Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Did you know 13 Jun 2024 – Infested (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 13 Jun 2024 – Beijing Watermelon (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Morgan695 (t · c); see discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Na O-mi (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Wuju Daisuki (t · c); see discussion 06 Jun 2024 – Breaking Through (2022 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Toadboy123 (t · c); see discussion 03 Jun 2024 – Kaur (short film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Whispyhistory (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – Avatar Studios (production company) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Zingo156 (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – South by South Lawn (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion 21 May 2024 – Score: A Hockey Musical (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Reidgreg (t · c); see discussion 01 May 2024 – List of roles and awards of Liza Soberano (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Pseud 14 (t · c); see discussion 14 Apr 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by LunaEclipse (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 31 May 2024 – List of accolades received by Inception (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 07 May 2024 – Peter Capaldi filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (t · c); see discussion 19 Apr 2024 – Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Trailblazer101 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Rogue One (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cocobb8 (t · c); start discussion 30 May 2024 – Mushu (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 16 May 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FishLoveHam (t · c); start discussion 13 May 2024 – Jane Fonda's Workout (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Binksternet (t · c); start discussion 26 Apr 2024 – 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion 14 Apr 2024 – Kristoff (Frozen) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Apocalypse Clown (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bilorv (t · c); see discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Metro Theater (New York City) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Epicgenius (t · c); start discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Hounds (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mooonswimmer (t · c); start discussion (5 more...) Featured article reviews 13 Jun 2024 – Jason Voorhees (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 09 Jun 2024 – Pretty Cure (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Historyday01 (t · c) was closed; see discussion Peer reviews 19 Jun 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by TrademarkedTWOrantula (t · c); see discussion 18 May 2024 – Pedro Pascal on screen and stage (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by BarntToust (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Of the same name

Editors here may be interested in reading WP:OFTHESAMENAME since a lot of films are based on works of the same title or remade from films of the same title. While it's an essay, I think it makes fair points. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's usually immediately gets changed back to of the same name jargon. There seems to be a real pushback that I'm not understanding. Mike Allen 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Blame the modern education system that teaches people that repetition is poor writing that must therefore be avoided at all costs. Reducing clarity and using more words to say the same thing is judged as better writing. I usually drop a link to WP:OFTHESAMENAME in the edit summary when I reword things to get rid of that tired cliché and that helps a bit. At least gets other editors aware of the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting read. I find the ambiguity and general inconsistencies in piping links ("the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name" etc) to be a particularly unnecessary consequence of these "elegant variations". This inclination to obscure titles to reduce repetition results in less clarity and simplicity, and the piping adds a visual element to the distraction.

Compare to the essay's examples:

• "based on the 2000 novel Under the Skin by Michel Faber."
• "adapted the screenplay from The Martian, a 2011 novel by Andy Weir."

These unobscured variations bypass the added concerns of clarity and intuitiveness. Οἶδα (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is daft. In essence it suggests it's preferable to write "The Martian based on the novel The Martian" which seems poor grammatically and dull. I don't see why anyone would get confused when reading an article about a film of one name and saying it is based on a novel of the same name. Where the name is not clear, as in the non-film suggestion, then it makes sense to be very clear but if you are writing in an article called X then it does not seem to add much benefit to say that it is based on a novel called X (other than in the infobox). Sudiani (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Or simply write "based on the 2011 novel". That's one of the suggestions given at WP:OFTHESAMENAME per MOS:LINKCLARITY. Mike Allen 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But that lacks clarity. For example, "Blade Runner, based on the 1968 novel" doesn't make it clear what the novel is called, unless you click the link or look in the infobox and therefore lacks clarity. Using "of the same name" provides clarity and removes undue repetition and therefore is better grammatically. https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/c1-grammar/avoiding-repetition-text ETA: This isn't a modern education thing as suggested above. I am over 50 and believe that avoiding repetition is better. That's why most film articles use "The film" or "it" rather than repeating the title everytime the film is referred to. Sudiani (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding repetition is fine up to a point of not reducing clarity or using clumsy or convoluted substitutions. This isn't a grammar issue, it is a style issue, thus why it is considered "dull" as opposed to ungrammatical. For writing interesting essays and stories dull is bad, for an encyclopedia article clarity is preferred even if it is considered dull. As for style the "of the same name" is clichėd to the point of basically calling out that it is only used to avoid repetition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As above, using "of the same name" in film articles when referring to a source provides clarity. Using the same name also provides clarity but is dull. If I were to choose between dull and interesting, I would prefer writers were interesting rather than dull, even if some people think "interesting" is cliched. Sudiani (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Lovers Lane

I've come across a film that needs some Wikiproject attention. Lovers Lane (1999 film) was originally created at its current title, with all the body content stating that it was a 1999 film — but last fall a user moved the page to Lovers Lane (2000 film), and updated all the body text, on the grounds of a source indicating that it was released in 2000, but then a couple of weeks later they reverted themselves on the grounds that the new source had been inaccurate. But then after that, an anonymous IP went and changed all the text in the article back to 2000 again without moving the page, so that now it has 1999 in the title but 2000 in the infobox and body text and categories (or 2000s, rather than 1990s, where the category is by-decade instead of by-year).

Obviously we need to figure this out one way or the other, but I don't have access to the kind of sources that would solve the question of when an independent American horror film was released, so I wanted to ask if somebody with more expertise in the area could look into it. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this says it was released on December 31, 1999, so it's quite the edge case (if that source can be trusted). Judging from the Wikipedia article history, it was created as a 1999 film without a specific release date or source. Earliest IMDb version, from November 2004, does show 1999 here. EDIT: That page says, "I'm Still Waiting for You (1999) (UK) (DVD title)". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Released where? Spain? Why would an American movie be released there first? Looks to me like it just defaulted to the last day as a placeholder for defective data. Nardog (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The source for the 2000 festival screening says "Public performance premier". Nardog (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that works well to lock in 2000. Good find! I couldn't find anything about a DVD or UK release circa 1999, probably bad IMDb user-submitted data, so I'm good on making it 2000. Bearcat, does that suffice? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the exact source that the self-reverting editor first read to support moving the page to 2000, and then disputed as misleading when they moved it back to 1999 — it was formerly cited in the article as support for a statement that the film premiered at Bainbridge, which the self-reverter walked back to "screened" just before moving the page back to 1999. That said, I do share the suspicion that "December 31, 1999" is just an "unknown data" placeholder rather than an actual premiere, since that seems like a really implausible date for a film premiere, especially without solid sourcing to support it. So if anybody else is comfortable moving the page to 2000 on the basis of the Bainbridge source, I won't stand in their way, but it's not a thing I would feel comfortable doing without some other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas0, see above. Is there any reliable source that indicates a 1999 release? A couple of us have not found anything clear-cut to confirm 1999. It seems like 2000 is most appropriate, especially the "public performance premier" label that Nardog quoted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The quoted source itself states "1999" as the release year. The description "public performance premier" indicates that it had previously been released on home video but is merely being premiered publicly (in a cinema) for the first time. That's how I would interpret it. Otherwise it would be described as a "world premier" instead of a "public performance premier". The description itself indicates that it had already been released in some other format, and the quoted article itself states a release year of 1999. If we're going to use that source as the reference to "lock in" 2000, then why not use the actual information explicitly stated in the same source to "lock in" 1999? That's the only real source we have and it explicitly states "10:15 p.m. 'Lover's Lane.' 1999. 90 min. 35 mm.". I agree that December 31 is likely a placeholder date because the actual 1999 home video release date is unknown, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't released on home video at all in 1999. The quoted Bainbridge reference certainly indicates that there was a 1999 home video release. Nicholas0 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, missed the "1999" in that one. Nardog, what's your take, if we were going to do 2000 based on that very source? Keep to 1999? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Film years are determined in various ways. We go by first public release because that's what can be verified in sources for most films, but others go by completion, copyright, etc. The interpretation that the film was released on home video strains credulity when the article says it was released on home video in 2000 (as confirmed on WorldCat: [1][2][3]). A simpler explanation is that they didn't go by release, and absent a reliable source that it was indeed released in 1999, we should go with 2000. Nardog (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Bridgit Mendler

There is a discussion at Bridgit Mendler about including the University of Southern California in the infobox's education parameter. It can be found at Talk:Bridgit Mendler#Education. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Kinema Junpo

I'm in the process of rewriting List of accolades received by Inception and I've gotten a bit stuck with the sourcing for the Kinema Junpo Awards. I know it came 10th in the Best Foreign Films category and 7th in the Readers' Choice Best Foreign Films.

I've managed to source the Best Foreign Films category with the magazine's official website. The link mentions (in Japanese) that the Reader's Choice award list was listed in the Special Late February issue of Kinema Junpo of 5 February 2011. This is Number 1575; for reference here's a listing with the cover.

I can't find a copy of this anywhere. The only thing I could find that mentioned it beyond the Japanese wikipedia was this blog post, which is not exactly a beacon of reliability. Does anyone have access to or can anyone help me find an online copy I can cite? Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a primary source (Kinenote is run by the magazine). Nardog (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, although that unfortunately only lists the Best Foreign Films and not the Readers' Choice Best Foreign Films. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Is that something we should be including in a "list of accolades received by" a film? It's a crowdsourced thing and it came in seventh. Nardog (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hidden Champion: Article about Ross W. Clarkson

Hello, Ross W. Clarkson is a cinematographer, producer, actor, writer and director who has been working nonstop in the movie business for three decades. People underestimate him because he started in Asia and was credited under different names. When I started writing my article on him I didn't get along with the wayback machine and therefore I kept it short and I stuck to information that can be found on IMDb. Subsequently the article was quickly flagged for lacking of references. Little later it was added that Clarkson was perhaps not notable. Meanwhile I have learned to deal with the wayback machine and subsequently I have delivered references. (More is to come.) The quantity of information available about Clarkson indicates plenty of notability. Would somebody please re-evalute the overhauled, extended article? NordhornerII NordhornerII (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary for musical film

There is a DYK in progress for Score: A Hockey Musical which has been tagged for long plot. I've gotten the Synopsis down to 749 words, 49 words above the maximum recommendation of MOS:PLOT. 49 words also happens to be the total words of the song titles I included in parenthesis. I was wondering if I might be able to weasel my way around that, as I wanted to include where the songs fit in the context of the plot – it has been noted (sourced) in the article that the songs advance the plot. This is the first time I've written for a musical film and would appreciate any advice. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't include the song titles in the plot, since there is a Music section. It's not only redundant but bloats the plot summary (as we see here). Mike Allen 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have any guidelines on handling musical films. The only similar guideline I can think of is excluding actors' names in plot summaries, which to me a separate matter. If it's a musical film, songs seem to me to be the key highlights throughout, so I don't think there are explicit policy/guideline grounds to oppose their mentions. Open to further dialogue, though. It's not a common case. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is necessary to know what songs come when to understand the plot then I don't think it is wrong to include them, but I do think this is a similar situation to including actor names in plot summaries. I would be more concerned with the plot summary being overly detailed and focused too much on scene-by-scene minutiae. The 700 word limit is at the top end of a range to allow for more complicated plot summaries, which I don't think is the case here. I would focus on summarising the plot more and only make note of key songs where it is actually important for understanding the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason I think actors' names are a separate matter is that after mentioning the starring actors' names, it became indiscriminate to mention all supporting actors too. So without a clear line in the sand, it was an all-or-nothing approach. "All" was too indiscriminate and wordy, where "nothing" worked if we had the "Cast" section already. We could still tie the starring actors to the key characters in the lead section when writing the much-shorter premise.

Here, songs seem to me to be the backbone of a musical film and are as relevant as the events in between them, making their naming different from naming even minor roles. I'm not sure how exactly one decides which songs are actually important, since the songs seem like key attention-grabbing highlights throughout the film. Film events and songs seem intertwined to me, like how a structurally-complex film's structures and events are intertwined (e.g., Pulp Fiction), warranting some word-count flexibility. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is a musical film by definition of what a musical film is all songs advance the plot, the lyrics of the songs are part of the text of the story. For a plot summary listing the songs is unnecessary and are somewhat jarring parentheticals that really add noting in understanding when describing the plot. See plot summaries for other musical films such as The Sound of Music for examples of why the songs are not needed in the plot summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair example of a musical film that does not have songs in the plot summary, but that does not in itself prove that songs shouldn't be in the summary. Just that it could be done without them. However, it's a little weird that that Good Article doesn't even list the film's own songs within it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The song lyrics are basically part of the script for musical films. My Fair Lady provides a counter example that shows the song titles in the plot text and does show how jarring it is to read the plot description when they do it. A FA without songs in the description is Frozen II. There is no rule that I could find that says "don't do it", but I think descriptions read and flow much better without the parenthetical interruptions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Erik's point about actor names in the plot summary actually does apply to songs as well. While the point of songs in a musical is to move the plot and character development along, it is not necessary to list all the details of how this is done when summarising the plot. I think an apt comparison would be an action film where the action sequences are the key set pieces used to develop the plot and characters. That doesn't mean we explain each action sequence in great detail and include the behind-the-scenes name for the sequence in parenthesis. Just like any plot summary, some action scenes will need more details to be explained than others, and some may not need to be included at all for our readers to understand the film. The same is true for the songs in a musical, where some will need to be fully explained but others may not even need to be mentioned in a good summary. So what happens if one of the key songs in the film doesn't actually need to be explained as part of the plot summary, but some of the less noteworthy ones do? That is where we run into the problem Erik mentioned about actor names and determining where to draw the line. The priority of the plot summary should be to summarise the plot, not include characters it shouldn't just so we can list their actors' names or include song details it shouldn't just so we can list all of the song titles. Especially when there are separate sections in the article that can discuss the cast and songs with appropriate weight and focus.

I think the current summary that we are discussing goes against the recommendations at MOS:FILMPLOT and once it is updated to summarise what happens in the plot rather than explain the scene-by-scene breakdown of each song it will be a much better summary. At that point, there may still be mentions of every song in the summary and so there could still be an argument for including all of the song titles, but that won't necessarily be the case and if it is then there is still an issue of being indiscriminate. I would still argue that it is better for the plot summary to focus on the plot and the appropriate place to discuss individual songs and their use in the film will be the music section which can present information on the most notable songs, according to sources, without having to work around or twist the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The action-sequence point is fair, though I think songs are more delineated as signposts in the film. We don't list action sequences like we list song titles.

But if others agree that song titles shouldn't be named in plot summaries, then that's the consensus. At the end of the day, we are trying to build an encyclopedia. We oppose lengthy plot summaries because if one really gets detailed, a summary could easily be thousands of words long. We wanted to cap it off. Musical films definitely weren't part of the consideration for writing MOS:FILMPLOT. I can see the benefit in indicating the songs in some way.

Can we not think of a way to tie them together, other than naming them in running text? Like hover-over text, footnotes, anchor links? Like I checked out Encanto, and it's interesting how we never say at what point "We Don't Talk About Bruno" occurs, which seems to me to be an omission. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input and advice. I was starting to think about calling them parenthetic citations to the songs (WP:PAREN) but I see those were depreciated a few years back. Another editor helped get the summary below 700 words (including the parenthetics). I'm going to keep them for now and will probably footnote them if challenged down the road. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Short film missing a review section

Hey, this article Possibly in Michigan is missing a review section.

Can I get some help?CycoMa1 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Have you looked at Google Scholar results? There seems to be some potentially relevant results. You can cross-reference them with WP:LIBRARY to see which ones you can access. Link Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Recentist highlighting of films currently playing

At Special:Permalink/1225339037 § Highest-grossing films, I came across this note (which uses automatic date calculation to display the most recent week):

† Indicates films playing in theatres in the week commencing 21 June 2024.

I find this to go directly against WP:RECENTISM, and to introduce a maintenance/sourcing nightmare (it's unclear how much it's being updated, and could easily begin misinforming readers if abandoned for even a short while).

Dismayingly, this is not an isolated problem — a quick search shows that more than 50 articles use the same note.

Therefore, I'd like to ask two things:

1. For purposes of having a consensus to reference, do others agree that such notes are inappropriate?
2. Assuming that there is such consensus, is anyone from this project willing to remove them all?

Best, Sdkb ^talk 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are making an ordered list and some of those elements are in the process of potentially changing order then that is something noteworthy to be pointed out. The box office numbers for films that are still playing in theaters are going to change every day and will likely be updated at least once a week. I don't see how that has anything to do with WP:RECENTISM. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Writing credits in the lead intro of A Quiet Place

It was suggested that the current phrasing in the lead intro might not be pristine due to the screenwriting duo being named first. The order of the writers shouldn't be changed as Beck and Woods are the duo who conceived the story and wrote the script, which they sold to the producers. As cited, the producers gave the script to Krasinski as an actor, and he later contributed elements to the script, thus getting a writing credit. The two credited parties did not write together nor have a similar level of contribution to the writing. Changing the order or using "alongside", for instance, is inaccurate and misleading.

To change the flow of the first sentence, an option could be: "...directed by John Krasinski and written by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods from a story they conceived. Krasinski also has writing credit..." But that is an unusual intro structure to a film article, as we typically list all credited writers together. What are your thoughts and suggestions? Lapadite (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement to put all of those details in one sentence. You could also say something like this: "...directed by John Krasinski. The screenplay was written by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, with contributions by Krasinski after he joined the project. The plot revolves around..." You should also probably be discussing this at Talk:A Quiet Place rather than here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, the writing credits aren't the most noteworthy context; the premise is, so it is a bit much on harp on the credits at the very beginning. (See my essay at WP:FILM1STSENTENCE for relevant policies and guidelines.) So I would delay mention of writing credits to later in the first paragraph, which may allow for more flexibility in wording. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and Erik: I agree, but as there are editors who are sticklers for using the same format across all articles even if it doesn't suit a particular article, and get into revert wars overt it, I didn't want to change it significantly without a discussion here. I'll make the edit that adamstom suggested. I think, for the majority of scripted films, the writer(s) is the second most noteworthy content for a lead intro. A premise comes from a screenplay, and if the premise is noteworthy, who wrote it is equally, if not more so. This film is defined by the story and screenplay, so I think naming the writers in the intro is appropriate. Lapadite (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify about my essay, the point is to immediately connect the reader with the topic in the first sentence. Non-household names are not very likely to provide that connection, meaning here that naming Beck and Woods doesn't mean anything to most people (as reflected by reliable sources). They're named at some point and occasionally focused on, but the main connecting point of this film is the novel premise, monsters who hunt by sound. So much more has been written about that and the related moviegoing experience. Of course someone who knows A Quiet Place well won't really care about the order and presentation of details, but if someone has never seen it and only has a vague understanding, that first sentence mentioning the premise will make the connection. That's how I think the cited policies and guidelines would apply. We can look at coverage, including their headlines and bodies of text, about placement, to see where the weight lies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, notable elements can vary per film and an article's lead should reflect that. The issue from article to article is disagreements on what aspect of a film is more noteworthy than another, and some editors wanting to standardize the structure of the lead. It's not uncommon for drive-by editors to change it to the common format of director, writer, stars, plot.

The premise is currently about 3 lines of text, so I think it should be trimmed if it's moved to the second sentence. I'd have the writers mentioned alongside it. Much of the media / marketing did focus on the premise and the famous actor who directed it, not the relatively unknown writing duo who conceived the story and wrote the screenplay. Many articles only named the director as a writer: "directed and co-written by Krasinski". As I'm sure we all know, that's a common promotional practice, particularly for bigger names. My point is that as the notable premise came from the duo, and the director's frequently named as a writer in the media, the premise and writers go hand in hand and should be mentioned alongside each other, either in the same sentence or consecutively. Plus, the multiple articles reporting the journey of the actor-director coming on to the project may support the noteworthiness of mentioning who conceived the premise and screenplay. Lapadite (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

RM discussion for Wish (film)

An editor has requested that Wish (film) be moved to Wish (2023 film), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is there no importance scale

Like every other wiki project has a importance scale why doesn’t this one have one 31.121.245.19 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, man, that takes me back. I think we removed it back around 2007-2008. You can see the explanation as to why here: WP:FILMCORE (though I don't think anyone is paying attention to "core" topics nowadays either). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

AllMovie has Changed

So I'm not sure if this is brought up recently as I haven't seen in the archives, but AllMovie has changed. They've basically lost all their reviews and even pull their film summaries from Wikipedia. I suggest if we have any major articles or GAs/FAs using it as a source, we immediately pull from Archive.org versions and maybe reflect on its current status as a source for...well anything really. Sad to see most of the internet turn to crap in the past few years. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably a testament to how film coverage has evolved on Wikipedia in recent years, as opposed to turning to "crap". We are a victim of our own success in some ways, because sources we depend on have started to depend on us which complicates stuff. I recall an incident where I sourced the List of box-office bombs using Filmsite, with corrections from other sources. The bloke who runs it then ditched his figures and adopted ours! Gave me a massive headache at the time. Reading their explanation it appears they are in a transitional phase, so their use of Wikipedia may be just a stop-gap. Even if it is a permanent feature the Wikipedia stuff appears to be clearly highlighted so I don't think it's that much of a problem if editors reference other elements. In cases where the main description was cited, as you say we'll have to locate another source or retrieve it from Internet Archive. Betty Logan (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. More of a heads up to everyone to maybe go back an archive some old articles really. We'll see how it goes, but I can't imagine them bringing back reviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have essentially made it a habit to archive every URL I add as a source to Wikipedia. Occasionally I don't have the time, but as this shows, it's becoming more of a necessity these days. If time allows, I'll archive it at both Wayback and archive.today. Sometimes one does better than the other when it comes to capturing certain pages. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a reason why Wikipedia doesn't have its own archive service? It seems a no-brainer, unless it's the cost. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Might be a risk of hosting non-free content? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

And cost I'm sure. These archiving sites are always asking for donations, of which I try to give to every couple years. Hopefully more archiving sites pop up in the future. Some of these are likely to die off eventually. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I've honestly been using archive.org more than google to search for sources lately. While going through my film Good Articles over the years (!), it was really easy to see myself slowly moving in that direction when it came to citing sources. If we ever lose Archive.org, it'll be a major loss for the internet as a whole. Anyways, yeah, prepare for a lot of archiving for AllMovie if you haven't. Biographies are lost, Reviews are lost, genres are definitely just pulled, ratings have all changed, its barely the same site it was even a few months ago. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I was curious, so I looked up one of the Shrek films (a franchise that genre warriors have heavily targeted in the past). Here's an archived copy from late 2018 and then the the entry as it exists today. Ridiculous how it now lists 5 primary genres, one of which is repeated as a sub-genre. Can't say with any confidence we can cite it for anything right now, unless we're lucky enough to know the original URL and it has been archived. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think "enshittification" was the term you were looking for. I came to this project to note a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard that would be of interest here. I was unaware that there was an existing local thread.Sam Kuru (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Question: Allmovie has deleted the "natural horror" sub-genre, leaving the bulk of List of natural horror films unsourced. Is there a tool for adding Wayback Machine links en masse? Betty Logan (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I found the tool. I am probably the last person to realise this, but if you go into the article history there is an option to "Fix dead links". Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Film templates parameter issues and Category:Film template tracking

Participants of WikiProject Film might be interested in adding these categories and their subcategories into their watchlist.

• watch Category:Film templates parameter issues
• watch Category:Film template tracking

This is part of the recently created category tree under Category:Template tracking by topic. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Plot discussion on the Pinocchio page

There's a discussion regarding the plot summary of the 1940 Pinocchio film, which can be found at Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)#Plot. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Film infobox and crew parameters

Regarding Template:Infobox film, recently there have been distinct requests for additional crew parameters. Based on some brief discussion, I updated the notice template at Template talk:Infobox film and moved it to the top. (I think the formatting could be better, though.) I wanted to bring it up here for full transparency. Perhaps it's worth discussing a more standard way to name crew names in the article body? I've generally been in favor of a crew list like we have a cast list, with the infobox only naming the "starring" actors and most well-known crew roles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly opposed to such listings, but I do wonder what the bright line (if there will even be one) is going to be between crew appropriate for inclusion and crew inappropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It could look like MOS:FILMCAST in some way, since we do have to cut off a cast list similarly. For Panic Room, I went with a crew list based on what the author writing about Fincher listed, and not beyond that. (Though I don't know if there could be a nicer-looking crew-list template.) It doesn't mean having crew lists everywhere, maybe allow it if there is a decent-sized "Production" section first, or if most/all crew members have blue links. I just think something like this could sidestep the infobox requests, so the most relevant names could be mentioned somewhere at least. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Grave of the Fireflies

A discussion regarding the plot summary for Grave of the Fireflies is taking place at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#Plot section, revisited. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussingfilm

Is Discussingfilm.net a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrysed (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No it’s a blog site. See WP:SPS. Mike Allen 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

CfD discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 8#Category:Films with scents has been sitting with little response and I'm hoping to get more eyes on it. Thanks in advance! QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD discussion - List of feature film series with three entries

Hello - just opened up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature film series with three entries. Any input from project members would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! jellyfish ✉ 04:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Paddington (franchise)"

The usage of Paddington (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion. See talk:Paddington (film series) for the discussion, on where the 2014 film series and derivative properties is the franchise. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Jason Voorhees

I have nominated Jason Voorhees for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Hunger Games (film series)#Requested move 7 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Hunger Games (film series)#Requested move 7 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 14:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Title name of the upcoming seventh Jurassic film

The title name for the upcoming seventh Jurassic film called Jurassic City is not an official one and an user name AJFU was the one who thought of this based on sources that are questionable, as you can see in this talk page section of it. I think there should be a discussion about this. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy Close and move to Untitled Jurassic World film per WP:COMMONNAME and Talk:Jurassic City (2025 film). GSK (talk • edits) 15:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Speedy" closes are requested/done based on an obvious consensus. Based on the talk page discussion, there isn't a consensus for "Untitled Jurassic World film" but seems to be one for "Jurassic World 4". I think the latter is a verifiable option used by a reliable source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Category for Films that had defamation lawsuits

Is there a category for films which led to defamation lawsuits by portrayed characters (e.g. The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film) and The Lost King). If not, should there be (and what would it be called)? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The closest similar category I could find (though there might be better analogs) is Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies. Category:Films involved in defamation lawsuits might be viable, but I wouldn't bother unless you can find at least five such films, as we shouldn't really create small categories. I also wouldn't take my own word as gospel here, but recommend waiting to hear from other editors who may be more well-versed in this subject area. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Doniago. I'll take your advice. I think there are quite a few films (& TV shows) that led to defmation lawsuits (even recently Baby Reindeer), so it might be a worthwhile category to have (e.g. category:Films and TV shows that spawned defamation lawsuits), or something equivalent? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A wider-reaching category would certainly be more viable. If you go that route, I think I might recommend Category:Works involved in defamation lawsuits; I don't really like "spawned" personally, and I think it's a little misleading; it's not inherently the work's fault that someone decided to create a lawsuit over it. But I'd definitely want input from other editors before going further down this road. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree about "spawned". "Involved" is more neutral and accurate. I think "Works involved" is a good place to start (which would include printed works), then creating subcategories by medium as it grows larger. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Great - I have created Category:Works involved in defamation lawsuits and placed it under Category:Works subject to a lawsuit. On a quick search, found a reasonable number of cases, so should be a useful sub cat imho. thanks all. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor who's had to create far too many entries at CfD that might have been averted if editors had been a bit less bold, thank you for coming here to ask for opinions before creating one or more categories that might have then needed to be CfD'ed! DonIago (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure - it was a good discussion to have :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Jumanji

I've started up a discussion on how we should format the cast section for the Jumanji article at Talk:Jumanji#Cast section. Any input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Crediting in first sentences

If we mention in a film article's first sentences that a film was written by or produced by someone, is it misleading to not indicate that there were other writers and producers? (For example, "Foo is a film directed, written, and produced by Famous Director [not mentioning other writers and producers].")

To try to fix this, is it proper to use "co-written"? What about "co-produced", which to me feels wrong especially since films do have literal co-producers separate from producers? Another approach could to be to just mention all writers and all producers, but I feel like that can be overly-specific to do for most films in the first few sentences. Curious what others think. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Terminator 2 opens with "Terminator 2: Judgment Day[a] is a 1991 American science fiction action film directed by James Cameron, who co-wrote the script with William Wisher.". I don't think producers should be mentioned at all in the opening sentence, going back to my previous arguments against the MCU articles going out of their way to textually felate Disney and Marvel studios as soon as possible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if the director was one of the producers? What do you do about producers in lead sections in general? Like mention in the typical production-focused paragraph that the director produced the film with so-and-so? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I just don't think producers/producer roles warrant mentioning, in terms of creativity I think director/writer are traditionally how someone would identify a film, i.e. a Richard Donner film, Spielberg film, etc. Doesn't work for everyone obviously but it doesn't help me to know Neal H Moritz produced a film since that's a fairly obscure name to the uninformed and is not an indication of quality, tone, type, etc. The only caveat would be something where the producer role was instrumental and unavoidable, such as some 80s films to which Spielberg lent his weight and it's the main reason it got made. Beyond that I consider it alongside distributors in a sense that they provided funding, maybe did more than that, but it's not something I believe needs mentioning in the opening sentence or lede in general, again without good cause. A big name like the aforementioned Spielberg can be worth mentioning. I do dislike the use of "directed and written by" if it's not a sole writing credit as it is misleading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be implying they are the sole writer/producer, but as DWB demonstrates in his reply there are so many ways around this through appropriate phrasing. Betty Logan (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean it in an unintentional sense. Like it may be when some editors write "written and produced" by a director, they figure readers will know that they're not necessarily the sole writer and producer. (Maybe they'll think the full credits in the infobox will cover that?) I was asking if that's a plausible assumption or if we should word it in a way to always indicate multiple roles in some way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If there are multiple writers on a project, we should not be using wording to indicate that a director (who may have also taken on that role) is the sole writer. "Co-written/co-wrote" is fine to use in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Streaming series

Hello! If I'm discussing a series that was created for Disney+ or another streaming platform, should I refer to it as a "television series" or a "streaming series"? Wafflewombat (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I would check WT:TV archives for discussions about this. For example, I found this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 36 § "streaming" in the lead sentence for tv shows. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I remember that discussion well. I suppose one takeaway is to use something like " "streaming on Netflix" or "streaming on Disney+" or "released on Disney+" or something like that. Sometimes series stream and are shown on broadcast TV, as well, so words need to be chosen correctly and carefully. As one of those in that discussion noted, "It's worth mentioning the network/streaming service in the lead, yes, but "streaming television series" is no longer really a "genre" of TV series, nor a common phrase used in reliable sources (or by laypeople)." Historyday01 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of films considered the best#Requested move 13 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of films considered the best#Requested move 13 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Another question (er, questions) for you all! This is much more the domain of the Fictional Characters Wikiproject, but I have reached out to them multiple times and haven't received any responses—it's a ghost town over there. Anyways, I'm wondering if you know what the appropriate terms are for referring to leading characters. Protagonist? Lead character? Main character? Is antagonist acceptable to use? Is it okay to rank characters as primary/seconday protoganists or antagonists? Should the use of any of these terms be cited, such as finding secondary sources that describe character X as the primary antagonist? Wafflewombat (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:PROTAGONIST covers this nicely, but basically none of those terms should be used without sources that support them. DonIago (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The Life of Chuck

An editor has requested that The Life of Chuck (film) be moved to The Life of Chuck, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)