Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52

Tangled soundtrack cover image
At the film article Tangled, the "Soundtrack" section includes the non-free image of the soundtrack cover. The image has been posted at WP:FFD to evaluate its compliance with image policies and guidelines. The discussion can be seen. A previous FFD was had on February 2013 and can be seen. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of quote boxes in the reception section
Is there a MOS on this? Does anyone else think this is overkill? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Their usage in that article is overkill. I think quote boxes are ok if they are used judiciously (they can help break up big blocks of text in a section where images are not really appropriate) but any more than a couple is overdoing it. All of those are just poster soundbites apart from the very last quote. Betty Logan (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Betty. I don't find these particular quotes insightful enough to highlight, and the combined use makes the presentation appear celebratory of the film when Wikipedia should be writing neutrally about the topic. In terms of guidelines, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says long quotes are appropriate for blocks, so this case is clearly overdoing it (except for the Stratton quote). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Betty Logan and Erik. Both make valid points about the use breaking up what otherwise might be a monolithic block of text, while too many mess with the neutrality.  The lack of adherence to MOS:Blockquote makes this particular example an easy call.  Onel5969 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Hi. Please consider merging Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata to Proloy (film). I have added the appropriate templates. Jayakumar RG (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Satanism
I'm surprised to see no category connecting films about satanism or featuring the devil's child theme. We just have Demons in film. Shouldn't we have a category connecting films like Rosemary's Baby and The Omen? Not that it is to my specific interest hehe but I would find it useful as a film buff knowing similar themed films for browsing because they make good horror films!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. It looks like we have Devil in popular culture, but I'd support that being a separate list that could be revised and also included in the film articles' "See also" sections. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How would be define such a category though? I mean, some films actually feature devil worshipping (like Rosemary's Baby) while others simply happen to have references to the devil rather than being specifically about satanism. I mean could you classify a film such as Don't Look Now as a film about Satanism. I don't think so, but it clearly drifts into the occult. I think we probably need at least two categories One Category:Films about Satanism, Category:Demons in film, Category:Films about exorcism and some which is related and can be a subcategory of the paranormal of supernatural thriller films which involve the devil in some form. I don't want too many separate categories but I definitely think a Films about or involving Satanism or the devil would be a good idea. I think we need a mother category to connect the ones like the Demons in films and Films about exorcism etc What name would be ideal to you? Category:Films about Satan might be more ideal than Films about Satanism as a form of worship? Or Category:Films with a Satanic theme? The latter for me is more ideal I think as it would cover all without implying it is actually about the practice of worship or purely about Satan. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think "Films about Satanism" (basically devil worshipping) and "Films about Satan" (the big guy or his offspring literally puts in appearance himself) are subtly different: "Race the Devil" would come under the former and "The Exorcist" under the latter; "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Omen" would come under both. Meanwhile, an occult film like "Don't Look Now" wouldn't fall into either category, so maybe "Occult films" would be best if you want a category that groups all of these films together. Maybe "Satanic films" if you just want to focus on films with a Satan theme. Betty Logan (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

CfD for Category:Film shooting locations
There is a discussion on whether this category should be deleted. If you would like to express an opinion, please voice it at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 28. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tech noir at CFD
There's an open CFD discussion on Category:Tech noir that could use additional opinions. You're invited to join the discussion. DonIago (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Film vs, television
List of useable sources: here

I think an article discussing the battle between TV and film within showbusiness would be very interesting. Topics would include the stigma regarding TV being a lower-grade form of entertainment that film, and the implication of stars from medium hopping over to the other (a common practice back in the mid 20th century that has come back full force in the past couple of years). Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

IP edits to check
Could someone check the edits by ? Two of the edits were clearly inappropriate category additions (Category:American criminal comedy films to Now You See Me (film) and The Usual Suspects), but I don't know enough to check their other edits. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Checked out his edits.  3 were actually correct, (Gandolfini, the New World and Mulan), but the rest were clearly incorrect, or, in the case of Tarzan and Frollo, possible vandalism.Onel5969 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Two correct edits followed by a mixture of wrong, dubious, and correct edits... Does sound like an attempt at sneaky vandalism. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * They seem to be adding random BLP-issue categories to articles such as Zapp Brannigan and Glenn Quagmire. Yes, I know they're fictional individuals, but I assume the same thing applies (no source, no category).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Dollars in film articles and Infoboxes
As I do editing I have been rounding gross dollars, opening dollars etc from the numbers to the nearest dollar ($123,456,789) to something like $123 million typically to nearest million or houndred thousands (2-3 significant figures) per MOS:LARGENUM. There has been some kick-back by editors, insisting that other films use all (as they have not set the the MOS:LARGENUM or insisting that the whole number be used since that is what it is in the citation. To me a citation is sometimes quoted, but since we are not adding quotes, it is no different than paraphrasing the content from the source and adding the relevant info. Could something be done to decide if MOS:LARGENUM is or is not appropriate and if so, try to make it more clear (explicitly mentioning the practice in the Template:Infobox film for example and even mentioning film grosses as an example in MOS:LARGENUM to better ensure that the editors understand what the style is so there more consensus. Thanks.AbramTerger (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted you on The Dark Knight Rises article not because you rounded but because you rounded too much. The precision we should round to depends on the context: if something has earned $998,944,111 then I have no problem with rounding that to $999 million; but if something has earned $999,944,111 then I disagree with rounding it to $1 billion because it fundamentally alters the context of the achievement, and $999.9 million would be more appropriate in such a scenario. MOS:LARGENUM is quite explicit on this point: Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should appear in articles only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. Therefore box-office numbers should be precise to the point that they serve the purpose of valid comparison, but not more so. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just had a situation like this recently, though only in the sense that I wasn't sure whether we should be using exact figures or rounded ones. Any editor claiming that other articles do things a different way should be referred to WP:OTHERSTUFF...not just in this case, but in general. I think if a reference is available with a specific figure then I'd personally prefer to see the specific figure, cited. But generally rounding seems reasonable to me. As for the specifics of how the number should be rounded, I think I'm inclined to agree with Betty on this, but I'd also be curious to hear from other editors. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand Betty's distinction and I will respect the edits she made, but I disagree to some degree. I think we need to have a certain number of significant figures. If we choose 3 then $999,944,111 will be $1.00 billion if we go to 4 sig figs than $999.9 million. It is a summary and a rounding. But some of the edits of mine, Betty wants 5 significant digits. She also seem adverse to round any numbers up. But as I said, I can live with her edits, I started this discussion, not because of your edits, but since there are other editors who want all the numbers to the dollar. I think for the context we are discussing 3 sig figs should be sufficient. I also prefer, if appropriate using $1.06 billion rather than $1,056.2 million, but I will live with the consensus of editors when an appropriate style is accepted. Also even if the sources give all the figures, they are still generally approximate. It seems no different than what we do with most articles. We don't quote everything, we edit and paraphrase what a source states for the context. The citation is there if more details are desired, the wiki article is not the source.AbramTerger (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think three or four significant figures are appropriate for the sort of analysis we have generally have in prose, but it really depends on what you are comparing, what other records are and how close the figures are to important thresholds. It also depends on the presentation too: tables can accommodate higher precision than prose so it's very difficult to specify how exact the numbers should be. Anyway, these are the edits in question: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to apply the significant-figure logic here, but if a film makes millions but not a billion per se, I round to the nearest hundred thousand. I think this makes sense because in terms of box office competition, that rounding is usually enough to differentiate competitors. There are probably not many cases where the ranking comes down to a difference in tens of thousands, if that makes sense. I haven't tried rounding any billion-dollar figures, so I don't have any good feedback there. For films that are less than $1 million, though, I tend to report the full number, though I'm not sure if that's an approach consistent with the million-dollar one. In general, I know that a lot of articles just write the full figures as Box Office Mojo or The Numbers report them, but I think rounding is beneficial because it is less clunky to use in prose, and we don't need that granularity (knowing how many tens of thousands for a film grossing millions). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The "million" seems to be the fundamental unit in film finance, so precision to 1 decimal place of that unit seems to be sensible to me. In a scientific/economic context the general rule of thumb is to allow one extra degree of precision beyond what you actually need, so if further calculations are performed on the figures the inaccuracies that creep in only affect the numbers after the required level of precision. However, that is only a soft rule because you may need more precision depending on the context i.e. records that are separated by a greated degree of precision/sums that are close to a significant threshold/films that earn less than a million etc. It seems to me no-one is actually arguing against roundin here, it's just a disagreement over the general level of precision. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "For films that are less than $1 million, though, I tend to report the full number" - This. Also on the rationale that we write "minutes" and not "min" in the runtime field, as there's space to do so and no good reason not to.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest for $10,000 up to (but not including) $1,000,000 that one can use the thousands value to 1 decimal point, akin to the above millions to one decimal point. Below $10,000, the exact number makes sense (if such a thing can exist for films). --M ASEM (t) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be remembered that MOS:LARGENUM, like all else here at WikiP, is a guideline not a hard and fast rule. Also, several of the examples given at the guideline use precise numbers. IMO if the reference gives exact figures there is no reason that we shouldn't use those. If we are going to start rounding those numbers up or down the we should include the words "over" or "under" with the number we put in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If I may, I'll list dummy figures so we can see what to do with them:
 * $1,234,567,891 → $1.2 billion or $1.23 billion or $1.235 billion
 * $123,456,789 → $123.5 million
 * $12,345,678 → $12.3 million (is this right?)
 * $1,234,567 → $1.2 million
 * $123,456 → $123,456 or $123.4 thousand or $123 thousand
 * $12,345 → $12,345 or $12.3 thousand or $12 thousand
 * $1,234 → $1,234
 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The numbers come from databases, so they are going to be precise. However, in journalistic coverage, rounding takes place, as seen here. That's why I favor rounding box office figures in running text. I'd prefer to do that in the infobox too, but maybe the infobox figures could be precise with the running-text figures being rounded. I don't know if that jibes with others. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Using the terminology "Over/Under 1.2 million" works well in the text but clutters the infobox. Thus, my preference would be for precision in the infobox and flexibility in the text. That is just me though so whatever everyone else agrees on will be fine. MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A consideration is that you will have the box office numbers which are normally reported to the dollar, but then you have production values which are rarely 2-3 significant figures. In the infobox, I find it jarring to have the "exact" box office next to the rough production estimate, and so one consideration would be to try to normalize these values, where appropriate. Eg Captain America: The First Avenger, instead of how it is now, I'd rather see the box office to "$371 million" so that I can easily see that the box office was about 3 times the production cost, a quick metric on the film's financial success. --M ASEM  (t) 19:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * for a better comparison sake, do we put everything in the gross into terms of a million? For example instead of $1,234,567,891 being listed as $1.235 billion, it has been suggested by at least one editor to use something like $1,234.6 million, which also would suggest $123,456 could be compared better as $0.1235 million. I don't think it is done in accounting much, but it would make the grosses easier to compare (if that is the intent) if they were all put into units of millions of dollars. Personally I would prefer the billion and thousands, but I can live with either one.192.122.250.248 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think $1,000 million is better than $1 billion in word form just so it's explicitly clear: depending on which country you come from and which generation you come from a "billion" can either mean 1000 million or 1 million million. I think when you are dealing which numbers it's best not to use terminology that can potentially confuse people, which could potentially happen if we don't provide the full figure. That's just my preference though; there is no policy or guideline backing that view up. As for "thousands", 100,000 is the same everywhere so there is no reason to decimalise it to a million. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like MOS:NUMERAL says, "billion and trillion are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 and 1012, respectively." Based on this, I think it would be better to use the term "billion" in film articles like Frozen. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The MOS is there to tell us how to write articles, but they are not very useful in telling readers how to read articles. Therefore, if I write "1 billion" then it should use the short scale, but that doesn't mean there won't be confusion over how it's read! As you can see at Long_and_short_scales, usage is divided across the world and so is the English Wikipedia's readership so frankly I don't see how that MOS guideline helps readers at all. I suppose this is where there is an advantage to having the precise figure. Betty Logan (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do believe it's better to stick to the million though, only because we've (yet) to see a movie with a >billion (10^9) dollar budget even though the box office can exceed that. Again, like with Frozen, I would think it is much clearly and easily to understand in the infobox to say:
 * Budget:	 $150 million
 * Box Office: $1,169 million
 * I can tell immediately that the film drew nearly a magnitude over the budget and can tell how successful that was, than if the box office was "$1.17 billion". --M ASEM (t) 17:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Footloose plot section
Could someone who saw Footloose give the article a plot section? It's completely blank and not there for some reason. Surely no one is crying spoilers after 30 years? Rusted AutoParts 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was removed by an IP editor by vandalism, and the editor that removed the vandalism didn't restore the plot. I reverted the article to the last complete version. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rusted AutoParts 14:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Describing WP:FILMPLOT as a guideline at Manual of Style/Writing about fiction
Opinions are needed on this matter (WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. It's mainly about whether or not it's best to describe WP:FILMPLOT as a guideline or to convey it as advice, but the discussion touches on other things as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Drivers Wanted (Documentary) and Drivers Wanted
Dear film experts: It looks to me as though the mainspace article here has information about two different films. I'd like to move the Afc draft to mainspace as "Drivers Wanted (2012 film), remove the information about the documentary from the current article, and create a disambiguation page. Does anyone see a problem with this? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Be bold!  It definitely should be broken into two separate articles, since the two pieces of film have absolutely nothing to do with one another.Onel5969 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's done. There is now Drivers Wanted (2012 film) and Drivers Wanted (disambiguation). &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Film At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wanted GA reassessment
I've opened a community GA reassessment of Wanted. The article has had quite a fall from grace since its promotion in 2009, and I believe it needs to be demoted.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  11:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for change in template i.e. addition of field to allow the name of lyricist (Song writer)
Editors, I've noticed that the current InfoBox template for films does reasonably well for Hollywood films and for other World Cinema. However, in the context of Indian cinema, song, dance and music are integral to the film's success. Even before the movie is released, the song videos are used widely and aggressively to promote the film. Not only is the music composer critical to the film but equally important is the lyricist (the songwriter); there may or may not be a choreographer for all the songs. The current Wikipedia InfoBox template for films currently allows name of music composer, but it does not allow for the name of lyricist. This is my earnest request to please make room for lyricist/s - who play a very important role towards the success of Indian Films - and to be allowed on the template. Indian cinema is just as popular in the world outside of South Asia. Songs are not songs without the words, right? I feel due credit should be given to those who write these songs hummed by millions. To cite an example, I also looked at the Slumdog Millionnaire page. While the music composer's name features within the infobox, the notable awarding winning songwriter's name does not feature as prominently, precisely for the reason I elaborated on earlier. This is just one example. I'd really appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks a bunch, editors. :) Pictowrit (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)pictowrit

Category:Millennium Entertainment films
Category:Millennium Entertainment films, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Film poster descriptions
If you go to the article on, for example, Jaws and hover over the image of the poster in the infobox, you get a detailed description of said poster. I was curious as to weather there's any sort of rules or regulations governing this.

Americanfreedom (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , there is a help page here: Alternative text for images. You can add a description by including the  field in the film infobox. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To add on, WP:CAPTION says in the second paragraph of the lead section, "In addition to a caption, alt text—for visually impaired readers—should be added to informative (but not purely decorative) images." Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You beat me to the answer E :-) I have wondered if - with the updates to the software over the years - it still works for visually impaired readers the way it used to. MarnetteD | Talk 01:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like they do. You can use this tool on an article, and I assume readers can extract that text in a similar way. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and the link. Good to know. MarnetteD | Talk 01:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Epic films at CfD
Please see the discussion here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Production company in film infobox
I am proposing that we add a "Production company" field to the film infobox. The proposal can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A couple of editors have shared their thoughts about the proposal. Other editors are invited to comment. The proposal has to do with adding a "Production company" field to the film infobox to make better use of the "Studio" and "Distributed by" fields where applicable. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been a week since the last comment in this discussion. More editors are welcome to weigh in to see if there is a consensus for this new field. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Navigation templates
In the guidelines, we endorse navigation templates for directors but not for actors. The guidelines do not say anything about producers and screenwriters. I've been seeing template creep in which director templates are being converted into more general templates, showing the person's credits as a producer, as a screenwriter, or both. There are even screenwriter-only templates like Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. I assume this kind of thing is not very visible to most of us since we do not normally watchlist templates. I feel like we are bloating the footer with such expanded templates when the internal links to the filmmakers' pages are sufficient. What are other editors' thoughts about their usage? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Directors are often regarded as the "primary author" of a film; there are exceptions (George Lucas and Star Wars for example) but I think exceptions should only ever be treated as a special case when they occur. I certainly don't agree that we need producer and screenwriter navboxes on each and every film article. If you have too many navboxes on an article you dilute their effectiveness. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Guillermo del Toro? How much of the non-directed stuff should we include? (Same goes for other editors.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I know that this discussion has come up before, but nothing came of it. Does it create template clutter? Is there a downside to having sections for directed/wrote/produced in the same template?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Navigation templates are supposed to be bidirectional, so if we include a link in a navigation template, that article should have the navigation template in its footer. For Guillermo del Toro, he was one of the four writers for The Desolation of Smaug, so his template is inserted at The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, even though he last touched the trilogy in May 2010. (And look, we have Fran Walsh too, whose template is probably repeated across everything she's been involved in.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether you subscribe to auteur theory or not I suppose the idea behind our navboxes is to link films that are often discussed as a set by reliable sources. This usually applies to directors which is why director boxes are commonplace; the concept occasionally applies to other disciplines too (producers like George Lucas, and maybe writers like Charlie Kaufman and David Mamet). Personally I don't think we even need navboxes for every director, just those where substantial reliable sources discuss their work collectively; in the case of something like The Empire Strikes Back the George Lucas navbox makes more sense to me than the Irvin Kirshner one. I think we can probably turn a blind eye to the "non-auteur" director navboxes since for better or for worse they have become an established feature on film articles but in the case of producers and writers etc I think a rationale should be presented to justify the existence of the box. As for something like del Toro's navbox personally I would strip it back down to director credits only. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything that you said about director boxes. I'd also like to see writing and producing credits rolled back, but I'm hoping for additional input before taking broad action. (For example, I was just looking at Edge of Tomorrow (film) and noticed Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci in the footer; they seem to be screenwriters of no real repute.) Whether or not we update the guidelines based on the additional input, I think it would be a good idea to watchlist such templates so they do not get bloated again. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've put Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci up for deletion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the non-directing credits from Christopher McQuarrie, but I was reverted. I started a discussion here: Template talk:Christopher McQuarrie. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * On a related note, what should we do about directorial works other than feature films? Template:Steven Spielberg also includes amateur films, short films, an anthology film where Spielberg directed only a segment, and even a television episode. Is there any consensus on whether each of these should be included? —Flax5 10:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Country of Origin edit war at Batman Begins
Editor is removing the claim of British co-production and the sources to verify it. Refuses to engage anywhere other than my own talk page (I reverted this nonsense once it became clear it was just the usual wiki-trap to isolate the reverter so as to press 3rr claims). I'm over the revert limit that shouldn't exist when one is revert edits that violate policy. Started a thread on it on the talk page as I didn't find any old ones in the archives. Any extra eyeballs that would like to watch the situation are welcome. I'm off to watch some terribad TV and trim a plot summary or something. Millahnna (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion: Talk:Batman Begins. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If any admins are watching the page, I request a review of 's edits. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * He has been "reviewed". Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Films by studio or distributor at CfD
Please see the discussion here.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FLC for American Hustle accolades page
and I have had List of accolades received by American Hustle up as a featured list candidate for over a month now, and we though we received some very helpful comments from The Rambling Man, we haven't had any real closure yet. If anyone would be willing to leave comments or reviews that would be fantastic! I'd be happy to do a quid pro quo, as well. Thank you in advance!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Film reception
I came across this a few days ago (it's a counterpart to Template:Album ratings) and have cleaned up the code (well, as best as I could) and the documentation. If anybody wants to use this, please do. I've got an example started up at Departures, although it's still a work in progress. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the project was opposed to such rating tables, as per this deletion discussion. BOVINEBOY 2008 09:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted, I didn't create this on my own, just fixed a (very) broken template. I was unaware of the previous discussions (thanks for the link), but believe that the template is useful for readers if used properly. I've filled out a decent example in the Departures article, and I think it looks fairly good (and, as explicitly recommended in the documentation, it is accompanied by a detailed prose section). Of course, if anyone wants to TFD this, that's fine too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These templates pop up periodically. We are generally against them since they encourage "user-built" aggregators. They have sprung up in the past and keep getting deleted; see Template:Film reviews and Template:Film ratings. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Betty. I looked into that when Bovineboy gave me the TFD link above, and I see the arguments (not to say that I agree with them, but I do see the point). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with not using this kind of template. The review aggregator methodologies are too convoluted to just report the figures; I think they need to be written out every time. I've also never seen star ratings as important information, especially when we are doing a balanced sampling to give an idea of what the majority of critics thought and what the minority thought. I find that we do sampling because there are not always sources to assess collectively what critics thought. If we do have such sources, though, individual reviews become less important, IMO. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Jackie Chan film template
Please see the discussion here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tamil film categories
I'm a bit concerned with Category:Tamil films by year which seems to break our golden rule of film categorization. Has the time come to split the year categories by industry like Category:American films of 1952 or should these be nuked? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good find . These should all be deleted (well, upmerged). I nominated a bunch of these before. Must have missed these ones.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should probably be upmerged to categories by decade. Most of the categories such as Category:1970s Tamil-language films already exist. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you rid of them manually or use AWB or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I can setup a group nomination to get them deleted per the previous rationale/existing consensus. I'll get round to it in the next few weeks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

. I've also found Category:Lists of Kannada films by year..♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lists of films by year is a different story. All of the other languages in Category:Indian films by language that are broken down into sub-categories, have a category for lists of films by year. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, sorry!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Dollars in film articles and Infoboxes (Revisited)
There is an archive discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_52. The issues of the MOS:LARGENUM remains an issue when rounding numbers in articles. There has been a minor "editing war" and discussion at Talk:Anchorman_2:_The_Legend_Continues. It would be helpful if some consensus were reached for film grosses in the main article and also in the infobox (and we may choose to have different styles for each) and explicitly give them in MOS:LARGENUM and in Template:Infobox film so they can be referred to. My understanding is that style guidelines are there to help make articles consistent. My presumption is that if there is a style that it applies unless something is explicitly excluded, or the editors justify and gain a consensus opinion to not use a particular style. I think some additional guidelines could help prevent further issues with editing. AbramTerger (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think generally three/four significant figures are enough for most films in prose based articles. That would allow us precision to a million dollars (plus an extra rounding digit) for most big studio films down to possibly thousands for a low-grossing/costing independent films. I would support it as a general rule of thumb, with the caveat that sometimes the context can affect the level of precision. I know that the main MOS supports rounding but it wouldn't hurt to add clarify this for MOSFILM. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Film director categories at CfD
There are several film director categories currently at CfD. The discussions start here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Franchise potential section at the Frozen (2013 film) article
Comments are needed on this matter (WP:Permalink) -- the length of the Franchise potential section of the Frozen (2013 film) article; see Talk:Frozen (2013 film) to weigh in. The article is currently nominated for WP:GA status. Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Class reassessment for Walt Disney Animation Studios
It's a while since you guys rated it C-class. As quite a lot of improvements have been made, please go check it out again. Please feel free to voice your opinions on the talk page!Forbidden User (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I didn't go through all of it, but as I started, there are still issues with the citations.  For example the 1980s has quite a few statements which should be referenced (e.g Roger Rabbit Oscars, info on the Black Cauldron)... the 1970s doesn't have a single citation.  But there are also items in the 1960s, 2000s, 2010s all of which should be cited.  I would pass it on the structure requirement, which it had earlier failed.  I didn't check it on the grammar and style, but if the citations get taken care of, I will.  Onel5969 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Which cast members to include in Harry Potter film articles?
There's a discussion brewing here regarding which cast members are appropriate for inclusion on the HP film articles. My understanding is that consensus here is that, when all else fails, stick with the primary-billed cast, though including others may be appropriate if sources took note of them in a significant manner. In any event, there's some question as to whether there's a previous consensus on how the cast lists for the films should be handled, and additional voices would probably be helpful. DonIago (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:Cars (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

film article listing every single newspaper review it got
The reference section is called Endnotes, and then you have a section called References which list dozens of film reviews. I tried to remove this nonsense, but got reverted. Is there any other film article that does this? Please scroll through that section and just see how long it is.  D r e a m Focus  07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article does not "list every single newspaper review it got". It's not a "list" at all, at least not in a simple sense. It's how the citation system works. The footnote gives a short link to the main citation in the references column. It's the usual citation system of featured articles. If you delete the reference column (or "list") then the footnote no longer points to the target, because the target has gone. There are problems with this system for sure, but that's endemic to the system, not any particular article. If the in-line citation is removed, the target will remain as a "left over" serving no purpose. Likewise people will add new notes using the more familiar "ref" brackets, which do not point to a target in the list of cited texts. So there is often a mix of footnoting styles. I find the system cumbersome and problematic, but you can't solve problems without going through each footnote systematically, which would take aeons. Paul B (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Paul is right, it uses the short footnote system to link the cites to a bibliogaphy. Personally I think editors should only use the system for books, but the bottom line is you can't just delete the section because you will lose all the article sources. Betty Logan (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, my mistake. Instead of having it the normal way where you can click on the references in the article and then see the reference directly, you instead have this nonsense where it links to something else, and from there you can click to the reference beneath.  D r e a m Focus  08:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, it's important to note that the MOS does not dictate a particular referencing style; it only forbids arbitrarily changing the style used in an article. The sfn style used in the article you're taking issue with minimizes the templates in running text and allows for multiple cites to the same book without repeating all of that data, but requires an extra click to reach the book/web source to which it is cited. The "normal way" you mentioned has its own benefits (reference data being right next to the information it supports, a single click to reach the cited source) but also its own shortcomings (it's hell to edit the running prose when there are so many references together, and to repeat a book cite usually we must repeat a lot of reference information). Some people choose one, some choose the other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a pretty shit way to do that TBH. No doubt a change to that way of doing references will be shot down quicker than a raise for school teachers.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet (2013 Broadway play)
Oddly BoxOfficeMojo.com has no box office results for this even though The Huffington Post says it was to be released in 2000 theatres. Can anyone help me find theatre (movie not Broadway) box office results for Romeo and Juliet (2013 Broadway play). Leave comments at Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet_(2013_Broadway_play).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be because it is a play and not a film. Just sayin'. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , Almost missed your comment because it was on the wrong page. I will reply there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Brave Little Toaster (film) copyedit
I've been working really hard on the Wikipedia page this forgotten animated film masterpiece. I would really appreciate for someone to copyedit it, and perhaps help me to find and utilise new sources. Thank you. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Using WorldCat.org (in which you can find book chapters about films), I found these: Resilient appliances : sound, image and narrative in The brave little toaster and Time out of mind : the animation of obsolescence in The brave little toaster. There's also this academic piece: The Brave Little Toaster from Print to Film: Obsolescent Appliances and Capitalist Allegories. Looking at Google Books, it looks like there are a lot more mentions. You can search for the film title and certain keywords (like people's names), as well as filter for books in a given year (e.g., filter for 2011 to see the best results in that year). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Erik. Is there a way to access these sources for free?--Coin945 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The academic piece is free. As for the book chapters, you'd have to get them at a library. It depends on how far you want to take this article. If you want to strive for Featured status, these chapters should at least be vetted to ensure that the topic was well-researched. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice. I've never been one to take an article all the way to FA before, so perhaps someone on this project can build off the work I have done. Or another article I have recently improved: Dreamworks' Joseph: King of Dreams, the prequel to Prince of Egypt.--Coin945 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language films - bolding of title
Should the intro to a foreign language film have the original language title in bold? WP:NCF states: "However, the first time it is used, follow it immediately with the original title in brackets, bolded...". But MOS:FORLANG states: "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology". (My emphasis in bold in both cases). Should the MOS for WP:NCF reflect MOS:FORLANG, or is this an exception?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We bold alternate titles and I think that this would fall under that umbrella. Film titles are a bit different foreign names. If we need to amend the WP:MOSFILM to allow for bolding of these titles I would Support this. I will be interested to see what others have to say. MarnetteD | Talk 18:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this may depend on whether the title is ever used in the English language. For instance, we bold À bout de souffle at Breathless (1960 film) because the title is sometimes used by English language sources, but we don't bold 千と千尋の神隠し at Spirited Away because it is never used to identify the work in the English language. Betty Logan (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Most overrated films ever made?
The Telegraph newspaper has published a list of the "most overrated films ever made", and User:Mikeblas is proceeding to add content based on this list to the followings articles:


 * The Departed
 * Videodrome
 * The Double Life of Veronique
 * Slumdog Millionaire
 * Ikiru
 * Million Dollar Baby
 * Amarcord
 * Network
 * Skyfall
 * Inception

I feel inclusion of this opinion is WP:UNDUE.The purpose of the reception section in articles is to record prominent opinions, not every single opinion published. This article isn't a collective opinion (like the Sight & Sound or Time Out polls) it is just one guy giving his opinion. UNDUE states that if an opinion forms a mainstream view we should be able to "substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts", and if it is a significant view we should be able to name "prominent adherents" i.e. we should only include a critical viewpoint if it is shared by other critics. I haven't even seen some of these movies, but I honestly don't think we should be labeling them the "most overrated films ever" unless other critics also feel this way too. I would like to see what other Film editors feel about this? If I am out of step with what other project members think then fair enough, but I was always under the impression that we didn't include singular opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I havent read the piece but if it is an opinion piece, which it sounds like, I dont think it should be used as a source, even with the qaulifer of "the critic Myles O'Pinion in the --insert RS newspaper name-- listed the movie in his top ten overated movies" it still gives undue. Murry1975 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with your reasoning is that you'll never find specific enough concensus because you've focused on the way the review was expressed. If we consider "most overrated" to simply be "disappointing" or "not as good as I had hoped", then there are plenty of collaborating opinons. The details expressed in the referenced article outline reasons that the referenced author arrived at that opinon, and there's overlap between those detailed opinons and the other cited opinons. A single sentence describing the opinion of another reviewer is not only not undue, it's goes to provide balance in the article. Further, the opinion goes to define the reception of the film after time has passed -- which establishes its residual value and longevity. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the cited author's opinion is prominent: he's been doing film-related reviews and interviews for The Telegraph for almost 15 years. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No...the critic is prominent, that doesn't make the opnion prominent. If Stephen Hawking suddenly came out in favor of creationism it would still be a fringe opinion. UNDUE is quite clear what "prominent" means in this sense: it either has to be the mainstream view, or a view with "prominent adherents". I have no problem with minority opinions—there are plenty of films out there that are either well reviewed or criticised by a minority of critics—but I do take issue with solitary opinions. You are adding a very specific claim to the articles: that these films are regraded in some sense to be among the "most overrated films ever". If that view is shared by other critics fair enough, but if it is a view held by a single solitary critic then it does not belong in the encylopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If a prominent critic gives a outlying (not prominent) view, that really should be included in the article as a reliable outlyier viewpoint. --M ASEM (t) 16:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think you could've done better than picking such a contoversial straw-man argument to make your case. It should be obvious that Stephen Hawking isn't the only one in favor of creationism; The Telegraph author isn't the only one who thinks Skyfall or the nine others were a overrated movies. As you ask below, citing that author identifies a prominent adherent. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Betty, the edits in question seem to be a simple statement about another critic's opinion of the film, along with an appropriate reference. I don't see the problem with including it in the critical reception section, along with any other critic's opinions. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm here because of Betty's removal of this at Inception, where there is several "best of" discussions describing the film's longer-term view, but there's no reason that a negative long-term concept such as the over-rated-ness of a film shouldn't also be included (to balance NPOV) as long as its a prominent reviewer making said claim. For Inception, there's a lot of forum/blog posts on the same point and I certainly wouldn't be trying to support that view on those sources alone, but this is a different situation. --M ASEM (t) 17:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Fortdj33 The purpose of the reception section is to document significant strands of critical thinking, and we quote critics that are consistent with those lines of thought to provide some insight into the nature of those reviews. If the film makes several best/worst film lists then it's ok to mention that because there is a certain level of critical consensus, but just documenting an extreme opinion simply because it is an extreme opinion goes against the spirit of UNDUE. This sets a very poor precedent because it means we will end up quoting insignificant opinions crapping all over classic films simply because they are insignificant opinions, which is the direct opposite of what we are supposed to do. Betty Logan (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not really, if and only if the opinion is coming from a source otherwise considered prominent. If the opinion was coming from an unknown or questionable source, then yes, you're absolutely right that quoting them is UNDUE (in video games, we deal with this all the time when user opinion differs from the normal critical reception). You're essentially arguing that if a major reviewer (let's say, Gene Shalit for a sake of a prominent name) greatly disliked a film while every other reviewed loved it, we shouldn't include Shalit's commentary because it's not the norm. That's not how good reception sections are written; the important outlyiers should be included (both when good or bad) as long as these would be the normal types of sources we'd build a reception section out of. --M ASEM (t) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What you are advocating is that you can add anything that a reliable source espouses but that is not the case. WP:V stipulates "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." The policy on neutrality is quite specific when it comes to documenting points of view: if an opinion is held by a significant minority then it should be possible to name prominent adherents; if it does not then it does not belong on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. First, I'm qualifying that we need to be talking about major reviewers, not just any reviewer; while "The Smalltown Gazette" may be a reliable source, its very unlikely its reviewer will be a prominent one, and so I'd not include that. Giving weight to one of these would be considered UNDUE in that fashion. Second, reception sections need to summarize the major sources (that's what encyclopedia should do), and if there is a major source that is in high disagreement with the rest of the sources, that should be highlighted, not ignored, as to provide a recognized source giving a contrary opinion to the popular one. That in no way is a violation of NPOV or UNDUE, that's actually what should be happening to provide an accurate summary of the sources. --M ASEM  (t) 18:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No mention of The Goonies, Apocalypse Now or Blade Runner? I doubt the validity of this list.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First problem is in the wording "Most overrated" means that other reviewers, to date, are "wrong" in what they have said and say about the films. There is no way to verify that. Although the edits state that it is the "The Telegraph" is claiming these films are overrated the only name on the article is Tim Robey's. That leads to the next problem as he speaks in the third person throughout. That is an old old trick where he tries to convince the reader that many people have the same opinion as he does. Again there is no way to verify that. At least one of the reviews (Ikiru) he spends most of his time praising the film and his only criticism is that it isn't subtle. This certainly violates WP:UNDUE to say nothing of the fact that it displays a shocking lack of understanding that what was subtle in the past (especially 1950's Japan) may not be considered subtle today. All of the reviews of the films from the last century fall prey to this lack of perspective and that violates WP:NPOV. All TR is doing is saying "the past is not all it is cracked up to be" and I have read and heard that before. It will happen to Robey in due time. Lastly, although far from 100% we do try to give context to the reviews - positive or negative - in our reception sections, by quoting from them. That lead to the last big problem for me. TR is spending as much time discussing (mocking in most cases) the previous statements of the critics and scholars who have commented on the film in the past, as he is commenting on the film itself. That means those parts of his column are not relevant to the film's article. There may be parts of his column that can be used in the articles just not the edits as they currently stand. MarnetteD | Talk 04:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. One person posting a list somewhere of his personal opinions, isn't really something that we need to add to an article.    D r e a m Focus  04:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no way to verify that the other reviewers were wrong because there's no way to verify that they were correct in the first place. A review is a matter of opinion (mostly). There might be consensus, but popularity is irrelevant to correctness. Any critical review of art is substantially a personal opinon. Some justify their opinions better than others, though it's quite disingenuous to discard the notion of posting reviews from people just because you disagree with their treatment of a single title. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikiru is but one example of the problems with TR's comments. Indeed, did you not read the sentence "All of the reviews of the films from the last century fall prey to this lack of perspective and that violates WP:NPOV." Thus, I was not being disingenuous and it is quite improper of you to suggest this. MarnetteD | Talk 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Marnette has done a much better job of summarising the issues than I did. To just focus on his Ikiru example for instance, according to TheyShootPictures (p.253 of a very long list) 91 critics placed the film in their lists of favorite or greatest films and we don't list all of them. Betty Logan (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Inception, I've found at least two RS (but not from prominent reviewers) that discuss the idea of that film being overrated, before this article came out, in addition to numerous forum threads/blog posts. I could see on Ikiru this being a fringe view, but it's not an out-there idea for Inception. --M ASEM (t) 05:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

By definition, saying that you think a film is overrated just says that most people liked a film a lot more than you did. To call a film one of the most overrated is to say that this is a film where your own assessment of it disagrees most significantly with what most reviewers think. So by definition, thinking a film is one of the "most overrated" is to say that your view is a fringe minority view. When deciding what reviews to quote from or to present in a film article's "reception" section, the goal is to fairly represent the general reception of it. Sometimes mentioning minority views can help, but it often can provide undue weight to a fringe opinion. If Robey's assessment that a film is one of the most overrated is worth noting at all (and it might not be), then it will only help a reader of the article if something is said about why he thinks it is overrated. So unless there are particular things he says about a given film it would improve a reception section to add, mentioning his list is not likely to help any of the articles. Whether any of the specific things he says about a film should be included in the reception section should be judged the same way any pull quotes are assessed: Not all reviewers need to be quoted and the ones who are quoted should together represent the general reception of the film. 99.192.71.210 (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are obvious problems with undue weight here. If, in a reception section with ~4 paragraphs of material for a film that is generally well received, one spends 3-4 sentences to outline a single negative review from one person, that's a problem. One sentence, on the other hand, is reasonable particularly if from a prominent critic. No one is saying that every single prominent critic's review has to be mentioned - that list is far too long to use practical - but what should be done is to give as best a capture of the breadth of opinions from the prominent critics, not just the majority views, as that is how you get the NPOV balance. But again, how much weight to give the the extreme views should be based on how many do talk about it. If one prominent critic out of 100 has a contrary view, I'd expect no more than a sentence. If 10 out of a 100, then I'd be'd expecting a paragraph.
 * Also, a thought game is to turn this around: if there is a film that is "universally" disliked and there was a prominent critic that put it on their top underrated film list, we should still highlight that. I have a feeling that the current situation is because, fairly, the films on the telegraph list are beloved films of film buffs (editors here) and it is hard to put in material that soils that reputation, but it needs to be done. I doubt anyone would blink in my hypothetical for disliked films. --M ASEM (t) 13:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems few understood my concluding sentence. The edit that is currently in the article reads "In April 2014, The Daily Telegraph placed the title on their top ten list of the most overrated films." This is both misleading - since it is only Robey's opinions and not the editorial staff - and WP:UNDUE since none of his contentions are put into context. Snippets of his comments could be added to the receptions section explaining why he thought the films were overrated. That puts things into context with the other reviews in those sections. MarnetteD | Talk 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguably if Robey's the Telegraph's go-to for movie reviews and allowing him to be his mouth piece, then it is the Guardian saying it, but I would completely agree it should be stated as Robey's comment. But, outside that, he actually does give content. Each film ,he cites the number of awards it won and pulls quotes from positive reviews, and then proceeds to dissect why each film, in his opinion, is overrated (eg for Inception, claiming that it does little to capture the nature of dreaiming in favor of big Bond-like setpieces). There's certainly context provided, compared to other less reliable lists I've seen where they would just plop a list 1 through 10 and give zero comments. --M ASEM (t) 15:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) What you say in the first paragraph there (13:45, 2 June 2014) sounds generally right, but that makes me wonder about the decision to include the "most overrated" line in all ten articles. If you happened to be looking at any one of those film articles and thought "There does not seem to be the right balance of positive to negative reviews mentioned here. I think I'll find an additional negative one to strike a better balance" then I would believe that this is what you were doing. But what really seems to have happened is you read the article with the "most overrated" list and then decided that it was worth adding to every one of the ten pages for films mentioned regardless of the balance of reception already on the page. So I don't buy the justification you give.


 * The thought experiment does not help. I already thought about that and come to the conclusion that it would fall into the same boat. If some critic made a list claiming that Jack and Jill is one of the most underrated films and actually quite good, I'd say it's similarly an outlier view that does not need to be automatically added to the article.


 * As for your claim that everyone who disagrees with you is biased by a desire not to spoil the reputation of films we personally love, two of the ten films on the list are ones I have never seen and probably won't ever see, two are ones I really don't remember anything about even though I saw them, three more are ones I liked but did not think were great films, two were ones I liked a lot, and one is one I think is vastly overrated. If you can see a bias in that range of views of the films, then more power to you. 99.192.71.210 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Very good point IP. A few of the films were not that highly rated at the time of their release. MarnetteD | Talk 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As to Masem's last post - None of that context that you mention is in Wikipedia's articles at this time. Do you have some objection to adding it? Is there some objection to using Robey's name instead of the papers? The papers name and his could even be used together. In case it was missed I am trying to work towards a compromise. It would be nice if others were too. MarnetteD | Talk 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If a mention of the "most overrated" list is needed in any of the ten articles (and really that is a question that should be taken on a case-by-case basis and decided based on whether or not there is already the right mix of review quotes in the reception sections to accurately reflect the range and pattern of reviews a film got) then it should be mentioned like this: "Tim Robey of The Telegraph writes ..." That is how reviewers are (or should be) typically mentioned in articles. Also, the "..." should be some comment of substance from the article, not just the mention of being on a "most overrated" list. Saying a film is overrated does not actually say if you thought it was good. I think that Slumdog Millionaire was a good film and would recommend it, but I also think it is vastly overrated. It's good, not great. So to say that Robey called it overrated does not tell you what he thought of the film. It only only tells you what he thought of other reviews of the film. 99.192.71.210 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the Telegraph article with Robey's list, he explains what the film's common reception is, and why he feels its overrated; this is over 3 paragraphs for each film, so there is substance for the claim; this is why I added the one quote (how it doesn't capture what dreams are like) to summarize his thoughts. I'd be in complete agreement that if Robey's just listed the titles and gave no justification, yes, I'd be all in favor of bypassing it. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point. Saying it is overrated is a review of the reviews, not a review of the film. I can think that a film is overrated and think that it is a good film, as I do with Slumdog Millionaire. If you mention the list in a film article but do not quote anything he says about the film then you have not informed the reader whether the "review" of the film was positive or negative. As has been pointed out above, He seems to think Ikiru is a good film despite calling it overrated. So to only say on that film's page that he called it "overrated" will mislead people into thinking he has a negative view of the film. He does not. He just has a negative view of the reviews of the film. 99.192.71.210 (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's why you can't just say "Robey called the film overrated." and leave it at that (that point I think we all agree on). But there is enough in that list to pull in why he thinks its overrated above and beyond his own impression of the film, whether that impression itself is positive or negative to start. Several of these further read as his own reflections on Robey's past reviews, looking at things in hindsight himself and considering what everyone else had to say (consider he gave Inception 4 stars on release, he's certainly going back now with the idea "Wow, everyone thought that was a great movie about dreams, but there was little about dreams in it"). As long as we have something to pull from to expand beyond the claim it was an overrated film, then we are able to give context. --M ASEM (t) 16:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've no problem saying "The Telegraph's Robey listed..." over "The Telegraph listed...". It's more clear that it is one person in the employ of the major paper. I'm just saying that technically the latter is not "wrong" if Robey is their go-to for films, but the former is a much clearer way of saying it. --M ASEM (t) 15:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, some excellent points on both sides. First, I agree that the prominence of the person making the statement (or in this case, the list) is definitely important.  If the list is from A.O. Scott, that has a lot more weight than a list put out by the critic for the Teaneck Suburbanite (my small, hometown weekly paper).  Second, the fact that there is support from other reviewers tends to lend credence to the list.  Third, the reference should definitely be to the critic, and not the paper.  The latter is disingenuous.


 * Having said all that, I'm still not convinced that a single list by a single reviewer is notable enough to be included in an article. I don't care if the list was created by Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert.  If it is the sole source for that opinion, it is simply the opinion of that person.  Are there other lists similar to this?  Do they include many of the same films?  If there are, then I would lean towards inclusion in the articles, for then the wording could be along the lines, "The film is considered by some prominent critics, such as Robey, as one of the most over-rated films ..."  Anyway, that's my .02.  Onel5969 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Despite rave reviews and impressive box-office figures, these 10 films just don't live up to the hype, says Tim Robey." I think this sums it up perfectly at least for me. It shows that its an opinion piece by Tim Robey. His opinion on the subject seems like it is fringe. Which could explain the comments section which was negative when I first read the piece is closed? (could just be my side.) Anyways there is nothing in wikipedia that states that we should not report fringe. As long as its notable enough to report. Which to me seems the case. Its a reliable source and it seems that the man who wrote this is an authority when it comes to movies. So in conclusion I do not see any problem it is added to wikipedia as long as the name Tim Robey is presented with it. NathanWubs (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Next (2007 film) page move discussion
Please see the discussion here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Satanism continued
Continuing from the previous discussion, I agree with Betty Logan: Category:Occult films or Category:Films about the occult, would be suitable as "Satanism" would be too narrow of a category in terms of scope.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Christopher McQuarrie
Christopher McQuarrie has a template at Christopher McQuarrie. He has directed some films, but he is mainly a screenwriter. I started a discussion last month about whether or not navigation templates should have non-directing credits: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52. There is a discussion regarding the template here: Template talk:Christopher McQuarrie. Editors are invited to comment about how it should be structured. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * To piggy back on this discussion, I would like to point out that Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely exists as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It could follow the fate of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Just that for McQuarrie, he has directed as well as written screenplays. That means his template has to be structured a specific way instead of removed. Unfortunately, template edits are too behind-the-scenes to have a wider discussion about them. That's why these writer templates have proliferated without much attention. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Stoning of Soraya M.
There is an edit war brewing at The Stoning of Soraya M. over the authenticity of the source material. Other editors are invited to comment. A discussion thread can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT films may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Award navigation templates
See the award navigation templates at American Beauty (film). There are six award templates now, which to me seems to be too many. MOS:FILM does not talk about award templates at all. Do we need to restrict the use of award templates, either completely or to have only the "major" ones (Oscars, BAFTAs)? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I've moved it from American Beauty (film) to American Beauty (1999 film), per WP:NCF (there's a 1927 film of the same name). If anyone wants to help fixing the redirects, that would be great.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If it were up to me I'd get rid of award templates entirely. Two films happening to win the same award years apart doesn't bind them together or make them relevant to one another in any substantive way. Does American Beauty (1999 film) really have anything to do with West Side Story (film) or How Green Was My Valley (film)? That sort of information is much better suited to categories and list articles. The Sam Mendes navbox is the only one in that article that seems remotely useful to me. —Flax5 18:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me, I'd ride an A-bomb down onto a load of beatniks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Versions of Blade Runner Unsourced fancruft or encyclopedic info?
I was wondering if any of you guys could take a look at this article and tell me if my instincts are wrong in this. There's one other logged in editor who seems to keep an eye on the page regularly (we're tangentially helping each other keep an eye out for a particular disruptive IP who has attached him/herself to the article) but other than that I don't see a lot of editor traffic there that isn't questionable anon edits so I'd appreciate the extra eyeballs.

My concern is that the article is essentially these long lists of unsourced trivia due to anon editors attempts to list all of the differences between the various prints of the film. And I mean EVERY. SINGLE. DIFFERENCE. Like for serious. It's long bullet pointed lists that could probably be described more simply and in less excruciating detail in a paragraph of prose. I know when I've seen similar stuff pop up in standard film articles (DVD extras, for example) it's generally been frowned upon under reasons of sourcing, fancruft, listy mclists when prose would be better and a slew of other reasons. But given the film's iconic status and that fact that this article even needed to be spun off into its own thing, I'm truly not sure. As those of you who know me know, I mainly look for copyedit type text tweaks and plot summaries in my editing efforts. This sort of thing is a little out of my wheelhouse.

I'll start a talk page convo there for anyone who'd like to participate. Millahnna (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Left my comments at Talk:Versions_of_Blade_Runner. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment page
Hello, The requested reassessment page has some requests that are over 2 months old and I was hoping that someone could take a look and/or archive the requests.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Article request
Ready for Love (film) is a film with a 2-time Oscar nominee writer, a pair of 2-time Oscar nominee actresses, an Oscar nominee actor and a 3-time Emmy nomineee actress. I was hoping someone could stub this out from WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've seen you stub out tons of film articles. Can you take a look at this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Which year? There's


 * Ready for Love (1934 film)
 * Ready for Love (2007 film)
 * Ready for Love (2009 film)
 * Are You Ready for Love? (2006)

♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've started Ready for Love (1934 film). ♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of films by country
I was told today that the categories of films by country like Category:American films and Category:Japanese films are "all included" categories, where films are included in those categories even if they are also in one of the subcategories of those categories. This surprised me, since those don't seem to me to be the sort of categories that would be "all included" categories, and instead seem like the sort of large categories that should have entries diffused into smaller categories. At WP:DUPCAT, the examples of "all included" categories are relatively small categories where someone would be likely to want to see the whole category at once and know all of the members (e.g., Presidents of the United States, countries in Western Europe, bridges in New York City). However, the categories of films by country seem like large categories where someone wouldn't be able to view the entire category at once or know the complete contents of the category (e.g., Category:American films has over 20,000 entries). This seems much more like the example given at WP:DIFFUSE of music albums, where it is suggested that albums could be diffused into subcategories by things like date and genre. Is there a reason why the categories of films by country were made to be "all included" categories? It would make more sense to me to only place films into the subcategories by date and/or genre (e.g., Category:American action films or Category:1995 American films). Calathan (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have any opinion on this at all? Would anyone object to me changing those categories so that they aren't supposed to include all members of subcategories?  Can anyone explain to me why they were made to include all the members of subcategory in the first place? Calathan (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd have to gain consensus for that change. See also WP:FILMCAT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking me to that page. However, I'm a little confused by that page, as it seems to contradict what is actually done in practice.  The page suggests that films should be placed in only the most specific categories to which they belong, and not in the parent categories of those categories.  It also suggests that intersection categories by country and genre (e.g. American documentary films) can be created when a category grows too large in size.  The main text of that page doesn't seem to say anything about leaving films in categories like Category:American films if they are also in subcategories, and instead seems to imply that they should be removed from categories like Category:American films and placed in subcategories if categories like Category:American films are getting to large (i.e., the page seems to be saying to do what I'm proposing, and not what is done now).  While the page makes it clear that films should be categorized by year, country, and language, it doesn't make it clear to me that they should be left in the main year, country, and language categories in cases where they are in an intersection category of two of those criteria.  The exception to this is at the bottom of the page in the example wiki code where there is a comment that says "Please do not remove the 3 primary film categories -Year, Country, Language".  That comment seems to be the only reference to leaving films in categories like Category:American films even if they are in a subcategory.  I think the main text of WP:FILMCAT needs to be changed, as right now it seems to contradict the accepted way of categorizing films (assuming we don't come to a consensus here to change the accepted way of categorizing films).  Also, I'm not planning to make any changes without establishing a consensus.  One of the reasons I started this discussion is to establish a consensus for or against any changes (the other main reason was to understand why things are categorized the way they are now). Calathan (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we do it this way because that's how it's always been done! I doubt anyone can fully explain why, I know I certainly can't. As far as I am aware, on Wikipedia we generally remove parents of subtype categories and diffusing categories; the only exception is when we retain the parents of grouping categories. Before we start dicking around with the categorization though I would be interested in hearing the rationale for the current approach if anyone knows it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's your response, Betty, to a similar recent discussion. I know this has been raised many times before, so those discussions will be in the archives too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And this reply from Smetanahue, and I quote (and agree with) - "...but the films by country categories are extremely useful for the industries I follow, I use the related changes function all the time. Would be annoying to have to check every genre individually."  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I had ever noticed the related changes link before, but that does sound like something that could be useful. If people are really using the country categories in ways that require all of the films to be listed in one category, then it probably makes sense to keep them as they are.  I was just suggesting changing them because it seemed to be what the general categorization guidelines suggested.  However, I think if they are useful to some people as they are now, that is probably more important than following the guidelines.  As I said above, if they are kept the way they are, I think WP:FILMCAT should probably be updated, as at least to me it seems to say to do different things than what is actually done in practice. Calathan (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that parent categories should be NEVER used on Wikipedia in a redunant way. --Niemti (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The FP FAC
Hello film contributors! If any of you have a spare moment, an article I've put a lot of work into (The FP) is currently nominated for FA status. Click the link at the end of my signature to comment, if you please. All criticism is welcomed and encouraged! Thank you in advance.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  / Comment on The FP &#39; s FA nom! 01:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Winter Spring Summer Fall - North hemisphere centric?
So here's a weird question. I'm bringing it up here instead of at the article I noticed it at because it's something I'm seeing a lot of places right now (and across other projects, Video Games has it baaaaaad right now). If you check the edit history of Alpha and Omega (film), you'll see one poor editor fighting off hoards of IPs regarding the release date of a sequel (been trying to help but I'm usually beat to the punch on reverting the unsourced dates). But in watching the edits go back and forth, I had the thought that perhaps we shouldn't be using the word "spring" to describe the proposed release because, of course, Spring in North America is Fall in Australia (and I'd swear I recall a site wide policy describing this but cannot find it). Unfortunately, the sourced material is not any more clear than "Spring 2015". Is it ok because it's an American film so we'll go with their loose time approximate and local label? Should I go in there and give a little parenthetical indicator? And if so, how; (North American, Northern Hemisphere, "released in Spring in North America", etc?)? Can anyone think of the policy I'm thinking of? Anything I can think of to do seems super awkward or really wordy. Millahnna (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question! MOS:SEASON says to replace the season with the calendar period. Maybe you can say second quarter 2015? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd definitely say that "second quarter 2015" is appropriate in this case. Feel free to make this change anywhere else you see it, as well.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  / Comment on The FP &#39; s FA nom! 01:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Exactly the MOS bit I'd been remembering.  So I tweaked it, realized I did it wrong (because one Spring notation was actually a quote), and then fixed it.  It seems a little clunky but what can you do.  I wouldn't have thought of it at all except I'd read from a friend that lives there that the film is really popular in Oz.  And if he ever sends me the link he promised, I might even have a blurb about DVD sales in Aus/NZ being unusually high.  Millahnna (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As well, early, mid and late are also acceptable modifiers when using the quarters is a little murky (is if fiscal years? actual quarters of the year?). I believe early is generally though of as Jan-Apr, mid as May-Aug, and then late as Sep-Dec. Glad you worked it out though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it is worth noting that Hollywood movie "seasons" don't match up exactly to the proper seasons i.e. equinox to summer solstice. Box Office Mojo define the spring season to run from the first Friday in March, with the summer season formally starting on the first Friday in May. In truth, depending on how the terminology is being used it could range from the start of March to the end of June. If an actual date hasn't been set then specifying a vague period probably violates WP:CRYSTAL anyway; it may be better to just give the year and leave it at that until there is something more concrete. Betty Logan (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Second quarter should still match up to the Hollywood spring but it is starting to feel a bit like most rephrases are going to be a bit WP:ORish.  Maybe I should go back and change my tweak to say "early" 2015 (which I don't like because it's too open to interpretation) or just 2015, per your last suggestion.  Our article quotes the source (thus my having to fix one of my fixes) with the "spring" notation so the combination of the two should be reasonably clear.  Millahnna (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

List of fiction works made into feature films
These lists could use some tidying up (they don't link between one another for example), but before I take a look, what do we think of the title? I'd prefer "fictional". Also the brackets and ampersand at the end of "List of fiction works made into feature films (0-9) & (A-C)" don't sit quite right to me, but not sure how to improve these.

Sarasota Film Festival
Can anybody help re-build the Sarasota Film Festival with new sources? I took a look at it and the history section was basically a copy-and-paste copyvio of the about page on their website. I'm sure there are more resources off-line, and hopefully editors can dig something up.__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry Award
A new account has been adding references to this parody "award" to biographical articles. This doesn't seem to be appropriate in award sections, but I just wanted to check with this wikiproject to be totally sure about that, and that somehow we haven't along the way felt that Razzie belongs in lists along with the Golden Globe, Academy Awards, and so on. Coretheapple (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that this discussion may have some relevance. I'm not finding any discussion of the inclusion of this parody in award lists, per se. The subject has come up because there is a new user account, User:Fallacies4, that has been created for the specific purpose of adding "Razzies" to performer/director filmographies and award lists. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That WP:ACTOR RfC is indeed relevant. The long-standing consensus for years have been not to include those awards in biographies. Nymf (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That being the case, then this one account's dozens if not hundreds of edits[] have to be reverted, as they consist almost entirely of adding the Razzie to actor biographies. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion referred to above was not about the question, whether Raazies should be included in award lists, but whether there should be a category for Razzies. As I see it, this is a very different question, with no precedence for the current issue.Albrecht Conz (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, putting aside the RfC, is Nymf correct? Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And just as an aside, there's a Category:Ironic and humorous awards and it doesn't seem to be unusual that such awards are listed in articles, see for example the Ig Nobel Prize for Andre Geim. Albrecht Conz (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Geim specifically commented on the parody award. Short of that, or a reliable source picking up the award and writing about it, I can't see listing parodies in bios as if they were awards. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point an additional issue is that the editor has been spoken to but is (or at least was) continuing to add the award without providing sources. I've left them a note about that and will consider it an edit-warring issue if they persist. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Has there been a consensus on this issue? I don't think that there is anything at all wrong with including so-called "spoof" awards on biographical pages. Wikipedia articles are meant to be encyclopedic after all and not simply a promotion of certain people. It seems to me from reading this thread that the issue is still being discussed. I think it should be fine to include them.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * When an editor's encouraged to discuss the matter, or at least provide sources, especially when we're talking about biographies of living people, they're in the wrong when their response is to simply keep reinserting the awards without providing sources. Nothing's stopping them from discussing the situation here, at their Talk page, at the Talk page of one of the editors who reverted them, at the Talk page for one of the articles they contributed to...
 * I don't see a consensus either way on the situation, but with regards to this specific editor that's becoming a secondary issue. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes to be clear I was referring to the issue of spoof awards in biography pages. I haven't even looked into the issue with the editor. It seems to me that these awards should be included otherwise there's going to be a lot of clean-up required on countless biography pages. Isn't it kind of like a good review from a critic verses a bad review? And an award is more or less a glorified review or notice. And the Razzies have justified their own notability.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Deoliveirafan. There seems to be issues with the guy who put in all those specific edits. OK. However, I've still seen no evidence for the claim that there's been a "long-standing consensus for years" to have those awards not included in biographies (and if that's not the case, the criticism of the editor in question - apart from being unresponisive - is invalid, isn't it?) Those awards certainly garner a lot of publicity - and I think they should be mentioned, if only to present a more balanced view (there frequently is a bias by editors / watchers of pages towards "positive" news). I don't see any general issues with sourcing, as the list of Razzie Awards is not only freely available but also comprehensively listed on respective Wikipedia pages such as Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress etc. Albrecht Conz (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that given that these are not awards but rather jibes, they should be included in articles only if referenced by a secondary source other than a press release by whomever issues the award. They seem to be included in "award lists," but don't belong there. That is not to say that they don't belong in the articles at all. As for the need to cleanup the articles where the Razzies have been placed where they don't belong, so what? There are tens of thousands of articles requiring cleanup. This is just a drop in the bucket. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not looked for the old discussion which I referred to in my earlier comment (there's also a consensus through editing, regarding this), but as far as I recall, the general idea was to not include them unless the person won and accepted the award in person (i.e. "legitimizing" the award). Nymf (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, I guess I can't argue with all of those clear statements and examples of legitimate consensus. Have fun with all that clean up Coretheapple. Here's two that you can start on: John Travolta, Battlefield Earth (film). Or how about this: Tom Wolfe.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, Battlefield Earth was such a notable failure that it might belong in the article, and I'm tempted to believe that its Razzie award sweep was noted in the media. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So glad you mentioned the Travolta article. What a mess. Only one paragraph on his 1970s fame. I remember that; he was all over the headlines as a combination of Brando and Fred Astaire. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've inspired me to campaign for a new WikiRule: WP:GEORGECOSTANZA, which should clearly state that when claiming consensus it's not a lie...if you believe it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

NikkiFinke.com
Reliable source? This just launched today, and I'd say it is, given who the person is. And she's already doing some hefty reporting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Falls under WP:SPS. RS for unchallenged and uncontroversial claims, but you have to exercise some caution since authorship and editoral oversight are no longer independent of each other. If the claim is anything remotely dodgy then find another source. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be considered reliable per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", given Finke's long history in the industry and work for Deadline and Variety? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see it as a pretty clear-cut case of an established expert. --SubSeven (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with SubSeven.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe in general, when you're talking about direct interviews, but in this case she's merely reporting rumors. Warner Bros. has not confirmed any of that. Given that she says that it will be announced at ComicCon, then I would wait for the official announcement. In general, ANY source that does not actually name names should generally be avoided. We're not a rumor mill or current events news organization. So, if she was actually talking to someone, then I think you can argue that she has the professional/expert status taken care of. But rumors are rumors, no matter who reports them.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nikki Finke is an established expert so her new site should be considered reliable. That said, every article must still be individually reviewed as WP:CRYSTAL states "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to see about the site as a whole, not necessarily in terms of DC film rumor article. But still good knowledge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the rumor-type content. --SubSeven (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits by disruptive IP editor on martial arts-related films
According to this sockpuppet investigation, there's an IP editor who has been disruptively editing martial arts-related films for several years now. I guess he took a break for a while, because the last discussion was back in 2012. He seems to be back now, and I'm having trouble keeping the following articles free of his disruption. I don't like edit warring, and I usually try to keep to a voluntary policy of 1RR. However, this editor is absolutely determined to disrupt these articles:
 * – genre warring, pointless changes that strip the infobox of whitespace used for formatting
 * – Stripping the lead of credit to the writers
 * – Changing sourced text to a value not supported by the citation, adding unsourced information
 * – genre warring
 * – genre warring, edit warring over credits sequences
 * – genre warring

I haven't yet posted any of this to the associated SPI, as I don't really know much about SPI or its associate protocol. I have requested assistance from an administrator on how to proceed, but if someone with more knowledge than me wants to go ahead with that, that'd be fine. I could really use help on this, as I don't have much experience with dealing with such disruptive users, and I don't want to get into trouble for edit warring, too. It's also very taxing and frustrating trying to keep track of these articles and the disruptive edits. I'm dedicating too much time to this, and I'd rather be productively editing articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been seeing some of those edits go by, as well. Honestly, I kind of don't know what to make of it.  I started watching a lot of the martial arts films a few years ago because of a completely different problematic IP editor (and in truth the Hong Kong films in particular draw their own kind of problem edits the same way kids' films do).  I've been watching the slow burn edit war go back and forth and... honestly many of the IP edits seem to be fixing minute problems.  On SPL: Sha Po Lang, in particular, the IP keeps undoing an edit that is adding overlinking and is putting up the wrong cast order, based on our project standards.  A few days ago I followed all of the IP's edits, as well as those of the editor they are undoing the most.  Either I'm missing something or the IP has the right of it in most of those instances.  The other editor claims to be restoring cast order to that of the credits in the films (on the rare occasion that either of them uses an edit summary) but every source I've checked has confirmed the IP's order of choice.  I lack copies of most of these films to verify the order of billing in the credits but on the one film I did have access to, IP was right and the other editor was wrong.  I've been kind of politely ignoring the whole mess since the two of them seem content to just undo each other repeatedly and I can't verify very much of what either is doing.  Millahnna (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some of the IP editor's work does fix issues, but the rest of it seems pointlessly disruptive, such as genre warring. I would probably just let it go if that's all it were, but he's also changing sourced text now.  I guess I could have brought this to ANI instead of here, but I've already contacted an administrator, and I think my concern that more martial arts films will be targeted is better discussed here.  The biggest problem is that there's no way to discuss anything with this editor.  He just wordlessly reverts any edit that he dislikes; no edit summary, no discussion on the talk page, no responses to requests on his talk page.  If you disagree with this editor, you get reverted every day like clockwork.  I've made changes to the articles that fixed errors, only to have him revert right back to an older version that still contains the errors.  It's immensely frustrating.  I guess this probably does belong on ANI, but I thought that maybe I could avoid a bit of drama and hopefully get a few more eyes on martial arts film articles.  I understand that you believe the IP editor's changes are not as disruptive as me, but I'm glad that someone is watching these articles.  I thought that maybe the articles were too obscure for the changes to be seen.  If you agree with the editor's changes, maybe you could post to the associated talk pages and try to establish some kind of consensus, so that the edit wars end? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Like you, I see the IP's efforts as a bit of a mixed bag. I'd say it looks like one of the editors he's warring with essentially has the same problem; He/she's reverting to versions with errors in them while fixing some errors in the same reverts and very minimally using edit summaries.  I've gone in a few times and fixed stuff that I knew I could fix only to have both the IP and this other editor both revert to their favored older versions.  But maybe one or both of them knows something I don't, since I don't have access to most of the films in question.  I think you're right that there aren't many of us watching the pages for a lot of these, based on the problems I've tracked in the past.  Weird edits will go uncontested for months and by the time I spot them, things are such a mess I don't know where to start.  Maybe an attempt at ANI to draw some attention to the problems would be helpful (you never know with ANI).  I mean it would certainly get other editors' eyes on the pages, at least in the short term.  But I don't know that there's much they could do.  I generally try to stay out of ANI stuff because I find it frustrating and tedious (even if often helpful) but if you decide to go that route, let me know and I'll put in my two cents worth since I've seen a lot of the same issues that you have.  Millahnna (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is basically nothing you can do as you can see from those SPI investigations. I filed a few myself but he's back on a different IP in no time. And yeah, some edits are ok but they are often mixed up with poor edits so unless you want to spend hours sifting through their edits determining what needs to be reverted it is best to just use rollback on their contributions. SPI is pretty ineffective due to the fact IP "hops" addresses, so rollback and AIV is probably the least taxing response. We can't stop it though, all we can do is contain the editor and hope they get bored. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh well. That's not quite what I was hoping to hear, but it was kind of what I was expecting.  I guess I'll start working my way through the warning templates instead of attempting to communicate.  Like Millahnna says, many of the edits are too borderline to qualify as obvious vandalism.  Maybe I can get more traction at ANI if I get bored with reverting.  Or RFPP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Revert all IP edits. Rather take out one or two good edits then leave hundreds of bad ones in.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , you revert all IP edits? I can't argue against most of them being unhelpful (that's basically a fact), but some are legitimate attempts at improvement. While they may be misguided–and frequently littered with original research–not every IP edit is toxic. I had a pleasant experience working with an IP on A Million Ways to Die in the West a mere week ago. He/she understood where I was coming from. We were able to find sources and work together, and the article is (albeit very slightly) better for it.


 * All IPs deserve the same due weight as registered established users do, as they are human too. Innocent until proven guilty, if you will.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All IP edits in the articles stated above. I revert a fair few that hit my watchlist too. Forget WP:HUMAN/innocent until proven, etc. You can't beat instinct and experience.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes a bit more sense. I revert a good chunk of IP edits as well, but I wouldn't say to throw WP:HUMAN to the wind. It's applicable, since not all IPs are the same. Many vandalize, many are unreasonable, but "many" ≠ "all". That said, I see now that I misread your initial meaning, and I apologize for that.


 * I'm also getting off topic and never commented on the matter at hand. An attempt to get the articles semi-protected or pending changes could benefit you. Both are kind of unlikely, though. I would say the best you can do is what you've done. He's blocked for now, maybe it'll stop. If it doesn't, get him blocked again. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything to do about an IP who changes IPs a lot, other than to keep reporting them and hope for the best.


 * That could all be terrible advice, by the way. I'm just saying what I would do.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, about to suggest the page protection route.  - if you still have issues with the above articles, log it at WP:RPP.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the IP keeps coming back with a new IP addy, how close are the numbers? The vandal admin types might be able to range block.  There's a recurring sock on Malaysia media articles who always hits a few films in my watch list (if you've ever seen that really odd overlinking edit that shows up periodically on the third Final Destination film you know what I'm talking about) that we were able to get range blocked for a period of time (no idea if still is). If the IPs' hopping meets their criteria, that might be an option.  Millahnna (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From the SPI, it looks like temporary rangeblocks have been applied in the past. Lugnuts makes a good point about page protection, especially if we can't get a block that sticks.  The only problem is that this editor is patient and has a long memory; I've seen him resume edit warring after a month-long page protection wore off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have four IPs like that I watch (two "agonists", one plot bloater, and that gunspotter guy who's still on his three month ban). One of them I've had on my list of edits to double check every now and then for almost six years (and he had edits going back to 2005 with the same problems). I feel your pain.  Millahnna (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Film at Wikimania 2014
please note: This is an updated version of a posting that I previously made. Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dual-country films
User:WARNER_one has been attempting to switch the order of how a co-country production is given in a number of films (many by C. Nolan, but it is extending out from that) (eg whether a film is "British-American" or "Amercian-British".) From what I can tell most of these aren't correct, but I would ask, how is this usually determined for such films? Is there a single RS we use? Is is based on which country (in terms of production team) has done the most work on it, etc. It would be helpful to have a few eyes on this user's edits since they seem contrary to what others have said. --M ASEM (t) 19:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Template:Infobox film explains how to fill in the "country" parameter, while MOS:FILM says to avoid nationality mashing-up by explaining in the course of the lead section how different countries are involved. I think we tend to mention the same countries in both the infobox and in the lead section's opening sentence, even though I think we shouldn't always do that since the contributions vary. That being said, I'm tired of seeing these singular initiatives that focus on such minutiae. If it's not obviously one nationality for the opening sentence, then we shouldn't have anything at all there. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Going off of what Erik said, as I have done/seen, if there are multiple countries that are associated with the film's production, I have omitted them from the lead. See Iron Man 3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with these two. I tend to remove the nationality from the lead if it isn't just one country. I think this distinction should be in the MOS, personally. It'd keep lead sentences like this from happening.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, actually! :) The guidelines state, "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." It should be cited to resolve multi-country disputes (in the lead section, anyway). But of course, it does not necessarily resolve disputes about whether or not one country or more is behind the production. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not been attempting to witch order but instead re-switch. The pages of Inception, The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have all been "British-American" not "American-British" since creation. It has been other users who have changed these pages due to apparent evidence of Lumiere. A website which as I have said before is a PROJECT and should be researched before being used as a regular reference. Hope I could answer your question. Though do research before calling my actions "incorrect in the future.
 * WARNER one 9999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WARNER one (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a "project" doesn't bar it from being a reliable source. The Lumiere database is published by the European Audiovisual Observatory and funded by the European Commission, so it's basically the European equivalent of the AFI or BFI. It's pretty clear from their background that the reason they refer to themselves as a "project" is because it's an ongoing data collation exercise. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We seem to have another conversation about this going on here Template talk:Infobox film. We may want to consider merging the two. OTOH if everyone is happy with them running concurrently that is fine as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems like this one has more or less wrapped up, . It's in WP:FILMLEAD not to include more than one country in the lead, so that's that. Though I am curious about that other conversation. Thanks! You gave me something to talk about.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox help requested
Hello WikiProject! I need a little guidance. At The Rugrats Movie, Rugrats in Paris and Rugrats Go Wild, the infobox has grown a little bloated with starring roles. I checked the instructions for Template:Infobox film, which instructs, "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." What I've noticed, is that the theatrical posters don't have Starring credits, for example here and here, and the opening credits for Rugrats Go Wild (courtesy of Netflix) only lists the producers. The closing credits for The Rugrats Movie (around 0:54) list all the voice talent in a giant block. Same with Rugrats in Paris (around 1:20). How should the infobox be handled in this case? There are a lot of characters in the Rugrats. Do I just wrap all those names in a plainlist and call it a day? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I see at The Rugrats Movie in the "Cast" section that there is a "Main" subsection, which seems to group the voice actors for the babies together. That seems reasonable, considering the nature of this film (and the others as well). Could we not use that as the cutoff? Otherwise, for something like Rugrats Go Wild, you could avoid listing any cast members in the infobox; the Featured Articles of Star Trek films do this, e.g. The Search for Spock. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with that neglecting the cast and including a link to the subsection is fine. That said, you could take the "Main" characters from The Rugrats Movie and apply it to the other two. That way, if the actors change, the order remains basically the same.  Corvoe   (speak to me)  17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good ideas, both, thank you. I think I'll avoid reordering them, as I don't know much about the series, but linking to the cast section makes sense to me. Muchas gracias! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Production companies in film infobox
The discussion about including production companies in the film infobox, either by adding or changing a field, had stalled. Please revisit the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Film in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Film for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the spotlight! I've added my answers. I hope others will too. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added my answers too!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cannes Film Festival juries
I've created this. Can somebody populate? Should it be judges or juries?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld/Great films
Ha, this was great fun drawing up. Still a work in progress. Still got a ton of arty/critically acclaimed films to see from 1980 to 2010. I think such a list would be useful for highlighting what needs to be worked on for myself!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Such fun for you Dr B. I would love to comment on many of the choices but I will restrict myself to 2 comments about Gravity (film). As I was watching it I was stuck by how much it reminded me of The Perils of Pauline (1933 serial) which I saw many years ago. I somehow missed Sunshine (2007 film) on is release last decade. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it would make a good twin-bill with Gravity. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought Gravity was going to suck big time when it started and seeing Bullock and Clooney in Space. But it was the way she found strength and his ghost image being there and the way she returned to earth as if reborn, not to mention the gorgeous cinematography and technical difficulties of filming it, I thought it was an amazing film. In my list, obviously there's ones I find truly great or great and those which I just find enjoyable but wouldn't exactly consider it "great" as such if you know what I mean. Most fall under "very good" really. I'll probably star more of those I consider "great".♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No Battleship Potemkin , Rififi or Persona? What the hell kind of list is this?! Seriously though, I love these best-of lists. Always interesting to see who rates what. I have two copies of this book (one at home, one on my desk at work) and I'm constantly refering to it to read about films to check out. I think I saw The Woman in the Dunes based purely on the synopsis in the book.  Always a sucker for issues of Sight & Sound, Empire, etc, that have a of films feature.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Battleship IMO is the most overrated film I've ever seen!! Aside from the attack scenes which were great, was the film really that great? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is RFC 2
A Request for Comment has been started at the above link to discuss removing the archive site Archive.is from the blacklist. Feel free to join the chorus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Stunt performer
Hi! I have just rewritten the article Stunt performer, and wanted it reassessed on your group quality scale. Also, do you think that there is enough material out there to sustain the article Stunt double, or should it be merged into Stunt performer? Thanks! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Combing articles
Would somebody combine Bollywood films of 2015 into List of Bollywood films of 2015? Robert4565 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC nomination
I have nominated the film article Subway Sadie for Featured Article consideration; as it pertains to this WikiProject I leave a notice here. Thanks,  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Direct link: Featured article candidates/Subway Sadie/archive1. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler
This list article is particularly problematic because it contained copious references to the "Golden Raspberry Award" that we discussed above. I'd say about a third of more of the list consists of this parody "award"; I've removed and it's being edit-warred. This is a good example of why we need independent sourcing for parody awards, and they should not be inserted in articles and lists unless they're written about by someone other than the "award" issuer. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Coretheapple and I have been discussing on the Sandler list talk page the question of whether or not the Razzies raise a BLP issue. I have now started a section on WT:BLP to specifically address that concern. Anyone with thoughts about whether or not there is a BLP problem are invited to contribute to that discussion. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)


 * I think there's also an NPOV problem, as 1) this is not an award but an attack and 2) the Razzie people, whoever they are, have a real problem with Sandler and have showered him with them. Before removal, the article was dominated by razzies. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are NPOV problems, then that is worth discussing. If there are more specifically WP:UNDUE concerns, those are also worth discussing. There might be good reasons to exclude mention of Razzies from particular pages, but that does not mean that BLP is one of them. My disagreement with you has been consistently on the specific claim that you have made that there is a BLP problem with including Razzies. I believe you are wrong about that and that is why I have opened the discussion at WT:BLP. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)


 * Comment I think this falls into a wider debate on how we handle awards, which I don't think we do very well on film articles on Wikipedia. Personally I don't think the Razzies are any more a BLP issue than say a bad review, which we will include to be consistent with WP:NPOV. Indeed, that policy is relevant here, since by ommitting the Razzies we are arguably not being neutral. I would be interested in coming up with some criteria which we can apply. Here are some possible ones from the top of my head (I don't necessarily advocate them, I'm just kicking them into the arena):
 * The Award itself has a dedicated article on Wikipedia.
 * The award win itself has been covered by a secondary source
 * The recipient personally received the award, or someone officially accepted it on their behalf
 * The award has international standing or by an organization or media outlet with a "national" presence
 * Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Betty, I agree with your view on both the BLP and NPOV status of the Razzies. As for your ideas, here are a few quick thoughts on them
 * This seems like a solid criterion. The Sandler list includes an award he received from the relatively obscure Gijón International Film Festival, which has a Wikipedia page, but whose awards do not. Including this one on his awards list seems of borderline notability.
 * This sounds good, but probably is a very low bar. Even very small film festivals that give awards get coverage in their local news outlets. So it might not exclude much. But if this is read too strictly, then things like Oscars and Emmys for the more obscure categories that the public does not care about (ones that do not make it to the televised broadcasts) could be excluded from pages.
 * This could be a problem, depending on what is meant by "received it on their behalf". Marlon Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather to the Oscars on his behalf, but did not accept the award. Also, it is standard at major awards for the presenter to claim they accept the award on behalf of the winner, but it is never clear that they have been authorized by the winner to do so. Did Woody Allen really accept all those awards? So this criteria could exclude awards we would want to list or include ones that were not actually accepted by the winner because someone claimed to accept it for them.
 * This sounds like a more strict version of #2, so might have the same issues.
 * Finally, just as a further thought, some awards pages are called "List of awards..." and some are called "List of accolades...." On the issue of the Razzies it could be a NPOV problem to exclude Razzies from a list of awards page, but not a list of accolades page, since the latter more clearly has a positive connotation. That won't settle whether they should be mentioned on actor or film pages, but it could help with list pages. 99.192.93.29 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Films produced by Nicole Kidman
Please see this discussion at CfD. What do members of the film project feel about having a category structure for films by producer to mirror the director's categories? There are only a handful of these categories at the moment. I'm against having them myself, as I don't see it as being as defining as the director, and would be happy to nominate the other categories at CfD if a consensus was reached here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry about FACs
This is really a question for anyone experienced in the FAC department, but it's relating to a film article so I'll post it here. I've bumped into an interesting issue during one of my FACs, and have inquired about it here. Any comments would be greatly appreciated!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion notice
There is a proposal about rewording the first notability criterium for actors, from "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" to "has had leading/starring roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Discussion here. --Cavarrone 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Big Country music
I'm not 100% certain, but doesn't the theme music in The Big Country constitute some sort of copyright violation or something of that ilk? (It's not that memorable anyway.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It most likely doesn't fulfil its FU claim, since it isn't the subject of sourced commentary in the article. It also exceeds the 30 second limit for a musical sample too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

DVD title discussion
Already listed on Film alerts, but see Talk:Live 2012 / Volume II, could do with some new eyes. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Blockbuster status
Curious how the WikiProject Film community regards this: In the soul-sucking world of Bollywood movie articles, which are plagued with unreliable sources, rampant POV editing, inflated successes and exaggerated failures, phrases like "Such-and-such a movie achieved Blockbuster status" occur quite often. I am averse to this sort of language for the issues with poor sourcing and obvious agendas from the editors submitting the content, but I'm also averse to it because it doesn't impart anything to the reader. What does "blockbuster" literally mean? That it made a profit? Can we say that without using fancy marketing speech? It seems to me that at the very least, if someone calls a movie a "blockbuster", the write-up should go, "XYZ Magazine declared the movie a 'blockbuster'" instead of stating matter-of-factly that the movie is a blockbuster. What's the community's opinion about this? ♥ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:PEACOCK would apply here. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See what the soul-sucking world of Bollywood movie articles did to me? It sucked out my rational brain and turned me into a chatterbox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln and white savior narrative in film
At white savior narrative in film, there is interest in adding a section as seen here, and this addition is being disputed. A discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary statement for "Reception" section
"Universally panned", "generally positive", "mixed to negative" and the like frequently pop up as summaries for critical reception. They are also a frequent source of edit warring: "mixed" vs. "mixed to positive" vs. "generally favorable" vs. every conceivable spin. Surely there's a guideline that specifically addresses this?

The closest thing I could find was the RfC which received mixed reviews. Is there anything more substantial? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of us are opposed to " to " language. It usually arises from poor attempts to interpret Rotten Tomatoes' percentages, which does not work well because the percentages are grossly oversimplified. I personally prefer to use sources other than Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to summarize the critical reception (per MOS:FILM) and to use the aggregators to report on the breakdown. Since RT does only positive/negative and MC does positive/mixed/negative, the results can be pretty telling. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no such guideline. Myself and some others' personal rule of thumb is if a reliable source categorizes the reviews as something (mostly positive, universally negative, etc.), we use that reference and that specific wording. If one doesn't exist, the standard procedure is to adapt Metacritic's wording into our own. Many try to use the Tomatometer as a gauge for critical acclaim, which is why The Avengers doesn't even have a critical summary anymore. While a 92% is impressive, it had an average score of 68/100 according to Metacritic, which is far from critical acclaim. On the other hand, films like All Is Lost are damn near unanimously positive, and it says "critical acclaim". Personally, I think any form of "acclaim" should be avoided unless explicitly sourced, and should be replaced with "nearly unanimous positive reviews" (like when Metacritic says a film received "universal acclaim"). It's hard to standardize this, though.


 * Personally, I would make a table of sorts to coordinate the Metacritic wording with what we should use. Maybe that's an atrocious idea, but I feel like it would clear up confusion. In the case that Metacritic or outside sources are unavailable, Rotten Tomatoes could be summarized with a simple "positive reviews" for fresh and "negative reviews" for rotten. I'm kinda spitballing, but it's a start, I guess.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Add-on: I strongly agree with Erik on not using " to " language.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I too have once come before the WikiProject with frustration over this. The "mixed to ____" language is a virus and I would support a final clarification at MOS:FILM, if we are headed in that direction. I don't quite understand why we summarize critical response at all.  It seems sufficient to write, "Film review aggregators RottenTomatoes rated the film 92% and Metacritic gave it a 68/100" and let the numbers tell the story. But if the community decides that summarizing the response is somehow useful, I would sub-propose we abandon the nonspecific word "mixed", since all critical response is "mixed", and stick with either "mostly positive" or "mostly negative". I also propose that any such summary must be based on the numbers from reliable aggregators .  I have too often seen people find a half-dozen positive reviews for a film so they could assert that critical response was mostly positive, which is clearly original research in the form of synthesis. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment The main problem comes from the fact that Metacritic counts "average" reviews as well as positive/negative ones while Rotten Tomatoes just "positive" and negative". I actually analyzed how the two aggregators process the same set of reviews at Talk:Transcendence_(2014_film). It's worth reading even if I do say so myself; the findings are quite illuminating. My view on this is that the terminology should stick to the positive/negative/mixed/average nomenclature that aggregators use, rather than loaded terms like "acclaimed", "universally" or "over-whelmingly" etc. Aggregators count reviews and turn them into a few simple statistics and that is basically it, and we shouldn't step byeond that when summarising it. The problems arise, for example, when RT says the reception has been negative and MC says it is average/mixed, even when they count the same reviews. Basically they are just marking them differently. The same reviews but just different grading methodologies. There are three acceptable ways of dealing with this in my view: My preference is for the first two approaches if they are workable, but if it is particularly problematic then perhaps the third option is the way to go. I also don't think they should be used on older films either, since in such cases many of the reviews are retrospective and don't give an accurate survey of contemporary critical reception. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Integrate the findings into a proper sentence. On Metacritic reviews may be mixed due to an even spread across positive/average/negative, or they may be mixed because most of them have been graded "average". In the case of the latter you may be able to accommodate the actual breakdown into a meaningful sentence i.e. instead of writing "Reception was mixed to negative" (which doesn't make sense) you can write something like "[Title] received a mixture of mostly average and negative reviews" etc. Obviously that wouldn't work if the mixed rating is due to an even spread across the grades.
 * 2) Find independent reliable sources that we can source to describe the reception of the film, although this may not solve the problem if there is more dissent.
 * 3) Just give the statistic and let the data speak for itself. The cleanest solution but possibly not the most helpful for readers.


 * SummerPhD, this matter has been discussed recently more than once; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 10, where I point to other recent discussions on the topic. As those discussions show, editors at WP:FILM have had differences of opinion on the matter and have not been in unanimous agreement about any of it, except seemingly for stating things like "mixed to positive." I'm in agreement with you, Betty, about letting the data speak for itself in "particularly problematic" cases (cases that are contentious to summarize), and I also generally agree about older films (classic films that came out when these review aggregators did not exist). I state "generally" because there may be cases where the use of review aggregators are fine for older (as in classic) films, and I also don't think that a film's critical acclaim or lack thereof should be based on changing times by us; Schindler's List, for example, is simply widely acclaimed, and I don't think it's likely that this acclaim will falter at some point in the future. If WP:Reliable sources note that one generation of film critics and/or moviegoers view a film differently than another generation of film critics and/or moviegoers, then of course it's fine to note that...with WP:Due weight.


 * I stated before that I prefer a summary sentence for the Critical reception section; it flows better to me to have a topic sentence in this case, and it's better for readers who don't understand how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic work; for example, what is "fresh" in terms of a Rotten Tomatoes score? That question is why we discourage use of "fresh" and "rotten" here at WP:FILM. Though it's fairly easy to assume that a 70% score from Rotten Tomatoes means that the film did well, the Metacritic score is usually different. However, usually Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not drastically different in their scores; it's not often that they are of opposite opinion about a film. By this, I disagree that Rotten Tomatoes only does a positive or negative score; this is because a film that received 59% from Rotten Tomatoes is usually not tossed into the negative box by the site's critical consensus (the critical consensus usually gives a mixed reception in the case of such a score). Not to mention that 59% is just one score away from 60%, which is what Rotten Tomatoes labels "fresh." If Rotten Tomatoes gives a film a 59% score and Metacritic gives the film a score of 63, that's clearly not a badly reviewed film in general; it's more positive or simply generally mixed. I also disagree with Cyphoidbomb's suggestion that we abandon "mixed"; I've likewise argued that all film receptions are "mixed" in some way. But if we stick to "mostly positive" or "mostly negative," that can give more of a false impression about a film; I think that people will generally take "mostly positive" to mean that a film did really well and "mostly negative" to mean that a film did really bad. "Mostly" can also mean a small majority, such as 50-59% vs. 60%. In the case of "mixed," I suggest "generally mixed."


 * Like Cyphoidbomb, I also don't like relying solely on a single, non-review aggregator WP:Reliable source for summarizing a film's reception; this is because the source might simply be the author's take and contrast what the review aggregators state; my exceptions to going by a non-review aggregator WP:Reliable source for summarizing a film's reception is if other such sources state the same thing and/or if the statement is supported by the review aggregators. A good example is what Erik did with the Critical reception section for the Edge of Tomorrow (film) article, though I disagreed with his use of WP:In-text attribution and disagreed with the level of detail that is there explaining what the review aggregators mean. We shouldn't use WP:In-text attribution in clear-cut cases, especially when WP:In-text attribution can make it seem like only that one publication thinks that way on the matter. I tried a similar removal of WP:In-text attribution that Erik added to the X-Men: Days of Future Past article, but when it was returned due to editors' need to add "critical acclaim," I left it in since the specific wording of "nearly unanimous" is coming from that publication. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we can easily include language in MOS:FILM to avoid " to " wording. I like Betty's suggested alternate wording, especially since Metacritic breaks down reviews more reasonably than Rotten Tomatoes. This is why I prefer to define both websites' methodologies. We cannot assume that aggregate scores make immediate sense to laypersons (especially in the very long run), and I think that blowing out the methodology helps provide useful details for readers. An overall score only hints at the breakdown, where if we show the breakdown, it reveals the sample set's distribution. I also think that topic sentences should be sourced to high-level assessments by authoritative sources. There's no reason to discard Variety or Los Angeles Times in their assessment of critics' reviews. Subjectivity is irrelevant to argue because the RT and MC staff are being subjective in their grading too. Regarding Betty's numbered items, I think #2 is the most important because we have contextual prose we can use. At the very least, it gives us a brief descriptor to reference, and at best, it can outline what elements of reviews are oft-repeated. If we don't have that, as will be the case for less-covered films, we can try to have a topic sentence or two based on RT/MC findings (and without any of the " to "degree" language). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A few minor points:
 * Yes, since we've all consistently agreed not to use "mixed to positive" (" to ") wording, it's fine to add something about that to the guideline. As for "[w]e cannot assume that aggregate scores make immediate sense to laypersons," I'm certain that the vast majority of laypersons can discern what the percentages mean for a film; for example, regarding 50%, or something in the 50% range, 50% means is well known to indicate "mixed." And 30% out of %100 is clearly negative, while 70% out of 100% clearly is not. Still, I prefer that we begin with a topoic sentence to plainly state how well a film did among film critics. Regarding the aforementioned Edge of Tomorrow (film) example, while I'm not too opposed to the breakdown style you did there, I do feel that it's a bit (just a little) excessive (it certainly deviates from the typical style of Wikipedia film Critial reception sections); like I stated to you before in one of the aforementioned discussions I linked to above, the Wikilinks to the Review aggregator, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Weighted arithmetic mean articles explain how these sites reach their scores; that's what those links are there for -- to aid readers in getting more detailed information about those matters. As for the rest of what you stated, I don't think subjectivity is irrelevant at all in the case of summarizing critical consensus (not to mention that subjectivity is the reason we're having this discussion); a reviewer claiming that a film did well is quite different than a review aggregator calculating a film as having done well based on its review aggregator breakdown. And I've stated this before, but a lot of reviewers base their critical consensus summary on the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic review aggregator breakdown, but especially on the Rotten Tomatoes review aggregator breakdown. But, yes, as long it's a reliable review aggregator (such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic) and a reliable reviewer, there often isn't much of a problem, if any, with summarizing the critical consensus for a film. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Universal" is, IMO, a horrid word to use in this context. There is absolutely no way to verify that every critic everywhere panned or lauded a film.
 * ANY chart we draw up saying x% to y% on RT (or n to m on MC) is our creation. We should not be in the business of judging that x% is "generally positive" (or whatever) while x - 0.0000001% is "mixed". As soon as we draw a line and categorize films based on minor differences (which any line will do), we are presenting a new point of view not found in the sources.
 * Yes, RT does call high/low scores "universal _______". There is a world of difference between saying "The film received universal acclaim" and "...96%, which Rotten Tomatoes calls 'universal acclaim'." The first uses Wikipedia's voice to present a point of view (and an apparent unwillingness to look up the definition of "universal"). The second merely quotes RT. If saying "...mixed reviews, with 59% positive..." says more than "...59% positive...", that novel information had to come from somewhere. If it doesn't say anything new, there is no reason to say it. We should not present information not found in the source and we shouldn't be redundant, repeat ourselves or say the same thing several times. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: It's not Rotten Tomatoes that uses the "universal acclaim" wording; it's Metacritic. And I agree that "universal acclaim" should have WP:In-text attribution, which is usually what is done when citing that Metacritic score; see (if you haven't already) the example that Corvoe cited above or the Critical reception section at the Avatar (2009 film) article. Corvoe's WP:In-text attribution example is not as clear of an in-text matter as the Avatar (2009 film) example (especially since it begins the section calling the film critically acclaimed), but it's still connecting itself to what the site has rated the film and puts "universal acclaim" in quotation marks (or scare quotes). Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with most of what SummerPhD bulleted above, especially on the point that when we start assigning language to correspond with various percentages, then we are generating original research (probably synthesis, since we are drawing conclusions not expressly presented in the source.) Although I am against the wording, "Mixed" seems to suggest a strict 50/50 split of opinions.  When the opinions get split 49/51, is it still a mixed reception or is it now generally positive?  Or do we arbitrarily say that anything within 10% of 50/50 is mixed?  That seems like OR to me as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We can use "mixed" if we can source it directly. We cannot draw that conclusion from Rotten Tomatoes since it is all numbers, but we can draw it from Metacritic, which can state that a film has "mixed or average reviews". Some periodicals also describe reviews as mixed. Like Betty mentioned, this can be unclear. Does "mixed" mean a set of reviews, most of them being lukewarm? Or can it be a set of reviews with roughly a third positive, a third negative, and a third in-between? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As indicated by Metacritic and other WP:Reliable sources, "mixed" does not always mean "a strict 50/50 split of opinions." A split of 49/51 is still obviously mixed to me, and is nowhere close to generally positive or generally negative. If Rotten Tomatoes gives such a score, I don't see anything wrong with calling the score "mixed," except that it can be considered a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy (which is an aspect of the WP:Original research policy). But sometimes common sense should be employed, and it's common sense, for example, that 50/50 is mixed. Anyway, because this is Wikipedia, and we should abide by its rules, except for in a clear-cut WP:Ignore all rules matter, I think that we should generally only add "generally positive," "mostly positive," "generally negative," "mostly negative," "mixed" or "generally mixed" (or some acceptable variation of those wordings) only if that language is supported by a WP:Reliable source in the Reception or Critical reception section. Same goes for "critical acclaim." As for "universal acclaim," I already addressed that above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Epic plot summaries
In case you didn't see this, Slate had an interesting article about some of our more lengthy plot summaries. The article listed the ten longest summaries, with the award going to Alley Cats Strike. If anyone's up for plot summary trimming, there's some good examples in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aw man. That was once of my favorite movies as a child! I'll go take a look and cut down some. I can probably use what is there, plus my memory to get that sucker down. Thanks for the find Nehrams. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear god. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. took care of it. But we should probably head over to the other titles on that list as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you can try to re-expand it. I just thought that it was not worth having a such a dense "Plot" section with nothing else in the article body. Wikipedia basically permits plot summaries to be able to contextualize coverage about fictional works. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly content with it how you changed it. My method would have been to just cut it down to under 750, given what was there, but doing what you did was better in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Meant to reply as soon as I read Nehrams2020's post, a little after he posted it, but I got sidetracked. Anyway, it's an interesting article and I wonder what made the Slate author focus on Wikipedia plot summaries; it's like he's somewhat or completely familiar with the WP:FILMPLOT guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess the Slate author got sidetracked, too. That was a funny yet horrifying article, and I think that we've got our work cut out for us.  I'll try to help out, but I just bought SimCity 4 from Good Old Games, and I think my editing might slow down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the follow up article of an interview of the director of the film. It notes that the plot has been modified thanks to the efforts above. It looks like the next article on the list is now getting the additional publicity. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually got in touch with the screenwriter to mention WP:REUSE since his web page was reusing content from Wikipedia. I also said his web page would probably not be acceptable as an external link in the Wikipedia article, though a discussion could confirm that. I also emailed the journalist to mention Wikipedia's policy and WikiProject Film's guidelines since he didn't seem aware of them. (That line graph nicely shows the enforcement of the word count range for our plot summaries!) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Rupesh Paul and Rupesh Paul Productions
Comments are welcome regarding a proposal to merge Rupesh Paul Productions Limited with Rupesh Paul. Discussion is at Talk:Rupesh Paul. Cnilep (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Diana Serra Cary
Should Diana Serra Cary be at Baby Peggy Montgomery, following the precedent of having Marie Osborne Yeats article at Baby Marie Osborne? Paul Austin (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, I would say yes. I would also suggest opening a requested move on Cary's talk page, hopefully get some more opinions than just mine and those of us here. But yeah, can't think of any reason not to move the page.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  11:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Starring parameter in infobox
I have revived the conversation from March about a possible wording change to Template:Infobox film regarding the "Starring" parameter. The discussion can be found here.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Kleargear deletion discussion notification notice

 * 1) Kleargear
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination)

Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Stowaway to the Moon: Unsourced plot summary issue
I'm not a member of this project. Back in March of 2014 I moved the lengthy unsourced plot summary for the film to the talk page for the article and now an IP User has repeatedly moved the summary back to the main article.

I think that this has got to the point that intervention by a more experienced editor is needed as I am not familiar enough with the rules surrounding film related articles. Graham1973 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are always implicitly sourced to the original work they describe. They do not neccessarily need citations and the vast majority don't use one at all. The next question is whether the summary violates WP:FILMPLOT which says they should be 400-700 words. It should arguably be trimmed, but not removed wholesale. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I, however feel unqualified to attempt the trimming, aside from which the IP User is quite agressive sounding in their statements, perhaps if you could either attempt this, or point an editor who is more experienced in such condensation to the page to attempt this. Graham1973 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you really want to check to see if the summary is accurate or know how to trim it, the entire film is available from YouTube. Just put the title into the search box and PRESTO! In 95 minutes you can be Wikipedia's foremost expert on Stowaway to the Moon! 99.192.93.204 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is entirely helpful or useful to suggest people participate in copyright infringement. Thank you at least for not linking to it or I would have to redact your comment altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that the problem was the inability to verify the plot due to it being otherwise completely unavailable, my suggestion was in fact quite helpful and very useful. Besides, how do you know it has not been uploaded by the copyright holder? You're just assuming it wasn't. 99.192.83.48 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.204)


 * I think it's worth mentioning that the YouTube link is actually in the article itself. I'm at work and can't view it to know if it is copyright infringement, but that should definitely be checked out.


 * It looks like my suggestion to Graham1973 might have been less useful than I had thought. He was the one who added the YouTube link to the page more than three months ago when he moved the plot summary off the page, so he already knew about the YouTube copy. I guess he thought deleting the plot summary was easier than actually checking. Tsk, tsk, Graham! Elizium might have to spank you now! 99.192.93.47 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.204).

WikiProject Film featured on Wikimedia blog
Hey guys - just a heads up that I've written up last week's Signpost feature on this WikiProject for the Wikimedia blog. Bit late, I know... Here's a wee link - hopefully I do it justice :) JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent article! I'd be lying to myself if I didn't say how flattered I am to have been quoted, haha. Thanks for the spotlight!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Corvoe. :) Thanks for doing the write-up! Hope it attracts some editors to the WikiProject. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Similar concurrence. Thanks for the write up and the quote from me! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You famous, mang! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Film headlines
Hi, everyone. I wanted to pitch an idea that I had today. The primary way I keep up with film headlines is to use Feedly as a pinned tab in Google Chrome. While I have some film websites' RSS feeds added to that, I also add RSS feeds based on Google News. For example, I can add the URL "https://news.google.com/news?&q=dawn+of+the+planet+of+the+apes" to Feedly and follow the headlines for that film. For Edge of Tomorrow, I've basically added headlines to its talk page so I could evaluate and incorporate them on a later date. While Google does a good job displaying news headlines, as some of you know, it does not archive them anymore. I personally find it difficult to Google for news headlines of films a few years older since there are so many irrelevant search results to sift through, especially when not knowing exactly what to look for. One has to search Google using domains (e.g., site:variety.com) and/or date ranges. I think it would be neat to set up an approach where we can load headlines from RSS feeds into a film article talk page's sub-page. I'm not really sure how to do this on a technical level, but I think it would be a good way to capture all the relevant news headlines at around the time of the film's release. Anyone have an inkling on how this could be accomplished? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Billing block
Not sure if this has ever been brought up in a discussion before, but I found this breakdown by The New York Times of the billing block. I brought it up at Talk:Interstellar (film) in regard to Legendary's role in that film, but it looks like it would be a good reference for discussing cast identification too. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Outrageous Fortune example is interesting due to the fact that two separate billing blocks were produced. This particular instance would be a prime candidate for going with the credit order from the film itself. I am quite happy to use the billing block in most cases because it serves our purpose 99% of the time with relative ease, but as with all guidelines we shouldn't enslaved by them when they lead to clearly counter-intuitive conclusions. If someone has a valid reason for going against a guideline then it's at least worth a discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oscar nominated films without an article
I've found out that there are many films which received a nomination for an Academy Award but don't have an article here. Even worse, many of them don't have an Wikidata entry. Maybe you want to help me to reduce the number of such movies. Here I listed them. --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Bogus film awards
After finding a suggestion that the Oregon Film Awards and Yosemite Film Festival awards weren't legitimate, I found this website. Which starts off: "Along with the Alaska International Film Awards, Honolulu Film Awards and Mountain Film Festival — on Withoutabox there are identical pages for the Mountain Film Festival and the Mountain Film Awards, except the Film Awards page says that films are not screened to the public — other questionable entities include the Oregon Film Awards, California Film Awards, Mexico International Film Festival, Colorado Film Festival, Yosemite Film Festival, Nevada Film Festival and Canada International Film Festival.

They all have similarly designed web pages, and most have mailing addresses that ultimately go to P.O. boxes despite being made out to read as suite addresses on their contact pages. If they have phone numbers listed on their sites or Withoutabox pages, most of them have area codes outside of where the competitions are held, are no longer in service or, in some cases, go to people who have never heard of the events. The various festivals’ e-mails to filmmakers are worded almost exactly the same."

A quick search shows 11 articles mentioning a Yosemite Film Festival award. Should there be a list of awards not to include? Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad idea. I know some of the Film editors (especially ) have expressed concern about the lack of notability of some of the awards we document. Some of these events slip by our general notability guideline (and even slip through the net at AfD) because agents and publicists are quite happy to reel off all these "awards" their clients have won and then they get picked up on entertainment sites and added to film databases etc. I think a better approach would be to formulate a clear notability criteria for awards so only genuine and important events/awards make the cut. Betty Logan (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see the benefit of including both a list of notable awards and a list of glaringly non-notable ones. I know that the WikiProject has a resources page--would this be the intuitive place to put such a list? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are going to maintain lists ideally it needs to be actually hosted somewhere on Wikipedia. I very much doubt that editors check the resource page that often, and even if they do they probably wouldn't follow a link each time they add an award/create an award article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure where we would create the page (maybe a subpage of WP:FILM? No idea), but we could put a link to it in MOS:FILM. Easiest to access, and probably the most visible location for it. Makes for easy reference too.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Going back to a previous discussion, (IMO) award tables/list of awards in articles should only include notable awards/film festivals. IE - they have an existing article on WP. This will get rid of 99% of these bogus/non-notable awards. An example of the 1% was the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film which was deleted due to notability concerns. If anyone has concerns over the legitimacy of any awards/film festivals, I recomend they bring their concerns here and, if needed, we can go down the AfD route.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I like 's suggestion and second the idea of a link from MOS:FILM to a page of notable awards that should be included, and also an explicit list of ones that should NOT be included. Ones that fall on neither list can be case-by-case in the article and then even brought up for discussion on the list talk pages to include in one of the categories. [on a similar discussion: should we include as an accolade ALMOST, but not quite being nominated for an academy award? For example, Thor: The Dark World lists in accolades section that the film was placed on "its shortlist of potential nominees" but was not nominated. It is accurate in the sense that it has a citation, but it seems a hollow accolade since it not only did not win, but was not nominated. To me a line should be drawn with at least getting a nomination...]AbramTerger (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Something about this at Manual of Style/Film perhaps? Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Merging The Brady Bunch film trilogy?
The Brady Bunch Movie, A Very Brady Sequel, and The Brady Bunch in the White House are just plain bad. But they are notable. Nevertheless, articles about them cannot maintain themselves alone. I'm proposing The Brady Bunch (film series) or The Brady Bunch (film trilogy) and merger of these three articles. --George Ho (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The individual film articles should not be merged. The first two have numerous reviews and made millions at the box office. A film series article is fine, but not to get rid of the individual articles. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NFILM and WP:N don't guarantee stand-alone articles for notability. SOS Adventure is an example. --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nevertheless, articles about them cannot maintain themselves alone." What does this mean? Looking at just the first film, it has multiple authoritative reviews here. There are results in Google Scholar and Google Books. I see no reason why we should not have a stand-alone article for each film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite so. The SOS Adventure series is a trilogy of young-adult novels. Not a good example. Individual films get their own articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't really see any sense in merging them. Two movies and a made-for-TV "movie" released over the course of 7 years is vastly different then three novels released over the course of 9 months. There isn't much to say about the TV movie, but that's kinda par for the course. The two films have reviews and the usual coverage. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First two films had one-year gap. The TV movie came six years after sequel. Perhaps maybe help me find production notes, so I can add them. I don't want reviews; add them yourselves. Even 100 or 1000 reviews and box office gross make films independent from The Brady Bunch, but don't guarantee strong stand-alone article. --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could see creating a The Brady Bunch (film series) article, if one of the movies needed to be merged. But to me, all three movies each have enough information to warrant their own articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A film series article is a good idea since we tend to create them for series with three films and more. I oppose the merge since each article meets our notability standards, and a merge would discourage further development. Betty Logan (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes franchise page move
Please see the discussion here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Films by country or language
Category:Films by country or language has been nominated for. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Frozen's first public screening
I added a sentence to Frozen (2013 film) detailing the film's first public screening in New York, but is has been reverted on the pretext that the sources are not reliable and "not notable". I have started a survey at Talk:Frozen (2013 film) and would like to get a few comments from editors who don't have a vested interest in their version of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice re film discussion underway
The discussion at Talk:America (2014 film) may be of interest to Project members. – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute on The Godfather
There is an ongoing dispute over The Godfather that is in need of more opinions. Please click here to join the conversation and help us settle this argument.  Corvoe  (be heard) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

picture feature song
One of the sources on Oliver Twist (Vaughn De Leath song) describes it as a "picture feature song", i.e. a song tie up to a silent movie. What is the correct article for this article to link to (or redlink to redirect to)? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

National Film Registry category at CfD
Please see the discussion here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed restoration of Bond 24
I have proposed the restoration of at Talk:Bond 24. This project is invited to participate in the discussion. Thanks.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 10:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
I have requested an article move at Talk:Naughty But Nice (1939 film). Please feel free to weigh in. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Public domain film category at CfD
Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)