Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FILM)
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(11 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Israeli cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Michael Madsen ITN nom

[edit]

Michael Madsen's nomination is two days from lapsing on WP:ITN/C#RD: Michael Madsen, unfortunately due to the stubiness of the article. The article needs some fleshing out in the Career section. Daß Wölf 16:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times user poll.

[edit]

Is the New York Times reader poll allowed ? I thought user polls in general weren’t. Gongjo (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was somewhat wondering about this myself. Any chance the poll itself has received coverage in other sources? DonIago (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, among them:
UrielAcosta (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are about a different list. We are talking about the readers poll which could be susceptible to brigading. Gongjo (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gather this is about this list. It should not be cited on Wikipedia. Per WP:USERGEN, Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not. The same principles apply here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll remove them Gongjo (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The other issue is that the editor who has been adding the poll to articles didn't stop at 100; here's number 354, for example. The Times article is paywalled so I don't understand why the list extends beyond 100, but my suspicion is that they presented the readers with a list of films and asked them to pick their favourites. If true, this would make the list even more deserving of exclusion. Barry Wom (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lionsgate" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Lionsgate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10 § Lionsgate until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to include Heart of Noir as an external resource for film noir entries

[edit]

I’d like to propose the addition of a new educational resource to the external links section of relevant film pages, particularly those covering classic film noir titles.

  • Heart of Noir (https://heartofnoir.com) is a non-commercial, free-access site that hosts a searchable directory of over 1,000 noir films, with entries that include cast/crew info, scene imagery, reviews, and curated summaries. The site also publishes short articles and interviews from scholars such as Foster Hirsch (Brooklyn College), Grant Tracey (University of Northern Iowa), and Donald Brackett, among others.

Edited by Michael Bayer of Johns Hopkins University and promoted via the H-Film academic consortium, the site is designed for both new and seasoned noir fans. Its goal is to promote understanding and appreciation of the genre culturally, aesthetically, and historically.

Would this be considered an appropriate external link for inclusion on pages covering noir-era films (especially those that are less thoroughly documented)?

Thanks for your time and feedback! Leslievdz (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Mattel Films#Requested move 25 June 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mattel Films#Requested move 25 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 06:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Jurassic World Rebirth § Standalone sequel?

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jurassic World Rebirth § Standalone sequel?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[edit]

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Peacemaker (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 12 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peacemaker (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 12 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 19:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Father Mother Sister Brother#Requested move 11 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Father Mother Sister Brother#Requested move 11 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Wild Bunch

[edit]

The Wild Bunch has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Kantara (film)#Requested move 7 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kantara (film)#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sati Tulasi (1936 film)#Requested move 7 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sati Tulasi (1936 film)#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 04:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High and Low (1963 film) peer review for featured article open

[edit]

hello all! i currently have high and low open for peer review. i have received some fantastic notes from TompaDompa, but would still like more input before sending this for assessment if anybody has any interest in taking a look.--Plifal (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject

[edit]

Hello!

I propose a WikiProject with the working title of Art & Architecture Copyedits.

The proposed WikiProject has two main goals:

  1. To copyedit any articles related to Art & Architecture that have the copyedit or clarify tag, and
  2. To create a supportive, welcoming space for newcomers. Experienced editors are also very appreciated, especially for the proposal process, but the WikiProject, once created, will mainly be recruiting newcomers.

If you would like to join, please do comment below, and I'll ping you during the proposal to confirm your intent. I will be posting this message on all related WikiProjects. All experience levels appreciated! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Evil Queen (Disney)

[edit]

Evil Queen (Disney) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictator RM

[edit]

An editor has requested that The Dictator (2012 film) be moved to The Dictator, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabelmans requested merge

[edit]

An editor has requested that Sammy Fabelman be merged into The Fabelmans, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the merge discussion. GoldRomean (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Superman (2025 film) § Israel Palestine needs more space

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Superman (2025 film) § Israel Palestine needs more space, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of The Big Noise (1928 film)

[edit]
Notice

The article The Big Noise (1928 film) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. DangerousEagles (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:F1 (film) § First sentences

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:F1 (film) § First sentences, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings table?

[edit]

On the discussion at Talk:Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom#Ratings table, Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) suggested we should discuss the addition of a rating table to film articles on this project's talk page, so I'm opening one here. That said, is it relevant to include the rating tables? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using a table like that to present aggregate scores is fine, if unnecessary, in my opinion. Using it to highlight select reviews is more questionable, as it is often a random selection of reviews that get presented with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using a table for ratings is a bad idea. There are significant WP:DUEWEIGHT issues with it. For individual reviews, it immediately raises the question of "why these particular ones?". For aggregates, it elevates them to a higher position than is warranted. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the ratings table is used across a wide variety of video game articles and some television articles. There are {{TV ratings}}, {{Film and game ratings}}, {{Video game reviews}}, and {{Music ratings}}, so there clearly are editors who believe there is some use for these. Just because they have not been as common across film articles does not mean they are inherently not useful. I understand weight concerns but I believe using the tables to provide an overview of select reception is not necessarily a problem if it provides consistency with the rest of the article's reception. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 19:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
High-profile films typically have a triple-digit number of reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes, and that's still only a selection of all the reviews (particularly when films have been reviewed in multiple languages). Selecting a handful of reviews to present in a table requires very strong justification for the specific selection in terms of WP:DUEWEIGHT. The table removes all the context that can be presented in prose (a problem that is also encountered with infoboxes in some situations). The problems with review aggregators are different, but also significant. What we want is WP:Secondary sources on the critical reception. TompaDompa (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The Dictator (2012 film)#Requested move 9 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Dictator (2012 film)#Requested move 9 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon More responses are needed to solidify consensus. Please weigh in at the move discussion if you can, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Bavagaru Bagunnara!#Requested move 19 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bavagaru Bagunnara!#Requested move 19 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Nosferatu#Requested move 20 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nosferatu#Requested move 20 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Of the same name" terminology

[edit]

On certain articles like Thor (2011 film), the opening sentence reads Thor is a 2011 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name. There's an essay on the WP:OFTHESAMENAME terminology, so I've been working around that terminology quite a bit on various articles, films included.

Thoughts about the essay in general and the "of the same name" terminology in general? Also, should we bring it up on WT:MOSFILM where necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly brilliant writing, but not atrocious writing either. TompaDompa (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been used extensively in film articles for years though some editors frown upon it. I do not strongly dislike the wording, but I tend to prefer using "the eponymous character", "the eponymous novel", etc. instead because it sounds more formal and is less wordy, but I do no reckon that that essay does have a point in not overdoing it when it could just be simpler to say the name itself, especially if there are slight variations. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find "of the same name" largely redundant—and therefore poor writing. I always try to avoid it. If it were of a different name we would make a point of stating it. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel/DC pages follow their own MOS. I try to vary the wording to avoid this boilerplate phrasing that shows up in most film articles. Change it up some. Mike Allen 11:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is stating someone's personal opinion that Wikipedia should prioritize simplicity and clarity over more elegant wording. That is a valid opinion, but not necessarily one shared by all editors. I think most people who copyedit Wikipedia pages would disagree that simple, clunky wording is always preferable to even slightly more elegant wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a great essay — I agree with it 100%. Whoever wrote it must be super smart. Popcornfud (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be using this essay you wrote to impose your own preferred wording on random articles. It is just your opinion, not a policy or guideline. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:JUSTESSAY. Popcornfud (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read WP:JUSTESSAY again. It does not say "essays override local consensus", it says "essays should not be dismissed as an invalid opinion". I literally said in my initial comment above that WP:OFTHESAMENAME is a "valid opinion" to have, but that doesn't mean you can uses it to override the wording at random articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that one editor's personal opinion in an essay should not be solely used and applied across the encyclopedia. Editors should take the wording into their own discretion. This is not a one size fits all scenario. Essays are not policies or guidelines, so we really don't have to follow them just because someone wants us to. I think the wording should be left up to the individual articles, rather than trying to enforce one set way unilaterally. I mean, it is just wording. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People link to essays in edit summaries to explain in greater detail why they're making that change, with rationale and examples.
At the top of the essay, there's a notice explicitly saying that it's an essay and not a Wikipedia policy or guideline.
No one is compelled to agree with the argument of an essay. If other editors disagree with the edit, they're free to revert and/or discuss just like any other change. Popcornfud (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Essays should never be the sole reason to make a change in an article, especially if you are the author of an essay and imposing it in articles when you know it has been contested by others. Essays hold no weight above local consensus. Just because others have used essays in the past to support their rationales, that does not mean that argument holds up in this discussion. Per MOS:VAR, any contested changes to the standard formatting of an article ought to be discussed, essays be damned. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what exactly is it you're disagreeing with me on here? Popcornfud (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know your essay has been contested in articles in the past yet you continue to enforce it yourself unilaterally without consensus. I disagree with you using your own essay to justify these changes. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example? Popcornfud (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just with the Thor (film) article most recently. It was contested there and yet you are pushing for it to be applied across all film articles. You have an inherent bias here. You also made the edits to the Thor article after this discussion was started. And touting your own essay as "great" and you as "super smart" is just a dickish move. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's take a look at the Thor (film) article.
Because I think removing "of the same name" wording makes Wikipedia better, I edited the article to remove it. In my edit summary, I linked to the essay to explain my rationale.
My change was reverted by adamstorm97 who, clearly, is not persuaded by the arguments in the essay. That's fine.
I haven't challenged adamstorm97's revert. If I have the inclination, perhaps I'll start a discussion on that talk page to get consensus for my change. But I probably won't. This is an unremarkable cycle of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD.
Complaining that I am "using my own essay to justify my changes" is nonsensical. That is the point of writing an essay: to explain the change. You might as well complain that someone is using an edit summary to explain why they are making an edit, and that this edit summary is therefore "biased". Popcornfud (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that series of events had just happened naturally (you saw the page and decided to edit it, you were reverted, WP:BRD works as expected) then that would be one thing. But you clearly decided to edit the page because you came across this discussion, where these kinds of edits are being actively discussed and contested. Surely you can see how that takes "an unremarkable cycle of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD" and makes it something else? Editing contested content while it is being discussed is always discouraged, as you well know, and it is hard to see how you didn't do this intentionally to try get some reaction or cause a fuss of some kind. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That page has no previous history of anyone editing or discussing the "of the same name" wording - it didn't look "contested" to me. And you'd be complaining whether I'd linked to the essay in my edit summary or not. Popcornfud (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You edited the article after seeing it in this discussion, where it is literally being contested. Yes, I would have reverted your edit whether you linked to the essay or not. Regardless of your edit summary, you should not have made that edit when you knew it was being discussed here. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. This debate feels more like a deflection and a distraction. Just leave the wording to each individual article and local consensus. I do not think the author of an essay should have much say in enforcing their opinion on the entire encyclopedia, and is is standard local consensus for the MCU film articles to use this wording, whether you like it or not. Us "complaining" about your editing practice is one thing, but you intentionally ignoring concerns about your impartiality is another. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you intentionally ignoring concerns about your impartiality
What impartiality? There is no "impartiality" in Wikipedia essays.
At the top of that essay is a banner that reads:
This is an essay on false titles, the practice of omitting articles before nouns. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
It sounds like your objection isn't with me but with essays on Wikipedia period. Popcornfud (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to your bias in this discussion favoring your own essay while ignoring local consensus against its application for the MCU film articles. I have nothing wrong with essays existing, but they do not override local consensus just because you disagree with it. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you suggesting I'm biased when I describe the essay as great and its author as super smart? (That's a joke, as that seemingly wasn't clear the first time.) Popcornfud (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using a joke as your rationale for supporting your own essay is not good optics. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting out of hand. I also have no issue with essays in general. Trailblazer and I are both concerned with how this essay is being used to make widespread changes and have expressed our disagreement with that practice. I don't think much more needs to be said on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blunt and say "of the same name" is shit writing and I'm shocked that attempts to change it receive so much pushback. If editors are concerned about repeating the word "Thor" twice in the same sentence, then move the "based on the Marvel Comics character Thor" to another sentence. Not every single superhero film article needs to follow the same exact format of "[film] is a [year] superhero film based on the [publisher and character]", especially in cases where the director is far more notable than the film. (Which I'd argue is the case for Thor and Kenneth Branagh) JOEBRO64 21:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every MCU film article is intended to have the same structure. Attempts to change this have not yielded results in the past and ought to be handled at WT:MCU, not here. I do not think "of the same name" should be retained and agree it ought to be changed, though that should be left up to the individual articles and the discretion of the editors there rather than this project attempting to unilaterally have a set wording that does not always conform to the same thing. We may want to consider weighing an addition to this WikiProject's style guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Lead section, which states "If the film is based on source material, that material and its creators should be identified." I do not think "of the same name" should be applied for every article nor do I think every article should use the name, even if shorter, if it is the same as the subject, unless stylistic differences (WP:SMALLDETAILS) occur, such as 1984 (1956 film) and Nineteen Eighty-Four, though I understand the same rationale could apply to the film title being italicized while the subject character is not. As I already noted, I tend to prefer using something to the effect of "the eponymous character". I think we should add to the MOS wording about the "popular" terminology for based on credits but that these should be determined on an individual basis, because we are not trying to tell editors how every single film lead has to be worded since this is not a bureaucracy and every article is different. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 02:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I've started a MOS discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Usage of the "of the same name" terminology in the lead section. Please comment there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we want to clutter the MoS with highly-specific, WP:CREEPy examples like this, but we can have the discussion over there and see where it goes.
But since you made a comment about every MCU film having the same structure, and later state in the same breath that we shouldn't try "to tell editors how every single film lead has to be worded since ... every article is different", I have to ask, which is it? Are you seeking to enforce conformity, or are you seeking for every article (including each individual MCU article) to act independently depending on the situation? I'm not sure you can have it both ways about an issue like this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each MCU article is part of a single topic that is intended to be stylistically consistent. The same is true for other franchise articles that are worked on by the same people. Wanting to be consistent within a topic is not the same as wanting every single article on Wikipedia to be consistent. For example, Trailblazer and I have both done work on the new DCU topic as well, which we are trying to keep consistent but not necessarily consistent with the MCU articles. Just because consensus has settled on wording for the MCU articles does not mean we think the same wording should be applied to any other articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I get that on a broader level about structure and consistency, but in reference to "of the same name", I'm not sure that is something that will impact one topic-based film area – MCU, DCU, etc. – any differently than it does another topic-based area. Unless you can provide some examples of how it might. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a matter of personal taste, rather than an objective issue, MOS:VAR applies. The local consensus for MCU articles it to use the "of the same name" wording, and it should not be arbitrarily changed based on someone's personal opinion. The same goes with the consensus at DCU articles to use the "eponymous" wording. At other articles there may be different wording that is established by regular editors. Unless there is something objectively wrong, we should be leaving it up to editors at different articles to decide. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an approach that works across a majority of film articles with some exceptions (because there are always exceptions 😉), wouldn't it be best to agree on such an approach? Standardization across WP:FILM may be more beneficial than having a few walled-off gardens growing things differently. Don't get me wrong, totally appreciate the work you guys do in each garden. It's just that sometimes, we can and should take a macro-level approach to solving a potential project-wide concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If people agree that there is a "project-wide concern" that needs to be addressed, then it would make sense to update MOS:FILM and standardise the wording across film articles. In my opinion, there is no major issue and the different variations on this wording are fine, so I don't think it is necessary in this case. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit guidance in the MoS is one way to standardize, but it's not always preferred, because getting too specific verges on WP:CREEP. Another approach is to discuss at WT:FILM or WT:MOSFILM (like we're doing), and simply abide by the outcome. An example of this was the banning of "mixed-to-negative" and "mixed-to-positive" phrases. There were countless discussions long ago that reached an overwhelming consensus not use such phrases, yet we never had to spell it out in the MoS. GoneIn60 (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is explicit guidance in the MOS or consensus among WP:FILM editors, either way I don't think we should be enforcing standardised wording in this case. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally despise "enforcing standardised wording" too, but this is more about avoiding certain linked phrases...the kind that obscure the name of the intended article target. How you avoid them can still be left up to local consensus. You can repeat the name in the same sentence, or break it up into multiple sentences, or not repeat the name at all. Whatever's clever. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a stretch to claim that someone doesn't know they are going to the Thor article when they click on a link that says it is "of the same name" as Thor. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is a good counterpoint! Looking at the responses so far, some aren't outright opposed; they would just prefer to avoid when possible. Others do seem more strongly opposed. I haven't quite settled on a side yet. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the use of the term; it's usually pointless and I tend to remove it when I come across it. I don't tend to edit MCU or DCEU articles because they have their own set of rules with which I'm not overly familiar (such as this one), but if I did, I'd reword this example as Thor is a 2011 American superhero film based on [[Thor (Marvel Comics)|the Marvel Comics character]]. It's obvious from that construction that the comics character is called Thor and that the link will take you to the Thor comic character article.
(As an aside, I'm not a huge fan of using the flowery terms "eponymous" and "titular" either. There are ways to avoid these too.) Barry Wom (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to choose between "of the same name", "eponymous", and "titular", I think it's pretty clear that "eponymous" is by far the worst alternative of the bunch simply for being a relatively uncommon word that a substantial proportion of the readers of this global encyclopaedia will not be familiar with. TompaDompa (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to choose between any of them - they're all unnecessary. Popcornfud (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, obviously. I think you understood the point I was making regardless. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Gaumont (company)#Requested move 21 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gaumont (company)#Requested move 21 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Jurassic World Rebirth#Requested move 28 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jurassic World Rebirth#Requested move 28 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Jurassic World Dominion#Requested move 28 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jurassic World Dominion#Requested move 28 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the article Major film studios

[edit]

Can someone please take a look at Talk:Major film studios#Secondary studios? There is a discussion about the term "secondary studios", used in this article. Thank you in advance. 2A02:1812:41D:B800:4CB5:74DA:D4CF:604F (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Spider-Man in film

[edit]

Spider-Man in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect claims on film page

[edit]

On the page The Activated Man, the Production section claims it was Tony Todd's final role, which is demonstrably false, as there were about ten posthumous roles - four of which he had first billing. I initially removed this, but the article creator reverted me without rationale. Would somebody be up for checking this out and seeing if this incorrect bit of trivia should indeed remain? 2600:1009:B1AC:3270:75A5:C7D7:A5B1:1D66 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be supported by the source that's provided. Do you have a source that claims otherwise? DonIago (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a key difference between the article and the source:
"The Activated Man featured Tony Todd's final leading film role before his death in November 2024." [from Wikipedia article]
"“The Activated Man” ... is the final leading role on the big screen for Tony Todd" [from source]
I would say the distinction is substantive in this case, given that Tony Todd has credits stretching into 2025 according to IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Filmbuff102 What are your thoughts? I know the source at the time said it was his last role, but he's had about a dozen posthumous roles since this one. I mean, we just had a very big one two weeks ago. 2600:1009:B1A5:A564:D061:CF53:3D05:1CCE (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Activated Man was the last LEADING film role Tony Todd had before his death. Notice how 1) the film was released before his death and 2) he was a leading role, which is not the same as top billed. My statement stands. Filmbuff102 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DVD special features as a source

[edit]

Hey, folks. This important material was removed from the film article Good Bye, Lenin! in 2022.[1] I believe it should be added back in, but I wanted to get some outside opinion first. The majority of the material is sourced to the "X-Edition" of the DVD and is fairly non-controversial and blue sky. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Home media bonus features can be used, but I think the concerns with that section are justified. Just because it is stated on the DVD does not mean it is noteworthy or non-trivial, and we need to be wary of putting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on primary sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the content? It refers to homage, which refers to notable references to other films and material. Virtually every major film article discusses this kind of material as it gives insight into the writing, development and production. I am having trouble seeing how any of this is undue. This is the same as citing the preface or introduction to a work of fiction or non-fiction that discusses the influences and antecedents. How can a work be undue about itself? Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just listing homages and references, without commentary on the purpose or interpretation of those from reliable sources, is not necessarily noteworthy. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We must be reading different articles. I see commentary about how and why Becker did what he did, on the drafting and development and film influences that contributed to the montage. Of the four paragraphs, only one is unsourced. This kind of information appears in almost every film article GA and above. How is information about the director and the reasons he made the film not notable? Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four paragraphs detailing minor nods to other films is excessive. I agree with the section's removal. Barry Wom (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not minor at all, they are all major nods with deep roots into the primary narrative film, from the Kubrickian angle and its connection to the filmmaking within the film to the reference to The Matrix, whose allegory of the cave is the subtext of the story itself. How in the world is this any different than discussing the songs, a trip to Disneyland, or details about the original script in Guardians of the Galaxy? It's not, it's identical. These "minor nods" are included in almost every major film article. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue here is how the information is packaged. Wikipedia articles need to be mostly based on secondary sources, so to use the commentary, which is a primary source, for the whole section gives little indication of its relative importance. Is this a film especially known for its references? (From the rest of the article, it doesn't seem evident.) I think information like this is best woven into other information predominantly from secondary sources (or replaced if the secondary source can cover it). Like even if a commentary track was good about detailing a film's production, as a primary source, it would give us pause if it was the only source used for a "Production" section. It's not bad information, but it needs to be put in better context, and secondary sources can allow that. Like looking at Google Scholar here, La Dolce Vita could be mentioned using whatever context that academic article is writing. In contrast, it may be that no secondary source mentions The Man Who Loved Women, so it may be too trivial, in the context of having an encyclopedic article that integrates all important aspects of the film. It's an interesting tidbit for sure, but it may be hard to find a relevant place for it in this scope. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. Since I'm not the author of the material, I can't say what happened or what the editor was thinking. I will take your advice and consider merging it elsewhere if I'm able to do so. Good comment. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional opinions requested regarding adding full name of a character to a film's cast list

[edit]

Additional opinions are requested at Talk:Mars Needs Moms#Gribble Full Name. Edit dispute about including the full name of a character name that was revealed in the film as part of the listed credits in the cast list. This is a MOS:FILMCAST issue specifically related to the guidance "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Yakyū-kyō no Uta#Requested move 31 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yakyū-kyō no Uta#Requested move 31 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1304435853"