Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 75

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. 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 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

I just saw this which changed a 2013 film's category from Category:Fox Searchlight Pictures films (now deleted) to Category:Searchlight Pictures films. It looks like XSMan2016 did this tagging and Fayenatic london closed it as completed. "Searchlight Pictures" was not a thing back in 2013. It seems like this re-categorizing should be undone. Did we already have a similar discussion about this related to Disney and Fox? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was an RfC last October: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 74#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. "The general consensus here is to retain the credited distributor ("20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures") and as such, to not unilaterally change names of credited subsidiary distributors to their parent, "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures"." --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You just led me to what I was looking for: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 74#20th Century Fox films. It looks like Fayenatic was involved there too. It seems like this re-categorizing should be undone due to no consensus for it (and consensus the other way). Anything before 2020 (thereabouts) should go back to Fox Searchlight Pictures. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I was only listing what had been tagged by XSMan2016. However, you are right about the precedent. I will get the bot to move it back, then set Category:Searchlight Pictures films as the new parent. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Please recategorise the relevant pages. – Fayenatic London 07:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Il coltello di ghiaccio#Requested move 2 April 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion taking place regarding the format for listing multiple films of the same title in alphabetical lists of films. Please consider heading on over and giving your thoughts and opinions on the matter if you feel inclined to do so. Thank you! —Matthew - (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Directorial debut films is kinda large: currently about 6,330 articles. That's much too big for useful navigation.

It seems to me that it would be much more use if diffused by year (where available), or by decade if the year is unavailable. This task can be done fairly easily using WP:AWB: I recently used it to diffuse Category:Debut novels into Category:Debut novels by year, Category:Debut novels by decade and Category:Debut novels by century.

I would like to do the same for the directorial debut films, if there is agreement here to do so. In view of the size of the category, I propose to run it as a bot job, using User:BHGbot. If there is agreement here, I will open a request at WP:BRFA seeking permission to use the bot for this.

Any thoughts? (Please ping me in replies). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: - good spot, never noticed how big this category had grown. Debut by year sounds good to me, and will mirror the novels category. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I support this as well. While I'm not much involved in category work, the proposal makes sense, and I have seen Lugnuts make good assessments when it comes to categories. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Lugnuts & Erik. I just did a check using Petscan, and found that there are only 161 directorial films not categorised in a "YYYY films" category. So the first pass will handle the other 5,838 ... which is 97.5% of the total. This should be an easy job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with my colleagues above that this sounds like a good move BrownHairedGirl! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through that list of 161 films that BHG posted above, and added categories where I could. The ones remaining are upcoming or unreleased films. Some look borderline in terms of notability, but that's for another day, although this one did stand out. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Lugnuts. Your good work has brought the tally of films without a year down to only 98. So the first pass of the bot will handle 98.5% of the debut films, which is great.

And we are left to ponder the philosophical question of whether Reginald LaFrance's unmade film counts a debut. I think probably not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: this discussion has been open for only 24 hours, and should probably run for a few days before consensus is weighed. But in view of the positive comments so far, I have opened a bot approval request (BRFA) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 5 so that WP:BAG members can start technical evaluation of the task.

Please note that I am not trying to jump the gun here: I have noted there that the discussion here is still young. BAG is rightly cautious, so it won't authorise the bot task unless consensus is clear. But opening the BRFA now allows then to start assessing the proposed methodology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: Bot task WP:BHGbot 5 has been approved[1] (thanks, @Primefac) and the bot has begun work on the task: see Special:Contributions/BHGbot.

I will start creating the categories soon, after a short break to feed my gigolos. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The categories are now all in place: see Category:Directorial debut films by date, especially Category:Directorial debut films by year.

The bot has already recategorised about 900 films, and will complete the rest of the set over the next 24 hours or so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Update2 the bot has now processed about 2,200 articles (a third of the set), but I noticed that it is skipping about 10% of them. I found the problem: the bot assumes that all the articles in a "YYYY films" category are there because of direct category markup, e.g. [[:Category:1916 films]]. That assumption turns out to be false in about 10% of cases, which the bot is skipping. I found that the reason down is the use of {{Film date}}, and have created some tracking categories to see what use cases I needed to consider doing a second run with bot on these exceptions: see Template:Film_date#Tracking.

From what I have learnt so far, it seems that a simple modification to the bot will allow it to process about 85% of the remainder. I will then figure out what to do with the rest, but I think the bot should be able to do nearly all of them ... although it may take a few days longer than I expected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and the work on this task! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Update3: Job done. The bot has finished its run, having done 5499 edits and skipped 683 pages.

I had prepared the methodology for it do a second pass to process most of the remainder, but to my surprise a peek at Category:Directorial debut films shows that it's all done; the remainder all seem to be upcoming films. Some further burrowing reveals that this was all done manually by Sc2353 (talk · contribs), in over 500 edits. It's great to see it all done, and apparently done well, but I am sad to see a human editor spending a day of their life doing a task which a bot was ready to do unattended after about 10 minutes setup time.

Anyway, I think I'm done here. Thanks to To editors Lugnuts, Erik and Favre1fan93 for your support and feedback and to @Primefac and TheSandDoctor for doing due diligence on the bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion about Extra Human Being. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've posted an RFC at Talk:Prix Iris about the way the awards ceremonies are numbered, because the way we're numbering them on the English Wikipedia is different from the way they're being numbered both on the French Wikipedia and by Québec Cinéma itself — those two are consistent with each other, and we're the ones making up our own road. I know not everybody here is particularly knowledgeable about Canadian or Quebec film, but I still wanted to announce the RFC here in case anybody cares to offer input. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I work for Executive Writing, and as part of my consultancy, I work with United Talent Agency. I am hoping someone will be willing to take a look at the N.S. Bienstock page to help determine if it should be merged to direct readers to the United Talent Agency page. United Talent Agency’s acquisition of N.S. Bienstock was widely reported in the press when it occurred in early 2014. This acquisition is already referenced and sourced on the United Talent Agency page. You can see coverage of the initial acquisition here. THE N.S. Bienstock brand has since retired and is known now as UTA News & Broadcasting. This, too, is noted on the UTA page. Additionally, the N.S. Bienstock brand retirement can be documented by the fact that the entity no longer has an independent website. I believe the N.S. Bienstock page should be merged and simply refer readers to the United Talent Agency page, which already reflects the retirement of the NSB/shift to UTA News & Broadcast, but am looking for guidance from editors. I believe I've disclosed my conflict of interest appropriately. Thank you in advance for your help. EWChristine (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking and disclosing, I've looked at the relevant pages. Because of the 70+ year history of N.S. Bienstock before the merger, I don't find it appropriate to merge the articles (though N.S. Bienstock does need expansion and updating). The company was independently notable for a long time before 2014, and its article should reflect that it is effectively a former company. Appropriate linking and details of the merger should be included on both pages, and details of N.S. Bienstock/UTA News & Broadcasting after the merger belong at the UTA article. Kingsif (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how to handle whether or not to merge companies, but Template:Infobox company has a "fate" parameter which the template documentation says can be used to indicate being acquired. So unless there is an argument against merging, doing this and updating the introduction to be in the past tense seem like the right steps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Would interested editors please comment here Talk:Mad Monster Party?#Title of article. I'm actually having a hard time finding any sources that use the question mark but wanted to get other opinions before making any page move. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 19:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a dispute at God's Not Dead (film) regarding WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. The discussion is at Talk:God's Not Dead (film)#References in paragraph 2, and the diff in dispute is here. JOEBRO64 00:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This continues to be a major problem on God's Not Dead 2. Popcornfud (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion regarding a potential move for Colleen Villard. The discussion can be found at Talk:Colleen Villard#Requested move 11 April 2020. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in discussing my proposed merger at the Deadpool talk page. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Morgellons is a controversial medical topic, per its relationship with delusional parasitosis. Could experienced film editors please review the considerable discussion on Morgellons talk, to provide some guidance on the film aspects of the documentary, wrt External links? Talk:Morgellons#Documentary probably worth a mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Blue_Is_the_Warmest_Colour#In_most_circumstances_ILL_Links_should_be_present_when_possible @Erik: @Sebastian James: There's an inquiry on the talk page on whether foreign language wiki articles on actors should be linked. There are several minor actors listed on the Blue_Is_the_Warmest_Colour article that have French Wikipedia articles but not English ones.

One possible concern raised is of the article on the foreign language Wiki being relatively undeveloped or lacking sourcing (this issue I believe affects the Japanese Wikipedia). I'm also linking this from the BLP noticeboard just in case as this does concern living people. One counterargument is that there are also ENwiki articles on actors/actresses that are relatively undeveloped and that one wouldn't remove blue links from that. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In general, I support the use of ILL. If nothing else, it encourages an English language article to be made and is an indicator of enough notability for that to happen. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsif. I don't know about "should all..." but I usually add them. At the least, I reckon they attract editors to create an article more than a bare red link does. I'd remove an ill-link if the topic isn't notable for en.WP just as I'd remove a redlink, but I haven't yet seen any example of that. Daß Wölf 21:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, although it entirely depends on how much content can be found on the other wiki. The English-language wiki has recognized WP:SYSTEMICBIAS toward Anglosphere/Western subjects and I think the ILLs help to mitigate the bias to some extent. For example, if another wiki has an article about a notable actor that contains an extensive filmography of notable films they have appeared in then that is a useful link to include, if the actor does not have an entry on this wiki. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I think ILL is a good idea and quite underused. I work in the topic area of Catholic bishops, and I could imagine there might often be BLPs in Italian or German-language wikis, for the more obscure ones. How much pushback do you think we could expect, if we began to liberally sprinkle ILL in every article we touch?

Also a technical question: what's a good way to find the best article in foreign Wikis when there isn't one here? Should we bounce through Wikidata or is there a wmflabs tool we can use? Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What do editors here think should be done at Blue Is the Warmest Colour specifically? WhisperToMe linked to the discussion at the beginning. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't need ILL links to create this pages. Each of us can write two sentences and a couple of acting credits without a source. If you want to encourage readers to create these articles that may not meet WP:N, use only red links. If you want to encourage readers to improve the specified article in another language, there is already a section on the left called "Languages". −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 14:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

ILL links are needed to tell the average casual reader "create me! look I have an article in the "native" language too!" Most readers are not savvy to the structure of Wikipedia like some of us long-termers are, so they need to be catered to and reminded of these things. Also, the "Languages" section is not good enough as often casual readers won't even bother looking over there or thinking about it; they'll just read in their own language. I met a Hispanic guy in a bookshop in Humble, Texas and when I told him his high school had an article in Spanish, he told me he didn't even know Wikipedia had a Spanish edition. Also if readers don't see red links anyway they won't know that the article should be created at some point.

Sebastian, there is a consensus among the Wikipedia community that there should generally be ILL links, or else the template wouldn't exist. The articles therefore should generally conform to that consensus (there may be exceptions but these need to be justified in some way).

As for Blue Is the Warmest Colour I think all of the actors who have FRwiki articles but not ENwiki ones should have ILL links.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd keep the ILL links, they fit in with the way I normally use them. Some editors have recommended to just use a single ILL link per person (probably in the cast list or the infobox) and keep others as ordinary red links, that would be fine with me too. Daß Wölf 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been seeing some category-related edits that are changing decade-specific genre categories to year-specific genre categories, like this. Is there consensus for this more specific change, especially on a widespread scale? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Horror films and short films seem to have had the year-specific categories for as long as I can remember (although no-one can say why for the former). I guess the next logical step is for other genres to follow. The decade-level categories are pretty big, in terms of articles contained in them, and might not be the best use of navigation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to keep categorisation to the decade level. 1990s drama films differ stylistically from 1980s drama films in similar ways. There's, however, likely nothing that sets apart e.g. 1999 drama films, other than the fact that these dramas happen to have been released in that particular year. Daß Wölf 19:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If a film already belongs to Category:1992 films does its genre category really need to be refined down from Category:1990s horror films to Category:1992 horror films? I don't feel this offers us anything encyclopedicly. At an organization level it just creates more categories to search through. All genre categories should be scaled back to decades IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the above question is active at Talk:One Two Three#Requested move 16 April 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the process of creating an article about the film "A Day in Black and White" (draft sandbox), but there seems to be some discrepancy regarding the film's premiere date. IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes both indicate the premiere date as being August 31st, 2001, stating it premiered at the Africa in the Picture Film Festival. However, I have multiple RS (here and here) indicating it was shown at SXSW in March 1999, and the film's trailer indicates it was "written and directed for HBO" and premiered on that network in February 2001. I would assume the SXSW showing would constitute the premiere date for Infoxbox purposes, but I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I would go with the Variety source. IMDb does not always have all releases listed, and Rotten Tomatoes (and most other databases) take their dates from IMDb. BOVINEBOY2008 19:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't use the one from IMDB (WP:CITEIMDB), esp. when you have better sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen this film in awhile, in order to meet the standard for FILMPLOT, 140 words must be cut out of it. I am not wanting to chop out anything that's important to the film so if any editors who've seen it recently or remember the plot off the top of their head could do the trim, it would be appreciated. Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I was able to remove 109 words without eliminating important plot points. I think that's as good as it's going to get, based on the intricacy of the plot. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the remaining 31 words, I think that'll have to come down to a matter of changing wordings for certain sentences. I've gotten it down further to 727. Rusted AutoParts 21:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gotten it dead on 700 now. Rusted AutoParts 21:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've been running related article Being Impossible through the GA process, but we have hit an issue that will take some help to resolve: I made the article before the release and was hoping that I would be able to add a full plot summary (if nobody beat me to it) when the film came out last year. For a variety of reasons, the film's release in different countries got pushed back to this year, so it's not been very lucky. HBO have got the film available on VOD - in the US. Neither the GA reviewer nor myself are both in the US and have a HBO subscription, so if anybody here is in the US with HBO and would be willing to watch an interesting film to give a plot summary, we would be very grateful! Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion about File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.png is recently relisted into Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 22, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I created virtual cinema today and wanted to share in case editors working on independent films' articles wanted to link to something about this particular strategy going on nowadays. Others are welcome to share similar articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If interested, please share your thoughts on the use of galleries of cast images in film articles at Talk:Dilim#RfC: Cast images. BOVINEBOY2008 00:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, there is a rfc at Talk Dark Phoenix whether the phrase box office bomb should be used regarding the film. ToeFungii (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A requested moved is being discussed at Talk:Braindead (film)#Requested move 8 April 2020 which may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm looking at Box Office Mojo for Groundhog Day here and I'm a bit confused. it says it was in release for almost an entire year, but it only has records for 19 weeks. Any film being in release for a year is pretty rare as far as I am aware, even back then, but the total box office figure is the same as the 19 week figure. Can anyone explain this to me? And as an aside, has anyone ever come across any info of international numbers for the film? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has been very, very screwed up lately. I think Betty Logan can attest to this. Internet Archive says here that it was 18 weeks. I think something screwy happened with the "19th week" row somehow blowing the rest of the numbers up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Erik, that makes more sense. Have we come across anywhere more reliable since BOM's change? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Apparently The Numbers (website) is considered better than BOM nowadays? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The weekend charts are all corrupted since the revamp. As an example let's take a look at the May 28–31, 1993 Memorial weekend. Here is the chart at Box Office Mojo and here is the same weekend at The Numbers. If you look closely at The Numbers chart you will notice that Menace II Society is at #7, but BOM rank it at #10. The reason for this is because they have The Sandlot, Sidekicks and Benny & Joon at #7–10. The Numbers chart is the correct one. Box Office Mojo now seems to have some weird sort of algorithm that "corrects" the final weekend entry so it matches the overall total, which results in a false gross for the films. In the cases of The Sandlot, Sidekicks and Benny & Joon this caused them to move back into the top 10 on BOM's chart, although this never actually happened. This is simply what has happened to Groundhog Day. As a very extreme example compare the weekend grosses and totals for Like Water for Chocolate at BOM and The Numbers. According to The-Numbers it had only grossed $15 million by week 26; however, Box Office Mojo only tracks the first 10 weeks, and in the 10th weekend records it as grossing $19 million and it zooms up to #1 in the ranks. In reality it was never #1 and that is a gross corruption of the chart. Unfortunately editors have been "fixing" these charts on Wikipedia in good faith. But Box Office Mojo is in no way shape or form reliable for the weekend charts. I contacted them but they haven't addressed the problems. This particular issue is just the tip of the iceberg; there are tons of mistakes, some of which are outlined at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74#Massive_problems_with_Box_Office_Mojo. Personally I don't consider it a reliable source any more and something needs to be done about it, but it's in use on around 10,000 articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response Betty. Yes that is a supreme nuisance as I've already done my researched based on BOM and now will have to re-research it through the Numbers. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

So from this, how long was Groundhog Day actually out? Because here The Numbers says 16 weeks but is missing about $2.4 million where BOM says 19 weeks, and the final week tots it up to the $70 million gross? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It played for at least 18 weeks (see [2]). My guess is that weekly tracking stopped after that point but eventually worked its way up to 71 mil. It is unlikely it stayed in theaters for a year though. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Betty, that'll help me re-word it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Some extra voices and views would be appreciated at Talk:Godzilla (2014 film)#Remove hatnote. BOVINEBOY2008 10:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, can anyone suggest a reliable website/portal to systematically support information about the release date of home media such as Blu-ray and DVD? And in terms of accepted practices, is it OK to use commercial websites? Tanonero (msg) 09:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers often reported home video releases regularly throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and some still do. You can get free subscriptions from many sources if you need them from The Wikipedia Library. For newer films, you might have to search a bit harder. DVD Talk is a very good site to check for releases post-2000, though I think it's limited to US releases only. IGN and some other entertainment websites also do reviews and announcements. For horror films, you're totally in luck; Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting will probably document every horror DVD or Blu-ray release (mostly US, but also some other markets). Science fiction films might get coverage from horror websites, but you're probably best off checking a dedicated genre website like Starburst. Independent films will be given a lot of attention throughout the "indie" sphere, such as IndieWire (US films), Screen Anarchy (non-US cult films), and maybe Entertainment Weekly (US films, especially cult films). I know you'll get conflicting advice on this, but I suggest that you do not cite online stores. I think this is spammy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur with NinjaRobotPirate not to use commercial websites. To me, it seems like a slippery slope. If one can use Amazon to cite a release date, why not some other commercial website? And it may not necessarily be the case that such websites have good editorial oversight for such details that are relatively minor to online shoppers for any film that is not recent. In addition to what was recommended above, for older releases (like 1990s and 2000s, I am guessing), hive4media.com was the last and unfortunate name for the reliable sources of Home Media Retailing and/or Video Store Magazine. Another one is Video Business, which does not have an online presence but can be found in subscription-based databases. If you need help with a particular film, please let us and others know, and we can see what we can retrieve. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hm. This is informative, and possibly merits an MoS update. DonIago (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and Erik: Thank you, both!. Tanonero (msg) 10:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(After an unfruitful quick search on the indicated websites) What I needed was sources supporting Blackfish's home release dates in UK and USA. --Tanonero (msg) 10:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Whew, this is a tough one to search for. I found USA Today mentioning the US DVD release date for Blackfish here. What I did in this case was search for blackfish inurl:dvd in the date range of 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2014. Sometimes it's that kind of filter that helps sift through garbage results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Both DVD and Blu-ray were released the same day. You can use DVD Talk's review here plus USA Today to cover US home media. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Films and TV shows often use the official/legal name for copyright/distribution credits for legal reason. However, some of those names may not be easily recognizable by the reader. For example, ABC Studios legal name is "Touchstone Television Productions, LLC" and Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (WDSHE) is "Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." (BVHE). Disney film DVDs and blu-ray usually say "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." and we usually use the recognizable WP:COMMONNAME (WDSHE) as instead of the obscure unrecognizable legal name because the goal is to help the readers understand the content as opposed to wp:wikilawyering it up with legal jargon. Is it WP:OR to paraphrase and use the recognizable, non-controversial common name as opposed to word-for-word company name in the source?

Likewise, a reliable sources can mention cast or companies by a nickname or legal name as opposed to the precise and recognizable common name. For example, if a casting news article says "The Rock" instead of "Dwayne Johnson," is it original research to call him "Dwayne Johnson" even though it's obvious in the article? — Starforce¹³ 20:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The common name makes more sense for the corporations. In the specific case of Dwayne Johnson, "Dwayne Johnson" and "The Rock" can probably be safely used interchangeably or together as "Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson" (though Johnson would probably be preferred in reference to acting work). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion about referencing Daily Mail film reviews on the talk page for RoboCop (2014 film). The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I used cite dvd, and entered the dvd barcode number in the ISBN field, however it returns an error, was wondering if anyone else uses cite dvd and if they enter the barcode number in the cite. Govvy (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like per Template:Cite AV media, the "isbn" field won't allow anything that doesn't look like an ISBN. In my experience, I've never seen a DVD barcode used, here on Wikipedia or in references in other sources. So you don't have to use it. Just include the other details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd one, I thought the ISBN field was for that. Unless I was suppose to use another field. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion regarding this film's title form is currently active at Talk:Y Tu Mamá También#Requested move 3 May 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Is List of Academy Award shortlists something encyclopedic. I am not in the industry, but it seems sort of like WP:NOT.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, struggling to see the value of such a list myself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like it would go against WP:NOT#NEWS in the sense that these listings are not enduring. Once the nominations are announced, are the shortlisted films that didn't make it even remembered in that way? I could be wrong and open to a counter-argument, but the references seem to indicate at-the-time announcements and nothing more. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The international films, which do go through a different and lengthier process, I see as notable. Others, not so much. Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen it mentioned here and there, but it doesn't warrant its own article. El Millo (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: - seems to be a consensus not to have an article for this. Happy to log it at WP:AFD, unless you want to list it yourself. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Lugnuts go for it. No longer watching here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: - done. The deletion discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article, in particular some of the things being discussed at Talk:The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a request for comments at Talk:Canadian Screen Award for Best Original Screenplay, regarding whether a separate article is warranted or not. The explanation is fairly long because there was a lot of context to explain for why it was merged with another category instead of already having its own article, so I'm not going to repeat it all here, but the talk page offers more detail on why this is in question. Accordingly, I'd like to solicit some imput from other editors. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this nomination is not generating enough interest on FAC; it was suggested that I post here to invite interested editors to review the article and leave constructive comments. Thanks to those willing to take part. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An RfC is open regarding the length of the cast list on It's a Wonderful Life; the details can be found here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Would somebody be able to take a peek at Beta Test (film)? There's maybe one or two references that aren't citing someone's personal Facebook. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I added some sources to the talk page. They are slim pickings... Not sure what else might be found. BOVINEBOY2008 22:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on Bovineboy2008's added sources, it seems notable. I would definitely minimize (or remove outright) the Facebook references, though. Primary sources should be used sparingly to complement secondary-source coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008 and Erik: I should clarify that I know some people who worked on the film, so I'm personally prohibited via WP:COI. Would either of you like to make the necessary adjustments? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the HWR review, I didn't add the Variety review as I didn't know what to condense or pull out since I couldn't make sense of his review.QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that SibTower1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is busy adding awards to the accolades sections of various film articles - Goodfellas is one example. I thought that there was a consensus formed a few years ago that if the awards did not have a Wikipedia article that they weren't to be included. If I am wrong in this then S can proceed although I would add that I'm not seeing any references to WP:VERIFY the awards at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 05:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe your recollection is correct, and I believe references should be provided as well. There's a discussion regarding an MOS update here, but the MOS as it currently stands isn't explicitly clear on this point. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah the old "the filmproject discusses it - reaches a sort of consensus but MOSFILM doesn't get updated" syndrome :-) Good work on finding the thread D. Five years ago eh - where does the tme go? MarnetteD|Talk 06:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh, I was bored. (laughs) Thanks though! Watch Predestination and then you can answer that question about where the time goes. :p DonIago (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Have no fear, it is in the MOS! Near the end of the first paragraph it states "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability", per the discussion linked above. And what do you mean I'm funny? Funny like a clown? I amuse you....? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that awards in tables should be blue-linked. As with many tables and lists on Wikipedia, the entries could be almost endless, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Although some of those that aren't blue-linked may have some notability, that needs to be established by creating an article demonstrating the notability. Although I think SibTower1987 is editing in good faith, there have been cases when an editor decides to promote his/her website by adding awards whose only notability is that they are on that personal website. In one case I had to spend considerable time removing those award entries, then deal with the inevitable pushback when the editor was offended. It's much simpler just to have a blue-link requirement. Sundayclose (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is great Lugnuts. Thanks for finding it. I'm glad my "syndrome" message was in error this time :-) Thanks to Doniago for the film mention. I hadn't seen that one before. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

....the dangers of my doing research while bored, I suppose... :p Thanks Lugnuts! DonIago (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I just completed some technical cleanup of this article. It was marked as a Start-class, I believe it to be B-class and marked it so. As this project had a banner on it I thought you might want to be aware. —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with this site? It has an actual UK box office for Groundhog Day (film) but I can't seem to see much info about the site itself. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, if you have not checked out the Wikipedia Library yet, I recommend you do so. There are some sources (like Newspapers.com) that can help us look up coverage related to this WikiProject. We can also suggest sources, and I have suggested IMDbPro as a possibility. While we do not treat IMDb as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles, aspects of it such as getting news-related alerts can help us. You can find the IMDbPro suggestion here and upvote it. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Not tagged as within project's scope, but I think it probably is. Would folks more familiar with film mind a look at Community film? It reads like it was written by an academic (it was), but I think based on Cinema Beyond the City there's an element of notability, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks! StarM 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

While it seemed okay at first glance, I am not sure if the topic actually exists as a tangible one outside Wikipedia. It seems to run afoul of WP:NOTESSAY in being "primary research on a topic" and not published elsewhere. The editor who wrote the bulk of this, Filmpartscom, did it entirely in 2011 and has not been active since that year. I would support putting it up for WP:AFD. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik, I've done so: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Community_film. StarM 01:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There has in fact been a recent collection of essays (avilable in hardback, paperback and ebook) devoted entirely to this important topic: "Community Filmmaking: Diversity, Practices and Places" SEE https://www.routledge.com/Community-Filmmaking-Diversity-Practices-and-Places-1st-Edition/Malik-Chapain-Comunian/p/book/9780367876494 It's edited by Sarita Malik, Caroline Chapain, Roberta Comunian (London and New York: Routledge, 2019).

There is *** no evidence *** that the wiki article borrows or draws on another book: Cinema Beyond the City

In fact, this book was published in 2016, long after the wiki page was established in 2011. If anything, the book draws on wiki, not the reverse! (maybe that also indicates the significance of the page and its relevance to contemporary discussion of film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

StarM was using it to indicate an element of notability in general. Looking at it, I did not find the content to match the topic. It's simply happenstance combinations of "community" and "film". When I tried to research the topic, I found instances of "community film festivals" that simply meant film festivals that happened in the community, or locally. Regarding the Routledge book, I think that is basically what the contested article should be. However, the contested article is still driven by primary sources compiled to make an argument. Perhaps it was ahead of its time. The alternative here should be to have an article on community filmmaking (the term gets more results) with the Routledge book and this and this and this. Regardless, I don't find the contested article salvageable if it has never used secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Erik for clarifying. Yes, IP 77, I meant in no way that it plagiarized but rather p 198 of that book seemed to touch on the same elements as big v. small budget/local filmmaking. While AfD isn't for cleanup, an issue with this article as it stands as it's not one that someone unfamiliar with the genre can follow. My initial thought before AfD was stubbing it, but I cannot identify the core. StarM 13:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. This needs a lot of work but is definitely notable. I don't think I'd have time, though I'd be interested later. Kingsif (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Editors here are invited to review the topic and the related comments at its AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community film. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the AFD and moved the article to draft space at Draft:Community film. bibliomaniac15 03:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a conflict about the genre of the above film. AllMovie says it is a comedy. I imagine if you have watched the film you wouldn't classify it the same, but regardless of common sense, this movie about disemboweling, rape and murder is now identified among the likes of Scary Movie and Trading Places. Input would be appreciated. Pinging Doniago as another involved editor. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that per WP:RSP, AllMovie (which falls under RhythmOne) notes "There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available.". You should get a secondary source per RSP for the genre classification. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The AFI Catalog records the following genres for Scream: Horror, Mystery, Comedy. I don't recall it being a laugh-a-minute but comedy is a broad genre. Scream satirizes the conventions of the horror genre and something can be satirized without being laugh-out-loud funny (Get Out for example) and that would probably qualify it as a comedy on those grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Satire is not exclusively comedy, the first definition on Google states "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices." It is a satire in only as much as it takes the genre conventions and goes against them or uses them in different ways such as using meta commentary to bring up those tropes in a film using those tropes. It's not a comedy, and even if were defined to have comedic elements as in people are not exclusively screaming throughout, it's top level genre would not be comedy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dark, you've now been provided with two different sources that claim that comedy is a top-level genre classification for the film. Is it possible that you're letting your personal views take precedence over sources with regards to how best to categorize the film? Never having seen the film myself, I wouldn't have expected it to be considered a comedy either, and I may have even reverted such classification in the past and requested sourcing...in fact, it was my looking up the film at AllMovie (potential reliability issues notwithstanding) that led me to "comedy" in the first place. As I said at your Talk page, I would invite you to locate a reliable source for genre classification that offers other options. If it helps, there was a brief discussion of the appropriate genre(s) for the film previously.DonIago (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I literally linked you to five or 6 different sites that did not mention comedy on my page and you completely blanked them. Whereas QueerFilmNerd up there has says AllMovie has been questioned on accuracy. By your own admission you have not seen the film, because even a blind man could hear that it's not a comedy film. If we're going to take the film satirizing horror tropes as it being a top-level comedy film akin to Austin Goddamn Powers, then Terminator 2 should be one because there's that one scene where Arnie smiles because he picked up a minigun. There are "sources" and there is common sense, and I've already provided you with sources that do not list comedy at all. For the sake of the class, here they are again:

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/12/22/scream-20-wes-craven-kevin-williamson-tore-slasher-filmapart/
• https://www.amazon.co.uk/Scream-David-Arquette/dp/B00FYNIYZ6
• https://www.altpress.com/features/20_reasons_why_scream_is_the_movie_horror_desperately_needed/
• https://www.outofourelement.co.uk/single-post/2019/10/16/Scream-The-Rebirth-of-the-Slasher-Genre
• https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/34098/1/how-scream-reinvented-the-slasher-movie
• https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1074316_scream
• https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/12/how-scream-holds-up-in-2019/
• https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jul/10/scream-is-back-but-does-the-horror-genre-need-ghostface-any-more
• https://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/scream-film
• https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b7f498103

The problem with just googling "Scream 1996 comedy" as you have done, is that "scream" is a pretty generic term, 1996 is a pretty generic term, and comedy is a pretty generic term. Sourcing the Scream article in the first place was difficult for this reason. If it was called Billy and the Killersaurus, it would be easier to refine the search but you're going to get all kinds of results. The first and third results are us, and the fourth mentions comedy in reference to the film's parody Scary Movie. Comedy is not a top-level genre for this film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest moving this discussion thread to Talk:Scream (1996 film) since it is film-specific and to best keep the thread on that talk page for future reference if a consensus emerges (and challenged later on). My initial impression from the above comments and looking at sources is that "horror" is too simple but that "comedy" is not suitable. We have to be wary of databases that tend to do a grab-bag approach of genres. Is it worth putting "satire" or "satirical" in the opening sentence? There may not be an easy answer to it, but it seems worth indicating the film's self-awareness upfront since it is a key noteworthy element. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a slasher. That is the specific genre. And this sentence is in the lead " The film combines black comedy and "whodunit" mystery with the violence of the slasher genre to satirize the clichés of the horror movie genre popularized in films such as Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980) and Craven's own A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)." All of that is already there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I considered suggesting "satirical horror", though I find it unlikely that any sources we've previously discussed using for genre classification purposes use that. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not call it a slasher film per sources, and then discuss its comical elements further into the lead?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Keep the genre simple and explain other stuff later in the lead. Popcornfud (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

All good points above. Calling it a "comedy slasher" may give too much prominence to the comedic aspect of the film. It exists, but the prominent elements are suspense and horror, and those are clearly backed up by a significant number of reliable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Another point to consider... When there are multiple sequels involved, it's sometimes helpful to look at how the primary genres are all classified as a whole:

• Scream – Horror, Comedy
• Scream 2 – Horror
• Scream 3 – Horror
• Scream 4 – Horror

Horror needs to be the most prominent one mentioned based on that angle. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if there continues to be massive conflict over the inclusion of comedy as a genre, start an RfC. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that, on articles for American-produced films, the caption beneath the film's poster in the infobox will generally read "Theatrical release poster" (or something very similar), in accordance with WP:FILMPOSTER. However, on articles for films produced by most other countries, this isn't always the case. Take a look at a number of articles for films produced by the Japanese company Studio Ghibli, and you'll find that the infobox captions often read "Japanese theatrical release poster". The article for the most recent Best Picture winner, Parasite, has an infobox caption reading "South Korean theatrical release poster". The Bicycle Thieves article notes its poster as "Italian". Amélie's poster is designated as "French", Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as "Chinese", A Separation as "Iranian", Solaris as "Soviet", etc. Those are just a couple examples.

There are exceptions, like Wild Strawberries making no mention of the poster's Swedish nature, or the Thai-produced Uncle Boonmee's "English-language release poster", but for the most part, it seems as though infobox captions treat the United States as the default country of origin, whereas posters for other countries need to be clarified. I don't think I've ever seen an infobox caption reading "American theatrical release poster". I feel that the solution to this would be to either (a) add a nationality to every poster caption across the board, including "American" for American-produced films, or (b) removing the nationality from captions altogether, unless the poster in question is not from the film's country of origin. —Matthew - (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I generally use the caption "Film poster" unless there is something notable about the poster. Like if the poster is using a different title than the article, I will mention the country or language of use, or if it is a promotional poster or otherwise. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Option B for me. Per the distribution and release field, there's no need to state that an American film was released by an American company in the US. Same sort of logic should apply to the poster, unless it's the exception you mention. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely against it if we state if a poster is the American (or Canadian, British, Australian, etc.) is included. for readers I feel if they come to an article and see an image that doesn't match the title in question, it could be confusing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Option B for me as well. It should be clarified whenever it isn't from its country of origin. El Millo (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008, Lugnuts, Andrzejbanas, and Facu-el Millo: After reading all of your responses, I've started a RfC/proposal about this topic over on Template talk:Infobox film. Feel free to give your thoughts there! —Matthew - (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On discord, for example DonGuess (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Check out WP:IRC. Not sure if a chat has value, though. My personal take is that most editors tend to work on niche topics and that most discussions do not warrant a sense of immediacy or going off-wiki. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As a heavy user of the WP:DISCORD, I wouldn't be opposed to a discord. QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Eric, but I think that chats could be used to discuss something rather unimportant there (and users working on niche topics might still need help of others Wikipedians), so that we don’t litter Wikipedia forums. DonGuess (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any information about the «David Lynch talks Mulholland Drive» (it’s on YouTube) interview on Wikipedia? I asked the same question on the Mulholland dr. talk page DonGuess (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Just thought some folks here would like to be able to see proposed drafts and weigh in: Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Media/Films. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason why genres has not been included as a field in the infobox for films? I ask because genre information is readily available on the internet from various sources, but is usually part of a proprietary dataset (unlike wikipedia data). Including genre in the infobox for films would create an extra data point that is freely available for people to use if they were to use the wikipedia dataset as a source of film data. ImDB, TMDB, etc. all have genres for most films, and allowing those to be referenced as the source would remove too much controversy around which genre(s) a film belongs to. ★Thorentis★ 04:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It's been raised many times before. Please take a look at those discussions for more rationales behind not including it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In a nutshell, genre classification is very subjective and can get indiscriminate. We have so, so many discussions about what genre(s) to have in the opening sentence of a lead section. If we combined all the reported genres in the infobox, it would often be a long list with no indication of which genre has the most weight. Almost every film has some kind of drama, for example, or a couple of action scenes could make a film be an action film. Databases don't care about weighing these things. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I am less sure about this one than the one above. Cwf97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy creating "feature films by year" categories - Category:2004 feature films as one example. I have a vague memory of this coming up before but i could be wrong. Is it a category that we need. We already have "films by year" so this seems a WP:OVERCAT. Aren't most films are considered feature films? Following up on that there is no criteria for what is and is not a feature film in any of the categories created. If my memory is off and if others consider these cats okay than fine - I just wanted to check before removing them got to be too big of a project. MarnetteD|Talk 20:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall a past discussion, but it seems so unnecessary. We operate under the default assumption that a film on Wikipedia is a feature film unless specified otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks the editor has continued to add them to our articles in spite of my request that they wait here User talk:Cwf97#Just in case. My request that they add their input at this thread has been ignored. Considering the number of other CFD notices on their talk page I'm guessing we may have to go through that process with these. I may not be able to get to it right away so it anyone wants to get the ball rolling please feel free to do so. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This editor probably deserves a timeout from editing Wikipedia (WP:ANI), TBH, given that this issue of trivial categories has been longstanding (and not limited to film, as you might notice). --Izno (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:VG has CFD'd the 20XX sequel video game category tree. You may consider sending this new film overcat tree to CFD sooner rather than later. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Should one of Template:Category diffuse or Template:All included be used for Category:Upcoming films? --Julthep (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's non-diffusing. BOVINEBOY2008 15:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Template:All included has been inserted. --Julthep (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Should Film Comment be included in the list of magazines about Film Studies (see the first paragraph of the article) DonGuess (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Good question. I would say it may be better to group film studies journals as one set and "critical magazines" as another set. I base this on this page about film journals in the book Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: Do you consider FilmComment a critical magazine? But film studies is not only about film history but about film theory too so it's not that simple. Also see List of film periodicals, for some reaseon FilmComment is not in the "Scholarly journals" section there. DonGuess (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not about what I consider. The link I provided shows a reasonable way to draw a distinction between the more academic journals and publications that are more of a magazine format. As for List of film periodicals, I actually overhauled that list in March 2010 (over a decade ago, geez), and it looks like I got the data from International Index to Film Periodicals. So I think Film Comment is best considered a magazine, and it can join similar magazines in a serial sentence at the end of the lead section for film studies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: But if FilmComment is a nonacademic magazine than it shouldn’t be in the list, because at the moment all the journals in the list are supposed to be scholar, although as I know Sight & Sound is actually rather magazinish. Am I misunderstanding something? DonGuess (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

When you say "list", do you mean the sentence in film studies? Film Comment and similar periodicals could be moved to film criticism, since that seems to be a broader field. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: Yes I meant the “ Academic journals publishing film studies work include...". DonGuess (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC). Please copy this discussion to Talk:Film studies. I actually don't know so much about film studies or FilmComment plus with my level english it's hard to discuss this topic, so we should ask someone else's opinion.--DonGuess (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Does any editor have a WrapPro account that they would be willing to get info from a source for me? I'm trying to access this source on TheWrap about the television series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. but it is behind the WrapPro service. If anyone does and would be willing to copy the text to another site to share with me so I could look over its content to see what could be added, that would be much appreciated. I've approached the TV project as well, but felt asking here might yield results as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Information has been obtained. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate help with this draft. I'd like to see it in Mainspace. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'm trying to help trim down the List of years in animation and List of years in film articles, but it was reverted repeatedly by an IP named 87.11.133.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) (which is most likely Davide palladini (talk · contribs)), even after I asked them to discuss these changes. Rather than getting involved in an edit war (which is forbidden), I'm opening up a discussion here. I think that the articles may need to be cut down to a more manageable size as per WP:NOTINFO and decide which films should go on these particular pages. That said, should we restore the List of years in animation and the List of years in film articles to the version before the IP disruptions? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is being held at Talk:A Bug's Life regarding the plot summary situation; it can be found here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Could some other editors take a look at Bathory (film)? Another editor and I are having a disagreement about what content should be included and how it should be presented. Other voices would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 17:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed all the release cruft, and made some other changes. I've dropped a note on the talkpage of the other editor pointing them to WP:MOSFILM too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me,I need to discuss replacing the poster with another one in the main article and that involves the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia,Now I know that using this poster which is File:Lawrence of arabia ver3 xxlg.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawrence_of_arabia_ver3_xxlg.jpg) is used for the main article especially that it's made by Howard Terpning.

But I thought we can replace the poster in the main article with this one http://www.impawards.com/1962/lawrence_of_arabia.html because it's not ic0onic but is used in pop culture as well.I upload it in the main article once but it got rejected because it is a "free content" and the article prefers "non-free" content therefore I would like to know how I will make the poster I selected to be non-free and add it to the main article or you could at least make the poster "non-free" and replace this poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawrence_of_arabia_ver3_xxlg.jpgwith this one http://www.impawards.com/1962/lawrence_of_arabia.html for the main article.--Belrien12 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't being discussed at the Talk page for the film, which would seem like the most logical location for this discussion, can you please link from there to this discussion? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I sent the editor here D mostly to clear up any copyright issues with the poster that they like. I have had that article on my watchlist for years and I'm not sure how many active editors have it on theirs so it might be worth discussing here although it could be moved to the films talk page as well. Just to sum up my thoughts the new poster might go in the body of the article but IMO the one in the infobox should stay there as it is more familiar - to me anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 05:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated at Talk:Camp Blood Film Series#Potential Merge. BOVINEBOY2008 10:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated the article Squirm for Featured Article Candidacy. If anyone is interested in reviewing the article, that would be much appreciated. The nomination can be found here. GamerPro64 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Following this discussion above, I've created a discussion about a potential topic ban for this user at WP:AN. Pinging people from the last discussion @MarnetteD, Erik, and Izno: Axem Titanium (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I started fixing errors in grammar and vocabulary in Il secondo tragico Fantozzi, but I have had to give up because in many cases I don't know what is intended. I strongly suspect it was translated from the Italian wiki article by someone with a less-than-perfect command of English.

I am posting this note to the talk pages of Il secondo tragico Fantozzi, Italian cinema task force, and WikiProject Film.

--Thnidu (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Lion King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kimba the White Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two articles could use assessment from WP:Film editors on covering the Kimba the White Lion topic. Recently, there has been debate on covering the topic, and back and forth editing concerning it. See, for example, Talk:Kimba the White Lion#Debunked Information, poor sources and completely made up facts and Talk:Kimba the White Lion/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020 (permalinks here and here). Obviously, editors shouldn't be removing material because they don't like it, but rather because it's unsourced, poorly sourced, WP:Undue, and/or excessive. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to add - I had removed some of the aforementioned poor sources specifically that cited demonstrably untrue and made-up information, and the section with information on the video essay that kicked all this off was added back in by some other editors after some back-and-forth and the semi-protected edit expiration. The other sources have not been touched, including the misleading sources, most of which cite this book which was written by a friend of the creator of Kimba the While Lion. --Bayou Tapestry (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is discussion on whether the new article Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be name changed. Feel free to discuss on talk page. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Linking directly to the thread Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Requested move 8 June 2020 saves people a few clicks :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why can't Amazon be used for a reference for release dates? I was referred to here by DonIago (talk) in the article about The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp but I fail to understand why Amazon is any better or worse than something like DVD Talk -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazon (most sellers) make guesses. --Izno (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there are a couple of reasons here. First, we discourage the general use of commercial websites per WP:AFFILIATE. Secondly, such websites will not have editorial oversight about the release dates simply because these details are not critical to maintain as part of selling products. Take genre labels, for example. When a commercial website adds genre labels for a film, it's simply part of database categorizing. So often we'll see different genres thrown together with no sense of which ones are the most prominent. In the case of home-media release dates, the matter is more mundane, but I think it is better to find a source that intentionally writes about the film's home-media release, which is most likely at the time of release. We would approach obscure films' release years the same way, I think. Sometimes databases just superficially grab a year from somewhere like IMDb, where a closer look at contemporary sources show the film was actually released a year before. For what it's worth, you can use Google's advanced search to look up "colonel blimp" dvd at the time of its release and find sources discussing it, as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Is there any proof that places like Amazon "make guesses"?

2. Don't most sellers include or report the release dates? Where else can I show them? I think this is a case of "throwing out the baby with the bath water"  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm currently in a debate with another editor on Talk:Captain Marvel (film), seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Captain_Marvel_(film)#Highest-grossing_and_peak_positions, about including the movie's "peak box office position" in the lead. The other editor wants to use an archived version of the all-time box office standings on Box Office Mojo to find a date where the film held it's highest box office ranking relative to other films after its release and use it to source the peak. For example, this would entail using the source from a set arbitrary date in early 2018 to find when Thor: Ragnarok held it's highest ever position at the box office, seen here https://web.archive.org/web/20180131014417/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/. To me, this is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as no reliable sources outright state the film's "peak position" nor report on it and it's purely manipulating data to formulate your own point. The other editor disagrees and cites the fact that some of the movies on List of highest-grossing films have similar information on them which implies a consensus. Thus, as we're at a standstill, I want to seek a wider pool of opinions on the matter and see if we can formulate a clear and established consensus here. Because if there is consensus for it, I suspect it will affect a lot of movie articles on the project as you'll be able to use the same source in question to find archived versions of "peak positions" for every movie that has ever been in the top 100 to put into respective leads. Davefelmer (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think peak is probably unfair. A movie released in February, when nothing else in, is sometimes described as the highest-grossing film so far that year, but then ends up 20th overall. But saying it peaked as the highest-grossing film of the year at one point is puffing it up. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: peak is used for the all-time box office only. When it comes to top yearly box office, normally just the definitive top is mentioned. This is because the all-time box office is an ever-evolving list, while the box office by year has a clear beginning and end. El Millo (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Well that's more difficult because when adjusted for inflation isn't Gone with the Wind still like the highest-ranking film ever? Even with Endgame? I guess you could evidence a peak (if notable, not less than top 100), as long as you address that it has since changed if necessary. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the top adjusted for inflation is too difficult to calculate, given that many films have had one or more re-releases many years later that are part of their box office totals. So we use the one not-adjusted for inflation. El Millo (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I've worked out what this discussion is about, as neither the OP here or most of the talk discussion are that clear, from the link to Box Office Mojo. That's not a year list, it's the overall top-grossing list of all time (1-100). Since the world records for box office aren't measured at a year's end, and nobody cares if it's subsequently overtaken (i.e. it was always #1 at one point), to be even near the top of this list seems notable. It's neither OR or SYNTH since it's clearly a table and a stats report that independent companies produce for this exact purpose (besides BOM, IMDb also has a prominent one, and other film industry sites, too). It definitely warrants inclusion for at one point being the 22nd all-time highest grossing film (I'm not sure where yearly box office mention came from, but 2019 in film says CM came in at #5, which is probably high enough to note in the lead as well). Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: yes, the position on the yearly top is also mentioned. El Millo (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I added comments at Talk:Captain Marvel (film)#Highest-grossing and peak positions just now before noticing this discussion. I won't repeat all of it here, but this definitely needs more careful consideration. At some point, it becomes an insignificant statistic, both to the lead and to the body. I think the body is more lenient as long as there are secondary sources reporting it (beyond BOM), but the lead is a different beast. Ranking in the 20's probably isn't significant enough, and the absence from the body disqualifies it altogether. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The part about it not being on the body is easy to fix, equally or less relevant things are present there, like being the 19th Disney film, and 38th film overall to reach a billion dollars. I do think a bottom position should be set, it's not like a movie being the 52nd-highest-grossing film is relevant. I wouldn't be against setting the bottom at 20. El Millo (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's an easy insertion, but this calls attention to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If there are editors out there ramming this statistic into every lead, they risk throwing the lead section out of sync with the body and should be made aware. Also, keep in mind the fix may not be as easy as it seems. A snapshot in time of the BOM ranking may not qualify the ranking's inclusion all on its own. We really need secondary sources discussing it in prose to verify significant coverage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• If a film was once highly ranked and subsequently drops down the chart due to the effects of inflation then it would be remiss to not include the information. Gone with the Wind (film) does not even mention the current ranking of the film, probably because it is so low down now nobody cares. A quick look on BOM confirms it is ranked 306th in the world. Is this more noteworthy, more worthy of mention than the fact it was once the highest-grossing film of all-time and held the unadjusted record for a quarter of a century? Our goal is not to provide a box-office tracking service; we should be documenting interesting information about a film. To take another example, The Dark Knight, the lead give its current rank (46th) and also its rank at the time of its release (4th). If being ranked 46th in the world is worthy of inclusion then does it not follow that the fact it was once ranked 4th is also worthy of inclusion? Per WP:RECENTISM, we should be taking a long-term view rather than focusing on "flimsy, transient merits". While The Dark Knight's ever-changing current rank drops towards increasing irrelevance, its peak position of 4th is of long-term encyclopedic significance. If it is easy enough to source, and it is information that people will probably want to know so where is the problem? Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As I noted at that talk page, Return of the King is an excellent example as well. It once ranked 2nd. There were plenty of sources talking about that achievement, and it should be included. Where you run into problems is an example like Captain Marvel that peaked at #22 (or #23 after an update). Did it ever peak in a sense that justifies mentioning it? If so, what kind of requirement do we have on sourcing? Is a snapshot of BOM on a given date enough? I don't think it is. I think we need strong examples from reputable sources talking about the #22 or #23 ranking before we bother mentioning it. That's where things get dicey. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, then we should set a bottom for its inclusion. If its peak position is 20th or higher we add it. Or perhaps we can make it even more selective and have it only be top 10. El Millo (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there are two issues related to WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE being conflated. The world ranking chart on Box Office is a dynamic data set. Using a permutation of the chart on a particular date to source a rank on that date is an entirely valid use of the source IMO. The data isn't being manipulated or synthesised to make unsubstantiated claims, it is just being used to source something that has since become historically dated. We do that all the time on Wikipedia. Therefore there isn't a problem from an WP:RS perspective. As for when a statistic becomes too irrelevant to mention (per WP:INDISCRIMINATE) then I think that is a separate issue from the main question, and best discussed at the article talk page, because a whole range of factors can come into play. For example, being ranked 54th in the world doesn't seem like a significant achievement worthy of mention, but when you consider that this was something achieved by Wolf Warrior 2 (making it the highest-ranked non-English language film) its significance can be contextualised. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but in general, being 54th wouldn't be relevant. El Millo (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In general I would agree but if you go and stick a threshold in the MOS editors will generally apply it without discretion. I think if our guidelines are going to regulate something like this they need to take a more nuanced approach. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a clarification that there may be exceptions will do. We could add a "Generally" at the beginning or something to that effect. El Millo (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a question of validity. The world ranking chart on BOM for a particular date is verifiable. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, however. The decision to include is based on a number of other factors. BOM in this specific case would be acting as a primary source, organizing information but lacking any secondary analysis. While it can be used to verify the accuracy of information, it does nothing to signify that the information has been analyzed/vetted by secondary sources, or to show that secondary sources feel it is significant information. For some films, especially those that land high on the chart, there are plenty of secondary sources noting the significance. For others, there is little to none. The point is that the rankings being tracked by BOM isn't enough on its own to justify inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I should also point out that how the information is used makes all the difference. If we compile a chart of say the top 100, then the BOM source may be sufficient by itself. However, when we say in the lead that this film became the 23rd highest-grossing film, we're painting a different context. We are calling attention to this as if it were a significant achievement. Doing so requires stronger backing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I had assumed this would be about the peak WEEKLY position. That's a number that always has context. Peak all-time position seems a rather random number. Wikipedia should care only if the secondary sources care. If there is significant coverage of a movie's peak rank (not just a passing mention), then it merits inclusion in the article, whether that rank is #1, #22, or #987. It's not for us to decide which numbers are the meaningful ones. --SubSeven (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So I thought I'd google 'Captain Marvel top grossing' to see if secondary sources care. The first few are links about the top grossing Marvel movies, but at link number five we have Cinema Blend enthusiastically reporting on CM becoming #22, and on page two we have Comicbook reporting as soon as it broke the top 25. And various other outlets seem to care that it's the first female-led superhero film to hit such box office numbers [9] [10], and the first film directed by a woman to bank over $1 billion [11]. Deadline also reported on their prediction of it being 2019's #5, so there was evidently a lot of interest in these ranks. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Only the CinemaBlend and the ComicBook articles would be relevant, this is specifically about the data point of the all-time box office rank. In this specific case, I don't know if Cinema Blend and ComicBook are considered reliable sources for movies, but yes, in a general sense, those two would be the type of the articles that would justify inclusion of this data. --SubSeven (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur. We need more than just the BOM source, and while two sources may not satisfy significant coverage, both are a good start. Cinema Blend's may be more of a passing mention, but ComicBook.com seems to emphasize the relevance of being in the top 25 and would be the stronger of the two. At a higher level, we should approach every film the same way, leaning on secondary sources for help determining inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I or someone else could do a better search and look beyond the first two pages (that are clogged with other Marvel films). I don't think Cinema Blend's is a passing mention, though, it's a whole article about hitting number 22 and discussing the context of that achievement against the films near it in the list, other 2019 releases, and the superhero dominance. It's some detailed coverage that could be used to write a paragraph rather than just source a statistic. Kingsif (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SubSeven (talk) and GoneIn60 (talk) that although we need more than just BOM and those aren't exactly reliable sources, they're a good starting point from which to look to include information about the matter in the article body. I also agree with the discussion above involving El Millo (talk), Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! and Betty Logan (talk) in regards to not using sources to drift too far into noting non-prestigious numbers and agree with El Millo's suggestion of keeping it down to the top 20. Thus, as these two mini-discussions appear to be taking place seperately and with there not being any significant blowback to either, perhaps we can unify them to establish a clear consensus on the way forward to deal with these types of matters.

I propose we be able to use the BOM page to denote whether a film is or has ever been in the top 20 highest grossing movies of all time. For movies outside of the top 20, you would need additional reliable sourcing that notes the significance of the achievement if it is a particularly random number at first glance (say 47th but the highest grossing Japanese movie of all time for example) or generally denotes and talks about a given movie's placing. Would all agree to this? Davefelmer (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

TBH, I think we should always encourage having at least one complementary secondary source, no matter the ranking. Otherwise, we'll end up rehashing this discussion every time someone challenges the BOM source. The further down the list we go (whether that's 15, 30, or 200), the stronger the sourcing needs to be to show significant coverage. There wouldn't be any real way to enforce it or any concrete guidance to offer. It would just be veteran editors aware of this discussion sweeping up behind other novice film editors. If someone opposes, we can direct them here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GoneIn60. And again, Cinema Blend is a great RS for stuff like box office info and discussions, with Comicbook being solid for even the most random of comic book news, including relating to movie adaptations. I'd set the number at #25 since Comicbook got so excited about CM breaking that. Perhaps we could look through more of their/others articles to see if it's consistent about reporting when films hit that rank. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the top 25 as bottom. Frankly, I'd be okay with either 10, 20, or 25, as long as it's not bigger than 30. Once we establish the threshold for inclusion, the secondary sourcing should still be encouraged for cases from the threshold to the top, but if unavailable, the info could be included anyway with the BOM source only. Once below the threshold, significant coverage should be required. El Millo (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"...but if unavailable, the info could be included anyway with the BOM source only"

Not a showstopper by any means, but that's not something I would condone. Personally, I would exclude the information until secondary sourcing is located, but that's just me. I won't get in the way of another editor handling it that way, but if it gets challenged, I'd probably side with the challenger.

Looks like this is pretty much a wrap. Glad the issue was finally brought to the table! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the top 25 as bottom too, as well as with the comments above in terms of policy implementation. So yes it's all but settled then, thanks to all and I echo the sentiments of GoneIn60 (talk) in agreeing it needed to finally be brought up here for discussion and I'm glad to have been able to do so and for us to have such a productive conversation in setting policy on it. Cheers! Davefelmer (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about bombreport.com? An IP editor cited this website at Event Horizon. Is this a self-published blog, or is it some kind of niche competitor to Box Office Mojo? There doesn't seem to be much info on their website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like an SPS to me. At one time the owner (I presume) was pushing it really hard on Wikipedia. I pull it whenever I come across it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the reliability of sources can depend on part on WP:USEBYOTHERS, I did not find widespread use of this. It was referenced by Comic Book Movie and CinemaBlend once, but I would not consider these sources to be ideal for defining use by others. Better to see this website mentioned in mainstream periodicals, but that does not seem to be the case. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

And if the website doesn't have open information about their editorial process or something, as you say it doesn't, that may just be because that doesn't exist. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The site itself is a pretty good resource in the way that IMDB often can be. Solid research clearly goes into it. The good thing about it is that the site often provides sources so you can bypass the site anyway. The down side is that it seems to be a hobby site, with no evidence editorial oversight. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

We could use some knowledgeable input at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Category:Films about families please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Per a request at WT:MED, I have cleaned this draft up a bit and believe it is ready for publication. (It most certainly met notability, so the decline is odd.) Could someone here check all the final details needed for film articles (I am not sure the title is correct) and publish it to main space if they agree? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Another one for review from a class (student editing); many will need help. I am slowly working through them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

See full list here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

According to 2020 in film, Dolittle is currently the 3rd-highest grossing movie of the year, although relative to it's budget and break even point it was a box office bomb and lost a lot of money for the studio. On the article's page, the 3rd-highest position isn't listed and the film's box office underperformance is what's discussed. However, on Birds of Prey, the film is acknowledged as the 4th-highest grossing movie of the year despite ultimately suffering losses of around $50-100 million. On The Call of the Wild, which would be the 7th-highest grossing movie of the year, the note is again not listed and the film's box office underperformance is focused on.

My question is what is the standard for this? Should the blueprint be the Birds of Prey example or The Call of the Wild and Dolittle examples? Is citing a movie as one of the highest grossing of the year when a year has just started and the movie itself bombed financially puffing up a piece and trying to give it an inflated sense of success and importance or is it merely factually accurate? You can source the information through Box Office Mojo https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2020/?ref_=bo_cso_table_1 so it isn't pure WP:OR but as part of a discussion above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Should_we_be_listing_a_movie's_%22peak_position%22_at_the_box_office?), editors came to the conclusion that BOM shouldn't be used on it's own and should be supplemented by other reliable news or media sources actually discussing or citing the relevant information. There doesn't appear to be such for the above movies, and in any case, what's the general policy here? If there isn't one as of yet, perhaps it should be established now. Davefelmer (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Davefelmer, I think that the stated conclusion that BOM shouldn't be used on its own is correct as it is a tertiary source. We shouldn't be drawing attention to a film's box office position unless secondary sources do so, and the misleading status quo described in the first paragraph of this section is a case study of why we should rely on secondary sources for questions of emphasis and framing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm after some information re: the music of Die Hard and Google isn't really doing me any favours. Maybe Kamen didn't really do many interviews regarding the film, but I can't find much of anything. Does anyone have any good sources to check? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe try the search query "die hard" intitle:kamen? That can be a powerful way to narrow down search results to potentially relevant ones. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, no luck unfortunately. Tried "score" and "music" too. Not much discussion considering it's a pretty damn good score. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, how about this? I can't tell what web page on Library of Congress hosts that PDF, but it is authored by the writer of Action Speaks Louder. There's a pretty solid paragraph about Kamen's music (second-to-last paragraph). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, it looks like Film Score Monthly has a 1995 article called "Kamen Hard" from issue number 58, pages 12-15, by W. Shivers. It may have details related to the original film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Erik! Is FilmScoreMonthly a magazine then? I could maybe get it off the ResourceExchange. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was a magazine before becoming online-only. I was looking in Google Books for possible results and just saw this magazine article referenced in a book covering Die Hard. No idea how easy or difficult it is to get. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Not too bad, I was thrown off at first by the subscription but they have all the old issues free and archived. So got it here. Thanks Erik. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, perfect! I saw that the year drop-down menu went back to only 1997, so I assumed it wasn't available. Glad it was after all, and hope it has some useful details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not easy to find, I was literally just there and now it's disappeared again, but I'd already archived it by that point so it's permanently accessible now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, all,

I wonder whether you all could help with the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical film and book articles from this course to be checked. WPMED's pretty good at the "medical" side of a health-related film, but I don't think any of us have much experience with the "film" side. These articles were produced by students taking a class that seems to be about how health issues get presented in pop culture. I'd love to have your help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_24#Category:Sequel_films_by_decade, which deleted many of the recently created decade/specific year sequel cats that had been made, Category:Sequel films now is very empty (that CfD outright deleted the categories from articles, while it probably should have merged them back to the general sequel films cat). So my question is, do we need to repopulate this category, or should the 57 articles currently in it be diffused to more specific cats? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from anyone? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If we were to diffuse them, Favre1fan93, do you have a specific criterium in mind? El Millo (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be moving them most likely to the appropriate "Sequel films by country" cat if they aren't already. And if they are (like Captain America: The Winter Soldier is already in the "American sequel films" cat) removing the general "Sequel films" from those articles. I have a feeling of the now 56 articles in the general category, they are also in their respective country cat. And then also added them to any of the other subcats as appropriate as needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay then. Seems like the right approach. El Millo (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if anyone else has an opinion on the matter, otherwise, I'll move out the 56 pages there now, and add {{Category diffuse}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add {{Category diffuse}} and diffuse the articles in the cat to more specific ones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the prodding marathon Donaldd23 seems to be undertaking. Now there's nothing wrong with identifying poor quality articles and improving them but he's confusing short articles with "lack of notability", and if he stopped to look in google books on a few of them in google books he'd find sources. Now I've told him I don't want to be spammed dozens of automated messages but the way prodding works, admins tend to delete the articles which are tagged, meaning that we're going to lose a lot of genuinely notable films in the process because he isn't looking for sources to expand them. A lot of them are older foreign films which might not have great coverage in web sources but star notable enough actors for that period in their countries.† Encyclopædius 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at films that others tagged with notability issues, many tagged for 5+ years. I do a Google search and find nothing of substance. Yes, I understand that most of them are older stubs, but with nothing added by anyone since they were created...and most of them are just, "this is a film. Here is the songs in it"....that doesn't really establish any sort of notability. Just because it is a released film doesn't mean it deserves its own article. If you look at my edits you will see that I am keeping a lot of films and removing the notability tag because I did find sources that seem to establish notability. If you are really concerned with these films you created years ago, then why have you not updated them with sources to establish notability and improve the articles? It seems like you would rather clutter up Wikipedia with film articles without establishing any weight to their existence. I have no issues personally with these films, if you or someone else would add citations and more details to them, then maybe others wouldn't have tagged them with notability issues and I wouldn't be looking at them to try and make Wikipedia a better place. As for you getting tagged with the messages, I use Twinkle which automatically notifies the creator. After you asked not to be tagged, I have tried to unclick that button which places the auto tag on your page. I don't mean to "spam" your talk page, but you have so many films that are nothing more than a name, a cast, and a soundtrack. That does not mean that the film needs a separate article, Wikipedia is not IMDB. Another thought, when your articles were tagged with notability why did you do nothing to fix that? As I said, many of them have been tagged for 5+ years. If you (and no one else) have resolved that tag in over 5 years, then there is a reason for that tag. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia isn't IMDB. There are articles which really aren't notable. But a lot of editors confuse lack of content with lack of notability. They tag short articles for not being notable when they're simply undeveloped. So you're going through a backlog of articles many of which shouldn't even be tagged in the first place. All I ask is that you search in google books too. You're prodding articles starring actors which are really quite notable for their period in the given countries. Dharmendra for instance was a huge star in India and no doubt all of his films would have been well reviewed in the newspapers over there, yet you presumed one of films wasn't notable. A lot of these films will have sources offline which are currently not accessible. You're obviously doing this because you want to improve the average quality, that's good, but films with multiple sources in google books shouldn't be getting deleted.† Encyclopædius 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will expand my searches to include Google Books as well. However, I ask that you go through the articles that you created and try to improve them yourself and remove the notability tags. The only reason I am trying to "clean up" them is because there are over 1,800 film tagged with notability issues and many of them are 5, 8, 10 years they've been tagged and the articles are still stubs with no references. Whenever an article that I created was tagged with notability, I tried to rectify that with expansion of the article, including verifiable citations. Some were successful, and some weren't. I was fine with those outcomes because I tried. I guess all I am saying, and this may just be me being judgmental (and if so I don't mean to offend), but if you created an article and want it to stick around, perhaps you should spend some time fixing them? For now, any that I tagged with PROD, it is within your right to remove that PROD tag. I hope that when you do, you also cite the article to allow it to pass WP:NFO, and if so, you should also remove the notability tag that someone else added to it. This would allow it to drop off the 1,800 files that are tagged with notability and would satisfy whoever added the tag in the first place. Thoughts? Donaldd23 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A deletion discussion for Draft:Peter's To-Do List has been started. Editors are welcomed to weigh in on the discussion, which can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

... has been Please see this conflict of interest noticeboard thread. Graham87 17:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Watching films has become my number one pastime during lockdown, so I joined Letterboxd, and created a list of Wikipedia Featured Articles. Give it a like! The only non-lost film missing is Djaoeh Dimata, which would need manually adding to tmdb first. Someone with more dedication to maintenance could do a list for Good Articles, which I expect would prove more popular.

I've really enjoyed reading some (admittedly good, not featured) articles to supplement my viewing. It's given me other perspectives on the thing I've just watched, and a better appreciation of the subject. So I hope this list inspires you to watch more stuff and write featured articles, because many good articles are already really close. Fingers crossed for Squirm and The Beautician and the Beast at FAC right now. 86.177.125.233 (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! My own approach is watching the films that appear on the most top-ten lists at the end of each year, as gathered by Metacritic. My take on that is that these films are likely to be remembered down the road. It certainly introduces me to films I would not have watched otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello all. I have listed the article Lost in Translation (film) for peer review prior to submitting it for featured article consideration. The 2003 film is directed by Sofia Coppola and stars Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. I appreciate any feedback members of the WikiProject can provide. NTox · talk 06:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Earlier today a relatively new user, with less than 50 edits to their name and virtually no prior evidence of any expressed interest in film-related subjects, edited our article on the Canadian documentary film Shoot to Marry, piling on review after review to the point that the critical response section is now six times the size of the entire rest of the article put together. Now, to be fair, the reviews in reliable publications of record that I was able to find when I started the article were almost uniformly negative ones, so I get that the user was making a good faith attempt to try to balance those off with more positive commentary — but the reviews they chose to add to the article come very nearly across the board from WordPress and Squarespace blogs rather than real media.

I haven't seen the film yet and have no agenda around it per se, but if you have to dig into unreliable blogs to find positive commentary about the film, because the reliable sources almost all trashed it, then WP:NPOV does not demand that we waive our reliable sourcing rules, and give the film a special dispensation to use unreliable sourcing, on the grounds that "balancing" positive with negative commentary is somehow more important than the question of where the commentary is actually coming from. We care only about what established professional film critics say about it in media of record, not about what bloggers said about it on WordPress — so there's no rule that every negative review has to be matched one-for-one with a positive review even if you have to completely ignore RS rules to actually find enough positive ones.

They also misinterpreted the "critical response" header as "response that was critical as in negativity", and thus used that header to segregate the negative reviews from a separate "non-critical response" section for the positive reviews — but I've already fixed that and explained to them that critical response means "all response, both positive and negative, from film critics", so this problem has already been addressed. (And they also changed the film's basic description in the introduction to something really generic that didn't even begin to suggest the aspect of the premise that the negative-reacting film critics found squicky and creepy, thus making the negative-reacting critics sound disconnected from reality because the article provided no context for what they were actually talking about, but I've also reverted that as well.)

But the end result of this is still that the section is considerably longer than warranted, so I wanted to ask if anybody else is willing to take a look at the article and help to sort out which reviews are worth keeping and which ones aren't. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, what is the community's attitude toward the types of columns that should typically be included in actor filmographies? I'm looking at List of Emma Stone performances, List of Bradley Cooper performances. I notice columns for directors. Are these typically included? I don't see them suggested at WP:FILMOGRAPHY and it seems like tangential information not particularly relevant to the performer, but I'm happy to be corrected. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the director column, or vice versa. The only reason I can think of when the director is relevant to the actor is when it is a significant collaboration, which should already be mentioned on the article. BOVINEBOY2008 16:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur about not including the director. Even when there are cases where the director is worth mentioning, that does not then mean that the director for every film done by the actor should be identified. Significant actor-director collaborations seem best saved for prose, which should be highlighting the most career-pertinent films anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of recent(ish) discussions about this in the archives of the WP:ACTOR project here and here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Category:American children's animated comic science fiction films absurdly specific? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there somewhere on Wikipedia that we can request photos like we do sources? Like someone who lives in the area can take a picture of a building and offer it under sharealike license types of requests? I want two pictures for the Die Hard article and it's very much a struggle to find free images. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Help desk is a possibility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou Erik and Gråbergs Gråa Sång Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RFC on including disambiguators in category names. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Anuxps (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I have requested to contribute a list article page for the subject of list of Bollywood movies released on the digital platforms. I need your approval to publish this draft link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Bollywood_Movies_Released_on_Digital_Platform . Reviewer AngusWoof requested me to discuss here this here. I am trying to make a consolidate list of Bollywood movies which are released on the different digital platform. There are a various digital platform who are releasing the movies on their platform and end-user is not aware of on which platform movie would be available when it would be available. My list will provide consolidated information. The list you have mentioned is specifically made for one of the digital platform Hotstar but there are so many other platforms available and no consolidated list is here. A particular digital platform is also not having such an article mentioned about the list I am going to prepare and due to the same reason, I am asking to make a list of these. If you go and see in detail for each one of these digital platform lists, you can find but they have included for all region, all language movies and programs combined, and not having Bollywood specific list across all platforms. I hope I am able to explain to you the need for this contribution.

Merge any film that can be reliably sourced to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cinema#Theatrical releases delayed or cancelled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Could other editors look at Dos Corazones? It is an upcoming short film and from what I see, it does not have significant coverage for a stand-alone article (I have already started an AfD). But it is possible there may be more, although in Spanish. Can anyone do some digging to see if there are some sources for this film, or weigh in on the AfD? Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 13:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles with citations to website ftvdb.bfi.org.uk (to pick an example, Tread Softly (1965 film) refers to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/49683). However, all these links are broken. Not only that, but the base website itself has been hacked (try first link above to see). Is this recent? Is there any replacement for these links? Colonies Chris (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The actual BFI website should be fine. It's not comprehensive, but it has a lot of films and actors. Kingsif (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But what happened to the ftvdb website? Has the BFI closed it down, or has it just been hacked? If it was a planned closure, is there a mapping from the ftvdb website to a corresponding entry on the BFI website? A search for 'ftvdb' on the BFI website yields no results. I doubt any editor is going to manually search for each of those hundreds of films so as to correct the citations. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The BFI probably realized it was pointlessly duplicating and shut ftvdb down. BFI links for films, TV, and people working in the industry are all like https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6e32344c (for Tootsie), so you could try reverse engineer a corresponding link format. Kingsif (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no discernible connection between the identifying string used on the BFI website and the code used on the old ftvdb. For example, Ethan Frome was at http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/474191 and is now at https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b7be1c909. The new id looks like a hex string, but converting it to ASCII characters produces no resemblance at all to the old id. Any suggestions? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Many of these ftvdb links are still accessible through Wayback (see https://web.archive.org/web/20121022014637/http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/49683 for example). The first port of call I guess would be to run a bot to add archived versions to these links, and then create a category for those that cannot be fixed. Those will have to be fixed manually by finding replacement sources. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GreenC has kindly used his bot to convert all these references to archive links (see Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#BFI); only three non-archived links were encountered, and I've fixed one of them. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, folks. CAT:NN has a backlog of almost 12 years. Anecdotally, I find about 50% of them are notable and neglected. We have a backlog of over 1300 articles just for films, and are desperate for some people interested in and knowledgeable about films to look them over at: [12] Could you please consider promoting this? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding whether the category Category:Time travelers should be included on Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Editors are welcomed to join the discussion at Talk:Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Time travel category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I opened a discussion on whether or not the song "So Long, Lonesome" should be mentioned in the Last Night (2010 film) article on the article's talk page, and I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There's this old AfD discussion that raised the question of where to put content regarding a country's filmgoing culture and the business of operating cinemas. The Cinema of Foo articles are focused on the filmmaking side of things, but there doesn't seem to be any articles along the lines of Filmgoing in Foo or Film culture of Foo. As you can tell from the linked discussion, I'm approaching this from the viewpoint of Thailand. There's currently a considerable amount of interest in the history of the country's cinemas/movie theatres, which is probably a distinct enough topic from the country's filmmaking industry. But what should the article be titled? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not really read or considered the "Cinema of" articles, but I doubt there are any guidelines on how to write these. I would be okay with a "Cinema of" article being broad enough to cover all of the things you mentioned, with summary sections (3-4 paragraphs?) linking to more detailed articles where warranted. "Cinema of Thailand" could have summary sections linking to more detailed articles "Filmmaking in Thailand", "Film distribution in Thailand", "Film-going preferences in Thailand", etc. I guess I'm not sure what "film culture" on its own really means. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Links to individual articles or interviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lost in Translation (film) is now nominated as a featured article candidate. The 2003 film was written and directed by Sofia Coppola. It stars Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. I appreciate any feedback the WikiProject can offer. NTox · talk 23:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Old Guard (2020 film)#Superhero film?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Disappointing" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I requested updates to the article on film producer Jeff Skoll at Talk:Jeffrey_Skoll#Request_for_Philanthropy that editors of this project may like to review. There has been new coverage of Skoll due to renewed interest in his 2011 film Contagion and his philanthropic efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm hoping to make some updates to reflect that coverage. I work with the Jeff Skoll Group. With my conflict of interest, I will be careful to work with Wikipedia editors to build consensus on updates in place of directly editing the article. Thank you. JSG Lindsey (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Anyone have any idea what's causing the bolding/centering for "America's Got Talent" at Natalie_Bassingthwaighte#Filmography?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is table captions. See MOS:TABLECAPTION. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Code was missing a "=" sign – I fixed it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You sir are amazing thank you very much, Needless to say I had completely missed that entirely, Thanks again IJ I appreciate your help, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Incase you've missed it, please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Can other editors take a look at One Tough Mother. This is a DVD that is at AfD for not being a notable film. Citations are hard to come by about the DVD, despite the content of the DVD being talked about in other contexts. BOVINEBOY2008 00:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Bump! This AfD has now been relisted twice. Can someone please take a look? Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The problems have been bubbling away for months now, but BOM's fact-checking seems to have completely broken down in recent weeks. It is no longer fit for purpose. The problem though is that it is hard to think of a source that is more heavily utilised by film articles on Wikipedia. We are completely dependent on it. So the question boils down to what should we do about it? Obviously the correct answer is to remove it/replace it but that is a logistical nightmare. I have started a thread at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Does_Box_Office_Mojo_still_meet_the_criteria_for_being_a_reliable_source?. I don't think we should rush anything but we need to start taking action of some kind before the errors start to seep into Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What about using only archived links from before their revamp? Before October 2019? (Obviously it would not address re-releases and newer films.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been using archives from older films, WebArchive obviously lets you pick the year you want an archive from where possible. BOM is useless as is though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Using archive links has been put forward as a potential solution. BOM may actually be ok for films released after the revamp where the data has been compiled fresh. As DWB states though it is not fit for purpose in its current form. Can't believe they actually charge people for it now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about the interpretation of Template:Infobox film as to the billing of actors in the infobox at the article Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga. The instructions state Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Since this is a Netflix release, the poster lacks a traditional "billing block", but there are only 2 actors who are billed on the poster. It would be my understanding that would constitute "billing" per the instructions. And it has always been my understanding that infoboxes should be as minimal as possible and should only include as much key information as needed. TropicAces disagrees and has stated he believes the poster does not contain a billing block and therefore the infobox can contain more actors names. But I will not put words in his mouth and will ping him to allow him to respond in his own words. So my question is, do names on a film poster constitute "billing" as defined in the instructions at Template:Infobox film or does there need to be a clear traditional Billing block that includes the actors names, and director, and producer, and so on? This is an even more pertanant question as more and more films are starting to be released digitally or in streaming formats and may not have the traditional billing blocks that we have grown accustomed to.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There will always be a debate about where the cutoff should lie, since rule-of-thumb uses can differ. I can see the case made to list only Ferrell and McAdams, and I can also see the case for the fuller set based on what TropicAces outlined. Neither case is detrimental, especially when the "Cast" section lists everyone anyway. It can depend on the extent to which one wants to interpret "Starring". For example, The New York Times mentions only the two here. Forbes lists more names here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The poster billing block is a convenience, because often the poster is released prior to the film and generally correlates with the official billing. Sometimes this isn't always the case and not all posters have billing blocks. So I would suggest using billing blocks as a starting point rather than the end word where this is the case. For example, which names (if any) appear before the title in the screen credits? That is sometimes a solid indication of who the stars are, and who would appear in a billing block if indeed there was one. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I'm just concerned that the infobox can get a bit bloated if we start adding too many names. We can all agree that any names appearing on the poster can be considerd as starring and can easily be inserted into the infobox. But in my opinion, the lack of the traditional billing block as defined by the Wikipedia article Billing (performing arts) shouldn't mean that we should ignore the fact that only a few names are listed as starring in the film. Thats just the way I interpret it.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Joj did a good job laying out my stance on the subject, and it can be viewed a bit more in-depth on the Eurovision Talk page. Like I said, without an official “billing block” on the poster, I think it’s just a bit disingenuous to only put the two names; Phoenix is often the only name on the Joker posters, but was among seven names in the actual billing block on DVDs and in the credits. So it’s often a bit of a grey area. TropicAces (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Surely the order of preference would be billing block → opening credits sequence → end credits sequence → a logical order of the significant cast because WP:PLOT → the first 10 or so actors on the IMDb page → only then names 'in' the poster, an entirely advertising endeavor? Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Certaintly, but what I believe we are trying to determnine is if the names on the poster count as "billing" when a traditional billing block is not on the poster. We don't want the infobox to become too bloated with names of actors who may only have a few minutes of screen time.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I gave my opinion as a resounding 'no, names on poster are not billing at all'... Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nine times out of 10, the billing block seen on posters is the same as the names that appear individually on the screens before the credits (or after). Typically it’s 4-8 names, and it’s determined by the Screen Actors Guild based on screen time and contracts; it’s why some people get left off the SAG Ensemble nomination even if they seemed important. TropicAces (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

*Non-SAG productions may vary Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This got me wondering: Are there criteria for awards to include in lists of accolades? "The awards that (or whose givers) meet WP:N", as mentioned in the common selection criteria for stand-alone lists, may be a good place to start, but just because an award is notable doesn't mean it has any real prestige. The Hollywood Film Awards, for example, seem more like an excuse to invite celebrities and give studios opportunities to promote their films than legitimate awards with voters with certain qualifications, as they are often given to films no one has seen yet, but they pass WP:N exactly for the coverage of this dubiousness (and there are worse awards, which have crept into articles).

So I'm inclined to say the accolades must be verified by reliable third-party sources to be included, but I also take the point that such criteria would exclude lesser-known but rather respected/transparent awards like ones given by critic circles. Are there past discussions/consensus on this? Nardog (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nardog - yes there is. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades which contains the text "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Thanks! I had seen it but it slipped my mind. But I don't think it really address the question I had, which is: Does an award having its own article guarantee its inclusion in lists of accolades? Only festival awards are explicitly said to be subject to consensus in the MoS, but like the Hollywood Film Awards and National Film & TV Awards, dubious awards aren't limited to festivals.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to add something akin to WP:ONUS (with "information" and "verifiable" replaced by "awards" and "notable", respectively) to the MoS, or perhaps to deprecate (or require third-party sources for) certain awards à la WP:RSP. Nardog (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think sometimes the individual awards page are of dubious notability, or they've been created by someone who's trying to promote them on WP. There have been lots of examples in the past (one, two, three) where they have been deleted. If there's a specfic award/festival that you don't think is notable, then I'd take it to AfD and see how that goes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Again, just because an award is notable doesn't necessarily mean it's credible. Look, for example, at last year's nominees for the National Film & TV Awards, which passed the AfD a couple years ago and are voted by the public (allegedly), and notice the inconsistency in the number of nominees in each category and the idiosyncrasies like Alita: Battle Angel and a straight-to-video film nominated among Toy Story [sic!], Frozen 2, and How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World. And should we really list the Hollywood Film Award alongside the likes of the Oscars and Césars in List of accolades received by Django Unchained with no caveat when it was given when no one had seen the film? I find the current MoS inadequate in this regard. Nardog (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. I think that requiring notability is relatively straightforward baseline. Beyond that, I'm not sure of good criteria to apply on a broad scope. There are numerous awards organizations with varying degrees of relevance and credibility. Are you suggesting to ban these specific instances you highlighted, or something else? Another guideline approach could be acknowledging the notability requirement as a baseline and that editors may exclude other awards based on credibility issues. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: I agree notability should be the minimum, but not the only, requirement, which is already the case AFAICT. Like I said, I wonder if it would be a good idea to add something akin to WP:ONUS (with "information" and "verifiable" replaced by "awards" and "notable", respectively) to the MoS, or perhaps to deprecate (or require third-party sources for) certain awards à la WP:RSP. Now that I think about it, the first idea is already covered by WP:ONUS itself, so it's probably not a good idea in view of WP:CREEP. So I'm currently leaning toward the second idea. Nardog (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Or we can clarify notability isn't the only requirement and expand the consensus subjection to all awards, not just festivals. Particularly dubious awards may in addition be deprecated altogether in a centralized forum like here, perhaps through RfCs. Nardog (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The deprecation à la WP:RSP sounds like a good idea. El Millo (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please could someone take a look at the external links on Omerta (2017 film). I think they're spam, but I could be wrong. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Per above. It's like 60 dollars a month, Reliable Sources noticeboard has let me down. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Internet Archive has the pre-1960 period pretty well covered: https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A"Variety". Universities often have subscriptions so there may be some students who have access to later years through their university libraries. Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified, I need 80s ones. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who joined the project this year has been busy adding "best of" "worst of" etc items to the accolade sections of film articles from a wide variety of sources. Here is but one example. They seem to bump into the guidelines WP:FILMCRITICLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The thing that needs input is the fact that - while they are not mentioning specific festivals - which if they don't have articles should not be included - the items are from newspaper critics from cities large and small. Heaven knows I am not trying to disparage any of these cities or their surviving papers but a list like this Quiz Show (film)#Year-end lists is IMO hardly encyclopedic and highly indiscriminate. But that is just my view on it and any and all input from others will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think this is another case of a well-intentioned editor deciding they have an idea to improve film articles, and striking off on their own without checking with anyone to see whether their idea is a good one first.

That aside, there's some room for me to be persuaded regarding the "best of" lists, but I'm currently significantly opposed to adding the "worst of" lists because I find those incredibly non-notable. DonIago (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this discussion. The problem is that rationales are heavily dependent on personal opinion, "IMO hardly encyclopedic and highly indiscriminate," even with policy brought up. Nothing about WP:INDISCRIMINATE suggests recognition from professional critics working for reputable sources falls into that category. Also, please have a less nebulous explanation than "I find those incredibly non-notable." Parts of an article don't have to be "notable," only the subject of an entire article has to be. And how in the world are "worst" positions less important than "best" positions? HumanxAnthro (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me ask. Is 12 Years a Slave (film)#Accolades and Milk (2008 American film)#Accolades, indiscriminate to you? Are chart positions for popular albums and songs indiscriminate to you? HumanxAnthro (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of list cruft to me. I am pretty sure it is not necessary to name every critic. Why would readers seeking general background info on the film need to know Sandi Davis thought it was the 3rd best film of the year? I would suggest name-checking the big names (Ebert, Siskel, Travers etc) and maybe the critics who had it top and perhaps just summarising the rest. Betty Logan (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Why would readers seeking general background info on the film need to know Sandi Davis thought it was the 3rd best film of the year?" (1) This is a WP:WHOCARES argument. (2) How do you know all readers are not gonna care about rankings by professional critics? We can't exactly read people's minds, you know. (3) "I am pretty sure it is not necessary to name every critic." Doesn't mean it's list-crufty to do so. HumanxAnthro (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We have considered it indiscriminate listing per WP:FILMCRITICLIST, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." So an example like 12 Years a Slave needs to have its list summarized. It's easy to do, to say that the film was on x top-ten lists, with y ranking it first, and z ranking it second, that kind of thing. Furthermore, I find there to be a difference between an awards organization and a newspaper. As a baseline, an awards organization needs to be blue-linked to establish some notability, and there is often more film-related content beyond that link. That's not the case with linking to film critics or their regional or local newspaper. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You know these same newspapers (and even some of the critics) are also blue-linked, indicating they're notable institutions, right? HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. But these newspapers do not have more of the same kind of content. The links are just about them being newspapers. Awards organizations show the awards for other years as well as related awards. As for film critics, I see a stronger case possible, but it's not like a reader will find out what else the film critic has recognized as best or worst on the critics' articles. It's just their biography. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"these newspapers do not have more of the same kind of content. The links are just about them being newspapers." So what? It's notable enough to get a Wikipedia. That's what matters. "it's not like a reader will find out what else the film critic has recognized as best or worst on the critics' articles." Another WP:WHOCARES argument. How do you know? Can you read readers' mind? HumanxAnthro (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The existence of a topic or an article does not mean links should be spread indiscriminately across Wikipedia. Consensus among editors can determine what is indiscriminate and overlinking. By your logic, we should be listing every single review for a film in a film's article and link to the critic's name and its periodical, because either the critic or the periodical is "notable enough". There is such thing as too much useless information. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what value (if any) these year-end lists have. Reminds me of that time one user was adding all those random AFI lists to articles. If these year-end factoids are that important, maybe write some prose instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If you can't see any value in these lists, I don't know what to tell you; it's like not seeing value in Billboard chart positions for songs and albums. They're significant rankings from professional critics of notable newspapers, indicating that they're the highest or lowest quality of a year. Also, that user you mentioned is perfectly justified in adding those AFI lists, as the American Film Institute is a significant, notable organization. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of the ones present at 12 Years a Slave are clearly non-notable, like James Rocchi, Cinephiled, David Ehrlich, Film.com, and Andrew Saladino, NothingButFilm. These shouldn't even be included if we were to say in how many lists it was featured. Regarding the rest, I'm more inclined to having a summary and just listing the most relevant ones. We could start by only including those where both the person and the work are blue-linked, plus a few that are clearly most notable, like Variety. El Millo (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So The Buffalo News, Knoxville News Sentinel, The Birmingham News, The Rocky Mountain News, The Oklahoman, Dayton Daily News, The Cincinnati Post, Staten Island Advance, The Salt Lake Tribune, The Munster Times, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is as notable as Film.com to you? HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Saying that these aren't the most notable of the lot doesn't make them equal between one another. Let's say you have a ranking of films, both the 11th best and the 50th best aren't included in the top 10, but that doesn't make them equals. El Millo (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

OK... I actually thought you were arguing the sources I just mentioned were non-notable enough to be removed, like Film.com lists, because MarnetteD said lists featuring ranks from those publications were indiscriminate. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing them. What I said is that removing them doesn't mean they're equal to Film.com, which should be disregarded completely. What I said is that I'm more inclined to having a summary and just listing the most relevant ones. Say "12 Years a Slave was included in X number of best-of lists", then name just a few of the most notable ones, like Variety, The New York Times, etc. As I said already: We could start by only including those where both the person and the work are blue-linked, plus a few that are clearly most notable, like Variety. El Millo (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I willing to go along with this, but I need to ask. What if all of the film's rankings are only from those newspapers that aren't Roger-Ebert levels of known? HumanxAnthro (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess we would see really how notable they all are, then name the most notable among those. El Millo (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As some of you may be aware there have been major problems with data corruption on Box Office Mojo. We are currently in the process of getting it sorted. However, the problem has been tackled on multiple pages which isn't ideal. It appears that the work to fix BOM may be ongoing so I am thinking about setting up a film finance task force with the immediate priority of fixing the box-office data. Initially its main aim would be to centralise the problems and liaise with BOM. However, we have multiple box-office articles (in addition to the info included at general film articles) now and editors who exclusively work on these articles so over time it would perhaps become a more traditional task force. I would like to get some feedback on the idea i.e. editors who would perhaps be interested in signing up, anyone who thinks this is a crappy idea etc? Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be up for it. El Millo (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea at all! I used to be more involved in those types of articles, but would be willing to help more now. BOVINEBOY2008 19:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Although not an area of films that I spend any time on, I think this is a great idea, esp. with the current situation with BOM. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gotten more and more focused in data gathering on here rather than focusing on prose, so this would be very up my alley. Sock (tock talk) 23:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

While I do not focus largely as some do on box office content, I've been viewing from afar the issues everyone has been having with BOM, and support the creation of a taskforce for those who wish to work through the issues (and I may pop by now and again for a few helpful edits). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think we have enough takers to make it viable so I will set it up this weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo, Bovineboy2008, Lugnuts, Sock, and Favre1fan93: The task force is up and running at WP:WikiProject Film/Film finance task force. At the moment it is bare bones. I will finish it off over the weekend and then talk to BOM again. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A task force has been established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Film finance task force to tackle the ongoing problems with Box Office Mojo. Correcting the data in Box Office Mojo is our priority at the moment given our dependency on the site, but the ultimate goal is for the task force to take a more traditional role.

The biggest problem with BOM is the "double counting" of grosses when a film is re-released. I have started compiling the errors in a table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Film_finance_task_force#Box_Office_Mojo. The errors are very random and it is a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack, but if you have noticed any sudden/unexplained changes to box-office grosses then you need to check the reissue grosses and see if they are including earlier grosses in the reissue (and thus counting them twice). You can find examples of this at the task force page. If you find any errors please add them to the table. If you need any help with the formatting please ask at the task force talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I am planning to write the Plot section for the film Black Is King and I had a few questions:

1. The characters in the film do not have names. What would be the best way to write the summary? I feel like it would be confusing to write "the man", "the first woman", "the second woman", etc, so I was wondering if anyone had any ideas?

2. The Manual of Style states that in complex plots, "describe the events on screen as simply as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." What section would one report those interpretations in?

3. The film is a "visual album" with the 14 songs from The Lion King: The Gift receiving visual counterparts. Unlike in musicals, most of the visuals for the songs are more conventional music videos, with varying levels of connection to the plot. Should what happens in these music videos be relayed in the Plot section (eg. one video takes place as a dream of the protagonist. Should the details of the dream be added to the section)? Also, should the song names be mentioned in the Plot section?

Thank you so much! Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Films with a traditional, linear narrative (ie, not an art-house film, like Holy Motors) will often give you nicknames or descriptive labels that you can use (such as "Cigarette Smoking Man" or "Man in Black"). For something like Holy Motors, the best you can really do is describe what happens and hope for the best – though it's an excellent film. If you've got sourced commentary, you can create a separate section for "themes" or "interpretations". A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge is famous among horror fans for including a massive amount of gay subtext, which is discussed in the article. Other films, such as Enter the Void, include a short paragraph that describes the director's thoughts. Lost Highway (film) includes some critics' interpretations. As far as what to include: it's up to you, really. Try to keep it under 700 words. That means summarizing the plot, not summarizing each individual scene in sequence. If you do that, the plot will balloon to 1000 words, guaranteed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Amazing thanks so much! And those articles look great :) Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. On doing a bit of work on Apocalypse Now, I came across the American Movie Awards, and have nominated it for deletion. Any input on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am fairly new to wikipedia. I am looking for help improving the pages for The Tree of Life, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Happy as Lazzaro. Where would I go to get that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineapple4321 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pineapple4321: First of all, welcome! Always glad to have a new contributor around. To answer your question, I frequently encouraging just adding the improvements you want to add to the best of your ability. That said, I understand if you're not sure about how to go about that, so I would also encourage you to visit the talk pages of those specific articles and request help with the improvements and changes you want to make amongst other editors. For example, if you thought the plot section of one of them was especially long or the "Reception" section was poorly formatted, perhaps you could create a new discussion revolving what could be removed or changed. Plenty of editors have film articles on their watchlist (I myself have both BvS and Tree of Life on my watchlist), and you can always ask for specific help with your improvements right here. Sock (tock talk) 19:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a reason for including YouTube links in the soundtrack infobox in a film article? (For example [13] and [14]) In my view, this is not adding anything beneficial to the reader, they do not learn any new information by clicking on the link. Per WP:ELNO, we should not be including them. Thoughts? BOVINEBOY2008 19:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Bovineboy2008, Agreed that they should not be included. We're not a link directory and everyone knows that YouTube exists. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

How is hearing the song not learn[ing] any new information? Also per WP:ELNO it says at the top Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. If the YouTube link is an official page, then that link should stay as it indeed provides a great value to any reader. --Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

First, Template:External media is normally used for the main body of the article; infoboxes use Template:Audio sample and external links to YouTube use Template:YouTube. Second, are these copyright compliant? Entire soundtrack albums for one-year old films are usually not completely free. If legit, they would be better in the "External links" sections, since the songs are not discussed in any meaningful way in the text (just listed, no context). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd question how they were included on the WP page itself, but given that the YT videos are posted by the label that owns the music copyright and those are verified accounts, there's nothing wrong with included them (eg at best, there's no WP:ELNO violation) This would be similar to including the link to an official music video by the rights'-holder on a music video page. It is an uncommon practice but these also appear to be only backing tracks (didn't listen to but a few seconds) so maybe they're less worried on copytheft there. --Masem (t) 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. If it's the official media, I don't see a problem with including it. If it's a random upload, it most definitely should not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So as long as the link is to the studio/companies official YouTube, it would be okay for inclusion? This would give me trepidation for other kinds links could be included (teaser clips of the film, trailers, behind the scene interviews, full clips of the film) that I think we have generally not included, especially when we have generally argued that if something is available through the official website, then we don't need to include an extra link. BOVINEBOY2008 22:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please will a project member experienced in this genre take a look and determine whetehr it ought to be an article? Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone see anything unusual in this guy's filmography? Bet you can't find it unless you have an eagle eye! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going bleary and blurry eyed looking at it Cyphoidbomb :-P Is there any award that he didn't win? MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You found it! You have an eagle eye! 👁️<👁️ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be the work of an single-purpose account. El Millo (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The FAC for this article has been up for over a month now and the last comment was nearly a month ago and could use more input one way or another if anyone is willing. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Groundhog Day (film)/archive1 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help take a stab at this, I'd sure appreciate it: This source indicates that the trailer of the film Sadak 2 has received a record number of dislikes on YouTube. The reporter attributes this to filmgoers boycotting the film in the wake of the suicide of Sushant Singh Rajput, who some believe was not as successful as he could have been as a result of Bollywood tending to hire the children of established Bollywood figures. One of the film's stars, Alia Bhatt, is the daughter of Mahesh Bhatt, who is also directing this film. Awkwaarrrrd! Some folks on the talk page have asked for this content to be presented, but I'm not quite clear on how it should be presented in a way that provides adequate context. So I would appreciate if anyone might take the reins on this. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an RfC regarding Kimba the White Lion that users might be interested in. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 23:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just started a stub article about the film Night of the Kings (La Nuit des rois), which is premiering at Venice in September and then being screened at TIFF a couple of weeks later. However, I'm having a bit of trouble sourcing information about the cast, so I just wanted to ask if anybody can help out.

The issue is that the cast includes actors named Bakary Koné and Laetitia Ky — however, I have been unable to find any sources which would clarify whether or not these are the same Bakary Koné (a footballer) and Laetitia Ky (an artist) that we already have articles about. One of the sources does indicate that this is Koné's first-ever acting role, so it seems plausible that it could indeed be the footballer — but without a source that explicitly says it's the footballer, I can't simply assume that. And the artist, similarly, seems plausible, but is not confirmed; her article also provides no indication that she's ever worked as an actress before either, and it's also listed as her first-ever acting role according to IMDb.

Accordingly, I've left both of their names unlinked in the article, pending verification of whether they're the same people or not, but I wanted to ask if anybody can help to locate the verification that's eluding me. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Both those articles have images, do they look like the same people? Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I've found no images that are clearly "of the actors" to compare them to, and I can't just watch the film as it isn't out yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ashwin_Alok This draft was submitted over 2 months ago and its review is taking a lot of time. Subject is a filmmaker and one of his films (Bread Butter) was recently published on India's biggest OTT platform, Disney+ hotstar. Please review this soon. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinalok (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia (specifically, the part about "Narrow self-interest"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)