Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 80

Under Siege
In the infobox of Under Siege, Niteshift36 and I are having a disagreement about adding Erika Eleniak in the infobox, despite not being in the poster's billing board. Also, in the beginning credits of that movie, Gary Busey is above Eleniak, despite Niteshift36 putting her above Busey in the infobox. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to start a discussion on the talk page rather than on here, and then drop us a link. The article should really be left in its WP:STATUSQUO version until the matter is resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I set up the discussion of that issue on the movie's talk page here. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Tramp and the Dog
If anyone here knows how to up-load films for Wikipedia articles, would you look at doing it for The Tramp and the Dog. The film is from 1886. It was discovered last year in the Norway National Library and There are now several copies on You Tube. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC
Please participate in this RFC. You comment is really needed there. Itcouldbepossible Talk 06:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Claims of “bias” in Erotic thriller
A user claimed that there is bias in the section Decline in popularity in an article about the erotic thriller film genre. The user has not been able to show how/why it is biased or explain what viewpoints are not being represented. That section exists to merely explain why the erotic thriller film is not as popular as it used to be in the heyday of box office hits such as Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, Disclosure (1994 film), etc. It also cites reliable sources that give reasonable reasons for the genre’s decline. I know I should discuss this on the article talk page, but the discussion may devolve into circular logic like arguments about “what counts as feminism” or something that has nothing to do with the actual matter at hand, which is that the erotic thriller genre peaked in the 1980s and early 1990s, and though it is still talked about today it is not as profitable or ubiquitous as it once was. Spectrallights (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Diary of a Camper
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diary of a Camper/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Cannes Film Festival
I created A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell and multiple reliable sources such as this one verify that the film showed at the 1990 Cannes Film Festival. The article about the film festival mentions films that were nominated for awards, but I don't see the film mentioned there. Was I wrong to think that all films at the Cannes Film Festival are up for awards? SL93 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article lists films that were selected to screen at the festival, not necessarily in a competition section. I find it extremely unlikely that a low-budget Troma film was selected into Cannes, the most prestigious festival that prides itself on snobbery. I bet it was simply screened for prospective distributors at the Marché du Film and producers/journalists called it a premiere. The context in the WaPo article you linked supports this—the surrounding paragraphs are all about distributors, and I can't even confirm Carmen on Ice ever screened in theaters, let alone at Cannes, or what We Cannot Live Like That Any Longer or The Killer are. Nardog (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That makes sense. IMDb, which I know is unreliable, said that the film's premiere was at Cannes which added to my confusion. SL93 (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I found multiple reliable sources that say other films from Troma were at Cannes. Too bad those sources are missing details. I found All the Love You Cannes! which was released by Troma about Cannes. The IMDb for that film says "Troma, an off the wall film studio, journeys to the Cannes Film Festival to sell their films to potential distributors" so you appear to be correct.SL93 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Cast section format in Jurassic World Dominion
There is somewhat of a disagreement about the cast section format of Jurassic World Dominion. The InfiniteNexus has changed the cast format to this format and explained his reasons on the article's talk place in section Cast Order, which I don't entirely agree with because some of these actors had their names on the previous teaser poster for one. Secondly, InfiniteNexus's format has placed some actors who are notable in the Jurassic World trilogy, (Isabella Sermon, Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda) in the Additionally part of the list, which is not very subtle and appropriate for the actors who appeared in two of Jurassic World films. So I edited to this order, placing the names of Sermon, Campbell Scott, Smith, Scott Haze, Dichen Lachman and Pineda on the row list while leaving the rest in the addionally list, but InfiniteNexus reverted that edit. See what you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keeping it on since it's still ongoing. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The "Presented by (name)" and "(name) Presents" film role
I have been reviewing Draft:Atanu Raychaudhuri and he has a number of films where he is credited as "Presented by: (name)" or "(name) presents..." but this is different from a television host or television presenter. Should these be renamed to Producer as this is more of a producer's role in the film, or just left as Presenter and explained with some notes? Any suggestions? It's kind of like: "A Spike Lee joint"  Also, how should he or others be listed in infobox film? AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Films by country
Hi. Just a heads-up that following this discussion a WP:BOTREQ was created to remove all the parent country categories (example). Get ready for your watchlists to creak!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Box office admissions for animated films
Can we have a separate article about box office admissions of animated films? NextEditor123 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this is something that is currently being discussed at Talk:List of animated films by box office admissions. As always, parallel discussions on the same subject in different places should be avoided. TompaDompa (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that this dispute should be included in this talk page as it allows to discuss with others rather than by ourselves. Otherwise, we will never solve this dispute. NextEditor123 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for List of animated films by box office admissions. NextEditor123 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was that leaving a link to the ongoing discussion, as I did, is more appropriate than raising the same issues here and starting a new discussion in addition to the existing one. TompaDompa (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If the dispute is specific to one particular article then the discussion should be held at that article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the TCM Movie Database gone?!
As per the header – is the TCM Movie Database gone?

A Google search only turns up the base TCM.com site. I think the database may be gone.

If so, the templates TCMDb name and TCMDb title need to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Working for me. It looks like it's blocked in Europe as complying with GDPR can be expensive, though. Nardog (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Link, then? There is no link to be found on the general TCM.com site. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All links in the documentation for both templates. Nardog (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/ redirects to https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/#overview which produces a 404 error. It looks to me like the front-end of the database is gone. I see no links to it from the TCM.com homepage either. While the Hitchcock link currently still works, I would bet it is only a matter of time before individual links in the database stop working too. I think it is definitely looking like the TCM Movie Database is going the same way that the former New York Times movie database did. WP:FILM should start preparing for deprecation here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No you can still navigate to TCMDb from TCM.com, through any entry under "Watch TCM", which has a link to TCMDb next to "see full cast & crew at TCMDb". Database entries also show up in the site-wide search. I see no sign of it going away. Nardog (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the entries are available if you go to https://www.tcm.com/watchtcm/films?icid=mainnav4-watch-movies and click on "more info", then the database itself can still be found if you click on "see full cast & crew at TCMDb" (like from this page to give an example). So the database appears to still be there, its just harder to find, which is a little annoying. Historyday01 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I question how "useful" a database without a proper front-end really is, and whether we should be relying on a database without a proper front-end... But I think the more relevant point I am making is that this is likely a sign that this database is going to go away sooner rather than later. WP:FILM needs to prepare for this eventuality. --IJBall (contribs • talk) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, it takes only two clicks to get from the TCM homepage to TCMDb and it's still included in site searches. It's not going away. Nardog (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And, again, a database without a proper front-end is actually mostly useless, esp. to the general public. I really wonder what value Wikipedia is getting by still using it. But I suspect that ultimately it is going away anyway. We shall see. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * TCM is blocked in the European Union, although we discovered a way around it the last time it was discussed. There is more info at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_70. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dejavu 2022
The film is basically called Deja Vu, I am not sure, but the current title seems wrong and it needs moving to a more correct title? Govvy (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Haven't you asked this before.... :D I've moved it to Dejavu (2022 film), as there's quite a few films with a similar title. The sources I can find have it as Dejavu and not Deja Vu.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * heh, Deja Vu over Deja Vu! but ye, IMDB have Deja Vu, but they don't always have those right. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Last Jedi audience reception revisited
A new discussion about user-generated scores is underway. Please weigh in at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Direct-to-video
Do films count as "direct-to-video" if they were released on VOD and in theaters on the same day? A person in Georgia (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No. That would be "day-and-date". Nardog (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this important enough to mention or include in an actor's filmography list? A person in Georgia (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this was discussed previously and the answer was no. It used to be that noting "direct-to-video" made sense because it was basically a separate medium, but these days it is common for theatrical-quality movies to be released straight-to-streaming or day-and-date and noting as such doesn't tell a reader anything about the type of film or role. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So would it be relevant to note on this article? A person in Georgia (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Relevant or not, "direct-to-video" is simply untrue for movies released in theaters. Nardog (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As Nardog mentioned, the use there is incorrect. White Elephant which was released in a theater and AMC+ is not a direct to video. Neither is AMC+ alone. I'd also argue (and this is my personal opinion) that the notes section is itself really unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Morbius (film)
There is a discussion at Talk:Morbius (film) on whether Forbes contributor pieces can be used as reviews despite being an unreliable self-published source per WP:FORBESCON. Please add your thoughts there so we can reach a consensus. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

AFI as a source
So I've seen here and there film articles that cite the American Film Institute (AFI), but I find that they can often be incorrect, whether it's incorrect production company name (ex. for Hulk they put Marvel Studios instead of Marvel Enterprises) or not putting all the studios, to even adding other crew members who were not credited in the final film. It just makes me question whether we should still use them as a source. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Was it not Marvel Studios for Hulk? The article as well as this list say otherwise. Can you provide additional examples as well for the other concerns? --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The list says the ones labeled as Marvel Studios are in the MCU unless noted; Hulk just has Universal Pictures.
 * 2 others include:
 * Planet of the Apes (2001) putting Joel Negron as an editor (removed edit from page)
 * The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012) putting Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation as DISTRIBUTORS, when it's well known Sony Pictures Releasing (parent company) handles that Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hulk 2003 was not Marvel Studios, per the opening credits. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The AFI is a reputable source, but that doesn't mean they are infallible. We are having a lot of problems with Box Office Mojo at the moment too with it double counting reissue grosses, but it is still very useful overall. If these errors are anomalous rather than systemic then I don't believe in blacklisting what is actually a very useful resource. If it is proving to be unreliable for one particular piece of information on a regular basis (e.g. production companies) we could perhaps advise editors to locate an alternative source in those cases. So far we just have one example, I'd need to see dozens to be convinced that there is a systemic issue with the source. The British Film Institute also logs this type of information and if you think something is wrong you can always double check there. I do note that they have Marvel Enterprises down as an associate producer. Betty Logan (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

FA reviewer needed for The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)
The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) has received two "Satisfactory" notations at WP:URFA/2020A and we are looking for a third reviewer to ensure this article still meets the FA criteria. Can someone review the URFA/2020 instructions and make a notation indicating if it still meets the FA standards? Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Awards ref template
Thoughts on using template to ref awards at Template talk:Awards ref please Indagate (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating needed?
I am not around much anymore so I missed this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79. First off I agree with its conclusion. I've noticed that removal of the category has begun and congrats to the enterprising editors doing the work. My suggestion/question is shouldn't there be updates to the parts of the Manual of Style/Film that this consensus has impacted? Especially Manual of Style/Film and WikiProject Film/Categorization. I think it will help both veteran and new editors to have things spelled out. If I'm wrong than no worries. Regards to all. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, those places should probably be updated to reflect this change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Was wondering this myself. Οἶδα (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already recategorized a lot of articles. Please stop me if I'm going too fast. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, isn't there a bot available to perform this task (basically removing everything from Category:American films)? Seems that would make the process much easier. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the only category involved here...but it would be a start. DonIago (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am okay with your work removing the cats The discussion about their removal seems pretty clear to me.  is removing them as well. I note that its edit summary does include a link to the archived discussion and you mighty consider adding it to yours Scorpions13256. I am also okay with any changes to the MoS sections that any of you want to make. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added an update to the MOS.
 * As for the bot, it is working on the project, but there are inevitably going to be some films that it misses for one reason or another (e.g. the film hasn't actually been subcategorized by genre at all), and the largest categories (British, American, etc.) are going to remain populated with some films for quite a while yet as there's a lot of work to deal with still. So while nobody needs to take on the job of comprehensively smashing through the entire tree at this time, it is helpful and appreciated to contribute some cleanup work as you happen to come across it — for example, if you're working on a set of films for other reasons, and happen to notice that they're still all-included in the parent category, then do feel free to include removing the parent category and/or adding genre categories (if necessary) at the same time as your other edits — and if you come across smaller country categories where not all of the subcategories exist at all yet and thus those films won't get touched by the bot at all, then feel free to create the appropriate genre categories, especially since that's the pending work that human editors will eventually have to do anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1
An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have any Empire magazines from 1992?
Per title Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

My Nappy Roots: A Journey Through Black Hair-itage
Could somebody with better access to decade-old US media coverage than I've got do a bit of research into the documentary film My Nappy Roots: A Journey Through Black Hair-itage? In its current state, our article is making three different claims about its release year -- 2008 in the introduction, 2009 according to the infobox, and separate categories for both 2009 and 2005 -- and IMDb claims 2010, while AllMovie claims 2006, so even those aren't much help. Obviously our article needs to be accurate and consistent, so it would be helpful if somebody with the right tools to solve it could look into this. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All I have is the Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine but I have added some information to the article talk page. The documentary was showing at film festivals in 2007. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , this from 2006 mentions the film. This says, "Kimball says she finished her movie in early 2006, but has never released it for commercial audiences." I think in general, the guidelines want the first public release, but considering the particular history here, I'd be okay with "2006" as the earliest marker if the film was completed by then. The article can reflect what happened since completion. EDIT: Hah, this calls it a 2005 film... Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, this is a hornet's nest, isn't it? I've gone with 2006 for now; obviously we can change that if we can find genuinely solid evidence that it should really be seen as a 2005 or 2007 film instead, but the article being consistent is important here, and there clearly wasn't a case for going with 2008, 2009 or 2010. Thanks for the help. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

NOBACKREF compliance request
Hello, film fans.

I was just checking out 1977 in film and felt compelled by force of habit to change the "Notable films released in 1977" section into a "Notable releases" section. It's not a strange compulsion or habit, it's based on a true guideline. But I then noticed the same standard style in a few other arbitrary film years, leading me to suspect there are about 140 of these lengthy headers, probably on purpose.

I'm sure we can agree one centralized discussion beats even five petty and scattered squabbles. Beyond that, I don't know what we agree on, so I'm asking. Is the 1977 reference obvious in context? Does the same apply to an explicitly reiterated "film"? Should we tackle this problem (if it is a problem) as a team, everywhere, for all time?

Anyway, no pressure. I've had some pretty strong feelings about this whole editing genre in the past (check my summary history for "implied"), but I'm old now and wise enough to know my place where local consensus rules. Feel free to pass on even considering this proposal, if that's the way it is. But, of course, any show of cooperation is also quite welcome.

Sincerely, InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Should like a right change for the headings, table captions should probably include year per MOS:TABLECAPTION. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no appreciable interest in table captions, so that's fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Widespread critical acclaim
For anyone who'd like to weigh in, there is a discussion about "widespread critical acclaim" being used to describe Top Gun: Maverick. See Talk:Top Gun: Maverick. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV balance and film reviews
I don't know if I'm in the right place. Where is the place to start a discussion of NPOV and balance between audience ratings/polls reviews vs positive/negative reviews from critics? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't do audience reviews per WP:USERG. Only bona fide polls like CinemaScore and PostTrak are appropriate. Anything from the Internet is ripe for abuse. WP:USERG even mentions not including Rotten Tomatoes user ratings. You'd need to challenge WP:USERG itself, I think, and I don't see why that would be needed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the only times an audience score (aside from CinemaScore and PostTrak) should be noted is if it heavily contrasts the critics score, but ONLY if a secondary (news) source mentions it. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of those polls. Sorry about using the wrong word, now stricken. Where is the place to start a discussion? Discuss below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOVN? Not sure what the specific situation is, but I've seen a bad practice of putting these items side-by-side. It insists on comparison, and that is a POV violation. Polls are based on opening-weekend audiences who want to see the movie, and have certain expectations. In contrast, film critics review whether or not they wanted to see the film. I've also noticed that audience poll info is dumped in the Critical reception section. Audience polling is directly connected to a film's theatrical release and associated box-office information. It's like the POV violation of putting the production budget next to the box office gross in the lead section to insist on comparing the two when that is comparing apples to oranges (e.g., failing to consider P&A and tax benefits). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, the decision of which film reviews to mention is entirely subjective. If there are guidelines, please point me to them. Film reviews that are very far removed from the audience reception should be discounted as fringe views and statistical outliers that should not be mentioned. That doesn't mean they don't make any good points, but using them too much, and using reviews more in harmony with the audience reception too little, creates an unbalance that violates NPOV. We should use a balance of positive and negative reviews that is more in harmony with the audience reception.
 * Premise: Some film reviews can be considered "fringe" and should not be mentioned.

I realize that my assumption that critics' reviews and audience reception should be tied to each other in this equation may not be entirely valid, but I'd like to explore this possibility. Let's discuss this and see if some guidelines can be established to address principles to follow in this area. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Film reviews that are very far removed from the audience reception should be discounted as fringe views..." The audience is not the core arbiter of a film's quality. Nor are the critics. There are metrics for both, and both should be included. Are you seriously advocating to exclude negative reviews for something like The Emoji Movie because it did well at the box office? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am exploring ideas and am a neophyte in this area, so please be patient. I'm also here to learn. The discussion of "Where the Crawdads Sing" here is good. It touches on the points I mention above, where there is a very wide disparity between critics and audiences. Please read it before replying. Start at "Crawdads is another example this summer of a harshly reviewed movie beating its projections. Critics piled on Crawdads at 37% rotten, and here’s the pic’s opening, 70% ahead of where tracking thought it would be. That’s a wonderful thing for the business when Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t ruin a movie’s ticket sales." and read on.
 * I am definitely NOT proposing excluding negative reviews. Not at all. I'm proposing we exclude only those that are VERY far out of touch with audiences, which are the most important metric in the real world. We should include a spread of positive and negative reviews, but like all other content at Wikipedia, NPOV and balance are policies that apply, so let's figure out how to do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you have reviewed MOS:FILM, but this may be a helpful starting point. Please review this guidance, and if you see areas for improvement, we can certainly have that discussion. Generally, we encourage NPOV balance of reviews that skew accordingly to the film's overall reception. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll check it out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's excellent guidance. This part seems relevant here:
 * "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used."
 * Would it be legitimate to add something about using audience response to guide the choice in spread of positive/negative critical reviews, especially with a view toward excluding clear statistical outliers? Anyone who has studied statistics knows that such exclusion is not only valid, it is absolutely essential, otherwise the results are very misleading. That's a pretty significant POV to adopt here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction here is that audience reception and critical reception are two different beasts. If there is a need to point out a disparity of sorts, especially when the disparity receives significant coverage, then a separate "Audience response" subsection could be created to cover that in more detail. Of course, more than one approach works, therefore it's probably not necessary to codify it in the MoS. What verbiage are you suggesting? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to remember that while we can give an accurate view of what the critical response is, we do not know what the actual overall audience response is (unless you've talked to everyone who has seen it). All we can do is present the reliable data that we do have (box office, opening weekend polls, streaming viewership, etc.) and maybe some commentary on that if appropriate. As long as we are not using the unreliable USERG online polls. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * adamstom97, you are absolutely right. We can't use USERG or OR. We can only use what RS say about critics' reviews and audience reception, and we do have certain types of RS which specialize in exactly that info. The current situation that got me thinking about this is the Where the Crawdads Sing (film) article. We have been dealing with how to balance coverage in the Critical response section, without any discussion on the talk page or any serious edit warring(!). Things seem to be working out pretty well, but I wanted to see if there was any guidance or policies for the subject, and I have gotten some good help here, for which I am very grateful.
 * Fortunately, there is a really good source with lots of info and statistics, that examines the wide disparity between the generally negative critical reviews and the very positive audience reception, as well as the factors contributing to those differences. You might find it interesting. Look at the Critical response section first, as it points out where in that source to look. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

War drama genre
As previously notified, the "war drama" category hierarchy has been nominated for merging to war films. There was a unanimous precedent last year to merge Western dramas to Westerns. So far two editors have opposed this nomination, but since then three have supported it. Please weigh in at Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 1. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Open movie database (omdb)
Hi! Anyone wants to participate in writing a new article, Open movie database, which is currently in my sandbox? I'm glad to see any contribution. Later we can move in into the main pagespace. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong title. It's "Open media database". Read the source more carefully. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this! It is confusing — in some places, I see "Open movie database" name is used. Maybe it was used at the beginning. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Distributors regarding streaming services
I've noticed a majority of streaming films list the streaming service as the distributors but this isn't accurate. They're just services, not actual distributors; think of it like they were brought TO, not brought FROM. I propose we make the following changes to these streaming films:


 * Netflix: Change unneeded. Netflix Studios or Netflix Streaming Services are ok name alternatives (except the latter if the film is released simultaneously in theaters).
 * Disney+: Change to Disney Platform Distribution.
 * HBO Max: Change to Warner Bros. Discovery Global Streaming & Interactive Entertainment
 * Paramount+: Change to Paramount Global Distribution Group
 * (Amazon) Prime Video: Change to Amazon Studios.
 * Apple TV+: Change to Apple Studios
 * Peacock: Change to NBCUniversal Syndication Studios

Feel free to express your thoughts. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It has been proposed at Template talk:Infobox television that we stop displaying the distributor in the infobox and only mention it in prose if especially noteworthy. I think a similar, but not quite the same, discussion may be needed for film articles. For theatrical films the distributor is usually prominent and noteworthy (it is often a big studio like Disney or Universal, etc.) which means we don't have the issue of TV or streaming where it is a random company/subsidiary/division that no one has heard of or that users may be adding without sources (as could happen based on this siggestion). For streaming films it is the opposite, and I think it would make more sense to ask what should actually be displayed for these films: the distributor that no one knows/cares about, or the streaming service (clearly editors have been preferring the latter)? If others agreed that the streaming service is more noteworthy than the distributor for streaming series, then perhaps instead of making this change we could add a new parameter for streaming service that can be used for streaming films instead of the distributor parameter. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll deal with that separately, but for now should we just put these as the distributors for these streaming films? Iamnoahflores (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking if we were going to go to the effort to update these for all streaming films we might as well make sure it is the right change. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I get that, I just think this is a more simpler solution at the moment. Changing an infobox is a big step, especially when removing something, especially since a lot of editors will need to remove distributors grow about every film article. Iamnoahflores (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Film categorization update
Pursuant to the past discussions around removing "Country films" categories from films that were already subcategorized, the bot that was working on this now seems to largely be done -- although I have caught a few stray pages (most commonly but not exclusively redirects) that got missed for one reason or another, virtually everything that's still in the base categories is the stuff that was always going to need human editor attention anyway, because either the film hadn't been fully subcategorized in the first place or the genre subcategories for that country don't even exist at all yet.

So if anybody's willing to help out, it's time for real humans to start cleaning up the leftovers. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I suspect there will be quite a few articles with NO country-genre subcat too, based on creating about a dozen of these in the last few days alone (Swiss mystery films, Nigerien drama films, Bolivian drama films, etc).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of infobox coding?

 * Following on from this, there's also an idea to drop the hard-coding from the infobox regarding the language parameter. Please see this request. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Edit request to the template to de-code the infobox field has been logged. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And this has now been done.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Filipino lost early films
Somebody has been adding them to the main list of lost films. I was going to move them to the appropriate half-decade sublists, but then I saw that one of the sources states "All films produced in the Philippines during the silent era, from 1912 to 1932, were believed to have been lost or destroyed". So that makes things difficult. I am toying with the idea of moving them to List of silent Filipino films and then linking that to the sublists instead. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Women comedians
Members of this project may be interested to know that this month Women in Red is focusing on Comedians, many of whom are associated with the cinema. Please feel free to join in.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Films needing subcategorization
As a follow up to User talk:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist/Archive 7, the following pages need to be added to appropriate subcategories of Category:American films


 * Roswell (film)
 * Running Red
 * Resurrection of Eve
 * Redemption: For Robbing the Dead
 * The Rose Technique
 * Rat Rod Rockers!
 * Road Kill (1999 film)
 * Rommel's Treasure
 * The Run of the Country
 * Runaway (2005 film)
 * Rails & Ties
 * Rad (film)
 * Redemption: The Stan Tookie Williams Story
 * The Rift (1990 film)
 * Red Hot Rhythm
 * Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead
 * Richard the Second
 * Royal Kill
 * Real Gone Cat
 * Ray Bradbury's Chrysalis
 * Red Headed Stranger (film)
 * Rising Stars (film)
 * Raving (film)
 * The Paper Chase (film)
 * Pete, Pearl & the Pole
 * The Profit (film)
 * Poor Cecily
 * Precious Find
 * Petey Wheatstraw (film)
 * Portal – No Escape
 * Perfect Alibi
 * Pipe Dreams (1976 film)
 * Purple Hearts (1984 film)
 * The Power of the Resurrection
 * Pancho Villa (film)
 * Pendragon: Sword of His Father
 * Pencil Test (film)
 * The Prisoner or: How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair
 * The Power of the Game
 * The Perfect Stranger (film)
 * Poor Things (film)
 * Pinocchio (1976 TV program)
 * The Phantom Gunslinger
 * The Pleasure Garden (1953 film)
 * Passage to Zarahemla
 * Pursuit of Loneliness
 * Pressurecooker
 * P.S. (film)
 * Psycho From Texas
 * Paris Holiday
 * Pastor Brown
 * Pretty Peaches
 * A Perfect Ending
 * Playing God (2021 film)
 * Plastic Bag (film)
 * The Princess and the Pea (2001 film)
 * Population: 1
 * Piece by Piece (film)
 * No Ransom
 * No. 5 the Film
 * Never Say Never Again
 * North Hollywood (film)
 * New World Disorder (film)
 * NY77: The Coolest Year in Hell
 * Natchez Trace (film)
 * Now & Forever (2002 film)
 * Nashville Rebel (film)
 * The New Adventures of Little Toot
 * N is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdős
 * Naked Obsession
 * A Night in Dixie
 * The Neverything
 * Mindwalk
 * Measure of a Man (film)
 * Middle Men (film)
 * Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (2010 film)
 * The Mountain Road
 * Monica & David
 * The Magic Fountain
 * The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima
 * Más sabe el Diablo por viejo
 * The Mad Whale
 * My Old Kentucky Home (1922 film)
 * Muna (film)
 * Mooz-lum
 * Maze (2000 film)
 * Miranda's Victim
 * The Merchant of Venice (1969 film)
 * Million Dollar Mystery
 * Mona Lisa Descending a Staircase
 * Misty (film)
 * Most (2003 film)
 * The Men's Club
 * Martial Outlaw
 * My Bollywood Bride
 * Missing Link (1988 film)
 * Motherhood by Choice, Not Chance
 * My Sister's Quinceañera
 * Mentor (film)
 * Marie (1985 film)
 * Method to the Madness of Jerry Lewis
 * Marines, Let's Go
 * Measure of Revenge
 * Mary and Martha (film)
 * Mooncussers
 * My Last Day Without You
 * Mom's Outta Sight
 * Maryam (2002 film)
 * Married Too Young
 * Mad Cowgirl
 * Lifted (2010 film)
 * The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams
 * Lassie (2005 film)
 * Lepke (film)
 * Lionheart (1987 film)
 * Liam (2000 film)
 * Look (2007 film)
 * The Loneliest Planet
 * Leave the World Behind (film)
 * Lookin' Italian
 * Little Heroes (film)
 * Last Kung Fu Monk
 * Jubal (film)
 * Jane Eyre (1996 film)
 * Joseph (1995 film)
 * Johnny Tiger
 * Journey to the Center of the Earth (1989 film)
 * Jamaica Run
 * Jamaica Motel
 * ISteve
 * An Interview with God
 * Istanbul (film)
 * Irish Twins
 * I Hate Valentine's Day
 * I'm Here (film)
 * Imaginary Larry
 * Impolex
 * Hot Summer in the City
 * Honor Up
 * Hollywood: The Fabulous Era
 * Hollywood Safari
 * The Hook (1963 film)
 * Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me (film)
 * Honkytonk Man
 * The Upper Footage
 * Welcome 2 Ibiza
 * Street Soldiers
 * Soarin'
 * Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series)
 * Son of Rambow
 * Taxi (film series)
 * The Story of Ruth
 * Source Code
 * A Thief in the Night (film series)
 * A Thief in the Night (film)
 * Stories of Lost Souls
 * Three Brave Men
 * Theodore Roosevelt (miniseries)
 * Suzanne, Suzanne
 * Story of a Woman
 * Texas Lightning (film)
 * Spirit of the Wind
 * Treasure Hunt (2003 film)
 * The Silver Chalice (film)
 * Talk of Angels
 * The Treasure of Makuba
 * This Teacher
 * Treasure Island (1990 film)
 * Split Image (film)
 * Street Girls
 * Sweet Sugar (film)
 * Sleepwalk with Me
 * Shortcut to Happiness
 * Touch Me (film)
 * Timber Tramps
 * Show Me the Father
 * That's Black Entertainment
 * Torchlight (1985 film)
 * Things I Never Told You
 * Starting Out in the Evening
 * The Tall Men (film)
 * Teenage Mother
 * Terminal Bliss
 * Tigershark (film)
 * Strictly Sexual
 * That Man of Mine
 * Trek: The Movie
 * Too Hot to Handle (1977 film)
 * Taking Chances (2009 film)
 * Suspect Device (film)
 * Stuck (2014 film)
 * Space Mutiny
 * The Steel Claw (film)
 * Short Time
 * Southie (film)
 * The Steel Lady
 * Sudden Death (1977 film)
 * Ten Nights in a Barroom (1926 film)
 * The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh
 * The Tale of Four
 * Slipstream (2007 film)
 * Superfights
 * Temptation (1935 film)
 * Skyscraper (1996 film)
 * Thirty Years Later
 * The Treasure of Jamaica Reef
 * Sleepwalking (film)
 * Stay Until Tomorrow
 * That's the Way of the World (film)
 * The Spy in the Green Hat
 * The Stowaway (2014 film)
 * Spalding Gray: Terrors of Pleasure
 * The Treasure Seekers (1979 film)
 * Stories USA
 * Stand Alone
 * Stony Island (film)
 * The Tollbooth
 * Striking Point
 * Slipstream (unfinished film)
 * South of Heaven, West of Hell (film)
 * The Slams
 * Sol Madrid
 * Stiletto (1969 film)
 * Swimmers (2005 film)
 * Shut Up and Shoot!
 * Spirit Lost
 * Shake Hands with the Devil (1959 film)
 * State's Evidence
 * Shark Kill
 * Sheeba (film)
 * The Sky Is Falling (2000 film)
 * Split (1989 film)
 * The Shell Seekers (1989 film)
 * Showdown at Abilene
 * Sgt. Will Gardner
 * Shooting at the Moon (film)
 * The Shadow Men
 * In the French Style
 * The Mummy (1999 film)
 * Lorenzo's Oil
 * Pass the Light
 * Mr. Nanny
 * The Milk of Sorrow
 * Jonathan Livingston Seagull (film)
 * Murder at the Gallop
 * Men of the Fighting Lady
 * Mr. Mike's Mondo Video
 * Moving McAllister
 * The Ministers
 * The Man Who Envied Women
 * John Mulaney & the Sack Lunch Bunch
 * The Ice House (1969 film)
 * Just Yell Fire
 * Let Them All Talk (film)
 * The Iron Triangle (film)
 * Max Rules
 * Never So Few
 * L.A. Plays Itself
 * Journey from Zanskar
 * My Lover, My Son
 * Magic Kid 2
 * Listen (2013 film)
 * The Natural History of Parking Lots
 * Me & Isaac Newton
 * Littlerock (film)
 * Love Comes Lately
 * The Nagano Tapes
 * Love Camp 7
 * Into the Blue 2: The Reef
 * Hour of the Assassin (1987 film)
 * Iceman (1984 film)
 * Modus Operandi (film)
 * It Was Raining That Night
 * Joseph's Gift
 * Jinxed! (1982 film)
 * The Hasty Heart
 * Hanna K.
 * Manfish
 * Man on a Bus
 * Miraculous Journey
 * The Inn of the Sixth Happiness
 * In Enemy Hands (film)
 * The Jackals
 * The Littlest Hobo
 * Inhale (film)
 * Misguided Behavior
 * The Hungry Bachelors Club
 * Mary White (film)
 * Jules (film)
 * Joe the King
 * Mona Lisa and the Blood Moon
 * The Hired Hand
 * Love Simple
 * The Inspector (1962 film)
 * The Locusts (film)
 * Horror in the High Desert
 * The Last Porno Flick
 * Journey Out of Darkness
 * Little Blue Pill (film)
 * The Harimaya Bridge
 * Hollywood Without Make-Up
 * Justin Time (film)
 * Illegal in Blue
 * Handling Ships
 * How to Frame a Figg
 * Homework (1982 film)
 * Hole in the Paper Sky
 * A Hero Ain't Nothin' but a Sandwich (film)
 * Loners (2019 film)
 * Inspirations (film)
 * Hangup
 * Illegal Tender (film)
 * Hook, Line & Sinker (1969 film)
 * John Hus (1977 film)
 * The Hot Box
 * In the Cool of the Day
 * Hell Below Zero
 * The Heart of No Place
 * Mantan Messes Up
 * Half-Life (film)
 * Hostile Waters (film)
 * Half a House
 * The Hellcats
 * Hiawatha (1952 film)
 * Heart of the Beholder
 * Hellhole (film)
 * Hard Knocks (1979 film)
 * Older than America
 * Old Gringo
 * One Bad Knight
 * Operation Petticoat
 * Outside the Law (2002 film)
 * The Outsider (2002 film)
 * One Night with Blue Note
 * Orientation: A Scientology Information Film
 * One Dark Night (1939 film)
 * One of Our Spies Is Missing
 * Outlaw Trail: The Treasure of Butch Cassidy
 * Operation Delilah
 * Off Beat (1986 film)
 * The Oates' Valor
 * Octavia (film)
 * The Off Hours
 * Occupant (film)
 * List of Looney Tunes feature films
 * Kangaroo (1952 film)
 * Knights of the Round Table (film)
 * King Solomon's Mines (1985 film)
 * Kid Safe: The Video
 * Kansas (film)
 * Kiss & Tell (1997 film)
 * Gospa
 * The Gathering Storm (2002 film)
 * Gray's Anatomy (film)
 * Good Morning, Eve!
 * The Gemini Lounge
 * Grassroots (film)
 * The Geisha Boy
 * Greaser's Palace
 * Gordon's War
 * Girl in the Woods
 * Gathering of Heroes: Legend of the Seven Swords
 * Getting Even (1986 film)
 * The Golden Head
 * The Girl in the Park
 * The Gun Runner
 * Godzilla: King of the Monsters in 3D
 * Get to Know Your Rabbit
 * The Gamma People
 * The Grasshopper (1970 film)
 * Ghost Rider (1982 film)
 * Gun Glory
 * The Gathering Storm (1974 film)
 * The Golden Voice (film)
 * Gang Smashers
 * Garden of Eden (1954 film)
 * Golden Arm (film)
 * Gigolettes of Paris
 * Gas Pump Girls
 * Georgia Rose
 * A Great New Star
 * The Green Hand
 * Gang War (1940 film)
 * The Flaming Teen-Age
 * Forever Strong
 * Fire on the Amazon
 * Finestkind
 * Fight Harm
 * The Fountain of Life (film)
 * Firelight (1964 film)
 * Forbidden Island
 * The Final Cut (1995 film)
 * The Forty Days of Musa Dagh (film)
 * Flourish (film)
 * Fix (film)
 * Four Faces of God
 * Freedom from Despair
 * The Final Comedown
 * Fortunes of War (film)
 * Fighting Mad (1976 film)
 * Fine Feathers (1921 film)
 * For the Cause (film)
 * Fire Creek (2006 film)
 * Flipper's New Adventure
 * The Flames of Wrath
 * The Fight Never Ends
 * Eros (film)
 * The Education of Sonny Carson
 * The Expendables (1989 film)
 * Echoes of War (film)
 * End of the Road (1970 film)
 * Elle: A Modern Cinderella Tale
 * Escapade in Japan
 * Evening (film)
 * Ekaj
 * The Emperor's New Clothes (1966 film)
 * Easy Street (1930 film)
 * Engine Trouble
 * Echo (2003 film)
 * Endgame (2007 film)
 * Dragonheart 3: The Sorcerer's Curse
 * Double Edge (1992 film)
 * Desert Thunder
 * Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks
 * Deepsouth
 * Disparaît, v

I started by adding 75 pages from the same set to the parent category, thinking there would be just a few stragglers that could be caught the normal way, but when I realized how many there were I decided a post here was better than making 400 busywork edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to add here except an apology for all this. I was skeptical it was too easy to just empty the category, and it turns out I should have listened to that first impulse. I won't be doing this type of thing again. I'll leave it to everyone else who actually knows what they're doing. Cheers. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel I should at least try to fix this, do what I should have done in the first place the right way. But I won't go monkeying around with Cat-a-lot anymore for sure. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there may be a few entries here that were not American films to begin with. I'm going to list them here and see what others might know about them (will add to it as I sort through the mess):
 * *Más sabe el Diablo por viejo
 * Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that there are probably going to be some cases where a film that wasn't actually "American" at all had been miscategorized as such. In my own cleanup efforts, I have caught instances where a film had been categorized as "Nationality films" for a country that was not named in the introduction or the infobox at all — in which case I checked the film's IMDb profile, and found that sometimes the category was supported over there and thus just needed to be added to the text, while other times it was still not supported there either, and thus needed to have the category removed outright. This wasn't only in the United States, for the record, but happened in several other countries as well. I think there's probably a mix of reasons why this might have happened; in some cases the only basis for the category I could guess at was that maybe the film had been screened at a film festival in the mystery country, and was thus being misapplied on the basis of "this category should be on any film that has ever been screened in this country at all", while in others it appeared to have been applied on the basis of the filmmakers having done some location shooting in that country. So obviously some caution will be needed; if you're working on cleaning up a national category and that country isn't named in the article's introduction, then check IMDb. And, of course, even IMDb can make mistakes sometimes too — but obviously an article would need to show a reliable source to support any claim that the film's production nationalities included one or more countries not reflected by IMDb. And also, as much as it may suck having to take that extra step sometimes, cleaning up errors like that is one of the reasons why this is a good project, because the errors might simply never have been caught otherwise. All of that said, however, Más sabe el Diablo por viejo clearly is listed, both in its infobox and on IMDb, as a Mexico-US co-production, so it's not an example of this problem. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

✅ I did the above list AND all the ones that went back into the category. I can't say I did it all perfectly or that there aren't a few more categories that could apply for some of these articles, but where I found truly necessary they are now all in at least one subcategory of American films without exception. A few were left off because they genuinely did not belong there after all, at least so far as I could substantiate (a symptom of my highly scattershot approach the first time; broken clocks and all that). I don't expect anyone to doublecheck my work, but I certainly hope if I've overlooked anything others will simply add it sooner or later. I must point out my astonishment that there were so many films, even well known and utterly famous ones, that were not already in some manner subcategorized here. I'm also a little bit shocked I myself was not personally approached to fix all of this on my own talk page; I had been notified of the damage I'd done when it was speculated that there weren't nearly this many things now broken to fix, but I was not further notified of anything and had to come here to see for myself. If it were my mess, why was I not specifically asked to clean it up? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Films by country
If a film category is too big for all films from each country, why can't we split it by decade and have like Category:1970s Argentine films? I can see the argument to split by genre but I thought it was important to be able to browse films from each country in one place and not have to sift through dozens of categories. Would most of the categories be unfeasibly large if split into like 12 or 13 by decade? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be manageable that way I think?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That would certainly be possible — it would be relatively easy to do an AWB batch run that compared all contents of "1970s films" to all contents of "Argentine films", and on and so forth. But that would be a big job that couldn't be implemented in five or ten minutes, and would likely be a long-term project, so it would probably require discussion.
 * I still continue not to buy that film has a special need for "A-Z" that comprehensively list all films in one master category, greater than any need for television series to be A-Zed in one master category, or for novels to be A-Zed in one master category, or for albums to be A-Zed in one master category, or for politicians to be A-Zed one master category. I still haven't seen a convincing argument that film has a greater need for this than any other category tree that doesn't do it. But that's not an argument against by decade categories as such, as some (not all) of the other trees do have that categories of that type — I just don't see why a purported need for A-Z master lists would or should have anything to do with it one way or the other when so many other similar category trees aren't deemed to need that. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * is very efficient with AWBing, I hope it's something he would be interested in doing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * {{{u|Dr. Blofeld}},, and : Sure - I'd be happy to help out with something like this, should it come to fruition. Many hands make light work, and all sorts of other cliches like that. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * - I'd just be bold and go ahead with it TBH. These kind of ideas don't get much discussion these days, and I can't see there being any real push-back.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The question is whether could accept a few thousand articles for the US if we had 13 or 14 decade categories? ♦  Dr. Blofeld  19:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Accept, as in add to my list to work on? Sure - no problem at all. I can get started in the next few days. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ! It would mean readers can browse films by era by country and at least have A-Z for that. It seems manageable. I may consider doing some A-Z lists of films, but the problem is maintenance. I think the time would be better spent working on the year lists and creating missing entries. Enjoy the rest of your trip! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I should be finished with English-language films in the next couple of days. Once that's done I'll do a test category for you and see if it's what you're talking about. Then we can go from there. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm currently in Santa Fe with limited access to AutoWikiBrowser. (I can get online at the business center at the hotel, but that's a different matter.) I'm about done with English-language film sorting, so I'll run a test category for you in a few days and you can tell me if that's the sort of thing you have in mind. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd run into this before, and ran into the following: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_3. I grant that it's been over a decade, but I suspect there will be problems if we go ahead and try to recreate right now. I'm willing to do it, but I'd rather be at home where I can handle the defense (if need be) relatively quickly, rather than seeing things blow up while I'm not available to work on them.


 * Meantime, I solicit the opinion of and : will this discussion be sufficient to establish consensus should I recreate the categories? My own argument is that the recent discussions have changed things, and  these categories are now no longer as useless as they may have seemed in 2007. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, recent discussions have changed things. That was 2007. Things were a lot different on here back then and a lot more people would comment and object to things. You could never call splitting thousands of films into just 12 or 13 categories "over categorization".♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're safe to move ahead with this when you're ready. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I didn't want to undertake anything long-term while I was traveling, and I've been doing a lot of driving the past couple of days. Just got home after a nine-hour-plus haul from Indianapolis (this after the saga, the day before, of looking for a hotel in Wisconsin). Not sure when I'll begin, but I'm hoping in the next couple of days I can get that first category started and you can have a look at it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I thought you might be back by now ! No rush, hope you're enjoying yourself!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nigerian fustercluck
Just wanted to bring something to the project's attention.

In the ongoing process of recategorizing laggard films that hadn't been subcategorized, today I attempted to tackle, only to run into one of the worst frightfests of bad miscategorization I've ever seen. I ran into literally dozens of people that were being categorized as films, films that were being categorized as people, people and films that were being categorized as film awards, male actors filed in actress categories and vice versa, people duplicate and triplicate and quadriplicate categorized as and  and  and  all at the same time, films being added to "YYYY in Nigerian cinema" categories instead of "Nigerian [genre] films" categories, television series miscatted as films, films being categorized as  without any claim in the article that the film in question had been adapted directly from a true story, and on and so forth.

I've already cleaned up a lot of the mess I found, but I just wanted to alert the rest of you because this may require ongoing monitoring. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Dolby Cinema films has been nominated for discussion
Category:Dolby Cinema films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Final film role
There is an IP hopper (contributions) who is persistently adding unsourced parentheses like to various articles which mention dead actors. I know that we have a guideline about that: what is it, so that I can link it next time that I revert. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there's a guideline specific to this case, but it can be considered WP:INDISCRIMINATE details from a film-based perspective. Like it has pretty much nothing to do with the film in most cases, unless reliable sources make this observation in the context of the film. Like I feel like this happened with Driveways (film) and Brian Dennehy, and even so, his passing isn't just shoehorned next to his name in the "Cast" section. It's better woven into the lead section and article body. So in essence, if reliable sources are not making note of it in context of the film, it isn't necessary. I assume obituaries of actors may name their last films, but that can just be covered on the actor's article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree — an actor's death is usually only relevant to a film he or she was in if their death was somehow tied to the film, e.g. they died on set or it was the last film they completed before their death, and even then its relevance would need to be supported by reliable sources establishing that relevance for us by talking about it. It's just not necessary to specify an actor's alive-or-dead status if there isn't a reason why it's relevant to that particular film. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Veera Madakari
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Veera Madakari that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Working title in the lead
There is disagreement at on whether the working title of a film should be noted in the lead of untitled films. Please feel free to chime in there, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the best films in [year] or [decade]
I'm seeing more and more articles throwing these kinds of statements into the lead based on sources like a Metacritic "best-of" list, which aggregates lists from multiple film publications into one. The question is, should these statements be handled with care using proper attribution, even in the lead? Comments are welcome here, but a specific discussion about this is happening right now at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi if you'd like to weigh in there as well. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we should state in the lead section that it was Metacritic's assessment especially because it is not a straightforward count. The more first-place rankings, the more points the film gets in the list. So for The Last Jedi, we have 11 film critics that ranked it in their top-ten, including one second-place ranking. (The omission of first-place ranking can inform readers that that one instance was as high as it goes.) As for contextualizing it, I'm not sure the best way. Mad Max: Fury Road is at the top of the list with over 57 film critics putting it on their top-ten list. Maybe there can be extra text in the inline citation for The Last Jedi's Metacritic inline citation, writing, "For comparison, the topmost film for 2010s was Mad Max: Fury Road which appeared on over 57 film critics' top ten lists." I did work on The Social Network sometime ago and put this in the "Post-2010s assessment" section: " Metacritic reported that it was listed on over 30 film critics' top-ten lists for the 2010s, including eight first-place rankings and four second-place rankings. Metacritic ranked The Social Network third overall, following Mad Max: Fury Road and Moonlight." I didn't try to put this in the lead section, though. And not really feeling like wading directly into another TLJ discussion, props to you for keeping up with all that... Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead at all, best of lists are more subjective than even critical reviews. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't get this take. If you're arguing against subjectivity, are you saying no critic-type information should be in the lead section at all? If anything, counting top-ten lists is easier than trying to identify the trends in what critics said about a film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're including reviews or awards, then the person has, presumably, seen that film and is able to comment on it. Top 10 lists are based on what that person saw, and doesn't include ones they didn't see. If I only saw Morbius all year, it'd be number 1 on my top 10 list for example. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that. It implies that no list or collection of any sort is ever valid because of the unrealistic requirement that a person must evaluate everything for there to be a fair ranking. Film critics watch many more films than the average person, and they also watch films whether they want to see them or not. This kind of perfectionist logic could apply anywhere, like rejecting any summary of what critics overall thought of a film because the summarizer probably did not read every single review out there. Top-ten lists come from reliable sources, and reliable sources talk about them, so the content is valid, and it should be about the best way to present that content in articles, lead section or otherwise. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with here. Mentioning subjective superlatives like this in the WP:LEAD seems really dubious. TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that being named to various critics' top-ten lists isn't valid information to be present in the article, but it should be in a critical reception section rather than being pasted into the lead. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

An Cailín Ciúin
There is a request to move An Cailín Ciúin to The Quiet Girl. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:An Cailín Ciúin. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

License of Spider-Man images
File:Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man.jpg, File:Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man.jpg and File:Tom Holland as Spider-Man.jpg have the "copyrighted screenshot" license but none of them are actually screenshot. I do not find these scenes neither in the movies, nor in the trailers nor in the deleted scenes of the movies. Probably we have to change the licenses. 151.70.68.75 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The Andrew Garfield one is a promotional image. The other two may be as well, but they also look like they could be taken from scenes in the films (I say based on memory). - adamstom97 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I rewatched the scenes (Peter talks to MJ in SM3 and Peter meets Mysterio in SMFFH) and these frames are not in the films. Neither the trailer nor the deleted scenes have these frames. 151.70.68.75 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally checked and this frame is not present in any film, you can check it by watching the scene when Peter talks to MJ in SM3. Redjedi23 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

All Too Well: The Short Film
What do editors here think of the mention of an album release in the lede of All Too Well: The Short Film, an article about a short film? The short film is inspired by the title song, which is from a 2012 album. The artist has been famously re-recording all her past albums, the latest of which is that 2012 album. The current lede of this short film is wanting readers to know that the artist also recently released a re-recording of that album. Is noting this relevant or irrelevant to the short film article? Is it just shoehorned promotional trivia, or is there a legitimate reason to insert this album trivia in the lead? Lapadite (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The fact that the short film was made/released alongside the new version of the album seems pretty relevant, and is supported by the article body. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The short film is not for or about the rerelease of that album, according to the article. They're separate entities. As noted above, Swift is re-releasing all her past albums, not just that one. What is the encyclopedic relevance of that album being re-released on the same date as this short film? A same day release is just a marketing strategy; there's no established importance of the album to this short film; this piece of trivia only serves to promote the album's release. This short film is inspired by a song, not an album. The article is on the short film, not the song or the album. The song (not the album) is relevant to the short film. So why would album release info be in the lead of the article as if it's notable? That's my question: what is the importance of the album's release to this short film, what is the context? A lead should summarize an article's most important points. This promotional trivia is not an important point, according to the body of the article. Lapadite (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The short film takes its title and inspiration from a song that is on that specific album, so I'd say relevant to the short film. The film comes from the song, and the new recording of that song is the one that features in the film itself. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

SVG film posters
So I happened to come into possession of a PDF of a film poster. Normally I focus on SVG logos, but this was interesting to me as I know SVG files can contain embedded raster images, and it was an interesting opportunity to see a vectorized film poster on the project. The poster is:

The most obvious advantage is that the text is all stored as vector images, while only the background is stored as a raster. This should improve readers ability to read the "fine print" on the poster, as well as ensure the logos and other trademarks are treated respectfully by our project. As this is, as far as I know, the first time a movie poster has been uploaded as an SVG I'm interested in feedback (if this is not the first time, or if there was something similar done (e.g. music cover, book cover, etc) I'd be curious about pointers to those prior discussions). If this is acceptable/popular, I will pursue doing other posters like this, but before I go researching that, I wanted to make sure I wasn't running afoul of any policies/guidelines/legal issues. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would strongly recommend NOT using SVG non-frees of posters. We do allow SVGs of non-free logos, but on the basis that the logo is tied to the brand and while copyrighted, it is better to use the official SVG over a low-res version, but with posters, that's different. Also, I doubt the entire image is "vectorized", in that the SVG is basically a wrapper around a JPG or similar format with the text elements part of the SVG. That part of the image is a JPG or raster version means that we can't use that at high resolution. M asem (t) 04:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're correct, the background part of the poster is a raster image (it is simply base64 encoded within the SVG). If that background were lowered in resolution to match what is prescribed in WP:IMAGERES, would that suffice to address your concerns? I'll upload a revision with that implemented for your review. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would still just use a JPG/PNG version to avoid any possible problems with the change (that might be taken as a copyright violation). M asem (t) 12:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need, so I would oppose. The point of having the movie poster on a movie's article is largely in regards to branding, not in regards to conveying 'fine print' details about the film. Anything of significance about the film that would appear in the fine print should otherwise already be on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As regards branding, you can see that the movie logo renders better in this SVG compared to a raster JPG/PNG. If our goal is to present the branding in the best light possible, wouldn't this be a net improvement while still abiding by WP:IMAGERES for the photographic elements? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument that "the best branding possible" should be the goal has always seemed bad, especially since lots of the SVGs we use seem to be poorly traced rather than sourced EPS or SVG files from the copyright holders. In no case is it important to have that stuff on a low-res film poster, where the point is just to demonstrate an aspect of marketing. The studio logo is irrelevant. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why I source vector logos from PDFs provided by manufacturers or organizations that represent the logo or symbol being discussed. As in this case, the poster is a studio-produced asset, so it represents the branding exactly as they intended (the final PDF I worked from was produced in Adobe InDesign). If you view my file uploads, for vector images I typically go out of my way to provide direct PDF/EPS/SVG links (at least for the past couple of years, prior to that I wasn't as good at documenting exact sources) and also include archive.org archive links for future editors to confirm the veracity of my work. For these posters, I'd need to inquire about permissions for archiving the PDF files, but I assure you, this is from the studio's marketing department. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But what is the purpose? Our goal is not slavish replication of branding and marketing efforts for companies, but minimal use for a freely-reproducible encyclopedia. What is an SVG film poster doing that a smaller raster image is not, per NFCC? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to provide something our readers can view and scale with legible text/shapes that a raster image cannot. I've reduced the background image to comply with IMAGERES requirements, so now the only difference between this SVG file and a similar JPG/PNG is the text and logos can scale and still be legible at any resolution. Does this not meet the spirit of NFCC still? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the design for the title of the poster could be above the threshold of originality so it might need to be downscaled as well. Even though it improves readability for the 'fine print', I am uncertain of the details in regards to legal issue. I am not opposed to this if the legal issues are of no concern. 0x Deadbeef 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * c:COM:TOO would be of concern if we were trying to claim that the logo/text wasn't original enough to be protected, but as we're still using WP:NFCC/WP:FUR for the entire work/file, I think this would fall under whatever logic is used to allow company/organization logos as vectors. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, while there doesn't seem to be strong objection to this, there also isn't strong support. My enthusiasm at the possibility notwithstanding, I'll take this discussion as a "no consensus" for what I was suggesting. If anyone wants to raise this issue again, please ping me or leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Meta
The question is moot because that SVG version of the poster is the "Coming Soon" teaser poster, and the precedent was to use the Theatrical release poster. -- 109.78.202.76 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the discussion then, and should sit this one out. I didn't ask about this specific poster, I only provided it as an example for editors to review and give an opinion on. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the abstract the suggestion has already been opposed by User:Masem and User:Hammersoft. (I understand the point about wanting to use the marketing materials as provided by the studios but Wikipedia policy is to reduce any possibility of copyright claims by using terrible low resolution versions instead.) In the specific case of Birds of Prey (2020 film) User:Locke Cole already replaced the theatrical release poster with the SVG "coming soon" teaser poster, but this should not have been done because the [| Infobox film] documentation says Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be used. By all means discuss further but please first restore the WP:STATUSQUO at Birds of Prey (2020 film) (before the bots delete the previous image and restoring it becomes even more hassle). -- 109.79.174.68 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REFUND exists, and this isn't a content question under discussion here, but one with technical/legal implications about the broader question of formats for film posters. While it's under discussion, and given it's something people should be able to "see" and interact with in the app and elsewhere, I'd like to have a live demo. Usage of NFCC content for such a demo outside of article space would likely not be allowed. Once this discussion is complete, I'll restore the original poster and go from whatever consensus is reached here. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NFC does not allow for "live demos", eg we do not allow NFC in draft space gor article development. ‐‐M asem (t) 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Box-office bomb
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Box-office bomb that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Argentine films
Wanted to ask a question about, because in the process of attempting to clean categories up for the recent deprecation of all-inclusiveness in the base national films categories, I've found that particular category to be uniquely (so far) cluttered up with a lot (and I mean a lot a lot) of titles that exist only as redirects to "List of Argentine films of YYYY" lists.

Wikipedia does not ordinarily have an established practice of redirecting film titles to mere lists of the year's films, however -- the blue links obscure the fact that the articles don't exist, and therefore frequently stand in the way of getting articles created about notable films. So this simply isn't done as a rule; I've encountered no other country that had dozens upon dozens of such redirects polluting the main category, and for added bonus the redirects don't always represent titles that are actually appearing in the lists they're being redirected to. For example, My Home, My Prison does represent an Argentine film released in 1993 per IMDb, but that title does not actually appear in List of Argentine films of 1993 at all, either as My Home, My Prison or as Mi casa, mi prisión, despite the presence of a redirect from that title to the list. Plus, in at least one other case, I found that the title Los Hijos de Lopez existed as a redirect to a list (for the wrong year, no less!), simultaneously with the accented-but-otherwise-identically titled Los Hijos de López existing as an actual unreferenced stub about the film itself -- and, in some other cases, the list is wikilinking the film title that's redirecting back to it, even though we also have a rule about recursive redirects where clicking on the link would just take you right back to the same page you were already reading.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask if other people here agree with me that such redirects should be deleted, before I go ahead and do anything rash without support. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Anybody? Bueller? Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem
There's been a bit of an issue at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, which I wanted to ask for some input about.

There's been an ongoing edit war between multiple editors over the past several days about whether it's solely an American film alone, or an American, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Turkish coproduction. IMDB, for the record, does say it's the latter -- but while we all know that IMDb can make mistakes sometimes, there's no obvious reason to presume that it's wrong about this in the absence of any reliable source proof that it's wrong about this.

The more important problem is that because of the continued project of cleaning out base national film categories, I had to create a category to move it to -- but because there aren't any other films in that category, the edit war causes that category to get repeatedly emptied, thus flagging it for speedy deletion as an empty category and causing me to get notified that it's being deleted. But then editwarrior #2 puts it back into again, causing the film to get moved back into the animated subcategory again, before edit warrior #1 pulls it back out again and thus reinitiates the speedy-deletion cycle again.

Accordingly, this needs additional watchlisters and/or somebody to investigate whether IMDb is right or wrong so that we can throw a lid on this nonsense, because I'm not putting up with even one more second of this. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said in the talk page of the article, the only production companies we know involved with the film are Point Grey and Nickelodeon Animation Studio, with Paramount Pictures distributing. All sources support this including the original announcement article by Deadline Hollywood, and several others   The company providing the actual animation for the film Mikros Image supports this, and even official press websites from Paramount and Nick support this  Both production companies and the distributor are located in California, so everything is pointing at it being an American production. There are no Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Turkish production companies involved according to any sources, so I believe it was just vandalism. Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that the only people we know involved creatively in the film are the director Jeff Rowe, co-director Kyler Spears, screenwriter Brendan O'Brien and producers, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and James Weaver (who operate Point Grey). All other names added have never been mentioned in any articles, including the ones I referenced. So it is definently vandalism. Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to take IMDb for granted per WP:IMDB. It's ideal for a quick lookup of released mainstream films, but beyond that, if only IMDb seems to have that information, it needs to actually be verified elsewhere in reliable sources. It's possible that this information could be valid, but we don't know the context of it. Maybe this film got a little non-American funding, or something else. In the meantime, seems appropriate to keep it American until we see reliable sources mention these other countries. Even then, it does not necessarily mean we would stop calling it an "American film" or that we would list these countries in the film infobox. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Bangladeshi cinema
I propose to create Bangladeshi cinema task force for Wikiproject Film. Bangladesh is one of biggest film industry. Bangladeshi cinema should have a task force in this wikiproject. Mehedi Abedin 22:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Argentine films redux
Just an update, pursuant to my above post from last week about.

I've listed one specific batch of the film-to-list redirects for deletion at WP:RFD, specifically the ones that were redirecting to List of Argentine films of 1982. However, due to the sheer size of the job, and the need to facilitate cleaning up the base Argentine films category, for the moment I've also moved all of the redirects that were filed in the base category from there to a project maintenance category at so that they're all in one place for both ease of investigation and decluttering of the mainspace category. So if anybody wants to help out, namely by checking whether there's an alternative redirect target available, and either deleting it yourself or listing it for deletion at RFD if not, then it could certainly use a few willing hands even if you just tackle a few per sitting. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Sequel Sections
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) regarding when it is appropriate to omit an entry in a film series from a sequel section. Additional input is appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud
New stub: Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud. Improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Update on film category cleanup
I've created a worklist at WikiProject Film/By-country cleanup to facilitate the process of cleaning up the base national film categories. I've sorted all of the categories into one of four groups: Obviously group 3 is the main priority at this time, but group 4 can still be tackled if you choose. But if you do tackle a category from either group 3 or 4 and get it emptied out, then please also edit the work list to move that category to whichever of group 1 or 2 is applicable. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) "Fully cleaned", for categories which have already been fully emptied of individual films (however, these should still occasionally be spotchecked to ensure that new films aren't getting readded to them now),
 * 2) "Only lists", for categories which have been emptied of individual films but still contain lists of films that cannot be moved to a "lists of X films" subcategory because one does not exist yet (and would not be justifiable at all if there's only one list to file in it, although if there are multiple lists it would be fine to create one if you wish),
 * 3) "To be cleaned", for categories which still have individual films to be cleaned up,
 * 4) "Very few films", for categories which still have individual films to be cleaned up but they meet the dual criteria of both having less than ten films total and not actually having any genre subcategories to move them to yet, thus opening the question of whether it's worth even bothering to diffuse them at all yet.

Proposed new CSD
This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We haven't gotten much feedback on this, so I'd appreciate it if more editors would weigh in. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The Woman King
Regarding The Woman King, which is released in theaters this weekend, editors are invited to watchlist the article since there will likely be a lot of coverage about its critical reception and its historical accuracy, which are both covered in fairly new sections. The talk page has related sections devoted to both for discussion, and additional feedback about either subtopic is welcome at Talk:The Woman King. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Films with Harry Styles
Regarding two films featuring Harry Styles, Don't Worry Darling and My Policeman (film), editors are invited to review each article's "Reception" section and the amount of text written about Styles. There is one discussion underway at Talk:Don't Worry Darling. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Styles has some pretty dedicated fans. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted both adds/restores. For My Policeman specifically, it doesn't help the reception is already the longest section of the article. Adding more about Styles doesn't do it any additional favors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, the two editors who advocated for disproportionate text about Styles compared to other aspects of either film have been blocked as sockpuppets. Editors are still welcome to review the film articles' current "Critical reception" sections to edit as needed, whether to add more content touching on other aspects, or whittle down anything that currently exists. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Erik, you may or may not like this article I started: Larries. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hah, thanks for sharing. We sure have articles for everything. Can't beat toilet paper orientation, though... Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a good one. I'm sure Annie Rauwerda has mentioned it at some point. Armored mud ball? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:They All Laughed
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:They All Laughed that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Searching for biographical info on Joseph A. Golden (silent film director)
Silent film director and screenwriter Joseph A. Golden is suffering from a lack of reliable sources, and apparent conflation/incorrect info on IMDB (unreliable) and other databases and mirrors of IMDB. His IMDB profile previously (as of 2015) gave his lifespan as c. 1897 - 8 July 1942, which is implausible if he began directing films in 1907 and looked like this in 1909. IMDB has currenlty omitted the birth year, and simply gives a death dat of 8 July 1942. However, IMDB apparently has historically and currently conflated Joseph A. Golden with (IMDB), who verifiably did die in Hollywood 8 July 1942 (choked to death on a piece of steak). Find a Grave (less credible than IMDB) also conflates the two Goldens. So basically, the vital dates and location of birth and death of Joseph A. Golden are open questions needing reliable sourcing. I've found some tantalizing scraps and hints and primary records, but hopefully more corroborating/significant info could be found by someone with access to newspaper archives (especially New York newspapers). Here's what I've found or believe so far: That's about all the vital info I can find, aside from film magazine chatter and routine reporting of roles or films in the middle of his career. I don't have New York Times or Newspaper.com access. Hopefully there are some more nuggets out there that can more solidly tie these strings together. Any help would be appreciated. Even if sources aren't WP:RS, they might be added to Wikidata to help counter/correct years of misinformation. Thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Joseph A. Golden was born in or near Washington, D.C.
 * If a 1909 advertisement is to be believed, he entered the theatrical business circa 1887, under Dion Boucicault, later was a stage manager to Charles Frohman.
 * In addition to screenwriting and film directing he was also a playwright and theatrical director.
 * He lived in New York City.
 * In 1922 he married Erna Margaret Weiss, daughter of Dr. Joseph Weiss of Zurich.
 * His original name may have been Joseph A. Goldstein, as parents are named Simon and Rosa Goldstein on his marriage certificate and in 1910 a New York name change was granted from a certain Joseph A. Goldstein to Joseph A. Golden. The name Joseph A. Goldstein appears in the household of Simon and Rosa Goldstein in New York City census records in 1880 and 1900, and as an amateur Brooklyn actor in 1903.
 * He was born circa 1866, per his marriage certificate.
 * His middle name may have been Aron or Aaron, as suggested by this (unverified) signature and copyright records.
 * Note: In 1950 the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported the death of a Joseph A. Golden, former vaudeville comedian, but the obit does not mention film directing/writing, and spouse and family does not match other info, so I believe it is a different person.

Shatterer
When I cleaned up last week for subcategorization of all films that were still in the parent category, a user revert-warred me on one specific film, Shatterer, on the grounds that the genre isn't sufficiently sourced for his standards. But then, when I reverted it back on the grounds that the film can't be left in (or  or ), and has to be moved to one or more subcategories of each, the user then responded by simply removing those three categories so that the article now has no nationality categories on it at all anymore.

But some form of categorization for "Italian [something] films", "Japanese [something] films" and "Swiss [something] films" must be on it, because films must have nationality-based catgories on them, so some form of each of those three categories has to be readded to the page -- but the editor is simply refusing to listen to anything I have to say, so it's not an issue I can simply resolve on my own if they're just going to keep editwarring me over it, and I don't have access to any databases of archived Italian media coverage from which I could retrieve 35-year-old reviews of an Italian film, which means I'm strictly at the mercy of what I can find in a quick Google search.

So can somebody help figure out what categories the page can be readded to so that it's categorized properly? It simply can't be left with no nationality categories on it at all, but it can't be left in the base "national films" categories either. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Pursuers
Would appreciate if more editors could weigh in here about the "inherited notability" argument and possibly try to find more refs to show whether GNG/NFILM is met. Many thanks for your help and time! VickKiang 02:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Jihad Rehab documentary film
I recently created an article for the documentary Jihad Rehab. There has been some controversy around the film. I would appreciate it if experienced editors would keep an eye on the article. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources for some Sandra Bullock awards
I came across this Buzzfeed South Africa article that mentions Sandra Bullock's 1994 Jupiter Awards win for Best International Actress for Speed. Would it be fine to use? There's also this Screenrant piece, which mentions that she won her first Jupiter Award for Speed but not the year or category. For the 1996 awards, Business Insider has this piece that mentions her win for A Time to Kill but it's stated in an image caption. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I would be wary of websites simply cribbing from IMDb. For the Jupiter Awards, I found via Internet Archive a history page here. It mentions Speed, While You Were Sleeping, and the following combined: A Time to Kill and The Net. I don't see A Time to Kill, and looking at IMDb here, it looks like that film's page actually mentions The Net and not A Time to Kill. So A Time to Kill is erroneous and should be removed. My mistake, I did not realize "Jury+Netz" referred to two films. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That archive is perfect thank you! I haven't looked at her IMDb page so I didn't make the connection between it and the articles I linked. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Help for An Innocent Kiss
If available, could editors possibly try to find refs for An Innocent Kiss, and comment on notability (IMHO it's borderline, contested notability tag, though I feel uncomfortable about AfDing it)? Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  08:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * One place I tend to check is "External reviews" on its IMDb page to see if a film has gotten reviews in general, whether with reliable sources or blogs. Here, there is only one, which isn't great news. However, it does look like, searching for "innocent kiss"|"elbow grease" burt reynolds shows that there are some local-scope sources about the film's making and release, like this, this (AP source, which is repeated in a few other sources), this. this, this. It's probably sufficient, just wish there was more of a response to the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Slave Ship (film)
If anyone could try to find refs for The Slave Ship (film) and comment on whether it is notable that would be great!  VickKiang  (talk)  09:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible inaccurate plot summary at The Last Color
Could someone familiar with the film The Last Color please take a look at the Plot section? I was doing some gnomish terminology clean-up and came across this article. The content of the plot section was expanded over several edits back in, however the way that it's written leads me to suspect that this summary may not be accurate. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the film to determine if the summary is accurate or not, nor to be able to fix it if it is not accurate. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Check what reliable sources say. Some journalists seem to be paid per word and will include very detailed plot summaries in their reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox images
This refers to the current discussion which is open on the talk page for Bette Davis Talk:Bette Davis. In summary, User:Dancingtudorqueen invited comments on which of four photos of Ms Davis should be used in the infobox for the Bette Davis article. I voted for a ‘mature’ image from the 1940s aged around 35-40, which I thought the most representative of her career. Since no one else commented, User:Dancingtudorqueen made that change. Subsequently, User:Shshshsh changed the image again to a younger photo of Ms Davis in 1935 aged 27, arguing it is more ‘flattering’ and shows her in her ‘prime’. He correctly points out that the later photo which I favour is not accurately dated, but only described as ‘1940s’.

I think this requires a wider discussion about infobox images for film actors with long careers. Ms Davis’s film career lasted between her ages 22 to 80. She was most famed for her acting, star quality and personality rather than her looks. I don’t know how to assess when she was in her ‘prime’ – if it's any measure, her Oscar awards are fairly evenly spread from 1934 to 1962.

I think an infobox image should give a fair and balanced representation of an actor’s whole career, rather than a youthful or flattering image. The rest of the article can include images showing an actor chronologically or illustrating specific points.

What do others think? Masato.harada (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if we've had a discussion here about images in the person infobox. It seems like this may be better asked at WT:ACTOR, WT:BIOGRAPHY, or WT:MOSBIO. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the infobox image is to identify the subject, and both photos are acceptable in that regard, so beyond that it comes down to personal preference. If the article has a regular set of caretaker editors I am happy to defer to their judgment on these issues, but beyond that I think a WP:RETAIN style approach is best for images. As far as I can tell there isn't really a policy or MOS issue to determine here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

International Online Cinema Awards
Does International Online Cinema Awards appear to be notable? There is no Wikipedia article, but there is no history of an article being created. This shows this award being mentioned in 118 articles. I wanted to get other opinions before removing these, due to a lack of any prior notability testing. While we have MOS:FILMACCOLADES, most of them are actors' articles, and WP:ACTOR does not have any MOS with similar guidance. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have just clicked on a handful of articles and they were either unsourced or sourced to IMDB. Not a good sign! Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Betty. Any other editors concur? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If they can't be sourced, and/or there's barely any coverage, outside of an IMDb listing, then boot em. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Borat at FAR
I have nominated Borat for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Wretchskull (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Help! Mixed or negative reviews at Black Adam (film)??
I'm very confused at what's going on at Black Adam. I managed to find two reliable sources (approved by WP:RSP) that verify negative reviews for the article, not mixed reviews.. I changed "mixed reviews" to "negative reviews" in the lead and critical response section to reflect the sources but everyone keeps switching it back to mixed stating that the 55% score on Rotten Tomatoes is enough to warrant calling the reviews mixed. But isn't that WP:SYN? Saying the reviews are mixed when the sources does not say that is WP:SYN, is it not? Also MOS:FILM states "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews" and "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly". Or am I missing something? Is there a new guideline stating to determine positive/negative/mixed reviews from RT's score? Am I in the right or the wrong here? I'm confused. Armegon (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this interesting discussion! However, Metacritic also clearly states Mixed or average reviews as per here. Note that a) it's RS per WP:RSP, b) it's endorsed by MOS:FILM, Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. Therefore, it should be considered as a reliable source for indicating that the film received mixed reviews. With one ref suggesting mixed reception and another two suggesting negative reception, IMHO we need an in-depth discussion on the talk page instead of reverting between mixed and negative IMHO. Still, I disagree that the "mixed" violates WP:SYN as it's supported by at least one source.  VickKiang   (talk)  01:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I may have found a compromise. Armegon (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Black Adam (film). Maybe it's me, but it seems like articles of recent films have gotten worse in editors thinking more than before that they can synthesize individual reviews into summaries. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Greatly appreciate this! I think the situation would prove beneficial if FilmProject experts chimed in on this 'cause I'm a bit confused. One side favors citing secondary sources, others favor WP:SYN. Armegon (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Top Gun: Maverick - propaganda criticism
What's the appropriate way to cover the criticism by some sources that Top Gun: Maverick is American military propaganda? Discussion on the article talk page. --KnightMove (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Saturday's Children
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saturday's Children that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dinosaurs! – A Fun-Filled Trip Back in Time!
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dinosaurs! – A Fun-Filled Trip Back in Time! that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Romeo and Juliet
Template:Romeo and Juliet has been nominated for merging with Template:Romeo and Juliet film adaptations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tick, Tick, Tick (film)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tick, Tick, Tick (film) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Nationally known critics
At Notability (films), the "Other evidence of notability" section has this element, "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." There is a discussion about the meaning of nationally known critics that can be found here:. Editor are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Fantasy comedy films
There's a major consistency problem at, which needs some kind of resolution. The issue is that some of its subcategories are named "fantasy comedy" without a hyphen, while others are named "fantasy-comedy" with a hyphen -- with the result that redlinked categories often pop up at Special:WantedCategories because articles have been categorized in the hyphenated version for countries where the category isn't hyphenated or in the unhyphenated version for countries where the real category is hyphenated. And even worse, that doesn't only result from editors adding the wrong form to a new article off the top, but sometimes even results from editors flipping a category that was already on a page from the existing form to the non-existing one.

And for the cherry on top, there have been multiple attempts, in both directions, to resolve this at WP:CFR by listing one set or the other for renaming to the other form for consistency, which always fail no matter which direction is proposed. If the unhyphenated set is listed for renaming to the hyphenated form, then the nomination fails on the grounds that the parent is unhyphenated -- but if the hyphenated set is listed for renaming to the unhyphenated form, then the nomination founders on the argument that the parent is named wrongly and should have the hyphen added to it.

Obviously, however, this has to be resolved one way or the other, with a consensus to settle on one form or the other and apply it across the board to the outliers, so some discussion is needed to determine which form should be used. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm just dropping by and saw this. Looks like most categories, subcategories, and articles (I looked at only a very few) use:
 * fantasy comedy films
 * fantasy comedy-drama films
 * Which feel right. 22:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Elf | Talk 22:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Grave of the Fireflies
There's a discussion regarding the plot summary of Grave of the Fireflies at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Editor adding cast names to plot summaries
Editors may want to keep an eye on, who as recently as this afternoon was adding cast names to plot summaries for multiple articles despite being asked to stop three days ago. I've left two additional warnings today, the second after they did not apparently heed the first. It looks like they're editing from a mobile device, so they may not be seeing their Talk page notifications, but that's not a blank check to continue editing disruptively. I'll try to catch up on things when I'm back. DonIago (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Roman Polanski § Second sentence of the lede paragraph
You are invited to join the discussion at Roman Polanski § Second sentence of the lede paragraph. &#x0020;The discussion is about whether to mention the sexual abuse case in the lede paragraph. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs omit film's plot summary
Many films' lead paragraphs don't say what the movie is about. The film style guide specifies that it should. When viewing the page for a specific film, I think I'm far from the only one who wants to refresh my memory with a quick sentence or half sentence. Also, I don't know whether we consider that web searches for titles sometimes display the first paragraph in the found results, and it would be nice to have that info there. For examples of some that do and some that don't, check out the films in List of Tony Award- and Olivier Award-winning plays.

Is there already a task about this? (If so, I might be interested in helping with that specifically. Sadly I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days.) Elf | Talk 19:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about this! MOS:FILMLEAD says at the end of the second paragraph, "In terms of plot, the general premise of the film should be briefly summarized, and any actors' roles in the premise can also be identified." I think what may happen is that new film articles start out with a "Synopsis" section that gets replaced with a fuller "Plot" section. What really should happen is for the synopsis to migrate to the lead section as a high-level super-summary of the plot summary. As for tasks, I find WikiProject Films to be pretty decentralized other than the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. I would recommend adding the premise as you go. One thing I like to do is Google  movie synopsis, which can usually show the synopsis at the top and a source for it. That can be referenced and paraphrased in the lead paragraph. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just be sure to avoid WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE when adapting a summary to our articles. The summary should be rewritten in an editor's own words as much as possible (obviously some parts like names etc have to be used that are the same). But yes, as pointed out, for newer films about to release, even when it still has a "Premise" or "Synopsis" section, part of that should be in the lead as well. That way when those who come by to add the plot, you're already ahead of the game with the summary in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree about paraphrasing! I think what's tricky about new and short articles is that same sentence(s) can be in both the short lead section and the "Synopsis" section, which to me feels redundant. I've generally preferred not worrying about the premise in the lead section when the "Synopsis" section exists as a short read, hence why I mention migrating the content to the lead section once "Synopsis" becomes "Plot". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. "Milage may vary" as it were with each article and how filled out the lead and articles are. If you have a short lead and go right to the synopsis, then it's redundant to have that in the lead as well immediately before. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that if there's a brief synopsis section, repeating it in the lead is generally unnecessary. Once there's a detailed plot, then summarizing it concisely in the lead is helpful, though it may not be appropriate for every film. --Lapadite (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. Good input. Yep, I spent many entertaining hours trying to fix plagiarized text here ages ago. Not sure why I put a link to the list of plays instead of movies, oops, but Academy Award for Best Picture goes the same way. I don't think that the 1st-paragraph synopsis needs to be long at all. Some examples to show what I'm thinking:


 * Wings: Shows time period but not really a plot hint:
 * "Wings is a 1927 and 1929 American silent war film set during World War I"
 * Shows the type of film but nothing to distinguish it from any other silent romantic drama:
 * "7th Heaven (also known as Seventh Heaven) is a 1927 American silent romantic drama"
 * This is more helpful:
 * "The Hollywood Revue of 1929, or simply The Hollywood Revue,[4] is a 1929 American pre-Code musical comedy film ... that features nearly all of MGM's stars in a two-hour revue"
 * *This is what I'm talkin' about! Doesn't have to be any longer than this (and actually I think the first part could be left out)
 * "The Patriot is a 1928 semi-biographical film ... a biographical story of Emperor Paul I of Russia"


 * Elf | Talk 23:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, these make sense. I updated Wings (1927 film) just now, for what it's worth. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It may be that if a film has no particularly noteworthy context when it comes to the cast and crew and source material, the premise could go in the first sentence. For example, Prey for the Devil has nothing particularly noteworthy about it, and seeing the premise upfront may be the best way to identify the topic at hand. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Incredibles
Hello. There's an ongoing discussion at the talk page of The Incredibles, which might be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. The discussion is at Talk:The Incredibles. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Editing the “Premiere” location
I found in an old video that the film seemed to premiere at Grauman’s Chinese Theater, so I may I change the word, “Premiere” to Grauman’s Chinese Theater please? DrkWebber (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you've left this note at the wrong Talk page? DonIago (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to Bolt (2008 film), this mentions El Capitan Theatre for the world premiere. Not sure what film you are referring to for Grauman's Chinese Theater? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry I meant to put El Capitan Theatre for Bolt and not Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. DrkWebber (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! I've added the content with the above reference. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Confusion? I already added the November 17, 2008 El Capitan Theatre premiere to the Bolt page. DrkWebber (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Coco (2017 film) § Plot summary revamp
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Coco (2017 film) § Plot summary revamp. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Sony's unusual distribution naming.
So I realized after editing Starship Troopers (film) that despite Sony Pictures Releasing is known on the Wiki for being THE distributor for all Sony Pictures Entertainment films, they always "hide" under a different label, as seen in the end credits of every movie (ex. "A Columbia Pictures Release"). Here are further examples:
 * For Hotel Transylvania: Transformania, the Sony and Columbia logo appeared in promo material when it was set to be in theaters, but was replaced altogether with the Amazon Studios logo when it went to Prime Video; this implies Columbia was NOT a production company, and Sony was only using the banner. This also begs the question of whether any Sony Pictures Animation were even produced by Columbia since they're both Sony owned, and logically it would be unusual for them to have two of their production companies producing together.
 * For Missing (2023 film), Screen Gems was never mentioned in sources during production, but appeared after and is seen recently in the trailer; this implies Sony is simply releasing under the Screen Gems name. Stage 6 Films produced, and like the last example, both Sony owned producing should've given this away that one was only a label.
 * Films where Sony only has distribution rights are also labeled after one of their banners; Tristar Pictures for Planet 51, and Screen Gems for Hostel (film).

I just wanted to make this notice to make sure editors to double check whether a Sony Pictures company is actually a production company or just a distributor. For the upcoming Dumb Money, I predict Sony will eventually label it under one of their banners, so put it as a distributor unless sources say otherwise. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, this says, "SPE's Motion Picture Group production organizations include Columbia Pictures, Screen Gems, TriStar Pictures, 3000 Pictures, Sony Pictures Animation, Stage 6 Films, AFFIRM Films, Sony Pictures International Productions, and Sony Pictures Classics." As for Hotel Transylvania: Transformania, the Variety review here states, "An Amazon Studios release of a Sony Pictures Animation, Columbia Pictures, Media Rights Capital (MRC) production." However, for The Hollywood Reporter here, distributor is Amazon Prime Video and production company is Sony Pictures Animation, with no mention of Columbia or MRC. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Murder in Reverse
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Murder in Reverse that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Random question - notability
I randomly came across the fact that Jeremy Konner's article was removed for lack of notability. See. This guy seems pretty notable to me (but what do I know). Do you know where to go in wikipedia to have the issue looked at by people to assess notability? I had a tough time figuring out whether there is a place (besides once an article is being chosen for deletion. Can anyone else take a look at this guy and see whether he is notable or not? Remember (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , the AFD was in 2017 and had limited discussion. Reviewing search results, it looks like Jeremy Konner would be considered notable per WP:CREATIVE #3 for creating Drunk History and Waffles + Mochi. (Co-creator Derek Waters has his own article.) I am seeing Konner mentioned many times in numerous periodicals in relation to these two TV series, so I think there is a strong case for an article about him. Not sure what the article before deletion looked like, but it may not have made clear Konner's centrality to the aforementioned TV series. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Notifications for topic subscriptions
Check out WP:SUBSCRIBE! Looking forward to using this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Alien from L.A.
With the death of director Albert Pyun, I revisited the film and wanted to find more sources on the filim. I found a bunch of reviews, but Rotten Tomatoes lists two 2005 newspaper reviews for the DVD release. I can't find either in any newspaper archive however. Would there be any ideas how to get them? Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to the Worcester Telegram Gazette and EmanuelLevy.com, right? I couldn't get to the former due to a paywall. Maybe try to find a Wikipedia editor who lives there (can see if there's a userbox for that and find an active editor who has that). For EmanuelLevy.com, I tried my best to scour the Internet Archive to find a web page for this film, but I couldn't find anything. However, I did find this at TCM that could be a good source for you to use. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about film posters
Just as a user, I wondered why so many film posters in Wikipedia articles are very small files. I get that they need to be fair use, but is there a reason why they're so small? I ask because I often click on them hoping to be able to read the taglines and other notable info that's exclusive of the poster, but they're too small for me to read anything, or at least not comfortably. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kumagoro-42 You can read more about it here: WP:IMAGERES — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I got the rationale; legal issues, which is unfortunate. However, the guideline also establishes that any now-unreadable text on the resized image "should be duplicated on the image description page." But sadly this is very rarely done, in my experience. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the goal of having film posters is to provide visual identification per WP:NFCI #1. That's all. Perhaps a case could be made for posters to be legitimate enough to read the title, but there's no reason to make the billing block, tagline, and other kinds of text visible. I prefer looking at film-poster websites to get a closer look at the posters. My go-to is IMP Awards. Not sure if anyone else has better suggestions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The billing block is often used as determination for who gets to be listed as starring in the infobox and lead (one of multiple, as outlined at MOS:FILMCAST) so it might be helpful to add that to the description if that is the chosen method for the article in question? Just to make it slightly more accessible on-site. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that could technically be added on, but I think we want to link to the original image source anyway? I haven't uploaded poster images in a while, but when I do, I provide the source so one can click the off-Wikipedia link and scope the billing block if needed. Editors can add the billing-block text if they really want, but it seems like extra work for only the very occasional content dispute where editors regardless may want to trust the original image source rather than the allegedly copied text. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source shall always be provided without which we can't make an NFCI claim. Most of the modern films have a link. Older films might say DVD poster which doesn’t have an internet posting, but is acceptable. Adding more info in description is always upto the editors [if they have time and energy] — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of The Cinema Snob for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Cinema Snob is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Cinema Snob until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Willow (film)
An editor has requested for Willow (film) to be moved to Willow (1988 film). Since you had some involvement with Willow (film), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Credits, not Filmography
Before this month, IMDb changed the "Filmography" section heading that it has used for film, TV, and even video games. Now it uses "Credits" for the section heading. This, coupled with the fact that filmography is universally defined as a list of films, we should strive to move away from using "Filmography" section headings in Wikipedia articles unless all credits are only film-related. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought it was generally the case that Filmography was only used to list film credits, but I'm sure there's a lot of articles I've not looked at. :) DonIago (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

ChatGPT
Has anyone tried ChatGPT? There is an ongoing discussion at about using it. I think it could be useful on at least a couple of fronts for film articles: pasting a section or at least a paragraph in and ask for it to be copy-edited (and implementing changes), and asking it to summarize overlong plot summaries to around 400-700 words and reviewing the shorter summary before implementing. (I would probably suggest around 400 words or in the middle with 550 due to inevitable detail creep.) I'm also hoping that it could be used by review aggregator websites to summarize reviews more fully and in prose. In the same vein, I've used ChatGPT to convert certain Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores (with as much numerical detail as possible) into prose, and the results look pretty good, so hope they can do something like that at least. Anyone have thoughts on any of the above? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Action comedy
Discussions related to action comedy below. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"Drop Dead Fred (2011 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Mike  Allen  03:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zencoder


The article Zencoder has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Per WP:SIRS, I do not think the sources shown on the article count for notability criteria, along with the fact that it seems that one product created (the Flix Cloud mentioned in the article) by this company also had a Wikipedia article created by the same person who did this article that was then speedy deleted."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

You all are the group said to be taking care this page, so that is why I am informing you all of this. WikipeidaNeko (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Criteria for speedy deletion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Skydance Task Force
To anyone that's working in this WikiProject: If anyone's working on articles from Skydance, i have a task force opened up at the WikiProject Animation article called WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group. This task force is open for Video Games, Animation, Film and Television, and Sports. If anyone is interested in this, we have some slots open up. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Watchlisting request
On two separate occasions in 2022, anonymous IPs have edited our article about the 2021 film Drinkwater to add "Mike Drinkwater" as the name of a cast member in, and/or writer of, the film. As one can probably guess from the film's title, however, this is actually just the name of the film's lead character rather than a cast or crew member involved in the production. However, both times slipped my notice initially and were only caught and reverted months after the fact, and the article appears to only have one other watchlister, so I wanted to ask if a few willing editors here could help keep an eye on this in the future. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've watchlisted it — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Great reviews"
What's another way to say this neutrally in Wikipedia's voice? Because I think no matter how sourced the fact that a movie garnered "great reviews", it will always be a subject of dispute. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can use whichever qualifier Metacritic has used to refer to the film's reviews. It could be either "generally favorable reviews" or "critical acclaim" depending on how good they are. You could also just avoid any classification whatsoever and just present the great reviews in the Critical response section, while giving due weight to the negative reviews it had according to how many there were in comparison to the positive ones. —El Millo (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Korean-American films and related
It was brought to my attention based on an edit to Harold and Kumar go to White Castle that we have Category:Korean-American films and similar categories. I'm a little concerned that we have a logic disjunction here. We've previously used categories such as "X films", where X was a country, to indicate the country of origin of a film. This category, though, is using a category with this format to indicate that one or more primary cast members are of the described ethnicity. To me, this could lead to potential confusion, i.e. "Are they saying this film was a joint Korean-American production, or that it includes Korean-American characters?"

It seems to me as though the most appropriate option might be to rename this category and related categories to Category:Films about Korean-Americans, or something similar. Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Doniago I agree, this is a strange naming. @Fayenatic london and @Marcocapelle, with a note this applies to at least to the parent category Category:Asian-American films and a bunch of siblings (except the well-named Category:Documentary films about Asian Americans). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would support Category:Films about Korean-Americans, as the topic of the film is more defining than the ethnicity of the producer (the latter especially when the film is not about Korean-Americans). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. I've started the CfD discussion here. I was considering whether it might be better if the categories were titled "Films about X culture", but I had mixed feelings on that. DonIago (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:I Wanna Dance with Somebody (film)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:I Wanna Dance with Somebody (film) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives -  talk  -  edits  01:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting help expanding Draft:Jones (fictional cat)
Hello, all. I was wondering if I could get some help writing Draft:Jones (fictional cat) and getting it to have enough sources to pass the GNG and be suitable as an article. Thanks, Di (they-them) (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Avatar 3 and 4 page moves
I started a discussion about the page moves of Avatar 3 and Avatar 4 on the Avatar 3 talk page if anyone from the project has an opinion.  Mike  Allen  19:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pinocchio (2022 live-action film)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pinocchio (2022 live-action film) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Box-office bombs
I have proposed Category:Box-office bombs for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 3. Comments (either way) welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would have speedy-nominated it on the grounds that the editor who created it and started populating a significant number of film articles with it apparently wasn't even checking to see whether the text of the articles contained the word "bomb", but unfortunately there isn't a CSD option for "newly created and poorly populated". Thanks for pursuing this Betty. DonIago (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did consider nominating it for speedy deletion on the grounds it was resurrecting a category that had been deleted on several different occasions, but the deletions are not recent, and I suppose a consensus can change over the course of a few years. It's an opportunity for this project to refresh the consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't looked to see whether there were previous cats of this nature, and if the category had been more thoughtfully populated I might not have been particularly concerned about it, so good catch on that front! It might be instruction creep, but do you have any thoughts on tightening up the language of the MoS regarding usage of the phrase "box office bomb"? Nothing we need to address immediately. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We need a moratorium on “emotional weight”
This is a pet peeve of mine, but this vague, uncommon phrase has made its way into dozens, if not hundreds of movie articles. Aside from “emotional weight” not being a common term or praise for a film, it’s actually just straight up being added to virtually any film under the sun regardless of actual critical consensus - we seriously need to trim down the usage of it.Toa Nidhiki05 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide some examples? I don't think I've yet seen this phrase in a film article. DonIago (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually in many articles, but I've honestly never noticed it before.  I've never seen that phrase in any film reviews.  I'm also now wondering why it's so commonly used here.  Mike   Allen  06:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks; looks like by and large it was just a case of not being used in film articles that I track. It also looks like it's being used largely in the lead of those articles to summarize critical reception, in which case, if it's not directly sourced or strongly supported based on the film's reception, I think you'd be well within your rights to remove it per WP:SYNTH. We've had discussions about such statements in the lead; you should be able to find them in the Talk page archives, though you may need to check MOS:FILM rather than here. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Formerly untitled/upcoming media
The CSD criterion proposal has failed. I've made an alternate proposal at, all comments are welcome. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Skydance Task Force
To all who are available: I have opened up a task force for Skydance Media and i'm looking for some editors who might be interested in joining Skydance Media task force. There's a lot of topics from Skydance and i need editors who are fans of Skydance and it's divisions from Television to Animation. We're only a three membered team getting started and we need 6 more members to join in. If anyone wants to come and work for us on Skydance Media, please put your name on the members list on what division you wanna join by and we'll get started. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note to whoever sees this post, this user prematurely created a taskforce at WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group before gathering consensus to determine whether there was support for the creation of one. I've asked them to rectify that making this post. More details can be found here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We also need a moratorium on “had its premiere”
Fully concur with the above discussion. While we're on that subject, we also need a moratorium on the amateurish phrase "had its premiere", which has the bizarre implication that the film itself has agency in the philosophical or sociological sense. No, a film does not premiere itself. As I explained on this talk page a few years ago, professional journalists write that a film "premiered" at a location or that its premiere occurred or was held at a location.

I've noticed that this obnoxious phrase is being introduced predominantly by British English editors into WP film articles. As I've pointed out elsewhere on Wikipedia, my suspicion is that such verbal tics probably arise from the UK government's gross mismanagement of the country's educational system since World War II.

We have quite a number of British expats here in Silicon Valley fleeing their country's badly underfunded educational system in search of greener pastures. For decades, Silicon Valley parents have been happy to pay a premium to have their children taught English and Latin by such expats with their plummy British accents and Oxbridge degrees. (For example, I read The Canterbury Tales my senior year of high school with a Cambridge graduate.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems kind of ridiculous to blame an entire country's educational system for a phrase on Wikipedia, leaving aside everything else (and the fact that different varieties of English approach things differently.) I would say "premiered" is absolutely a better option (it's less wordy) but I don't see how this is a major issue; if performing a copyedit you can just adjust it. If someone starts a tiff about it, take it to talk or the style guide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This topic was also posted at WT:MOSFILM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we publish Draft:Avatar 5?
While filming has not begun, the topic arguably already meets GNG due to existing coverage. Ex. inverse, variety, gizmodo, collider, plus the sources in the draft. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on how little information each section has, I'd say the draft is not yet ready for mainspace. —El Millo (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll ping major contributors in case they'd like to expand this: User:Captain Assassin!, User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:Bilalmj21. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't a good reason to go against WP:NFF. Lots of future films have tons of coverage and could arguably satisfy GNG, which is why NFF exists. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep it drafted until filming occurs. Anything can happen in 5 years.  Mike   Allen  06:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @InfiniteNexus If GNG is satisfied, NFF cannot overrule it. GNG is always superior to any subpolicies per "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's too early for this move, in addition to the above good arguments it should be noted that half the information in the draft is just generic Avatar sequel details and not specific Avatar 5 details. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Film articles must follow both GNG and WP:NF. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @InfiniteNexus No, NF has no right go against GNG. If it contains any wording that suggests this it needs to be changed, or the policy risks being depreciated once reported to the Talk:GNG. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's correct, please read WP:NFP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @InfiniteNexus See Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability. As one editor said over there, GNG is supported by a much wider consensus than NFP. Anyone can create an article if they believe they meet GNG, draftication can be objected to per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and therefore, such an article would need to go to AfD if one wants to "enforce NFP" and "hide it". <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors there also stated that SNGs simply enforce GNG in a tighter and stricter way, not necessarily overriding it. This is the case for NF. The guideline serves to eliminate any ambiguity surrounding whether a future film satisfies GNG, and to avoid time-consuming debates such as this one. If you go ahead and move the draft to the mainspace against the consensus of this WikiProject, sure, you could argue that it won't breach GNG, but the article will likely still be nominated for draftification via AfD by the participants of this WikiProject, on the grounds of WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that both GNG and NFF are guidelines that editors attempt to follow with the awareness that there will be exceptions. Interestingly, however, WP:CRYSTAL is policy and specifically recommends NFF for situations involving unreleased films. And this makes sense, because at the heart of NFF is the concern of being in compliance with CRYSTAL. The intent is to avoid "short articles that consist of only product announcement information". When the amount of "encyclopedic knowledge" is limited, CRYSTAL encourages the merging of that information into a larger topic (e.g. Avatar franchise), when such a solution exists and makes sense without overburdening the target article.Looking at the draft, it appears that a large portion of the content is general information that applies to multiple sequels; there is very little specific to only Avatar 5. That doesn't seem to change much even after a quick glance at the additional sources (and if I'm missing something, perhaps it would be better to expand the draft further and revisit afterward). --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What significant coverage has Avatar 5 recieved? Other than Cameron now saying the sequels will happen.  Mike   Allen  04:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @MikeAllen Did you take a look at the links in my opening statement? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The ones talking about Cameron's plans if they get made? Yes.   My point is production has not even started to the point even leakers can't even leak anything about because there's nothing to say at this point.  Other than these are the plans of making a movie that's coming out in 2028.   It's best placed under the film series "Future" section for now.  Mike   Allen  05:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

More Than I Want to Remember
Hi, could someone well versed in WP:NFILM please take a look at Draft:More Than I Want to Remember and advise whether the festival wins make it notable? The article has a COI, and the sources don't cover the film in depth. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

MovieWeb
In Special:Diff/1133184336, MovieWeb is used to source a claim that a film has a cult following. It's a listicle from a website that I suspect to be a content mill. Anyone have thoughts about the reliability of this source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * MovieWeb is ok, but if something is a cult film I'd expect a greater quantity and more robust sources than a listicle. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that source is too weak to be used in isolation for something this subjective. The author of that article is a jobbing freelancer: . No particular professional focus in film writing, or academic background in the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Cinema of Serbia
Hello folks. Could you please check out Cinema of Serbia? It is currently rate stub-class, which seems wrong considering the current status of the article. Any additional help with the article is appreciated. Ty. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  17:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ C class ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DaxServer! —  Sadko  (words are wind)  11:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Last of Us (TV series)
Not a Film but uses the same boilerplate text as many film articles, please see Talk:The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series). Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Native name?
What is the correct native name approach for the infobox? This one or this one, or both are correct? Armegon (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

JP-Boxoffice
I've [discussed this in the past, but can we get it set view on the validity of sites like Boxofficestory.com and JPBoxoffice. I've been through their site and can't find anything on how their sources are pulled, but often see them all over film articles, generally European ones. No one has really stepped forward, but I'm leaning towards we add it to sources we shouldn't use as it's not clear where the information is pulled from. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Paratroop Command
Y'all may want to take a crack at editing the recently added plot for this article 76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)