this, I reverted back to status quo. Also, It's actually "Brooke". The credits written on it is an error, common mistake. In the end credits of Home Alone 2: Lost in New York here at timeframe 2:23 is where you see the name "Brooke", not "Brook". You better think about that when you see it. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Since this part of the discussion primarily concerns improvements to Home Alone, rather than wider issues concerning films in general, I am posting my reply at Talk:Home Alone#Further suggestions for improvement of Home Alone cast list. Suffice it to say that, while an argument can be made for inclusion of character descriptions in Wikipedia's cast lists for films which lack an on-screen cast list with character names, such as in the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, character names should not be second-guessed for films which do contain on-screen lists with such names. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Who wrote the original story?

The article doesn't state that the teleplay was based on a story written by Rod Serling, which the credits do. More sources would help.Edwardssr (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you please let us know what article you are writing about. MarnetteD|Talk 06:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Five editors in search of a reliable source, prehaps? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Edwardssr, since you spotted the missing detail, please add the relevant content to the article in question. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Best Picture Academy Award nominated films at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

IARA Awards?

Hi all, do any of you know anything about the IARA Awards? External link. I see this sneak into a lot of articles. It looks like it's been around for 4 years. Trying to figure out if it's notable. There's no article on it presently, although someone did try to create a Draft so they could puff up an article about Tamil actor Vijay (actor). Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As a complementary source, maybe, but not as a standalone citation at this time. I wasn't able to find any major publication covering the IARA, other than a couple interviews with the founder. We would need to verify that this non-profit foundation has widespread recognition, and if any of the awards are significant enough to appear on Wikipedia, a reputable, secondary source will acknowledge them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Esther (1986 film)

Was wondering if anyone from this WikiProject has any suggestions on how to further improve this article? There are a couple of discussions ongoing at Talk:Esther (1986 film), so any input would be appreciated. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As a start, I reckon re-working the Synopsis section so that there aren't 20 cites right at the end of the section. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, nothing is stopping you. P.S.: Herzliya Studios is (in the context of this film) a film development laboratory, not a production/financing company (those are already listed under synopsis, and, once again, I sincerely declare no COI/connection).--87.70.97.132 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice of discussion concerning a film poster at Talk:Aquaman (film)#File:Aquaman_poster.jpg. All comments are welcome.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinions and eyes on Saturday Night Fever

I'd appreciate some additional input here Talk:Saturday_Night_Fever#Rape_vs_"has_sex_with", as there have been repeated removals of the descriptions of the non-consensual nature of the events in the film. Scribolt (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Red Dawn in popular culture

There is currently a discussion on the Red Dawn talk page about the "in popular culture" section of the article. I deleted most of the content several months ago, arguing at the time that it was not adequately sourced and there was no indication any of the examples were notable. My edit was reverted yesterday, citing a talk page discussion from several years ago – which discussion did not support the wholesale restoration of said section in the first place. I'd like some other editors to weigh in over there, if they are interested. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't get involved right now, but may want to link specifically to WP:IPCV, as that references an RfC that's pertinent to sourcing of IPC material. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My efforts to avoid an edit war at this article have failed. Can an uninvolved editor offer their opinion on the talk page, please? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Harbour Lights, Harbour Lights or Harbor Lights

A discussion regarding disambiguation of these titles at Talk:Harbor Lights (1963 film)#Requested move 5 October 2018 may be of interest. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Another current discussion centering upon (XXXX film) → (film) is at Talk:Bad Lands (1939 film)#Requested move 8 October 2018. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Film series with two articles

Where do we stand on this these days? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikka Zaildar (film series). --wooden superman 15:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Not needed. You can just add a sequel section to the first film article. You obviously don't need charts and tables for just two films. I will comment at the AfD later but I'm in a rush right now. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Annie Wersching#consistency for access dates and archive dates

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Annie Wersching#consistency for access dates and archive dates. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversial film Kler (The Clergy) by Polish director Wojciech Smarzowski needs article

We should have an article for the controversial film Kler (The Clergy) by Polish director Wojciech Smarzowski.

Wojciech Smarzowski's new controversial drama Clergy, about the Catholic Church in Poland, had over 935,000 admissions during the premiere release weekend, breaking the record for the best opening of a Polish film in the last 30 years.

https://www.filmneweurope.com/news/poland-news/item/117090-smarzowski-s-clergy-breaks-polish-box-office-record

A film depicting Polish clerics as corrupt, drunken fornicators and paedophiles is smashing box office records in Poland, sparking controversy and encouraging hundreds of people to come forward with allegations of recent and historical abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/15/polish-film-the-clergy-sparks-hundreds-of-allegations-of-abuse-kler-catholic

Whatever you think of this film, it certainly meets notability guidelines.

We currently have a redlink Clergy (film) in our article Wojciech Smarzowski.

We should decide whether our article should be at Clergy (film) or The Clergy (film).

[Edit] More discussion at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism#Controversial_film_Kler_(The_Clergy)_by_Polish_director_Wojciech_Smarzowski_needs_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Controversial_film_Kler_(The_Clergy)_by_Polish_director_Wojciech_Smarzowski_needs_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Controversial_film_Kler_(The_Clergy)_by_Polish_director_Wojciech_Smarzowski_needs_article

[ edit - 189.122.52.73 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC) ]

- 189.122.52.73 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Doing a search engine test, it definitely meets the notability guidelines. It looks like sources use both Clergy and The Clergy, so I'm not sure which is better. A possible tiebreaker is whatever the English-language poster (if one is forthcoming) would show. Just needs someone interested enough to create it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Florence Pugh and rowspanning filmography tables.

I made an edit to Florence Pugh's article that saw her filmography table rowspan the years so repetitiveness wouldn'rt be an issue [9].

However, editor @Krimuk2.0: reverted this, initially offering no explanation, but upon reverting my restoration cited "We need to follow the format used at WP:FILMOGRAPHY, as rowspans prevent accessibility"

WP:FILMOGRAPHY is an essay, and is thus only a suggested style to follow, not an enforced one. On the "accessibility" front I immensely disagree because there's no access that's being prevented. Rowspanning things like the film year or a character name if a film containing those similar things come out one after the other prevents a sense of repetition and just leaves me confused as to how that's perceived as a bad thing. Thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 18:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the type of accessibility that is relevant here. The pertinent question is "Can a blind person using a screen reader understand this table?" I don't have an intricate knowledge of screenreaders and how they parse HTML but luckily I can defer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility (which is a policy) and WP:DTT. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial shows a couple of examples where the years span multiple rows. I think it's fine to use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Rowspans are fine but should be avoided in a column which is not the first column. The actual worse offense in that article is that the table headers are not the first column. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tested this once for a middle row/column. Both rowspanned cells and colspanned cells were read fine (the cell content was repeated in proper places, as if I had inserted repeated cells insteadof using the spanning feature). Cells that were both rowspanned and colspanned at the same time (e.g. this) didn't work, but I've yet to see a use for that on Wikipedia anyway. Daß Wölf 01:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the "Fangs" output:

Table with four columns and nine rows
Year Film Role Notes
two thousand fourteen Link The Falling Abbie Mortimer
two thousand sixteen Link Lady Macbeth Katherine Lester Link Evening Standard British Film Award for Breakthrough of the Year Link Dublin Film Critics' Circle Award for Best Actress Link British Independent Film Award for Best Actress Nominated–Link European Film Award for Best Actress Nominated–Link BAFTA Rising Star Award Nominated–Link Empire Award for Best Female Newcomer
two thousand eighteen Link The Commuter Gwen Link Outlaw King Link Elizabeth de Burgh Link Malevolent Angela
two thousand nineteen Link Fighting with My Family Link Saraya quote Paige quote Bevis Completed Link Midsommar Dani Post dash production Link Little Women Amy March Filming Table end

As you can see it reads fine. As Izno stipulates they are usually fine in the first column. They are usually fine in the last column too; the problems start to occur when they cause discontinuities in the table because the screen-reader "skips" the spanned rows and it becomes very confusing. This was recently a major issue at Talk:James_Bond_in_film#Crew_Table_Again. An editor overhauled the film table with rowspans which caused problems for Fangs (you can see the output with rowspans at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox/draft4 and you will see that starting with just the second film the screenreader starts skipping information such as the director). So as a rule of thumb I would say rowspans in the first and final columns are fine, but beyond that they do need to be checked to see how a scree-nreader would interpret them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Psychological operations of the United States Army in films

There is currently a dispute on the Three Kings (1999 film) article regarding Category:Psychological operations of the United States Army in films. Jpcase added the category and the restored it after I deleted it, saying that the category is for characters who are in psychological operations even if it isn't relevant to the film. My point is that if the category isn't relevant to the actual plot of the film, then how is the category useful? In the case of this particular film, their unit is irrelevant – they could have been in the motor pool and it wouldn't have changed the plot. So, why do we need this category? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to discussion please? I didn't see anything at the film's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There hasn't been any prior discussion, aside from our edit summaries. If no one else feels that the category should be included, then I won't push the matter any further. But to explain my opinion on the matter - I feel that the category is relevant, because while the plot of the film doesn't have anything to do with psychological operations, three of the film's main characters are members of PSYOP.

The point of the category isn't to be exclusively for films that are about PSYOP. The point of the category is to be for films that include PSYOP members as major characters. I realize that this film would have been essentially the same had the characters been members of a different branch of the military - but the filmmaker intentionally decided to make the characters members of PSYOP, which is a very specific branch with little media representation. To my knowledge, only a small handful of films have ever been made about PSYOP members. If people are interested in identifying those few films, then I feel like it would be a mistake to leave out this film, since it's arguably one of the most notable. --Jpcase (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

In the last few months, especially, there's been a real effort (on my part at least) to refocus fiction categories so that they're applied in situations where an element of fiction is a primary feature of the work, not incidental. This seems to be in accordance with WP:CATDEF. As by your own admission the film wouldn't really be any different if the characters weren't members of PSYOP, I think it's probably best to leave the category out. Have any sources discussed this aspect of the film? DonIago (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While your explanation reasoned J it is also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please read WP:CATDEF and WP:CATVER. For a category to be added to an article there must be sourced and verifiable information in the article to support the cat and it must be a defining characteristic of the film. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyediting help

I have been working on Scarface (1932 film) and want to promote it to Featured article. I have approach some potential mentors and even tried nominating it for peer review, with no responses. I have tried to make improvements on my own, but am finding it difficult, because I am not an experienced copy editor. Does anyone know where I can get some help with my article? It's kind of long, which is why I suppose I have been having a tough time finding someone to help. Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I think people willing to do a peer review are few and far between. Maybe the best thing would to put it up for featured list candidate, and let it go through that process. From what I can tell, it's essentially the same thing as getting it reviewed and/or copy-edited, with any issues being flagged up. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll see if I can do this myself at some point in the coming days. Popcornduff (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Films about criminals

Category:Films about criminals has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Improvement of tables

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the improvement of tables by adding an "Award" column. Please join the discussion at Talk:2018 Cannes Film Festival#Proposal.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wild Thornberrys Movie genre

There's a dispute over the genre of The Wild Thornberrys Movie. Please see Talk:The Wild Thornberrys Movie#Genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about which version of the nude Rose image to go with at the Titanic (1997 film) article

Opinions are needed on the following: File talk:Kate-winslet titanic movie pencil-drawing.jpg#RfC: Should we use the cropped version or the non-cropped version?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oversectioning

I've noticed too many instances of articles that overdo it with section headings, especially when there is minimal content. MOS:BODY says, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." We should not add subheadings to articles if there is not enough content, on the off-chance there will be enough content someday. They should be added as the content becomes available. I encourage other editors to remove the subheadings on sight when the presentation is especially poor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Erik. I try to make sections that at least have two paragraphs, and failing that, one (but it's going to be one stubby article!). To avoid this while still adding information, I combine sections that tend to be smaller on older films. For example, if there's not enough for a release section, I try to combine it with another to make it "Release and reception" or something. How do you feel about those types of deals Erik? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that's fine. I think the most basic two sections of most film articles would be "Production" and "Release" (the latter under which the reception can be grouped). I assume that subheadings are abused nowadays because while they are properly used on blockbuster film articles that have been well-developed, the thinking seems to be that all articles should have that detailed structuring regardless of the presence of content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have said in previous discussions to do with structure and headings, I am very much against combining Reception and Release information unless it is absolutely necessary. Also, I think it is preferable to have one small section in an article than to try and combine sections that do not logically fit together simply to avoid having sections of a certain size. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It should depend on the topic itself. Blockbuster films are more likely to have their own sections and subsections on the nature of the film's release and how it was received, based on the overabundance of coverage. For other films, release-related content can plausibly be housed under a single section heading. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I do not agree that reception information is "release-related". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is. A film cannot be received until it is released. Film reviews and box office revenue are the result of a release. It is completely feasible to have one section encapsulating a film's release and how critics received it and how audiences received it (through box office numbers). It is possible to play around with the distribution of content, but to deny one overall section as an option is hogwash. One subset of films for which this is likely are films that premiered at a film festival and got reviewed by multiple sources but never got a commercial distribution. That means one sentence mentioning the premiere, which does not need its own section. One can mention the premiere and summarize the reception in the same section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"You can't receive a film until it has been released, so reception information is actually release information" is just nonsense, and it always has been. Seeing people use that argument has made me dislike this practice even more than I already did. If we follow that logic through, then how about this: "You can't release a film until it has been produced, so we should just have one big production section that covers release and reception information as well!" And how about, "You can't have a sequel until there is a first film, so why should we ever create separate articles for sequels? They should all go in one big franchise article! And while we are at it, none of these could exists if the idea of films did not exist in the first place, so wouldn't it make sense to just have one big film article that covers all films ever created?!" - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, there are certain films for which it is appropriate to state in a single section when it came out and how it was received. You should not oppose that wholesale. We are not talking about blockbuster films here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

A recent example of oversectioning here. Please revert this problematic structuring on sight. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm right there with you, as this has been the bone of my arguments regarding marketing in the past. We end up with these seemingly small sections because of what really amounts to editor struggle with organization. This is an insult, this is merely an observation I've seen when it comes to just writing. People struggle to work things in, so they feel the need to separate it all out into multiple subsections, often many of which contain a single line. For example, if all we know is a film will be released on a particular date, I don't need an entire section for that one line when the infobox and the lead paragraphs already give me that information. It's unnecessary and looks more unprofessional than not having it in the first place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

While that article clearly has a lot of issues, I don't completely agree with you guys and your rush to judgement here. For instance, we generally want to avoid putting stuff in the lead and infobox that is not sourced in the body of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, you're absolutely right. There's also no reason to restate the same data point 3 times in a stub(ish) article when it can easily be noted (and sourced) in the lead and/or infobox for something like that. I'm not talking about casting points, or whatnot, but I think this is hardly a foul in article structuring when the only release information you have is a date of release. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

New Editor. Joined Defunct Taskforce: do I just charge ahead?

Hi there. I just joined both this wikiproject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Silent films task force. However, this task force's last edit on their task force page was four years ago and the task force looks incomplete. Do I just take over and start working on pages while diligently following the guidelines? I imagine I should compare what an active taskforce looks like to find what kind of things belong in the "resources" category, etc. Thanks. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 01:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're not working with anyone else, you don't really have to worry about a task force. It's more for coordination between editors with similar interests, and I think that's hard to even set up. Most editors have different interests. You could simply focus on the silent films' articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Local edit-a-thon about African Cinema

Dear all,
I just wanted to make you aware about an edit-a-thon that will take place on November 6th in Tunis, Tunisia as part of the 2018 Carthage Film Festival. Local participants will be able to take pictures of attending personalities and develop articles related to the films presented during the festival but remote participants are more than welcome to contribute as well. All details can be found on meta. Houssem Abida is coordinating the event locally and can help answering questions if any. Moumou82 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Help identifying earliest movie poster, please

Hello everyone. I've been diligently, incrementally, working on the article for the fantastic documentary The Sorrow and the Pity. I need help identifying the earliest movie poster possible. I thought I had found it and I carefully followed the guidelines to add non-free material to the page using the movie poster source template. The film was released in 1969. Two possible candidates for the earliest film poster are here: https://www.senscritique.com/film/Le_Chagrin_et_la_Pitie/434213 and here: https://filmartgallery.com/products/the-sorrow-and-the-pity-2388. However, I question the veracity of those sources. Please advise. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 03:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there really a guideline that says you have to do that? If so, it's probably designed to settle disputes rather than to force you to spend hours searching through poster databases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. Thank you for your time. You're right in that it doesn't say I have to do that: WP:FILMPOSTER

Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article.

But I'm a nerd, so I'll keep working on it in between doing other stuff. Any pointers or databases to suggest would be great. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 04:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Films divided into chapters

Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention

Hi all,

I came across Rocky (2006 Hindi film) earlier, and I'm sure this can't be the correct title. I took a look at WP:NCF, but I was still a little lost. There is also Rocky Balboa, which is a 2006 film with a very similar name, so I can see why this is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC.

Could someone check that this would be the correct topic. According to the naming conventions, this should be Rocky (2006 Indian film), but I wanted to check before I move something where I'm not familiar with the text. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This might be controversial, as strictly speaking, Rocky Balboa is not the same as "Rocky", but let's be honest, people would still say "Rocky" for the film, which means that for me, Rocky (2006 film) is not an option. Rocky (2006 Indian film) should be the one the article uses instead of "Hindi film", as there is just one Indian film by that name that year. --Gonnym (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that moving to Rocky (2006 Indian film) is the safest bet here. Any attempt to move to just Rocky (2006 film) would need to go through a WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been bold and done the move. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the Indian clarification is consistent with WP:PRECISION. It's just silly to disambiguate an article to a title that is still potentially ambiguous. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I thought it was the best title, but it was still a little vague by the guidelines. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:2.0 (film)#RfC

Comments requested at Talk:2.0 (film)#RfC. Issue is about how the film's budget should be presented. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody (film)

Can we have more eyes on this film, please? There's been some edit warring over what the exact critical consensus is. See Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody (film)#Critical consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Thugs_of_Hindostan#RfC

Need comments and input for Talk:Thugs_of_Hindostan#RfC page; issue is whether writing "generally poor reviews" is acceptable for the Critical Reception section this film. ThanksRush922 (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno Repeat (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer review request for Black Panther (soundtrack)

Hi there. I have requested a peer review of the article Black Panther (soundtrack) that I am hoping to nominate for GA soon. I am specifically looking for any comments that users may have regarding the scope and structure of the article. If any member of this project would like to take a look at the article and contribute their thoughts to this process then that would be awesome. The review page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Panther (soundtrack)/archive1. Thanks guys, adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on the notability of Joan Kelley Walker

Hi. Please comment on the notability of actress Joan Kelley Walker. Thanks! --Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fright Night#Stage play

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fright Night#Stage play. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

XXX or xXx

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:XXX (film series)#Requested move 5 November 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Credited names in film articles

Hello. How should we list the credited names of actors and staff in film articles? Should we just list them under their current name with their credited name in parentheses or maybe list them under their actual name as listed in the credits? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

List them as per what the credits say and let redirects do their job if the name is linked to get to the article about the person. For cast and character names - WP:FILMCAST "All names should be referred to as credited" is primary "or by common name supported by a reliable source" if there is no credited name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes & Amazon as a source

I've been seeing users citing Amazon and Rotten Tomatoes as a source for release dates and cast (specifically Wrongfully Accused noting the director's breif cameo as listed on this page) and Children of the Night using it to cite a wide release date here). Trying to find where or how this information is gathered has been proven unsuccesful, but on Fandango's site, they do state on their "Terms of Use" that "While Fandango uses reasonable efforts to include up to date information on the Site and other Services, Fandango makes no warranties or representations as to its accuracy, timeliness, reliability, completeness or otherwise." Should we be using their information? It seems to fail WP:RS as they can not confirm how their information is gathered (outside of reviews for Rotten Tomatoes). If I had to suggest anything, it would be not to use Rotten Tomatoes for anything outside their own news articles they write themselves and the critical ratings. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not unusual for a website to have a disclaimer to cover itself. They do state at http://fandango.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/886/kw/Rotten%20tomatoes/ that "We work hard to make sure all of our movie and actor information is correct, but sometimes this is not the case due to studio changes, data import errors, etc. ... If you do find inaccurate data, please send Submit a Question to our support team. We will check the data against our sources and contact the publicist or distributor if necessary." That seems like reasonable editorial oversight to me i.e. they acknowledge that mistakes can happen but they have mechanism in place for tackling that. Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that their own database is not really presented as how the information is gathered (particularly for older films). I can understand information changing for new titles, but I have been seeing the site used regularly for cast information (as stated above). Should we use it as a source then? I'm just basically more concerned with using older information from website that aren't primarily used for their databases and do not mention how they information is gathered. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I usually trust Amazon for home video release dates in the past. Although admittedly this stuff is hard to find anywhere, and I'm basically betting that Amazon staff did their job correctly, I haven't seen any obvious errors so far. As for Rotten Tomatoes, for older, less-known films I'd be very careful and double-check everything that seems unlikely. Films are sometimes listed twice under different names, fairly upbeat no-score reviews are classified as rotten and vice versa, there are reviews belonging to the wrong film (which casts into doubt RT scores of probably most older films with non-unique names, where the majority of reviews are dead links or not linked at all and ungoogleable) etc. and this is just stuff I ran into while fixing up The Hunted (1995 film) for GA a couple of years ago. I've mostly given up on RT since then. Daß Wölf 02:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Update for David Kramer

Hello. I work for Executive Writing, and as part of my consultancy work, I've drafted an update for the article on David Kramer, who serves as co-president of United Talent Agency. You can view my proposed edit at User:EWChristine/David Kramer (talent agent). I believe I've disclosed my conflict of interest appropriately. Thank you in advance for any help. EWChristine (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes wording

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF that would affect pages under this project, regarding the application of WP:ASOF to RT scores in articles. Thoughts from those watching this talk page would be most welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments still requested

Hi there, comments still requested at Talk:2.0_(film)#RfC - Question: how should this film's budget be presented. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns at the Ezra Miller article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Ezra Miller#Gender-neutral pronouns. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The Lego Ninjago Movie

There is a dispute over whether to include sourced content in The Lego Ninjago Movie. Please see Talk:The Lego Ninjago Movie#Production companies in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:American films

There is some conflict regarding using Category:American films in an article that already has Category:American drama films. Bisbis has insisted that both should be in relevant articles. His edit summary is "For convenience, all American films should be included in this category. This includes all films that can also be found in the subcategories." Instead of getting into a WP:3RR situation, I am bringing this here for discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a note at the top of American films saying that all appropriate films should be included in it, in addition to subcats. I'm fine with it. DonIago (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAT the main country categories are non-diffusing, so should remain in the article per WP:DUPCAT even if the child categories are added. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue is covered by WP:DUPCAT, as pointed out above by Betty Logan. Sorry if I wasn't more clear when I added it (and when I added it again giving a more generic rationale - the one used on the category itself - to explain the edit), TonyTheTiger. Bisbis (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex Kingston marriage date

There is a dispute at Alex Kingston between me and another editor over how to present the dates for Kingston's second marriage. She separated in 2010 but was still married as of 2011 (the date of the actual divorce is unknown). An editor keeps removing the fact she only separated in 2010, making it look like she got divorced in 2010: [10]. I feel that that the date needs to be clarified, but the other editor keeps removing the clarification because it doesn't "look nice". The editor is completely opposed to a congenial discussion about the issue so could somebody please drop a third opinion Talk:Alex_Kingston#Divorce_date. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Film articles not linked from dab pages

I was looking at the report of missing dab page entries (you know, case where there is a disambiguation page "Foo" but the article "Foo (film)" isn't listed there), and it seems there are about 780 missing entries for film articles. All that needs to be done in most cases is to simply add the missing entry to the dab page. Sometimes, however, the fact that an article isn't linked from there might indicate that it hasn't received enough attention: it might not be notable, or it might be undercurated, and here this projects's expertise might come in handy. Would anyone be interested in helping out? In the list below there's a selection of 78 articles, if you take care of any of these, you can mark it up with {{done}} or strike it through. (Alternatively, you can go to the big report and search for "film").

List of articles (pt. 1)

Article → Dab page (link to dabfix: this tool can help with editing the dab page, it's very powerful but can be intimidating at first).
The Dancer (2000 film) → Dancer (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Innocents (2000 TV film) → The Innocents (dabfix)
9 (2002 film) → 9 (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Kurukshetra (2002 film) → Kurukshetra (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Magic Box (2002 film) → Magic Box (dabfix)
Two Friends (2002 film) → Two Friends (dabfix)
Anbu (2003 film) → Anbu (dabfix)
Bachelor (2004 film) → Bachelor (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Real Life (2004 film) → Real Life (dabfix)
Barefoot (2005 film) → Barefoot (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Graveyard Shift (2005 film) → Graveyard Shift (dabfix)
Savages (2006 film) → Savages (dabfix)
Sisters (2006 film) → Sisters (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Butcher (2007 film) → Butcher (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Glory (2007 film) → Glory (dabfix)
The Great War (2007 film) → Great War (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Island (2007 film) → Island (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Last Love (2007 film) → Last Love (dabfix)
Goth (2008 film) → Goth (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Nagaram (2008 film) → Nagaram (dabfix)
Scratch (2008 film) → Scratch (dabfix)
Jeeva (2009 film) → Jeeva (dabfix)
Vortex (2009 film) → Vortex (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Little Things (2010 film) → Little Things (dabfix)
Rhythm (2010 film) → Rhythm (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Target (2010 film) → Target (dabfix)
A Woman (2010 film) → Woman (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Courage (2011 film) → Courage (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Exam (2011 film) → Exam (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Hamlet (2011 film) → Hamlet (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Insaaf (2011 film) → Insaaf (dabfix)
Make a Wish (2011 film) → Make a Wish (dabfix)
The Misfits (2011 film) → Misfits (dabfix)
Paradise Lost (2011 film) → Paradise Lost (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Gangster (2012 film) → Gangster (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Love at First Sight (2012 film) → Love at First Sight (dabfix)
Love Story (2012 film) → Love Story (dabfix)
Thirst (2012 film) → Thirst (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Black Forest (2013 film) → Black Forest (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Doctor (2013 film) → Doctor (dabfix)
Karma (2013 film) → Karma (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Marius (2013 film) → Marius (dabfix)
Reckless (2013 film) → Reckless (dabfix)
Wasteland (2013 film) → Wasteland (dabfix)
The Wicked (2013 film) → Wicked (dabfix)
Home Sweet Home (2014 film) → Home Sweet Home (dabfix)
Sunrise (2014 film) → Sunrise (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Warriors (2014 film) → The Warriors (dabfix)
The Challenger (2015 film) → Challenger (dabfix)
City of Trees (2015 film) → City of Trees (dabfix)
Dominion (2015 film) → Dominion (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Reversion (2015 film) → Reversion (dabfix)
Sister (2015 film) → Sister (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Testimony (2015 film) → Testimony (disambiguation) (dabfix)
The Warning (2015 film) → Warning (dabfix)
Wasp (2015 film) → Wasp (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Aata (2016 film) → AATA (dabfix)
Bon Voyage (2016 film) → Bon Voyage (dabfix)
The Contract (2016 film) → Contract (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Damage (2016 film) → Damage (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Ice Cream (2016 film) → Ice cream (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Khiladi (2016 film) → Khiladi (dabfix)
Lionheart (2016 film) → Lionheart (dabfix)
The Suit (2016 film) → Suit (dabfix)
Hell or High Water (2017 film) → Hell or High Water (dabfix)
Hyde Park (2017 film) → Hyde Park (dabfix)
Knock (2017 film) → Knock (dabfix)
New Money (2017 film) → New Money (dabfix)
Picture Perfect (2017 film) → Picture Perfect (dabfix)
The Shadow (2017 film) → Shadow (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Back Roads (2018 film) → Back Roads (dabfix)
Officer (2018 film) → Officer (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Possum (2018 film) → Possum (dabfix)
Raja (2018 film) → Raja (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Rustum (2018 film) → Rustum (disambiguation) (dabfix)
Tick Tock (2018 film) → Tick tock (dabfix)
MLA (2018 Kannada film) → MLA (dabfix)

Thanks in advance! And given the large number of articles, I'm particularly interested in alternative suggestions for handling it all. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
Format accepted articles
Promote the journal

Authors

New Wikipedia articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
Existing Wikipedia articles to be externally peer reviewed (analogous to GA / FA review - see submission page)
Image articles, based around an important images, photographs or summary diagrams

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The scope of List of film memorabilia

Fun, fun, fun!

Take a second and drop by Talk:List of film memorabilia#The scope of this list article and pick a letter!

A, B, or C?

Bags of fun! Share your view. Don't delay! Have your say.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

British silent horror article at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Birds of Prey (2020 film)

There is currently a content dispute at Draft:Birds of Prey (2020 film). Please help resolve it at this discussion. Thank you. JOE BRO 64 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:List of Hindu mythological or devotional films that may need your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Superman FA review

I have nominated Superman in film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Brightburn poster

Resolved

– The matter is resolved. The image was deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the poster image at Brightburn. Please see the discussion here: Talk:Brightburn#Poster. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Open the pod bay doors, HAL

Please see this requested move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move of $

There is a requested move discussion occurring for the 1971 film $. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Identification of Arab and African personalities

Dear all,
As an output of an edit-a-thon taking place during the 2018 Carthage Film Festival, pictures of the event have been uploaded on Commons. If you recognize a personality who is not identified yet, can you let us know? Moumou82 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Venezuelan cinema task force

Not long ago a page to start a Venezuelan cinema task force was created by @Kingsif:. I wanted to bring the subject to the discussion, besides expressing my interest in collaborating with it. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't really think about WP Film before making it, I put the task force under WP Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

New article, help request

Dear film editors

I recently created You Are Here (2010 film) and am seeking advice - it is the first I've ever done from scratch. I'd like to be able to put in the movie poster as a graphic but I have no idea how that's done (it's available in on the film web site, which is an external link in the article). Also, any comments as to whether it's good enough yet to be nominated as a Good Article and if not, what would improve it would be appreciated. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this article, it looks like you put a lot of work into it! The big thing I see missing right now is a detailed plot. Since it sounds like you recently watched it, you are probably the best person to write that! Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm good at writing my own prose and editing plots but I just cannot watch a film and write a plot as I do so (though I'll sometimes edit them as I do, pausing as I do). Somehow it's just beyond me. And this one would be a lot harder than most as there's a great deal of ambiguity. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Since most posters are copyrighted, you can't upload the images to Commons. They'll have to be uploaded here and given a fair use rationale. Wikipedia:Non-free content will give you more details. When writing plots, I find it easiest to watch a film normally, restart it, and fast forward through it while writing the plot summary. It helps to keep the sequence of events correct. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move of $ (film) to Dollars (film)

Move request in progress. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a straightforward rename so the discussion would benefit from more input, especially from the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd asked the nominator to list it here on 13 December. Dollars to donuts he forgot. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

IMDb hoax flagging?

Hey, here's a weird question: Does anyone know anything about flagging dubious IMDB pages? Shangeeth Sathyanathan is highly questionable. The claim is that he's 15 and has worked on 200 films as an editor, has won numerous awards that can't be substantiated, etc. I don't really want to learn IMDbs editing system, but if anyone already familiar with their system can look into this, I'd appreciate it. He allegedly won the 60th Filmfare Award for Best Editor (disproven here), he allegedly won the 8th Annual Vijay Award for Best Editor (disproven here). If you can be of any help, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: If you have evidence, I suggest you submit the corrections yourself – it's pretty easy. If you need further help, go to GetSatisfaction. Nardog (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to infobox documentation

Please see (and comment there) Template talk:Infobox film#Proposed addition to Credits documentation.—Aquegg (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

New WikiProject

I have suggested that a new WikiProject that may be of relevance to this one, be created. If you are interested in viewing the proposal or taking part in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Fuller_House. mrwoogi010 ^Talk 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello WikiProject Video Games, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
JOE BRO 64 13:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Invented film genre categories

Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Rotten Tomatoes

Hey all, I'm curious if this is a legitimate removal of a Rotten Tomatoes rating. I seem to recall asking a couple of years back if newly-released films should have Rotten Tomatoes scores, since they change so frequently early on and the thermometer can shift between fresh and rotten so quickly. At the time I don't recall anybody feeling that it was inappropriate for inclusion as the reviews came in. In this case, the editor seems to think the sample size is too small to arrive at an overall summary, and there is no critical consensus published. He's cited the essay WP:ROTTEN as rationale. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ten reviews seem plenty and RT is used when there are only a few reviews, a little known essay carries little weight Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think ten reviews is meaningless for a review aggregator. You won't ever find a meaningful statistical analysis based on fewer than 30–40 samples. I have absolutely no problem with an editor removing an RT score based on a sample that low. When we add a score we are implying there is a critical consensus but even Rotten Tomatoes states "No consensus yet". The list at List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes requires a film to have a least 20 reviews to be included, or failing that a critics' summary, and I think that would be a good rule of thumb to apply across the board. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Counterpoint: We often allow individual voices to determine overall critical response when RT is not available, at least in Indian film articles, and it really drives me nuts, because sometimes individual journalists see things differently from other journalists, and in my head there's this ghost of corruption that haunts their movie industry, so my street sense wants to toss those summaries out. (I don't.) How can one person's potentially biased opinion on critical response carry more weight than ten RT evaluations? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The main problem with a small sample is that it doesn't hold up at a probabilistic level. Let's say you toss a fair coin 10 times, maybe the "heads" side comes up 7 times; alternatively maybe the "tails" side comes 7 times instead. In practice if you repeat that experiment you are very unlikely to get an even 5-5 split every time. If you switch the analogy for film reviews, then a mediocre/average film could easily come out being rated good or bad, and it's more or less a random outcome. Even worse, a bad film could come out as "good" and vice versa. That's why I don't think aggregator scores based on small samples are particularly useful. Sometimes it is not possible to summarise collective opinion, in which case you should summarize the positive and negative opinion in equal measure. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

With my very rudimentary understanding of statistics, I get your point. I guess I don't understand why we think it's OK to quote a reporter's opinion about critical response, then, when it is an even smaller statistical sample. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I ain't afraid of no page moves

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

There is a discussion at Black Mirror: Bandersnatch about how to best define it. See the discussion here: Talk:Black Mirror: Bandersnatch#What is Bandersnatch? Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Capitalising common nouns in cast?

Let's say you're writing up a cast list. Let's say your main character was Samantha but at some point a kid plays a younger version of Samantha? How would you write that up?

Jane Doe as Young Samantha
Jane Doe as young Samantha

Would you be faithful to the credits and call her "Young Samantha" if that's how she was credited, or would you write it naturally? What about:

John Doe as Hotel Receptionist
John Doe as hotel receptionist

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I would always have the first word after "as" start with a captial letter. So, for the above examples, I would print "Young Samantha" and "Hotel receptionist". If Samantha was not named, then it would be "Young girl". Don't know if there's a MOS on this though. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hm, well that's an interesting choice.

I don't exactly see the English precedent for that, since Hotel doesn't begin a sentence, nor is it a proper noun. But I appreciate the response! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe it's just me, but "John Doe as hotel receptionist" just looks odd! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Lugnuts, first letter of character should be upper cased. Role listings aren't sentences, they are a two-tiered listing of a) the actor's name, b) the role. Some film credits will substitute dots (.......) for the space between the two. That's why lower-case looks odd, it's inaccurate in formal and encyclopedic use, and is the same as starting a sentence with lower-case. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing helpful wikilinks from the Critical reception section

As noted at User talk:109.76.239.99#WP:Overlinking, there is an IP removing helpful wikilinks from the Critical reception section of film articles...on the grounds that it's WP:Overlinking. See 109.76.239.99 (talk · contribs). Linking "review aggregator" can seem like overlinking when Rotten Tomatoes is already linked and the Rotten Tomatoes article makes it clear that Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator, but, like I told the IP, many people do not know what a review aggregator is. The same goes for "rating average" or "weighted average." I figure that the IP is also this editor, but I understand the IP's point about "normalized."

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Check this out Flyer: Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators#Overlink. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Commented there. Don't tell me we're going to have to debate this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film and/or start an RfC on it because an IP is going around trying to enforce his or her style, a style that deprives readers of helpful links. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As seen at User talk:109.76.139.209#Your edits, the IP is still at it, and has recently been in dispute with Dan56. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

You are asserting that these links are helpful, I disagree. It is funny to say "readers are being deprived" when links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are both right there. You haven't made an argument against WP:OVERLINK and that's the guideline I'm following. Also the weighted average thing has nothing to do with me. I've started a discussion at WP:MOS to hopefully get more information about [[[WP:OVERLINK]] and what weight should be given to that policy. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlink -- 109.76.143.176 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

While I would generally prefer not linking to "review aggregator", I do not support going around with the express purpose of de-linking them. It's not outright detrimental to have these links. I can see arguments for linking, like saying that "review aggregator" is not a common term outside film buffs' circles, maybe even that "aggregator" by itself is not readily understood by most readers. I think time is better spent adding content to the encyclopedia. Most added content will be here to stay indefinitely, where the pendulum could easily swing in the future regarding whether or not to link "review aggregator", and all that effort would be wasted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I go round with the express purpose of removing those links but if I'm updating Rotten Tomatoes or making any changes I delink while I'm at it. I think the descriptions are too verbose, if I was changing things to my preferred style wouldn't bother including the boilerplate about "review aggregation website" and "weighted average" every time but I'm not doing that. Readers only care about the score, I don't think most even care about the number of reviewers (but it does give just enough context to know they aren't getting a falsely high score because not many reviews are in yet). Aggregators provide a quick overview, but people take the scores they create too seriously. Since Google serves up the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in most search results, most readers already have that overview before they get to the article. -- 109.76.143.176 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

As made clear at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators and here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlink, your WP:Overlink argument is flawed. You say that "the weighted average thing has nothing to do with [you]," huh? At Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators, you clearly stated, "but it is an unhelpful distraction and a clear example of overlink to link other words such as review aggregator or weighted average." As seen here, you clearly delinked "weighted mean," which was pipelinked under "average." And you added "weighted average." You are clearly those IPs. Like I stated at the guideline for overlinking, in what way do you think general readers will usually understand what "weighted average" is? As for linking "review aggregator," that's on the iffy side since Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic will already be linked, but I don't consider it overlinking when Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are also linked. Also, we've have readers not understand when we state "average rating" (instead of "rating average" or "weighted average"). Some have thought that we are simply stating that the rating is so-so/mediocre. Linking in the case of "average rating" is definitely helpful. And either way, you have no consensus to be going around removing these links for film articles and acting like the MOS is with you. You should not be trying to enforce your style and edit warring over it. Your IPs show you going around "with the express purpose of removing those links." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And MOS is a guideline. All of the MOS pages are. They are not policies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)