Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 86

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87

FAR for Gertie the Dinosaur

I have nominated Gertie the Dinosaur 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. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Filipino animation#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Filipino animation#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Linking to highest-grossing film of the year

Geraldo Perez could you please explain why linking to the highest-grossing film of the year, as done here would come under WP:OVERLINKING, when they are widely used in FA-class articles such as Frozen 2? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The meaning of the phrase is obvious and doesn't need a definition link. The reference itself is the source and lists the other films so a pipe to another wiki article with the same info adds no value. It is also an WP:EGG pipe that doesn't actually define the phrase. We shouldn't be doing this in any article. Links to other articles that are related should be in the See also section, not hidden behind a pipe. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Not true. Highest-grossing films of 2024 is not an WP:EGG issue, not hidden behind a pipe, adds perfect value to the lead, and is currently mentioned in all top-grossing films of the year. So unless there is wider consensus to remove such a link from all these articles, one shouldn't edit-war on one single page like Moana 2. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The reference has the same info and is a reliable source so there is no added value to linking to another article. One issue in the general case of doing this is the linked wiki article is being used in lieu of a source, and when a source is actually there, the link is unnecessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
That's a subjective choice and not a policy violation to edit-war over. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary links that add no value are the crux of overlinking. That is a guideline though, not a policy. I see a pointless link that adds no value and I explained why. You disagree based on the assertion that it is common practice to have this link and you see value in having it. I'm not planing on editing that part of the article again, my main original issue was the lack of a reference for the statement itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Introducing Let's Connect

Hello everyone,

I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Serine Ben Brahim and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.

Why are we outreaching to you?

Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Wikipedia, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.

We want to invite community members who are:

  • Part of an organized group, official or not
  • A formally recognized affiliate or not
  • An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
  • An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.

Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)

Many thanks and warm regards,

Let’s Connect Working Group Member

Let's_Connect_logo Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fantastic Four in film

Fantastic Four 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Unrealized projects discussion

I launched a discussion at Talk:Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects that I feel would benefit from having wider input. In regards to if currently still in development films count as "unrealized" or not. Rusted AutoParts 06:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s very frustrating this has not seen any contribution to. Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Offtopic instigating
No, it's not. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
What purpose does this remark serve except for antagonism? Rusted AutoParts 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Help needed for Hong Kong film

Hello, I was trying to restore an article of a HK film, fixing link and adding source to HKMDB. This was rejected by User:JalenBarks, see talk page. Is any specialist able to help? Thanks in advance. --2A00:20:3004:F761:4CCF:894C:6F06:4CF6 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Moviefone reliablitly

I searched RSN and the archives here but no real guidance, so I was wondering if Moviefone is reliable to use as an inline source? I'm leaning towards no given it looks like a database a la IMDb, but wanted to see if any other editors have come across this or its use on articles. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Moviefone, it may have had a reliable publisher in the past, but I'm not sure about now. It may also depend on what part of the website is being used. Are we talking about the "News" section, or the reviews it has, or something else? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
It would be the "full cast and crew" tab/page for a film. The specific example I've come across it was trying to source new writer credits and an actor appearing for Captain America: Brave New World and its Moviefone page here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I see at the bottom of the Moviefone page, "This product uses the TMDb API but is not endorsed or certified by TMDb." Maybe these details came from there? It looks like TMDb is "a user-editable database". (Wow, I tried to link to TMDb, but it's apparently blacklisted... that may indicate something...) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The poster here seems to confirm the writing credits? See the left and right of the bottom line of the billing block. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, other active editors at that article are aware of the billing block (that's what's stemmed this issue at that page), but no third party reliable sources have reported on these adjustments, so we have been cautious proceeding adding the information in and not sourcing it in the body of the article. Another editor found the Moviefone page so that's how we ended up here checking its reliability. But per your first comment about its connections with TMDb, seems unreliable as a user database. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the billing block is in question? It's like referencing the official website for basic crediting information. We can use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, per WP:PRIMARY. I'm not sure if it's possible for the billing block to become outdated or wrong (other than the cases of where others are unofficially deserving of certain credits). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The billing block isn't being questioned, just the act of how to source it in the article's when no third-party source exists covering this information. We seem to have determined Moviefone is not reliable per my original comment. If we want to have further discussion on sourcing approaches, we can continue this discussion at Talk:Captain America: Brave New World#Poster billing block. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Sneider

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Submission to the Academy Awards

Hi, a quick question...

If a film is a submission to the Academy Awards (or any other awards) does this imply any significance, or is submitting a film just something that any minor film-maker can do with any minor film? Clarification on this point would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Which categorie(s)? Nardog (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Short documentary. Axad12 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If it helps at all, it would seem that 104 films were submitted in the year in question, so I'm assuming that this is not particularly exclusive company. Axad12 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, that is 104 films in that single category. Axad12 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
That is pretty exclusive if you consider how many short documentaries there are in the world. A submission itself may not be significant, but the meeting of the criteria for it to be eligible may be, like winning an award at a festival. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If I'm reading the link correctly, a film would only need to complete a commercial showing of at least 7 days in either Los Angeles County, California or anywhere in New York City before being released to other non-theatrical venues such as DVD or TV. Winning an award does not appear to be necessary. So, being a submission doesn't seem to me to infer any particular significance.
The broader issue here is the rather promotional article about director Alexander Tuschinski, authored 90% by the accounts of the subject and his publicist (whose activities can be seen here [1]).
In trying to establish how much of the article needs to be culled it would be useful to have some input on the significance of the awards listed in this part of the article [2]. A good number of the awards have articles on Wikipedia, but note that in many cases that is because Tuschinski's publicist created the relevant articles. Axad12 (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say it was necessary. I just pointed out what made the submission possible, rather than the submission by itself, may be significant, depending on which criteria were fulfilled. Nardog (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
It would depend on the category. International Film, for example, is a category where each country has to have a committee select just one film from its entire cinematic output in that year to submit to the category — so that selection would indeed represent a distinction in and of itself even if the film doesn't ultimately land in the final five nominees. For most other categories, however, being submitted for Oscar consideration wouldn't be a notability claim in and of itself, although a film that gets submitted may very well have other reasonable notability claims — for example, some categories (I believe short documentary is one of these) essentially extend automatic consideration to films that win certain specific awards at certain specific qualifying film festivals, so the film festival award already constitutes a meaningful notability claim as it is.
Ultimately, however, the clincher is how well the film can or can't be reliably sourced. If the film can be shown to pass WP:GNG on its coverage, then it wouldn't matter whether we considered submission to be a notability claim or not because the film had already passed GNG as it is — and if it can't be shown to pass GNG on its coverage, then simple submission to a preliminary awards consideration pool probably wouldn't be enough in and of itself to exempt it from GNG. Remember that awards are one alternative among several notability paths, not a necessary condition that every film always has to have — films that have no award claims at all can still pass other criteria anyway, so the presence or absence of awards isn't the be-all and end-all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Help with Review for "The Misguided" Draft

Hello,

I'm seeking assistance with the review process for the draft article "Draft:The Misguided". I initially submitted the draft for review on December 3rd. On December 12th, I followed up on my request and added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score to further demonstrate the film's notability. I believe the draft is well-sourced, comprehensive, and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), but the situation remains unresolved.

Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this draft reviewed and moved to mainspace? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the hurry here? (and here [3]?) Axad12 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
There's no guarantee that a draft will be reviewed or processed within a certain specific timeframe. You're not guaranteed a one-week or two-week response time at all — drafts get approved or rejected when an AFC reviewer gets around to them, and you're simply not entitled to demand that your draft receive more prompt attention than everybody else's drafts. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
FYI, see the currently-blocked user's talk page. There has been a lot going on with their contributions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The user was indef blocked following this ANI thread [4]. The user was an obvious promotional WP:SPA and I'd suggest that readers not be drawn in to forwarding their agenda. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

Wings (1927 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Utah Wikipedia Day at Sundance Film Festival

 Please see the Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah/Wikipedia Day 2025 page.  Peaceray (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Starring parameter

There is an edit and a discussion about the guideline for the film infobox's "Starring" parameter here: Template talk:Infobox film § Starring 2025. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Needed articles: detective film, police film

Not sure if we need both, but several wikis have separate article on them. We have neither. See Talk:Crime_fiction#Is_police_film_different_from_detective_film? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Sharksploitation

There is a discussion about the appropriateness of a list section of sharksploitation films at sharksploitation. Editors are invited to comment: Talk:Sharksploitation § Removal of inappropriate content. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion on scope of WikiProject

I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Israeli cinema task force and we are looking for feedback on if foreign films produced by Israelis should be included or not. See this discussion. LDW5432 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Plot summary discussion on Pokémon Heroes

There's a discussion about the length of the plot summary for Pokémon Heroes (which was recently made a GA) here: Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Plot summary length. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Roger Ebert on YouTube

Recently on editing articles, I've seen a source cite this account here https://www.youtube.com/@TheOfficialRogerEbert . While it does say Official Roger Ebert all over it, I'm a bit in doubt of its legitimacy. There is no YouTube check next to the name to clarify its connected with the Ebert family or Rogerebert.com. There are links to purchase Ebert's books, and visit his website, but, does Roger Ebert even have the rights to the videos from Siskel & Ebert? At RogerEbert.com I can't find any connection with the YouTube channel, even if there is a YouTube link which seems to be currently just a place holder. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I just looked myself and can't find anything to confirm its legitimacy! It's a strange case for sure. I went ahead and contacted the RogerEbert.com website asking about it to see if they can shed light on it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of List of economics films for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of economics films 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of economics films 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 | contrib) (ping me) 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of economics film as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been relisted to get more input. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The Red Virgin

There is a discussion about the writing of the lead section for the film The Red Virgin. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Red Virgin § Poorly written. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Film screenshots (in Italian Wikipedia)

In Italian Wikipedia, film articles are usually illustrated with film screenshots only uploaded there (example: it:Top Gun). Does Italy have a legislation enabling this for Wikipedia? And then, why only there? Are there any exceptions where it's possible in English Wikipedia? --KnightMove (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of points to discuss here. First, the Italian-language Wikipedia, like the English-language Wikipedia, are under Wikimedia Foundation, and their non-free content guideline says, "Non-free content can be used in articles only if... Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria." For what you linked specifically, WP:NFCI says this is acceptable: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I'm not sure why that Top Gun page is using a screenshot (which seems interchangeable with any freely-licensed air carrier takeoff image) instead of the Italian poster for the film?
Also, I'm not sure if you see screenshots used elsewhere, outside the film infobox? Across all Wikipedias, WP:NFCI says this is acceptable: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." In essence, cover art is most appropriate for film infoboxes, and screenshots are best used in the article body with critical commentary (e.g., for a famous shot in some film that cannot be shown with free images). Hope that helps. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed answer. However it reinforces my suspicion that those screenshots are not properly used, although I won't meddle with the topic any more. --KnightMove (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

Metal Sonic and Amy Rose appear in the film's mid-credits scene, but are never named or credited since they are silent cameos. TheJoebro64 forcibly includes their names into the plot, rather than through footnotes as I believe should be the norm. Please see this edit, accusing me of "fanboyish hypercorrectness". In fact, in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, the popular comics character Clea appears unnamed in the narrative, but is named in the credits, yet the plot section names her in a footnote. That's the example I'm following here. Joe's claim that "All sources verify that it's Amy and Metal Sonic" is incorrect, since the only source "verifying" is this third-party source. It traces back to this link (not used), where the screenwriters don't mention her name, only that they have plans for her in Sonic 4. Metal Sonic isn't mentioned by them at all, only the article writer. Is Joe correct to name characters in the plot when they aren't named onscreen or in the credits? I believe not. Will he agree he is wrong? I believe not. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Since they aren't named in the film, using their names in the plot summary requires reliable sources. There is no requirement when it comes to the formatting, though I personally prefer to use footnotes for these things as it makes it clear where the information is coming from. Using a footnote allows you to explain that the characters were not named in the film but were confirmed by X. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
MOS:FILMPLOT covers this -- if the film is not defining them, knowledge about Metal Sonic and Amy Rose would be "specialized knowledge". Not all readers are Sonic fans. There definitely needs to be secondary sourcing in some form. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
IMO the version that Kailash29792 proposes doesn't help anything. It still identifies the characters, but makes that info harder to find by burying it in footnotes, and doesn't add any source — so it's the worst of all worlds.
If we're going to identify the characters, let's keep the prose simple and add a reliable secondary source (the DigitalSpy source looks fine to me). Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Its certainly become complicated for us that popular blockbuster films that post-credit scenes introduce unnamed characters to what I presume, is to create discussion and hype about a series or franchise. WP:AUDIENCE does state "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." while WP:FILMPLOT, part our manual of style, says "The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, [etc.]" In this case, from my statement above, it is highly like an audience who might not be familiar with the series, see this, and would come to the article wanting to know who these unnamed characters are, as I have done with many a Marvel/DC film. and may come to Wikipedia to try and find out. The Digital Spy article does identify "Metal Sonic" and "Amy Rose". I haven't seen the film, do they have any speaking roles? I don't think they would be required to be listed in the credits for any legality reasons. As for Joe's comments about it being Easter Egg like, I respect this editor, but I will agree with you, Easteregg is about misleading links, like me saying two cows or "the farmer bought two cows." with links leading to unexpected articles based on the title. While I wouldn't go overboard on footnotes, I don't think it would confuse the average reader, as most well cited articles will have citations that use footnotes all the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The thing is that if we don't name the characters in the prose but still link to Wikipedia articles about them then we're still effectively naming them. It's a non-solution. Popcornfud (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
My view of this is pretty simple: naming a character in a plot summary should not matter if the character is not named in the film's dialogue as long as it can be verified in a reliable source. Reliable sources are in unanimous agreement that it's Amy and Metal Sonic. ([5][6][7].) Shoving the information into footnotes is counterintuitive; the reader has to open the note to learn who the character is—in essence creating the exact same problem as WP:EASTEREGG.
tl;dr, let's adhere to the KISS principle. JOEBRO64 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. I too prefer "keeping it simple, stupid", but the plot section must never contain info not explicitly revealed in the narrative; it must strictly stay in-universe. Adding footnotes helps clarify the ambiguity like an asterisk. That's why the plot of Captain America: The First Avenger doesn't state that Bucky cheated death. We don't even include obvious ones such as Doomsday in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice since he was just called "your doomsday". These ambiguities are easily clarified by footnotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That's not true that it must strictly stay in-universe. MOS:PLOT explains about leveraging out-of-universe context. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an acceptable compromise be adding the word "presumably" before Amy Rose, etc.? That would reflect that both A) RSes think it's Amy Rose, but B) The film doesn't name her and dumber stuff has happened before in weird retcons from film-to-film. The "presumably" can probably be dropped in a year or two after information on a sequel comes out and we find out if it was confirmed or not. SnowFire (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
That injects our own guesswork/fuzzy interpretation into the plot, which would be inappropriate MOS:PLOT. Popcornfud (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The simplest thing would be to simply leave them unnamed in the plot but named in footnotes. Not to copy the MCU, but stick to guidelines and WP:CRYSTAL. Whether they end up calling them "Rosy the Rascal" or "Mecha Sonic", I'm least bothered. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
No it doesn't? This is the film being fuzzy, not Wikipedia editors, unless I'm missing something. Reflecting uncertainty in a work itself on Wikipedia is fine. SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
No it isn't. If we're certain of something, then we should say it directly. If we're not certain of it, the we should avoid saying it at all rather than injecting our own interpretation using weaselly words like "presumably". Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". Popcornfud (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
As has been stated several times already, this isn't "our interpretation", this is based on the sources gathered above. Which you seem to agree with above? I do not understand your objection here - that we're not sufficiently credulous of the source? Putting aside film articles for a moment, it is exceptionally common for High Academia topics to have something like "According to Professor so-and-so, this is what happened" even when the source actually just says "This happened and it's totally confirmed and everyone who disagrees is in error." There's no need for in-text attribution here, but "presumably" hints that we're relying on a source's claim rather than 100% confirmation. That's just normal, good editing.
More generally, if it's just that you prefer to state things "simply", this won't be a great fit for, say, David Lynch films or the like where uncertainty about what is "really" going on is a core part of the film and not something Wikipedia editors invent. Even if we set aside this case for a moment, there absolutely needs to be a way to express "the film hints at this but doesn't confirm it" in a plot section, because, well, that's what some films do. (Think original Blade Runner's ending before the sequel came out and confirmed things.) SnowFire (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Imagine we're writing an article about a bank executive called John Smith. The source reports that John Smith has quit the bank, but doesn't say why. In our article, we wouldn't write something like: "Smith quit the bank in January 2024, presumably because he no longer enjoyed working there." We would only write: "Smith quit in the bank in January 2024."
The same is true for plot summaries. We report the unambiguous events of the plot, and leave the speculation out of it. Popcornfud (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I could have sworn I replied to this but don't see it, so must not have hit save. This conversation is reaching the point of diminishing returns, but apparently I misread you before because it sounded above like you were supporting using the reliable source. For the record, at risk of pointing out what I thought was obvious, but we absolutely would write "presumably because he no longer enjoyed working there" if the citation at the end of the sentence said this. Which we have in this case. It is, again, completely and utterly uncontroversial to sometimes in-line cite things like "According to [source], blah blah blah" for stuff we are not confident saying in wikivoice. Clearly some editors above are not entirely confident in saying in wikivoice the identity of these characters, so I was offering a suggested shorthand for "according to source" that wouldn't read ridiculously in a plot summary. SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on this issue one way or another. If it's really such a huge deal, we can wait until further information is out and then edit the summary later once further information about the next film is released.
However, I would prefer going in favor of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE in this regard. Reliable sources say Amy Rose and Metal Sonic; so I see no reason why we too should not follow this precedent. If it turns out that these characters are somehow not Metal Sonic and Amy (highly unlikely, but whatever), then we can update the summary in the future to reflect this, and write somewhere that "journalists presumed these characters were Amy and Metal Sonic, but they turned out not to be," or something, if and when that happens.
In the meantime, I would say that we should reflect what reliable sources (and most audiences familiar with the source material!) have reasonably assumed, until further developments suggest otherwise. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@SnowFire Sorry, it looks like we misunderstood one another. If we have a reliable secondary source that says "presumably" (or similar wording) then I don't object to using similar wording on Wikipedia either. I thought you were arguing for using such wording based on an WP:OR interpretation of a primary source. Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Cultural impact of David Lynch

I have just created Draft:Cultural impact of David Lynch. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have suggested first improving the main article for David Lynch and then later if necessary WP:SPLITing it out into a separate article. Drafting first could probably work too, but it is less likely to get others editing collaboratively. -- 109.76.133.119 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree and think that specifically David Lynch § Reception could be expanded and perhaps renamed to "Legacy". That to me feels like the same thing as "Cultural impact" and also the more commonly-used term, judging from recent headlines. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I certainly think an article on this topic is very well earned, but I agree with the above that expanding the section first is a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Are Fan names acceptable?

This is in regards to several articles within the Godzilla (franchise); check diffs: [8], [9], [10].

Is it acceptable to include or even refer to Godzilla iterations via fan names (GyakushuGoji, MireGoji, or GareGoji to name a few)? I've been removing some of those fan names recently because neither Toho (the owners and creators of the franchise and character) or any other official parties or licensees use those names in any official capacity. But some secondary sources, like this one and the Japan's Favorite Mon-Star book by journalist and film historian Steve Ryfle, use those names.

I call them "fan names" because they technically originated from fans and not from the creators or licensees officially. And I initially opted to using neutral terms like the "2014 Godzilla" or the "2014 version", for example. So is it acceptable to use fan names? Armegon (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME might apply to fan names at a stretch but I doubt it. (Authorial intent has does have it's limits.) Would using only the official names cause more or less reader confusion? For consistency I want to say only official names should be used, but for simplicity and clarity there might be enough WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to justify using fan names. (Other opinions may vary.) -- 109.76.133.119 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
We should be using names that are supported by reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME, if that is the case for these "fan" terms then they should be fine to use though the official names should also be mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure if WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Very few reliable sources use the fan terms, save for fan-related sourced like WikiZilla and such -- so it may fall under WP:FAN and WP:INUNIVERSE. Like I said, the fan terms aren't even reflected in official products and merchandise.
I guess what I'm really asking for is general consensus on this matter. Armegon (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
In that case I would think that it probably isn't something we should include. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter where the terms originate, just whether reliable sources use them. And wikis are not reliable sources. Nardog (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think fan names are noteworthy in themselves, but if the article uses sources for commentary that only uses the fan name to identify the work then I think in that scenario acknowledging the fan name is unavoidable. It all depends on the context, really. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    So the way that the Godzilla (Godzilla Minus One) article uses MinusGoji is acceptable? They only cite one source for the name. At one point the editor used the term RideGoji to refer to an early variation of that specific Godzilla, although no source was provided for the term RideGoji. Armegon (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review: Jay Wadley Draft

Hello everyone,

I have recently submitted a draft for Draft:Jay Wadley, a film and television composer known for scoring *I'm Thinking of Ending Things*, *Driveways*, *Swan Song*, and the *Franklin* miniseries. The draft includes references from Polygon, Deadline, Gold Derby, and other reliable sources.

Since the Articles for Creation (AfC) review backlog is currently about two months, I was wondering if any experienced editors from WikiProject Film could take a look and help assess its readiness for mainspace.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Really appreciate any help here.

Thanks kindly Heytinaaam (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft has been declined because it fails WP:NCOMPOSER, and by my account, WP:GNG too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the figure is notable. First, I think the Albuquerque Journal source is a very good one. I don't find WP:NCOMPOSER to apply, as that seems most applicable to "traditional" composers. WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE are what should apply, the latter especially if they are being interviewed for the music in I'm Thinking of Endings Things and other films. I also found these:
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
Thank you so much for taking the time to provide additional sources and thoughtful feedback on the draft. Your insights on WP:CREATIVE and the independent sources were incredibly helpful in strengthening the article. I’ve integrated several of the sources you suggested and refined the draft to better align with Wikipedia's standards. Hope the latest version suffices. Thanks again. Heytinaaam (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Favre1fan93, @Erik, and everyone else who has provided feedback, thank you so much for taking the time to review the Jay Wadley draft and for your insights on WP:NCOMPOSER, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE.
Based on your comments and the additional sources Erik provided, I have revised and strengthened the draft. I would greatly appreciate any further feedback or suggestions on how to ensure that this meets Wikipedia's standards.
Thank you again for your help and happy new year! Heytinaaam (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I was reviewing this, and I think it is incorrect to cite WP:COMPOSER for this figure. That refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, which focuses on composers of art music. Above WP:COMPOSER is WP:MUSICBIO, and there is applicable criteria in #10, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album." Wadley is credited for performing music for 10 notable works, and the current draft has six reliable sources headlining him. Even those that don't, still have WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Short films

Are short films in an anthology film supposed to be italicised, in quotes or both? DareshMohan (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Gonnym: For example in Pulp Fiction in the plot section, they are listed as " " but in any film in Category:Indian anthology films, they are listed in italics. DareshMohan (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't mix examples and come to a conclusion out of that. In Pulp Fiction they are not short films but "narrative sequences" as the article calls them. This is similar to chapters of a book so quotes are correct. If you have an Indian film example that you want to check, then link that. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Madly (2016 film) plot uses "" while case section uses italics. DareshMohan (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if this helps for the discussion, but MOS:MINORWORK has guidance. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

FAR for Alien vs. Predator (film)

I have nominated Alien vs. Predator (film) 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. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Princess Mononoke

There are some ongoing discussions regarding certain sections on the Princess Mononoke article. They can be found at Talk:Princess Mononoke#About the rewrite of the plot summary, Talk:Princess Mononoke#Reception summary in lead, Talk:Princess Mononoke#Casting details and Talk:Princess Mononoke#Development and release sections. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated comments?

  • "So, even wild animals stop kill each other, but nationalists yourpeople goodness ten commandments kill usa not america kleptocracy slavery yourpeople." (citation)
  • "Science fiction slave life for food United States Ship nationalists film institute and usa not America. Corporation is god, jesuschrist hell divine robot prometheus on weed." (citation)
  • "Scenario, monarchy slavery kingdom ourism history with wrong law cause needless violence in usa not America." (citation)
  • "Victim of slave fashion blind by golden toilet kleptocracy shiny death on booz and weed "tv most of nationalists" french tax internationalists production with ten commandments, it is serial killer." (citation)
  • "Print godless ten commandments money in mycountry inducted myrace by nationalists law, to make criminals protected by police on booz and weed. Why golden toilet is weapon allowed, it cost life?" (citation)
  • "Science booz and weed for children with ten commandments on Nationalist Aeronautics Space Administration." (citation)
  • "Fish rotten from head, head created criminals." (citation)
  • "So, if drunk then see double, if sell booz near children then see many Moons on ten commandments?" (citation)

I feel like I am seeing AI-generated comments more often on talk pages in the past month or two, that are of the same lowercase half-nonsensical content. Examples: this, this, this. and this. Anyone know any more context for this? (Or of a discussion about this elsewhere on Wikipedia?) Is it happening on talk pages other than those for film articles? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO these are not human generated -- the fact that the subject line and the description are the same is a good tell when combined with other factors (being nonsensical/non-sequitur, not acknowledging the actual article or other editors). They fall into a general trend of unconstructive edits that has skyrocketed since 2022.
At any rate they can be removed per WP:NOTFORUM -- and they should be removed ASAP because if they go into the archive people will yell at you if you follow the aforementioned Wikipedia policy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Yes, I've been removing them ASAP whenever possible. NinjaRobotPirate's IP-range blocking may help suppress this. I haven't seen anything in the past day. Will keep a lookout as I monitor related changes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Another... Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yet another... Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. Could be a poor machine translation, a malfunctioning bot, a vandal bot that's functioning correctly, or someone who's just bored. It's been going on for a while, though. I blocked a few of the IP ranges. If more show up, you might as well let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I think this may be another. EDIT: Another... Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Haven't seen any of this on my watchlisted pages, but I'll keep an eye out and good to know if it's part of a larger trend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't AI, but a very poor manual translation of Russian. "Fish rotten from head" is a direct translation of the idiom "Рыба гниет с головы" which means corruption starts from the top. They don't use any articles (a, the) because Russian lacks them. Russian in general has a more flexible word order than English and allows for a lot of abstract, metaphorical language, and it sounds like nonsense when translated word for word into English. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If you convert the words back into their Russian equivalents, and then translate them into English, then the IP is essentially rambling about how "America" is an ideal portrayed in movies while the "USA" is the actuality which is a kleptocracy ruined by nationalists who claim to obey the 10 commandments but engage in a multitude of vices, and appears to be referencing Trump's golden toilet as a symbol of the materialism that corrupts the US and stating that corruption starts from the top so with Trump in charge the nation will be a nation of criminals. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
You cracked the case! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Put like that, it all makes sense MapReader (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Great research. And how bonkers. At least know its not a random bot (...probably!) I guess, its revert/warn/ignore for these posts from now on? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Industry response to Emilia Pérez

Emilia Pérez has the section "Industry response" which seems like overkill in citing actors themselves for what they thought of a film. Obviously we include film critics, and reference subject matter experts in other ways (e.g., historians for historical films), and presumably we can reference film directors too (though open to discussing that). It seems like too much to cite actors themselves because they are comparatively not authoritative about a film's quality (in either direction, positive or negative). What do others think for this case and in general? Should that section be "Directors' response" instead? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Whether they are directors or actors, I'm not sure how relevant it is to just list people who liked it or said something nice about it. I would have expected the "Industry response" section for this film to focus more on commentary about how much more it has been liked / awarded by industry insiders compared to general audiences / the LGBTQ community / Mexican audiences. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I generally agree with what Adamstom said. These are people who directly in the industry. They are too closely related to the studios/people involved/etc. Its unlikely any of them are going to give any "serious" critical response of a film that is contemporary. Like, James Cameron referring to a film with a film with an actress he'll be regularly working with for the next few years suggests he's too closely related to the project to actually give it a serious critique. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I also generally agree with other comments said here. I notice the most recent attempt to remove the section under that rationale was restored claiming that removal "furthers the obvious bias from the people who don't like it" so I wonder if the section expanded to the size it was out of a good faith but misguided attempt present a neutral perspective on reception of the film, since it garnered a lot of negative responses. I think there's also an element of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because a lot of highly influential and classic films have remarks about directors who listed it as their favorites or as an influence, but that's usually in retrospective with distance, not current year, so it doesn't apply, I don't think. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I recall similar efforts from some films like Gravity where they had a huge blocks of paragraphs from directors, but whether or not you agree with them or not, this was clearly in promotion for the film or its director. I think TenTonParasol makes a point here that comments from directors are good in terms of how they were influenced by a work or asked more neutrally or more broadly (i.e: in a Sight & Sound poll). Just being asked to comment on the film like this is not really neutral. Leave criticism to critics. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I think you all make great points. Seems like ideally, we should remove the section? I started this because Talk:Emilia Pérez § Geo-centrism drew my attention to it, and citing actors seemed odd to me. I'm fine with its removal, and stated it there. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Emergency (2025 film)

Hi! there is a discussion going around about the "controversy" section Talk:Emergency (2025_film)#Content removal from Sid95Q. I would like to have more inputs and suggestions from the community about this topic. Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Harum Scarum (film)#Requested move 26 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Harum Scarum (film)#Requested move 26 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 16:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Companion poster

Regarding Companion (film), there is a dispute over the poster. Apparently IMP Awards may have unofficial posters uploaded, one of which was used. At the same time, an editor claiming to be a WB rep is trying to upload the official one but screwing up the licensing process. Could use some more input at Talk:Companion (film) § Poster. Has IMP Awards ever been wrong with their poster uploads? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

(Cross-post) As a follow-up, the newer posters are no longer on the IMP Awards page here. (I had messaged them a couple of days ago at the same time as dealing with the above.) So yikes, IMP Awards can be wrong (presumably tricked) at times. We will have to be mindful of that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Category for discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 25 § Cults, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Ibrahim Din PROD

Ibrahim Din, a mid-20th century Malay actor, has been PRODded. At a quick look most of the sources I could find were poor. I was wondering if anyone here might have better feel for actor notability and would want to check the PROD. Best, CMD (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Smallfoot (film)#Requested move 27 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Smallfoot (film)#Requested move 27 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Variety Reviews

Hello, I was trying to quote some Variety reviews for a movie but I was told that I have to quote the author as well. Unfortunately Variety never writes the author. How can I quote him? This is a review from 1968. Do you know if the magazine is relevant? I've found a lot of variety reviews on the list of sources at the bottom of the page. Raoli (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely fine to still quote Variety. I'm not sure what requires the author to be named every time. I feel like I've seen reliable sources just name the work directly, while others name the author too. If this were an op-ed, requiring the author makes sense. But my sense is that a work's film critic tends to represent that paper. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Erik. So there are no copyright issues if I just quote the work without the author. For example Variety (April 1964) don't report the authors of any publication, or Time (April 1966) Raoli (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, these are definitely still usable. I guess you could just say "Variety's film critic wrote..." if there is some MOS need to name a person of sorts rather than just the work. I can't think of any on-Wikipedia MOS need, though. Maybe there is some best practice in the real world to do that person-naming. In essence, you can definitely still use them, just that the presentation may need to be tweaked. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I will follow your instructions. Raoli (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Raoli: and @Erik:. I have access to print book to some archival reprints of Variety reviews. Variety does credit its reviewers, but usually in a sort of confusing short form who I haven't been able to confirm the full name of some authors. (see House of Dracula, where the reviewers name is credited as "Brog.") which is probably why the online versions do not give a credit (and probably also due to how their database works with crediting authors). If you'd like, I can try to find some if needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas I would have needed the author of these two reviews (1965-12-31 ,1968-12-31 ), but I have not found the original of these on the internet. In Variety magazine they used a pseudonym (Brog. Andy, etc.) but can this pseudonym be traced back to a real critic? Thanks Raoli (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Raoli:, here is a review of Harper here. Please ping me if you have any issues with the link. As a heads up, the dates on the Variety website are wrong, as are a lot of their old reviews. It appears to be a review from February 16, 1966, from a screening from February 8. The reviewer is "Murf." I'll try to dig up the older one for you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Unfortunately I couldn't verify if the date on the site was correct. I also wrote to their editorial staff for information but as of December 22nd I still haven't received any response. I was able to download the photos without any problems. About the film "The appointment" of Sidney Lumet there is only one review on Variety although looking at the sources on this site it seems there are others. I am interested in this film as it is a little known Lumet film that was shot in Rome. Raoli (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
At the page of Variety I found the authors of the pseudonyms. Raoli (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree here. A reference should obviously include the name of the source's author if one is known and provided — but obviously if a piece wasn't bylined, we can't include an author name we don't know. Variety typically provides a full author byline for almost all (but not necessarily always all-all) of its contemporary content, but you're correct that it often didn't in the past — so include an author name if and when one is given in the piece you're citing, but don't worry about it if one isn't. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think it depends on how you are writing the prose. I think I had a Good Article review once tell me to write the authors names before on the cause that "magazines don't review films, critics do". Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Variety's publication of their reviews on their website often causes errors to be created in Wikipedia. Most of the old reviews that they have posted on their website are abridged versions of their reviews that were used for the Variety Movie Guide edited by Derek Elley in the 1990s. As well as abridged versions of the reviews, they have also been edited so don't necessarily align with the wording used in the original review. The Movie Guide does not list the reviewer names and therefore on upload, Variety just seem to attribute everything to Variety Staff. The original review does indicate the reviewer, however, Variety tried to keep their reviewer names anonymous (to an extent) and instead of their names, they were signed with a signature (sig). As noted above, the Variety article includes some of the common film reviewer sigs. One of the sources linked to that article may have more of them but I am not aware of them ever publishing a complete list. Where we don't know the full name of the reviewer, I'm not sure how helpful it is to use the sig in the article but should be credited in the citation.

The other general error many make which is referred to above is that on the online republishing Variety just put the date of the review the day before the year of release and therefore the first example, which is a 1969 film, has a date on the website of December 31, 1968. Clearly Variety didn't get films up to a year in advance and review them all on the last day of the year before a film was released!

Most of the issues of Variety published before 1981 are available on the Internet Archive where you can see the original wording of the review and the reviewer. They also have on there a book which is an index of films reviewed by them between 1907 and 1980 (https://archive.org/details/indextomotionpic00alva) giving the date of publication and the page number of the review which would help you find the original review and the reviewer's sig. I do have their republished reviews between 1980 and 1992 if you did need to find a reviewer for films between those dates. I expect from around 1993 the website gives full reviews with full reviewer names as they stopped using sigs in 1991. Note that these are publication dates in Variety. The review may have been published earlier in Daily Variety. Also for early films, the Daily Variety review might be additional to the Variety reviee.

Looking at the book, The Appointment review appeared in the May 28, 1969 issue on page 34. https://archive.org/details/sim_variety_1969-05-28_255_2/page/34/mode/2up. The reviewer was Hawk. who appears to be (Robert) Bob Hawkins per the Variety article

As noted above, the Harper review was published February 16, 1966 on page 6. https://archive.org/details/sim_variety_1966-02-16_241_13/page/6/mode/2up Unfortunately due to issues that Internet Archive have faced, you can't access that issue in full currently. I do have a print copy of that review and as above, it reviewed by Murf. who was AD (Art, Arthur D.) Murphy and was their chief reviewer at one point. Sudiani (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Criteria for list of cult films

Regarding list of cult films, there is a discussion about whether or not to set criteria, and if criteria is set, what should it look like? Discussion can be found here: Talk:List of cult films § List criteria. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 14:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm Still Here (2024 film) and List of Sony Pictures Classics films

For I'm Still Here (2024 film) release date on List of Sony Pictures Classics films, should the page displays its official release date (Jan 17 2025) or its award-qualifying run date? Sony had never reported its award-qualifying run date; Sony didn't even reported the box office number of its award-qualifying run.[11] Is there any official criteria for our reference? Discussion can be found here: [[12]] Thanks. Lovemoviesforever (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This should follow how we handle the dates in the infobox. See Template:Infobox film#Release dates. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. So if the film has an one-week award-qualifying run in 2024 before getting official release in 2025, which date should we choose? (award-qualifying run date or official release date?) Template:Infobox film#Release dates doesn't mention anything about award-qualifying run. Lovemoviesforever (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
That section says "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." While this is appropriate for the film's infobox, I don't necessarily agree that a list of films with their release dates should include film festival or world premiere release dates. In your specific instance, the film was first released outside a film festival in Brazil and possibly not by SPC so I am not sure that date would be relevant either. What is an "official release date"? Surely the date it was first released to theaters is its release date regardless of what a company chooses to publicise. If the film was released by SPC in a US theater for the general public to watch it in November 2024 then that is the date that it was released. You state that Sony didn't report box office numbers. I don't think this is necessarily true. Box Office Mojo show that the film grossed $48,000 on Jan 17 but that its total US gross to that date was $76,000, suggesting that it grossed $28,000 prior to that date. Sudiani (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Assessment question

Can I reconfirm per WP:FILMA, and specifically the criteria of WP:FILMA/B, that a non-released film cannot be considered a "B" class article? This is per B2 and the FAQ about B2, that since it does not have a plot summary or critical response section, it could not be considered reasonably cover[ed] and without obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Hey man im josh changed the assessment of Thunderbolts* and The Fantastic Four: First Steps from C to B class, and I restored the assessments back to C while stated and linking the above, only to be reverted again. Would just like clarification if I've been wrongly interpreting the assessment criteria the project has created all these years. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

We can make sure to look at WP:ASSESS (in case the film-related text is outdated). For C, it says, "The article is substantial but is still missing important content..." Per WP:PLOT, the reception of a work is important content. It's perhaps the most important content because it is more secondary source-driven (as opposed to sources reporting on how filmmakers said they made the film) and more independent than any pre-release aspect in providing an uninvolved consideration. So I think it's the right call for all unreleased films to stay at C at most. Only when reception content can be included, can it be at B. I find the plot summary is relatively less critical because that is only complementary to what WP:PLOT says is encyclopedic treatment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The text at WP:FILMA is largely in line with current text at WP:ASSESS. Given there has been little further contributions, I'm hoping to go back to the two films linked above to change them back to C, though since I've already reverted the changes, I don't know how that will be interpreted in regards to WP:3RR since it would be a further revert outside the 24 hour period. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

List of [country] films of [year]?

Is there an agreed criterion for inclusion of redlinked films in these lists? Or a requirement for sourcing. I've just rolled back a batch of edits to List of Pakistani films of 1984, not least because they broke the table formatting, but wondered what the standard is. There were a lot of unsourced redlinked films even before those recent edits. (Alerted to the edits because one of the many links to dab pages triggered a notification as I'd created the dab page). PamD 06:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There is not one specifically for this WikiProject's scope, but WP:REDLINK can be followed in general. I try to do a WP:SET to see if there are at least some reliable sources about a film. I add a red link if there is potential, I do not add one if there is not. I do think some editors may just remove red links just as "unsightly", which is not allowed. It has to be based on an preliminary assessment of if that red link could be blue some day. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The Demon (1979 film)

There's a problem at The Demon (1979 film) which needs some attention, as there's been past edit-warring over whether it's a 1979 film or a 1981 film. IMDB says 1981, but that's based on the film's American release, while there are claims that it premiered in South Africa (its home country) in 1979 — and because of the edit-warring, the page is now in the problematic state of being titled as a 1979 film, while being categorized and infoboxed as a 1981 film, which is a situation that can't stay as is: either the text needs to be revised to 1979, or the page needs to be moved to 1981, so that the title and the text aren't in conflict.

As I don't have access to archived South African media coverage from the 1970s and 1980s, however, I can't verify whether the claim of a 1979 release is accurate or not, but the article's title and text absolutely can't stay in conflict with each other. Can somebody with more knowledge about South African film take a look at this, and either revise the article's text or move the title to 1981 depending on what you're able to find? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been eight days since I posted this and no action of any sort has been taken to resolve the issue, but the article really can't just stay templated and categorized as a different year than its title. This really needs to be resolved one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is the source for "there are claims that it premiered in South Africa (its home country) in 1979"? I haven't checked it myself, but it seems that around 45 minutes into the film, a poster for The Amityville Horror appears on a movie marquee. Since The Amityville Horror was theatrically released in the US in the last week of July 1979 and then gradually released internationally, it would be unrealistic to claim that The Demon was shot and released in South Africa in the remaining five months. Although other release dates don't seem to be certain either: 1981 or 1982? ภץאคгöร 19:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem: actual sources weren't brought to bear to prove that the film was first released in 1979, it was just asserted, which is why I asked if somebody with access to archived South African media can search to see if any sources are actually available to verify that or not. The problem was never that 1979 has been properly confirmed — the problem is that an unsourced claim has resulted in a conflict between the article's text and its title. Obviously we have options in both directions — we can move the page title to 1981 if the claims of a 1979 release can't be verified, or we can revise the article text to say 1979 if that can be verified — but we just can't leave this article titled as 1979 while saying 1981 in the article body at the same time. One way or the other, the title and the article text have to match. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Starting a new article with similar title to existing article

Hi all, I'd appreciate some advice on how best to title a new article I'm creating – for the 1954 British film "Hands of Destiny". An article with that title already exists, and it is a redirect to Hands of Murder, a US TV series (1949–1951). I am thinking that I should name the new article "Hands of Destiny (1954 film)". Does this seem sensible? An alternative might be "Hands of Destiny (film)", but including the year feels more helpful. Thanks for any advice. Tobyhoward (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Standard practice is that we go with just "film" first, and then add the year if there are other films also in the mix. The basic rule is to always give an article the simplest title that it can be given without colliding with other topics also located at their simplest possible titles — so in this case "1954 film" would only be necessary if there were other films with the same title. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the prompt and helpful reply, wiil do. Tobyhoward (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Agghh! I've now discovered there is also a 1941 US film called Hands of Destiny! So I will title the article I'm drafting "Hands of Destiny (1954 film)" after all! Tobyhoward (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Recently discovered "lost" silent film

A copy of The Heart of Lincoln, a 1915 silent film long believed lost, has recently been discovered.[13] This might be worth an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I stubbed it out today and then came here to alert you all to it. I see it was already discussed. Take it to the next level! Homeaccount (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

TV?

Are TV films and series within the scope? I am asking because I recently crated/esited the Israeli ones and I want to add proper banners (Currently {{WPIsrael}} and {{WPTV}}). --Altenmann >talk 23:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

TV films are in our scope, but not TV series. BOVINEBOY2008 10:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
TV films are within the scope of both this project and WP:TV, series are fully under the scope of WP:TV. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello all, I've started a discussion on the naming conventions of articles that affect this WikiProject here. I'd love if people could get involved and add their thoughts/findings. – Meena • 17:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Uncredited roles

Hi all, MOS:FILM states "For uncredited roles, a citation should be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Do not use IMDb as a reference, as it is considered unreliable." Fair enough. But if an actor clearly appears in a film, because you can see them in it (!) yet they are not listed in the film's credits, and you can't find a reliable source that confirms they are in it, how best to deal with this in the Cast section of the film's article, and in the actor's article? Thanks for any thoughts! Tobyhoward (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we want to be able to verify cast and crew members in some informational capacity. We're almost always able to do that because it's written into the film a la credits, and many secondary sources will replicate the more important names too. Such sources usually cover uncredited roles too. Informational capacity like text or audio/video recording gets the identification across clearly. We can't run on the assumption of recognizing faces, especially years down the road, since it means looking across at least two sources (the film and something else that shows the actor), which is original research. What is the film? I can try to help research it. If there is nothing that can verify it, it may really not be that important for the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. I come across the uncredited issue quite a lot in my editing, which is mostly focussed on pre-1980 British films. The example I was just looking at, and which sparked my query, is the appearance of Vanda Hudson (full displosure: I created her article) in Sapphire (1959). The film is quite well-known and reviewed and cited; Hudson less so. Interestingly, she appeared in contemporary publicity stills for the film, yet is uncredited. But as you say, chasing down an uncredited role may not actually be that important! It's good to try and keep things in perspective. Thanks again. Tobyhoward (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that Wikipedia articles rarely provide full cast listings; MOS:FILMCAST advises that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so try to name the most relevant actors and roles". If there isn't reliable record of an actor appearing in a film then perhaps that is where you should draw the line. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I've encountered some similar situations with Calico Cooper. She made an uncredited appearance in Hall Pass. But that one is supported in reliable sources. something related but not quite the same, she also was in a deleted scene from a Halloween remake. Normally that wouldn't be significant but this is what earned her her Screen Actors Guild membership. But we also know this because, again, it's mentioned in reliable sources.
The one I'm wondering about is this: she was in a music video that no longer exists online, but when it did exist, she was credited. There are stills from the director online that name the music video but don't name her, but in which you can clearly see that it's her. The only documentation of her credited appearance, though, is IMDB and Kinorium. I suppose this is where INDISCRIMINATE appplies.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
If it hasn't been picked up by any reliable sources then it is hard to argue why it should be included in Wikipedia, even if that is a frustrating answer for someone who is certain it is true and just wants the Wikipedia article to have the right information in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97 exactly --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97 it's frustrating because had internet archive saved it years ago the proof would be there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely frustrating. I fear any future that the internet exists without the Internet Archive, as without it, the internet becomes a wild west of information, in a very bad way. All I can say is that if you have content, archive it on your own as much as you can, as you never know when these things will vanish/change. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, turns out I was able to find a version of the music video, with the credit to Cooper. I don't know how it didn't turn up before, but at least that's resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)#Requested move 1 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)#Requested move 1 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Disney+ Hotstar original films#Requested move 14 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Disney+ Hotstar original films#Requested move 14 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Elephant Man (film)#Requested move 19 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Elephant Man (film)#Requested move 19 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Listed at MR: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 January. Editors are encouraged to comment, as this RM seeks to undermine WP:NCF, with some !voters questioning the validity of that guideline. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

RM has been relisted. Editors are encouraged to comment as concerns have been raised about the legitimacy of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) guideline, specifically the WP:PFILM provision. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

United Kingdom box office number one films

@Tyrell Sunday has created pages for UK box office number one films for 1969 to 1977 eg List of 1972 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom. They have created these using data from the 25th Frame eg [14]https://www.25thframe.co.uk/box-office/box-office.php?chart=19720609.

Unfortunately, I believe that the data from this website is completely unreliable for this period of time. To be fair, their website does flag this saying "Prior to 1997 the box office numbers are difficult to find, these figures represent an approximation and are from reputable sources and compiled accordingly."

Guinness published a book with the published charts of the era so from a review of the 1970 page, I can see that many of the number ones per 25th Frame that Tyrell Sunday has copied are likely wrong. They claim Paint Your Wagon was number one for 18 weeks whereas Guinness say it was only number one for a week. [15]https://archive.org/details/guinnessbookofbo0000swer/page/435/mode/1up?view=theater

Unfortunately due to issues at the Internet Archive, the online versions of Variety from this period which has actual grosses of the time (albeit only for London, which were likely the only charts published in that era) are not fully available at the moment to show that the 25th Frame figures are wildly inaccurate.

Someone flagged the 1976 page for speedy deletion. Given the Guinness book, I feel that the page can be updated to reflect the number ones that Guinness compiled rather than just deleting it. However, I would suggest that all the grosses are wiped given my concerns about their veracity. I also think the column for the production company should be deleted as not something that is reported in box office reporting. I changed to distributor in line with more common reporting but Tyrell Sunday reverted but probably should be removed as not consistent with all the other box office number one pages.

Would appreciate others views so that I just don't get into an edit war with Tyrell Sunday. While I appreciate the creation of these pages, they are currently completely unreliable and misleading at present. Sudiani (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the data at 25thFrame appears to be completely useless, as it doesn't include grosses for more than one or two films per week. This has led to the author claiming, for example, that Paint Your Wagon was top of the box office charts in the week of 15 May 1970 by grossing a mere £53.
I'd delete the lot or replace with the Guinness lists, without including any gross figures. Barry Wom (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@User:Gonnym seems to have decided to merge them all into one page. I'm not sure the benefit of that and still leaves the issue that the grosses are made up. Having a page for each year is more in line with other such pages so am confused by this edit. I suppose it makes it easier for someone to delete them if they don't get updated with reliable data soon. Sudiani (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I merged them because having 10 small bad stubs was even worse. I'm not against to deleting if that is the consensus, but while they are here, it's better to fix some of the issues. Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I have updated the 1979 chart with some figures from Screen International which show that the 25th Frame figures are wildly exaggerated and updated the rest of the year with data from Guinness. Will take a look at the other years when I have more time although don’t have any access to any other grosses currently. Sudiani (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Spirited Away GA reassessment

For those who are interested, the Spirited Away article is being reassessed for GA status, which can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Spirited Away/1. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Template:Odyssey navbox

I have started a discussion at Template:Odyssey navbox and invite participation from other editors. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Iranian films based on plays

On my regular pass-through to clean up films that have been inappropriately filed in base "Country films" containers instead of "Country-genre films" subcategories, I came across the completely empty Category:Iranian films based on plays — but it was created in 2019, and obviously hasn't been empty that entire time: since editors are generally quite prompt at deleting empty categories based on the empty category reports, it actually has to have been emptied quite recently to not already have been caught and deleted before now.

I've tagged it for deletion on C1 grounds, which gives it seven days grace before it actually gets deleted just in case somebody knows how to repopulate it. In the meantime, does anybody know if there's a way to figure out what used to be in the category, so that we can determine whether it was emptied properly or not in the first place? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Atlantis: The Lost Empire § Plot section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Atlantis: The Lost Empire § Plot section, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

High and Low (1963) GAN

hello! i just wanted to inform anyone who hadn't yet seen that i've nominated kurosawa's high and low for good article status, and that it has been sitting there now for a couple of months, so if anyone would like to take up the mantle of reviewing it, or add sources/prose corrections/gnome work edits they would like to make, i would be sincerely grateful.--Plifal (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions for examples and anti-examples for a Sequeltis page

I am currently working on a rough draft of a page for the sequelitis/franchise fatigue phenomenon in which sequels and subsequent entries to a critically acclaimed work deteriorate in critical reception or financial returns. So far, I have the following examples for a "Notable examples" section:

Jaws (This is the PRIME example of sequelitis), Ice Age, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park/World (Critically wise only), Pirates of the Caribbean (Franchise fatigue is attributed to why Dead Men Tell No Tales underperformed domestically), and Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I also had a "notable anti-examples" section in mind as well (Franchises that stayed relatively consistent or improved critically and financially with each subsequent entry) with only Planet of the Apes, Madagascar, and Paddington as examples.

I need more notable examples, particularly in the anti-sequelitis section. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible could be another anti example. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Dead Reckoning was a box-office bomb. However, that was due to Barbenheimer killing all public interest for it and most other late Summer 2023 films. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
What sources on the overarching topic are you using, and what examples and counterexamples do those sources bring up? TompaDompa (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I have some Variety and Deadline articles and books that discuss sequelitis. They already discuss the franchises (especially JAWS) as examples of sequelitis. Anti-examples aren't really discussed by these sources, I just thought that it could be a good counterclaim to prove that not all franchises are doomed to catch sequelitis.
Madagascar's critical reception and box-office improved with each subsequent entry. War for the Planet of The Apes also avoided sequelitis by its strong word of mouth despite its sequel status and coming out close to Dead Men Tell No Tales, Transformers: The Last Knight, and The Mummy. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
We really shouldn't (per WP:No original research, mustn't) determine which franchises are examples or counterexamples ourselves but should get that from the sources. Do those articles in Variety and Deadline Hollywood discuss the phenomenon in the general or the specific? TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to briefly comment and suggest that a film series with only 3 entries should not be mentioned in an article purporting to be about sequelitis, and as such there's no good reason to mention Paddington. Can you limit yourself to films with 5 or more entries? But more importantly as others have warned please base your work on reliable sources and avoid original research WP:OR. -- 109.76.130.131 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Prithvi Vallabh#Requested move 20 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prithvi Vallabh#Requested move 20 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Spalding Gray: Terrors of Pleasure

I'm not sure if this article is accurate in describing this work as a "film". I would call it a television special as it was a one hour tv show performed live for HBO. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I would be inclined to call it a TV special as well.★Trekker (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Black Box Diaries

Black Box Diaries (history, talk) could use some attention from this project. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Videographies has been nominated for discussion

Category:Videographies, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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.

There is concern that the category name uses an invented neologism that isn't used outside Wikipedia and doesn't reflect the scope of the article Videography. Apparently, various articles with the name were also moved by the nominator without any discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Any feedback?

Hey everyone, I’ve put the Wonder Woman (2017 film) article up for peer review because I’m thinking of nominating it for Featured Article status. Before taking that step, I’d really appreciate any feedback, especially from folks who are experienced with film articles. If you have a moment, I’d love your thoughts on things like structure, sourcing, or anything else that could improve the article. The peer review request is here. Thanks in advance for your time. Lililolol (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film § Preemptive splits of soundtrack articles for films

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film § Preemptive splits of soundtrack articles for films, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. BarntToust 22:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

King Kong banned in Germany

Hi, I'm working on the 1933 version of King Kong and I just have a quick question about notability. The article has a little blurb about the film being banned in Germany, then talks about two different viewpoints of whether or not Hitler watched it. @Paleface Jack, who has been so kind to help me out with the page, suggested that it didn't seem notable to include on the page. I agree, since it seems like trivia and there isn't a whole lot of commentary about it from reliable sources. However, I'm stumped about whether or not to include the part about it being banned in Germany, and then if that part is notable, then does that mean the part about Hitler should be included? If you could share your thoughts that would be much appreciated! Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think both mentions are warranted (provided you believe the sourcing is adequate) because you are relating the Hitler part to the fact the film was censored. If it is kept, I suggest though that it be moved to the "Censorship and restorations" section as that feels more appropriate than where it is now in "Reception". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah, putting it in censorship makes sense. Thank you for your suggestion. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:No Time to Spy: A Loud House Movie#Requested move 6 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:No Time to Spy: A Loud House Movie#Requested move 6 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Valiant Red Peony#Requested move 17 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Valiant Red Peony#Requested move 17 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion relevant to this project regarding WP:FILMDIST and Distributors in the infobox at Template:Infobox_film#Distributor

Per title. Discussion is encouraged and appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The European Destubathon

All WP:Film members are invited to participate in The European Destubathon in April. Primary objective: Blast away as many of our 760,000+ Euro stubs as possible! Almost $3000 available in Amazon voucher prizes which can be used to buy books for content, though it can also be treated as an editathon if you're not interested in competing! Minimum content to be added to each article just to ensure that they're over a stub, though longer expansions also welcome. A good chance to earn hundreds of dollars for expanding many of our European film stubs, with incentives for every country. Previous contests were really enjoyable and I'm hoping this one will be too and help benefit the Film project! Sign up if interested. Thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Franchise articles?

I've noticed franchise articles, a number of which are well written. What is your view on franchise articles? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a particular question or concern? Wikipedia talk pages aren't discussion forums except as it relates to improving Wikipedia. DonIago (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Really which franchise articles did you think were well written? Some are adequate, but even the very few franchise articles that have been evaluated as {{good article}} quality seem pretty thin to me. Most of the franchise articles seem poorly written and lacking substantial sources. These article are largely redundant lacking WP:SIGCOV significant coverage of the series as a whole, and instead usually only redundantly repeat a whole lot of information from the individual film articles. (Other opinions are available, some editors seem entirely happy that franchise articles are essentially redundant and don't even see that as a problem.) The guideline MOS:FILMSERIES say "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films" but it doesn't seem to have discouraged the proliferation of low quality franchise articles for franchises that are still only upcoming, and it is unclear if they actually have potential for future improvement or any chance of completion. (Franchise articles getting created long before 3rd film has even been released, e.g. Smile (franchise) should never have happened.) -- 109.78.198.134 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

BAFTA-related article issues: missing info on animated awards; inconsistency of Wikipedia article lead sections

I've made some comments on the BAFTA awards' Talk page about a few issues which might be of interest to people on this WikiProject; I'd appreciate it if anyone could help over there:

1. Talk:British_Academy_Film_Awards#Animated_awards:_missing_feature/short_nominees_from_1950s-1980s._Film_vs_TV_category_confusion.

BAFTA's website lists an "Animated Film" category, which has a much longer history than is currently covered by the articles BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film and BAFTA Award for Best Short Animation. However there are things to be wary of regarding how they combine feature films and shorts, and how the "Short Animation" category introduced during the 1980s combines animated films and animated TV. But it might take someone who knows more about the awards' history to unpack that.
I also have a question about the mysterious "Best Fictional Film" category that appeared for only one year and seems to be for animated shorts!

2. Talk:British_Academy_Film_Awards#BAFTA_website_quirks;_Wikipedia_lead_section_consistency

The lead sections of the articles on BAFTA awards categories are currently inconsistent, and IMO should be standardised - I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any ideas about the best one to adopt.
(IMO the Oscar pages also suffer from similar issues, like containing prominent wikilinks to the AMPAS article, but not to the Academy Awards article.)

Nick RTalk 03:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Update on my point 1 above:
The pre-2000s awards were recently split into a separate article, BAFTA Award for Best Animation. However, I have issues with giving the article that title, because "Best Animation" does not seem to be a title that's ever been used for the award category; according to the BAFTA website, it's ever been only "Animated Film", "Short Animation", and (possibly, in just one year) "Fictional Film". Maybe the article should be renamed something like BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film (1954-1982)? However that still leaves the issue of what to do for the 1980s, when the "Short Animation" award appears to cover both films and TV, and appears under both film and TV awards. (See my comments at Talk:BAFTA Award for Best Animation.) Nick RTalk 13:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
If there was no animation category in those years, then there was no animation category for those years. I don't understand what the issue is. We don't make up things that didn't exist. Gonnym (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
The issue was that Wikipedia's article BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film listed only awards from 2006, and the article on BAFTA Award for Best Short Animation only from 1989. But BAFTA's website lists details for both awards that go back much further, back to the 1955 ceremony (1954 films).
The dilemma was: how best to add this information to Wikipedia?
When it came to adding the winners and nominees of the old "Animated Film" category (1955-1982 ceremonies), the options I could see were:
  1. Add them to the existing article BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film. This made most sense, because it meant that they'd be on a page with an article title that matched the category's name given on the BAFTA website. However, the old pre-1980s "Animated Film" category seemed to cover both animated shorts and animated features, whereas the 2006-present version of the category covers only feature films, so by listing them all together on one page, there would be a mismatch there.
  2. Add them to the existing article BAFTA Award for Best Short Animation. The logic for this is that most of the historical nominees were shorts not feature films, so that could be a good reason to present "Animated Film" as if it was the predecessor of the current "Short Animation" award. However, the issue with this is that the article's title wouldn't match the award category's name.
  3. Create a new page for the old 1954-1981 "Animated Film" award.
In October 2024, User:GeniusTaker began adding them to the Best Animated Film page, as in option 1, and a few weeks ago, I added the rest to that page in a table.
However, on 11 March, User:GeniusTaker did something like option 3: they made a new page called BAFTA Award for Best Animation. However, I dislike this because the new article's title doesn't match any of the historical award category names that are listed on their website. (As you say, "We don't make up things that didn't exist.")
That was why I posted the update here today: to draw attention to this change in page organisation, because I thought participants of this WikiProject would want to be made aware of it. Nick RTalk 19:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox film § Suggestion to update "Production companies" parameter

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film § Suggestion to update "Production companies" parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

List of 1981 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom

In the new page feed is this article, seems rather random, I didn't know what to make of it. Is it even encyclopaedic? I feel it adds no value to wikipedia. Feels like WP:OR violation to me. Thoughts? Govvy (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

See the comments above [[16]]. Sudiani (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for Feedback: Draft Article on Film Producer Jim Robison

Hello, WikiProject Film editors,

I have created a draft Wikipedia article for film producer Jim Robison and would appreciate any feedback on its neutrality, citations, and formatting before submitting it for approval.

Here is the draft link: Draft:Jim Robison (producer)

If you have time, I’d love any suggestions on how to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you in advance for your help!

Best,

Filmgeek2005 Filmgeek2025 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Filmgeek2025: I did some minor fixes on it.★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Oscar bait § Article content

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oscar bait § Article content. Spectrallights (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC) The discussion is about the article's inclusion of film-specific controversies.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Matthew  / (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Noticing more AI written articles.

I use wikipedia a ton for looking at movies but my editing is usually minor fixes to grammar or word choice. Please redirect me if there's a better place to post this, I don't really use the "social"/editing side of wikipedia. I've noticed a few movie articles that are clearly written by AI as they don't fall under the usual style and structure that I see of wikipedia articles. This is the one I remember the name of but I know I saw at least two more like this: The Uninvited (2024 film). The entire reception section just feels like a ChatGPT response. The synopsis makes a point about the themes of the film which I know the synopsis section of articles don't have. I haven't seen this film nor am I well versed enough in the style and standards of wikipedia articles to fix this myself. As previously mentioned this isn't the first article that I've noticed with this issue. If someone could let me know where I could potentially report future articles like this, I'd appreciate it. GloriaBurgle (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@PoloniusDufresne: as you wrote the reception section for The Uninvited (2024 film) can you please respond to the allegation that it is AI created, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Le Silencieux

Hi, I created this article from the French version. I wonder about the title: should we keep the French title? Rename it? Create redirects for the English titles? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Usually the most common English title is used for for the page, unless the French title is widely used by English language sources.★Trekker (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@★Trekker: OK, thanks for your reply. I don't know which is the most common English title. The poster has one, and IMDb uses another one. Yann (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@★Trekker: The page was moved to Draft space. :( Do you where could I find references for French films? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: If you speak French it would probably be search for reviews online from reliable sources or on Google Book for potential scholarly work on it.★Trekker (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose – average rating doesn't correspond with tomatometer

I just wanted to point out that I think this template is misleading when it comes to average rating.

"On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 88% of 274 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.30/10."

On one hand, I think the wording makes it sound like the average rating consists only of positive reviews. The other issue is that the average rating is generated only from reviews that have an invidivual score (maybe obviously so, but just in case: FAQ: Reviews without individual ratings are not counted in the Average Rating calculation) In this example that's only 203 out of 273, so saying "274 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.30/10" is technically wrong. A rather high percentage though, there are worse examples where it's half or less reviews with an "Original Score". It becomes a problem particularly when a movie has a Tomatometer with a percentage under 50%, but the "average rating" is higher than 5/10. The reader might assume that the better rating makes it up for the number of negative votes, but that doesn't have to be the case. I think it should be phrased more precisesly. --Karrenberger (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

An RfC deprecating the use of this template is awaiting closure. It would clearly be better if editors were able to come up with the appropriate phrasing for each article, and a template that inserts plain text into an article was never a good idea. MapReader (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew this. This is pretty damning, because wherever we use the average rating, we are essentially indicating that it is the average of all ratings in the main count. Either we take this out going forward or require language indicating that the average rating reflects only the subset of reviews that had scores. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
It depends on the wording, which varies from article to article. I personally don't think the above wording is all that misleading. For one article I worked on recently someone raised this concern so we went with wording like this: "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes calculated that X% of X critics reviews were positive and the average rating was X out of 10." - adamstom97 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how it can can't be misleading. Any reader who does not know better will assume that every review has their own rating and that the average of that gets calculated. Most readers don't even know that the percents are simply based on a review being categorized either as positive or negative. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
There have actually been two TFD discussions, both of which the thought was to keep. RanDom 404 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I think adamstom97's revised wording addresses the issue, by breaking the explicit link between the number of reviews and the average rating. Readers may still come away misunderstanding the connection (we are packing a lot of information into relatively few words) but Wikipedia will not have misstated it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
RanDom 404 actually has a valid point, that the template has survived two TfDs thus far. The RfC above, along with waiting for its formal closure, is counterproductive in the grand scheme of things. If change is desired, it will need to go to another TfD. Why delay it with an RfC that has no bite? Editors that want their !vote above to be considered will need to weigh in again.
On the flipside, Karrenberger's concern illustrates one of the issues with the template. Yes, it exists to make things easier for those that want to use it. But when it comes to modifying the wording, there's nothing easy about that process. You would need to know where to go to have that discussion, or you would have to simply remove the template altogether (which can be argued violates the spirit of MOS:VAR). Proponents will argue that standardizing the wording is the point, and if a change is needed, to do so through discussion at a centralized location (so be prepared to hear that response in the TfD). But we know from a historical perspective, no two editors tend to agree on what the wording should be. There are multiple ways to write it, so protecting it in that fashion is not exactly helpful, especially to novices. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Nevertheless, having a template dealing with plain text is specifically deprecated in wider WP policy, and the guidelines within the TV and film projects should surely reflect this. MapReader (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I am in favor of deleting the template, or at the very least making it subst-only, just so its clear. However, convincing the masses in the next TfD won't be a simple task. You can see how "wider WP policy" arguments fared in the last TfD. Might want to review the "Keep" responses ahead of the next one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Just letting you know that this comment would be more appropriate in the #Request for comment section with the actual RfC above, not here where it won't count. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
The only time any comment is going to "count" is during a TfD. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: But the implicit link is still there. In my opinion, it is most important to inform the reader on the spot about what the RT data actually means, to prevent the common misconceptions about RT from arising in the first place. The fact that Wikipedia does not literally spread these misconceptions shouldn't be enough to satisfy us, especially when it can be easily avoided by making it clearer. --Karrenberger (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Karrenberger: For starters, the discussion really needs to be had at the template's talk page in order for real change to happen. But the above suggestion is still an improvement nevertheless. How would you improve it further? Obviously, we cannot commit a paragraph in every film article explaining the context of how these scores are determined. Doing so would be counterproductive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
It is not just as simple as deleting the template. It is used on many articles, so deleting it would break a lot of text. RanDom 404 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Breaking text wouldn't be an issue, if there's consensus for deletion in proper process of a TfD etc then it can be a task for a bot or someone with AWB to subst the template before deletion. Indagate (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Scream (2023 film)#Requested move 24 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scream (2023 film)#Requested move 24 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 07:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Be My Cat and promotional tone

Regarding Be My Cat: A Film for Anne, there is a discussion about its tone being promotional or not. See discussion thread here: Be My Cat: A Film for Anne § Concern about promotional tone. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_86&oldid=1287628756"