Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 62

Discussion of Cast scope for Harry Potter films?
This is probably a bit of a long shot, but is anyone here aware of any discussion regarding what cast members are appropriate for inclusion on the Harry Potter film articles? Many/most/all of them include a note saying not to add additional cast, but I'm not certain what the basis for that note was. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's covered in point 1 of WP:FILMCAST, esp. in the part about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 13:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there is an article that lists more cast members throughout the whole film series than any one film article would list. I would be okay with that since the scope is casting-specific, especially if it provides context about how people were cast and retained (or changed) throughout. For a film article, though, the cast list should not overwhelm the reader. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For years, the criteria for inclusion in this cast lists was that the cast member must appear in the film's posters and/or in the film credits by hef/himself (for example, Bonnie Wright or Mark Williams do not appear alone, therefore they are not featured in any article as part of the list). I support User:Erik: this lists shouldn't become overwhelming. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  23:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously there is no hard rule, but I think a good basic rule of thumb is to at least include all the cast listed at the beginning of the film in the opening credits, which is where all the significant names usually pop up. Beyond that, I would say the onus is on the editors who wish to add further names to obtain a consensus on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the HP films ever include cast listings at the beginning of the film, though that may work for films in general.
 * With regards to the HP films in particular, I'm inclined to go with Lord Opeth's feelings on the matter, especially since we already have List of Harry Potter cast members. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's alive! It's alive!
Silentera.com has arisen from the grave. Let the (mute) rejoicing begin. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Input requested: Indian multi-lingual films
Comments requested at WT:ICTF

There's been an increase in Indian films being filmed (not dubbed) simultaneously in different languages. (Baahubali: The Beginning is an example.) The question is: Should these films receive unique articles for each language incarnation? An example of this would be Mudinja Ivana Pudi and Kotigobba 2. They're the same film, directed by the same guy, produced by the same company, they have the same cast, etc. If you have any thoughts on this, your comments would be appreciated at WT:ICTF. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Artsy-fartsy "themes"/"analysis" discussion?
Something about how Apt Pupil (film) is written doesn't sit well with me, but I can't quite figure out why. It just doesn't seem to read like a Wikipedia article. Maybe it's the relative lack of inline attribution of the opinions. I wanted to put some kind of maintenance template, but I couldn't figure out which one. Am I crazy? Are others seeing this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My take, having never seen the film, is that it appears to be more implied themes that critics (and more specifically those seeing the film negatively) appear to be reading into the film. It's fair analysis but it should be distanted from "themes" which are generally explicitly put into a work by its director/creative staff. It's appropriate analysis but I would strike the "Themes" line from the header and reword some of the language to not that these are claims made by critics rather than factual elements. --M ASEM (t) 14:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can comment on this, having written that section. I think such sections are the most difficult and thus the most uncommon to write in film articles on Wikipedia because the sources can be dense and inaccessible. It's something that the late User:Awadewit encouraged years ago when I was more critical of including such academic sources in Wikipedia articles. There are similar such sections elsewhere, such as American Beauty (film), Mulholland Drive (film), and Tender Mercies. (Beyond film, there is also a similar section at To Kill a Mockingbird.) I don't know if there are any real guidelines for writing such sections. Perhaps for Apt Pupil, the authors can be mentioned at the beginning and eventually fade out? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not bad material (and in fact, I think the type of material we strive to include on important cultural works) to include, I just think that it should be clear (as I read the prose there, no immediate access to sources) that this is was critics felt were "themes" but not anything specifically stated by the film's creators. So calling them "themes" should be avoided, but they are proper "analysis" attritubtable to those sources. --M ASEM (t) 14:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I only said "themes" in the second sentence, and I feel like I probably paraphrased the author in that. I've reflected on what to best call such sections, going between themes, interpretations, analysis, or some mash-up of these. Some other articles have it differently. But you're saying you'd like more in-text attribution? Something at the start of each subsection? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , since you find such sections "artsy-fartsy", see this discussion with Awadewit here that helped me see it differently. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that, as I clarified below, "artsy-fartsy" is meant in an ironic, not a derogatory, sense. I write similarly artsy-fartsy material myself all the time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For me, since there's no confirmation from the creative people behind the film, I would not call that section "themes" which I see more as something purposely added to a film and implicit in how the film is created by the people making it. "Analysis" or "interpretation" on the other hand are completely acceptable terms to reflect that third-parties are dissecting the film. And I would just make it clear in the language that we're talking about third-party analysis, not themes set forth by the film makers. For example, taking the first sentenece "The obsession with Nazism and the Holocaust that unfolds in Apt Pupil is the result of the paternal bond between Nazi war criminal Kurt Dussander and high school student Todd Bowden." that reads as a fact that seems to be more an interpretation of the film (without having seen the film but reading in context), so it just needs a few bits of prose to make it a possible interpretation. I might be wrong on that point, but that's the type of thing I think needed. Everything is sourced as needed though, it just needs mitigation out of being in Wikipedia's voice as fact. That's what I think I read in Hijiri's initial comment, because it sounds very matter-of-facty. --M ASEM  (t) 15:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually took the word "themes" from an earlier version of the article. I'm usually reluctant to tag GAs and FAs in general, but will happily tag material that was added to an article since it was promoted to GA; so I looked at the version that was promoted in 2009 and it used the word "themes", and at some point since it was replaced with "critical analysis". This is definitely a move in the right direction, and I agree that including analysis like this is definitely a good thing (I hate it when users just remove it outright as "undue" and insist on only citing the RT score and similar "stats"), but when I write those kind of things I usually attribute it to the scholars in question inline. At present it doesn't look like anything is attributed inline, with the only proper nouns being the names of the original author, the director and the characters (and George Orwell), and words associated with Nazi Germany.
 * I also realized that some portions of it look like they were written in isolation from the rest of the article: use of the title where "the film" might be more appropriate can be forgiven, but Sadomasochism, homoeroticism, and homophobia are highlighted in Bryan Singer's retelling of Stephen King's novella really looks like it belongs at the start of a film review, or a discussion of the original novella that is mentioning the film for the first time, not the middle of an article on the film itself.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added some in-text attribution now. Let me know if you have any feedback. I have usually thought of in-text attribution more in the sense of conflicting opinions, where this kind of material may not have that conflict and is quite authoritative compared to other sources. I don't know if the policies and guidelines really provide any guidance for that since it is literary analysis, which seems to fall somewhere between just everyone-has-an-opinion and something clear-cut (e.g. climate change) with meager denialist POVs. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reads better to me. We should be careful to presume an absence of a counter-view doesn't mean the first view is necessary non-controversial, and here it is just better to state where these opinions are coming from. With enough time (such as how we now look back at Shakespeare's works) some of these points may become more factual but not for many many more years. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Masem. Films, especially recent ones, and especially major Hollywood productions associated with people like Bryan Singer and Stephen King, while they may be subjected to occasional serious literary analysis, are very difficult for us as Wikipedians to discuss in this manner without essentially cherry-picking and potentially giving undue weight. I haven't looked into the film in any depth (I haven't even seen it -- I came across the Wikipedia after going down a rabbit hole following my watching of this YouTube video), but if it's anything like anything else associated with King or Singer, then I am 100% certain there is an abundance of bullshit that has been written about it. (I guess you could say the kind of work they produce is like the Bible, about which there has been "more shit written [...] than any other topic in the world for the last 2000 years". :P )
 * I don't think it's a serious problem in this article, but it's not like with Shakespeare where we have pretty clear scholarly analysis and scholarly analysis of that scholarly analysis and general reference works for laymen that all layout pretty clearly how we can effectively write a balanced discussion of this kind of thing. I don't fully agree with "quite authoritative compared to other sources": on Ariwara no Narihira I cited the undisputed premier expert on Japanese literature in the western world and still named him inline whenever I was quoting his opinion; in the case of recent Hollywood films, who exactly counts as "authoritative" is highly debatable, especially when both the director and author are still very much alive.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What qualifies as bullshit writing, though? WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." In terms of literary analysis, such authoritative authors are much more critical and introspective than most film critics (though some do analysis themselves that transcend their reviews). I do not know if it is common for authors to be at odds with each other since such writings seem to be varying interpretations of a film through different lens, interpretations that do not necessarily contradict. I've never really figured out a sensible way to "weave" interpretations together or how to pick the most consensus-based ones (especially in this kind of academic realm). As for living artists, they would not fall under "Critical analysis" expect as a possible counterpoint to what independent parties say. (One example that comes to mind is Fahrenheit 451 being popularly interpreted one way, and the author disputing that.) While I have not incorporated such writings for years now, it would be good to hash out some ideas for how to write up this kind of section. In-text attribution can be a staple (because it does not hurt anyway), but a sense of how much to include and how to balance would help for future reference. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, one example of giving voice to possible fringe interpretations would be The Shining (film). I had planned to try to rewrite the section on themes, but it turned out to be too much work.  It's difficult to remove the fringe-y opinions, though, because their work is discussed in reliable sources.  My idea was to put more of an emphasis on mainstream academic thought, then move into a discussion on how the fringe-y opinions were received.  I eventually gave up; my limited research showed that it was going to take too much effort to do it justice – there's just so much written about it!  I'll probably return to it some day, though.  I think I did a fairly decent job at Phantasm (film), but I think Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth and Hellraiser: Bloodline need more work.  Those are still basically my first draft, and they're not written very well.  They're also sourced primarily to one person, Paul Kane.  I figure someone is eventually going to challenge me on that, saying that it's undue emphasis on one author's interpretation.  The problem is that it's not easy to find academic analysis of a low-budget horror sequel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, when it comes to citing authors not specifically connected with a film's production in the article on the film, we can use our own judgement on what not to include. WEIGHT essentially requires us not to ignore the opinions of most reliable sources on any major Hollywood film. With some scholarly topics, there is a universally-recognized, top-class expert on the topic whose opinions can basically be cited in any article related to the topic. Bart Ehrman on the New Testament, Susumu Nakanishi on the Man'yōshū, etc. But with modern American mainstream films, we need to be careful, because I think with a few exceptions the majority of films don't have a universally recognized expert whom we can freely cite without concern for UNDUE. I guess Ebert was that for films in general when he was alive (and apparently for no better reason than a loose connection to Ebert, Roeper appears to have taken over that mantle for films released after Ebert's death). In the case of Apt Pupil, it's fair to assume a book specifically about the film, written by two university professors and published by a university press, is worth devoting a paragraph or two to the opinions expressed in it, and I see no reason not to place Mahoney on a similar level. But in general we need to be careful. Plenty of non-notable film critics probably wrote run-of-the-mill reviews of the film that gave similar "critical analysis" and could be cited in a similar manner, but I really don't think they should. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Film plots
is reducing film plots to rather brief overviews. I'm not sure I like how brief they're becoming. However, when I restored the original film plots, my changes were reverted. So, I'm bringing it here to discuss. Some of the plots are a little too long per WP:FILMPLOT, but most are already short enough to be guideline-compliant. Example diffs:,. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No one needs to know exactly how everyone dies. A1b2C3d4 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the more active editors in trimming down plot summaries, and I've written a guide. However, I don't think plot summaries necessarily need to be trimmed down below 500 words when they're already guideline-compliant.  By consensus, they're already within acceptable bounds.  Some films probably can be acceptably described in just 400 words, but I'd like to see a discussion on the article's talk page that reaches a consensus on this matter if the edit is reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No one needs to know exactly how everyone dies. A1b2C3d4 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of opinion and sounds like a backdoor violation of WP:SPOILER. I appreciate there is a lot of middle ground between essential detail and extraneous detail but the plot summary should at the very least outline the basic story and the roles and fates of the main characters within the story. If you edits are challenged please start discussions on the talk pages of the articles in questions and raise your concerns there. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No one needs to know exactly how everyone dies. A1b2C3d4 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your blanking of your talkpage and failure to engage in a discussion points towards WP:NOTHERE. If you continue to remove chunks of plots without giving any real reason or refusing to discuss the changes on the talkpages of the articles, you'll either be blocked for disruption or edit warring. Consider this official notice of the latter.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A1b2C3d4 is posting repetitively to my talk page, too, asking why Friday the 13th (1980 film) has a short plot summary. The answer is because .  There isn't a problem with rewording plot summaries to be more concise, but removing chunks of plot seems unnecessary when they're already within guidelines.  I agree that we don't have to describe the exact manner of death for every character in a slasher film, but one can also err on the opposite side.  For example, sometimes a character in a Friday the 13th film dies while having sex or directly afterward.  This is something that academics have commented on, and this commentary becomes more difficult to understand when the Wikipedia plot summary skims over such details.  It's not a huge deal, but it's one reason why I think we need to discuss these changes sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Still too overly detailed. A1b2C3d4 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no, the consensus here is that they're not. Please don't tag WP:FILMPLOT-compliant plot summaries with overly detailed, as you did . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with NinjaRobotPirate and Betty Logan here. The point of plot summaries on Wikipedia is to provide context for understanding the coverage about the film. Books that have chapters about films have had similarly-sized sections detailing the plot before providing commentary about it. Deaths of the main characters are key details in such summaries because they obviously (and usually) exit the narrative at that point. Like NinjaRobotPirate said, such deaths do not need to be described so exactly, but the fact they perish is relevant if they're part of the main cast. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But I'm not exactly removing everything. I do say that they're killed; is that not enough for you? A1b2C3d4 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Reboot
Should we keep using the word "reboot" to describe films? Upon further examination it seems to be just a spiffy new Hollywood buzzword for a remake. For one thing, the word simply wasn't used in this meaning ~10 years ago outside the comic book industry, so it probably falls under MOS:NEO. IMHO, as Hollywood is marketing so many movies as reboots these days, it may very well end up swept under the rug in shame once the current blockbuster boom ends (I wonder if there are already WP:RS sharing this particular viewpoint? :)

Secondly, I can't find any clear definition of it, let alone something sources agree on. Most sources Our article Reboot (fiction) is skeletal and poorly sourced (especially the Film section), and niftily avoids the question. For instance, one of the sources listed says "A reboot, or relaunch, is a popular trend where developers strip away all the fluff and excess and start completely fresh with a franchise, in theory distilling it down to the core that made it such a success in the first place." What does it mean to "strip away the fluff and excess"? If we presume it's to do away with continuity, i.e. ignore all the previous sequels, isn't that the definition of a remake?

Lastly, keeping the better liked characters and plot points and discarding some of the continuity is hardly something that hasn't been done before 2005, and yet we've made do with other words (e.g. Howling IV: The Original Nightmare, Highlander III: The Sorcerer), or simply ignored the issue as the film producers and distributors have done (is Captain America: The First Avenger a reboot of Captain America (1990 film)? What about Batman (1966 film) and Batman (1989 film)?) To me this suggests that the word "reboot" doesn't add any new meaning to the articles it's used in. Thoughts? Daß Wölf (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Put simply: No, we shouldn't. It is a marketing term that the producers of the 2016 Ghostbusters film use, but it'snon-NPOV and is either essentially meaningless (at best) or speculating about in-universe continuity (at worst). Using a different word for Highlander III from Godzilla (1984) because marketing materials for the former wanted to emphasize the lack of continuity with previous sequels, where this was not the case with the latter, is not helpful to our readers, because they are otherwise identical. It also oversimplifies situations like the Batman one you mention: the 1966 film was a "The Movie" tie-in to the TV series, and the 1989 film is usually considered the first of the modern Batman film franchise, whose popularity later spun-off into several TV series, while sources that discuss the 1966 film in this context usually also discuss the 1940s film serials as well, and no one refers to the 1966 film as a "reboot" of the film serials. Essentially the exact same situation for the Captain America films. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It really should depend on how reliable sources cover the film. From what I've read, "reboot" is usually tied to franchise start-overs where "remake" is usually tied to singular films. (Though I'd be curious to see which term was applied more for the recent Fantastic Four film.) For example, if they started over with the X-Men movies, I would think sources would call the whole initiative a reboot. So perhaps in such cases, it would make sense to apply that term in the first film of a rebooted series, but not necessarily belabor that point in subsequent films. Really, we should go case-by-case here. While there may be some inconsistent use of that term and similar terms, franchise-related coverage do evaluate the worthiness of such corporate decisions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Remake" implies some attempt to create a film with the same plot as the film being remade, and gets strategically avoided in promotional materials when it would cause bad press. From what I understand, with the new Ghostbusters they used the word "reboot" as a euphemism for "remake" for this reason. But I don't think reliable sources use the word "remake" for things like the 2015 Fantastic Four since apart from it bing an origin story it was not a "do-over" of the firat film in terms of plot. The X-Men movies post-First-Class (and especially post-Future Past) are an interesting case, although not dissimilar to Superman Returns: I've seen the phrase "in-continuity reboot" used, and for those cases it seems like the best option, but that really needs to be on a case-by-case basis, and I think in general we should discourage the use of "reboot" because it gets overused in marketing fluff. I agree with Erik that we should go with what reliable sources use, but would add that until legit scholarly materials start to be produced for this or that movie we should be conservative/minimalist in how we describe things and stick to only the most wodely-recognized authorities (and use inline attribution when we are quoting promotional material of any kind, including interviews with filmmakers and cast). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term should be used, but carefully. I think it would be inappropriate to write e.g. "X was a reboot of Y" instead of "X was marketed as a reboot of Y", since it's so vague and subjective. Consider for example Dracula Untold, which was called a reboot of Universal's Dracula movies. We basically have to take Universal's word for it, since it has about as much in common with those as with, say, Dracula 2000 or even Universal's own Dracula (1979 film), and if we do that I don't think we will be describing the film itself anymore. Daß Wölf (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Help request: Miss Peregrin and the Peculiar Children.
Hello everybody.

I have been working on the article for Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (film). I got a couple doubts about the style that should be used to describe characters and their powers. (My personal impression is that we are using unnecessary and/or unaccurate links, but that might be just me). I opened a discussion in the article's talk page, but then I thought I'd better come and ask here as well.

Is there any style guideline for character description that could help me?

Thanks a lot. Not A Superhero (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Voices of Transition - non-notable awards and festivals
Full of non-notable awards and festivals - see the earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52 but we didn't make a list. Pinging the editors who posted there and are active now: {{yo|Lugnuts|Sock|Betty Logan|Cyphoidbomb]]. It's a weird article anyway. A number of the references don't mention the film but are for material discussed in the film. Eg "Governmental support of urban agriculture has led to a higher degree of food sovereignty and a degree of independence from the world market and oil prices. Because of this, Cuba's forced development could serve as an example for other countries whose resource shortages are yet to come.Most of the article is about the content of the film." which in fact isn't referenced and seems to be just an argument, maybe not in the film. We've got about 14 mentions of the Oregon Film Festival That includes List of accolades received by Rohit Gupta which shows how much these non-notable awards etc are being used just for promotional purposes. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello {{u|Doug Weller}}. Your ping didn't work - I can't tell you how many time I've made the same mixed brackets error :-) So this one {{yo|Lugnuts|Sock|Betty Logan|Cyphoidbomb}} should get to the editors you wanted to contact. You will also want to see this recent thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film which is related to your post. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I got pinged in the other thread, but I'll reply here for now. I'm familiar with the Rohit Gupta articles.  They're all a bit promotional and could use a bit of pruning.  This article seems the same.  I asked once about long lists of festival screenings, and the response I got was what I expected: no, don't list every single screening.  I think that makes sense, as we don't want to become mired in promotional listcruft.  I don't think news articles should be cited when unless they mention the topic of the Wikipedia article, but there may be exceptions where it doesn't result in synthesis.  This seems unlikely, though.  Quite a few of the citations in Voices of Transition seem to go to the official website, and they should probably be replaced with better ones – or removed if nothing better is available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As with notable awards we should stick to notable festivals i.e. festivals with an article. That said we have to take care with non-English-language films because of English-language bias, so it may be worth checking the native Wikipedias to see if they have articles for the festivals in those countries before removing them. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo
Hi project members, I wanted to know what the view is of the above website being considered a reliable source. I know it's part of iMDB, which is not considered an RS for many articles as it is user-generated content, but I don't know if the same applies to Box Office Mojo. I am asking because I have come across several "List of (year) box office number-one films in (country)" which basically use the weekly Box Office Mojo lists as the only source in the article: if BOM is not considered an RS for these lists, then the value of the articles themselves is in doubt. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is considered a reliable source because it does not use user-submitted content unlike the main IMDB. That said it should be used with care especially for older films which sometimes have erroneous/missing data. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Betty, I just wanted confirmation from the WikiProject. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. A list of acceptable sources is maintained at WikiProject Film/Resources (although not limited to) if you need to check anything else. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Plot of Your Name
Hi, this is my first on this project talk page and I having a little trouble. Well a user keeps removing the plot section from the Your Name, claiming it's needs a source and saying it's original research. But since the plot section is using the film as the primary source, does it need secondary sources for Verifiability?. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipededia needs to be verifiable including plots for works of fiction, but WP:Verifiability is sometimes misinterpreted by editors who demand a citation for plots. Per WP:FILMPLOT this is not the case, because a work of fiction—provided it is available via some medium in some part of the world—is self-citing i.e. the film itself serves as a primary source. The relevant part of the policy is WP:PRIMARY which states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This policy prescribes a narrow criteria by which an editor may use the film itself as a source for the plot summary. Any interpretative or analytical statements about the plot require a secondary source i.e. another source written about the film. You can find further guidance at WP:PLOTSUM. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Characters in Casino
There is currently a discussion underway on the Casino talk page about the historical basis of the characters and whether we should include in the cast section the names of the actual people upon whom the fictional characters are based. I removed that information from the article yesterday and was reverted. My opinion on the matter is that the characters in the film have diverged significantly from the actual people that putting the "based on" information in the cast section implies more historical fidelity than is accurate. My suggestion was that such information should be in a separate section that would address the historical basis for the film and how it diverged from the facts for the purposes of storytelling. If there are references for this, I think it would be better for the article. I'd like to hear the opinions of other Film Project editors. Thanks. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  16:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean I'm funny? Oh, wrong film... (fixed link to direct discussion).  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, the way that you fixed the redirect. C'mon, Lugnuts. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  22:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life
An author trimmed down the cast list of this ensemble cast film in a most radical way, leaving out some important roles like Zuzu. I disagree, but I would like to hear some more opinions. --Clibenfoart (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to start a discussion at the talk page and discuss it with the other editor. Generally with older films (i.e. those that don't have end credits) I say start with the cast credited at the beginning of the film, and then the onus is on the editor who wants to add/cut names to put forward a winning argument. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The author who's doing all the trimming on that article sure does know alot about about policy/ways of editing for a "new" user who's been here for about 2 weeks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 14:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool Breeze (1972 film) article full of rubbish
Ok so is anybody going to delete all the nonsense that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual film ?!! Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MononcStef (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Be bold and fix it.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 10:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've hacked out the more irrelevant sections. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor changes production companies on upcoming films
There's a disruptive IP editor in England who's been changing production companies and distributors, mostly in upcoming films but also in films released in 2016. Usually, he adds RatPac-Dune Entertainment, but sometimes he also adds Village Roadshow Pictures. I first noticed him on Geostorm and Ready Player One (film), which have been subject to constant unsourced changes to their infoboxes. Partly as a result of this editor's disruption, I've been sourcing production companies and distributors in infoboxes lately. Unfortunately, the IP editor has been adding fake citations (for example:, which is a misrepresentation of the source). I would ask that editors watch out for these fake citations and disruptive changes to the production companies. Articles about production companies also get targeted, especially lists, such as List of Warner Bros. films and List of theatrically released Lionsgate films. I'm not an expert on this stuff, so it would be nice to have some help keeping an eye on these articles. These lists are mostly unsourced, and IP editors will occasionally tweak them without sources. Someone will have to source these lists eventually if we're going to have any stability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking for potential references for "review embargos"
I'm coming at the topic of review embargos from the video game situation, but they clearly originated in the film industry first and still can be a problem w.r.t. social media. As it makes sense to discuss the topic as a whole, I'm looking to see if anyone knows of good sources that discuss the origins, actions (legal or otherwise) when they are broken, benefits, and drawbacks of these embargos specifically from the film industry. (There's also a concept here for TV and more recently stage plays but those are more trivial compared to films and video games). Please note I haven't actually started any article, my plan is to cover these basics first and then have per-industry sections and then note specific controversies/issues over embargos --M ASEM (t) 18:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hah, I've wanted to create an article for this too, but never got around to it. From what I recall, I had trouble finding sources that merely talked about films' review embargos in general. The coverage tends to emerge when there is a particular case going on. For example, there was a review embargo issue with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo that led to some navel-gazing about how review embargos should be considered. So I would probably look at controversial review embargos to help find coverage about embargos' function in general. Hope that helps. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That film's embargo did previously lead me to some earlier useful articles, but the history of it is tough to find. The issue of researching embargoes seems to be that it was accepted practice for several decades, an unspoken agreement that didn't raise any issues that no one discussed, but with the Internet and instance accept and piracy, the situation for embargoes was put into the spotlight, and the various industries reacted in different ways (which is in part what makes the concept interesting to me). But this seems to be the best starting point to start from the known controversial ones and working backwards. --M ASEM  (t) 20:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Gross disputed?
Curious what my fellow editors think of these changes made by new user. Specifically, should the box office gross be presented as in dispute? On the one hand, we have a huge ₹453 crore claim (₹4.53 billion) made by the film's producer, a primary source. To put that into perspective, if we went with the producer's figures, MSG2 would be the #6 highest grossing Indian film. On the other hand, Boxofficeindia.com is generally considered a reliable published source and they found the film's early worldwide numbers were in the ₹17.3 crore (173 million) area, which would not be a great opening for a film headed for the top 10. Koimoi isn't really considered reliable by the Indian cinema task force, but other news outlets do refer to them occasionally. Their list doesn't include MSG2 anywhere in the top 20.

Keep in mind also that all three films made by this guy (an over-the-top spiritual leader) have been described as blatant self-aggrandizing propaganda pieces. The guy tosses an elephant in this film and has no qualms about claiming that the film is "based on true events". So, how do we keep a NPOV without becoming part of the marketing machine?

And please don't be shy about commenting just because it's an Indian film. This doesn't require any knowledge of Indian stuff. What would we do if some questionable box office values were tossed out by an American producer known for making outrageous propaganda films? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that maybe a producer would over inflate it to make it seem important maybe? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why we don't typically entertain primary sources for controversial content like this. My question is more about how or if we should even entertain this information considering that this guy's statements are so off the wall. I'm concerned that it constitutes WP:UNDUE to present the producer's claims because they are not reflective of what other sources actually think. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it seems undue to report this. I guess you could cite WP:REDFLAG, since this is a rather grandiose claim.  The second point ("challenged claims supported only by primary or self-published sources") would seem to apply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG certainly seems relevant here, NRP, thanks for that. I think MSG: The Messenger does a mediocre job of explaining that there is a discrepancy, but I still have strong feelings about even entertaining that there is a discrepancy. That might just be an emotional argument though. Another question is how the content should be presented in gross. Flagged as "Disputed" as it is now? Or do we go with the highest value reported by reliable sources? At Kabali (film), a similar issue came up, where some sources were reporting super-high figures due to confusion on their part (and possibly inflation by producers) but I don't know if we ever settled on how to address that in gross. In this case with MSG, the guy behind the film is a major self-propagandist, (and I'm being SUPER polite here) and while my hope is to always go with NPOV, we're talking about the difference between a flop and a huge success. Dispute or not, one version is far closer to the truth than the other. So, that's where my head is right now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How does Box Office India get the gross information? Is it just estimating it? If that is the case then the producer is still best placed to know how much it made even if they have an obvious agenda to inflate the figure. If there are no official/audited figures then I suggest just doing what we do with budget estimates and use a range. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no centralized funnel like BoxOfficeMojo for Indian films. Most of the data reported comes from each reliable source's own reporting methodology. BoxOfficeIndia.com (not to be confused with .co.in) writes "The figures on the website are not taken from producers or distributors of the respective films but independent estimates from our sources and then cross checked through cinema collections." This is part of why there is always a disparity in Indian financials. To your point about the producer knowing how much the film made, there is so much corruption and BS going on in Indian film finances that in 2013, Times of India discontinued their box office reporting for a while out of frustration. So in terms of accuracy, I think it's a mistake to assume that what the producers say they know, is actually what they know. And in the case of MSG2, we're talking about a difference of $64 million USD (inr 170000000 vs. inr 4530000000) which is significant for India. I also think the silence on the issue from the other reputable trades is huge as well. Like, if the major trusted news sources don't even acknowledge MSG as a high-grossing film, that is meaningful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to keep the infobox param empty and adress the dispute in the prose. Such a huge discrepancy seems relevant enough for a couple of sentences to me. E.g. Jerry Wossname, the film producer, has claimed a box office gross of $1 zillion.[1] Other sources, including Website A and Newspaper B, have reported figures in the range of $1–2 million.[2][3][4] Daß &thinsp; Wölf 23:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can a film be "nominated" for the Palme d'Or?
At The Salesman (2016 film) I recently reverted (twice) an unregistered editor who put in the Awards table that the film was "nominated" for the Palme d'Or. IMDb uses this terminology but reputable sources do not. It's not like the Oscars which specifically announces "nominations" beforehand. At Cannes, films are said to be "in competition", not "nominated". Any comments? Another issue on that page is the proper transliteration of Persian names. I'll stay off that page for a while because of 3RR but hopefully someone knowledgeable will have a look at recent edits there. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Afaik the films in the competition are selected/invited, hence both versions are ok, though "in competetion" is more common.--Kmhkmh (talk) +


 * IP 80.82.66.40 is making some very bad changes to related articles too.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh and back to the original point - I guess it's semantics rather than anything else. "X film was selected..." or "X film was nominated..." seem OK to me. There are a lot of tables and articles that use nominated, including some featured lists that use the term too.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Citation, citation, citation. None of the citations confirm. Cannes gives lots of awards, not just the Palme d'Or, so being in competition doesn't mean "nominated for Palme d'Or". I'm removing those claims as unsupported. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Placing films in the Category:Films about hebephilia
Hey, guys. Will some of you weigh in on Category talk:Films about hebephilia, about matters such as this and similar? The topic was discussed twice (see Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 30), and it is still an issue. Mainly, an editor has argued that films are being placed in the hebephilia category when they and/or the characters don't match the definition of hebephilia and that the additions are therefore WP:Original research violations, while another editor has argued that the additions aid navigation and that it's better that these films are placed in the hebephilia category instead of being wrongly placed Category:Films about pedophilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's now at an RfC: Category talk:Films about hebephilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over sourcing content for an upcoming film
There's a dispute at Dunkirk (2017 film), where IP editors are insisting on changing certain elements of the infobox. Because it's an upcoming film, authoritative sources are difficult to find for some of the infobox parameters. I started a discussion at Talk:Dunkirk (2017 film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a case similar to The Martian with regards to American and British elements. Editors are invited to weigh in about major studios, production, distribution, etc. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fantasia 2000
Due to some wonky edits to the Fantasia 2000 article some extra eyes on it would be appreciated. Also any input to this thread Talk:Fantasia 2000 would be helpful as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Independent films by country
There are a bunch of categories for "independent" films at Category:Independent films by country. Does anyone know what the criteria for inclusion is? For example, what qualifies something as a British "independent" film at Category:British independent films? I am aware that American films not made by the major studios are considered "independent" but I have never heard the terminology applied to British films before. Other than the Rank Organization, Britain has never really had a studio system so I am a bit perplexed at what the criteria is. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Would they be mainly produced by Film4, per this?  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 13:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose a better question would be which British films wouldn't be considered independent in the UK? Using the American template an independent film producer would be any production company that doesn't have centralized funding, production and distribution facilities (so basically all of them these days). Following some research it appears the UK had a quite a few studios but they all went bankrupt or were bought up by Americans: PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, EMI Films, British Lion Films, Hammer Film Productions (has since started production but not functioning as a studio), Associated British Picture Corporation (formerly British International Pictures) and Gainsborough Pictures. That pretty much makes every British film made today independent or quasi-American (like the Bond films which are independently produced in Britain but currently obtain their funding from Sony by pre-selling distribution). These categories really need their inclusion criteria to be much clearer though. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess the further question would be is this a defining attribute to the film? I've never been a big fan of this category, and is possibly the vaguest one we have on this project.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 15:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Another dispute about unsourced production companies
I don't know if people are aware, but I've been trying to source production companies in infoboxes lately. There's yet another dispute over unsourced production companies at Talk:The Last Airbender. I'm getting regularly reverted when I source production companies because people don't like what the reliable sources say. I think we may need to codify this somewhere in MOS:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You demonstrated tremendous patience in the Pink Panther fiasco. I would support clarification in MOS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Link to YouTube video
Sorry, more drama. D.O.A. (1950 film). Someone wants to add a YouTube video to the external links, but I've said that it's link spam. seems to be a SPA dedicated to adding this person's YouTube videos to Wikipedia. I don't really want to get into an edit war over this, and I've already raised the issue on the IP editor's talk page. Instead of discussing, the IP editor reverted. So, I ask here: do we link to random YouTube videos when there's already a link to archive.org? And, if so, how would we decide whose channel to link to? I think we should only link to archive.org, obviously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks like the IP editor is changing working links to point at his or her own YouTube channel, which seems a bit spammy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We only need one link and I would favor Internet Archive in this instance since it is a non-profit organization which hosts public domain content. Youtube on the other hand is a commercial company that regularly hosts non-free content, and often uses free contnt to promote non-free content. Another thing is that content hosted on Internet Archive is a lot more stable than content hosted by a user account on Youtube which can be deleted/suspended at any time if it violates the terms of use. Betty Logan (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I consider it spam and have rolled back most of his edits and blocked the IP for 72 hours. If it flares up again, please tell him that he needs to seek consensus here, and please also let me know. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That was quick. Thanks for looking into it, Betty and Cyphoidbomb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From all modifications I did (49) : (10) of them were linked to a deleted Youtube video and I just updated them (please, review). (9) of them had a working video, but after reviewing, I considered my videos are better for some reason (in terms of image quality, sound quality, lenght, or other), I personally treated some movies to improve them. The rest (30), I added a new link to Youtube with the full public domain movie (always the last of the external links). Yes, it is my own Youtube channel, but I personally thought I was adding value (and helping to fix broken links) even if it was my own Youtube channel. In some cases, the archive.org link wasn't available on the wiki page and in other cases, the movie isn't available on archive.org. So, I ask here: It was that wrong what I did? Any guidelines/consensus about it? 95.18.220.187 (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everyone thinks their YouTube channel is the best one and their videos are better for some reason. I think it would be less controversial if you added links to archive.org instead.  If archive.org is missing a film, you could upload it there.  It would avoid the problem of having to decide whose YouTube channel we link to.  There must be countless YouTube channels dedicated to public domain films.  The last thing we need are YouTube users promoting themselves and edit warring over whose channel gets listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Question Regarding Cinema of Iceland (And All Foreign Films)
I have a question regarding the page Cinema of Iceland, as well as all foreign film lists in general. I know that general consensus as to whether the article title should be in the original language, or the translated version is discussed here, but I think it looks a bit disorganized on a list if some of the films are listed in an original language, and some are in the translated version. I'm sure this would get even more awkward with a language that does not use English letters. Would it be okay to have all the films as listed in the original language here (or in English), or is it better to have a mixed list of films as they are commonly known? --FuzzyGopher (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In any listing of foreign-language films it's desirable that both the original title and the English title should be shown side by side (in a consistent format), because either may be the form which is recognised by individual readers. It is a different argument from the choice of title to form the heading for an article, which is based on an assessment of the most commonly used form. Even if that choice of heading clearly favours an English title, a list ought not to make identification unnecessarily difficult for those readers who are familiar with the original one (especially in cases where different English-speaking countries have preferred different titles). I see that the Cinema of Iceland article already applies the principle of parallel titles in some instances, but not always in a consistent order. Lampernist (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, totally, and I agree with the side-by-side of titling. I understand that it is different from the article title itself. What I'm wondering is, should all the titles be in English (or in Icelandic), even if they are more commonly known as something else in the English-speaking world? Basically, what I'm saying is that I think it should be consistent, and I think most people would agree with that. I'll take a stab in the dark and venture to say that the Icelandic titles should appear first in the list, even if there are technically more "English recognizable ones", because some of the film titles are only in Icelandic. Will set to work soon. Thanks. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to have the Icelandic title listed first since many of these films won't have been released in English-speaking countries and therefore won't have have English titles, but maybe a better solution would be a sortable table and readers can then choose for themselves how they want to access the list. A template for this format can be found at List of Icelandic films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Query about film sources
Hi, I am wondering what an acceptable source for a film might be. In this case, a French film called Flammes sur l'Adriatique or Adriatic Sea of Fire. The sources I am looking at are this and this. I want to reference the film in the article about the Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb. Thoughts? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since those sources are in French it is difficult to assess the RS status. If they are professionally published and not user-edited then they would most likely be considered reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * AlloCiné is a major French film portal, but I've never been 100% sure whether it's reliable or not. I think it is, but... honestly, I just don't edit French film articles enough to have a good sense about it.  This is compounded by my weak French-language skills.  I don't know anything about bifi.fr, and I've never cited it.  It couldn't hurt to ask at WP:RSN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. For future ref, cinema.encyclopedie.films.bifi.fr (which is a bit clunky as a website) is published by the film archive Cinémathèque Française, so I have used that one. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Betting on Zero - request for article

 * Betting on Zero -- Nominated for Best Documentary Feature at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival -- (IMDB)

If someone could create this article that would be really amazing, thank you ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. I didn't include the IMDb-listed awards because they look like they're the default status of every film that plays "in competition" at a festival.  I don't see how it's notable to mention that something was nominated for "best documentary feature" if every film in competition was also nominated.  Other people might disagree, but that's my understanding of the consensus that resulted in MOS:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Godfather Part III
Can someone take a look at the bottom of the Talk:The Godfather Part III page and figure out what the story is with those two references or ext. links? I don't know why they are there, where they are supposed to be, and/or how to move or get rid of them. Thanks. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  19:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've insert the reflist template in the section that had these references. This makes the references appear there rather than at the end of the page by default. I don't know if this is the best practice, but that is what I've done in the past. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That works. Thanks, Erik. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  20:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that - or reflist talk - is the way to deal with them on a talk page. Well, to be fair, you can also remove the brackets and turn them into direct links but I prefer the first two choices as it makes it easier to read the link without having to click on it. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will try to remember that for the future.  The thing is, though, when I searched the page, I couldn't find where the references were... does that make sense?  Anyway, problem solved. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  03:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota
Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Max Steel (film)
There's a conflict going on at Max Steel (film) regarding the prose in the production section. The discussion can be found at Talk:Max Steel (film). Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Horror films to ID
Can anyone help with this? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 11:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"Crocodile" Dundee or Crocodile Dundee
The discussion currently active at Talk:"Crocodile" Dundee features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And make it snappy!  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources from IMDb
Throwing this out there as my first question and suggestion, but how come we haven't seen any sources or anything from IMDb about Miss Representation? Is IMDb not a reliable or credible source? Certainly would like to think that some useful information could be used from that source. Any help or suggestions would be great! Thank you. BPike1 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)BPike1


 * Hi. Does WP:CITEIMDB help?  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that steers me in a better direction, thank you. BPike1 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)BPike1

I'd also like to suggest adding to the Miss Representation page with the soundtracks found in the movie with the source coming from IMDB. Any objections from anyone on that before I make an edit? BPike1 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)BPike1


 * You need to find another source per WP:RS/IMDB. IMDb is WP:USERGENERATED and they do not always take the time to WP:VERIFY info submitted to their website. Now I will state that yes most of their info is correct but we've had User:Rhododendrites/Chaney, List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival and List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin which IMDb were perfectly happy to have on their website until the hoaxes were uncovered here at WikiP. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Posters for foreign films
For films made outside of America, should the American poster be used or the theatrical poster from the country of origin?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There have been previous discussions about this and the poster used in the country of origin is always preferable. If it meets the criteria for pics that is. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I have always felt it is better for the title on the poster to match the article name. If the native title is used then it is better to use the native poster, but if the translated title is used I would probably use the American or British poster. Basically in the case of a non-free poster the fair use rationale permits use of the artwork to identify the subject of the article so under that rationale it makes sense to use the artwork that maximises identification of the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with that point about identification. Might be time to revisit the guidance on this and revise if needed.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 15:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader discussion
There's an ongoing discussion on how the appearance section of the Darth Vader article should be trimmed and rewritten for a potential FA. You are invited to discuss at Talk:Darth Vader. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

King Arthur (film) or King Arthur (2004 film)
The discussion currently active at Talk:King Arthur (film) centers on the fact that the qualifier's proposed expansion is predicated upon the full title form of the upcoming film King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Additional input is invited. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Star Wars expanded universe
There's an ongoing WP:RFC at Star Wars expanded universe regarding the issue of the non-canon material before April 2014. The discussion can be found at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Saugat Bista
The youngest film director: Saugat Bista. It is a new stub. Not sure if it is WP:SINGLEEVENT. The creator would be grateful for any improvements you can make. Best wishes and thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:The Magic Flute at WP:TFD
Please join the discussion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_23.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and older films (Its a Wonderful Life, in this case)
I have opened a thread on the use of a Rotten Tomatoes "rating" on It's a Wonderful Life (Talk:It's a Wonderful Life/Archive 2) as it seems potentially problematic to refer to the score on a film that was released sixty years before the website was launched. Any and all comments on this matter are welcome. – The Bounder (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Film elaborates slightly on this matter: "...caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates". Personally I would discourage the use of aggregetor scores when a significant number of the reviews are retrospective. Aggregators are a useful tool for recently released films where most of the reviews are contemporary and there isn't much else in the way of extended analysis, but in the case of classic films especially we can usually do much better than aggregators. So much has been written about Citizen Kane, for example, it is beyond me why we would resort to aggregator stats when there are far more credible alternatives available better placed to put opinion in a proper context. There is a fairly extensive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_12. Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Box office editor evading a block
Hi all. Just wanted to make the project aware, if they were not already, of User:Josephlalrinhlua786. This user is currently blocked indefinitely for copyright violations, but has been evading their block to continue editing articles related to this project. This user mainly edits the box office sections of films, and you can tell their edits because they are tagged as a mobile edit (see one of their sock edits, here) and the account will be brand new, possibly a red link. If you do happen to come across this editor and their edits, please report them to their SPI case, here. Edits can also be reverted, but are not required. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up and for the helpful links. Much appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Blackfish dispute
An ip editor at the article Blackfish has been repeatedly trying to aggressively insert information that the film is all propaganda, while I agree that the film is hardly neutral so is this editor. He/she has also repeatedly threatened me with libel lawsuits and called me a liberal vegan idiot on their talkpage. Could someone help me out? I'm getting rather tired of this person.★Trekker (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Threats of a legal nature lead to an immediate block if you file an ANI report; given the state of comments by the IP on theIR talk page, that's would seem a sensible avenue to take. – The Bounder (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The Great Wall whitewashing dispute
There is a dispute whether or not The Great Wall (film) should be listed at Whitewashing in film despite verification from reliable sources. The discussion can be found here. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * On a related note, that lead might need a trim - "... epic historical fiction action-adventure monster film..."  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there, but I remember that this came up before (not necessarily wrt to The Great Wall), but it was the concept that as along as reliable sources or, moreso in this case, expert opinions believed a film was whitewashing, even if facts proved them wrong, it was still valid to include alongside the factual aspect that it really wasn't. --M ASEM (t) 21:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this particular film has not been released yet. Several of the sources seem to comment on its trailer. Dimadick (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we avoid using British English terms in a British film to avoid American IP edit warriors?
A thread on the topic is ongoing (at Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)); any and all comments are most welcome. – The Bounder (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get a wider idea of WP:FILM's consensus on this matter. Harry Potter articles, and many others in WP:FILM, tend to use the word "instalment" for describing films in a series. This word, of course, is spelled "installment" in American English. The question is whether we should use the word at all in articles where there is a high probability that it will be constantly and aggressively challenged and modified by uninformed, and sometimes young, editors. Harry Potter has a chronic problem with this - we chose to use an Anglocentric milieu for the topic and we use British English and the title Philosopher's Stone rather than Sorceror's Stone, and people try to "correct" these "errors" all the time. So what I am asking is whether we are just better off, as WP:ENGVAR strongly suggests, using commonalities rather than uniquely-spelled terms, and just avoid writing "instalment" altogether where we could omit the word entirely or just say "film" when we mean it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Avoid the use of the word "installment" per WP:COMMONALITY, IMO. Surely there are satisfactory synonyms. --Izno (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If this was written in American English, and people tried to change it constantly to the British English spelling, I expect we'd see strong resistance to the idea. Shall we ban the use of "instalment" in all articles because American IPs have been vandalising it to force the spelling their way? Shall we give way to every bully on all words they attack, or just those not spelled the American way?
 * And COMMONALITY has nothing to do with this: instalment is a common term, with only the spelling an issue to a minority who are unwilling to acknowledge the hidden notices. – The Bounder (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what is meant by "common" in this context. And it's not a matter of "unwilling to acknowledge" the notes - they are actively acknowledging, attacking and disaparaging, and vandalizing the hidden notices! Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the terminology, thank you. So your approach to vandalism is to roll over and give in? That doesn't seem a wise path at all (and, again, if this was people trying to change I feel from "installment" to "instalment", Im sure many would be up in arms fighting it down, not giving in to it). The notes are not necessarily the best possible ones. They say that the spelling is correct in British English, but that means nothing without something that says the spelling is part of a wider ENGVAR guideline (i.e. explaining why it is in British English). – The Bounder (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Commonality in context means "use and  which can be found in most major English dialects, where possible". Is "instal(l)ment" such a special words that there isn't a respectable synonym? --Izno (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to kowtow to vandals and bullies, then we can't start by removing all instances of "installments" and scrap most of our ENGVAR guidelines, or at least say "have a stab at using the appropriate variant until rolling over or running away when the culturally idiotic IPs start being stupid, then give up and write everything in American just to appease them". Which of those sounds like a suitable idea? – The Bounder (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have yet to answer my question. Are you interested in collaborating or simply getting your way? :) --Izno (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should,focus on points in hand, rather than trying to personalise the matter against an individual who is saying something you don't like? – The Bounder (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have yet to raise any significant points not otherwise balanced by counterpoints offered by myself as well as others here. As it is, you're the one ranting. I'm still waiting on an answer to my question; here it is again: Is "instal(l)ment" such a special words that there isn't a respectable synonym? --Izno (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And now I am "ranting"? Again, perhaps you could not make personal comments about others (content not contributor, etc). Actually, if you look at what I have said, I have answered your point: "We are using a standard term, common in both languages and present both within the film industry and in common use". – The Bounder (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. My understanding is that the rule of thumb is that if a film is a British film (or from another jurisdiction which uses British English, like India) than British English is to be used. This is not an uncommon issue. It happens semi-frequently at films like Love Actually and The English Patient, where words using the British usage (e.g. travelled) are constantly being changed to "traveled", and then get reverted back. I've written a few articles about English and Indian films (the latter to help out some Indian wp friends who English was not their first language), and because my spell check uses American English, after the article was up, those words which were mis-spelled in British English were corrected by other editors, which I felt was proper. Anyway, that's my .02. Onel 5969  TT me 03:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The variety of English is not at issue here. It is altogether settled that we should be using British English, for consistency with the rest of the Wizarding World universe articles. What the question is is whether we should not be seeking to narrow the gap by avoiding gratuitous use of Britishisms when it would better serve readers to simply eliminate them altogether or use a simple synonym. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "gratuitous use of Britishisms"? We are using a standard term, common in both languages and present both within the film industry and in common use, with only a minor spelling difference. – The Bounder (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment For any article of a substantial length more often than not there will always be differences between the Brit-English and American-English versions, and commonality cannot reconcile everything. For instance, it is very hard to find a common word for "cinema" and "theater", both of which regularly occur in film articles. In principle I agree with pursuing commonality because it can help to reduce genuine confusion, that is editors "correcting" things they believe are spelt wrong. However, what I see on that article is editors deliberately ignoring the hidden note and changing to a spelling variety they know is incorrect for the article. This is a behavioral problem not a MOS issue and the solution isn't appeasing them. If you do that someone is invariably left with a huge clean-up job six months down the line across a ton of articles, simply because other editors have taken the easy way out and not confronted them over their conduct. It is best just to revert them, and if they continue you can always shop them at ANI or request pending changes protection. Betty Logan (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me get that straight. We have to Americanize Wikipedia further to appease American vandals? Does not the website already have tons of systemic bias to counter? Should we keep adding to it? And since when do vandals get to run the website? Dimadick (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So let me see if I have got this straight. The emerging consensus here is that one letter "l" is the hill we are going to die on, ignoring reasonable advice from a prewritten GUIDELINE in the WP:MOS, because we will never allow the vandals to have a say in our righteous cause of promoting British English via this article. Is that basically what we are saying in a nutshell? Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying that. I think the summary is that vandals with a battleground mentality who deliberately act against our guidelines and policies should not be given the opportunity to continue; if they do, then page protection, ANI and other measures are available. - The Bounder (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No. I see no reason to comply with incorrect edits just because it saves us time.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Film categories
There's been some debate over a pretty minor issue lately, but attempts to find a compromise have proven difficult. Back a few years ago, Lugnuts chastised me for ignoring what I thought was an obscure instruction at WP:FILMCAT. Eventually, I was swayed to Lugnuts' point of view and began follow the suggestions there. Things were pretty quiet for a while until a few editors began re-sorting categories alphabetically, including and. I asked both editors to leave the categories sorted per FILMCAT, as I found it easier to work with categories on my watchlist when they were arranged that way. recently raised the issue on my talk page and asked me to seek wider input on the matter. After trying again to find a compromise, I've brought it here. Yes, I know it's a very minor issue, but I've found it much easier to work with articles when the categories were grouped by topic rather than alphabetically. I work sporadically on various articles on my watchlist, and I find it frustrating to have them made more difficult for me to work on by wikignomes who have no interest in working long-term on the article. It seems like a situation where a common-sense "leave it like it was before" guideline, such as WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATERET, would apply if your changes have been challenged. There's also the issue of overcategorization, as in, which adds a slew of unsourced categories, such as "crime drama", "crime thriller", "thriller drama", and "horror thriller", to what is basically a psychological thriller film. I'm concerned this also makes the categories a bit harder to work with since the defining characteristics become buried under a glut of genres. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Categorization needs to be supported by sources so I would just revert any unsupported additions. But I thing the overcategorization is becoming a major problem. If you have 100 categories (for example) and you start crossing them over with each other the effect is exponential: 10,000 possible combinations. If you cross those combinations with another 100 categories you end up with potentially 1 million categories. They cease being useful in any meaningful human way i.e. you'd need a computer program to search through them. As an example, Category:American horror thriller films crosses over two genres and a country (three pieces of information) so the potential number of such categories is mind-boggling. Cross-over categories should perhaps be limited to two items of information IMO: if you have Category:Horror thriller films, Category:American thriller films and Category:American horror films, is Category:American horror thriller films really needed? I don't work much on categorization so I might be out of step on this, but adding a new layer of categorization has a fundamental impact on all film articles and it should really be discussed before editors steam ahead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That American horror thriller cat is such a bad idea. I'm pretty sure triple-intersection categories are strongly discouraged.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure you will be on board with Category:British zombie comedy films. These categories are being created by our old friend . Most of these categories are unnecessary and violate WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. Time for a topic ban? Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that triple-intersection isn't allowed for film cats? Some of them existed before I started creating more of them. Why is American horror thriller films a bad cat? There are many films which are eligible for inclusion in that - it's not small or narrow. Jim Michael (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have explained, triple intersection by crossing over doubles genres with countries leads to the number of categories rising exponentially to the point that they cease to be a useful organizational structure. American horror thriller films are perfectly well organized by membership to American horror films, American thriller films and Horror thriller films. It is not necessary to form a third category to house this information! Per WP:NARROWCAT: "...an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful." In fact, such refinement is potentially unhelpful. More readers probably search American horror films or American thriller films than they do American horror thriller films, but by taking them out of those categories and adding them to American horror thriller films means that a reader or an editor who uses the categories to search out American horror films not only has to search through an extra category, but these films are now no longer in the category you would most expect them to be. You are fragmenting information to beyond its useful purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on that premise, most cats wouldn't exist; you could make such an argument in regard to most cats. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, based on that premise—and guideline—the triple-intersection categories you have created would not exist, and the films you have relegated to these obscure and useless sub-categories would still be in the categories where most people would expect to find them. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You could make the same argument for double-intersection cats.
 * Which guideline states (rather than possibly vaguely implies) that triple-intersection film cats shouldn't exist? Some of them were created by other people years ago and still exist without you challenging their existence. Jim Michael (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with the need to limit these ever-expanding cats. I am glad this discussion is taking place as I'd recently noticed that this problem is getting out-of-hand. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  19:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some triple-intersection film cats have existed for several years, created by other editors. Why didn't you challenge their existence? Jim Michael (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, support the idea of a topic ban. There's being bold and being disruptive. The burden would be with Jim to show how this would be a useful way to break categories down even further.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 11:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Their usefulness is to create useful subcats of existing large and expanding cats. American horror thriller films are certainly a recognisable and relevant intersection - so much so that a book could be written about them.
 * This conversation has veered away from the original issue which is the order that the cats should be in. I've been told off for putting them in alphabetical order, on the basis of that being wrong. However, a correct order isn't stated on any policy or guideline. Many film articles have long had their cats in alphabetical order. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He's also apparently genre warring. In, he removed a sourced category based on his own original research ("").  The lead clearly cites a reliable source that calls the film a zombie film.  I think maybe a topic ban on categories is the right answer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not genre-warring. 28 Days Later is about an infection outbreak, not dead people becoming reanimated. If you watch the film, you'll realise that. The Plot section of the article doesn't contain the word zombie, nor does it describe reanimated corpses. Some people misunderstanding / misremembering it doesn't mean that we should repeat what they say, even if they're journalists or film critics. Many people think that Sydney is the capital of Australia or that Elvis Presley and Tupac Shakur are alive.
 * Why didn't you challenge the existence of triple-intersection film cats that were created by other people years ago and which still exist? Jim Michael (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not having any triple-intersection film cats would mean not having Category:American comedy-drama films or Category:American romantic comedy films, which are common, valid intersections. Those were both created in 2009 (not by me). Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
appears to a hard-working editor with sincere motives, and I have no wish to discourage that. These triple-intersection categories he is creating are problematic though. While some of them may be justified many of them are unnecessary and are adding an extra layer to the organization of films on Wikipedia which many readers and editors may find detrimental if film articles are no longer housed in the obvious categories, but rather relegated to obscure sub-categories. WP:NARROWCAT clearly states "'..an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful." In the spirit of the guideline, and in the spirit of trying to create some co-operation between Jim and the Film project and avoiding a topic ban, I propose the following: Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If Jim Michael wishes to create any more triple-intersection film categories he must first obtain a consensus for them here at WT:FILM

Survey

 * Support Creating triple-intersection categories isn't the same as just creating another category, it is adding another layer of organization to film articles on Wikipedia. It should be a Project decision as to whether there should be an extra layer of categorization. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It's not a useful aid to navigation and adds category clutter.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the difference between the triple-intersection film cats which I've created recently, compared to the many triple-intersection film cats created by other people over the years which still exist unchallenged? I don't see why mine might be inappropriate, whilst those created by other users are appropriate - they all appear to be valid intersections. I don't intend to create any more, but I'd like to understand what difference there is. Jim Michael (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is questionable for anyone to be creating triple-intersection categories but it becomes a problem when somebody starts indiscriminately creating them en masse. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have there been any previous discussions about triple-intersection film cats? They've existed for several years. Jim Michael (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough that you should be aware of other stuff exists and you should know that it is a lame response. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  16:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm asking if there have been any previous discussions about triple-intersection film cats during the years which they've existed so that, if there have, we can see what was said therein. It would likely be relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per the comments made above. It is not helpful and over-categorization has become a problem across film articles.  And, frankly, given the comments he has repeatedly made above, it is clear that Jim refused to understand our concerns and objections. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  16:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do understand that, but had no idea of that prior to this month. The existence of many triple-intersection film cats, for several years, unchallenged, combined with no apparent policy/guideline against them, made me think that they were permitted. Had there been a policy/guideline against them, I wouldn't have created them. The only thing I still don't understand in this regard is why it's apparently only the triple-intersection film cats that I created which are being disapproved of. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All of them need to be reviewed, regardless of who created them, but the reason this discussion is focused on you is because you are the editor mass-producing them at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Aside from ignoring WP:CATDEF and its requirement that there be sourced info in the article to support any category these triple-intersects water down the meaning of the individual genres. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Betty Logan, Lugnuts, et al. Over-categorization creates clutter. And at least one he created, Category:2010s thriller drama films, is not even a term commonly used. "Thriller drama" is awkward at best. Someone else created Category:American thriller drama films last year. Both are questionable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of films which are drama-thrillers - it's a common genre blend. Jim Michael (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not have a strong opinion on the subject. But if several editors have identified overly small or overly narrow categories, should not they nominate them for merging to their parents? Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally yes they should, but there isn't much point doing the clean-up if these categories are proliferating. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Overly intersectional, overly minute categorization is as disruptive as mass creation of unnecessary redirects, and we've had editors sanctioned for the latter. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Moe1810
Has anyone had any interaction with Moe1810? He/she has been around for a while, but they do not respond (as far as I can tell) to talk page comments and they utterly refuse to use edit summaries. Most of his/her edits are ok, sometimes sloppy, sometimes wrong, but never straight-up vandalism. But, they do not use edit summaries, despite receiving multiple messages asking them to do so. As most of their edits are on film articles, I am bringing this here in hopes that some consensus can be reached about how to deal with them. We need to make it clear that they need to use edit summaries and need, in general, to be responsive to criticism and suggestions about their edits. I would like to hear other editor's thoughts on this. Thanks. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  15:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like they've been here 9+ years and have made a total of one edit to a talkpage (their own)! I'm not too concerned about the lack of edit summaries, I myself ditched using them about 5 years back. However, the fact they don't use article/project talkpages or acknowledge concerns on their own talkpage is worrying. There was another user who made bad edits (copyvios in the main), but refused to discuss them. Their lack of input eventually lead them to being blocked. See how this pans out. If they keep making bad/incorrect edits, but don't want to discuss the issue, then give them a friendly reminder about WP:ANI and WP:DE. Hopefully it won't come to that.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 15:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind blocking to facilitate discussion if the user chooses not to participate in discussion. Lemme know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not checking back on this discussion. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb, I'll keep that in mind. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  18:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced pop culture trivia in film articles
Yet again, is. Can we please have some sort of consensus here that "in popular culture" requires an independent source? Per WP:BURDEN, he shouldn't have restored this, and I'm getting tired of his restoring unsourced content like this. If it takes an RFC, we can do that, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One revert is not an edit war, and the content is sourced, obviously, by the media item itself, just as every "Plot" section in every Film article is. That NRP can't understand that and wants to keep bringing it up is not my problem.  Perhaps he should give in to the clear community status quo and stop trying to enforce his own prejudices on the project. His edit upended a long-standing status quo in the article, so the burden is on him to show why his edit is correct, and not the reverse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:POPCULT says otherwise. Just because you can use the primary source for verification doesn't mean its appropriate for inclusion. It's why we look for a third-party source to note the importance of a work being used in another work, if that work is otherwise non-essential for understanding of the film. --M ASEM (t) 06:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS:FILM comments on this directly too: Manual_of_Style/Film. While a primary source may be acceptable to corroborate the actual content, a third party source is needed to corroborate the context, and it is the context that determines the merit of its inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, you are applying article-level notability requirements to content level information. Inclusion of content material - unless it breaks a primary policy such as BLP - is determined solely by editorial consensus, not by notability standards, which are applicable only to articles. Further, project-level decisions cannot be enforced as mandatory, as determined by ArbCom,  as they are only advisory guidelines, just like MOS.  Nor can the issue be settled by an RfC.  You want it to be mandatory that every fact in Wikipedia needs a context in order to be included, gather up enough editors to create such a policy, there is not one at this time.  Until there is, only discussion can determine content inclusion or exclusion, and "MOS says so" or its equivalent are not valid arguments for exclusion.  You think I'm wrong, quote me a policy (not a guideline, not an RfC, not a project discussion) which mandates that every IPC must have a citation to provide context.  Either delete every film and book plot section, or stop this crusade against obviously includable information, simply because of an unarranted prejudice against "trivial" material.  If an item is untrue, take it out. If an item interprets or analyzes the media source without a citation, take it out -- all such materal is WP:OR w/o a cite.  If an item is incorrect, correct it. Otherwise, leave it alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research are both core policies. The latter of these states that "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." (For what it's worth, I agree that the consensus about plot summaries needing to be supported by a source: all of them can be, and should be in my opinion, but that is beside the point). – The Bounder (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS (which is part of a core policy) states "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. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (my emphasis). Wikipedia policy is unequivocal in that it is up to those seeking to add content to obtain a consensus for its inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not asking for "notability" standards (which require significant secondary coverage), we're just asking for third-party sources, independent of either work, to go "oh, that was used there". That means the pop culture reuse was significant enough to be caught on by a third-party source. This helps prevent pop culture kudzu that tends to happen on sites like TV Tropes. --M ASEM (t) 15:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And on the nature of plot summaries and such pop culture, we do allow concise plot summaries to go implicitly sourced to the primary work in question as long as no interpretation is made in the summary. Key here is concise, particularly with the FILM project's goal of 700 words max; it prevents massive sections of information that are sourced only to the primary work. That level is acceptable. But if you start arguing that "but okay, pop culture references should be allowed by the same rational", then we have to consider how that additional text affects the conciseness of information presented that is implicitly sourced to the primary source. That becomes a problem. That's why the reliance on a third-party source is important as it eliminates the amount of text reliant on the primary source. --M ASEM (t) 15:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added inline citations for the two items in question. First, the policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that plot summaries are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia to complement the encyclopedic coverage, so that makes them distinct for other details from primary sources. That policy also says the following about collecting information in general, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Right now, Nosferatu's "In popular culture" section is simply a chronological list with no emphasis on importance. MOS:EMBED says, "Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs... While prose in general is preferred for the writing of articles, there are occasions when some form of list may be appropriate." The section "List of works and timelines", probably the closest comparable example, says, "The content of a list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Essentially, providing independent sourcing for such items reflects encyclopedic value. However, I think that the "In popular culture" section could be much improved by writing in prose. Numerous musical items could be grouped together, with key examples more upfront. Film items could be grouped together. I find it especially silly that Shadow of the Vampire is buried in that list and is followed by a Spongebob cameo. That film should be one of the leading items in a "Film" sub-section, surely. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There is existing consensus on WP:V through an RFC that self-sourcing examples should have references that discuss their significance, not merely that they exist. This RfC consensus supersedes any lone editor's opinion that "in popular culture" examples don't need a citation or merely need a citation that shows they exist, despite any editor's opinion that consensus, RfC, and guidelines don't apply to them. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Betty, BightRoundCircle, Masem, and the others for highlighting the existing consensus that examples require proper sourcing. Also, thank you to Erik for providing sources.  I provided most of the existing citations in that section, but I grew tired of it eventually and began simply reverting unsourced examples.  I agree that the section needs to be rewritten, but pretty much the entire article needs to be rewritten.  I'll get to it some day, but not any time soon.  Anyway, I trust BMK will be reasonable and abide by consensus in the future.  If not, a complaint at ANI may be necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, I favor the deletion of those kind of trivia sections. When I find unsourced content of that sort, I delete it.  I would argue that, 90% of the time, nothing of value is lost by doing so.  Even in cases when sources are provided, they only prove the existence of the particular song, movie, tv episode, etc., and say nothing about its actual notability or value. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  21:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Country of origin in the infobox
On the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) article I have tried to follow the parameters and guidelines of the information that should be contained in the infobox. We have a clear reference from the BFI (in their infobox lookalike and the British Council too) that the film is a UK-US joint production. I added this to the infobox and opening line, but have been reverted. I appreciate that the designation does not need to be in the opening line, but to mislead readers with the information prominently displayed in the infobox, against the strongest sources available does not seem right. – The Bounder (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the argument for omitting the United States from the infobox despite verification from reliable sources?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit summary from was that it was "Against consensus". There is a thread that discusses the point (Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)) but this starts with people saying there is no clear information from one of the institutes; the remainder of the thread is given over to the language variant. This was from June, so is out of date. I've added a second British source (above) that states it's a joint UK-US production (both sources are British and official, so there should be no complaints of bias of a claim from a US media source). - The Bounder (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a thread on the talk page about this matter. See Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, more learned minds would be appreciated here if you get a few moments to comment. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead image at Daenerys Targaryen article
There is a discussion at Talk:Daenerys Targaryen about which lead image to use. Please consider weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Surrealist filmmakers
I'd like to request that fellow editors keep an eye on this category. Much like Category:Surrealist films, I found this category populated with dubious content. I ran across it in the Terry Gilliam article and removed it, because, though he might be influenced by Surrealism, Gilliam has no connection to the Surrealist movement, and, like any category, this category has to have a definition or it is worthless. Roughly half the directors who were in the cat did not belong there because their respective articles did not support their inclusion -- in some cases, as with Crispin Glover, they were clearly included because they are considered "weird," and weird and surreal are regarded as synonyms. Andy Dingley reverted my edit on Terry Gilliam, saying Parnassus is proof enough of Gilliam's "surreality". I reverted again, asking for a source that associates Gilliam with Surrealism qua Surrealism -- not just some vague, unencyclopedic definition of "surreal," which would be too subjective to be of any use. Ok, I've probably belabored this enough. As I said, more eyes on that category would be a good idea. Thanks! ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  18:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe that no-one post-war can be a Surrealist? The category is surely for those who have made films according to the precepts of Surrealism, not merely those who were part of the initial group?  It would be usual for WP for such categories to accumulate cruft, but Gilliam is not part of it.  Several of his works, Parnassus being the most obvious, are firmly within the canon of Surrealism, and are generally considered to be so, as a moment's searching will show.
 * A category that contains David Lynch ("weird") and Svankmeyer, but not Gilliam? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:CATEGORY says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If Parnassus has been called a surrealist film, that should be indicated in the article, and the category can be included. Is this not verifiable? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not with a reversion time, against WP:BRD, of mere minutes! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Were it only a matter of time to find a reference, you could have said so in your edit summary. I rather think that was not at all the case, but if you are looking for a source, why not say so?  As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with reverting the addition of unsourced content.
 * As far as categories are concerned, though, would one source in the Parnassus article justify adding Gilliam to the Surrealist filmmakers category? I can see the possibility of the film article being added to the Surrealist films cat, if such a reliable source was found, but would that make Gilliam a Surrealist filmmaker, per se?  I am not simply trying to be difficult, I really want clarification on categorization, which, as other discussions on this page show, is an ongoing problem. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  21:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at it the other way: try finding a review of Parnassus which doesn't describe it as Surrealist, or at least surreal. Now most of Gilliam's work has tended to the Jungian and his surreal themes are almost as pervasive as over-use of the term "surreal" is in a cheap newspaper: but for Parnassus at least, this is classic Dali dreamworld. Nor is this a one-off. Look at Brazil and the escapist sequences, or the whole indeterminacy as to which is the final real world (even the editor couldn't decide this between the final releases). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is entirely speculation. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  03:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm forced to agree. I suspect most film critics would consider Gilliam to be a surrealist filmmaker, but it doesn't matter what I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks; we need reliable sources that substantiate our views. One or more of Gilliam's films being surreal doesn't necessarily make him a surrealist filmmaker, any more than Stephen King writing one trashy romance novel (were he ever to do so) would make him a romance writer. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Curious perspective here. This has little to do with film or film-related categories. It has to do with definitions of Surrealism and which works are considered parts of the wider movement. It is more of an art history and art criticism matter. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Geographical box office information
There is a discussion at WT:MOSFILM regarding the use of "territories" versus "countries" for box office information. The discussion can be found here: WT:MOSFILM. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Box office section
I just want to ask whether the following style of writing for box office section of Dear Zindagi is correct or not. Actually I want to make the article GA. So if there is any wrong style of writing, please correct it here only. I would be thankful to you. I had discussed the matter with Cyphoidbomb on his talk page, and he asked me to come here.

Dear Zindagi opened well in multiplexes in Mumbai, Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala; in North India, it had low collections. The film collected ₹8.75 Cr. on its opening day. However, the numbers grew as Dear Zindagi collected ₹11.25 Cr. and ₹12.50 Cr. on its second and third day respectively, bringing the first weekend collections to a total of ₹32.5 Cr. In the weekdays, the film had a continuous fall with every passing day of the first week. Dear Zindagi carried a total of ₹46.75 Cr. in its first week. , the film earned a total of ₹79.31 crore in India and ₹41.10 crore from overseas, making its total worldwide collections to ₹120.41 crore.

Dear Zindagi released earlier in North America on account of the Thanksgiving weekend holidays. The film on its first day collected ₹1.19 Cr. from 127 screens in the United States and ₹8.29 lacs in Canada from 16 screens. In the extended two day, the film collected about ₹1.58 Cr. at the North America box office.

That's it. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 03:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What's a "decent opening"? It's so vague that I don't think it adds anything useful.  "while" shouldn't be used as a conjunction; instead, use a semicolon.  "Managed to" is meaningless.  Remove it.  You don't need that "good growth" sentence.  It's redundant to the following sentence.  The repetition of starting several sentences with "the film" should probably be broken up with more variance.  Don't link major land masses or well-known countries; it's overlinking.  Readers of English-language Wikipedia will know what the United States and Canada are.  They might not know what Thanksgiving is, so that's a good thing to link.  You should consider replacing "domestically" with "in India", which is more explicit.  However, you're unlikely to get anyone as fussy as me in your GA review unless you're rather unlucky.  It would probably pass as-is if you de-linked North America and replaced "the film carried" with "Dear Zindagi carried".  By the way, I didn't check any of the sources.  I assume Cyphoidbomb would have said something if they were unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zindagi opened well in multiplexes in Mumbai, Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala; in North India, it had low collections. The film collected ₹8.75 Cr. on its opening day. However, the numbers grew as Dear Zindagi collected ₹11.25 Cr. and ₹12.50 Cr. on its second and third day respectively, bringing the first weekend collections to a total of ₹32.5 Cr. In the weekdays, the film had a continuous fall with every passing day of the first week. Dear Zindagi carried a total of ₹46.75 Cr. in its first week. , the film earned a total of ₹79.31 crore in India and ₹41.10 crore from overseas, making its total worldwide collections to ₹120.41 crore.

Dear Zindagi released earlier in North America on account of the Thanksgiving weekend holidays. The film on its first day collected ₹1.19 Cr. from 127 screens in the United States and ₹8.29 lacs in Canada from 16 screens. In the extended two day, the film collected about ₹1.58 Cr. at the North America box office.

Thanks for your reply and figuring out errors from it. After correcting your said errors, the "Box office" section of the film will look like this in the article:-

Dear Zindagi opened well in multiplexes in Mumbai, Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala; in North India, it had low collections. The film collected ₹8.75 Cr. on its opening day. However, the numbers grew as Dear Zindagi collected ₹11.25 Cr. and ₹12.50 Cr. on its second and third day respectively, bringing the first weekend collections to a total of ₹32.5 Cr. In the weekdays, the film had a continuous fall with every passing day of the first week. Dear Zindagi carried a total of ₹46.75 Cr. in its first week. , the film earned a total of ₹79.31 crore in India and ₹41.10 crore from overseas, making its total worldwide collections to ₹120.41 crore.

Dear Zindagi released earlier in North America on account of the Thanksgiving weekend holidays. The film on its first day collected ₹1.19 Cr. from 127 screens in the United States and ₹8.29 lacs in Canada from 16 screens. In the extended two day, the film collected about ₹1.58 Cr. at the North America box office.

Is this now OK? Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 12:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks good to me. Like I said, I didn't check any of the sources, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Interview disambiguation
Does everyone agree that The Interview (2014 film) and The Interview (1998 film) were improperly disambiguated? It took just two votes to move The Interview (2014 film) to The Interview violating the basic film concept of NOT giving one film preference over another of the same title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

America centric world view?
2016 in film (or similar pages) have only American films released in that year. Isn't that too much bias for one country? My question is, why should those releases be included in the first place on the page when List of American films of 2016 exists and most of it is duplicate any way. 122.171.79.8 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The XXXX in film articles are not specific to any country. Any film released anywhere in the world can be added to the list. It could just be the case that American editors are maintaining the list so they are not adding French and Indian films and so on, but that's not really the fault of those editors but rather down to the systemic bias that favors editors from English-speaking countries. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And you can always add missing films that are within its scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple language animated films?
I would like to find out which animated films have been re-animated for different locales. I tried looking at the list of multiple-language version films, but that stops in the 60s and only covers real-life films (though it mentions that many Indian films are still produced in MLVs). I am thinking of things like lip-synch to different voice actresses, localised body gestures, replaced background signage / on-screen text (I first saw this one on the Wall-E blu-ray), et cetera. Is there an article already that covers this? If not, should the earlier-linked article do so? RSVP on my talk page. — Nicholas (reply) @ 11:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . Your question isn't really what this talk page is for. While you may get some info here I would suggest that you post the question here Reference desk/Entertainment. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Alma Fordy
Heads up that is adding (mainly) US distribution company info into the infobox for non-US films. I've pointed them to WP:FILMDIST, which they've chosen to ignore. I've now given them a gentle nudge about not continuing. One to keep an eye on if you see their contributions pop up on your watchlist. IMO the block-clock is ticking down fast on this one. Merry Christmas.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 19:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alma also likes to create odd WP:EGGs like this. Now they have only edited under this account for two days so we can allow for a learning curve but the fact that they are ignoring messages on their page about what they are doing wrong is not an encouraging sign. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same kind of edits are being made by . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * After several warnings about their edits, I raised this ANI. Thanks to MarnetteD and NinjaRobot for their efforts.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

IanB2 and countries vs. territories
There has been a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about using countries vs. territories, and while the MOS has been updated in this regard, editor who dislikes the term "territories" in its entirety has engage in mass changes to replace "territories" with "countries" across multiple film articles. There is no consensus for this, and there should be one before going about such indiscriminate editing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that Erik chooses to personalise this issue. The 'mass changes' he refers to are individual edits to some movie pages (a very small proportion of the total) that generally also confuse the 'US and Canada' with North America and in some cases report data and commentary wrongly from, for example, Mexico as being "outside North America".  I properly raised this on the talk page of MoS:film and there seemed no disagreement that 'countries' was an acceptable alternative to 'territories' as a description for box office data from beyond the US and Canada, and therefore have been making this change when I have been making edits to individual film pages.  Only a couple have been challenged and on both pages the edit has been accepted after explanation. IanB2 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But I believe as was stated, and what the text in the MOS was changed to, if "territories" is used in sources, that term can also be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could use "regions" or "markets" instead. Territory is a word with multiple meanings -- it can mean a region or a land, but also a political entity (e.g. Northwest Territory, British Antarctic Territory). There is no such confusion with "region" or "market", and both of those terms appear in sources as well. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 17:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , you should not engage in potentially controversial mass changes without consensus. I've reverted instances per MOS:RETAIN where you replaced "territories" with "countries" because as you said at WT:MOSFILM, the former "doesn't feel appropriate". It's clear both "territories" and "countries" are used in reliable sources, so there is no reason to unilaterally force standardization of your preferred term. Furthermore, in reverting your edits, I have no problem with changing "North America" to something else and left it alone, but a subset of your edits only changed "territories" to "countries", which seems to me to have been your baseline search. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Erik, I am disappointed that as a very experienced editor you appear to want to escalate this into an edit war. I really don't want to go there.  On the talk pages where I have raised this, I believe every non-American contributor has accepted that I have a point - "other territories" is simply not an acceptable way for an American-dominated industry to refer to the rest of the world.  Our own page on the term makes very clear why. IanB2 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no edit warring going on. You attempted to make widepsread changes despite discussion being underway, as you admitted on my user talk page. To get back on topic and advance the discussion toward a consensus, I've added an update on WT:MOSFILM with some interesting details. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

On TSPDT
Is They Shoot Pictures, Don't They (theyshootpictures.com) a reliable source? AndrewOne (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say more so than not based on the following. It should be based on the person running the website. Bill Georgaris explains himself here but does not seem to claim any specific credentials. He is mentioned here as having voted in a critics' poll. IndieWire includes Georgaris with two others in a three-part interview starting here. Wall Street Journal mentions Georgaris here; Google's summary shows a later paragraph behind the paywall that starts with, "Bill Georgaris, who runs the Web site They Shoot Pictures, Don't They and who maintains the list, is always collecting top ten lists from qualified..." Criterion Collection highlights the list here. The Irish Times also writes about the list here. Yet he does not seem to appear much in Google Books results and not at all in Google Scholar results. Maybe the website should be referenced only in a narrow sense, to cite a film's placement on the website's main list. Not sure if I would go further to reference any critiques that Georgaris may have done. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it a reliable source because it is essentially a self-published aggregator. When sources discuss the status of renowned films you are likely to encounter a Sight & Sound ranking (if it applies) but I have never encountered a TSPDT ranking which suggests to me that within the sphere of film criticism it has not yet been embraced as arbiter of a film's significance or quality. It's an interesting project for sure, but if we accept it as a reliable source I can foresee an instance where TSPDT ranks get added to 1000 film articles, and I disagree with that. It would be far more productive IMO to use the site to locate prominent polls and add those to the film articles instead. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In WP:USINGSPS, it is said that a self-published source is reliable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Georgaris is an eligible critic for the Sight & Sound polls (the most prestigious of all film polls), and his site has been noted by film critics Jonathan Rosenbaum and Pat Graham, with Graham calling it a "strenuous compilation." I therefore consider TSPDT an exception to the general guideline against self-published sources. AndrewOne (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviewing a film and the theory of critique are not the same thing IMO. Just because someone has knocked out a few reviews does not make them qualified to survey film criticism. Does the site owner have a scholarly background in the field? Have they published any books that are regularly cited? Do prominent secondary sources directly quote the poll when assessing a film's standing, in the way that Rotten Tomatoes and Sight & Sound are regularly cited? If the answer to all of those are no then I don't believe the SPS exemption applies. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had previously explained some of this to the OP on my talk page. As i've looked further into the website I have to say that my opinion has not changed. Remember that WikiP operates by consensus MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Academic Michael Shapiro cites TSPDT, as well as Michael J. Prince in a book about adaptations of the Beat Generation poets. Jonathan Rosenbaum once again praises it in a 2012 post, and Ian Cooper cites it in a book about Witchfinder General. AndrewOne (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In most of those examples TSPDT is mainly used as a convenient resource for citing various polls and quotes that it has culled from other publications, they are not actually citing the TSPDT as an arbiter of significance and quality. In other words I see little evidence of reliable sources using the site in the way you want to use it. As has already said, the TSPDT list is essentially the selection of one man. It's a good resource, but I think that's the limit of its usefulness. If you find a useful quote from someone it is better to go the original source. If a film has a high ranking on the list it is because it has featured in prominent polls, so it is better to simply cite the prominent polls rather than a mish mash compilation list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is used as a film list (not simply a resource for citing polls culled from others) in a book-length study on certain canonical films. Also, to reference Dimadick's earlier comment below, its page on Billy Wilder is cited in a study of Buñuel. AndrewOne (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan, besides films, the website provides biographical material on directors and sources about their works. The article on Mario Bava quotes a source on the similarities between the works of Mario, and those of his father Eugenio Bava. It also quotes various sources evaluating Mario Bava's works, though not all of them are comprehensible to me. A 1980 source compliments Bava for his "sub-Hitchcockian thrillers". No idea if this is a good thing. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New RfC
I've started an RfC on a subject that may be of interest to members of this project. Please look at Talk:List of surviving silent film actors and comment if you so desire. Thanks. Killer Moff (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Article title of a classic film
A title-change discussion regarding the film with the onscreen title Steamboat Bill, Jr. is taking place at Talk:Steamboat Bill Jr.. The input of WP:FILM editors is requested. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Titles
I never thought we'd need to say something so obvious and blatant in this project's MOS, but should we have something there about not changing a movie's actual, agree-upon title because the title punctuation may not fit Wikipedia house style? While it seems remarkable to me that encyclopedia editors would ever want to knowingly falsify even a well-known movie's title to make it different from every other reference source, the copyright, the onscreen title, etc., this seems to be a real thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In such discussions, there are a few policies and guidelines that are routinely referenced. Perhaps we can add a section at Naming conventions (films) summarizing them. However, it is worth noting that there may awkward examples like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I assume you are talking more about special characters and capitalization being used? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Erik - this is in reference to this move discussion, which I think has brought Franz Kafka back from the dead to stop common sense being used.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just read that discussion after Betty's comment... Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if we did have such a rule a local consensus at a project cannot overrule the accepted interpretation of a general guideline, so I suggest awaiting the outcome at the Steamboat Bill discussion and see where that leaves us. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly willing to wait. I should note that I didn't mention any specific film, since this is about a larger issue than any one movie. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would, however, urge all WP:FILM members to weigh in at Talk:Steamboat_Bill_Jr., since WP:BIO people are insisting that WP:BIO MOS supersedes even WP:COMMONNAME. Or common sense. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Categorising with trivial appearances
User:Kjell Knudde has been WP:OVERCATing a bunch of articles with "Cultural depictions of" categories regardless of how fleeting an appearance somebody makes in a film or cartoon. I've tried to encourage a read of WP:Overcategorization and what counts as a WP:DEFINING involvement in a movie, but I'm not having much luck. Am I being oversensitive to regard this or this as overcategorisation? Le Deluge (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Bill and Ted one seems a bit ridiculous to me. The film isn't defined by having Babe Ruth or the Wright Brothers in it (to pick two examples), and neither of those are defined by being subjects of this film. If one of the main characters was someone portraying Babe Ruth for a fair chunk of the film, then that might be worth the category. Or, of course, a biopic on the subject.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 13:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The question is: 'How would you define an appearance of a certain historical character in a work? How many minutes of screen time does he or she need? How many lines in a novel?' There are various historical characters around whom entire films are built, yet who aren't the focus of the plot the entire time. The musical/film 'Amadeus' for instance is basically more about Antonio Salieri than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart if you take in account the amount of screen time/theatrical lines both characters get. In half of the films where the American Civil War is the plot Lincoln is usually more a side character, while the plot focuses more on the common soldiers. You can debate endlessly how much time ought to be spent to a character to justify its categorization as a 'cultural depiction'. In the case of 'Bill & Ted': their appearances are vital to the plot: they directly affect the events surrounding Bill and Ted. As such they do have a fair chunk of screen time. With a work like 'Mother Goose Goes Hollywood' - which has no real plot - celebrity caricatures are its main selling point and attraction to viewers. I only categorized cultural depictions of Hollywood actors around whom entire scenes are built. Of course, their total screen time isn't that long: what do you expect from a 7 minute animated short? I agree one shouldn't just categorize a work because a historical character is merely mentioned, namedropped or just appears somewhere in the background with no lines or specific attention directed towards him or her. I also don't include documentaries or non-fiction books, because they would fit more in a general article about said historical person. But if - like in the examples here - entire scenes are built around them and if they are important to the plot then they should definitely be considered as vitally important appearances. As I notice from checking out all these works it's usually always the same historical characters / celebrities who inspire popular works. That's what makes these cultural depictions pages relevant in the first place. If we're only gonna focus on works where the historical character in question is mentioned in the title or appears as a starring character then we're not providing all the possible notable cultural depictions visitors seek. The only other alternative is creating pages about these 'Cultural depictions', rather than categories for such summarizations. User: Kjell Knudde, 22:40 19 December 2016 (UTC).


 * I think lists are better than categories for this purpose. WP:DOAC says a disadvantage of a category is that it "Gives no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced." Whereas a list can do this. I create lists that have descriptions of a certain element's appearance, backed by a reliable source that found the appearance noteworthy, and I include it in film articles' "See also" section. Why not do that here? WP:CAT says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." This is less possible to accomplish with elements that have a range of appearances. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No Kjell - the question is "how do we categorise according to the WP:Categorization guideline?". In particular, you should have a read of WP:Overcategorization "not every verifiable fact in an article requires an associated category...A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the WP:Defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". In film terms that can be likened to who gets mentioned in the "elevator pitch". So The Aviator is "a film about the life of Howard Hughes". It is not a film "about" Katharine Hepburn or Ava Gardner, even though they both feature prominently in the film. So Howard Hughes-iness is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the film and should be used in a category, but Hepburn-iness and Gardner-iness are not defining characteristics and so should not be used. I'm struggling to see how this can be explained more clearly to you, other than to suggest you read WP:Overcategorization and WP:Defining as representing consensus for deciding categorisation, rather than your own opinion for what merits a category.Le Deluge (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Lists of films
I could really use some help in maintaining the following lists: There are often puzzling changes made to these articles without any explanation or sourcing, especially the upcoming films. If people could keep on eye on the upcoming films, it would help a lot. I don't know where people are getting their information from, and I think half the edits made to these articles are either hoaxes or well-meaning editors who are copy-pasting rumors from the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * List of Paramount Pictures films
 * List of Universal Pictures films
 * List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)
 * List of Warner Bros. films


 * I'll try and help. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media
I invite you to the latest RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

About American Film Institute
I think American Film Institute is like Cannes, Toronto, Venice and Sundance Film Festival. Every year many films release and many awards is given at film festival. I often see, read and watch the official website of American Film Institute. I ask you, guys, is American Film Institute non-notable award? Because every year American Film Institute gives many awards and honours. And it has Wikipedia article and it tells about AFI Awards too.

IreneTandry (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a top-10 list. I remember the in-depth discussion we had regarding them, leading to the MOS item at Manual of Style/Film. Essentially, every major film's article would have a dozen top-10 lists, since Wikipedia's overall MOS regarding lists is that there be objective criteria for inclusion, in order to avoid POV. So if we have one major organization's top-10 list, we'd have to have every major organization's top-10 list. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for guidance svp
Please, could the editors here, reply here, and let me know a good, accepted source for filmographies? These routinely appear here as WP:OR. I would like to source one of them, but want to be clear on an acceptable source to use. (I understand that neither IMDB nor NNDB are acceptable sources.) From what readily available, widely applicable sources, can an artists films be drawn? Thank you in advance for your replies. Cheers, Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Easiest would be to check a reliable database:
 * American Film Institute (free)
 * British Film Institute (free)
 * Variety Insight (commercial, subscription-based, owned by Variety)
 * Screenbase (commercial, subscription-based, owned by Screen International)
 * Baseline (commercial, subscription-based, now owned by Tribune Media Services)
 * Turner Classic Movie Database (free)
 * AllMovie (free)
 * Hollywood.com (free, seems to use Baseline under license)
 * AlloCiné (free)
 * Many other nations have their own database. Check the Swedish Film Institute for Swedish films, for example.  Some of them offer access in English, though the English-language parts may be abridged.  Some people use the Hong Kong Movie DataBase, but I'm not yet convinced it's reliable.  There are more sources at WP:FILM/R.  Stuff like the IMDb can still be useful, as it often puts you in the right direction.  There isn't any info on Screenbase on Wikipedia yet.  I'll get around to that later, probably.  I wrote the article on Baseline and added the chunk about Variety Insight to Variety's article, but I really don't know anything about this industry-insider stuff.  It's been my strong hope that someone who knows what they're talking about would rewrite everything I've done on this topic, but it hasn't happened yet.  I'm guessing that means that either I got it right or nobody else knows more than I do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Editors are invited to a discussion...
...involving a chronic issue in WikiProject Film — hyperbolic "critically acclaimed" language by fans of particular movies. Please see Talk:Zootopia. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's possible, could one or two more editors weigh in here? There's an argument being made for other stuff exists that may create issues for the Project otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Issue has been resolved, with consensus reached. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thriller film
I created thriller film, which now consists of a definition that I sourced, plus film-related content from thriller (genre). The article had been a draft on my userspace for a few years, and I wanted to go ahead and push it out. While the content I migrated is sloppy, I did not want to just wipe it out. Some film articles will just link to the general genre article, but I wanted to give others a heads-up that there is now a film genre article to link to. Feedback or edits are welcome. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been needed for a long time. Thanks, Erik. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  03:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the possibilities seen in the "Further reading" section, I wish I could have done more. Hopefully others will be inspired to expand and shape the article further. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and British English (again)
Comments from all editors are welcomed at the re-raised question of the use of a British English word at this thread on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). I thought the point had been settled at this talk page thread, and this Film Project thread, but apparently not – and it has led to this attempt to bully me by inappropriate use of a warning template on my talk page. – The Bounder (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't care about the difference between "installment" and "instalment", I just thought there were cases where the issue could be easily avoided and it was far simpler to say the "first film in a trilogy" instead of "first instalment in a trilogy". I did not change the sentence that referred to the first installment of the Hobbit series, although I would have preferred to rephrase it the use in that case at least did seem appropriate. (An editor that came after me did later remove all uses of instalment from the article, I only removed the few that I thought were particularly unnecessary.)
 * While I disagree with the unnecessary over-use of the word instalment I think it was inappropriate to make comments on your talk page, editors should try to keep disussions on the talk page of the relevant article. -- 109.76.164.59 (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Speculative film categories
has recently created a number of speculative fiction film categories as evidenced here. I'm not entirely sure whether these are beneficial, and would like to know what others here think. Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Speculative fiction is a broad category of narrative fiction that includes elements, settings and characters created out of imagination and speculation rather than based on reality and everyday life. It encompasses the genres of science fiction, fantasy, science fantasy, horror fiction, supernatural fiction, superhero fiction, alternative history, and magic realism. The allocation of such categories of animated films that bring together all the genres that do not belong to the realistic fiction, is important, given the relationship of genres and come from the existence of the Speculative fiction portal.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As ever it needs to be mentioned that - per WP:CATDEF - there must be sourced info in the article to support the addition of the category. Most of the article that you have added the category to do not have that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:SMALLCAT needs to be read as well. Many of the categories created will have a limited number of articles in them. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like "speculative fiction" or possibly "speculative films" might be a workable category as a supercat, with the various fantasy, etc. categories as subcats...but I'm not entirely sure what purpose that would serve. DonIago (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MarnetteDIn the future, in order to rule it performed, it is possible must to create subcategories "Animated science fiction films‎ by country", "Animated fantasy films‎ by country", "Animated horror films‎ by country" and others and add to articles.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speculative fiction seems a useful supercategory to me, with branches covering media types, genre types and countries. It would not be empty-ish. Lyrda (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As long as the categories can be reasonably populated, I don't see a problem with it. If they are going to have less than, say, 10-20 articles, then I don't see a reason to have them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

, are you amenable to retooling these as supercategories? If not, are you amenable to others doing so? If not, why not? DonIago (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * DonIagoYou propose to create subcategories and add them to the article? I will be glad of your help, because so many articles..--Yasnodark (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The opposite, actually. As science fiction, fantasy, science fantasy, horror fiction, superhero fiction, alternative history, and magic realism are all speculative fiction (per Speculative fiction), it seems to me that the categories utilizing those genres should be categorized under speculative fiction (or broken out into speculative films, etc.).
 * Put another way, speculative fiction categories shouldn't be directly added to articles, but adding the more specific categories (where applicable) should tie articles back into the speculative fiction cats. DonIago (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * DonIago I think that your suggestion makes sense with respect to those categories, which is enough to highlight the articles subcategories, for example Category:American animated speculative fiction films or Category:Japanese animated speculative fiction films. But for others I'm not sure. And to find out the real number of items in each category should be on my mind all the articles distributed.
 * Mayby you might want to create for yourself and add to articles Category:American animated science fiction films, Category:American animated fantasy films, Category:American animated horror films, Category:Japanese animated science fiction films, Category:Japanese animated fantasy films, Category:Japanese animated horror films?Yasnodark (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Going to give this a little more time to see whether other editors weigh in, but if not, I'll see what I can do. I'm less likely to create new categories than to try to refactor the existing structure where I can, though. DonIago (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
We would like to wish everyone on the project a very happy holiday season! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Low-level vandalism
appears up to no good with low-level vandalism, removing valid producers' names and revising links. Giving others a heads-up since I'll be touch and go today. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I got all of them up to this point in time.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Wages of Sin (1938 film)
Could a fresh set of eyes be cast over this new page please? I've been meaning to do something on it for a while. Cheers. Nickm57 (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Williamsburg Independent Film Festival
This is a request from an Articles for Creation reviewer. Is the Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, in Brooklyn, New York, considered notable? If so, can someone please look at Draft:The Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, inc., which is currently written by a conflict of interest editor, and see if it can be made into something reasonable? If it isn't notable, then statements to that effect would be helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Return of the genre warrior
Yet again User:Taeyebar is repeatedly putting in a subgenre, over the primary genre, this time at High Plains Drifter. If you have an opinion as to whether WP:FILMLEAD is applicable in these situations, please comment at Talk:High Plains Drifter - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Again you are here canvassing for support. The film was already at it's specific subgenre before you came and changed it without explanation. You post here every time you can't win an edit war. The last time you were here, other users explained to you about WP:SPECIFICLINK and other policies that your edits violate. You should have started a discussion before going around changing genres and always calling me a "genre warrior" every time you disagree with me on this.--Taeyebar 20:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors are perfectly entitled to come to this page and request input at film article discussions. In fact it is advised that you do so rather than try and "win an edit war". Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say could put forth a more neutral notification to allow editors to visit the discussion and evaluate the situation themselves. E.g., "There is a debate about what genre text belongs in the opening sentence of High Plains Drifter. Editors are invited to comment." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE - FYI
Hey all, I just learned this today, but it looks as though MOS:DATERANGE now prefers YYYY–YYYY formatting. It used to be YYYY–YY unless we crossed a century. Now the two-digit year may be used for consecutive years only. 1992–93. Why am I bringing this up? Because I'm embarrassed that I just found out about this and want to spare anyone else the headache. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing! I was kind of familiar with the formatting but did not know that extra bit about consecutive years only. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS Discussion: 3 sig fig
There is a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about significant figures in reporting box office figures. Discussion is here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chase films has been nominated for discussion
Category:Chase films, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. DonIago (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Filmographies - references needed or not?
Hi all. Is it standard to require references for filmographies? I'm dealing with at least one editor (who I rather suspect will follow my edits and comment here) who believes that they need citations. It was my impression that filmographiers were treated like plot summaries, in that the film/show itself stood as the reference. That was backed up by looking at several film bio FAs that had no citations in the filmography section. Thanks for your time and your opinions! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was, of course, not backed up by the plethora of featured lists whose filmographies include inline citations for every single entry. Also, please consider WP:V where it clearly states any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.  I challenged material (some of which was even without an article!) while my challenge was reverted, twice.  If the encyclopedia is content to have tables of unverifiable material, so be it, but this current situation demands a change in the WP:V policy (i.e. if challenged may be supported by inline citations) and an explicit definition (like the Plot summary section, although that's far from a policy or even a guideline) somewhere that films and television appearances are exclusive across Wikipedia as not needing to be verifiable using reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for outside input--thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm just highlighting that you haven't given the full picture, neither of other examples of properly referenced filmographies, and that your actions violate WP:V. Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines, not feelings and "what's been done before".   The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the long standing practice that blue-linked films in filmographies are sufficient for verification, providing the linked to article does verify that said actor appeared in said film. Red linked and unlinked films require a reference. I see no good reason to change this, per WP:BLUE. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This may be ongstanding practice, but it violates WP:VER, which states that wikilinks do NOT satisfy the requirement that factual, non-common knowledge content in articles be sourced, especially insofar as most high-interest articles at WP contain information on BLP subjects. Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably okay with that (although depending on a target article for verification is never, ever a good idea, it might be a satisfactory and lazy one however), but I need to understand your definition of  providing the linked to article does verify that said actor appeared in said film. I.e. what constitutes "verify" here?  Are we just allowed to say it without reference or does WP:V still apply in this situation, i.e. a reliable source should be used?  Most film articles tend to reference their cast.  If a target film article doesn't fully satisfy WP:V in this case, I assume we should reference at the filmography level (and ideally, then, at the film article too...). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When I say "verify", that means that the target article must verify the information, in accordance with WP:V. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So, an inline reliable source if challenged? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that if somebody is formally credited in a film (which is still in circulation) and there is a blue-linked article for that film, then the film is an acceptable source for the credit and the article provides the bibliographic reference. If those criteria are not satisfied a citation should be provided. While inline citations are the best kind I don't consider them mandatory: in the case of Zsa Zsa Gabor a catch-all citation to her filmography can easily be provided, such as the one at the BFI. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good source, but it fails to reference several items claimed in the current BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be unmistakably obvious from a source work that the person starred in the work; this to me is either being in the film's opening credits (not ending credits, though, since that's a bit too diffuse) or on the film's poster; more than likely these names will also be repeated in any film review about the work, if not other third-party sources or press releases prior to release. The cases that absolute need inline source are like Elijah Wood in Back to the Future 2 (was a very-much bit part) or Sean Connery in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (as an uncredited cameo). --M ASEM (t) 19:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine but it's far too woolly and subjective. It can't be enforced and is therefore unactionable.  A better route is to reference every appearance inline, as we do in FLs.  If an FL can out-reference an FA then perhaps they're not as much of a joke as some people think they are!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of the general state of affairs on Wikipedia is that filmographies don't need citations unless they (or specific films/roles) are called into question or are questionable. Films that have not yet been released should have citations, especially if anyone contests or questions it, but even citations for unreleased films have not always been seen to be required, especially if the film is already in production and especially if the actor is a well-known actor. IMDB is always provided as an EL for any screen actor or director, so references become superfluous for each individual film/show. So, all in all, citations for filmographies are completely optional unless contested. Some FA articles include them, but 99.9% of all actor/director/film-composer articles on Wikipedia contain uncited filmographies. The exception to this would be actors/directors of films from locations whose complete filmographies often do not readily or always get placed on IMDB due to language, remoteness, or obscurity issues (e.g., Punjabi, Mongolian, etc., etc.). Citations would of course be required if the films aren't reflected on IMDB. PS: It would be nice to know which article(s) we are talking about so that we could respond to the specific concerns at issue. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The IMDb is not a reliable source. See WP:UGC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDB is always provided as an EL for any screen actor or director, so references become superfluous for each individual film/show. I'm afraid to say that's absolutely incorrect. References are absolutely needed to be reliable, and IMDB is not.  External links do not replace references either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , : Whatever the longstanding practice, not sourcing Filmographies violates WP:VER, which explicitly states that wikilinks do NOT satisfy the requirement that factual, non-common knowledge content in articles be sourced, especially insofar as most high-interest articles at WP contain information on BLP subjects. Please, refute this, if you can, based on content from WP:VER, but I cannot. And as an academician and scholar, given the principles of honest academic work, I cannot see how such rampant plagiarism can be accepted (even if justification or loophole in WP:VER can be found). The material being placed may or may not be sourced in the linked article, and many entries appearing in filmographies are red-linked or not linked at all; often times, even if wikilinked, at least some of the "facts" appearing in individual filmography bullets/entries are often unsourced at the linked page, as well, creating a quagmire with regard to the idea of content verifiability. No, whether the letter or spirit of the law are of concern here, giving such lists a carte blanche pass from standard academic and WP:VER expectations in a dead-end decision with regard to content quality in the long run. Placing purported factual information that is not "sky is blue" common knowledge (e.g., Geraldine Chaplin's French- and Spanish-language films) into Wikipedia, in lists so as to do an end-around the requirements of BLP text sourcing found in WP:VER is not honest encyclopedic work, by any accepted definition. Please see also, and if possible respond to the request made in the closing Talk section of this day. Cheers. Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not me you need to convince. It's admins like  who (twice) removed a challenge I placed on an article to provide explicit referencing.  I think we have a serious issue if those who are charged with guarding the integrity of Wikipedia aren't aware of policy.  It would be helpful if you (LeProf_7272) would offer your opinions at WP:ITNC where such under-referenced BLPs are regularly posted despite requests for adequate referencing being ignored (or worse, censored).  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Question so should I write a bot that crawls the entire WP Films project for articles and tags filmography sections where there is a bullet list item or a table row that doesn't itself include an inline ref? Would that help Wikipedia in any way? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it would help, because it would drive people to realist that WP:V, especially with regard to WP:BLP is core to Wikipedia. Great suggestion, look forward to seeing it rolling out!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I responded here to your question, it's a great idea, so please go ahead with that! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In similar but not exact situations I've found that, to avoid a hundred footnotes, we can cite a filmography at a reliable source such as Turner Classic Movies or the British Film Institute, etc., and at the top of the filmography write: "Source unless otherwise indicated: [footnote goes here]." The few films that may have slipped through the TCM / BFI etc. list can be separately footnoted. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Family members in navboxes
You may be interested in this discussion at WP:ACTOR. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 10:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Matilda cast
Over at Matilda there has been a months-long edit war over whether Pam Ferris should be included in the cast list in the infobox. For a while, I was on one side of the debate, but recently realized my error. The names of the primary cast members are clearly visible in the poster used in the infobox, but Pam Ferris' name does not appear in the billing block, which is the crux of the problem. I don't think anyone is "wrong" in this argument, it's simply a question of whether the poster billing block must take precedence over other ways of determining the cast. I'd like some thoughts from other editors. Thanks. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  13:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Following the billing block is generally a good rule of thumb, but I do not find it absolutely mandatory. In general, an infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject", so it can be odd to leave out an especially key actor. (This is even more of a problem with Moonrise Kingdom with its two starring child actors not mentioned in it at all.) I don't know if others would be okay with a local consensus based on good evidence, such as Ferris being mentioned in the same serial sentence as Wilson and others in multiple reviews. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, Erik, and I agree with you. In the past, I have been an infobox zealot, demanding strict adherence to the guidelines about who should be listed and how.  Now, I find that approach not only dogmatic but unhelpful and counterproductive.  I hear what you are saying about Moonrise Kingdom, and I was part of the discussion about leaving out the two main actors.  We need to remember that the poster is part of the studio's marketing for the film, so not necessarily the best gauge of which actors are central to the story.  In the case of Matilda, Ferris is a central character, the main antagonist, and not to mention her is strange.  As I said above, she is on the poster, even if she isn't in the billing block.  We need some flexibility on all this. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  16:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal at Talk:Dust of Angels (soundtrack)
The proposal to merge the soundtrack into Dust of Angels is discussed. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Kubrick infobox
There is presently a discussion over at Talk:Stanley Kubrick in regards tonwhether or not to include an infobox. If you wish to partake, head over. Rusted AutoParts 22:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)