Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Tangled and box office performance

I've added a detail template to the Box-office performance section of Tangled and opened up a discussion on its Talk page. I'd like to hear from editors with more experience with film articles on this issue, but, as I said on the Talk page, I have never seen this much detail about box office figures in any other film article. When I commented on this (in relation to another issue having to do with Tangled on WP:EAR), someone said it was "impressive". That may be, but in my view it's incredible bloat.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not experienced in these matters, but my feel for it is where possible, we need an overview to give some idea of how the film went (country of origin/foreign/total) and maybe some openning week, all-time ranking, etc stuff. Breakdowns beyond that are only needed if something is trying to be illustrated. If the film was a sleeper hit or did well on openning and bombed once people had seen it. If it was kept off #1 by another film, maybe. If there was a country with significant difference in box-office (hit or miss in one or two countries), if a country is specifically attacked or loved by the film their stats may be interesting. The fact that it did better outside its country of origin may be worth exploring...

But this looks like an information dump. Lots of information that doesn't mean much outside of being extra detail. If it is trying to say something it sure isn't making it clear what it is. 124.185.139.110 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Manhunter (film)

I've recently brought this article from start-class to a Good Article, and am planning to take it to Featured Article status. I've already taken it for a peer review before going to GAN so I'm a bit hesitant to ask for a second one before heading to FAC, so I thought I'd ask here at the relevant wikiproject if anyone wanted to have a look over the article and see what could be improved or added. I think I still have a few avenues left for material to find and cite, so I've not written a completely exhaustive article yet, but I'm just not sure what's really missing, if anything. GRAPPLE X 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Having gained some useful feedback from Project members, I've taken the article to FAC. Anyone who wishes to comment on the nomination or offer additional criticism to improve the article, that would be hugely appreciated. Any comment is useful! GRAPPLE X 14:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Carry On films - Complete credits.

It seems like the couple of films I've checked (mainly early ones) have a complete list of credits for the films. This seems like padding to remove stub and lack-of-content complaints. My feeling is that this isn't what we want on Wikipedia (important credits will be in other sections). Any opinions? 203.35.82.133 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless the "complete credits" are limited to like 10 people, because those were the stars of the film, stand-in roles or extras should not be listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

20 odd cast including "2nd Gunner". Crew including the thank you for the nurses uniforms (which is why I think it's based on the openning credits). I've changed the first one. Moved actor's name into the plot section if the character is mentioned. Important crew (director, writer) are in the header, and the "10" are in the info box. I think this is better, but fix any mistakes I've made if you want (not that you need permission). 203.35.82.133 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You were correct to remove the excesive cast and crew list. I've added back in the main players, in the standard cast-list section. Lugnuts (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Unfortunately, it's a big job and my interest level in doing it has dropped. I may get back to it but can't make promises. 58.165.65.221 (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictional fictional character

Fictional fictional character has been nominated for deletion. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy Vio problems on two films

I just found out the hard way that I have no idea how to properly deal with copy/paste plots. I tagged the short plot in Super (2010 American film) for copyvio and the tag was removed because I didn't do it right. I didn't know which, of the many sites that the text closely paraphrased/duplicated, to link to and had no idea about the noticeboard for these issues. So I removed the plot entirely, dropped a note on the talk page, and here I am. Deep Blue Sea essentially has the same problem and it's a plot we've had in place for a long time (barring a brief period last year where it bloated to 1200 words). Can anyone either properly report these two films' issues or get a better plot in place? I can probably do Deep Blue Sea eventually - I haven't seen it for a while but I have the DVD around here somewhere. It will be a while before I can see Super, though. Millahnna (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Super. It's actually quite simple. The copyvio was added way back in April last year, ironically as an attempt to create a non-violating version, and copied (pretty much) from an (unofficial?) Ellen Page website, and is apparently the "official" description for the film. It needs a history purge, so I've requested a rev del. I don't know, it might be declined because of the number of revisions there have been since then. I'll have a look at the other one. I can't help with writing new plots as I haven't seen either film. --BelovedFreak 20:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Freak (heh). I've asked the editor who removed my tag for some extra info so I know how to do this properly in the future. Millahnna (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Ok, Deep Blue Sea is a bit more complicated. It is on a website called TorrentBox, claiming to have been taken from IMDb in 2006. It was added in the first revision of our article in 2004. I can't find the summary on IMDb, so I have no idea when it was added there. This could well be a case of reverse infringement, ie. copied from our article to IMDb, and then all over the place, but I can't tell, so I've added a report at WP:CP. --BelovedFreak 21:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking again at TorrentBox, it doesn't actually claim it came from IMDb, I think I just assumed that. Hmm.. they may well have taken it from here in the first place in 2006, so it could be there's no problem with this one. I'll mention that at WP:CP. --BelovedFreak 21:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Deep Blue Sea is essentially what shows on TV listings (that allow for longer summaries). However the copy and paste went to begin with, I'm positive it has its origins in press materials for the film. If I can find that bloody dvd, I can tell you if it started there. I'm starting to think I got rid of it. Millahnna (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see. I could only find 10 hits on google with the search phrase I used, removing Wikipedia mentions, and the TorrentBbox one was the earliest dated one, none of the others look official and are probably all copied from somewhere.--BelovedFreak 21:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Super will not be rev-del'd, so I guess a new plot just needs to be added in place of the other.--BelovedFreak 22:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. In looking at the page history for Super and its talk page, I realize that there's a lot more going on with that article than just the plot in terms of problems. The edit war that resulted in Cyberghostfce and an IP getting blocked is actually how I noticed the plot issue. The blocked IP and one registered user restoring "beautiful wife" is what drew my attention to the problem; it made the plot verbatim instead of just "really, really close to verbatim". I'd actually like to make a sock puppet and/or COI report based on some of what I see there (and where it led me in terms of following contributions) but the user I suspect of being the blocked IP is really subtle (or I'm way off base) and I can't pull up decent diffs to do it. But in light of the dispute, I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look at the content to make sure everything is kosher. It got changed back and forth so many times I can't make heads or tales of it. Millahnna (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding another one: Slither (2006 film)‎‎. I haven't been able to find the oldest search hit on this one (and it could be the same as what Freak suggests above, copied from wiki not the other way around). But in case someone has seen this recently enough to add a plot (I blanked and tagged for expansion), there it is. I might actually be able to tackle that one in a week or two if no one beats me to it.

Meanwhile, Super's plot just got updated and while there are still sentences in it that are obviously derived from the original problem text, it doesn't pop as many noticeable red flags now (i.e. it has enough extra material and rephrasing that I don't think it is an issue any more). Millahnna (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Riddick (2011 film) and Universal Soldier: A New Dimension

Hi! I was wondering if this film fails the requirements of WP:NFF. It seems like it was dePRODded by the creator, who's tenure at Wikipedia seems to have consisted of a fair amount of articles on future films that have been merged or deleted since. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And also maybe Universal Soldier: A New Dimension?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No reliable sources to back even the thought of those films up, let alone verification that they are in the process of being made (which is what NFF is about). First, I would just be bold and redirect them back to their respective franchise/film series pages. If it's reverted, then start a discussion on the talk page and post a note here so that people know what is happening. An AfD is either going to be delete or merge, and if it's merge then we'll have to have a separate discussion about it anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding aggregate film review scores

This is an extension of a conversation I had with Erik, (which can be found here) and would like to know what the wider community thinks but what is the threshold of number of reviews a review aggregator site should have before adding their score to an article? Erik, suggested 30 reviews based on Sample sizes or when the site has made a consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think 30 is a reasonable number; lots of legitimate research seems to based on sample sizes of around 30. Certainly shouldn't be any less, but you have to be careful about setting the threshold too high because it would put older films at a disadvantage. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reporting B.O. and whether or not they are "dissappointing"

I'm having a disagreement with another user on Super (2010 American film) on how the Box Office score should be reported.

I think it should be "Super made $46,549 on opening weekend with eleven theaters, averaging $4,232 per theater."

He thinks it's better off with "“Super” was "among disappointing field of openers", with the film grossing on its opening weekend "only $52,800 from its 11 opening screens, averaging $4,800.""

Is there a policy for this? If there isn't, I'll just leave it the way it is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a point of view; start by just stating the facts and then bring in the analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

He also did the same thing with Scream 4. He inserted the "disappointing" in the first sentence. If it goes anywhere, it wouldn't be in the first sentence. Then of course I revert it and I own the page. I'm not sure with Super, if it was just one source saying that, but with Scream 4 many sources have called the opening weekend "disappointing". It was just how it seem he was randomly going to articles adding this. There is more to add to the box office, why only add that? —Mike Allen 23:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

CfD of Category:Box Office flops

I have nominated Category:Box Office flops for deletion. Interested editors are invited to give their opinions at the deletion discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Box office summary table

What are people's thoughts of having a "box office summary table" for developed articles? See Scream, and Scream 2. —Mike Allen 00:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I find them fairly non-intrusive and just a straight forward overview of the box office elements that let you quickly find the gross figures and ranks (less essential) without filtering prose while the prose is there for deeper explanation, kind of like when you have an awards table but also add background info in prose. I like them anyway, on a function and aesthetic level Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

They look pretty good. As long as they are as well sourced as these are I don't have any objections. One thing to be aware of - my experience is that the "Budget" and "Gross" lines in the infobox are two of the favorite targets of low level vandals. Many is the IP that I have come across who changed dozens of these just to mess around so those of you who add them will want to keep an eye on things. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't experienced that yet though I can understand it being an easy focus for vandals. Good point, thankfully they seem more focused on messing with the plot sections Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD notice: Heart Like a Hand Grenade

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart Like a Hand Grenade — Interested editors are encouraged to voice their opinions. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK... How do we handle this

Given the fight with the "film projects" at odds with the Film notability and "future film" guides, how do we go forward with Superman: Requiem - a fan film that has yet to start filming and, oddly, was put up in one go today with cites "retrieved" a month ago.

Same editor posted, again in one go, Tony Cook (actor) which is up for speedy as copyvio (and BLP vio since it's all but unsourced). The "producer" of the fan film.

- J Greb (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Language categories and films

I just started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages#Language_categories_and_films. It's more of a problem for the language folks, but I thought you might want to know. — Sebastian 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Unknown (2011 film) Box office totals

Can someone take a look at the most recent edits in the history for this one? Sitacuisses is making a math claim about the foreign gross (and therefore worldwide gross) that just doesn't add up no matter how I look at it and I've reverted twice. Am I completely whacked in my ability to add and subtract or misinterpreting what he's saying or something? Millahnna (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add every country's total up, so be it. —Mike Allen 04:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see what he was doing now. I was super confused for a second there though and he was so sure that I had to ask others to make sure I wasn't being an idiot. Millahnna (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a first time I've seen someone do that. I assume he's going to keep adding it up every week to make sure it's precisely correct? :P —Mike Allen 04:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan dance double controversy

For anyone interested, there's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Black Swan dance double controversy regarding the appropriateness of the topic as a stand-alone article as opposed to a concise paragraph within the film's article. Additional input would be appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

There is currently an AfD for Superman: Requiem, a fan film that has not actually been produced, let alone released. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman: Requiem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cast lists

What is the consensus on ordering of cast members? I've been working on the Scream articles and those are all alphabetical, something encouraged by MikeAllen which I'm happy with as it eliminates any arguements over favouritism and character ranking, but is there a set guideline? If not, should the alphabetical approach be encouraged? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Use the order from the end credits. Or if there are none, some other official source like a press kit, the poster or whatever. Alphabetical could become very weird. I also think we should try to keep the lists limited to the major cast members only. Smetanahue (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The last time I remember this being brought up I think the discussion ended up at "use SOME kind of order but consensus for what works best can be established at each article." I think the reasoning was that the types of casts in films (lead and supporting, ensemble, small, large etc.) were so varied that trying to establish any one set policy on the topic could become problematic. Virtually every policy I can think of that we could set could have exceptions (I wouldn't want to go with alphabetical on a film with clear lead roles, for example). Trying to match closing credits seems to avoid all of those problems but sometimes it might not be what works best either. What if a film had clear lead roles but did the closing credits in order of appearance or alphabetically, for example. Millahnna (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDb used to list actors in order of the credits, now apparently they list it alphabetically. Sigh. In my experience (especially in the infobox), the order of how they are credited in the article should match on how they are presented in the end credits. —Mike Allen 11:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree end credits is usually the best option. I'm just saying I can think of a hypothetical exception to that, too, so I don't think it would be ideal to set it as an "always this way" policy. Millahnna (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to go with the "end" credits for the basics of the cast section and the poster(s) - if consistant - for the infobox. That at least puts a filter in to the 'box limiteing the number of names. A similar filter would also need to be hashed out on an article by article basis to limite the list in the body of the text. - J Greb (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

At least one article I watch goes with that and it seems to work fairly well (barring the occasional "with/and/as" that has to be reverted). Limiting the list in the text body does seem trickier. On some films limiting the list to characters with proper names works, on others you'll leave out featured cameos and critical bit parts using that same method. Millahnna (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even a fan of cast lists, since you can just look it up on IMDB anyway; I prefer to parenthesise the cast in the plot summary (and the order is then decided by the plot structure and story relevance) and add casting information to the "production" section. Cast lists which just list the actor and role are just one step up from trivia lists. However, I agree that the end credits should generally be used as a default, unless there is agreement by the editors to use a different order. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a slight paradox there, since in articles with both cast lists and parenthesized names in Plot sections it's been acceptable to remove the parenthesized names in order to trim the Plot length. I'm happy with either system myself, and AFAIK it's non-controversial, but thought it should be noted. Doniago (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In my time here the default has been "in credits order" though I don't know that we have ever put that in the MoS. That seems the most logical. I think the there was a discussion at some point that we "not" put in every single person in a cast list when the film is a "cast of thousands" but I don't remember when that was nor did we make that a part of the MoS. If any of you think that we should formalize this and add these to the MoS for films I would 'Support these ideas. MarnetteD | Talk 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the use of the poster to write infobox cast lists even if that is sometimes weird, take Scream 3 for example where actors are credited on the poster yet are a minor presence in the actual film (i assume for the sake of a meta red-herring). For Infobox I think Alphabetic works as its a short list of what SHOULD be the main cast. For any cast section it's harder. In Scream I've written it as prose but in that case I separated it larger by role and gender, so I take about the female roles, starting with the main character then talk about the male roles but this isn't a great way to go for other articles, I just think it works here. In...I think Scream 2, I speak about the roles by my own interpretation of their stature in the film, so main cast, supporting, minor. But that's my arbitrary ranking of them (which I think is valid :P). I also agree that any film article should not be an extensive cast list ala IMDB of even the most minor roles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. IMO the Cast section should be principals only and there should be a convention (End Credits order makes sense to me). WP is not nor should it be IMDb. For the infobox perhaps the poster is a good guideline, but I'm willing to be swayed on that. Let's not forget that the Cast section should, at its best, be a discussion of the actors, not simply a listing, nor should it overly-focus on the characters they portray. Doniago (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Crap that's embarrassing, I meant to say it SHOULDN'T be like IMDB, changed that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the new version, though you just took a lot of the wind out of my rebuttal. (grin) Doniago (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Blake why is that David Arquette is always credited first before Neve Campbell? You would think that since she is the star of the films, she would be listed first (which I see a lot of editors do in the Wikipedia articles). Does it have to do with the gender? —Mike Allen 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just alphabetical I think, was like that when I started on the articles and seemed to be the same across all the Scream articles, Arquette, Campbell, Cox, Kennedy, Jackson, etc. So I don't know what the original intention was, it was just alphabetical and I left it that way. EDIT I don't follow that in the intro's though from what I remember, I always list Campbell first then either Arquette or Cox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Academy Award category at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

Is the site Film Music Reporter a RS? It was added to the article The Ides of March (film) that Alexandre Desplat was hired to score the film.[1] I googled and found only one other source, IndieWire that added Film Music Reporter as a source of the information. I'm pretty sure IndieWire is considered a reliable source, but I have doubts on Film Music Reporter. But if a 'reliable source' uses another site as a source, would that site be considered WP:RS? Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter looks like an WP:SPS to me, and there is nothing on the site to suggest it has a professional staff, and professional accountability is more or less a requirement for RS. As for Indiewire, it depends on the circumstances; this is what Wikipedia says about indiewire: "The blog network includes independent bloggers as well as veteran writers Anne Thompson and Leonard Maltin." Therefore Indiewire's RS status depends on the reliability of the blog source. I would say that Film Music Reporter is not an RS and Indirewire should be taken on a case by case basis. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

FMR doesn't even say where they got the information. They just say "we have learned". No About Me site either. It's also very suspicious that the user that added FMR registered today and it was his only edit.—Mike Allen 02:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection for new releases

Also to note: I think all articles for new released films should be protected for a week or two before and after release. So much time could be put into improving the articles instead of reverting and digging through anonymous edits. —Mike Allen 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

MikeAllen I hope that you will forgive me for moving this note to a new section. I think that it is an important enough subject that I don't want it to get lost in the "IP edits" thread above. If you disagree please feel free to move it back. This is an idea that has some merit. I fear that there would be some opposition to this from those outside the film project. I can suggest getting input from a few, or several, admins ASAP as they will be the ones doing the protection. You might even want to move the discussion to the protection noticeboards talk page. I will give my early support to this idea. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I'm glad someone else also sees this as a problem. This is something that isn't new of course but after a while it just gets to the point, why bother with those articles. I didn't know there was a noticeboard for page protection, do you know where I can find that? Stupid me.. Like you said, editors outside the film project may likely object. In a sense it does contradict the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit", which I can see that being brought up--but it's not permanent protection. I know User:Nehrams2020 is an administrator, but I'm sure he can't just go out and semi-protect pages without a solid consensus or support from other admins. Can anyone else think of admins that regularly edit film articles? —Mike Allen 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a bot could be created to automatically protect pages a week before a release date that matches the {{Film date}} template and then unprotect a week after the release date? —Mike Allen 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea is good and really much needed, but without any consensus I don't think it would demonstrate "Rectitude of Wikipedia". I'm not a big contributor to film articles, which makes me not enough eligible for being a part of such major decision, but I've my full support on this. --Bill william compton^Talk 04:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Bill. IMO this idea has a better chance of being implemented if editors and admins who aren't regular contributors to film articles support. I appreciate the time you took to comment. MarnetteD | Talk 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The main discussion can be found here. —Mike Allen 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wachowskis

I was wondering if there has been any discussion anywhere on how to list The Wachowskis on films that were made when they were billed as The Wachowski Brothers. This involves an issue that's clearly not been fully resolved on their article or its talkpage, but I'm specifically wondering about films made when they were credited as the Wachowski Brothers. What do we normally do when someone changes their name? Do we credit them as they were at the time the film was made? Or as they are later known? --BelovedFreak 10:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally in the case of actresses who change their name after marriage/divorce it is left as it was credited at the time. For instance, Courtney Cox is credited as Cox on Scream 1 & 2, Cox-Arquette on Scream 3 and back to Cox on 4. Similarly with Rebecca Romijn, it was Romjin-Stamos on the first two X-Men films and she and Wikipedia dropped Stamos from the third film. Same for Robin Wright Penn too. I'd just follow the precedent, and leave them credited as "The Wachowski Brothers" on the films that used this credit. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I was thinking, and those are some good examles. The article in question is Bound (film); I've undone the edits, explained on talkpage and linked to this discussion. --BelovedFreak 11:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is what I have been doing. I don't particularly like doing it as it seems a messy approach but it does seem to be the unspoken consensus.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I have a very strong opinion about it, but when I consider your point it seems to me that if they are being CREDITED, if an article title uses the former name, if someone is QUOTED using the former name, then leave it. But the article is talking refering to TODAY'S entities looking back at something they did in the past. Consider your best friend having had a sex change changes his name from Larry to Lana. You wouldn't tell a story at dinner and say "Remember when Larry stepped on that rake and it hit him in the face?" You would alter the story and say "Do you remember the time that Lana stepped on that rake and it hit her in the face." even though it was "Larry" who did it at the time. This is why I left the handful of "Wachowski Brothers" citations at the bottom of the article. All of this said, as I think about this I'm sure Wikipedia has a protocol for this exact scenario and one of the superusers will step in and clarify. Thanks for your side of this work... ours is a worthy effort. Bricktopus (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cinefantastique film magazine

If anyone has back issues of Cinefantastique from 1995, please could you let me know, or see my request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Cinefantastique article. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 12:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver screen

Knowledgeable editors needed here, article is virtually unsourced and being disputed at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Inventor.2Fmanufacturer_of_the_Silver_Screen. Exxolon (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Last-minute rescue" or "Griffith's last-minute rescue"

I need your competent opinion what name is more suitable for this article, regarding that D. W. Griffith was the Godfather of Last-minute rescue. – George Serdechny 14:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the "NOTE", I don't see "Griffith's last-minute rescue" as a possible alternative so I don't understand why that would be a possible title for the article. There's also no other "Last minute rescue" page, so there shouldn't be an issue of confusing this with something else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What in your opinion should be added to the article, in order to nominate it for WP:FA? Thanks. – George Serdechny 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No naming conventions seem to exist for this, judging by articles like Shakespeare's style, Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami and Themes and plot devices in the films of Alfred Hitchcock, so I don't think it really matters which title you choose. As Bignole said, there is no other article with the title, so no disambiguation should be necessary. On the other hand, just calling it "Last-minute rescue" could be slightly misleading until you read the opening sentence, since the article doesn't seem to be about the storytelling device itself, but about editing conventions popularized by Griffith. Also, if you go for that option, perhaps you should include the initials, as I don't think D. W. Griffith is quite as completely associated with his last name as for example Shakespeare is.

Regarding the article itself I think it might need more clarity, as it sometimes goes away from the main topic and delves into examples with no immediate connection to Griffith's films. You need to specify in some way or another how each example owes to him. Smetanahue (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this is a reworking of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-in-time lad, which was deemed to have OR issues. postdlf (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

However, no OR details has been pointed out till now. So "deemed" that's correct. If not "doomed". – George Serdechny 16:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: George Serdechny has since been blocked indefinitely for copyright infringement, and the draft article deleted as an instance of such as well (in addition to having already been deleted at AFD as OR). postdlf (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Smoking

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), shouldn't Thank You for Smoking be moved to Thank You for Smoking (film), and shouldn't Thank You for Smoking (novel) be moved to replace it as the primary topic, as seems to almost always be done for books where films were adapted with the same name? From the looks of it, it seems like the novel originally was at an incorrect title and so disambiguation wasn't needed, but this is no longer the case. I can't personally do the move, but if an administrator could that would be great.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Thank You for Smoking should be the disambig page, but looking at the film article, maybe that meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a longer page, but it's definitely not the primary topic--if a popular book is made into a movie, even if the movie has more recent coverage, I don't think it ever becomes the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be a disambiguation page though, isn't that for when three or more pages have the same title, such that a hatnote isn't enough?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the principal of least surprise comes into play. Would the average user expect to go to the book or the film? Where there is no clear "winner", I think as disambig page is necessary. Also cuts out alot of links going to the wrong article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

When there are only 2 articles involved, a dab page is unnecessary: hatnotes suffice. From what I've observed over the years, that's a fairly standard practice (when it comes to adaptations, my observation is that the original work is usually treated as the primary topic..in this case the novel was around for 11 years before the film) and seems to serve most topics well. My recommendation therefore is to have the novel at Thank You for Smoking, with a hatnote to Thank You for Smoking (film). Readers looking for the novel will get there in 1 step, while those looking for the film will have to take 2 steps. Better than making both groups take 2 steps by going through a dab page. This seems to best match up with WP:TWODABS. I think a dab page would just be an added layer of inconvenience in this case. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I just dont think the book is more notable than the film (in this case) and this looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Meh, the film's still rather recent, which accounts for its notability, but we still tend to treat the original works as primary topics even when the adaptations are highly notable, even as notable or more notable than the original works: ie. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Breaking Dawn, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Walking Dead, and The Golden Compass. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's only a very very rare case where the film should be considered primary over its sourced book (such as with The Godfather, and that's mostly because it's one of the most famous movies of all time. How do we move forward from here?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

PotC 4 PG-13 rating

I thought I'd bring this up because I said Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was the first Disney movie to be rated PG-13 for sexual content (in this case, "sensuality and innuendo"), and it got removed. I was referred to here when I gave my reason for adding that tidbit of information. What do you guys think? Should that fact about a Disney movie being the first to be rated PG-13 for sexual content be considered notable? (Previous PG-13-rated Disney movies were rated for violence and scare factor, and we've yet to see a Disney movie that's rated PG-13 for language or drugs of any kind, including alcohol, tobacco, hard drugs, and the like.) --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked the source and all it does it give the certificate, so the accompanying commentary that it's the first Disney film to receive a PG-13 for sexual content is original research, and probably breaches guidelines on due weight. If the source made a point of saying it was the first Disney PG-13 because of the sexual content then I agree it could warrant a mention in the article, but in the "Release" section discussing the American release; it certainly doesn't belong in the lead because MPAA certificates aren't relevant to half the English speaking world. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would've used the Film Ratings database as a source, thereby saving me a lot of time and energy, but once you get there, you have to search for the film being rated manually, and I don't think it would've helped my case when someone else came along with intent to remove the trivia again, so I had to insert the IMDb parental guides for the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies (because there wasn't an MPAA ratings bulletin for them; the MPAA rating, and the accompanying descriptor, is at the bottom of the pages) and the MPAA ratings bulletin that featured Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Tales from Earthsea, and the film in question. Thus, due to the way the Film Ratings database works, I had to put in six sources instead of three or four. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If this "These are the only six Disney movies to be rated PG-13: PotC1, PotC2, PotC3, Prince of Persia, Earthsea, and this film" is true, I again renew my objection to this inclusion. Apparently it isn't the only Disney film to be rated PG-13, its just the first to be rated PG-13 for "sensuality"? I really don't get how that is relevant. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Because before PotC 4, Disney has never released a PG-13-rated movie that had PG-13-level sexual content in it. (And Touchstone and Hollywood films don't count, in case you were wondering.) Look at the MPAA ratings and official descriptors for the corresponding films on all six sources, and you'll know why it's relevant. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only relevant if reliable secondary sources make a point of saying it is the first Disney film to feature PG-13 sexual content; otherwise it is just you and other Wikipedia editors deciding it is relevant. For it to go in the article we need something like Variety to point it out to us. Besides, the source didn't say it was the "first", so it's original research to make that deduction yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Resources for filming dates and locations

I've been using Back Stage as a source for filming dates and locations for a while. I wanted to let other editors know about the site. They have a Los Angeles Production Listings and New York Production Listings. The Los Angeles page usually list big productions and TV productions; New York lists film, Broadway and TV productions. The site usually gives an approximate date based on the film's production and it's updated regularly. "Shooting in May 2011 in North Carolina" is how it's displayed. Good starting point for new film articles, but I would also look for more sources to back it up and get more specific details, if possible.

Also the page for Ontario productions, click here and for Toronto click here (PDF). :-) —Mike Allen 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Does anyone know if soundtracks of films fall into the scope of this project? It would seem that they would fall under WP:ALBUMS and not FILM, but I may be wrong. BOVINEBOY2008 15:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was discussed in November 2009. Pancake (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Pancake! Looks like I was wrong :) BOVINEBOY2008 16:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with Auteur Theory article

I am engaged in a depressing battle of wits on this page. The criticisms section is over represented, it is something I have carefully analyzed and found to be empty of anything but references to the work of the individuals (writers) who make biased claims of alternatives to AT designed to draw attention to themselves. Rather than remove (theories like schreiber have their own page already) I devised a response to it. Being that it is an esoteric subject, referring to work (directing) whose inner workings you can only know from practical experience (at least working closely with directors), it has limited citation potential. The critics are claiming superior knowledge of the workings of over those who practice (people who do rather than analyze for a living). I offered debate in talk but all I get is heavy handed editing by people who write about subjects like weaponry. There is a big difference between a combination of logical analysis, common sense and specific knowledge and simple weaseling, citation or no. If I am wrong it needs to be a consensus with at least some people who have an interest or knowledge of the subject. Thanks. --Filmmaker2011 (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dylan Dog: Dead of Night

Just asking for a extra set of eyes for this article. It seems to have lacked constructive attention of Wikipedia editors on it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Year added to template title

I have added year ranges to many award template titles. Please comment at the centralized location if there are issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP edits on film articles

• Project members might like to keep an eye on these contributions from User:90.200.85.232. Some of them have been helpful, some less so, but the editor keeps making certain changes despite having been asked not to on their talkpage, and so far has not been willing to discuss any changes.--BelovedFreak 13:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this user and reverting his/her edits. They do not respond to comments on their talk page so I'm guessing we don't have a native English speaker here. Thanks for bringing it up B-freak! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If the IP is static & continuing disruption despite warnings, I suggest reporting to ANI for blocking. If the IP is dynamic, then articles will have to be individually protected. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as I want to AGF, the IP geolocates to Birmingham (UK) and is repeatedly adding the same things after being reverted, so I'm not convinced it's a language problem.--BelovedFreak 22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We've assumed good faith. I think you can assume that an editor on the English language Wikipedia has a basic level of English, because if not they really shouldn't be editing. Even if they haven't received the messages on their talk page, or viewed the edit history then it should be obvious to them by now their edits are being challenged. What I suggest is to revert them, start discussions on the article talk pages and notify them, and if they revert again without joining the discussions then ANI them. If they are unable or unwilling to edit collaboratively then theyw ill have to be blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Betty, I've talked with this user and reverted several of their edits. No reply, just reverts. It's getting frustrating. Is there anything more we can do? 99.241.142.34 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think he's had enough chances; we'll just escalate him through the genre change warnings {{Uw-genre2}} and then hand it over to WP:ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Level 4 warning given (which by default becomes a vandalism warning). --BelovedFreak 17:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And a 12 hour vacation since they went right on doing it after the lvl 4. - J Greb (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks J Greb. Fingers crossed... --BelovedFreak 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, this kind of low level vandalism goes on here all too often. IP's who like to change the dollar amount in the budget line or the run time of films in the infobox are two of the main items that I have encountered. Another problem seems to be that - due to editor retirement and turnover - there are a number of articles that are no longer on many/any watchlists. Tag em and report em is the best that we can do so my thanks to everyone here for their vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 00:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone give me some advice. Over like a month, different IPs, from the same area, all in England, keep adding the exact same changes to four articles, Sidney Prescott, List of Scream characters, Ghostface (Scream) and Scream 2 concerning the fate of the Mrs. Loomis character. It's different IP's but it has to be the same person/people since they come on and target teh exact same 4 articles every time and add the exact same line of dialogue in each one. It's not constant but it is irritating and every other day it seems like. Maybe every other two days. Getting tired of having to revert it and they won't discuss anything. At the moment it is User:94.14.179.188 but has been User:82.39.221.13, User:94.4.202.152 and others. [[Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that your best bet will be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The IP range is too broad for a rangeblock. IMO you should ask for semiprotection for a 2 to 4 weeks and then if the IPs return ask for longer. I can't guarantee that you'll get the outcome that you want but I think this is the place to start. If other have better ideas please add them. MarnetteD | Talk 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP's/people/person are nothing if not irrationally persistent. I didn't think protection would be available but if you think it is worth it I will ask. There haven't really been that many other edits to the articles so I don't think it would be putting too many good natured contributors out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That is why you should ask for semiprotection that allows autoconfirmed editors to edit the article while it is protected. Sorry I should have been more thorough in my first post. MarnetteD | Talk 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with semi-protection. That should solve the problem since it's limited to a few articles the IP is targeting.. and has been for, what, weeks now?  :-\ —Mike Allen 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's been at least a month, maybe more, they just won't give up, they're very adamant she was still alive. Thanks for the advice, I will do so later when I have some spare time. Does anyone know if you can request protection for multiple articles in one request or would I have to just make 4 requests? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• On another note we have an anon IP vandalising the critical reception sections. Keep a look out for this chap: Special:Contributions/86.10.72.181. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching that guy off and on since the end of March. He seems to have a knack for sneaking in between edits such that regular watchers don't always catch him. Millahnna (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

3 or Three?

Looking for any further input on the correct title of Tom Tykwer's 2010 film. Discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Pulp Fiction is going through a GA review and has been placed on hold for seven days to allow issues to be addressed. Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA1. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Final Destination deaths: fancruft or not?

Heya everyone. Wondering if I could get some second opinions on the Final Destination (film series). A few times recently I've removed a large "list of deaths" table because I feel like it's fancruft. Am I off base on this? I've got an anon or two who keep adding it back in and I'd like to not venture into edit war territory. I started a short thread about it a couple of weeks back with no responses either way. Can some folks drop in with their opinion so that we can establish a consensus? I'd appreciate it. Millahnna (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Total fancruft, people do the same thing with the Scream articles. I can't see any circumstances under which a list of deaths would be appropriate except in a real world incident ala Columbine. Knowing who died a fictional death is silly. At the very most, they could have a "status" section by the character on a list of characters but I wouldn't even agree with that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ the above: fancruft of the worst kind. This sort of thing often pops up in article about horror/slasher films. Characters' deaths should be concisely covered in plot summaries of the individual film articles or at a "list of Final Destination" characters article, if there is one. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And even if we did cover that stuff, it certainly wouldn't be as prominent as that person's edit was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought but I wanted to get more opinions so I have a consensus to point to when the anon (inevitably) re-adds the material. I linked to this conversation on the talk page thread of the article. Millahnna (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with everyone else as well, but I can see the possibility of discussing the films' unusual deaths as a gimmick, depending on how much reliable sources discuss it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll poke around in some of the reviews and see if I can find anything like that. I seem to recall some commentary on it after the first film but I'm not sure if that tapered off as the series progressed. Millahnna (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here (pg. 93) is one possible source, talking about the "terrifyingly banal manner" of "premature death" in each film. If we can couple that with a limited number of examples (using secondary sources), that might be a more discriminate approach. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Prometheus

I was surprised to see that Ridley Scott's Prometheus did not have its own article even though filming is verified to have begun. I restored the article at Prometheus (film), but I decided to rewrite it since a lot of the previous writeup was rather speculative and verbose about casting and story possibilities. I did not provide a synopsis at this point because I was not sure which details were the most pertinent. I'm a little wary of piecing together different reports to present a possible premise. Please feel free to recover any additional details that you may think belongs in the article. Perhaps something about the film's relative secrecy thus far? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You may recall that it was redirected to Alien (franchise) after an AfD, mainly on the basis of WP:NFF. That said, filming appears to have begun and your rewrite is a lot better than what we had previously. Great work. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I was surprised there was no article for two months after filming started, especially when there was so much back-and-forth about the project's details before filming started. I suppose that the production being secretive has limited the coverage and lessened the chance of a follow-up for the time being. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that was the main issue: filming started, but unlike usual where this results in a steady trickle of new coverage, no significant new coverage for this one popped up due to the secrecy. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Film Threat

I am in a discussion where an editor is adamant that Film Threat is not a reliable source for information about films. His exact quote is "Film Threat has been rejected as a reliable source almost always, as far as I can find, the notability of a film depends upon it." As this is in woefully incorrect, and although I am certain it has been brought up before, I am here to ask input from editors at Project Film as to the suitability of Film Threat as a reliable source for film articles, and the expertise of Phil Hall as a reviewer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the "About Us " section it says that contributors are "unpaid", which is a major concern because that usually puts a source into the WP:SPS category. However, in the context of film reviewing I would say that Phil Hall writing for Film Threat is a reliable source because Rotten Tomatoes includes his Film Threat reviews as seen here. One of the primary factors for determining RS is if other reliable sources cite the source in question, and since we accept Rotten Tomatoes as a reliable source then by default we accept all the reviews that it includes in its scores. Betty Logan (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reviews it includes in its general score are not as well thought of as the ones in the "Top Critics" section. IMO, it's always best to stick to the Top Critics section when pulling reviews, as the others can often by the weakest of professional opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A search for filmthreat.com [2] shows 395 results. A lot of article pages already use it for sources, and the hundreds of people that added it thought it a reliable source, so consensus seems to be to use it. Dream Focus 06:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL that's not how consensus gathering works here. —Mike Allen 06:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Those people thought it a valid source to use, otherwise they wouldn't have added it in. The opinions of hundreds of editors working on these articles, shouldn't be ignored for the opinion of whatever handful decide to post their opinions in a discussion somewhere. Dream Focus 21:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

People still think IMDb is ok to use has a reference. Every day someone uses IMDb as a source because they think it is reliable or because it is the Internet Movie Database. So since hundreds of people still use it, we should ignore the fact that it is unreliable and accept it as a valid source? This is how we gather consensus, we discuss it. If you want a more formal way, you request for more opinions. You should know that by now.

Anyways, I don't think I've ever used Film Threat before (and while researching, I've never come by this site that I'm aware of). I think it could be used on a case-by-case basics, such as interviews and such. But not sure about film reviews—Mike Allen 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's also not how "reliable sources" are determined. At any given moment, any unreliable source can be found in hundreds of articles. We have 10s of 1000s of articles, so the fact that it appears in less than 1% of them is not an indication to me that there was some consensus to use FilmThreat. As far as reviews go, that has nothing to do with being reliable and more to do with being a professional, respected opinion that we can use to show how the film was perceived. If FilmThreat's writers are volunteers that means just about anyone can write a review, and thus that makes their opinions less than the professional standard we strive for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on context, and volunteer editors or not, each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. When the topic is a film article, we look to those sources that deal specifically with or about film topics, look to see how they are themselves considered within their field by their peers, and consider if they have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. For information about films, we consider Film Threat through their established expertise in that field. We do not look to them for expertise on the Natonal Football League or election campaigns in Singapore, as the reliability of a source depends on context, and contextually speaking, FILM is their field of expertise. And occasional use of unpaid editors or no, they have editorial oversite, a reputation within their field for fact-checking and accuracy, and the respected reputation within their area of expertise to be themselves repeated quoted by and referred to by other sources within and outside that field.[3][4][5] Film Threat has indeed been long-accepted as reliable enough in context to their area of expertise.

Here are diffs that support the wide acceptance of Film Threat as a generally reliable source for film articles... some of them as early as 2004: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25][26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31] and there are many, many more. Even in discussions of film articles that were subsequently deleted for one reason or another, Film Threat has been repeatedly acknowledged by editors (some long-experienced here at Wikipedia and some new) as a suitable RS source for films. Not for sports.. not for politics... not for cooking... but definitely for film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Film Threat is a niche publication, but a legitimate one for the field it covers. I do know there was a troll who used to viciously attack Chris Gore's BLP (founder of Film Threat).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just looking over the website, it seems reliable to me. Certainly not as reliable as a more mainstream publication, but I see no reason to believe that it is unreliable. As noted above, the unpaid thing is pretty much the only reason to doubt it, but that seems minimal in the face of the fact that Film Threat appears to be quoted by other publications as reliable and is used extensively by Google News and isn't labeled a blog. Silverseren^C 00:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Added Leticia Ortiz (character) and Brian O'Conner from the Fast and Furious series for deletion

I'd add Mia Toretto too but didn't want to overdo it. If you have an opinion feel free to have your say here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian O'Conner
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Ortiz (character)

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I supported merging the articles to the series article with a short description of each character. It is worth noting that MOS:FILM has an empty "Film characters" section. If we could determine guidelines for such characters, it would go a long way toward addressing these kinds of articles. It would be especially worthwhile to suggest how to vet a character in the real world for encyclopedic coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for anything that bypasses the assache that is the deletion process and would be happy to get involved in any discussion on the topic.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Which poster to use

Just a quick question but what is the consensus on what poster to use for a film article? The obvious answer is if it is an American film, use the American release poster but since America is never the sole market for these things should you use the International poster if one is available? But then you have an issue with a film like Fast Five where the International poster refers to it as Fast and Furious 5 as seen here http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fastfive-poster-french-650x882.jpg Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If the article is written in American English with American date formats then personally I'd go with the American poster, if not I'd go international to retain the symmetry of the article. The one exception would be in cases where the title on the poster doesn't match the title of the article: the image represents teh film, but its primary function is to illustrate the article, so I'd say the primary consideration is that the titles match. That's just my personal view though, I don't think there are any guidelines for this. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Betty, that's a fair point. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Film-of-nation templates

There's a whole category, Category:Cinema of templates of templates like {{Film US}}, that just produce the plaintext name of the country and adds the article to the "Cinema of Nation" category. In the past, it seems these used to be used to pipe links to Cinema of Nation articles, but since that's been deprecated, what's left seems a rather silly use of templates. Thought I'd ask here before taking to TfD. Skomorokh 22:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about the "Cinema of" category. It does add "American film" to the article's category. It's also being used on many, many articles. —Mike Allen 22:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

New release editnotice

People on this WikiProject may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New release editnotice. Yaris678 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Women in Film Los Angeles award spam?

Resolved

 – Wif-la will create new username and abide by COI policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a user User:Wif-la who is adding links to the site wif.org/past-recipients to various actor's articles. They also created the article for the award Women in Film Los Angeles. They have emailed me about this and I asked them to post here. —Mike Allen 05:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to figure out where to post this. I'm a newbie at this so I apologize for any missteps. Women in Film Los Angeles hosts the Crystal + Lucy awards every year- we're a non-profit and I have read the information that Mike has supplied to me for guidance on conflict of interest. If you look at the page that I've worked on for the awards itself - Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards it lists the many recipients of our awards. I used recipients as the "reference" or "notes" as the typical sites like hollywood reporter or variety where the recipients are announced aren't easy to navigate to and the older awards (pre-internet) - there's no "proof" that they received the awards other than the listing on our site. I was trying to create verifiability as per the general posting rules and honestly had not thought of it being considered affiliate marketing because WIF is not enabled for that and we have no outside advertising on the page (only links to buy tickets to the awards). Any help or advice on how to keep those posts up are much appreciated.Wif-la (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted a message about this to WP:COIN here. As you can see at COIN, there are other articles about affiliated awards. The articles themselves are messy and read like advertisements.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New article: Spooky Buddies

Hey everyone, I created a draft for the upcoming direct to video release of "Spooky Buddies," the tenth film in the Air Bud (series). Currently this article does not exists, but I think it is notable enough for creation. I have several solid reliable sources, but I'd love to get some additional feedback. I'm considering adding an image to represent the film. Also, I have included temporary "categories" at the bottom of the draft. I am also seeking feedback on the request for feedback page. Any and all feedback is welcome. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Travis. The article is well written and put together. However my only concern is are you able to get any production details for it? Right now it's just a plot, cast and crew details. I haven't really worked on a direct-to-video film articles, so I'm not sure if production details are readily available? Further, it may fail the WP:Notability (films) guideline if sources are not independent of the film. —Mike Allen 04:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Typically direct to video films do not provide a ton of production details, so I don't think I can really expand the information in this area. See Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2 as an example. I feel that it is notable because I have credible sources and it is part 10 in an established franchise. Could you clarify what you mean by "sources independent of the film"? The sources that I provided are credible, including the New York Times, BLu-ray.com, Yahoo! Movies, and several others. Thanks again for the feedback, and I look forward to your response. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

After looking over my sources again, I think I may need a major news outlet to report on the film before creating this article. The other sources are "film stub" pages, and aren't necessarily news articles. I was able to dig up this article, but I still think I may need more sources for it to be notable. I'll keep this article on deck until more sources are published. Thanks again. --TravisBernard (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Film series template

I noticed that most film series articles try to use the {{Infobox film}} template to list cast and crew members, which becomes trickier when they differ greatly with each installment. Basically, using the template for film series is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. I'm not aware of any film series templates to use, so I'm thinking we should come up with one. At its simplest, it should be a list of all the films with their release years, though I'm not sure where to go from there. What do others think? It might also be worth discussing what image, if any, should be used in a series template. I'm not quite sure if box sets are definitive cover images. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought about creating one awhile back but for whatever reason decided not too. Basically I think it should contain most of the same information contained in regular infobox but with modified fields for ease of using multiple entries. Instead of a bunch of page breaks and listing film titles over and over again in each field. Also I'm fine with box sets as there are not usually comprehensive one-sheets for film series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to use all the fields that a regular infobox has; it usually becomes untenable with a growing number of films. A film series article is broader in scope, so I think that a series infobox should be higher level in its overview. For example, perhaps the only crew member we mention is the director. We could also have a "Based on" field that should be encompassing. Instead of a Twilight film linking to the related book, the Twilight film series can link to the book series. Showing cast members is somewhat tricky. Perhaps if we number the films in the series, we can use the numbers to indicate when a person appeared. Still, I think most presentations would be awkward, especially if the antagonist is different for each film. I'd rather do without and find a way to identify the cast and crew in a prose-based per-film-overview section. I would also include the main studio since most franchise efforts are going to be spearheaded by the big ones. Overall, it would make the infobox more straightforward. To make up for the lack of crew members in the infobox, we could possibly do a similar table like what is done for the cast in most film series articles. It could be one director across all x films, or each distinct one named for each film. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a good starting point would be the makeshift table Bignole knocked up for the Halloween films: Halloween_film_series#Films. The problem there was that a conventional infobox was untenable, but something was needed to summarise the "essentials". In that you've got the titles, the directors, producers and writers. If you throw in source material too (if there is any) then I think that would be about as much info as you need for a series overview. I would organise it is an infobox, but with a little section box for each installment. This is just of the top of my head so there may be good reasons why that's bad idea, but's it where I'd start. Betty Logan (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also advise against including studios too. On the highest-grossing films article, we had the studios/companies in the franchise table at one point, and frankly, its started to look a bit of a mess. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking mentioning the studio just once since I think it's usually going to be the same one. In other words, we wouldn't have "Warner Bros." repeating next to every Batman film. If there's more than one, then we could perhaps do the numbers thing like "Warner Bros. (1-3), 20th Century Fox (4)" or something like that. Maybe we could pick an example of a film series and do some table-based drafts for how we could present it? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors are going to use the regular infobox in lieu of there not being a series infobox, so you may as well have a crack at it, it just has to serve the purpose better than the current one does, so that is probably the place to start; something like Harry Potter for instance. In some cases an infobox may just not be viable because there is so much production discontinuity, but if something can be cobbled together for franchise articles that currently do have an infobox then that's a good starting point, and a better alternative to using the single film infobox i.e. look at it as a replacement exercise for now. Betty Logan (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ but... {{Infobox film series}} could be based off of Infobox film without the following:

• People
• Run time
• Budget/Gross
• Italicized title

- J Greb (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a great place to start looking for a template is Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). The article includes producer and director information, with the films they worked on in parenthesis. I like this format. --TravisBernard (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was think we could something more like this with infobox divided by each film;

{{Infobox film series |title= |based on= |film1= |director1= |releasedate1= |film2= |director2= |releasedate2= |film3= |director3= |releasedate3= }}

Obviously this just a rough concept. More fields can be added and the number of films could be indefinite. The main idea being that for the most part the infobox is divided by film with the exception of some general fields for the entire series for ease of use and reading.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek V FAC

In case you haven't read your announcements, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is at Featured article candidates here. Any comments would be welcome; I'd rather it get shot down than archived over a lack of reviews. Thanks in advance! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

IP of a banned editor?

Can someone please take a look at the recent contributions of 112.205.106.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? The user has been adding false information to several film-related articles and I am certain that this might be the IP of a banned editor. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is Pricer1980. (You can search the archives for previous discussions about him.) Even if it is not him, the modus operandi is pretty similar that we can probably go ahead and use that designation anyway. You can report the address at WP:AIV and request a long-term preventative block. The other course of action is to watchlist articles that are targeted, so review an IP's contributions, undo the vandalism, and watchlist the articles. I've done this for articles like The Vow (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Best Director at CfD

It has been relisted here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Summer Wars peer review

In case you did not read the recent announcements Summer Wars has been listed for a peer review here. I plan to get this nominated to at least FA status, and input from project members on how to improve it here are very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

adding audiography and sound mixing

I want to add audiography and sound mixing in my project. Please add those in Infobox Film. Thank you. -- Raghith 09:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New article, I don't normally work on film articles

I just wanted to ask if some of the more experienced film article editors here could take a look at Fish Out of Water. I don't normally work on film articles and wanted to get some input and such. I saw that this film didn't have an article and just figured I'd create one. So, please take a look. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A plot and cast list should probably be added. If you've seen the film, you may write a concise plot summary. —Mike Allen 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's Cannes collaboration 2011

The first competition titles of the 2011 Cannes Film Festival will be announced tomorrow! Last year's effort to provide the films with decent Wikipedia articles was largely successful, at least in relation to how weak the year was for the festival. This year however, judging by the predictions, has potential to become one of the strongest in history, with new films by Terrence Malick, Lars von Trier, Pedro Almodóvar and many other top names and cinephile favourites. With such a tight competition it will be impossible to predict the winners, so it would be great if as many people as possible could join in and work on the articles before and during the festival, so WikiProject Film can make a good impression once the Palme d'Or is announced and presented on Wikipedia's main page! Smetanahue (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Count me in. Looking forward to this after the disappointment of Berlin this year. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be helping when I find the time in my crazy school schedule. BOVINEBOY2008 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Bruno Dumont's film Hors Satan another title for L'Empire? French WP and IMDb list the other film as a 2011 film (still in production). It seems unlikely to me that he'd have two feature films in production at the same time. Lugnuts (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they changed the title a few weeks ago. Smetanahue (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need to have the words "Four female directors feature in the main competition" in the lead? Lugnuts (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it belongs, it's one of the most covered aspects of the festival in media. But it could of course be reworded to explain why it's notable, ie it's the new record high, and there were zero last year which created an outrage.

Would be great if more people wanted to engage in this, the festival started yesterday so interviews and reviews are starting to drop in now. Smetanahue (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I raised it as a similar point was raised for the Venice festival last year, but didn't seem relevant. I've brought this back from the talk archive to highlight the points Smetanahue has made. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lars von Trier to the resuce! Please can we keep an eye on his article and his film Melancholia too. Lugnuts (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll handle Melancholia, but the biographical article is now a standard case of Wikipedia:Recentism, so because of Wikipedia's nature it's best to just wait a month or two until the storm is over, and then simple delete everything that was added during it. Also don't think this should be given much weight in the Cannes 2011 article, the ban is obviously just an attempt, although a clumsy one, to shift focus and get on with the festival.

Btw lugnuts, will you create the rest of the Un Certain Regard articles or should I do it? Elena and the Oslo movie are getting great reviews. Smetanahue (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If I've not done them in the next few hours, then go for it. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work on the article expansions, Smetanahue. I'll retire until Venice! Lugnuts (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thx and great work starting all the articles! Also thanks to Bovine for adding images. Hopefully next year will be the big breakthrough when others finally join in, so I with a clear conscience can dig into the more interesting sidebars instead. Smetanahue (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind (film) title change

There has been a suggestion at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#Title of the film that the Gone with the Wind (film) article should have its title changed to Gone With the Wind (film) (my emphasis) i.e. the "w" in "with" should be capitalised. The argument is based on the fact that this is the correct capitalisation used in the film's promotional literature; however, the titling guidelins for film articles at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) state "Each word in a film title takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions, and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with", "about"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." The convention according to our MOS clearly indicates the the "w" should not be capitalised. I'm not sure myself what takes precedence here, but further opinions/advice would be welcome at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#Title of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It may seem trivial, and I don't really care either way in this particular case, but the bigger issue is whether to allow title stylisations and affectations to affect article titles, so that is what is really under discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

List of teen films

Is an admin available to block 91.15.89.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for removing cited content and adding uncited content to List of teen films? A few editors have reverted the IP address, but the IP is persistent in its actions. I reported the IP to WP:AIV, but there is no response to the report yet. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Documentary films by year, again

Documentary films are currently categorized by decade, not individual years. This has made the recent decade's categories overpopulated: Category:2000s documentary films contains 510 pages and Category:2010s documentary films has amasses 83 pages in its first 18 months.

The issue has previously been discussed here, but the suggestion was dropped due to the Wikipedia:Category intersection function. Three years later we still don't have a working intersection scheme (which would be optimal). I suggest that we create individual categories for the last twenty years as the 1930s-1990s categories are more sparsely populated and won't need individual years. What do you think? jonkerz♠ 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't really see the need to break it down any further. 2000s comedy films has 1600+ articles in it, 2000s horror films has 1200+ articles in it and 2000s drama films has over 2800 articles in it. Lugnuts (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, I kind of forgot about all these. Just wanted to check since I'm about to categorize documentaries en masse. It's better to keep it the way it is. jonkerz♠ 07:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And then there's the all-encompasing American films and English-language films too! ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows split?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) is undergoing a decision on whether to split or not. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)#Head count. Guy546^(Talk) 16:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kill Kill Faster Faster

Hello. I would appreciate your WikiProject's assistance with improving this article that I have just created. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can the notability of this topic be established? This (a cached page of reviews from the now-gone official website) shows some potential, though I'm usually wary of reviews from mere websites like "Shadows on the Wall" and "The Poison Sponge". Erik (talk | contribs) 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) FAC

Hi there, in case anyone is interested, The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is currently a featured article candidate. Any constructive comments on the article review would be very much appreciated and would help us to get the article to FA. Cya! Coolug (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Direct link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/archive1. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, this FA review is now over, with the result being that the article was not promoted due to a lack of comments. cya Coolug (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Writer navboxes

I just noticed Template:Ashley Edward Miller Zack Stentz was being introduced to a few articles and wanted to get the project's opinion of such navboxes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is good practice to have navigation templates for crew members besides the director; it would lead to too many templates in the footer. The other crew members' credits are just a click away (through their names). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find it excess to purposes. I assume you're talking about the Thor page. I had to scroll back up to the infobox to realize who this box was for. They seem like a rather minor subject to have an a template specifically for them, their notability as writers is low in terms of recognition compared to say Kevin Williamson, who himself is pushing it. I think the particular template is unnecessary, at least at this moment in time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Might actually be an issue as User:Lg16spears seems to be on a crusade. He just made another one for Template:Christopher Markus Stephen McFeely. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The origin of this mentality may be Template:Alex Kurtzman Roberto Orci, which has been around for a year. It might be that some editors are trying to replicate that kind of template with very little value attached. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know writers 'create' the story but there just isn't much value placed on their names so having their own navbox seems overindulgent unless they themselves are notable. David Goyer would be notable, he has a level of name recognition that many writers don't get ( I think he is also a director). And it opens the floodgates to navbox for composers, producers, etc, etc. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Should these navboxes be PRODED?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If they aren't going to be used then yes.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Film Ambassador for WikiProject MoMA

As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite WikiProject Film folks to come participate! In particular, we are also looking for anyone to be a Film Ambassador to WikiProject MoMA (see Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).--Pharos (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I love the photo exhibit at the MoMA of Hitchcock's Vertigo - each frame layed out side by side. Lugnuts (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're at all interested in the more "arty" aspects of film history, we'd love to have you as Film Ambassador :)--Pharos (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Blu-ray DVD release speculation?

A user has been recently adding speculation here and here. I believe that this is a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK and WP:CRYSTAL. Can someone look into this mess, please? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the first one but the one for Night of the Scarecrow is backed up by the DreadCentral source.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we remove the DreadCentral source or keep it? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it counts as a reliable source but I'm not an expert on the matter. They usually report horror-related movie news.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is not really the issue, since WP:CRYSTAL states Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. I think the initial home video release (such as Avatar coming out on DVD/Blu-ray) is probably a notable event permitting a certain level of reliable speculation, provided the date and the details are confirmed and there is a strong probability the event will go ahead. However, I think releases on to different formats probably aren't really notable events so we shouldn't really add speculation about future DVD/Blu-ray releases for films that have already been released on home video. It's just a product news update really, and nothing more. Most film articles have a home media section where we do a round up of the availability of the film in different formats, but we should only include formats that are already available and shouldn't add speculation about future format releases until they happen. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So, should we remove the speculation altogether until it happens? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the DreadCentral source, it's not speculation. It's the writer of the film telling them that the release will have new features. "Here's what [J.D. Feigelson (the writer)] told us: "It will have a lot of bonus material, most of which has never been seen. We are catering to the items which the fans have repeatedly asked for. The release street date is on or about October 4th, just in time for All Hallows."[32]--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything is speculation until it happens, that is why it the guideline includes the reliable source caveat. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hangover and The Hangover 2

User:Hearfourmewesique is adding a foreign title to each article in the lead; "Very Bad Trip" and "Very Bad Trip 2" which the films are apparently referred to in parts of Europe. No source or anything but even if they had a source I can't imagine a situation where it would be acceptable for the title to be in the lead. Anyone coming to those articles in Western English would not know of the film as anything but The Hangover Part 1 or 2. The user has a string of revert war warnings so I'm not interested in reverting back and forth while they claim to be right so I need to know what other peoples opinions are so that if I'm of the right belief I can back up the removal of the content and if I'm wrong, then I can just leave it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Typically per WP:NCF if its a foreign-language film released in English under a different name, we provide the English name followed the original language name in parenthesis. Since this is an English language film, I would assume that the common name is fine by itself, but since the alternative name in different countries is also in English makes this a strange case due to WP:WORLDVIEW issues. I'll be interested in what others have to say.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is a western film though on the English Wikipedia, it should refer to it as it's official name and perhaps alternatives if someone was to search for a close term, i.e. Fast Five and Fast and Furious 5. No one would mistake the Hangover for Very Bad Trip. Just seems to me that it should be at the bottom with the foreign names that are added to every article. If it is anywhere at all it certainly shouldn't be in the lead unless someone would have a high chance of coming to the English wikipedia and searching for Very Bad Trip 2. EDIT: Looking it is actually already in that bottom area under French, so it's even more redundant.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bergman

Anyone got any input on the discussion here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Put Harold & Kumar series page up for deletion

Here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold & Kumar

The page is all unsourced and near entirely plot. Like The Hangover series, it doesn't warrant an overview page, there isn't that much information about them that cannot be contained in each respective film's article. Feel free to have your say if you are interested. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move discussion for Piranha 3D: The Sequel

Piranha 3D: The Sequel → Piranha 3DD

Please discus the move here. —Mike Allen 04:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review

• Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
• I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
• However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

Two of the articles were related to film:

1. Knight and Day
2. Corbin Fisher

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Have watchlisted. Seems like it's a quiet article these days anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Added one more related to FILMS, Corbin Fisher. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction infobox includes domestic and worldwide grosses

I removed this from the infobox on Pulp Fiction a week ago and an editor reverted and told me to discuss on the talk page. Well the editor has been MIA since then, so I guess it would be nice for more editors to chime on this. I mean the infobox template is clear, we just add the worldwide gross but since he requested a discussion, and I'm nice, I went along with it. I know it's just an infobox, but consistency is key to building an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. —Mike Allen 01:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox guidelines clearly state the purpose of the field is to hold worldwide figures: Template:Infobox film. You're within your right to remove the domestic gross, and if editors contest that the onus is on them to argue why an exception should be made. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can other editors take a look at this article please. The editors on the article are basically saying that they don't have to follow the infobox guidelines. I don't think this a good precedent to allow. If there is an argument for altering the guidelines, then that case should be put forward on the discussion page for the infobox. If there is an argument for making an exception in this particular case, then the onus is on those who wish to make an exception to put forward an argument. Either way, I don't accept the argument that the infobox guidelines are "optional". Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The domestic gross can easily be added into the prose, doesn't need to be placed where it isn't supposed to go. GRAPPLE X 20:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that using the worldwide box office gross captures the universality of the performance and allows the overview of the article to be truly global. Having the American gross is not outright detrimental, but I think it is more favorable to take the global approach. DCGeist argued that knowing the American gross is important. It looks like it is, being an independent film that grossed over $100M, but the infobox does not have room for that context. It can go into the lead section, which is strangely absent of any box office information. Then again, I'm not surprised—the primary contributor has historically been rather protective of his article. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a better process for this. This is the third thing in as many days; we had someone adding a foreign name to the Hangover Part II. Try to remove it because it doesn't meet the guidelines and it results in reverts and a lengthy discussion just to prove this one aspect is incorrect because anything else is a revert war. Move on to Cowboys and Aliens where you change it to meet consensus because its prior state was never going to allow it to meet GA standards and the author just keeps reverting it, leading to lengthy discussion to prove this one aspect is incorrect because otherwise, revert war. Move on to Pulp Fiction, where you try to remove information because it doesn't suit consensus. Author keeps reverting it, leading into lengthy discussion to try and prove it doesn't meet consensus. Each scenario involves one person arguing against consensus versus a variety of authors backing up consensus and it keeps happening. It's getting pretty ridiculous. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedians! :) These kinds of pedantic disputes are why we have guidelines and try to have editors follow them. If we can do that, we don't have to waste time with such discussions. The problem is, people are going to fight their preferences even if they really are not that important. It's easy to discuss how to write a paragraph about something because there are so many approaches to take. With an issue like an infobox field, it's so much more either/or and makes discussion a greater challenge. If we want to take larger action, we could figure out a script to add a commented-out note to each empty box office field of upcoming film's infoboxes, like to say, "Please include the worldwide gross to ensure Wikipedia's universal accessibility" or something similar. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure guideline awareness actually helps resolve a dispute though, because editors actively choose to ignore them; it's basically a jurisdiction issue. The guidelines are formed by consensus by usually a greater number of editors than the 2/3 who choose to dismiss them, so you could say that the guidelines reflect the view of the film community on how the infobox is used. There isn't really a middle ground here though, the guidelines either reflect the consensus of the project on how the box should be used and it is up to those who want to make an exception to seek a consensus, or we accept them as just "suggestions" that carry no weight in an editorial decision. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages—the former removes some autonomy from editors in creating articles, the latter can lead to repetitive disputes across the film articles. But it would be good to hear from editors to what extent they want the guidelines to apply, so at least we will then know to what degree we can apply them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's becoming obvious that him and his two friends are guarding the page and preventing any work to be done. I mean shit the article has still has a GA review waiting to be taken care of. Who wants to be the one to try and address those changes? LOL. They're trying to start an edit war and I feel blocks may be imminent, so be cautious with reverting anymore. They've ignored the talk page, I've sent them a talk message, they will probably ignore that too. What else is there to do? I was just going through film articles that were going through GA's and FA's and cleaning up the infoboxes. God only knows I would land on something this... —Mike Allen 22:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I even offered the approach Scream 4 has taken, with the box office summary table in the box office section. Who wants to bet that he even clicked the link? —Mike Allen 22:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda

I thought I'd let you know that I put Kung Fu Panda up for GAR here because I don't think it meets the criteria anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

List_of_The_Mummy_characters

The article List_of_The_Mummy_characters with The_Scorpion_King_2:_Rise_of_a_Warrior characters needs to be expanded. Can someone please do that? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Marketing sections

I am seeing a lot of bland "Marketing" sections in articles about recent films. We have guidelines about writing a "Marketing" section here, but a portion of the sections out there tend to just note when a trailer became available online or when a certain photo became available. For example, Kung Fu Panda 2 had this section, which I replaced completely with this. I wanted to ask if the consensus is still that details like trailers and posters are not worth noting. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Like anything else here, notable stuff. Lke the Hangover 2 releasing a trailer that had to be removed because it hadn't been rated or in the case of Fast Five, a partnership with Dodge that saw Chargers in the film and outside sponsorship for the film. I don't think trailer release is particularly notable, maybe the first release or the release of footage at something like comic con, especially if there is an independent article to back up the release and maybe comment on the reception.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah if reliable sources comment on the trailer then fair enough, otherwise it's just trivia and should come out. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Comic Con is a gray zone since it is a more unique event than the normal cycle of releasing trailers and posters. Sometimes the reveal there is drastic, sometimes it's just a trailer seen exclusively by Comic Con patrons. What kind of distinction should we make here? There will be websites that report on every piece of marketing, and sometimes a piece by itself sounds like it is worth reporting (perhaps something very unusual) even if there's not commentary for it. One example that comes to mind is the promotional artwork for Godzilla as seen here. Is that kind of detail worth reporting or not? What about something else that we can perceive as different from the norm? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional artwork is good if you can provide appropriate commentary on it. Like how Infamous 2 took a bunch of criticism because they released promo images that had the main character looking completely different. And as for Comic Con, if it is the first unveiling of footage which it often is, at a significant event, I think it is worth mentioning but it's more supportive if there s some kind of analysis to go with it. That said, that shouldn't be hard to find, movie sites will tend to offer critique of early footage like that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been removing a lot of "The trailer was released on {date}. The trailer was attached to {film}. The poster was released on {date}." —Mike Allen 00:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a horrible example: Cowboys & Aliens (film)#Marketing. Is there anything salvageable in that section? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a conscious drive over the next few months on the upcoming Summer films to enforce the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Marketing. The MOS makes it very clear what sort of things typically go in and what don't. Along with overlong plots, the marketing section is definitely the weakest link in the film articles. Each week we could re-model the marketing section for a big Summer blockbuster, because I think many of the editors just aren't aware of what should go in that section and what shouldn't, so an element of education is needed. It doesn't need to be heavy handed, we can just trim the worst excesses to begin with. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the july 24 2010 and May 9 2011 entries, the rest is scrap Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to talk to the main contributor to see if we can't explain what the better approach is. Might be worth drafting and presenting an example of a more discriminate "Marketing" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema on my talk page suggested providing good and bad examples, which I think is a good idea. My personal "good" example is Valkyrie (film)#Marketing, but I think it is trickier with summer blockbusters because the majority of promotional materials will be reported on without valuable commentary. The "Marketing" guidelines were written before such sections were prevalent, so it may help to clarify what is good practice and what is bad practice (where I'd want to advise against the proseline approach). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing is that the information be notable. If someone goes to see the article on Cowboys and Aliens, knowing when a trailer came out will not broaden their mind (not that I'm saying anything there will but there are degrees) whereas Harrison Ford having intentionally avoided Comiccon (or wahtever event it was, I forget) but coming for the film may be notable to mention as his stature is important from a marketing perspective. It isn't something I'd dedicate a paragraph to. Also if there is notable controversy around the marketing or it involves big players, I'd consider that notable. Poster and trailer release dates are not worth mentioning if the individual release date of a film in major countries is not. And it isn't. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think "notable" is a word to avoid using because notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. A better way to think about it is to include detail that is relevant to illustrating the "big picture". For example, "Production" sections sometimes are piecemeal citations, and we weave references together to give the reader an idea of how the film came to be. For "Marketing", we take a similar approach but have to exercise more diligence. Like you said, the release date of a trailer is usually not pertinent, and most other details are extremely conventional. Sometimes they can be included if it fits the "big picture". To use Valkyrie as an example, if there happens to be commentary about a trailer (such as the first one being a disappointment), then an approximate release date for that trailer may be useful to understand how a studio evolved in its marketing of the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't remmeber but I think Fight Club has a marketing section which mentions how it received virtually none and was sent out to die. I'd consider that to be important to understanding of the film for instance and trailers can be mentioned like how we mention The Hangover 2's because it was R-Rated or something and shown in front of a PG-13 film. So that kind of stuff is ok, but just stating the release date of a poster or trailer should be considered improper. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To follow up on Cowboys & Aliens, I performed a new write-up seen here. The editor of the original section reverted it back to his write-up. Can other editors please compare the revisions and recommend what write-up is preferred, and if there is any way to combine them? The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see all that is missing is the mention of trailers and posters which was the entire purpose of rewriting that section; to remove all that unnecessary information. Looking at them both, you've got the key points and the user is in the wrong to just revert it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor of the long-winded writeup, Altitude2010 (talk · contribs), keeps restoring it against consensus that is visible on the film article's talk page. I don't want to get in an edit war with him, but I've reported him at WP:ANI#Cowboys & Aliens. Could other editors please review the situation? Thanks. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded on ANI, but if he is just reverting you should 3RR him as well. I don't knnow how your discussion went but I do know there was one going on and he is fairly intransigent on allowing this change or even compromising Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Rate this page"?

Does anyone know anything about this "Rate this page" function (see bottom of WWE)? How is it added and what is the criteria for it to be added to pages? Could be something we could use for film articles. —Mike Allen 02:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that I have seen about it is a discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Full deployment of Article Feedback 3.0 planned for tomorrow. We have been given no info about it and IMO it doesn't look very well thought out but we'll have to live with it for the moment. MarnetteD | Talk 03:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder how many times you're allowed to vote ala vote stacking? :-\ —Mike Allen 03:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the criteria is, but the function is on some film articles already. Go to this, and in "Categories", put Article Feedback Pilot, press Enter, then put English-language films. Click "Do it" and you'll see films like The Breakfast Club and Predator (film) on the list. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I read it's on every page. Something new they're trying. Finally, some reader feedback. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What a complete waste of time. Now people will be spending their time clicking on rating buttons instead of doing any actual improvements to the article. These ratings templates also show up on disambig and redirect pages too! Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Facebook pages in external links

What is the consensus on adding the official Facebook for a film in the EL? (I saw this approach being used at Kung Fu Panda, which is going through a GA assessment) —Mike Allen 03:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL says to minimize the number of links. If the main official site links to the Facebook page, then I would not include it. Even if it does not, it does appear that little value is placed on social networking links. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Just about all official sites have a Facebook (and Twitter) link. —Mike Allen 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming film plots and the already released novelization

When writing an article for a film that hasbn't been released yet, it is appropriate to write a section on the general plot of the film based on the novelization of that film, which has already been released over a month before the film? Perhaps not in detail, but a general overview of the plot? If you can do it, should you make a note that this is the plot based on the novelization?Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I usually reference the official synopsis that the studio provides but rewrite it as neutrally as possible. I would just link to the source material if readers want to know what happens in the book. A great deal of detail can be lost in the adaptation process. For example, I Am Legend (film) is nothing like I Am Legend. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about the novel the film was adapted from, but from the novelization of the film, which is based on the film script.Mathewignash (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not unknown for novelizations to flesh out or change plot details, so I would say they are not reliable sources in such cases because there is no way of knowing how accurate they are until the film comes out. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I misread what you said. I agree with Betty that we do not know how much they match the film or not, and I would not use the novelizations. I would recommend the official synopsis for the most part, anyway. If a film screened early at a festival, perhaps a review could be used (but be rewritten in a neutral language)? I haven't really tried this before. However, I would recommend against piecing together multiple sources to try to fully define the film. I think that crosses into synthesis when we can't be 100% definite about the pieces of the puzzle we're putting together. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

How about just starting an article about the novelization and linking the film there? Mathewignash (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Only if the novelization itself meets general notability guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the notability standards for books are, but I can't recall seeing an article solely about the novelization. Most coverage of the novelization goes in the film article; sometimes it's just listed under "Further reading". Is it that important to try to hint at a film's fuller plot in some way? Inevitably, the film comes out, and the plot summary will be edited again and again forever. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hangover (film) plot

Anyone willing to weigh in for 5 minutes on this? User:Rusted AutoParts changed the plot adding in loads of excessive detail, as so.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hangover_(film)&diff=431993787&oldid=431993193

He has removed some of the excess detail after I reverted it but it still has plenty and IMO, it isn't very well written. This is my version:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hangover_(film)&diff=431991944&oldid=431990993

I make no claims that my version is the ideal but I do think it is the better of the two, but I had this issue with the same user on Fast Five and I don't want to just enter into another back and forth over how much detail is unnecessary so if someone has 5 minutes to just read either version and decide which is more appropriate I would be appreciative, regardless of which one you prefer, just saves a lot of aggro.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, your complaining that i re-wrote the plot? Why? Sure, my version is a little excessive, but it gives a little more detail to the events of the film other than jumping from "They go to Vegas" "They awake next morning to find Doug gone" (I know that's not how it was written). Mine is the better of the two. It helps readers develope a little more insight on the events of the film. And no offense, but it sounds like this is only a problem because you prefer your version better. Wikipedia is about improvement. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:15 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Blake, I recommend at least starting a discussion on the talk page of the film article. Per WP:DR, there should be an attempt by both parties first to resolve the dispute. If not, one can then seek preliminary advice and feedback. With a great many ways to present a plot summary for The Hangover, I think it's possible to figure out a revision that both of you can agree on. It particularly helps to maintain a polite tone too. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nvm, User:Ring Cinema has edited the plot to a suitable version i believe we can all agree on. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:55 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Erik? I thought I was keeping a polite tone. Rusted, no I'm not complaining that you rewrote the plot, I'm commenting that you rewrote the plot when it wasn't necessary to add in a bunch of minor details and lessen the prose. If a reader were to read the previous version and not get a decent outline of the events of the film I might agree with you. They have no reason to know that Phil takes school money for the trip, they have no reason to know about Stu's holocaust ring, none of this enriches the plot or gives the reader a clearer understanding of what happened. I didn't want to start a discussion between only us two because we already had that discussion over the exact same thing on Fast Five, though to a lesser extent. You also added incorrect details, you rewrote the ending to say that Doug finds pictures on his phone. Alan finds pictures on Stu's camera. So by re-reverting when I pointed out I had corrected details, you also restored those broken details. Which are there right now. There is a line there now about Black Doug and Alan pondering roofies then a line about Stu realizing where Doug is. The previous line doesn't lead into the following so it's a pointless line and we can say that Stu realizes where Doug is without remarking on the line behind it. If people want further detail they should watch the film, the article is for key plot points so you know how they got from A to B clear enough that you don't need to include A.1, A.2, A.3, etc.

Anyway, I wanted a third party because then we don't have to get into this again where you feel I'm picking on you and owning the page.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit

Everyone, there is a discussion to move The Hobbit (2012 film) to The Hobbit film duology, which can be seen here. Since two-part films are uncommon, it may be worth determining a precedent. For example, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) was recently split into two articles (one for each part released), and the consensus was strongly in favor of the split. In contrast, The Hobbit might be different because it is still early in the process. I think the Deathly Hallows split was favored because it was apparent how much coverage could be provided about just one part. That's not evident with The Hobbit yet, and there may be a lot of shared information that's hard to separate at this point. A couple of other two-part film articles are Kill Bill and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn. I'm not sure about Twilight, but I think that Kill Bill is underdeveloped and could be split into two, providing space for coverage of both releases. Trying to keep two releases' coverage in one article makes it pretty bloated, I think. In the future, how can we reconcile articles about shared productions yet separate releases? What are others' thoughts on the matter? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't taken a close look at the existing Hobbit page or the coverage that particular film has received yet. However, in general, I think it makes sense that in situations like this, there be one article in the early stages, which can be split later if the circumstances are warranted, just as what seems to have happened with the Deathly Hollows films. As the first Hobbit movie comes closer to its release, there will be more and more information about that specific Part 1 movie, as opposed to information focused more on the franchise/duology (for lack of a better word), and that would seem to me the right to split them. (For the record, I think the Kill Bill movies should be split into two.) — Hunter Kahn 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Every film should get it's own article if it is an individual release. Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions are the same film, think they were released only months apart. All three LOTR films are technically one film, filmed together even if they were released apart, I'm surprised Kill Bill 1 and 2 are on one article to be honest. I had a load of examples then I went away, came back and I've forgotten them. But I believe the Hobbit films should have separate articles or at the very least, a better title than "The Hobbit film duology". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Deathly Hallows article seemed to get caught up in a sort of philosophical debate about what defines a "film"; however, Wikipedia is really all about the coverage, and when these films are split into distinct releases I think coverage is better served by an article for each separate "feature" or part. It's also worth bearing in mind the WP:SIZERULE, which states that articles exceeding 100KB should be divided—sometimes that isn't possible, because a topic can be too homogeneous to be divided, but something like Deathly Hallows was pushing 90KB and we did have natural divide in the article. I'm quite surprised this has developed into such a debate, the TV project hacked this problem years ago: something like Lost (TV series) may have single narrative, but it has an article for the series, each season, and each episode; a simple, elegant, hierarchical approach. I found it bizarre that an episode of Lost warranted its own article but "part 1" of Deathly Hallows didn't.

Kill Bill is a terrible mishmash of an article and should be divided—it often got thrown out as an example of why a "two part" production should be covered by just one article, but it's hardly FA standard is it? As for The Hobbit, there isn't really anything to split as yet, but once it is made and they start marketing the first film for release then that would be best served by its own "part 1" article. I'm not sure of an article move as yet (although I don't oppose it because it will probably have to be done at some point), but maybe it would be best to do that once there is a "part 1" article and we need to distinguish the article, since most readers at this stage will probably be searching on "The Hobbit" rather than "The Hobbit Part 1". Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how much coverage there is for part II. I've seen plenty of "stub" articles with 3-4 references so if Hobbit II has more than that, it could probably be reasonably split off and developed as more information becomes available. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the news they have two separate titles now as well so they're clearly two separate films with a connecting story and should have individual articles.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes trivial subjects get an article. I think there could be an article on each film and a third about the pair. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't they belong on the LOTR page? With reworking obviously but aren't they part of the same saga?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy is primarily a production article, rather than a film series article. The three films were produced back to back, and that is really the focus of the article. The organic solution would be to have an analagous article detailing the production of the Hobbit films, and another article apiece for each of the film releases. There may be some scope for a Tolkien film series article outlining the five films in the series. To draw an analogy with TV production, each film article would be like an episode article, the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit production articles would be like season articles, and a film series article would be like a TV series article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think in whatever form, a central page would be required ala Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean (one containing a separate (bad) trilogy created after that leads into another) that details them as the story and characters are spanning 5 films. So if altering the LOTR page was untenable, I imagine a Tolkien film series page would be a good step. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with LOTR, I assume that The Hobbit story involves The Rings still? You could probably do thus:

• The Lord of the Rings (film saga)
  • The Lord of the Rings (film series)
  • The Hobbit (film series)
    • Individual movies

Seems like it would make the most sense from an organisational and naming perspective Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less the structure, although the The Lord of the Rings (film saga) might be too restrictive and misleading; Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit form a wider collection of work, which according to our very own Wikipedia is collectively referred to as Tolkien's legendarium or the Middle-earth canon. We categorise the books as the Category:Middle-earth books, so I would suggest using a parallel version such as Middle-earth (film series). If they make any further films after The Hobbit then such a titling would accommodate them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Middle Earth (film series). I'm a bit worried whether or not people would search for it but I believe that would be the most appropriate title. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we make the scope broader to include the Bakshi films? For example, we could have Middle-earth in film with a history of Tolkien's works being adapted to film. (For some precedent, we have "<superhero> in film" articles especially when there are different continuities and production attempts, like Superman in film or Spider-Man in film.) I think something like Middle-earth (film series) is problematic because it seems like an official name for the set of films when none really exists. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that would work just as well, maybe even better, I just didn't want to see The Hobbit shoehorned into the Lord of the Rings series article, simply because we didn't have anywhere else to stick it. A "middle earth in film" article would cut out some of the inevitable repetition since the LOTR and Hobbit films will be covered by their own series overview articles. We really don't need another box office comparison table, so a more scholarly take on Middle Earth adpatations in general would be a better direction to come at it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear in case I didn't explain it well, the current LOTR film trilogy would remain the same (though I do think it needs renaming), I didn't mean to put Hobbit in there. I do think a box office comparison would provide some useful info in the future when the films are released, especially if there is significant difference between LOTR vs Hobbit or even, by some strange occurrence, the two films outgross the three. But that's an issue for the future. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TV networks on Filmography tables

Is there a way we can educate the editors from excluding the TV networks on the filmography table? Is there a way we can prevent them from adding these networks to the table? There is currently a network war in the Philippines and Wikipedia is not a part of them. I really hate seeing the names of TV stations in the actors filmography. I tried, a lot of times, to clean them up and make them according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakersproject style recommendations. There is only one of me and there is a large number of zealous fanatics. I understand that this would require the collaboration of WP:Film, WP:Television and WP:Tambayan Philippines. Carl Francis (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is against policy and considered vandalism and they're refusing to discuss and/or stop it, then ask for protection for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection . I admit I'm not aware of TV policy though. Which articles are they doing this to because I don't quite follow what they are doing. Adding a tv station the person worked for to their filmography? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done this in the beginning of my time on Wikipedia. For example, I would add: "HBO television film", "Lifetime" television film", "NBC television film", etc. Is that what you're referring to? I've only add that to a few filmogs I did long time ago. I don't necessarily see an issue with adding in the "notes" of the filmog table that it's a Lifetime film or something similar, since they produce original material. —Mike Allen 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the filmography table be standardized. There should be a template to prevent new users, especially fans, from adding useless columns to the table. 120.28.231.21 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an illustration:

Year	Title	Role	Network/Producer
2010	Supernatural	Dean Winchester	The CW Television Network
2011	X-Men: First Class	Charles Xavier	20th Century Fox

Other articles have:

Film

Year	Title	Role	Producer	Notes
2011	X-Men: First Class	Raven Darkholme	20th Century Fox	Lead role

For other examples you can check the tables in these biographies: Wu Chun, Iya Villania, Diva Montelaba, Song Seung-heon and Won Bin. Carl Francis (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Casino Royale

Casino Royale (2006 film) is today's Featured Article of the Day. Editors are invited to improve the article. I personally do not feel that it is the best draft we can feature; see my comments on the talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I have just read WP:NOTFILM and am wondering what will be necessary for For Lovers Only (film) to be kept. It seems likely to not be widely distributed in first-run theatres. Would a national DVD release be sufficient if it goes straight to video?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lost films later found

The (leadenly titled) film The Life Story of David Lloyd George was completed in 1918 but mysteriously suppressed before it was ever shown, and was believed lost until 1994. But it was publicly shown in 1996, and indeed you can now buy it on DVD. So it wasn't canceled or unfinished, and it's not lost or unreleased.

• Category:Lost films: "films that were produced but are not known to survive"
• Category:Cancelled films: "Films in this category were pulled from their studio's production slate, with many of them dying in development hell"
• Category:Unreleased films: "Completed films that were shelved and to date have not been officially released"
• Category:Unfinished films: "This category is for films that never completed principal photography"

Still, there was a belief (among the well informed) of death for 76 years, surely a non-trivial span (indeed, comparable with human lifespan in the same nation and century).

How about "Category:Films previously believed lost"?

But actually I see this as a subclass of a wider array of work/artefacts, including The Ghost Ship (perhaps never believed physically lost, but unavailable for legal reasons for almost 50 years); The Original of Laura (a novel draft never believed physically lost, but long threatened with destruction and thought inaccessible); the Mitchell and Kenyon collection (a set of negatives probably assumed to have been destroyed soon after use).

"Category:Resurfaced works"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For the range of examples you've given, "resurfaced" seems to be a good fit. However, I wouldn't discount "lost films" as a category for The Life Story of David Lloyd George, as it did spend a considerable amount of time as a lost work - just as, for instance, former players for sports teams are still categorised as such, despite no longer playing. It was a defining trait of the item in question for a significant amount of time. GRAPPLE X 00:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast and thoughtful response. Yes, I tend to agree with you. However, this would involve changing what is (accurately or inaccurately) provided as the definition of "lost" in Category:Lost films. And more generally, it's a subcategory of Category:Lost works: Lost works are works of art, literature, etc., known or presumed to have existed, but which do not exist or cannot be found now (again indisputably excluding all my examples). I'm very reluctant to fiddle with this till I'm sure there's consensus for doing so. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a new subcategory of Cat:Lost works titled "Works once considered lost" would suffice, then. It could be found by anyone looking through the categories for lost works, but marks out its contents as now being known. GRAPPLE X 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If we take all this so seriously (and perhaps we shouldn't), then "works once considered lost" could not be a subcategory of "lost works" as currently defined. Rather, it would be the other way around: Works now considered lost would be a subcategory of those at one time or other considered lost. But such a move would surely be decried as pedantic, pointy, or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting FAC opinions

Into Temptation is going under its 2nd FAC review. The previous FAC was closed primarily because of a lack of attention from the reviewing community. I ask that people venture over to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Into Temptation (film)/archive2 and review the page and then comment on the FAC so that this page isn't closed again because of inactivity. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

List of 2009 box office number-one films in Argentina for deletion

Discussion can be found here. Any help either way appreicated. Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment request for the Ingmar Bergman filmography

There's a request for comment on the talk page of this article. Some excellent work already done on this by User:Robsinden and User:Smetanahue. Maybe we could also have a collaboration on the articles on individual Bergman films too and maybe expand a couple of the more stubby ones? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys & Aliens

I am planning a cleanup of Cowboys & Aliens (film). Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Overly detailed box office sections for Disney films

I would like other editors to have a look at Toy Story 3, Tangled, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides overly detailed box office sections. Is such detail and attention needed for EVERY country the film was ever released in. This is taking "worldwide view" to the extreme. The Toy Story 3 BO section is larger than any other section combined. I may be wrong but it appears that Spinc5 is the main one that does the updating/adding to these sections. What are other editor's opinion on this? —Mike Allen 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Spinc5 (me) hasn't cotnributed only to Disney films (see also Rio, Fast Five, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader). It's just that these Disney films, particularly Toy Story 3 and Pirates 4, were remarkable for their achievements at the box office so I referred to them in a more detailed way just like Ice Age 3. Well, ok I understand these box-office sections may be a bit extreme even though movies like Toy Story 3, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosuars and Pirates 4 have remarkable box-office runs in MANY countries. So the main point is to conclude on: a) which countries should be considered when choosing what will be mentioned in the box office section of a film b) when the earnings in a particular country should be mentioned and for what reasons (opening weekend, total gross, highest gross for the studio that released the film, best film in its genre, etc.) c) to what extent will we refer to a specific country (I don't know if there are such agreements anywhere in the Wikipedia but I can't find them anywhere) User:Spinc5 User talk:Spinc5 20:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Spin. I don't mind detailed box office information (a little guilty of it myself). I am thinking, maybe you could create sub-articles from these large sections? We sometimes fork content from the main article when there is a lot. It's done for awards especially, but sometimes production as well. In addition, if we do fork the content, I would recommend using bullet lists for the countries. It would be easier to see what milestones it had in each country. (And the main article would have a summary section of that sub-article, of course.) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• cough*don'tbetakingcreditforFastFive*cough* Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Spinc does a pretty terrific job overall. I would be against just jettisoning the information, because most of it is notable and it's pretty well sourced. There may be some due weight concerns, but I'm not convinced removing the information would actually benefit the article, which is the bottom line here. Maybe the due weight problems would be addressed through making the rest of the article more comprehensive? The critical reception section on Pirates 4 for instance is pretty pathetic, and makes the 'problem' with the box office section look worse than it is. It's very hard to judge a due weight problem when other sections are sub-par, so these really need to be sorted out first. The due weight issue might go away then, and if not at least it can be judged from a better perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean that Spinc only edits Disney films. :-\ It just so happened the three films I linked to and noticed their box office sections were Disney films. The main issue with Toy Story 3 is a size issue, if and when the other sections get improved the article will be over the size limit, so splitting to its own article may not be a bad idea. Betty you may be right that since the other sections are poor the box office really stands out. —Mike Allen 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why Toy Story 3 needs a week by week breakdown of its gross, that itself is not particularly notable unless it was breaking a record each week and if that is the aim of that chart, it isn't conveyed well Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The box office section tends to be updated incrementally week by week which is why we get weekly installments; at the end of a run it could do with being tightened up and adopt a more summary tone. Anyway I see Spinc has split the box office into another article on Toy Story 3 so we'll see how that goes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Into Temptation

Hi all. Just wanted to draw your attention to the FAC for a film article about the movie Into Temptation. Last time around, this failed the FAC because of a lack of participants in the review, so if anyone has time to weigh in this time it'd be much appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 14:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Enthrian dispute

Can I get a third party opinion of [edit] which is now locked? Can the company's revenue report of 179 crore be taken to mean the same as box office gross? Are the sources that were there already considered reliable? If not, what can be done, as it seems that aren't many sources for Tamil films deemed reliable. BollyJeff || talk 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Footloose (2011) writers

More editor's opinion is needed here about the writing credits of the remake of Footloose which IMDb (via WGA) list Dean Pitchford (writer of the original film) as writing the screenplay and story (along with Craig Brewer). I'm just wondering if this can be correct. —Mike Allen 23:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gremlins 2: The New Batch FAR

I have nominated Gremlins 2: The New Batch for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj98 (talk • contribs) 06:40, June 13, 2011

Oops, my bad, I forgot sign it next time. JJ98 (Talk) 19:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mixed response

Is it just me or are lots of articles having any critical response changed to mixed? It's not a huge problem but it just seems to be happening a lot across different IPs regardless of the actual critical response. I don't know if it is just people who liked the films but realise they can't get away with changing it to 'positive'. I can't recall every incident unfortunately but it's happening on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and Green Lantern (film) in the marketing section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've often experienced problems with anons going around whitewashing the critical reactions to their favorite films, changing "negative" to "mixed" even for films that received overwhelmingly negative reception, such as 30-35% positive ratings on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Typically I just straight revert, since the anons almost never give any explanations and are presumably on a POV crusade. However, when necessary I have cited Metacritic and used whatever wording they use to describe the overall reception. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've found "mixed" to be a bit ambiguous. In between the positive and negative ends of the critical spectrum, is there any better wording to use? Lukewarm, divided, etc? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mixed is probably fine, or average, if that is what it is. But when you have 35%, 40 out of 100 and the critical reviews are overly negative, it isn't mixed. Getting a bit fed up with it because its such a minor edit it probably sneaks through more often than not.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why, when there's dispute, I generally default to Metacritic. They're an accepted reliable source for guaging critical response, and they assign descriptors ("generally favorable", "universal acclaim", etc) to go with their aggregate scores. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Bangladeshi films

I'm a bit unsure about the notability of some film articles created by Faisal chowdhury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The films include:

• Doctor Bari
• Koti Takar Prem (which has been prodded)
• Eito Prem (only just noticed this one, created by a different user with a similar name, can of worms here maybe)
• Shubha (film)
• Mayer Morjada (could be notable, but not verified)
• Sobar Upore Tumi
• Matir Thikana

There appears to be either a conflict of interest or extreme fandom, all edits seem to be related to one actor and the editor seems to be trying to create articles on all his films. No replies to discussion on talkpages and they keep removing maintenance tags. I can't tell from the articles how notable they are, it is not clear if they have even had cinematic release or not, and the creator seems unwilling or unable to discuss the issues. Some "references" added initially were just to download sites or DVD stores, and what is left is in Bengali and Google won't translate. I'm inclined to take these to AFD, but I'm also wary of getting rid of articles on foreign languages that may be notable but just lacking English sources. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?--BelovedFreak 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence of notability. Not being able to translate the references isn't a criteria for deletion in itself, but there is no evidence of coverage in the article itself. For instance, if there were sourced box office figures then we would know it had a theatrical release. If there were sourced reviews, then we would know there had been coverage of some form in the media. The onus is on him to provide evidence of coverage, and he hasn't done, so personally I'd take them all to AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We've got a problem...

An IP hopper from Brazil has been adding fake credits to the X-Men (film) article ([33]). Can someone please look into this mess? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-ed for a week. - J Greb (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Plots

IIRC I saw somewhere about plots not being copyvios. What is the correct way to do them and ref them? I've started Too Young the Hero and hope to make it a DYK, which is supposed to have a ref for every paragraph. Help on the article welcome too.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally the plot can go without being cited, as it's clear already what the source is - the article's subject itself. You could cite a home media release, such as a DVD, if you feel the need to, but it's not necessary. Just remember to avoid doing anything other than summarising the facts of the plot succinctly - personal interpolations would need to be backed up with secondary sources, and would be best served in a different section anyway. For example, "X went to Y and did Z" is perfect, but "X went to their usual haunt, Y, in order to do Z, which seems to imply A" should be avoided - keep it simple and factual and it doesn't need a secondary ref as the article is its primary ref. GRAPPLE X 02:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, when it says plots should be copyvios, it means not to lift them from another website - it's not referring to the copyright of the film, but of another source's summary. GRAPPLE X 02:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find the film plot guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all.BarkingMoon (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A Dog's Day - Requested Moves

Main article: A Dog's Day

Mr. Nuts, Why the film's name was changed ? The film has only one name and was released in only one language. The English title was only for screening at the film festival for the sake of the audience who do not understand Malayalam. The film was screened in Malayalam only, with English subtitles. Here there is no case of different titles or different language versions of the film. The film was shot and released in only one language. the English title is a mere translation. No one relates the film with its English title.
Anish Viswa 14:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've cited WP:NCF and WP:UE. Plus the poster has the English title too. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Both have been listed at requested moves. I invite other film project members to add to the discussions here and here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Smoking

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), shouldn't Thank You for Smoking be moved to Thank You for Smoking (film), and shouldn't Thank You for Smoking (novel) be moved to replace it as the primary topic, as seems to almost always be done for books where films were adapted with the same name? From the looks of it, it seems like the novel originally was at an incorrect title and so disambiguation wasn't needed, but this is no longer the case. I can't personally do the move, but if an administrator could that would be great.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the novel the primary topic? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Last 30 days: views on the novel 1827. On the film almost 25,000. Seems like the film is the primary topic. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not about views, though. Usually the earlier article should get the preference, but I can see this maybe being better served by the hatnote-less article being a disambig between the other two. GRAPPLE X 18:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. Primary topic isn't always about page views, which is why I specifically referred to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). With very rare exception, when a film is adapted from a well known book and given the same name, the original source stays as the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

From the bit on "primary topic" (my bold): "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term." Apparently the film is the subject being sought by more than a factor of 10. I respect your caution but is this an exceptional case? Apparently it is not true that the earlier article usually gets the preference, although I can see why that would be an orderly way to do it. Am I missing something that says chronology rules? Sorry if I did. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well no, chronology doesn't officially count for anything really. It's more the fact that it's adapted from something else. Books being made into movies is the most obvious case, but there are other examples. The movie Amadeus, for example, is far better known than the play from which it was adapted, but the play is at the primary page, The only reason it's currently incorrect for this case is because the book was originally at a differently named (and incorrect) page, so it wasn't an issue having the film be without disambiguation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to say that a derivative work isn't the primary topic even when it's more sought than the source work. Where is the policy on disambiguation that supports that idea? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it mostly seems to be long standing tradition, even when the film is better known than the book. And in this case, where the source is still well known and by a very famous author, it would be weird for it to be an exception.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense to me that page views would only be one factor so I wouldn't be surprised to see that mentioned in a policy or guideline. I'm not sure which is the exception here, though, because the difference in user interest is not at all trivial. And you are claiming that practices (i.e. tradition) trump rules, which by and large is true. Still, I wish you had a couple stronger examples than Amadeus; that is a play so it's already from a more closely related medium than our case. From my experience, I know that To Catch a Thief is disambigged to the movie even though it's based on a work of fiction. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern would be that you're comparing the page views for a book written in 1994 to a film based on that book that was released in 2005. The data is based on a recent popularity and knowledge of an already popular but older book. I mean, look at Lord of the Rings. Granted, we're getting away with naming those pages slightly different (novel is just The Fellowship of the Ring, the film is Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring), but if they were the same title would you argue that the 3 or 4k views on the film's page make it the primary topic over a book that gets just less than 1k hits a month? I think the idea of "page views" being a determing factor is really over pages that are not part of the same subject matter. In other words, films or topics that share a title but nothing else would go by the "page views" criteria to determine what the primary topic is. But, in the case of adaptations, even if the original source wasn't as popular, it is still the "primary" topic. If it didn't exist then the film wouldn't exist, because the film is based on that piece of work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In my mind, the primary topic should be the original work unless its notability depends on the notability of the derivative work. Apparently that is not the policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The book's notability does not depend on the film. It may be enhanced by the film's existence, but it would still be notable enough for an article without the film. As it came first, convention is for it to be the primary topic, with the film being the one with the hatnote. GRAPPLE X 19:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just giving my personal opinion. I'm not advocating either way, either, but simply standing back in amazement at this policy. You seem to imply that the policy is wrong, but its purpose apparently is to get people to the article they want as expeditiously as possible. Is that a bad goal? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't stated that the policy is wrong; though you seem to misunderstand it. As explained by Bignole, it's only a matter of raw page views when it comes down to unconnected subjects—searching for a name shared by, I don't know, a film, an album and a hotel which are all unrelated to another, you would want the most popular of those pages to be the primary one. If it's a multi-platinum album, but a small hotel in Fivemiletown and a film no one's ever seen, then you'd have a clear primary topic and two hatnoted articles. Two intimately related topics, one derivative of the other, set their own primary topic by simple chronology. GRAPPLE X 20:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm stating that page views about a recent topic shouldn't carry as much weight because of that very reason...it's a recent topic. Of course it will have far more page views than the original topic it is based on. At this time, readers might be wanted to check out the film over the novel, but we don't change primary topics (or at least we shouldn't be) just because of recent popularity. Otherwise, we'd be changing primary topics all the time, and we don't actually do that. This seems to be more of an issue that occurs with film articles than any other topic, because films have the tendency to have a large popularity for a few years and overshadow anything they might have been based on. Look at the page views for the Lord of the Rings films compared to the books. Obviously, we get away with including "Lord of the Rings" for every film, while the books just have the subtitle (e.g., Fellowship, Two Towers, etc.), but no one could actually argue that the films should be the primary topic (if they were titled the same), as those books were far more popular for 40 years before the films ever came out. That's why recentism is a tricky game and we shouldn't be falling into. I think that in the cases of films that are adapted from other sources, unless that original material doesn't have a page, we should make the source the primary topic by default.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, with all that said, how would I (or anyone) go about making a move request that would involve more than one page? Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves. For what it's worth, I think that the film article qualifies as the primary topic. It's clear that most readers aren't going through the film article to get to the novel article (via search, anyway). Recentism would not apply here since enough time has passed. Another criterion is educational value (which seems to be "under discussion", but I imagine that tag is stale), which I think would apply to source material that are renowned. Source material for which there has been numerous film adaptations probably has that kind of renown. So it's a matter of balancing readers where the majority want to go and avoiding having a lame but popular topic usurp a consistently credible one. In this case, the novel Thank You for Smoking is not particularly valuable. It exists, but it's clear readers come to Wikipedia to read about the film over the novel. Wikipedia is dynamic enough to make this arrangement. A similar example I can think of is the film Road to Perdition vs. its source material Road to Perdition (comics). The comics exist, but the film actually had and has more fame. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be underestimating the notability of the book somewhat. Christopher Buckley is a pretty famous guy (in both the literary and political worlds) and the book was pretty well known far before the movie was ever made.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You can try to argue for its value as a primary topic. See Talk:The Day the Earth Stood Still for a discussion of the original film reclaiming the primary topic slot since the remake led to a two-item disambiguation page for a while. In addition, remember that the novel article is one step removed in a search. It's not being obscured; it's just secondary because readers are satisfied with arriving at the film article in a search, even six years later. I reviewed Google Books Search and Google Scholar Search, but I'm not seeing anything particular exceptional that would warrant taking the film article away from the primary topic slot for the sake of educational value. I would think that books that have historical resonance (any of the classics, for example) would possess educational value over any of the adaptations. It may be that the book is too contemporary and not "timeless" enough to put up front. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wonder, as I stated before, if we don't give preferential treatment to films that are adapted from books because they tend to be more "in your face" for people than books are nowadays. To me, it seems like more weight is placed on films because they are marketed on a much more extreme level than books are (or ever have been) and thus garner more "popularity" (and I use that loosely) than their book sources do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I think that the exposure leads to elements external to the film itself being well-covered (mainly its production and reception). These elements lead readers to the article, where the coverage is consolidated for their benefit. I personally find book articles consistently unsatisfactory. Books in contrast may by their own reward for most people, and they may not be as easy to research for their Wikipedia articles anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Home media - On Demand

I've been working on a number of home media sections for upcoming Blu-ray and DVD releases, and I noticed that the MOS: Film doesn't cover On Demand options. Initially I didn't think that the format was notable enough to include in a film article, but it seems to be getting more and more popular recently. On one hand, I don't like the idea of a home media section getting cluttered with excessive detail, but on the other hand, it is an extremely popular format. Should On Demand be included as release format within the home media section? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How much secondary-source coverage is there for video on demand for a given film? I would keep coverage limited to the first-run air date if it is to be included at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's not a ton of secondary source coverage, but it is mentioned in a number of articles, basically just as an option. For example, the site Hollywood.com notes that African Cats will be available as an On-Demand option, but it doesn't go into a ton of detail about the length of time it will be available. With On-Demand, a user can watch the film over the course of a period time. For example, a film would be available On-Demand for a 1 month period, and a user could watch it at any point during that 1 month time frame. There's no clear indication for the length, and it isn't being featured on a channel as a "first time on cable television" premiere. This is one of those things that seems like it shouldn't be included, I am just having difficulty wrapping my head around the exact reason why. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a pretty bland piece of information. I suppose that the DVD/Blu-ray release date should be bland too, but it seems to me that people get more excited about the DVD/Blu-ray date than the VOD date. In addition, I think there's usually context for DVD and Blu-ray releases, like sales, rentals, elements beyond the film itself (like a director's cut), and even DVD reviews. I recall adding some VOD-esque information as part of a narrative: Hancock (film)#Home media. Since The New York Times reported about it, I passed it along, but it's still pretty unimportant information in the scheme of covering the topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Erik! --TravisBernard (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Budget in "infobox"

More and more sources are including marketing costs and 3D conversions costs along with the production budget in articles. Generally—and certainly on older films—"budget" has strictly referred to the actual cost of making the film up to the point of the film being "locked". The infobox guidelines don't adequately cover what information we should cover, so I'd like to see the guidelines revised to make it explicit about what information we should/can put in here, how it should be presented etc. The discussion is at Template talk:Infobox film#Tightening up the budget field guidelines. for anyone who is interested. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Director navigation templates

What are the style guidelines for the layout of these? Should they be broken down by decade and should they include the year of release after the film title? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes and yes. Isn't that how the majority are already done? —Mike Allen 08:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor TheMovieBuff (talk · contribs) prefers to break them down by decade, and since templates are not on most editors' watchlists, he has broken down a lot of them. I've argued with him that it does not need to be done with directors with only three or four films; see this as an example. Even with a lot of films, a break-down-by-decade template showing a director with just one film in the 1980s and many more in the 1990s and 2000s can look weird. I think that the year of release after the film title is pretty well-accepted, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. Take the current one for Michael Haneke which looks like this compared to the previous layout. Which one should it be? Lugnuts (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that since the director template orders the films chronologically, it helps to quantify the markers of that timeline. It's a simple snapshot-type detail that I personally find informative, and I had thought that using release years was pretty widely accepted. (Then again, not too many editors look at or discuss such templates.) As for the break-down-by-decade, the "1980s" row is what I mean by a single entry in a decade wasting a bit of space. I'm not sure what a better formatting approach would be, to do something like 1980s-90s or 20th century vs. 21st century. We've never had a significant enough discussion about grouping in particular. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the space-wasting for one film/one decade, but what about adding the year of release too? Ignore the bias of having two films with the same title from the same director for now! Lugnuts (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thought I was confirming that, that having the release year for each film is useful as part of the chronological ordering. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently had an argument about this with User:Lampernist (my posts) where I argued for omitting the release years in the navboxes. My main argument is that the release year isn't more crucial for the navigation than other info, and that the navboxes should be distinguished from the filmographies in the directors' articles, where there is both more room and relevance for additional info rather than just quick and simple navigation. This also seems to be prevalent in the best developed templates for culture persons, such as Template:Elvis Presley or Template:The Beatles albums - the years have become a popular thing to add to culture navboxes, but when the templates start to become well developed, with many other subarticles related to the subject, the years tend to go since it becomes obvious that the template is a separate thing from the filmography/discography/whatever.

As for groups I think it's obvious that they only should be used when there is an actual need for them - to separate productions with some fundamental difference (eg features/shorts), or when there are so many films of a particular kind that it would be difficult to get a proper overview without some breakdown or another. Decades are often useful in those cases but it depends on the individual templates, Template:Charlie Chaplin for example goes by studios which I think is a lot more helpful in his case. Smetanahue (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Elvis Presley and Beatles templates particularly benefit from topical groupings. Director templates do not have the same benefit; while it may work for Charlie Chaplin, I'm not sure if most directors can be grouped that way. Having decade-based groupings for prolific directors is the most objective way to group the films, similar to us using release years to disambiguate film articles. I think it is beneficial because for medium- to -large-sized templates, it is not (to me) as easy to scan the film titles. I personally like to have release years in director templates because it gives me a sense of the timeline of directed works. I do not find always find filmographies easy to locate (sometimes they're split off) nor easy to scan (sometimes they have weird tables combining credits). In short, as a reader, I find the detail more beneficial than detrimental. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If the filmography is difficult to use it's because it's poorly written, I don't see why that should affect the navbox. And I also don't see why small navboxes should follow a different syntax than large. I agree that decade-based groupings usually are most suitable - when any breakdown at all is needed, that is. Elvis and Beatles both just have one group each for their studio albums, without any release years or decade breakdown. And I think that works just fine, and it would still work just as fine if the templates solely linked to the studio albums, if all the singles, compilation albums and other topics didn't exist. Smetanahue (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As a test, I removed the specific release years at Template:Sidney Lumet; the revision can be seen here. It does look less cluttered, but my preference still stands in general—I think I'm just too used to seeing film titles and release years attached at the hip. :) Other editors' opinions would be welcome. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I think release years still can be useful for disambiguation if there are two or more entries with the same title in a filmography, such as when a director remakes his own film. Smetanahue (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A few more opinions:

(1) Decades are usually a sensible breakdown, but it is useful to retain some flexibility in the structure of the templates, to reflect the individual shape of someone's career (Sound/silent, features/shorts, film/TV, work in different countries, etc.)

(2) Navigation boxes are for navigation, but dates are often a particularly useful factor in that navigation in addition to bare titles. Title + date allows easier identification of a film, and sometimes navigation by date is appealing anyway.

(3) Filmographies also allow navigation by date, but those are available only from one point in Wikipedia - usually the director article or else a separate article. The advantage of the templates is that they provide this access from many other points too.

(4) It makes little sense to list films in date order but not to show the dates which explain that order to readers.

(5) Foreign language films which are entered in Wikipedia under English titles that are not universally familiar can present a particular problem when they appear in the templates without further annotation. E.g. in Template:Marcel_Carné or Template:René_Clément, some people would find half the titles indecipherable without the dates attached.

(6) As for the aesthetics of the director templates, I personally find that their punctuation by dates gives a more pleasing layout: it is certainly easier to read. Lampernist (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also in relation to director navigation templates, I am wondering if we should rename templates to actually include the word "Director" in them? I feel like having just the person's name makes the template seem open-ended, and it may have led to attempts to add writing or producing credits to the template, which results in trying to accomplish too much for a template placed in the footer. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in having one shared template for, for example, the filmography and bibliography of someone who was both a director and a novelist, or directing and screenwriting credits for someone who was prominent in both. Wikipedia:Navigation templates only recommends us to avoid making too large templates, and to use intuition: "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I know I've also mentioned in past discussions that I don't think templates automatically should be legit even for directors, since some have minimal artistic control of their movies. Perhaps we need to collaborate with other wikiprojects and write guidelines for when templates for artistic works are appropriate in general, which also would sort out when to include what in each template. Like, if a producer template wouldn't have been approved on its own merits, then production credits shouldn't be included in the director template. So I think the templates actually should be open-ended, but artistic control should be the key instead of specific positions in film production. Smetanahue (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point that director templates should not be legit automatically. I suppose the set of such templates reflects Wikipedia's assumption of auteurism, even though there do exist directors who are hired by studios to merely crank out films (especially in the pre-blockbuster decades). I think, though, what makes such templates tolerable is that they are largely singular. Where a film can have numerous writers and producers, a film usually has one director. A film article can consistently have one crew-based template. The challenge with a director also being known for writing or producing a certain film is that if there is a template for that person that includes that film, it's likely that the rest of the person's writing or producing credits will be listed too. It's kind of an indiscriminate approach to avoid subjectivity since templates cannot present context for which works are significant. Perhaps to clarify, directors who have a lot of artistic control could have their templates renamed to include "Director", especially because these kinds of directors are often involved with other films as a writer or a producer. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A film can have many directors, especially when the directors lack artistic control. Not unusual to see old studio productions with a whole team of directors, just like the case still can be with writers. I don't think that's a problem, both because those directors seldomly are prominent, and if they are (anthology films also spring to mind), we can just use Template:Navboxes like we already do for award templates. But to clarify, I don't think there are many producers out there who should have a template, since they when they're ambitious tend to let the director make the artistic decisions. As for screenwriter "auteurs" I can think of plenty, but when they do have artistic control, they, just like the directors, tend to not work in large teams. Smetanahue (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any conclusions from this discussion regarding the inclusion of release dates? Some templates are being amended to remove them. Lampernist (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

They should def. be included, per point 4 you raised above (It makes little sense to list films in date order but not to show the dates which explain that order to readers). Lugnuts (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't that make sense? The chronology is already provided via, well, the order of the titles. I don't see why further explanation would be needed in the navbox. And if it is, it would anyway be more appropriate to just write somewhere that the order is chronological, since that at least is info about the navbox, and not details about the topics it navigates between. Smetanahue (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2-ish ¢: Navigation boxes are ideally limited in what they contain. The material in the lists should not contain red links, links to articles outside of the 'box context/focus, one-way links, or unlinked text. The first is to prevent the 'box skewing the perceived need of a particular article. The remainder deal with using the 'box to move around a group of related articles. The last one also deals with using the 'box to present content, a job it isn't there to preform.

Release dates are that type of content. Adding a year can be justified if there is a need to dab 2 "identically" named articles. But beyond that, it isn't good practice. If there realy is a concern that the ordering rationale isn't obvious, the answer would be to add a "below" section, an are that sepcifically ignores the need to only include links, stating "Films are listed in in release order as per common practice".

- J Greb (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, other nav boxes (such as bands) don't have the year of release in them, so these probably shouldn't have them either. Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

One WikiProject I could find which already has guidelines for a similar kind of navbox is WP:MILHIST, and their "campaignboxes" which navigate between related battles. The guidelines don't mention anything about including years (seems like the idea never occurred to them), but they do bring up breakdowns, and generally discourage them: "Similarly, dividing the list of battles into multiple blocks by inserting heading-like separations is not recommended in the average case; if such a division is needed, it is typically best accomplished by splitting the template into multiple campaignboxes." Seems like an approach I would approve of, though I still think decade breakdown can be helpful in special cases, when there are so many titles that it becomes difficult to read otherwise. Smetanahue (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)