Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Cast list gaps

This is just a notice that I have added a line to MOS:FILM regarding line breaks in cast lists, such as those being removed from an article in this diff. These are used in several film articles that I know of, but are an accessibility issue per MOS:LISTGAP and so really should be removed. Clarification on this issue was added to MOS:TV after much discussion at the TV project, so I have updated MOS:FILM to also reflect this. I am happy to discuss this issue further if anyone wishes to do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: We can discuss this issue here. I understand your reasoning for reverting my edits—guidelines don't always apply, articles have got to FA with these gaps—but accessibility is pretty important, which is why the TV discussions all went through. Apologies if I went ahead with mass changes without discussing them enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the accessibility concerns and what was TV doing that was similar? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Guideline is pretty straightforward. I concur with Adamstom.97's edits and support their reinstatement per MOS:LISTGAP. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem per LISTGAP is having line breaks or changes in markup styles in the middle of lists causes accessibility issues for people using screen readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the thing is, the inaccessible approach looks nicer. It goes back to when we could no longer bold actors and roles anymore, so this kind of line break helped separate the actor and role from the prose. Maybe we could implement tables instead? I think we only avoid tables to make sure novice editors can work on it, but perhaps it is not that big of a deal after all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:LISTGAP, using "*:" is acceptable. Applying this method, the Supergirl cast referenced above would look something like this. - DinoSlider (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I was never really a fan of adjusting the formatting from what it was, but I know why. I would be more supportive of using "*:", which is acceptable, than having the content continue on the same line as listing the actor/character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TV stuff should not be being rehashed here. As for "*:", that's fine for discussion formatting on Talk pages but is not an appropriate use of definition lists, as per MOS:DEFLIST. A definition list approach would require:

; Character name : Description

or

; Character name

: Description

—Joeyconnick (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Erik, I think tables would probably look as bad, it's very Geocities circa '99. The major reasoning for me is as Erik and Favre mention, for the bulk of people not using a screen reader, it's a massive aesthetic issue and a general presentation/readability issue because in the bulk of articles where this formatting is used, there is a LOT of content, especially the Marvel/superhero films. I'd be much happier finding a different alternative whether that is the creation of a template or a changing in the code than abandon the entire thing. It's hard to comprehend exactly what the screen reader issue is as well, as a non-user. It reads like it's skipping to the next line? Or reading a blank line then skipping to the next line? Or ignoring the content entirely? So it reads "*Captain America" but then skips the section describing the character development? Can we get an idea of what impact it is having? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If you use Firefox they provide a screenreader emulator addon you can install: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/fangs-screen-reader-emulator/. Betty Logan (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

As Erik alluded to, WP:FILMCAST specifically states "actors and roles should not be bolded" so using a definition list does not seem appropriate. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is purely a case of aesthetics i.e. film project members preferring non-bolded indentation, then you can use {{Block indent}}. I have used it to indent the Melissa Benoist entry here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit of an excessive indent but that could work. Also, isn't there a way to make the "*" invisible? You could do the "*:" indent that way as well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The indent is adaptable. By setting em=0 you can eliminate the indent altogether. And if you don't want an asterisk then just omit it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to come up with some sort of alternative, because I agree that not having the break is a bit of a visual issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was just thinking about this, and I have a feeling that I may have already suggested this somewhere previously, but perhaps we can use {{br}}? It creates the visual that we want. Can somebody with a better idea of all this accessibility stuff tell us whether that would work in regards to screen readers? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I usually edit with Chrome but I popped open Firefox to do that add on Betty suggested to see what we're looking at. I'm going to collapse the text because it will be a big dump. I've bolded some text I find relevant, in regards to the list definition. The big one is the addition of another list definition in the second example.

Firefox screen reader add on output

Supergirl article as is Heading level two Cast and characters left bracket Link edit right bracket Main article colon Link List of Supergirl charactersLinkGraphic slash one hundred fifty px dash Melissa underline Benoist underline by underline Gage underline Skidmore.jpgLink Melissa Benoist stars as the series' titular character, Supergirl.List of eight items bullet Link Melissa Benoist as Link Kara Zor dash El slash Kara Danvers slash Supergirl colon A twenty-four dash year dash old Link Kryptonian living in National City, who must embrace her powers after previously hiding them. She assists her adoptive sister as part of the Link Department of Extra dash Normal Operations left paren DEO right paren as she discovered the truth that her adoptive father also worked for the DEO so they would not take her, while Alex's co dash workers at the DEO help her perfect her powers.This page link left bracket three right bracket This page link left bracket seven right bracket This page link left bracket eight right bracket Kara worked as Link Cat Grant 's assistant at CatCo.This page link left bracket nine right bracket Benoist expressed her excitement over portraying the character, and being able to quote left bracket tell right bracket a story about a human being really realizing their potential and their strength quote .This page link left bracket ten right bracket At the end of season one, Kara was promoted by Cat and became a junior reporter at the beginning of season two. Link Malina Weissman portrays a young Kara.This page link left bracket eleven right bracket bulletLink Mehcad Brooks as Link James Olsen slash Link Guardian colon Dino's sandbox with a line break after the character and then ":" formatting Heading level two Cast and characters left bracket Link edit right bracket Main article colon Link List of Supergirl charactersLinkGraphic slash one hundred fifty px dash Melissa underline Benoist underline by underline Gage underline Skidmore.jpgLink Melissa Benoist stars as the series' titular character, Supergirl.List of one item bulletLink Melissa Benoist as Link Kara Zor dash El slash Kara Danvers slash Supergirl colon List end Definition list of zero items equals A twenty-four dash year dash old Link Kryptonian living in National City, who must embrace her powers after previously hiding them. She assists her adoptive sister as part of the Link Department of Extra dash Normal Operations left paren DEO right paren as she discovered the truth that her adoptive father also worked for the DEO so they would not take her, while Alex's co dash workers at the DEO help her perfect her powers.This page link left bracket one right bracket This page link left bracket two right bracket This page link left bracket three right bracket Kara worked as Link Cat Grant 's assistant at CatCo.This page link left bracket four right bracket Benoist expressed her excitement over portraying the character, and being able to quote left bracket tell right bracket a story about a human being really realizing their potential and their strength quote .This page link left bracket five right bracket At the end of season one, Kara was promoted by Cat and became a junior reporter at the beginning of season two. Link Malina Weissman portrays a young Kara.This page link left bracket six right bracket List endList of one itembulletLink Mehcad Brooks as Link James Olsen slash Link Guardian colon List endDefinition list of zero items Dino's sandbox with the "*:" formatting Heading level two Cast and characters left bracket Link edit right bracket Main article colon Link List of Supergirl charactersLinkGraphic slash one hundred fifty px dash Melissa underline Benoist underline by underline Gage underline Skidmore.jpgLink Melissa Benoist stars as the series' titular character, Supergirl.List of eight items bullet Link Melissa Benoist as Link Kara Zor dash El slash Kara Danvers slash Supergirl colon Definition list of zero items equals A twenty-four dash year dash old Link Kryptonian living in National City, who must embrace her powers after previously hiding them. She assists her adoptive sister as part of the Link Department of Extra dash Normal Operations left paren DEO right paren as she discovered the truth that her adoptive father also worked for the DEO so they would not take her, while Alex's co dash workers at the DEO help her perfect her powers.This page link left bracket one right bracket This page link left bracket two right bracket This page link left bracket three right bracket Kara worked as Link Cat Grant 's assistant at CatCo.This page link left bracket four right bracket Benoist expressed her excitement over portraying the character, and being able to quote left bracket tell right bracket a story about a human being really realizing their potential and their strength quote .This page link left bracket five right bracket At the end of season one, Kara was promoted by Cat and became a junior reporter at the beginning of season two. Link Malina Weissman portrays a young Kara.This page link left bracket six right bracket List endbulletLink Mehcad Brooks as Link James Olsen slash Link Guardian colon Betty's edit in Dino's sandbox for {[tl|Block indent}} Heading level two Cast and characters Main article colon Link List of Supergirl charactersLinkGraphic slash one hundred fifty px dash Melissa underline Benoist underline by underline Gage underline Skidmore.jpgLink Melissa Benoist stars as the series' titular character, Supergirl.List of eight items bullet Link Melissa Benoist as Link Kara Zor dash El slash Kara Danvers slash Supergirl colon A twenty-four dash year dash old Link Kryptonian living in National City, who must embrace her powers after previously hiding them. She assists her adoptive sister as part of the Link Department of Extra dash Normal Operations left paren DEO right paren as she discovered the truth that her adoptive father also worked for the DEO so they would not take her, while Alex's co dash workers at the DEO help her perfect her powers.This page link left bracket one right bracket This page link left bracket two right bracket This page link left bracket three right bracket Kara worked as Link Cat Grant 's assistant at CatCo.This page link left bracket four right bracket Benoist expressed her excitement over portraying the character, and being able to quote left bracket tell right bracket a story about a human being really realizing their potential and their strength quote .This page link left bracket five right bracket At the end of season one, Kara was promoted by Cat and became a junior reporter at the beginning of season two. Link Malina Weissman portrays a young Kara.This page link left bracket six right bracket bulletLink Mehcad Brooks as Link James Olsen slash Link Guardian colon

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So Betty's suggestion removes the screen reading problem if I'm reading that correctly? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe so yes, if I am also using the add on correctly. I also added in the example of a line break with the prose starting with a ":" as I forgot to include that before. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake, Erik, DinoSlider, Favre1fan93, Joeyconnick, and Betty Logan: Hey guys, just wondering if we can come up with some sort of decision/suggestion for moving forward here. Also, has anyone checked whether my suggestion of using {{br}} above will work? I would do it myself, but I don't actually have Firefox and would rather not go through the hassle at the moment if I don't have to. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe Betty's suggestion of using {{Block indent}} is the way to go if we want the content to visually stay the way it is, while still being WP:ACCESS friendly. Adam, I can check your example, but I don't think it will work. {{Br}} redirect to {{Clear}}, which isn't the template I think we'd want to use. But if so, format up Dino's sandbox here and I'll run the Firefox add on over it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated Dino's sandbox for the test. I had to comment out the image because it created a whole lot of whitespace that we don't want. The reason I am suggesting using {{Br}} like this is just because it seems a lot tidier than the whole {{Block indent}} thing, so it would be nice to have this easy solution. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no way that BR is usable if it prevents images being present. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that may be a bit over the top. If {{Br}} is useable and is going to be a simpler option then the alternatives, it can't be too difficult to put the images somewhere else in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and Darkwarriorblake: Sorry for the delayed response to this. {{br}} would render correctly for a screen reader, but the image issue is a questionable one. It honestly isn't much more to include the block indent template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the image loss is not an acceptable alternative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Another thought that I had, do we want to consider making a new template specifically for this, that functions like the block indent template with the spacing and everything set for us, but is simpler and cleaner to implement? I'm not sure if that is possible / how we would do that, but thought I would throw that out there. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah we can make a template. It could be called {{Cast list break}} or something, and the code would be super simple. You can see a mock up of the template code and an article call to said template in my sandbox here. If we want to do this, would just need to test it out, but it should be what I have in my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake, Erik, DinoSlider, Adamstom.97, Joeyconnick, and Betty Logan: Any final thoughts or comments on moving forward with using {{block indent}} and/or implementing the necessary code in its own template ({{Cast list break}} as I suggested above)? If no one has any disagreements, I will try to create the template I suggested, test it, and then implement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am for creating the new one. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed it but is there a reason for creating a new template instead of using the block one? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mostly to make it clean and simple, and I don't think that it is bad to have a specifically created template when we know it will be widely used. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever works then. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: The purpose was to standardize the code we intend to use, and make it a simpler template call and implementation all around. I'll get on this in the next couple of days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Cast list break}} has been created, tested and is ready to implement. I'm going to create a new post here and at the MOS regarding it as (as well as the TV project). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

LISTGAP compliant cast list formatting

Hi all. Per the discussion at the top of the talk (perma link here) that stemmed from some discussions at MOS:TV on cast list formatting with line breaks and MOS:LISTGAP, I have created the new template {{Cast list break}}. This template creates the sometimes desired formatting of putting character descriptions on a new line when the text wraps to a second line, but does not produce the screen reader issue that was encountered previously (see template examples for this). If there are any questions on the template, please comment here or drop me a line on my talk. We should add this into WP:FILMCAST to alert users to the LISTGAP issue; this template provides an alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we able to create articles about the cinema theatres located in Sri Lanka?

I am trying to create articles about the theatres situated in Sri Lanka such as Regal Cinema,Heroes etc.I am also having the chief concerns regarding the notability issues.Still I have not planned to gather information related to these.Abishe (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Abishe, you need to ensure that any theatre/cinema articles you are considering creating meet the basic requirements under WP:GNG. Don't just cut and paste information directly from the company's website, such as you did at Savoy Cinema (Sri Lanka), which is not only a breach of copyright but is also not an independent reliable source. I'd suggest that you firstly create the article in draft and that way it can be checked/reviewed by other editors for notability before added to Wikipedia. Dan arndt (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism of movie grosses by 186.x IPs

In quite a few films' infoboxes I've noticed edits to the grosses which don't seem to be consistent with the sources. These always come from 186.x IP addresses. Special:Contributions/186.137.33.245 is a recent example. This seems like a good place to mention it since I hope this WikiProject has a better chance of figuring out how widespread this problem is, and if it is vandalism or whoever is behind it has a better source of figures but never cites it. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Although I've not come across the box-office gross issue directly, I've dealt with IP editors from a certain range creating disruption in the past. If it's all unsourced, then revert. Make a log in your sandbox of the various addresses, which is what I did. If this goes on for a week or more from several addresses that all point to the same location, then request a rangeblock at WP:ANI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, keeping a list of IP addresses makes it easier for me to do a range block. 186.137.45.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 186.137.33.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also seem to be this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

FilmAffinity

Is there consensus to include FilmAffinity via {{FilmAffinity}} as an external link in film articles? I just saw it today, but it looks like it has been included in a few dozen articles to date: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FilmAffinity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For context, we seem to generally accept Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as external links that list multiple reviews, per MOS:FILM#External links. Do we really need one more? We have to consider WP:LINKFARM, and a quick skim does not show FilmAffinity being as noteworthy as RT or MC. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's def. got some useful content, but I don't see a great need to have it included in the external links section. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! Is there any unique content? I know we are okay with TCM for older films but not newer ones. Anyone else have any thoughts? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

From a few examples I checked there seems to be unique content. Rotten Tomatoes seems to include US critis mostly, while here I see some from the Guardian.co.uk as well. Also I find their awards presentation up front more practical. Does it have to be decided by consensus for all films? WP:LINKFARM is surely to consider, and sites using wikipedia to step up their popularity too, but as said a few items above, neither is IMDb perfect. Hoverfish Talk 16:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Having randomly picked three of the films linking to this site I honestly do not see what it offers beyond what IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes already offer. Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• • OK I agree it doesn't offer anything extra. I picked some more (focusing on Awards) and found it's less informed than IMDb. [1][2] Hoverfish Talk 02:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

So there seems to be a consensus not to use it in the external links section. It's only used on about 100-150 articles, so I can take it to WP:TFD if no-one objects? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I was not familiar with the website, so I visited its page and performed a number of searches. While it is probably larger than our current Wikipedia article describes (it include listings for television series, television films, and short films), it seems to be a bit sparse on actual information of the films and television series which it covers.:

• It often lists year of release, but not actual date of release or country/countries of release.
• The field "producer" seems to cover production companies, but not actual human producers.
• It lists (or attempts to list in some cases) the directors, screenwriters, theme composers, and songwriters of each film. In some cases even some actors. But there is little information on other members of the production crew. The page on the "Lion King", for example, mentions none of the voice actors involved in the film, none of the animators, the storyboard artists, the film editors, the sound effects crew, the music department (which in this musical film was extensive), etc. Surprisingly, not even the story supervisor gets mentioned: Brenda Chapman, the first woman in that role in an animated feature film.
• The Awards list for the "Lion King" mentions awards and nominations for the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes, the BAFTA, the National Board of Review, the Annie Awards, the Los Angeles Film Critics Awards, the Chicago Film Critics Awards, and the Producers Guild Awards.
  • It does not mention that the film was nominated for a Saturn Award, a couple of victories in the BMI Awards, a victory at the awards of the Casting Society of America, a number of Goldene Leinwand certifying its status as a commercial hit in Germany, victories and nominations at the Grammy Awards, a Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Movie (over such kids' movies as "Forrest Gump" and "Speed"!), nominations at the MTV Movie & TV Awards, victories and nominations for the Young Artist Award, and a few less notable awards. It does not even mention that the film has entered the National Film Registry.
• The "Critics reviews" are rather limited. The entire section on the Lion king mentions only 5 reviews by professional critics. By comparison, Rotten Tomatoes lists 120 reviews by professional critics. Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Warner Bros. page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

List of highest paid film actors

I could do with a third opinion at Talk:List_of_highest_paid_film_actors#Sandra_Bullock_and_Jennifer_Aniston. An IP is conflating two sets of figures (basically annual eranings and total film earnings). I have requested SP but it would perhaps help if I wasn't just talking to myself at the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How many years does it take for books, films, music and paintings to be considered classic?

How many years does it take for books, films, music and paintings to be considered classic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkins102 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I would say 30–40 years. Many films from the 70s are regarded as classics now and some from the 80s, although you don't regularly see films from the 90s described as classics yet. If a film is to be described as such on Wikipedia it probably needs a highly credible source. Betty Logan (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum for this sort of discussion. Try The Reference Desk (entertainment section) instead. --Jayron32 02:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I would say it is subjective. Per the article classic: "Contemporary works may be hailed as an instant classic but the criteria for classic status tends to include the test of time. The term "classic" is in fact often generalized to refer to any works of a certain age, regardless of whether or not they are considered to be any good." Rotten Tomatoes actually has a list called TOP 100 CLASSICS MOVIES. The most recent film I see included in this list is The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003). Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

RT's list looks slightly suspect to me. While it most includes proper classics it seems that last year's Ben-Hur, Russel Crowe's Noah (2014) and Henry Cavill "masterpiece" Immortals have all creeped in: Rotten Tomato Classics list. Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Lists of universes

Do we really need both List of fictional shared universes in film and List of fictional universes in film and television? Not to mention that both of these lists are largely unsourced, but are both really necessary? Should they be merged into a single list or should we split List of fictional universes in film and television and keep one list for film and one list for television?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't MCU straddle both film and television? I would just merge List of fictional shared universes in film into List of fictional universes in film and television and then redirect it. That's the simplest solution if you don't want to make a lot of work for yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the potential for film/TV crossovers with these universes makes it seem easier just to keep them all together as one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Betty, to merge simply the "in film" article to the "in film and television" article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I tried to redirect it based on this discussion, but was reverted twice.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

They are entitled to revert under BRD, but if they do it again it needs to be pointed out to them that they are obliged to follow up the "R" with the "D". I faced a similar situation with an uncommunicative editor just last week and Wikipedia:Communication is required was helpfully pointed out to me. My advice is to drop a link to this discussion on their talk page just to make sure that they are aware of the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I even linked to the discussion here in the edit summary. It just sucks that it was ignored. And now he's created List of shared universes in film as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Female characters in film

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 6#Category:Female characters in television. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As a note, there are also similar categories nominated in this same discussion: female characters in literature, animation, comics, fairy tales, anime and manga, and video games. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Young Donovan's Kid

Young Donovan's Kid -- this is C-class? Gotta be kidding me (and article creator gets the final say too...) Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I find that it leans more toward C-class than Start-class. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Grading scheme. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Kingoflettuce on this one. The assessment guidelines define "C" class as "substantial, but is still missing important content". To me this article is not substantial: it is basically a plot and cast list and not much else. To be fair though most articles fall between classes and you will invariably get editors who go up and those who go down. Neither is a wrong decision; a peer review system allows for "hard" and "soft" marking. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I based my own assessment on what coverage existed for Young Donovan's Kid, which seemed pretty minimal. Most Google Books results tend to list this film among others rather than focusing on it. One source seemed to indicate that this was a "lost" film, but I can't find others saying that. I was thinking it was safe to say that the article would not grow much more. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Average row in film series

There is a discussion regarding Robert Langdon (film series) and the "Average" row in the "Critical and public response" section. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Red links for persons

Regarding Wikipedia:Red link, there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not to have red links for persons. See the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:List of Bollywood films of 2017#Top 10 list

Hi all, Your sage input is requested at Talk:List of Bollywood films of 2017#Top 10 list. The issue is whether a Top 10 list can exist at this article, and how that data should be sourced. My biggest concern is that the table at the top of this version of the article creates a ranking system based on gross values that editors have chosen to include. Isn't this problematic? How does a reader verify that Kaabil is ranked #5 and Hindi Medium is ranked #6, and that no Bollywood film grossed an amount in between those two films? This feels like it's shifting the burden to the reader to disprove the ranking. It seems to me that the only way to ensure that Wikipedia isn't fabricating a ranking system is by using a source that explicitly ranks the "top 10 Bollywood films of 2017". Am I nuts? Please feel free to tell me so at Talk:List of Bollywood films of 2017#Top 10 list. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?

Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?

New article on documentary film.

Let me know if anyone comes across additional sources? Sagecandor (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Footage, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

External links in filmographies

There was a time external links in filmographies were not permitted. Lately I come upon several such instances, like this one. Is this practice acceptable nowadays? Hoverfish Talk 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In a word, no. It should either be 1) a plain no-wiki link or 2) blue link to a wiki article or 3) red link, with the article coming "soon". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the relevant guideline: WP:LINK § Link titles, "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I am removing such links on sight then. If they are not IMDb ones that can be found via the given IMDb director external link, I either move them to that section instead or format them as a proper citation. Hoverfish Talk 14:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for expansion of Mob film to include international genres

Hi, and thanks for all your contributions! This article, which is translated largely as is into various languages is limited to American cinema. It seems that the genre is international. In particular, I'm thinking of the films of Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, as well as Australia and the UK.

Could someone please expand this article, or perhaps create new articles as appropriate. I might could help out if someone took the lead. :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that is the right approach. The article seems to specifically cover American Mafia films, just in the same way Yakuza film covers the Yakuza. Perhaps what is needed is a more generalized Gangster film article to describe the genre in more general terms? Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I also notice that the article occupies 2 entries in the genres template: Crime/Mob (where Yakuza and Gokudo are also listed) and separately "Mob films". My view is that the article should be moved to Mafia films, placed under Category:Mafia films and under Crime/Mafia in the template, with Mafia comedy as a separate entry or in brackets. Hoverfish Talk 12:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I see some generalized "Gangster film" content in parts of the article. So maybe the best way would be to content split to Gangster films, while the Mafia related content would stay under the title "Mafia films". This way both articles could be further expanded without unnecessary cross over. Hoverfish Talk 19:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: I support unredirecting Gangster film and making it the overarching article about the topic in its many forms. With this either being moved to Gangster film (America) or it could stay the same with a hatnote. I would note that "mob film" is definitely not a phase that's in use in any real way. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a redirect there. This sounds like the correct way to go. I agree that "Mob films" should not be a title. "Mob" is an informal term for criminal organization, especially the Mafia operating in the United States (the Free Dictionary)[3], with some more known uses of the term. Also, an OCLC note was placed in the talk page indicating that the most used gengre/term is "Gangster films". If the title becomes "Gangster film (America)" rather than "Mafia film", then the content should be adjusted accordingly. I am not a gang specialist, but there must be plenty more American gangster films other than Mafian that should be covered. A section could deal with Mafia and also take care of Mafia comedy, which doesn't have a single citation, by the way. Hoverfish Talk 00:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Therefore, if there is no objection I will be boldly moving Mob film to Gangster film (America) American Mafia film and leave the redirect as it is, till a more general article is placed there. Hoverfish Talk 19:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Kill Bill characters at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we be quoting the Tomato Meter when RT's math appears to be bad?

The thought had never occurred to me until just now, but Rotten Tomatoes appears to round down imperfect percentage figures to the lower option, regardless of how close it is to the higher. For season 2 of Game of Thrones, for example, it divided 32 by 33 and 0.96 even though it is actually 0.96969696..., which when rounded to the second decimal point would be 0.97, and in fact is extremely close to a perfect 97%.

Wouldn't it be better to give the data they analyzed and say they assessed 32 reviews of the 33 they looked at as being positive?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I'd stick with X out of Y reviews here and remove the incorrectly rounded percentage. Although, technically speaking, it's a score and not a percentage, and the science of getting to that score is pretty inexact -- I've seen quite a few reviews misclassified on Rotten Tomatoes because they were written tongue-in-cheek. Daß Wölf 01:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that rounding down from 97% to 96% is statistically significant enough to warrant exclusion. I don't think that the average reader is going to step back and go, "Wow, that was only a 96% approval rating? It's basically a critical flop.".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel like there was a thread at some point here about Rotten Tomatoes and math, but I can't find it and I can't remember the exact content of the thread to locate it. Does anyone remember anything about it? And I'm not necessarily sure rounding down, and the occasional misfiled review, is necessarily enough grounds to throw it out, especially when the number itself is used as a gauge by others. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we could always write something like "97% of reviews gathered by Rotten Tomatoes were positive." Daß Wölf 01:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That's actually, as I remember it, the current encouraged language. It's seen on articles like The Martian (film): "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, which categorizes reviews as positive or negative, surveyed 311 critics and determined that 91% of the reviews were positive with a rating average of 7.8/10, and the consensus..." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Daß Wölf: @TenTonParasol: @Bignole: Ugh. Sorry. I totally forgot to explain why I was thinking about this. Game of Thrones#Critical response gives a graph of the show's seasons' RT scores that comes across as comparing them, even though apart from a dip for season 5 the differences are statistically insignificant. (There's also the fact that a lot of critics were apparently confused after watching the premier of the very first episode of season 1, not the whole season -- virtually all the "rotten" reviews for the "season" were written by critics who had only seen the first episode.) Given that the graph is essentially 90-100, the 1% difference stands out more than it probably should. That said, it's really not clear how they divided 27 by 33 and got 89%. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if you drill down into each episode, you'll find a dozen or so reviews for each one. So it's reasonable to assume that the overall 89% score is factoring in the episodic reviews in addition to the overall season reviews. As for the rounding you mentioned earlier, I understand where you're coming from, but IMHO, it's not a good idea to deviate from what the website is publishing. Doing so only invites constant edit-warring from drive-by editors that see it as a discrepancy and fix it to match the website. It wouldn't be a battle worth winning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thing, you're talking about GoTs and rotten tomatoes, but this is the film project. For TV, I generally discourage the use of quoting RT, whether that's the "consensus" or the percentage. The reason why is that they rarely are providing reviews of entire seasons. As you saw, they are reviews of episodes. Since you're not guaranteed consistent reviews from the same reviewer for every episode, it makes it hard to track. Then, factor in that there are what...10 or 12 episodes a season? There are only on average 30+ reviews in RT for each season. If the same people wrote reviews for every episode, you're really only talking about "3" reviews for a season that are creating the percentage. Three reviews is not enough to say statistical significance and wouldn't generally be included in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Bignole. The other side of the coin that should be taken into account is definitely the number of reviews on the entire season, not just episodes. The RT percentage for most TV programs isn't an accurate assessment of the entire season in many cases and should be avoided when that's the case. I came across that as well when editing several Walking Dead articles.

Aadhi Raat Ke Baad

The 1965 film Aadhi Raat Ke Baad is under discussion for deletion. Does anyone have access to the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema which may help provide evidence of notability for this film? --Bejnar (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not appear to have any pages mentioning this film. See search results. I also tried "Adhi" instead of "Aadhi" and still got nothing. As a test, I searched the book for the director's name, and results do show up for him. Just not for the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's the AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Parodies of..." categories, nominated for deletion

1. Category:Parodies of Sarah Palin nominated for deletion at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_19#Parodies_of_Sarah_Palin
2. Category:Parodies of Donald Trump nominated for deletion at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_20#Parodies_of_Donald_Trump

Sagecandor (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in book article

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in a book article, pitched as a story to Hollywood.

Please see Request for Comment, at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#RfC_about_the_author_credits_of_first_edition_in_first_sentence. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted scenes in plots

Maybe it's the good ol' British summer melting my mind right now, but adding details about a deleted scene into the plot of an article is a no-no? WP:FILMPLOT doesn't specifically mention it, but I assume it'll fail WP:V for one, and the fact it was deleted from the final cut means it's trivial at best? The article in question is the rather brilliant Martha Marcy May Marlene, which I highly recommend you see, if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It being deleted, technically, it isn't part of the plot at all. So, I'd say, yeah, it shouldn't be in the plot section. If the deleted scene is particularly important for whatever reason, like there's a lot of secondary sources talking about it for whatever reason, it probably could warrant another section. I don't know. I can't think of any off the top of my head. But, ya, shouldn't be in the plot section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your assessment. The value of deleted scenes would need to depend on secondary sources and probably be placed elsewhere, probably the "Production" section as part of editing. However, I am not sure if such a deleted scene exists for this film? A search engine test does not seem to show anyone talking about one, and this does not mention any deleted scenes on home media. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_about_inclusion_of_films_in_Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Only two editors commenting, both parties to the original dispute, further participation would be helpful. Sagecandor (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither this article or the one above are under the jurisdiction of the Film project. Have you tried requesting input from the projects that actually oversee these articles? Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It does bring up a tangential question: where should films about a film-industry figure fall exactly? It seems like "bibliography" is used to list written works by and about the given figure. Should a filmography be used the same way, like a famous film-industry figure having documentaries about them listed there? Or some other arrangement? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

According to IMDB Trump's media presence is extensive. I think maybe a List of documentary films about President X and maybe a List of media appearances by President X might be a more general solution rather than trying to shoehorn a load of film stuff into book articles. If editors want to insert a load of film stuff into book articles then I'm not going to stand in the way of that but I think there is a danger that the articles will be overwhelmed. I am bit surprised such articles don't already exist because there will be no shortage of material for Kennedy onwards. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well this seems just seems a dispute over the appropriate title and whether it is better having one or two articles. If bibliography is understood to just contain text rather tan audiovisual material, then easiest solution might be to rename the current article in something like "bibliography and filmography of Donold Trump" or "media on donald trump" or similar.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Short Film's Notability

Hello. I created an article about the 2013 short film Sonic. (See Talk:Sonic_(2013_film))

The article has been replaced with a redirect page to a list page a couple of times, due to issues with the page (first it was a stub, then it was all plot). Both times, I fixed the issue with the page and brought it back.

But Sergecross73 keeps attaching a "Notability" tag to the article, despite the fact that I have found quite a number of "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention." Sergecross73 claims all the sources are too short and just repeat a few facts many times. ("It's a fan game [sic]! It's 18 minutes long! Jaleel White does the voice again!")

Please consider taking a look at the page and its list of sources. I want the opinion of people outside of the Sonic fan community. If the WikiProject Film members also feel the page should be replaced with a redirect, I will accept the decision.

Thank you for your time. --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to point out that I've only added the notability tag once, while FrostedPenguin has now removed it twice, and while discussions were ongoing, and no one agreeing that it was time to remove the tags yet. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for any of my previous actions that were unreasonable. I incorrectly thought I had a firm grasp on the term "significant coverage." This led me to honestly believe that the other editors were just ganging up on me to delete a page about a film they didn't like. I now see that I was just being a n00b... :P My faith in Wikipedia's democratic process has been restored, I accept the decision to redirect the page, and I'll only bring it back if I find enough significant coverage. --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A first step towards "Gangster film"

InformationvsInjustice has offered a user page to gather material from which we can create a general article for Gangster film (which currently redirects rather improperly to Mob film). The article should cover ganster films from all over. It should not cover in any detail the existing articles of Mob (Mafia) film or Yakuza film, beyond placing them in the general context. @Betty Logan: and anyone with some experience in this sub-genre of Crime films, please help in with films, knowledge and comments. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 17:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that comments go on the talk page. Maybe this draft can be an actual draft per WP:DRAFTS? I would also suggest taking a summary-style approach here. This means having a summary section for related topics that already have articles. For example, there can be a "Yakuza" section using {{main}} to link to Yakuza film and a solid paragraph explaining that particular topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: For the moment it's a Userspace draft and when we go beyond listing items and building some meaningfull prose, it should either move to Draft or into a stub. Point taken about linking to main articles. Hoverfish Talk 19:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a page has to be presentable to be a non-userspace draft. It seems to be up to the editor, really. By the way, this seems like a good summary of the genre to reference. It also lists additional (book) sources that can be referenced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see a definition of "gangster films" that is distinct from "mob films". ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I am learning, Mob film was never a specific genre, as for definition, I copy from avove: "Mob" is an informal term for criminal organization, especially the Mafia operating in the United States (the Free Dictionary)[4]. Ganster film on the other hand belongs to the taxonomy of cinematic genre and contains any ganster film, not "especially the Mafia operating in the United States". Which is what this article is being created for. Can you call Quadrophenia a mob film? It is a gangster film though.(striking my claim as it has been contested) Hoverfish Talk 00:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Great work thus far. I completely support this, and I've bookmarked it to read it in full later on this week. I'd love to contribute if ever necessary, but I'm glad this distinction is recognized by so many others. My film professor approves, too.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 01:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of I Am Sorry

The article I Am Sorry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A quick Google search finds no sources than those already in the article. If no sources exist, this article should be deleted per WP:1R, as having only one source would probably cause this article to fail WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Article appears to have been deprodded. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

New handout to help student editors edit articles on films

Hi WikiProject,

A few weeks ago I posted here soliciting feedback for a guide for student editors contributing to articles about films. The guide has just been published and is available on Commons here:

File:Editing Wikipedia articles on films (Wiki Ed).pdf

It will be used primarily as a printed handout, distributed to students in a classroom setting, but may be applicable to any new user.

Thanks to Czar, Hoverfish, MarnetteD, Mike Christie, NinjaRobotPirate, and Ronz for your valuable feedback (on this and/or the books handout, which includes some similar material). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

An attractive and helpful guide! It would have been nice if I'd seen that when I first joined Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars at GAR

A GAR was opened up for Star Wars a month ago, and it's starting to garner comments. Lately, the article has been having issues with structure, length, disputes over the best way to summarize the elements. Due to the importance of the article, and some budding disagreement about the best way to address its issues, more eyes would be appreciated. The GAR is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Star Wars/1. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That discussion is too rich for my blood, but thanks for introducing me to permalinks! Huggums537 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Animation

I've been adding all citations and doing a little bit of grammar on the animation article, mainly looking around at Google Books. I don't have time to improve this article since I believe it may quickfail at GAN or at FAC. The article had its peer review in 2007, and here's what it looks like after this wasn't reviewed. It shows the lack of referencing as well as cleanup tags. I think the article is very bloated, since it has lot of cruft, balance and lack of focus at least. What I think I can believe is we can possibly format to a better prose without the copyvios, but I don't at moment since I can't think about it. John (Talk) 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Entries on Film censorship in China

There is a dispute over whether The Lost City of Z and Dangal should be included in the list on Film censorship in China. The crux of the discussion is that, for both films, sources state that alterations were made to the films by their producers, rather than the State Administration body, to change the pacing of the film rather than to remove objectionable content, but after the release of both films in China, a notice from the Administration body made it illegal to distribute any uncut version of any film, including these two films. Please see the discussion at Talk:Film censorship in China#Lost City of Z & Dangal ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like one user's personal soapbox of fun all bundled into one, neat little page! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ditto @Lugnuts.Hoverfish Talk 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The West must know about a "rumored" 30-second cut to The Revenant. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of the arguments given on the talk page are very indicative of the encyclopedic spirit of the page, but since we do have a Category:Film censorship by country, and since most of these articles do much the same, I guess we proceed by consensus on such matters, n'est pas? We do have a Category:Film censorship in the United States after all. Hoverfish Talk 12:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why nobody thought of making an article about Film censorship in, say, Saudi Arabia yet...Hoverfish Talk 13:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The topic is valid, but the approach is wrongheaded. There needs to be greater emphasis on secondary sources. I am seeing runtime difference used as solely the reason to list a film, which is original research. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hoverfish, see Censorship in Saudi Arabia § Film and television. Movie theaters are banned, so there is no need for a list article in this regard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

At first glance I'd say if the changes were made due to explicit demands by Chinese authorities then it is censorship. If they were made "voluntary" without request then I wouldn't call it censorship. The bigger problem of that list however seems its focus on "western" blockbusters with minor alterations rather than listing actually real banned movies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of hoping that particular problem will come to be eventually sorted out in time. It's a very new article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like to me that it will and frankly I can't understand how the original author could create such an article under the given title. In fact the lengthy dispute of over content that is at best marginally relevant to the article's topic and could be removed completely seems rather surreal to me. The article needs to be completely reworked or moved to another title/name (roughly something along the line of "list of hollywood & bollywood movies alterated for a Chinese release").--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a little drastic, I think. It's isn't an insurmountable task to get the article reworked into what you're suggesting. And it's still early to make judgement calls on how it'll look in six months. There's only two editors on it, the creator and myself, and I'm really only copyediting and trying to figure out scope. With hope, a couple more interested editors will corral it into including scholarship and etc. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can't be done, i'm just saying I'm rather skeptical. Moreover this is simply not how an article should be created in WP these days, i.e. creating something totally off and waiting whether anybody will fix it over the course of the next year is bit a of a no-go. It might be ok in case of the newbie editors still getting their bearings right, but the involved editors seem to be seasoned Wikipedians who should know better. It is perfectly fine to start an article small/incomplete and based on (reliable) non-scholarly sources, but at least it needs to get its topic right.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There have been several changes to the article. Editors are invited to review the situation. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems with recent additions/modification the article is moving in the right direction now and the content is starting to match the article's title/topic in sufficient manner.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never disapproved adding banned films here. In fact, I have since added several not previously written banned films, plus copying the rest of the banned films here. That is called leadership! Also, looking back, adding the 1930s there to introduce context is very jarring, because it refers to the censorship of Republic of China not Mainland China. They are two different governments until eventual re-unification. There is still supposed to be Chinese Civil War between the two. Supermann (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion, largely retreading the same ground, has picked up again. Again on the inclusion of runtime columns and article scope, what should be considered censored, etc. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Presentation of cast lists in articles

Some articles about films with small casts have the cast list in a table or infobox (such as at Fight Club#Casting or Jaws (film)#Casting). An editor has raised an objection to this approach at Rocky and there is a discussion about it at Talk:Rocky#Cast. I have always taken a "horses for courses" view of cast sections but the editor in question seems to object to the layout purely on the grounds that most other articles don't do it this way so I would like to get more opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed the articles more and am reforming my opinion. I'm not totally keen on it myself. I think the Cast list and the Casting section are 2 separate and distinct sections. Cast is for the actual list of actors/actresses, the roles they play, and descriptions about the roles in question. Casting should focus more on the process of who the producers wanted for the roles, who accepted and who rejected, and how they ultimately came to accept and star in said films.

For that reason alone, I disagree even with the ~sacred~ Fight Club article's way of formatting and would 100% support that being amended. However, I can't disagree that it looks nicely composed. It's a pain to edit though. I just added 3 names that I'm astonished were omitted from the cast list on Fight Club. Regardless of how minor their roles are, they're still known actors who should be credit as part of the cast list. We even credit cameo appearances by known actors, sometimes in bit parts as favors to directors. So why should this be any different?

My final opinion is that I don't think this cast box practice should be supported or advocated. It's not about being conservative here. It's about maintaining consistency across all film articles. So that people researching these films know where to look and what to find. Isn't that part of the purpose? This isn't the DVD cover art contest. It doesn't have to have flair. It should have consistency and reliability. And I think that is better obtained by separating the Cast section OUT of the Production sections.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

While consistency is useful it can also disincentivise replacing bad habits with good practises. So while I think there is a lot of merit in the "if it aint broke don't fix it" attitude I think each situation needs to be taken on its own terms. If there are good reasons for doing something differently then conformity alone is not a good enough reason to not embrace new methods. Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

On that matter, you're absolutely correct. There's no progression if we don't reassess old ways and consider reforms. But I firmly maintain that the Cast list being merged into Casting/Production is actually doing something differently for all the wrong reasons. It detracts from the information one SHOULD be gleaning from film articles. Cast lists/character summaries are essential to the films they belong to, and thus merging them like those aforementioned articles actually diminishes the significance. It doesn't matter how small a film's cast is: the cast list is essential to learn about those characters. The plot section can't always adequately summarize each character. And from what I saw in those articles, the characters were barely assessed at all, because it focused on the production. This is precisely why they NEED to be separate, distinct sections.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 05:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that the purpose of the cast list is to supply character summaries, and that would seem to violate WP:INUNIVERSE. I know that this sometimes occurs in articles but it is essentially poor writing that the Film project should be attempting to discourage. WP:FILMCAST specifically states that "A well-written plot summary should convey such roles." The main purpose of the cast list is to provide the credited roles and some real-world context for the actor in that role. An article that does this really well is Alien_(film)#Cast, which has both a cast and a casting section. I don't object to a two-section approach in this case because the cast list is providing the real-world commentary it is meant to support. But sometimes it is not necessary to provide real-word context for the cast, or the information is simply not available, and in those instances a bare cast list of nothing but names looks aesthetically poor, especially if there is a load of whitespace at the side. If all you have got is a bare cast list then it simply looks neater to box it and stick it in the "Casting" section. This is why there shouldn't be a mandatory layout because content should dictate form. Betty Logan (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The Alien article is terrific, agreed. As for the aesthetically poor argument, I concur with you. That's why if it is like that, it demands expansion. Fight Club CERTAINLY has enough character background to expand the cast list, and so does Rocky. In fact, with Rocky, as a classic film, I'm astonished it hasn't been done already. I might look into it myself, if I can find substantial sources that adequately aid the quest to fill the whitespace void. So perhaps, until one can properly expand the cast list section, the infobox is an adequate temporary format.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 07:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

De facto cast lists are not required across the board, nor should they be. Content about the cast varies in a way that it could be only a list, only prose, or both (and sometimes tables). In this regard, it is different from prose being shifted around under a section. (Though they have been debates about using "Reception", "Release", "Critical reception", "Box office", "Theatrical run", etc. for section headings and sub-section headings.) WP:FILMCAST #3 is intended to give flexibility in providing content about cast. It even says that most articles will have cast lists, but a well-developed article means the film has been well-researched and the extent of content about the cast fairly known. Wikipedia articles can't detail everything. We don't identify all key crew members. While I would like to identify more of them, I don't want to put them in the infobox. So for the cast, we have to apply a cut-off at some point. Regarding Jaws, the reason "Interviewer" is mentioned is because it is a cameo by the author. Otherwise, we would normally not mention an "Interviewer" role. If anything, that should be only in the prose because if that was the takeaway, it has been wrongly interpreted to be prominent. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes sense. I shouldn't have perused that article so quickly and so late, and overlooked such an obvious point, but thanks. I suppose they can't detail everything, but one thing bothers me about your argument here. "I don't want to put them in the infobox." Okay, but you don't own Wikipedia articles, even ones you may have contributed to extensively. I understand that it may be of precious sentiment to you, and I'm learning and gaining more understanding about the ultimate goals of building well-developed articles, particularly about films. But like I said above, I think an article without a cast list and character descriptions actually suffers as a whole, since it deprives readers of succinct comprehension of those characters when reduced to a casting section and one can only glean so much by skimming the plot section. Now, I know that it's not Wikipedia's job to prevent someone from reading spoilers. But one of the added bonuses of a cast list is learning about the cast and characters without having to learn about the plot. It's not just about who stars in it. It's about outlining each role. Several articles do this with great efficiency. Every article doesn't have to look the same, but should maintain certain prime standards per each article and I think this is one of them.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 12:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"I don't want to put them in the infobox" is referring to other crew members like production designer and costume designer. Basically, the film infobox is unlikely to expand to have these fields. I have encouraged doing a crew list in the "Production" section but think it works best if a list has mostly blue links (as opposed to mostly no links, reflecting lack of notability). I only mention the crew approach as an example of how not everything can be included in a Wikipedia article. Not all films lend themselves to having a full-blown "Cast" section listing actors and roles. As Betty mentioned, a short and simple cast list can create extraneous white space, so it can be displayed better elsewhere. It can be done in a "Casting" sub-section or even the "Plot" section itself. Sometimes I've written a "Cast" section that has paragraphs focusing on the main actors and roles with a table inserted listing these and the secondary cast. I approach it depending on if the coverage focuses on defining the roles or on the process of casting. For Fight Club, the content was mainly related to the casting process and themes. Furthermore, we have to avoid being indiscriminate in listing cast and crew; WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." There has to be a cutoff somewhere, and it is going to depend on secondary sources. A "tertiary cast" like Fight Club's is not going to be mentioned in sources. Reviews like Variety and The New York Times do not go that deep. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

From a consistency standpoint for a reader, I think eliminating a separate "Cast" section in favor of a terse cast list table in Casting is not helpful. If I want to check the cast of a film while I'm on WP, I am likely going to jump to the film's page, and then scan the TOC to find "Cast". "Casting" is there in the TOC, and as an editor I would know to check that, but as a reader I likely would not, so it would appear the cast list is absent. Of course its still there scrolling down but not easily seen. This would be more trouble even on a mobile device where the H3 headings are hidden by default and I wouldn't even see the "Casting" one. I recognize that the format used in Jaws/Fight Club is clean and visually appealing, but that's not a good metric to use over readability and useability. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is what it looks like to have the short and simple cast list. I suppose it would look fine on mobile due to the narrow display, but on a desktop, it creates extraneous white space. Is that not also problematic? I see the point about navigation but am not really sure how else to display it if the content does not really fit. As mentioned before, it is mainly related to the casting process, so it fits well in the "Production" section, and the "Themes" section covers the interplay of characters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That white space will happen if you have a long cast list too (see Galaxy Quest for example), though in a situation like that we can mitigate it with columns which would not look too bad. Columns for a cast of under 8 people though would look odd though, as with Fight Club or Jaws. The other option here that doesn't mess up mobile is to add a few free images of the main actors here in a horizontal imageframe to fill the empty space. I don't think there is any one right answer, but I am concerned that a key part of any movie - the principle cast - is being placed at a point where it is not immediately obvious to see, from a reader's perspective. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, as Masem said. This is the main problem. The casual reader here is the #1 concern. The casual reader doesn't give a hoot how aesthetically pleasing this article is. They come here to find information, and having a cast section does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines.

Now, Erik and Betty both mention "white space" as being one of their primary objections. Masem gave one option: images. But an even simpler option is what I've been advocating for all along: if you include brief descriptions of the characters, or in-depth ones if the characters so permit, then those sentences will help fill the objectionable white space. For Marla, you can mention a variety of quirky character traits, such as her tendency towards attending support groups for fun. The Headings issue presented by Masem is another dilemma I didn't even consider, but he or she is absolutely correct. It's a usability flaw as well. Reducing the cast list into a more minuscule factor is detrimental to the article, particularly for a casual doing research, be it for pleasure or film class. So if white space is the main point of contention, just fill it up with a minute amount of pertinent information.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 14:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No, "a variety of quirky character traits" would not be acceptable. When we write about fiction, we have to write with a real-world perspective. WP:PSTS says only basic descriptions can be drawn from primary sources due to the problem of interpretation. To write about "a variety of quirky character traits" is getting into that territory, and writing that she goes to support groups for fun would also be problematic. It could be argued that she needs catharsis like the Narrator, or she wants human connections, and so forth. We can't assume motivations or anything like that, so any character description would need to be very basic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It was just an example, Erik. Mainly based off of what little I could remember about the character having seen it a decade ago. BUT duly noted. I'll be sure to avoid fluff and aim for more concise but vague descriptions.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, multiple columns is an easy solution for films with large casts. I've used that myself. Thinking on it, the only consistent content would be basic descriptions of the characters (which I admittedly hate to write due to potential interpretation). So for Fight Club, I've tried to do that as seen here, a simple wikitable with 100% width. Any thoughts on that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a goal is to "fill" all the white space (if you're using "width=100%" take that off), nor using a gridded table helps in this type of case. I need to give it some more thought but there's got to be a decent solution that balances a nice looking appearance in a standard desktop browser, and functionality/usability across all devices. We've got the extremes identified, so we need just to determine that middle ground. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Where I think Erik's gridded table actually succeeds is how it neatly distinguishes actor/role/description. Some cast lists describe the character in excess, and therefore can appear to be a wall of text. The table streamlines this by allowing the names, the characters, and the brief summaries to stand out and allows for more efficient reading and info processing.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 14:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The 100% width can be removed so there is some white space left. What is the problem with a gridded table, though? It allows for content to be spaced out a little more, as opposed to a bulleted list that would be entirely left-aligned. I think we have generally avoided tables to make it easier on novice editors, but if we add descriptions (and don't have italicizing or bolding), it gets harder to read. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, any thoughts on the matter? Would this slight padding-out help resolve dealing with the extraneous white space and not having to migrate the details elsewhere? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it was just my initial reaction to it, I see others like it. I definitely would not recommend this for a long cast list, but it works well for a short cast. It might also work in films where there may be no more than 8 principle actors and a handful of other small roles; the table should document the principle ones, and then with prose explain the smaller roles (like the fact about Elijah Wood in Back to the Future Part II which doesn't need a table row. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That should work. Agree about limiting this table usage to small casts. The upcoming The Party (2017 film) comes to mind, with its 7-member principal* cast. Only those 7, and a sentence or two describing each. As for the prose, I like that approach as well. It works on those superhero film articles. Perhaps some might think it excessive to write about all those extra roles, but using Fight Club--if it weren't for the secondary source issue. Just work with me here, Erik, FOR EXAMPLE--characters (and their actors) such as those, with little relevance to the plot, could be adequately accounted for here.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, I like this table, Erik! Actually, this is both aesthetically pleasing and sufficient. It has the character summaries, actors/roles, and best of all on a full page, it stands out so that when scrolling, it's not overlooked. It grabs your attention. I think this would actually look great on many other film articles as a way of improving the respective cast list sections. It might be jarring to some, but ultimately, it satisfies, IMO.

By the way, it's been a while since I've seen Fight Club. That old revision included Zach Grenier, but you didn't. Remind me, what was his part and did he have any real relevance, or was it just a known actor in a bit part? If it's the latter, I won't object too much if he or the other 2 names I edited in are excluded from this list. But if they can be described in enough detail, any one of them, I think they'd be worth adding.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 14:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

He was the Narrator's boss. The Narrator beat himself up in front of the boss. Like I mentioned, the cut-off is based on secondary sources, and Grenier is not mentioned in them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough then, I concede. But I'm 100% in support of the Cast section table. We both agree that it allows for an improved reading experience. And if more film articles adopt it, all novice editors would have to do is copy and paste the template and implement it into other films' pages. IMO, it would be an improvement for a number of articles.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 14:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the two examples Betty Logan brought in look fine. A visitor finds the main cast in the table and whoever is for geting more info, the prose is there, nicely responsive to screen width with the infobox thing. I also like consistency, especially while we are talking about smaller articles, I'd much rather have lists than tables there, but in such more developed articles we don't have to go too far in applying the simpler model. I get the info, I read more, I like it, as a casual visitor too. Hoverfish Talk 22:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment This discussion has advanced quite a lot since yesterday so I will address several points by different people all in one go:

1. I don't have any great objections to Erik's table but I'm not sure it tackles the actual problem I am advocating boxes for. Remember, I don't have a problem with the layout at Alien_(film)#Cast and am not proposing we convert the Alien cast list to a table. I—in accordance with MOS:FILM—am advocating boxes for short lists (such as this one here) as a means of avoiding excessive whitespace.
2. Secondly, I don't really buy Masem's observation that a reader may not be able to find the cast list without a chapter heading in the contents. If there isn't a "cast" chapter in the contents it seems reasonable to assume that a reader would click on "casting" instead, so I simply don't accept the argument that a separate "cast" entry is needed in the contents. We often have information in the article that does not have its own sub-section but provided it is under a section where a reader could reasonably expect to find it then we don't consider that a problem.
3. Long cast lists are not as problematic as short ones because we can columnise them. War_and_Peace_(film_series)#Cast has a huge cast but the whitespace problem is completely avoided. You wouldn't stick a cast this size in a box, anymore than you would columnise the Fight Club cast.
4. Masem makes a good point that a "Cast" section can be developed in other ways, such as using images. In fact, just to prove I am not hung up on boxes here is "one I made earlier": Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)#Cast. GWTW had a large cast, and a lot of casting information necessitating two sections IMO, and I was able to use public domain images to try and make the section look more integrated. I would actively oppose any editor who tried to shove the cast in a box at that article.
5. Ultimately, I would rather avoid layouts like this which I think is a good example of where boxing is useful and justified. All you really lose is the chapter heading, but as I have stated above I am not convinced that readers would have a mental breakdown if there wasn't a "cast" chapter in the contents.

I am not advocating one particular type of solution here, I am advocating the freedom to select a solution which editors can tailor to the content. Conformity across articles is good if the content is of a similar type and size (which is the thinking behind infoboxes) but when you get a lot of deviation as you do with cast sections it does not make sense to impose a single standard across all articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the contributions to this discussion that has been going on. My only concern from the beginning was trying to keep familiarity for the reader. If the casual Wikipedia reader opens up these select few film pages, he/she will probably be very confused when looking for the cast section. While the white space is not to pleasing to the eye, I think the editor must decide what to sacrifice in each situation. If every film article would be changed that would be a different story. Especially seeing how the Rocky article was only changed a few months ago, before then no one in the entire Wikipedia community seemed to have any issue with the list format. I am not familiar with the other films mentioned before but, again, uniformity should be of paramount importance seeing as it is what will make Wikipedia more user friendly. Just my 2 cents. Jdavi333 (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I hear again and again about the casual visitor who wants to find everything totally uniform in film articles or s/he gets confused. This model belongs to film oriented editors rather, who want to find everything in a neat order so they can check things and work with more ease. I don't think that a person who comes to Wikipedia to find information about a film belongs to this model. If one wants to find the full cast and crew neatly listed in a very uniform way, one goes to IMDb for this. We don't have to duplicate this. People I know who search films in Wikipedia, want to know mainly about plot, reception and interesting facts about the making of a film. We (WP film editors) are the overy systematic eyes because of the nature of our tasks in the film articles. So let's not project this model to the casual visitor, as this is most probably our own view or (at worse) rhetoric to support one's views. Hoverfish Talk 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to the usage of the infobox for displaying the cast in certain situations. As others have pointed out, it can work well with small casts, but would not work well for larger casts. I like the idea that there are several options available to choose the best method that works well for listing the cast in each particular article. Huggums537 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Help finding someone who can write a plot summary

I recently noticed the plot summary in the article for The Purge: Election Year only covered about the first half of the film. Suspecting a vandal removed the other half, I went to restore the full summary, but saw in the article's edit history that it was the result of an editor rolling back an overly-long plot summary not by editing out unnecessary details to make it more concise per WP:FILMPLOT but by abruptly cutting it off before it reached 700 words. I don't consider myself qualified to rewrite the summary, so I tagged the section with {{More plot}} and explained the problem on the article's talk page to draw attention to the issue. It seems to have only attracted the editor who made the problematic summary, however, who defends it solely on the grounds that it's less than 700 words long.
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to do this, but I looked at other noticeboards and they all seem to be about answering an editor's questions or resolving inter-user disputes. I just need to find someone who can properly write the summary or edit an earlier one down to a more acceptable length. If there's a better place for that other than the article's talk page, I would appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction.
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

something actually happened in the second half of that film? must have missed it? :) I've seen it, I can probably look at it later and hodgepodge what I remember. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The scaling back of the plot was done by Binksternet. While I understand his rationale (it was 1600 words long before he cut it down) I would like to get to the bottom of this. Did Bink deliberately intend to chop off the second half of the plot summary or was this unintentional? There is absolutely no question that the plot needed to be pared down in size, but this shouldn't be attained by just having half a plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: We discussed this on the article's talk page. The editor never explicitly states if he deliberately intended to chop off the second half of the summary, but reiterates that he doesn't have a problem with it as it brought the summary down to less than 700 words. The user also reverted an attempt to write a full summary (albeit one that's still ~250 words too long) back to his/her incomplete summary. He also said he hasn't seen the movie and doesn't consider himself capable of writing the summary. I tried explaining the problems with this approach to the editor and described some alternative solutions to the original problem, but he repeatedly falls back on the 700 word limit outlined in WP:FILMPLOT as justification for his edit.
LoveWaffle (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well the last version that comes in at 950 words is still too long but it is not unreasonably long. There are plenty of film articles on Wikipedia with ~1000 word plot summaries and we just tag them with {{Long plot}}. I think this version should be restored with the tag and then readers will at least have a functional plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I tried explaining that to the other editor but he said:

"Looks like you want me to be contrite but I'm not sorry about reverting to an old version which complies with WP:FILMPLOT's length restriction. I would do it again."

Which is when I realized I wasn't getting anywhere in the article's talk page and needed to turn to another place to draw attention to the issue.
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've replied at the Talk page, supporting restoring the 950 version and either tagging or bringing that one into compliance. DonIago (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff of my action to roll back the plot section. I reverted to a version that was written by Kevinhuynh9 on July 1, 2016, but I removed the actors' names per Film Project MOS. Kevinhuynh9 asserted in his edit summary that he "added plot" – he did not say that he added the first half of the plot while leaving off the second half. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet, you could be excused for the oversight since Kevinhuynh9 didn't give notice in the edit summary that the second half of the plot was left off, so you weren't aware of it. However, now that we are aware of the "plot left off" issue we could focus on correcting it. Huggums537 (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted a fix, improvements are welcomed (and required because I've never seen the film). We can all think about whether reverting a year old version based on the edit summaries and then leaving whatever turns up after it's been pointed out is best practice going forward or not. Scribolt (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises"

Various horror franchise movie articles have copy-pasted text comparing their box-office performance. (Special:Search/comparing "horror franchises") This dates back to at least 2011 and has been divergently updated since then in various articles. While the box office figures for individual franchises are sourced, giving a definite ranking is not. Better would be a single reference to the boxofficemojo franchises list and cherry-picking the horror franchises; but the cherry-picking might itself constitute OR, and who knows how complete the lower reaches of boxofficemojo's lists are? In any case, placing the boilerplate in each article is intrusive and off-topic. I deleted the particularly egregious instance in Hellraiser (franchise)#Box office. I suggest {{seealso}} List of highest-grossing horror film franchises would be less intrusive, and a single article would be easier to maintain and keep properly referenced. jnestorius^(talk) 00:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you read the original source, that is where they are being compared to. On the Friday the 13th: The Complete History documentary. That's why those are picked over say newer franchises. It's also not "original research" because of that. There is no "interpretation" going on, it's straight fact comparison. Hellraiser was removed though because it's a British film and didn't have the same level of release as the other franchises (so that I support). I also wasn't aware so many other pages started including it. THe list you see on Friday the 13th is the original list that they used. Anyone else was added to those pages much later and I wasn't aware of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean Bracke's book or Farrands' film? Neither is cited in Friday the 13th (franchise)#Reception. Does whichever source actually say that Friday the 13th is the inflation-adjusted highest-grossing horror franchise in the United States? Boxofficemojo says The Exorcist has $1,213,743,600 compared to Friday the 13th's $816,789,900. jnestorius^(talk) 15:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Bracke's book uses those films. I can add a cite with a hidden note of the films that are part of the comparison if you'd like. Yes, he actually does provide the inflation amount, but it's obviously dated because it was based on when the book was written. Hence, that is why an inflation index site is used and simple mathematics is not considered OR. The Exorcist isn't part of the list because the Exorcist isn't considered a "slasher film", those films in the list are technically considered that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says "the other top-grossing American horror franchises"; you are now saying "slasher" rather than "horror"; and as-of 2006, not 2017. Counting "Psycho" and Hannibal Lecter as slashers is very dubious; this is just one author's opinion. It sounds to me like Bracke is a fan of Friday the 13th and has cherry-picked some data to enable him to say "Friday the 13th ranks top". Overall, it's such a minor and debatable statistic I don't think the article loses anything by simply deleting it. There is no reason why the Friday the 13th article should tell us that Halloween earned more than Saw earned more than Scream. That is what List of highest-grossing horror film franchises is for. jnestorius^(talk) 11:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never said differently. Just because the article has been edited to say just "American horror" doesn't detract from what Bracke was saying. Also, just because you don't think of them as such does not mean that they aren't looked at as such. Even Box Office Mojo classifies Psycho as a "slasher" film. This really seems more like you are the one that doesn't like it, more than anything else. This page has been under multiple reviews and never once has anyone said that the information there is "dubious" or should be removed. The reason "American" is included, is because people kept trying to add "Hellaiser", which isn't a fair comparison given that he was not released widely in the United States. Yes, you could create a page that lists horror film franchise grosses, but that doesn't negate the use of comparison on this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Box office" section on the Hellraiser page has been reinstated by an IP in the meanwhile, but I agree that that section in particular should go. This is WP:SYNTH (the franchises don't appear to have been cherry picked by a reliable source, and it was all compared using "Tom's inflation calculator"), and it also relies on a source that has a known problem with incorrect international B.O. totals. Daß Wölf 22:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What part exactly is synthesis? Original research explicitly states that basic math is not original research. Bracke already does the comparison, the only difference is the date. The point of the calculator is to update the figures. The inflation calculator is just that, you can use whatever you want. The difference is that Tom's inflation calculator actually explains how the inflation is calculated. As for international, that's irrelevant. It doesn't take that into consideration.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For comparison, look at the featured list List of James Bond films#Box office and budget, which has aa single sentence sourced to here. jnestorius^(talk) 09:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there doesn't need to be a page of "List of Friday the 13th films". There are only 12. Again, if you need it I will go add the page for Bracke's comparison. You cannot argue "cherry picking" for one author, then point to another website that does the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast

Should articles have cast lists or not? Most seem to have them to clearly identify cast/character but the folks at Scream (1996 film) seem to disagree. LordAtlas (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's generally done on a case-by-case basis. I've seen many articles where a cast list is nothing more than "Actor as character", and those are often merged into plot section by way of "Character (Actor)". Scream (1996 film) has a very substantive casting section, so it probably could stand in for a cast section, but I would personally recommend having the article implement like "High school student Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) receives a flirtatious phone..." But I would recommend bringing it up for local consensus. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. However, the main couple editors prefer the status quo and believe the page is perfect as it is. LordAtlas (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The cast should be covered in some form, but as you can see at #Presentation_of_cast_lists_in_articles how it is done is up for debate. You can get a fuller explanation at WP:FILMCAST. Either way, by reverting back and forth a GA rated article is becoming destabilised. In such cases it is better to put the article back to the WP:STATUSQUO—whichever version that may be—and start to formulate a consensus on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they're wrong. Erik and Betty brought up the point above that films with small casts can be merged into a Casting section. Fine. But a film with a HUGE cast like Scream? Absolutely not. Edit in a cast list and describe each character. (I suspect those editors' main objections are that the list of characters and cast members each have their own pages.)--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact there is probably enough real-world content to implement it like Alien_(film)#Cast, which I personally think is the gold standard for cast lists. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake:. There you go.LordAtlas (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well if Betty says it's ok, then it must be ok for everyone everywhere LordAtlas -_- Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record I don't think this is ok. However, I do think the principle cast should be easily identifiable though, regardless of whether that is done through a cast list, a cast infobox or bracketed names in the plot section. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Then put cast in brackets. The article passed GA in this form, the FA nomination wasn't knocked back for a lack of a cast list, lists are not necessary, they are explicitly frowned upon, and we're not bending over backwards for one user because the cast section is literally just missing bullet points. This is the sticking point, the cast aren't all on separate lines, "I have to read" is the complaint because the actors are linked at least 3 times in the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@LordAtlas: Read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed above about the cast coming in a right-aligned box or other options, but a film article missing any form of (not huge) listing for the cast is not perfect at all. It is very GA to have all the prose and details, but in the casting section some form of listing should be present as well. Note: The Alien cast is the gold standard indeed. Hoverfish Talk 13:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For large cast lists, I've split principal cast members (ones that appear in the opening or main closing credits and infobox) from the rest as with the Sharknado sequels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I acknowledge that the Scream article currently has pretty good coverage of casting, which includes wikilinks to character and cast lists. However, I agree with the other editors that it could be presented in a more organized way, such as the example given with the Alien article or some other form of organized grouping. LordAtlas has the right idea that there should be something resembling a cast list there, and if that something were to look anything like the Alien article, then it would be pretty sweet! Huggums537 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@LordAtlas:, while I don't begrudge your right to raise a question regarding an article at the related project, if you're going to do so, please make an effort to notify those engaged in the preexisting discussion. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago: he was too busy figuring out how to ping me once he'd heard what he wanted to hear. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Since yesterday evening (Eastern time)? In any case, I would have had no idea this conversation was going on if I hadn't had this page on my watchlist. Apologies for the digression. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• As Scream is a franchise, I would suggest looking at similar cases like List of The Fast and the Furious characters and The Fate of the Furious. Note how the film's article has a shortened principal cast with some recurrings / cameos, while the list article has all the details, including a character table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Scream is not a franchise, it's a film, and the details about the film are not being relegated to a secondary article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not? Then explain why there's List of Scream characters and List of Scream cast members? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. You're going to waste my time with this? Scream is a film, an individual film, so the information is there. The scream character page is a collective page, but I would not, and you certainly should not be suggesting that if you want information on the character casting in Scream that you should go to a separate article. If you want information on the characters throughout the entire film series, you go to the characters page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely why I pinged you and not @Doniago:. I don't get your problem and I don't even think you get why people object. LordAtlas (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, it seems you are having trouble accepting the fact that you're the minority voice in this matter. I concur with Betty Logan, the Alien page has the perfect gold standard for a cast list. If we had to compromise, then the article SHOULD at least list the core players (Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, etc.) and describe them briefly. This is the first film in the franchise, so if any article should list its primary characters and provide a brief synopsis, it's the first film of the quadrilogy. Furthermore, as Betty also noted, there's enough real world info to provide the aforementioned synopses. I understand you must've put a lot of effort into the construction of this article. However, it would hardly harm your article to add a cast section WITH character descriptions. (Because a plain cast list = too much white space.) Without a cast section at all, this article feels a bit naked or incomplete.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I identify this edit by Darkwarriorblake [5] as harassment. Hoverfish Talk 23:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with both the above and below statements.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Both Scream and Scream 3 need cast lists. LordAtlas (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I just now noticed that Erik put a cast list back in the Scream page with more columns to fill in the white space. It looks pretty good. Maybe Darkwarriorblake would consider reworking the casting section to look more like the example in the Alien article. There's lots of good information to work with in the Scream article to do it and it would allow him to eliminate these other lists that he disagrees with. @Darkwarriorblake: did you see the way they did casting on the Alien article? Do you like it? It's very similar to the work you did on the Prometheus (2012 film) FA... Huggums537 (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My reverting to Erik's version was done because I see here a clear consensus for having a cast section. Normally the consensus should have been expressed on the talk page of the article, but it started here, and it also happens to connect with the big disussion we had on cast section options a little earlier, and since all concerned editors were aware of the discussion here, I considered it as valid consensus. I do appreciate GA work greatly and would not have touched the article did I believe that this would have put in question its status. Also my revert does not mean I am not open to other options than the list Erik placed there folded in 2 columns. There is the Alien-type list/prose Cast section and there is the right-aligned box with the cast information that can fit in the casting section. What I object to, and I consider it an absolute minus for a film GA, is the absence of any form of listing in the main article (not in the infobox or lead) where the actor/role can be easily seen. Hoverfish Talk 11:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the cast in Prometheus (2012 film) is excellent. My compliments to the editors who did it. Hoverfish Talk 14:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the consensus being established and the great job that was done on the Prometheus article. It's one of my favorite films. Darkwarriorblake was a primary contributor in bringing it to FA status. Doing the Scream cast in the Prometheus style would likely help elevate the Scream status to FA... Huggums537 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if he has contributed to half of the FA's in Wikipedia, he still has to respect consensus and civility. Hoverfish Talk 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's true that good contributions don't excuse those remarks toward you. They were not appropriate by any means. I think he probably just (wrongly) got a little over-protective of the investment he made into the article. However, that doesn't justify the behaviour in any way. I'm sure it's nothing personal though. That's why I suggested a different approach of maybe working together to build the casting section into something that could be worthy of FA status. I think that's something everyone could agree on, and it would be a positive move forward for the article. Huggums537 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked the Article milestones. In the absence of proper reliable sources some articles better stay GAs than go for FA. My guess is that trying to go FA might jeopardize the GA, unless there's plenty of usefull citable information the article has missed, which I doubt though I haven't checked. Hoverfish Talk 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I didn't know about any of that stuff since I really don't know much about GA's/FA's, except to say that FA's have a "star" and "GA's" have a "plus". Haha. I support the cast list being in the article even though it's been rated as a GA for a long time without a cast list because it makes the information easier to find and I don't think it will hurt the GA status having it there. But, I do wonder if certain types of cast lists are usually associated with GA's, and whether they are the typically the same, or different for FA's. Huggums537 (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case it might be a good idea to go the film's talk page, and go through the Peer Review, the Good article nominee and the Featured article candidate, to get a general idea of the process. Hoverfish Talk 22:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions... Huggums537 (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Created by" is a writing credit

We have an editor who reverted my removal of a made-up credit claiming WP:STATUSQUO. It looks to me like WP:OR is what should apply here. Other editors may comment at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot#"Created by" is a writing credit, not used for this series. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect italics in the title to "List of songs featured in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series"

Main article: List of songs featured in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series

I have recently been moving certain film series and franchise articles and I noticed when i decided to move this one that it's entire title is in italics, despite the fact that it should really only be the film series name should be. I have no idea how to fix this problem. I tried to add a disply header but it doesn't seem to be working.★Trekker (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Usually when this happens, it's because an infobox is overriding your displaytitle. Most infoboxes have a way to disable this functionality, though you may need to check their documentation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ivan Reitman's film production companies

It is known that Ivan Reitman is a co-founder of The Montecito Picture Company. Prior to that, Reitman previously owned a now-defunct film production company by the name of Northern Lights Entertainment. Would it be appropriate to add the Northern Lights library in the Montecito article? (please note that I've also addressed this message at the Montecito talk page.) Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Film categories by genre and year

The following categories have been created although there was a consensus not to do so:

• Category:2010 comedy films (8P) IMO the 8 articles should be moved to Category:2010s comedy films
• Category:1993 crime films‎ (2P) IMO the 2 articles should be moved to Category:1990s crime films

Also, Category:Horror films by year has 58 subcats from 1960 on and they are very populated. Hoverfish Talk 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There was a CFD about this last year: link. Horror films by year had no consensus, but the others were merged. 2010 comedy films is a recreation, and 1993 crime films accidentally wasn't deleted. I tagged them both for speedy deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much for the CFD link, very useful to know, and thank you for for the tagging of the two categories. Hoverfish Talk 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Request

Someone please archive this website using Wayback Machine and then place it in the 13 Assassins (2010 film) article; this is ref #11 there. Thanks. Bluesphere 02:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, though it was already archived. Sometimes the Wayback Machine doesn't work exactly the way you might expect, especially if it's expecting a different protocol. So, try using "http://www.example.com" instead of "https://www.example.com" if you get an error. If that doesn't make sense, don't worry about it. It's just some quirk I noticed, and it may explain why pages sometimes don't appear to be indexed when they are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bobo.03. I'm not aware of a template, as such, but when I see a new(ish) editor starting to work on film articles, I just drop a note on their talkpage linking to this talkpage. Something like "Please check out the Film Project..." etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We have a template here: {{WPFILM Invite}}, though I am not sure if anyone has used it in a long time. WikiProject Film used to be more structured, such as having a routine newsletter. Nowadays, the focus is more on having good guidelines and having an active forum with this talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 10:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Times keep changing, so one never knows. Obviously the template is for editors that have already shown some interest in film articles. We shouldn't stand at the newcomers' door passing leaflets though. I mean, who can resist joining WPFilm anyways? Hoverfish Talk 14:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's really good to know! I feel WPFilm really have a good environment of welcome new editors! I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota. We are working on a study to help projects identify and recruit new editors. I am not sure if this is something WPFilm would be interested. Here is the meta-page. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "ensemble cast" mean?

Wikipedia uses it in a lot of film articles (I came here from Murder on the Orient Express (2017 film), FWIW), but its use in sources is ambiguous as a lot of sources use it somewhat sloppily to mean "a cast that includes a lot of famous people", but seldom specifies that they don't mean to use it in the more traditional/meaningful/relevant sense. This means that if we want to use it in one sense or the other we essentially have to interpret our sources' intentions and not follow them if it seems likely that they are using it in the sense that we don't want to. (With the Orient Express article, we can probably assume that the source means "cast that includes a lot of famous people" since the author obviously couldn't have seen the film.)

But are we being deliberately ambiguous when we use it? Has this been discussed before? (Post-draft addendum: I did a brief check, and it seems like the last time this was brought up it was by me, in a duo of edits of which I have no memory.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• By the way I'm pretty sure that when I last brought this up I was referring to a problem with lead sections like that of Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America: Civil War. The former makes an accurate claim to having an ensemble cast, but then lists said ensemble and includes at least two actors (Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba) who are on screen for less than a minute each and whose characters are literally fever-dream apparitions of more central characters; apparently these actors are listed as part of the "ensemble cast" because of poster-billing, but there is nothing in MOS:FILM to support this -- essentially they are listed because they are in a film whose cast features a lot of famous people, even though the cast also happens to have a lot of players with roughly equal roles. The latter film does not really have an ensemble cast, as it has one clear protagonist (the title character) and maybe one or two other characters (Tony Stark and maybe Bucky Barnes) who have a similar amount of screen-time and a similar degree of importance to the plot, and a large number of secondary characters, many of them played by famous actors. Essentially, one of them is clearly using "ensemble cast" to mean "a lot of famous people", and the other is sloppily combining the two definitions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ensemble cast. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... yeah? I read an old version of it. I know what the phrase actually means -- did you read my comment and post the above as a joke, or only read the title and assume that that was all I was asking? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean read the article as the lead defines it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they are asking how we accurately determine if a specific film has an ensemble cast because sources can sometimes use the term sloppily. That kind of thing happens with discussing reboots, remakes, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: I know my user page is kind of messy, but I identify as male, so you don't need to sweat over pronouns. :P "they" kinda weirds me out, partly because I have PTSD from people claiming I was presenting my opinion as widely accepted consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question, but I wanted to state that "all-star cast" is a similar term also seen. Oftentimes that overlaps with "ensemble cast". Looks like that is the case with Murder on the Orient Express. Maybe pick whichever one pops up more often in secondary sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh. That thought hadn't occurred to me. It seems to me like "all-star cast" should be the preferred term when we have a cast that includes a lot of famous people, while "ensemble cast" should be reserved for casts that include a large number of players of roughly equal importance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably need to treat it on a case-by-case basis. Do you want to compare results for Murder on the Orient Express in particular? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather wait to see the film. I've never read the story, but our description of it seems to imply it has a single clear protagonist, and the (Japanese?) trailer for the film does as well. It's pretty clear that the journalists discussing it have not seen the film (how could they have?), and I'd bet a bunch of them haven't read the story either, so they are either working with press releases or going by the sloppy "the film features X number of famous actors in this or that role, so it has an ensemble cast". I know our uses of it in the two Marvel Cinematic Universe articles I have now linked above probably need to be amended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I haven't participated in other discussions about this, but I would support the removal of this term when it is being loosely applied to mean "a lot of famous people". The characters portrayed by so-called famous people should have roughly equal importance within the plot and receive nearly equal screen time (usually) as the other main characters. Otherwise, the term should get yanked. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• "All-star cast" sounds like something from a press release. As far as the main topic, I'm reminded of a quotation from Through the Looking-Glass: "When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You are right about what "all-star cast" sounds like, but is it really worse than using a technical term to mean what it traditionally means in one part of a sentence, then in the following clause using it in a colloquial sense to mean a lot of famous actors? Essentially, "ensemble cast" when used to mean "a lot of famous actors" is no different than "all-star cast", except that the former term also having a different meaning means it "feels" more formal.

As for the Through the Looking-Glass quote: Yeah, but who is "I"? Wikipedia? It seems like it's doing the opposite of helping our readers when we jump between two separate meanings of a word mid-sentence (as in the lead of Avengers: Age of Ultron).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"All-star cast" strikes me as one of those labels that's either 1) so obvious that it's redundant, or 2) a peacock term used to decorate one's favorite film. I can't think of any time I would use it. "Ensemble cast", when it's used in its traditional meaning, doesn't seem to have either of those problems. I don't think it should be redefined as a synonym for "all-star cast", though. Then it just turns into a euphemism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think that if Ensemble Cast applies as the article defines the term, it is much preferable than the glam term. If the cast is indeed all famous stars, just say so in prose. It sounds much more encyclopedic and less press release. Hoverfish Talk 02:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that Ensemble cast is the preferable term since it can be used with other words within the context to effectively project the intended meaning. Also, I see nothing wrong with the lead of Age of Ultron since, by definition, "...the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time...". I think the misunderstanding that has occurred here is the mistaken belief that "ensemble cast" means all the cast members have equal screen time. More specifically, "ensemble cast" means that an entire cast is made up of members whose principal performers share screen time. That is exactly the case in Age of Ultron, so the term is used appropriately. Huggums537 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No, if you say "The ensemble cast includes ... Idris Elba and Hayley Atwell" you are using "ensemble cast" as a euphemism for the inappropriate term "all-star cast" -- those two actors have negligible screen time, and are essentially only included in the list because they are famous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

An ensemble cast includes all of the cast members. Only the principal actors share equal screen time. Huggums537 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Well, my main problem with inclusion of those two in the lead is that that sentence is an unreadable cloud of links at present. Don't sit here and preted you read all the names in that list to yourself. Cutting any of the title characters would be messy, but (depending on whether one considers War Machine and/or Falcon to be Avengers) that's 10-12 names, but we have 17! And what's the minimum number of "principal actors"? One? Your comment below implies you believe CA3 to have an ensemble cast, and in that movie the actor playing the title character has easily the most screen time, and said character is the clear protagonist within the plot of the film. Even if we pretended Downey Jr. was equally "principal" with Evans (I admit it's been about three months since I watched the film through, so for all I can remember we might not even need to pretend), then would it be an ensemble cast because it has two principal cast members with roughly equal screen time? Regardless, The Empire Strikes Back fits the bill a lot better than CA3, and that article's lead doesn't use the phrase "ensemble cast" because the film is older and the Wikipedia article wasn't drafted based on press releases (and "secondary sources" that are working exclusively off press releases) by people who hadn't seen the film. And whatever one thinks about this or that particular film, it is indisputable that a lot of sources use the phrase as a euphemism for "all-star cast", and that sources written before the film has even begun principal photography are not really reliable for the claim that a film has an ensemble cast, as they clearly had not seen the film and didn't have the foggiest idea of relative amounts of screen time and importance. We need to be really careful when mirroring their use of the phrase, since they often don't have rules against peacock words, NPOV and encyclopedic tone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with you on two points. One, we should be careful to use the term in the correct way and two, it's not that easy to assume that the principal actors will share roughly equal amounts of screen time in a film that hasn't come out yet, even if that film has already been done before and it was based on a novel. However, I feel that maybe your passion for the issue may have made you overly eager to criticize the Age of Ultron unduly. You have brought some good issues to our attention which need to be given some thought, but I also believe we need to be careful about getting too carried away so we don't detract from good articles. All I can say about the issue you have with the minor roles is to suggest that they be removed if you feel they are not relevant enough to be listed, as opposed to petitioning for the removal of the usage of an industry standard term. Also, it's a desperate attempt to suggest that Empire Strikes Back doesn't use the term, therefore it shouldn't be used. Lastly, you claim that it is indisputable about sources using the term as a euphemism for "all-star cast", but you still have yet to provide us with any examples of this "terrible misuse" involving sources. What you did provide was articles, and I produced satisfactory evidence that the Age of Ultron article did not engage in any alleged misuse of the term. No offense, but all I have is your word that it's "indisputable". Huggums537 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that if you look in the "Accolades" subsection of the Age of Ultron article, you will also see that the MTV awards nominated Age of Ultron for an "Ensemble Cast" award. This strongly suggests that "Ensemble cast" is an industry standard term which is correctly applied to this specific movie, as well as others. In fact, according to the source, the term correctly applies to at least five other films since they were also nominated for the same award. Huggums537 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you had made three consecutive comments when I responded below. I saw the above after having drafted a response to the comment in which you pinged me, and then incorporated a response to the "And your comment above..." sentence below. I didn't notice your top comment until just now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I think you made premature edits to Captain America: Civil War since the discussion was not completed here yet. Also, NinjaRobotPirate never said "ensemble cast"=euphemism. So, your only justifications for removing the term (and it's sources) are based on something that was never said and your opinion alone...Huggums537 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is about the general usability of "ensemble cast" to mean "cast that includes a lot of famois people" in combination with its traditional sense. I did not come here specifically to discuss the CACW article (that is what the article talk page is for). And when I asked the question well over a year ago, my interpretation of the problem had essentially received unanimous agreement from between two and five editors above, and BOLD being a thing, it hardly seems appropriate to call my edit "premature". If you think my rationale was based "only" on the term being euphemistic "alone", you misunderstood my rationale. And your above comment about AOU clearly indicates that you have misunderstood the problem: AOU DOES have an ensemble cast in the traditional sense, but the lead of the article says that the ensemble cast includes two very minor cameos whose names appeared on the poster because they are famous people. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You did the right thing by bringing it up for discussion again. Because, perhaps when you brought it up a year ago, nobody realized that there is actually an award being given in the category of "Ensemble cast", making it an industry standard. Also, you were really the first one to bring up the CACW article for discussion. I only went looking there because you brought it up. I apologize if I misunderstood your rationale according to your edit summaries, which included the term "euphemism" in two separate edits. You can understand how I might come to that conclusion. If the real problem is with the minor cameo roles being listed, then the discussion should be about removing those two roles from the casting list. In my opinion, they should stay because they are still part of the whole ensemble cast even if they are secondary members. Remember, only the primary members are required to share equal space in order for the entire cast to be considered part of an ensemble cast. Huggums537 (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, now that I think about it, I don't really buy into this idea that nobody could know if Murder on the Orient Express has an ensemble cast since it isn't out yet. So, the creators of the film doing interviews with people don't know if it is, and couldn't possibly tell them? The actors don't know, and couldn't tell interviewers? The people who are peddling this film could never have billed it as an ensemble cast to the press? So, there's no possible way anyone could know if the film has an ensemble cast just because the general public hasn't seen it yet? Huggums537 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"the creators of the film doing interviews with people" are a biased primary source (what User:NinjaRobotPirate referred to as a press release). No one without a financial interest in selling the film knows whether the biased primary sources mean "cast that includes a lot of famous people" (a sloppy description that doesn't help our readers understand the film but is used for advertising) or the traditional definition of "ensemble cast". This has all already been covered above -- could you read through the discussion that happened before you got here and tell us exactly which parts you don't understand? Because I feel like I'm wasting my time writing the same thing over and over again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, explaining it once is usually good enough to make your point. I haven't followed any of the content disputes, and I don't really know what's going on at specific articles. I usually prefer independent secondary sources (or tertiary sources if the secondary sources disagree), but consensus might be that an interview is good enough in this circumstance. If you guys can't arrive at any consensus for this stuff, it might be time for dispute resolution, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DRN doesn't work when there are three or four editors recalcitrantly insisting on the status quo of a particular article regardless of policy and sources, and at any given time only one editor disagreeing. Heck, it usually doesn't work even when there are only two users disagreeing. I usually get tired and give up after a few dozen talk page backs-and-forths, and give up without bringing it to DRN. I don't necessarily think the problem is endemic, and probably doesn't apply to Orient Express (which I would rather wait to deal with), but articles on films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are a mess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

To all interested parties: Hijiri 88 has offered a compromise on the article talk page to just unlink the phrase and I have accepted the compromise in order to be done with this dispute. Huggums537 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: You see, this is what I meant: You say "the article talk page" as though other editors are likely to know what you are talking about, but apart from you and (subsequently) me and NinjaRobotPirate, no one was talking about the Civil War article. Until you joined in, this conversation was about the general usability of the phrase in film articles when a lot of sources use it in a different sense than we do. I had made one late addendum to my OP comment that I don't get the impression anyone read that was as much about Age of Ultron and the rest was much more about Murder on the Orient Express. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Everyone seems to be done. I just want to be done and offered to accept your compromise right here, but you don't seem to want to let it go at that. Huggums537 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't care. You think this is done because for some unexplained reason you think this was about that one article and you think your compromising with me (but not GoneIn60) to get me to shut up means that the general issue of film articles using the term "ensemble cast" as a euphemism for "all-star cast" is gone for good. That said, since you don't seem to be interested in discussing the general problem, and everyone who was was in essential agreement, then I guess we probably are done. You can go off and do whatever it is you want, and once Orient Express comes out those of us who do care can figure out whether the pre-release sources were accurate to the content of the film when compared with those written by people who had actually seen it, and perhaps forge an MOS clarification about how marketing terms (such as "all-star cast") and euphemisms therefor (such as "ensemble cast" as it is used when discussing Civil War and others) should be avoided. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Are the Naming Conventions in need of update?

There is currently a discussion to potentially update the Naming Conventions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Franchise vs. Film series. DarkKnight2149 01:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

List of films considered the best

Just to let project members know, List of films considered the best is up for its annual AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (3rd nomination) (6th nomination technically, just the third under the current name). Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And the related articles of Films considered the worst (9th nom!) and Televison shows considered the worst are also at AfD too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project

Urgently needing someone who would put this article onto their watchlist and review revisions made in it; sometimes I'm pretty busy and I won't be able to do so. Bluesphere 06:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for any obvious vandalism. Scribolt (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That means a lot, Scribolt. I also thank you for streamlining the plot on its 700-word limit. It was me who brought it to Good Article status, but feel free to give it a copy edit in case the prose does not meet its standards. :) Bluesphere 14:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification in Film categorization

I have done this edit in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization. Please feel free to correct my near native English or non-expert use of terms. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of any essential diffeence between the use of Template:Non-diffusing parent category and that of Template:All included, apart from the request of the first to place Template:Non-diffusing subcategory in all its subcategories? To my understanding they serve exactly the same purpose. Hoverfish Talk 17:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Help establishing notability of film

I came across the article for Butch Mystique in PROD, listed as such because of failing WP:NFILM. I just wondered if anyone here might test whether that's the case or not, as my very preliminary search turned up a few references such as this, which hint that the necessary sources for this do exist.Landscape repton (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Landscape repton, it looks notable. Google Books is a good way to look for sources about a film that is likely to have been studied, as your JSTOR link hinted. See multiple results here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Google Scholar also shows results here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Thank you for your help!Landscape repton (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about infobox at A Young Man's World

I started the discussion about the infobox used at A Young Man's World. Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Film banner templates with categories disabled has been nominated for discussion

Category:WikiProject Film banner templates with categories disabled, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on table design. Suggestion

Hello, I made an aesthetic improvement to a casting list table and it was quickly reverted. I opened a discussion on the article talk page, but it doesn't seem to be getting any interest. The previous discussion can be found on the article talk page. This is my sandbox with the proposed (less blockish-looking) design, and the current design is on The Matrix (franchise) page. Thanks for your opinions! Huggums537 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

For others' comparison, see Huggums537's version versus the previous version here. While we don't have any table rules this granular, I am personally used to gray shading to indicate an absence. I see this kind of shading used outside of Wikipedia too. Not sure why you oppose it? If there is another table characteristic I am overlooking, let me know. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This was Lordtobi's argument for reverting. I'm also used to the "grayout". However, in this case even the light gray was such a stark contrast that it seemed to make the table look very "blocky" to me. I don't know enough about markup to make the gray any lighter, so I just removed it. I would have no objections to maybe a much lighter shade of gray. I just don't know how to do it myself. Thanks for your input. Huggums537 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it pretty light. The table code says the HTML color is "lightgrey". This shows a list of HTML colors, and I'm not really seeing anything in the gray realm that could be a good in-between. I would rather stick to this version as I don't find it blocky. As a reader it helps me identify one-off roles compared to recurring ones in a series. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking the time to respond with your opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur that the light gray color is preferable. Without it, it's less standout to the reader. With it, it punctuates the distinction.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 16:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also for taking time to respond. I'm beginning to see everyone's point about the grey being better than no shading at all. What do you guys think about a color other than grey? Like light steel blue perhaps? I think it flows much better with the other colors of this particular table and still identifies the distinction of the null space effectively. I added another section to my sandbox called "Steel blue cast" so you can see what it looks like. Thank you to Erik for the list of HTML colors. I'm also welcoming input from Lordtobi about the new color design. Thanks everyone. Huggums537 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think the ligh gray is prefereable, though I don't think it's necessary to stick to named colors. Light Gray is #D3D3D3 - I would use #E0E0E0 for a smoother look. Hoverfish Talk 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: I added a display at the bottom of your sandbox. Hoverfish Talk 21:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hoverfish! I like your suggestion best of all. It keeps the gray color scheme intact and flows smoothly with the other colors. I think you found the solution that compromises well with everyone. Huggums537 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I don't think we should opt for bespoke color schemes on film articles. "Greying" out empty cells in tables is common across Wikipedia such as on sport articles. I am sure everyone has a personal preference when it comes to color schemes but as mentioned in another recent dicsussion we should strive for consistency when there isn't a substantive improvement to be made by being different. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Betty Logan. It seems everyone is in favor of the gray cell shading. However, I found this page on the site that Erik provided, which reveals there are many shades of the gray and Hoverfish proved that any of the shades of gray will work without the naming conventions, if you use the hex codes. I think we've pretty much reached a unanimous decision that the empty cells should stay gray. What I'm not clear on yet is what the thoughts are on Hoverfish's clever gray shading at the bottom of my sandbox under the "Programs lighter gray" section. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I want to point out one thing which does not pertain to the shade of gray in particular, but rather to the whole "feel" of tables in film articles vs. sports articles (or used in technical specifications). In sports the clearly colored table cells are essential in presenting the information and this goes well beyond Wikipedia. It is a style used widely in magazines and TV. But in fims the information is more subtle (except maybe box office). In cast, casting, etc, the aesthetic should not be sport-like IMO, but more refined. A table here is just a visual aid for ordering some information. In most cases this can be a simple list (folded in 2 or 3 columns if too long, or to avoid white space). But in this case we do need a table to make it easier to see who played what role in which movie of a series. I think Huggums537 is right in looking for a more refined look in tables for film articles. Also another issue I want to point out is that in sports, flag icons can be very useful in tables, while in several film award articles where flag icons are used in tables (in spite of discussions I remember that had ended in consensus for not using flag icons) I get this sport-like feel that shouldn't be present in film articles. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 15:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Hoverfish. However, I think it's important to note that I was only trying to refine the look of this one specific table, and not seeking to refine the look of all tables for film articles. I think making sweeping changes across all articles is a rather lofty goal, but I guess this is the unintended result of attempting to make any changes on Wikipedia. Also, I wanted to say that the sports article Betty Logan provided is a good example of where the conventional gray cell shading works well for that particular table design. However, as Hoverfish pointed out, the sports table is very different than the film cast table, and while the traditional shading looks good for the sports page, I still think the lighter gray shading Hoverfish proposed works better for the casting table we're talking about. Thank you everyone for your input to the discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A different discussion on this page led me to the List of Scream cast members, where I noticed that they used an even darker shade of gray, making it appear even more blocky looking than the table I was trying to improve. Maybe Hoverfish is onto something about saying it is right to look for a more refined look for film casting tables... Huggums537 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think a lighter color would work better in that table but there is very little in the way of policy governing the use of colors so these decisions invariably come down to personal preference. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your participation. Huggums537 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I've noticed that you were right about the personal preference since I've seen a lot of variance in the shading ranging from light to dark. The only constant appears to be the gray, with few exceptions. Huggums537 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thief (film)

Main article: Thief (film)

Can someone reduce this article's plot to its 700-word limit? Bluesphere 14:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go, further improvements are welcome. Scribolt (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Depopulated categories still there

I keep patroling the YYYY-Country-films categories (under Category:Films by year) that we depopulated seven days ago. Will they be deleted automatically at some point or do we need to speedy them? Hoverfish Talk 10:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

They should be picked up automatically by a bot that does that sort of thing, but they can always be tagged with {{db-catempty}} to speed it up. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done (all tagged). Hoverfish Talk 13:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record: All the above mentioned "Year Country film" categories have been assigned the yet-uncreated corresponding category "20th(or)21st-century Country films" and have a {{portal|decade|film|Country cinema}} present. Hoverfish Talk 15:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Once the child categories are deleted, then the parent ones can be tagged too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Film categories by country and year

J 1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started to create sub-categories for country and year - take a look at Category:Swedish films by year, for example. I think this needs a wider discussion before it goes any further. Note that a similar consensus was recently reached not to make categories for year/genre, and I think this is along the same lines. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Those were about genres-year. The articles year-country are based on that we now have similair for topics like novels. Without "2015 American films", those articles might instead just end up in "2015 in American cinema" or even "2015 in the United States". These categories give a good oversight over which films were released in a specific country during a specific year. J 1982 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's why I said similar consensus, as this is along the same lines. Also, please do not remove the main year category, per WP:FILMCAT. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The main year category should be there regardless of any year subcategories. We had decided this when we first organized film categorization and it remains one of the basic categorizing rules for films. Main categories for Year, Country, Language and Studio should be present in all film articles, per WP:FILMCAT. I remember two tech oriented persons who had said lots about a system of getting results for a combination of main categories, but I do not think this went anywhere. In any case, it is good to bring this in discussion, preferably in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Categorization, ping some of the main contributors and include the result in the Project page. Note that till I hear some sound arguments, I am neutral, though I suspect that if permitted, such a scheme should be restricted to specific cases or we will get into a chaotic situation. Hoverfish Talk 22:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You can combine categories using an "incategory" search. Apparently there are nine films that are both in Category:2016 films and Category:Swedish films. Since the year and country categories are not diffused then Category:2016 Swedish films is redundant. The problem is caused by the Category:YYYY in XXXX cinema categories, such as Category:2016 in American cinema. If you are going to have these categories then it makes sense to have Category:2016 American films otherwise all the film articles will end up in Category:2016 in American cinema. Therefore the real question is do we really need Category:2016 in American cinema or will Category:2016 in film suffice? Personally I don't think we need to break down each year by country. The whole category structure is becoming ridiculously convoluted and impossible to search. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We have way too many overly specific categories. Part of the problem is that we have several wikignomes who have taken it upon themselves to restructure film categories without getting consensus. @J 1982: you need to get consensus first. Please go back and revert your changes until you have consensus to change the category structure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@J 1982: "We now have similair for topics like novels" - Was there consensus in novel categorization to create them or did they get created in the same manner as the country-year film categories? In Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels#Category hierarchy I read that "main categories" 1.Novels by year, 2. Novels by genre, and 3. Novels by country should be assigned to all novel articles, and in the applicable categories that are mentioned below I see no country-year intersection. Is the project even aware that such a scheme is being created? Hoverfish Talk 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I agree that the problem is caused by the Category:YYYY in XXXX cinema. I see one more problem, beyond editors restructuring big branches without discussing with the relevant project. WP:CAT (including its FAQ subpage) does not state any guidelines to establish that such main project-specific categories should not be diffused. The lead says that "before undertaking any complicated re-categorization of existing categories or mass creation of new categories", one should bring it up with "Categories for discussion" (yet it doesn't suggest bringing it up with the relevant WikiProject), but is there any coordination between "Categories for discussion" and the relevant WikiProjects? Also the rest of the article seems to give a certain laisez-faire with subcategorization. To resolve the problem we should first make sure that the general categorization article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories reflect/include, the line of categorization we use at Films and Novels. Hoverfish Talk 14:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We do have some basic guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#General_categorization but maybe we could expand the instructions so that the four main categories are not diffused. I have become completely disillusioned with the Film project's categorization; over the last couple of years a group of editors without any consensus whatsover have established deep category trees which have rendered them unfit for purpose. It is now impossible to search the categories in any meaningful capacity. Something like Category:2016 American animated films is completely unnecessary IMO; if a 2016 animated American film is in each of the three categories (2016 films, animated films, American films) then editors can do an intersection search for whichever combination they want i.e. 2016 American films, 2016 animated films, animated American films, or even 2016 animated American films. That is simple to do with "flat" categorization, but as it stands now if I want to search through animated American films I have to search through each category at Category:American animated films by decade which in turn has sub-categories. So instead of taking 30 seconds to type in a couple of search terms into a search box I have to plough through dozens if not hundreds of categories. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: See below, all YYYY American animated films are now Decade American animated films. I hadn't even read your comment, but I found them on my way and applied the same scheme as we have discussed here. Next I will do all other countries of the Country Year films and I will also move deeper in year-country-animation where present. If the tree has been damaged, we can fix it. What we need is a clear consensus. This is why I listed all my findings below. Hoverfish Talk 05:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. Thankfully, there's only a handful of these categories (scroll to the bottom of Category:Films by year). I think it's easier to place the articles back in their parent year categories, leaving these empty, rather than spending time taking the whole lot to CfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

To me it seems that if we don't take some deeper action to resolve the year in country cinema (at least), this problem will return soon, possibly accompanied by more problems. Hoverfish Talk 17:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: By "leave them empty" do you also mean strip them from categories and templates? If so can;t they be speedied soon so no one gets the idea they should be populated? Hoverfish Talk 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

From the films I have checked that have been switched to the year-country category, I observe that they maintain the year film cat, possibly by means of Template:Film date/doc in the infobox. Hoverfish Talk 17:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, basically return the articles back to the categories they had before this new structure was created. Then those categories will be automatically deleted after five days for being empty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are the novel categories mentioned earlier: 59 Canadian novels by year categories with 488 article up to now [6], and 36 Swedish novels by year categories with 48 article up to now [7] Hoverfish Talk 18:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Until now I have emptied all subcategories of Category:American films by year. It wasn't "just a handfull" as some of the later years have subcategories of "YYYY American animated films", which I turned to "Decade American animated films". I also made sure all the main categories are present. I have come upon various other questinable categories, which I didn't change because I don't know what the consensus is about them: YYYY television films, YYYY short films, YYYY 3D films, YYYY animated films, YYYY computer-animated films, YYYY direct-to-video films, YYYY horror films, and YYYY anime films. Hoverfish Talk 04:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: could you not move the categories around in the list? Some of them were already purposefully sorted per WP:FILMCAT, which I believe makes them easier to work with. Moving categories to the top of the list at random just makes it harder for me to tell which categories are missing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The categories I moved to the top are not at all random. They are the 4 main categories that should be present in every film per WP:FILMCAT. This is even in the Practical instructions of that page. However, since I am not sure which the studio is vs. which the production co., I moved them both up. If this is a problem I can go back and find which one is the studio and let only this at the top. Also in most articles I didn't see any particular order in which the categories were placed, In some they were approximately alphabetical, but in most they were all over. Hoverfish Talk 10:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Actually I see now that studio is not even required to go to the top, This must have changed sometime. My bad, I moved them there thinking I was doing it per WP:FILMCAT but I didn't have to. The page however does say Year, Country, Language at the top and the reason we wrote this [8] was to be able to check if they are there in every article, since there are always so many others. I will not move any more anything if it's a problem. Hoverfish Talk 10:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The way I read it, WP:FILMCAT recommends that categories be grouped together and placed in a certain order. For example, production companies go after the genres, not at the top of the list. So, it would go something like this:

• Category:1990 films
• Category:1990s action films
• Category:American films
• Category:American action films
• Category:French films
• Category:French action films
• Category:English-language films
• Category:Films about death
• Category:20th Century Fox films
• Category:Films directed by David Lynch

This is how it's done on many articles, and one can tell at a glance what's missing. Of course, it becomes a lot more difficult when there are 50 different categories, which is another problem I think we're going to have to solve eventually. Animated films are really bad about this. There are categories for every type of animated film: Category:animated films about birds, Category:American animated fantasy films, Category:American children's animated films, etc. Pretty much any trivial intersection or trivial aspect has been turned into a category. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've always done this style of category inclusion (years, countries, languages, everything else A-Z) on articles I create and not had an issue with that. I think somewhere on the general article category guideline page there's a note to list them A to Z across all categories, but I don't think it's a rule that must be obeyed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, even if it's not a rule that must be obeyed, it saves plenty of time and frustration if things are in a convenient order. Right now I am cleaning up my pervious edits and putting back in the suggested order the Studio and Production cats, but I am also keeping the order suggested in WP:FILMCAT#Practical instructions) for the 3 top categories, i.e. Year film, Country film, Language film, and the rest as suggested here above. My reason, apart from the practical instructions, is than in more than half of articles I checked, Language film was missing, possibly because it gets assigned from the language template in the infobox, Country films was missing from many, possibly because of all the country subcats, and in some there was Year films and in others it had been removed. It took me several hours trying to sort it out and this was a very helpful way of making sure everything was there. Hoverfish Talk 14:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I picked this up from Lugnuts. I remember when I first ran into him something like five years ago, I thought, "Who is this Lugnuts guy, and why is he always wrong about everything?" Then, I started to grudgingly admit that maybe he was right about a few things. Now I think maybe I was the one who was wrong, and he was right most of the time. It's weird how things like that happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hehe. I can be quite stubborn (no, really!), and I've had the same experience of other editors (why are they wrong all the time?!), but over time it all balances out. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, what do you know... I had always looked in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization for ordering categories, but now I see that in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Categories the instructions have been modified by a very minor edit in 2008 and since no one reverted it then, the way indicated by both Lugnuts and NinjaRobotPirate is indeed how it reads. For the sake of consistency, both the MOS and the Films page have to give the same clear pattern. Hoverfish Talk 15:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. I copied the MOS version in the Films categoprization, but removed from both the suggestion of all being in alphabetical order, because the way it was written, multiple countries or languages may all get mixed up with various genres too. Hoverfish Talk 01:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Film genre in need of improvement

The article has been tagged for refs and OR. I checked, I agree and I have good reasons to believe this article plays a key role in our project. I will try to find some general notable sources. If anyone feels up to it, please give it a shot. Hoverfish Talk 15:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)