Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Category for Films that had defamation lawsuits
Is there a category for films which led to defamation lawsuits by portrayed characters (e.g. The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film) and The Lost King). If not, should there be (and what would it be called)? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The closest similar category I could find (though there might be better analogs) is Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies. Category:Films involved in defamation lawsuits might be viable, but I wouldn't bother unless you can find at least five such films, as we shouldn't really create small categories. I also wouldn't take my own word as gospel here, but recommend waiting to hear from other editors who may be more well-versed in this subject area. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doniago. I'll take your advice.  I think there are quite a few films (& TV shows) that led to defmation lawsuits (even recently Baby Reindeer), so it might be a worthwhile category to have (e.g. category:Films and TV shows that spawned defamation lawsuits), or something equivalent? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A wider-reaching category would certainly be more viable. If you go that route, I think I might recommend Category:Works involved in defamation lawsuits; I don't really like "spawned" personally, and I think it's a little misleading; it's not inherently the work's fault that someone decided to create a lawsuit over it. But I'd definitely want input from other editors before going further down this road. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree about "spawned". "Involved" is more neutral and accurate. I think "Works involved" is a good place to start (which would include printed works), then creating subcategories by medium as it grows larger. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great - I have created Category:Works involved in defamation lawsuits and placed it under Category:Works subject to a lawsuit. On a quick search, found a reasonable number of cases, so should be a useful sub cat imho. thanks all. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an editor who's had to create far too many entries at CfD that might have been averted if editors had been a bit less bold, thank you for coming here to ask for opinions before creating one or more categories that might have then needed to be CfD'ed! DonIago (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - it was a good discussion to have :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Jumanji
I've started up a discussion on how we should format the cast section for the Jumanji article at Talk:Jumanji. Any input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Crediting in first sentences
If we mention in a film article's first sentences that a film was written by or produced by someone, is it misleading to not indicate that there were other writers and producers? (For example, "Foo is a film directed, written, and produced by Famous Director [not mentioning other writers and producers].")

To try to fix this, is it proper to use "co-written"? What about "co-produced", which to me feels wrong especially since films do have literal co-producers separate from producers? Another approach could to be to just mention all writers and all producers, but I feel like that can be overly-specific to do for most films in the first few sentences. Curious what others think. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Terminator 2 opens with "Terminator 2: Judgment Day[a] is a 1991 American science fiction action film directed by James Cameron, who co-wrote the script with William Wisher.". I don't think producers should be mentioned at all in the opening sentence, going back to my previous arguments against the MCU articles going out of their way to textually felate Disney and Marvel studios as soon as possible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if the director was one of the producers? What do you do about producers in lead sections in general? Like mention in the typical production-focused paragraph that the director produced the film with so-and-so? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just don't think producers/producer roles warrant mentioning, in terms of creativity I think director/writer are traditionally how someone would identify a film, i.e. a Richard Donner film, Spielberg film, etc. Doesn't work for everyone obviously but it doesn't help me to know Neal H Moritz produced a film since that's a fairly obscure name to the uninformed and is not an indication of quality, tone, type, etc. The only caveat would be something where the producer role was instrumental and unavoidable, such as some 80s films to which Spielberg lent his weight and it's the main reason it got made. Beyond that I consider it alongside distributors in a sense that they provided funding, maybe did more than that, but it's not something I believe needs mentioning in the opening sentence or lede in general, again without good cause. A big name like the aforementioned Spielberg can be worth mentioning. I do dislike the use of "directed and written by" if it's not a sole writing credit as it is misleading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be implying they are the sole writer/producer, but as DWB demonstrates in his reply there are so many ways around this through appropriate phrasing. Betty Logan (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I mean it in an unintentional sense. Like it may be when some editors write "written and produced" by a director, they figure readers will know that they're not necessarily the sole writer and producer. (Maybe they'll think the full credits in the infobox will cover that?) I was asking if that's a plausible assumption or if we should word it in a way to always indicate multiple roles in some way. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple writers on a project, we should not be using wording to indicate that a director (who may have also taken on that role) is the sole writer. "Co-written/co-wrote" is fine to use in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on how important the director was for the production. For most films they shouldn't probably be credited in the first sentence, but if they seemed important for the film production, a "produced by", credit in the first sentence is okay to me. If "co-produced" could be thought would be more accurate, they probably weren't so involved in the first place and shouldn't be credited in the first sentence. So a producer credit in the first sentence could be contingent on prominence in the film's production and require a reliable source that shows that. Ekom2 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Streaming series
Hello! If I'm discussing a series that was created for Disney+ or another streaming platform, should I refer to it as a "television series" or a "streaming series"? Wafflewombat (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would check WT:TV archives for discussions about this. For example, I found this: . Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember that discussion well. I suppose one takeaway is to use something like " "streaming on Netflix" or "streaming on Disney+" or "released on Disney+" or something like that. Sometimes series stream and are shown on broadcast TV, as well, so words need to be chosen correctly and carefully. As one of those in that discussion noted, "It's worth mentioning the network/streaming service in the lead, yes, but "streaming television series" is no longer really a "genre" of TV series, nor a common phrase used in reliable sources (or by laypeople)." Historyday01 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should just be "television series". WT:TV is the proper location for this discussion/help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fictional characters
Another question (er, questions) for you all! This is much more the domain of the Fictional Characters Wikiproject, but I have reached out to them multiple times and haven't received any responses—it's a ghost town over there. Anyways, I'm wondering if you know what the appropriate terms are for referring to leading characters. Protagonist? Lead character? Main character? Is antagonist acceptable to use? Is it okay to rank characters as primary/seconday protoganists or antagonists? Should the use of any of these terms be cited, such as finding secondary sources that describe character X as the primary antagonist? Wafflewombat (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think WP:PROTAGONIST covers this nicely, but basically none of those terms should be used without sources that support them. DonIago (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Parasite Budget
For the infobox of a film, does the budget take into account marketing costs on top of production? The article for Parasite says the film had a budget of translating to about US$15.5 million, but according to the sources it's actually =US$11.4 million, and the  is only when taking into account marketing costs. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, the "budget" is essentially the production budget. The marketing cost can be covered in the article body. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, thanks. I will change the article. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

MTV News has gone offline
This is a notice that all MTV News articles have been pulled offline, with it also noted that some of them are not even accessible in the Wayback Machine. This is why it is generally good practice to add url archives to all content added to prevent WP:LINKROT and being unable to access sourced content if sites go down like this. The site generally covered some "pop culture" films in the mid 2000s to the 2010s, so if you are aware of any articles you actively work on that use these sources, best to check if an archive is up or you can get one still. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * While Wayback has done its best, it is not immune to robots.txt which can nullify archives. Just hope Paramount doesn't take to that. But archive.today is unaffected by robots.txt and may also have MTV News archives. Meanwhile, attempts to restore all articles in some way is on. Kailash29792 (talk)  03:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Internet Archive has worked with the founder of MTV News to make over 450,000 pages available again. . Link to the archive here M asem  (t) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing a factoid about Sam Raimi and Batman films
A repeated factoid mentions a connection between director Sam Raimi and Batman: alternatively offering that "Raimi sought out the rights to Batman; unable to secure them, he created Darkman" or "Raimi lobbied to direct Batman Forever, but was rejected in favor of Joel Schumacher". The Wikipedia articles for Batman Forever and Darkman refer to this, with Batman even mentioned in the lede of Darkman. However, I suspect this isn't true - or, at least, is not verifiable by reliable sources.

First off, primary and secondary sources that discuss Raimi's directorial career and/or the production of Darkman only mention Raimi seeking The Shadow before Darkman:
 * Interviewed by frequent collaborator Bruce Campbell about Darkman, Raimi states "I really wanted to make The Shadow. But Universal Studios wouldn’t give me the rights to that."
 * Darkman producer Rob Tapert, in an oral history of the movie for The Hollywood Reporter, recalls [Raimi] "tried very hard to make a movie about The Shadow, but that proved impossible..."

Second, although Batman has occasionally been mentioned in relation to Raimi in such sources, it has never  been in the context of Raimi having pursued a Batman movie in the 80s or 90s:


 * The Evil Dead Companion quotes Raimi stating that Darkman "has a lot of elements of pictures that and stories that have gone before," as he offhandly lists Batman alongside The Phantom of The Opera and The Elephant Man, without mentioning any attempts to make his own Batman film.
 * The aforementioned THR oral history remarks that "the enormous success Warner Bros. had with Tim Burton’s Batman" was a factor in Universal greenlighting Darkman, but draws no further connection between Batman and Raimi.
 * In a 2022 interview with Empire, Raimi remarks that "I’ve always loved Batman. If I ever saw the Batsignal up in the air, I’d come running," but again does not indicate any history of pursuing such a movie.

Notably, several Wikipedia articles have had some mention of Raimi attempting to direct a Batman movie since at least 2006; this claim is frequently unsourced (sometimes remaining for years without one) or only supported by lower-quality sources. I am concerned that citogenesis is taking place, with later writers seeing Batman mentioned in Wikipedia article(s) over the years and assuming it to be fact:


 * Sam Raimi article:, "Raimi lobbied to direct Batman Forever [...] but was rejected" is added, unsourced. This claim remains without a source for over a decade; : a 2005 post on the IGN forums discussing a 2004 IMDb trivia post. This point was due to its reliance on an invalid source. The "Sam Raimi" article currently makes no mention of Batman.


 * Batman Forever article:, minutes after adding it to the "Sam Raimi" article, the same editor adds "Sam Raimi lobbied to direct the third film, but was rejected[...]" to this article. This claim is again added without a source; : the IMDb trivia page. , this point is removed along with the entire trivia section. Raimi is not mentioned in the article for years.
 * , "Sam Raimi [was] considered" is added in, unsourced., the fact is removed during a rewrite of the "Development" section of the article.
 * , "Sam Raimi [was] considered" is added again, sourced by two Screen Rant articles. The fact is still currently in the article.


 * Darkman article:, "[Raimi] had pursued and failed to secure the rights to both The Shadow and Batman," is added, unsourced.
 * The next sentence (the unrelated fact that "The initial idea Raimi had for Darkman was of a man who could change his face") was accurately sourced to The Evil Dead Companion; made this a footnote which may have given readers the impression that the Companion supported Raimi pursuing the rights to Batman, which it does not.
 * , while first researching this fact, I removed the Batman claim and rewrote the paragraph to only mention what could be reliably sourced, viz. Raimi had only mentioned seeking the rights to The Shadow.
 * it is still in the article at present.

In conclusion:


 * I cannot find mention of a connection between Raimi and a potential Batman movie in a source that predates the 2006 Wikipedia edits, apart from the aforementioned unreliable IMDb trivia page. This fact has only started to consistently appear in articles over the last five years or so, long after the production of Darkman or Forever.
 * Darkman was released in 1990, before filming had begun on Batman Returns and long before Burton's departure from the series. Raimi would therefore had to have sought Batman before and after Darkman, at least two distinct attempts over a 5+ year period, yet there is a lack of documentation for either.
 * When mentioned in an article, the idea is only mentioned in passing e.g. "Raimi had wanted to make a movie about Batman or The Shadow..." but only ever providing additional detail or context about The Shadow, if that.
 * Several articles mention Raimi being turned down for being a "cult" director, but provide no source (e.g., interview, behind-the-scenes featurettes, contemporaneous reporting) for such a claim; this phrasing mirrors the old IMDb post.
 * Articles featuring this claim are usually from marginally-reliable, perennially-questioned sites like CBR (post-2016) and Screen Rant, in listicles or reddit-comment-recaps like "Fun DC Theory Solves Burton & Schumacher's Batman Universe Confusion" or "10 Unrealized Sam Raimi Projects Redditors Want To See The Most" that are lower-quality and likely just pulled up a relevant Wikipedia article to pad the word count.

I'm unsure about how to edit in response to all this though. Addressing this feels like whac-a-mole: since it can pop up on Sam Raimi, Sam Raimi's unrealized projects, Batman Forever, and Darkman I'm not sure which talk page(s) to bring this up on - which is why I'm posting here. If I flag or remove one source as being insufficient quality, inevitably another editor will just google "raimi batman" and paste in another Screen Rant/CBR article that just mentions it in passing. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative, without an interview of Raimi stating point-blank "no, I was never in the running to direct Batman Forever" I can't definitely say that he wasn't, so... is the solution just tagging Bcn/rs/acn? Or just accept that this fact is verifiable, if not true? Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that this falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL: these are surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources, which one would expect them to be if they are indeed true. Consequently, as any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, the claims may—and should—be removed absent such sources. The best thing would probably be to contact Raimi and get an explicit statement on it published in a reliable source (compare Emily St. John Mandel's divorce). TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sourcing seems very weak and vague. If something like this had occurred I would have expected it be covered by something like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. If Raimi had made multiple attempts to adapt Batman you would expect a similar level of coverage to that of his attempts to adapt The Shadow, especially since Batman is much more high profile. I think you have to be very careful about vague claims in weak sources, especially if they only materialise after they have been added to Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Indian director calling film bilingual when evidence is against it.
See Talk:Kalki_2898_AD. Per Template:Infobox film, Insert the language primarily used in the film. Databases often give every language spoken within the film, even if they only reflect a few lines in the overall script. The BBFC website is a good resource for the main language used in the film. Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with.

The article in question is Kalki 2898 AD. The director Nag Ashwin for his latest film Kalki 2898 AD and Mahanati called both of his films bilingual. In the latter film, the article says one of the versions was later dropped in favour of a dub.

In his latest film in an interview in July 2023 when most of the film's shooting was complete, he said Some scenes would definitely be more impactful if we are shooting it in Hindi. So we are shooting it in two languages. But for the most part it's a Telugu film.

So this is how the process usually goes, a director calls his film bilingual Wikipedia reflects the same. The film releases. The lip sync and CBFC certificate say otherwise. Then the bilingual information has to be removed.

Luckily, all of India's bilingual films usually come from Prabhas's films and as per his latest films films, none of them are bilingual. but if Nag Ashwin were to direct another film, we have to keep reconvening.

His 2nd film's scam has an entire article: Some filmmakers can't stop talking about how difficult it is to make bilinguals. Actors talk about bilinguals almost in a 'scared hush, considering they have to endure the monotony and fatigue of having to shoot the same scenes, while speaking different languages. But having watched some of our recent films that are promoted as bilinguals, it's tempting to wonder what the big deal is, really. 

DareshMohan (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

To LGBT or not to LGBT, that is the question...
In the process of trying to update List of LGBT-related films of 2024 with the films that screened in the past couple of weeks at the Frameline Film Festival, I came across Good One, where the article has already existed for several weeks but had not been categorized or listed as an LGBT-related film, and I also could not find any sources whatsoever to clarify the matter — so I asked on the talk page, and another editor located a source that passingly states that the protagonist identifies as queer, but otherwise continues to reflect the same lack of evidence that her queerness is particularly central to the main plot.

So I'm of two minds: to me, personally, the fact that a lead character in the film is queer should be enough to warrant categorizing it as an LGBT-related film (queerfolk don't only want to see films where queerness is the drama per se, and do want to also see films in which queer people are just present in the world too), but I can easily see somebody reverting me on the grounds that it isn't "LGBT-related" enough to be defined by that if I tried to add the category myself. It would be much more clearcut that it wasn't particularly significant if a minor character's LGBTQ identity was passingly mentioned without being central to the storyline, but if it's the lead character it's obviously a harder call.

So I wanted to ask for some other opinions as well: if the central character's queerness is mentioned, but the film isn't particularly about her queerness per se, then should it be categorized as LGBT-related or not? Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As a general rule of thumb, if secondary sources find it worth mentioning, then it's likely related. The more sources, the more likely. I assume that the source you mentioned was IndieWire with "Chris' queer 17-year-old daughter Sam (extraordinary newcomer Lily Collias)" quoted. I also found these mentions:
 * TheFilmStage: "For Sam, still coming to terms as a queer teenager, her identity is nonchalantly dismissed by Matt, thinking he’s caring by asking the question but then immediately interrupting her."
 * The Hollywood Reporter: "Collias’ body language and the telltale flickers across her expressive face suggest that Sam isn’t entirely comfortable with her prescriptive gender role as the designated nurturer and caregiver — the good one, as the title indicates. While it remains between the lines of the screenplay, there’s significance in Sam’s identity as a young queer woman ready to focus on her own relationship and future, not thrilled to be bolstering the fragile egos of two middle-aged men." (this may be the most "related" indicator)
 * Variety: "...he's a sincerely loving and interested parent, and has evidently accepted her out-and-proud queerness without difficulty."
 * It would probably help to reference some of this in the article body, especially The Hollywood Reporter. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Hollywood Reporter source. That's a really nice find, that contextualizes its potential relevance much better than anything else I'd found. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Biloxi Blues (1988 film)
Biloxi Blues plot summary. BuffyCostanza (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Message appears to be in regard to Biloxi Blues (film) and a disagreement over details in the "Plot" section. I started a discussion thread here:. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dhruva Natchathiram: Chapter One – Yuddha Kaandam
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dhruva Natchathiram: Chapter One – Yuddha Kaandam that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hong Kong Film Award
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hong Kong Film Award that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Pauline Fowler
I have nominated Pauline Fowler for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 11:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible spam
Hi, I noticed that this new user's edits (Contributions/82.3.222.48) mostly involve citing the same author across different film related articles. I suspect he is the author himself or he has a close connection. I do not know whether his edits provide valuable info to film articles or not. If you ask me, probably the main purpose is just spam and most of it could be reverted. — Gor1995 &#119070; 18:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think your talk-page message is appropriate. There is a concern, but it could also be possible the person is reading through the book and adding content to articles as they go through the book. It seems like a reliable source and can be seen here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

El castillo de los monstruos (1964 film): Help!
Hello, El castillo de los monstruos (1964 film)....is very hard to source, to a point that I wonder if it's real (if it's a hoax it has spread, actors and plot included, but there are some troubling signs).....see TP....If anyone could help, I would greatly appreciate. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Direct link:. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Carl Junghans
I started Draft:Carl Junghans on the German, Communist sympathizing filmmaker. How do I get the German entry transliterated ? Happy to have any help with the subject. Seems quite interesting. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi! Have you explored WP:TRANSLATION yet? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternate words for "film"
Hey all. When working on film pages I often need another word for "film" so I don't use the same word twice in quick succession. Sometimes I substitute "production" or "project" if appropriate. Is it acceptable to use the word "picture" as well, or is it too archaic? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems likely to be okay, but the most common synonym is probably "movie". TompaDompa (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "movie" okay to use? I don't see it used in more well-developed film articles. Wafflewombat (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's too informal. Just use "film".  Don't ostentatiously use synonyms for common words.  See The problem with elegant variation.  It generally makes your prose look like a 5th grade wrote it, which is worse than using the same word twice in two sentences.  Or rewrite your sentences.
 * Bad: "The film was released in 2002 by Paramount. The film received negative reviews, and the film's box office gross was equally poor."
 * Even worse: "The picture was released in 2002 by Paramount. The production received negative reviews, and the film's box office gross was equally poor."
 * Better: "Paramount released Wikipedia: The Film in 2002. It received negative reviews, and its box office gross was equally poor."
 * With practice, it becomes easy. I'm sure you're thinking of even better ways to write that sentence right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Too informal? Nonsense, I say—"movie" is used in plenty of formal contexts. It is something of an WP:ENGVAR issue, on the other hand. But yes, avoiding elegant variation is usually preferable. TompaDompa (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Movie" is informal and should be avoided. "Picture" is archaic and ambiguous. Use the correct word and use it every time.
 * If you find you're using the same word too many times and it's noticeable, it means there's a bigger problem with your syntax, not that you should start using alternative words. See WP:ELEVAR, as NinjaRobotPirate already mentioned. Popcornfud (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, it depends. What effect are you going for? Here is an example. Sometimes, you want short sentences. Other times, longer ones. They give different rhythms. It may or may not be desirable to produce the effect one gets from stacking several shorter sentences one after the other just as it may or may not be desirable to produce the effect one gets from writing a single but rather lengthy sentence. It depends on the context. This also applies to other writing choices. There isn't a "one size fits all" approach to writing. "Never switch between synonyms" isn't better advice than "always switch between synonyms". TompaDompa (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Movie" isn't used on WP for the reason stated. If it's present in an article, any film editor will change it to "film". Most reputable film news, review, and industry sources use "film", even if they may also use "movie" in articles. I have never encountered an instance where I think I cannot use "film" more than once or alternate it with "it". Changing up the syntax helps with sentence flow. Sometimes that takes more than one copyedit, especially when you're still adding and arranging content. Lapadite (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another alternative is to use the actual name of the film in place of "it" or "film". Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. I limit repeated uses of the title within one paragraph as I think more than a couple repetitions can sound more clunky than "film" or "it"., as for "production", it's not synonymous with "film" as the film is the finished product, though the term can be used for any stage of development; "production" should only be used when you're referring to the production itself, i.e the making of the film (the filming period and anything that occurs during or to the production). "Project" can be interchanged with "film" if it suits the context. For ex, when talking about awards won, it's not fitting to say "The project won three Academy Awards"; but it can be used when writing about, say, a producer, film crew, or cast decision, like: "x joined/financed/worked on the project". Lapadite (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not using "movie" is one of those quirks of Wikipedia that is really at odds with how the English language is used outside it. Avoiding contractions is another. TompaDompa (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to reflect how the English language is commonly used, WP:SLANG and MOS:CONTRACTIONS. Indagate (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, but it's not like all serious outlets avoid "movie" and contractions either. The top story on Time magazine's website at the moment uses a contraction in Biden appears to have pulled his family closer while attempting to prove that he's still the Democrats' best option., for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia not a newspaper or magazine, which are written differently. Wikipedia has a huge English-as-a-second-langauge audience, you would not believe how helpful it can be to keep it simple and how much difference it can makes to readers who have little choice but to read English language Wikipedia. Clarity must be prioritized even if it might make your prose seem a little stilted and repetitive. -- 109.77.200.184 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly we should want the text to be clear to readers and editors who have English as a second language (which is one reason I think MOS:COMMONALITY is usually good to follow while MOS:TIES is sometimes counterproductive), not least because that's the majority of English-speakers. I don't think writing "cannot" instead of "can't" helps with that, though. TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Award nominations count
Hi,

Regarding the award list articles, I need clarification on how the nomination count is calculated. Suppose an actor received 7 nominations, of which 3 are wins. Is the total count of nominations 7 or 4? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If there are 7 nominations total, there are 7 nominations. Wins don't increase or decrease the nomination count. It would be 7 nominations with 3 wins, or 3 wins out of 7 nominations. Lapadite (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anoop Bhatia (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:A Career of Crime
The draft on this crime and punishment early film serial was rejected. Can anyone help with it? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The entry has been moved to mainspace. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Spider-Man plot discussion
There's a discussion on how we should handle the plot section of the 2002 Spider-Man film. It can be found at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film). Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Richard Sénécal
I would be happy to have some help with this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Publish Lucky Baskhar Movie
Upcoming Telugu Indian movie Lucky Baskhar is releasing on September. Kindly review the draft page to publish the article soon. Draft:Lucky Baskhar Yashrockybhai (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft has been submitted for review, you need to be patient while reviewers make their way through the backlog. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

English article Reliant on Foreign Sources?
I've been sheparding the Gamera article for years and I've grown conflicted over the recent edits of User talk:ノコギリ. Not only is the user from Japan and, having spoken to them myself, it seems English is their secondary language, but the user is citing Japanese books/magazines on an English-language Wiki article. At first I did revert the article back to the status quo, but after speaking with the user I reverted back to their edits thinking that copyediting and revisions would best come later.

However, I'm kinda leaning back towards my original reservations because the article has now grown to rely heavily on Japanese sources. I do not speak Japanese and I do not have the Japanese books & magazines cited to verify any claims. For all I know the user could be making things up, citing any random page, and we English-speakers would be none the wiser. Are there guidelines for situations like this, where too many foreign sources (unverified because they're books/magz) dominate an English-language article? Armegon (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We have WP:NOENG if you haven't seen that already. It's likely fine that the article uses Japanese-language sources. It's similar to AGF of someone who has access to English-language books not available online or at most libraries. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This puts things in perspective a bit. Armegon (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Armegon The difficulty IMO is to get a reasonable grip on if refs like that are WP:RS or not. For example, is a WP:BLOG or more like WP:RSPDEADLINE? You can try to get hold of another Japanese speaking Wikipedian and ask them to take a look, that may help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Editwar at Ram Setu (film)
Your input is welcome at Talk:Ram_Setu_(film). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Help requested with Big Fish plot summary
Hey all. I'm having a discussion with another editor about the Big Fish page, including the Plot summary. I was hoping someone could look at the Plot summary on the page now, and then compare it with a version I wrote, which is contained in this version of the page. I know it may take a little time to do this compare/contrast, but since I and the other editor are finding it difficult to come to agreements about the page, I would really appreciate third-party input. Thank you!

If you want to view our ongoing discussion, you can do so here. Wafflewombat (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings on the plot section, but if other people think Wafflewombat's plot is an improvement over the previous version, then I have no objection. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Big Fish edit dispute
Hello again. The conversation about Big Fish (see above topic) has become stalled. The Plot summary is no longer the only issue, but I wanted to leave that thread up so nobody gets confused. My understanding is that seeking an RfC should be avoided if possible, so I wanted to post here first.

The gist: I made a series of edits to Big Fish, many of which invovled condensing or trimming content. @Viriditas reverted my edits, feeling that I had condensed content inappropriately. @Viriditas, please chime in if you feel this is not a full or accurate description of our dispute. We talked for awhile (see above link), and it seems that neither of us has been able to fully understand the other's views.

You can review individual edits I made in the article history. You will notice the revert at or near the top of the history, and the version below the revert contains all the edits I made.

Please let me know if you can help with this in some way. Thank you! Wafflewombat (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Big Fish is a Good Article. Wikipedia doesn't write "condensed" versions of articles.  If you want to do that, then please use Simple English Wikipedia.  Wikipedia writes expanded and complex version of articles, and when they get too large, they are spun out into new articles. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The Cinemaholic reliability
https://thecinemaholic.com/about-us/

They focus on film/TV news, reviews, and anime. Their editorial policy and contact page appear to support reliability.

There was a brief discussion at RSN, where a few sources linked used the website as a source.

Is there any disagreement on the reliability of this website as a source for film/TV news? Lapadite (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say yes, it is reliable, with caveats based on the RSN discussion. The caveat is to be aware of citing unusual material that only appears in a single, exclusive source like Cinemaholic.  If the material is very niche and unusual, I would be careful. I’ve run into this problem before, which is why I try to find two independent sources to support every claim.  What I’ve found is that some sources will get it wrong, either by way of sheer accident or error, or perhaps unintended bias.  So my personal rule is to find at least two separate sources to support an unusual or controversial claim. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Powers Picture Plays
This entry on an early American film company has been languishing in draftspace for years since user:Barkeep49 moved it from mainspace. Please help improve it so this onteresting and important subject can be restored to mainspace. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Production Country of Mad Max: Fury Road
There is discussion on how Mad Max: Fury Road should be described per its country in the lead of the article. Everyone is welcome to join in to give input. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)