Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

WikiProject Film (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Box office resultsEdit

Unsure where to ask such a question but why in film infoboxes is only the US Box office take in listed. Seems odd not to have the worldwide gross listed so i'm assuming there must be a reason for this? Subtlemammoth (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Subtlemammoth, the documentation at Template:Infobox film says, "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film in its theatrical run." If you see that only the US box office take is included, it may be because an editor added that incorrectly, or it may be because that is the only information available (which can be the case for older films). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

NFF doesn't make senseEdit

In my opinion the current wording at WP:NFF is contrary to fundamental notability principles and arguably a violation of NPOV. The bottom line is that if a topic has sufficient coverage in reliable sources, then there is sufficient notability for an article on that topic. I see no reason to apply different rules just because that topic happens to be a film in pre-production, even if it never gets produced. If it's a topic covered by reliable sources, it's sufficiently notable to have an article, period.


--В²C 20:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Years ago, we had many, many prematurely created film articles on the sole basis that a film was announced in some capacity. But Wikipedia is not news. If there is no tangible topic, the film itself, how can there be a film-structured article about it? It does not mean we cannot have a historical article about people attempting to develop a film, but very few are actually covered in detail postmortem (in the sense that development never happened, and the history of the attempt is recapped). This is an example; Neil Marshall had many projects in development, but his career took a different path. While reliable sources reported this news, these projects did not go anywhere, so should we really have had an article about each one? There is not an issue with summarizing news under a broader topic, such as a well-known director or well-known source material.
The start of filming is the threshold because once filming starts, it is much more likely that we will have a film to write an article about. Before then, there is much more uncertainty. I do not see why it is a violation of WP:NPOV. WP:N states upfront about a topic being notable if "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," which recognizes that notability can depend on the subject. Furthermore, WP:GNG says notability is only presumed and says, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Wikipedia is not news, and we should not treat news coverage of film-related announcements as topics of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I still think the policy is wrong. While WP is not news, once a topic is covered sufficiently in reliable sources (including news sources), it is sufficiently notable to have an article on WP. If it's a pre-production film it's probably not going to be a "film-structured article", but that does not mean there should be no article. And maybe the title of the pre-production film does not immediately have to be an article, it could initially be a redirect to a section of the film creator's page (or whatever). That's standard stuff too. My objection is to having rules for film articles that contradict those for non-film articles, and I think that's what we currently have (which is one of my objections to having specific rules for certain types of articles, where it takes a lot of discipline to avoid contradicting divergence like this) (equivocations like the one slipped into WP:N notwithstanding). Finally, rules aside, what is the harm in having an article about a film that is not yet produced, or may not ever be produced? Again, if it has been covered in reliable sources, then people are likely to want to know whatever has been published about it. That's what WP articles are for. I see no reason for (pre-production) film articles to be treated any differently. --В²C 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to ping B2C and Erik about one discussion closed as partially saying that no subject-specific notability guideline may supersede or replace GNG, though possibly GNG is not a hard-and-fast rule. How would the decision affect the film-specific notability guideline? --George Ho (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." WP:CRYSTAL #5 says, "Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." The subject-specific guideline uses the start of filming as a threshold because before we had this, we had articles created from the moment a film is announced. For this subject, announcements do not guarantee actual releases unless it is being actively produced. (Even then, there can be outright cancellations, but they're much, much rarer.) To use an example, Shantaram (novel) § Film adaptation has been on-and-off in development since 2003. If we had a film article now or at any point before, it would be misleading because it may very well be that a film will never be made. I don't think it means that we can't ever have articles about films not yet produced, but what should the tone be? Are we reporting coverage historically, or are we forever anticipating a tangible product to be received and reviewed by critics and the masses but will never actually be? To go back in time, Neil Marshall had six films in development, as I summarized here so long ago, but none of them came to be. Same thing with Alex Tse here. Are we really arguing that we should have had articles for each of these films, since these all have significant coverage from reliable sources that technically make them notable? I actually like writing up coverage about films in development, but they don't need to be presented as actual films on Wikipedia until the cameras start rolling. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Erik, we have countless articles about conceptions of things not yet realized (and may never be). I don't see why pre-production films can't also have articles as long as GNG requirements are met, just like for any other article. For example, as soon as there is information in reliable sources about a Wonder Woman sequel I'ld like to see an article started on that, and I'm sure such information will be available long before filming starts. Also, plans for films that never got off the ground can be of interest, again assuming GNG is met. The key words in the guidance you quote are "either" and "or": "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." That means as long as either is met an article is merited; it doesn't require both to be met. The bottom line is if someone reads something in one source about a film project they are likely to want to learn more. WP should have an article on it that summarizes all notable information available. --В²C 19:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL #5 talks about encyclopedic value and keeping announcements about unreleased products merged elsewhere. If anything, it's possible we should not even have articles for films until they are released since they cannot be actually received by the public then, per WP:PLOT, and until then lack such encyclopedic value. It is a matter of structuring the content. If plans for a film widely announced and discussed, that alone surely does not directly lead to an encyclopedic article right away. Do you really think we should have a film article for Shantaram? Do we write it as a planned film even though they may have dropped it without us ever knowing? Or do we split it off and write it historically? Because if we do the latter, it will inescapably get the film-article treatment. It would have an infobox with likely outdated credits and be incorrectly categorized with actual films, unless we constantly monitor it to fix the framing as historical. As for Wonder Woman 2, without considering WP:NFF, surely there is technically enough coverage already to warrant an "article" because Patty Jenkins's contractual negotiations have been widely discussed. To continue using that as an example, is there enough coverage for it now? If not, why not? What needs to happen to create a sequel article? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: There is a already information about a potential Wonder Woman sequel at Wonder Woman (2017 film)#Possible sequel. Are you suggestion that information as it stands now should have its own article just because it is verified by a reliable source? What WP:NFF states is more in-line with what is outlined in WP:CRYSTAL, which is equally WP:POLICY. There are over 500 drafts in Category:Drafts about media and drama, the vast majority of which are merely a sentence or two about film announcements verified by reliable sources. I don't think turning these into articles is particularly beneficial as long as the information is available in some other article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Erik and TriiipleThreat, again: are GNG criteria met, or not? If there is only sufficient information for merely a sentence or two about a film announcement then I agree that having articles for that would not be particularly beneficial. More to the point, it wouldn't meet GNG criteria. It's very likely that the vast majority of pre-production films do not meet GNG criteria so whether filming started might look like a reasonable litmus test. But the real test should be GNG criteria; the amount of coverage in RS should be our guide. I really don't think the practical outcome would be all that different, except for a film now and then which has not started filming yet but for which there is sufficient information in RS to meet GNG criteria. Is the Wonder Woman sequel there yet? I don't know, maybe. I haven't looked into it. All I know is IF there is sufficient information to meet GNG criteria, then we should have an article about it. --В²C 00:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
That already happens. WP:NFF is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule.--01:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
For many years, WP:NFF, even when it was just a line on a WikiProject page, has proved very useful. There is no conflict with WP:N or the WP:GNG. If you think the WP:GNG is met, but WP:NFF is not, consider the WP:NFF has a history of reliability when speaking you whether the supposedly GNG sources are actually reliable for the facts. Here, the facts should not include things such as "there is anticipation or speculation on a future film". Does В²C have examples? I had a similar concern about it once, but have never found an example to support the concern. I think, basically, the facts about a film are not facts before principle photography has begun. Any source reporting non-fact facts is not a reliable source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Films in Principal PhotographyEdit

I would like to be sure whether I have understood the rule on films that have not yet been released but that are in principal photography, or whether the authors of these articles have understood. We agree that films that have not began principal photography are not notable, and that any significant coverage of the plans for the film may be included in the article on the director or producer, or perhaps on the movie to which the planned film is a sequel or prequel. So far, so good. The issue has to do with films that are in principal photography. It is my understanding that these films are only considered notable if the production itself is notable, that is, if there has been discussion of the production or photography in reliable sources, but that the mere mention that the film has started principal photography is not notable unless something can be said about the photography. On the other hand, various editors think that the mention of principal photography is itself a basis for the film being notable. This isn't a hypothetical question; it has arisen several times. Maybe the guideline needs to be clarified. Does the start of principal photography make the film notable, or does it only clear one bar for notability, with actual coverage of the photography being another? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think a film that just started principal photography should be considered notable if reliable sources have covered events that happened before the start of principal photography, such as purchasing rights, hiring cast and crew, etc. I think it would be rare for a film's start of principal photography to be reported without anything before that ever being reported. So it's hard for me to imagine such a case. Can you share an example for us to evaluate? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, one current example is Raid (2018 film). This is quite common. The way I read the guideline may be different from how anyone else reads it, but I read it as meaning that the principal photography itself should have coverage that meets general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The commencement of principal photography, which is a good marker for the commencement of spending of significant funds, meaning that the film is unlikely to go on indefinite hold, or get re-cast or re-scripted, and re-titled, is a necessary condition (semi-arbitrarily set) for overcoming WP:CRYSTAL, but it is not a sufficient condition. YouTube movies could make commencement of principal photography claims. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that my read is that the start of principal photography is a necessary condition for film notability. However, it appears that many editors read it as a sufficient condition for notability. Am I correct, or are they correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
My reading is that a film that is still in principal photography is only notable if the coverage of the production is the subject of coverage. It seems that other editors think that Wikipedia should list all films that are in principal photography. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, the many editors who read the start of principal photography as a sufficient condition for notability are definitely wrong. The term "principle photography" (eg includes no condition on the film being Wikipedia-notable, and the many editors should also be reminded that all the sub-notability guidelines (with the sole arguable exception of WP:PROF) are no more than presumptive indicators of notability. If in doubt, AfD can decide regardless of the letter of any guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that when we wrote this, it was when there were usually coverage of films before they started principal photography, to which people felt meant that they should create an article. Then we get countless articles on films that have some cast, have a basic script, did a little scouting...but then get cancelled. An example of that would be Draft:Friday the 13th (upcoming film), which was pushed back year after year. So, we wrote in the inclusion of principal photog because most films, once they enter that stage, are likely to be finished and released (at least finished). It's rare that they are cancelled, but that's more exceptions to the case than anything. That said, it was also written under the belief that once a film hits that stage, you've already collected most of the other information to justify the article (i.e., show notability), and not simply 1 source that says "this film went into principal photography, but we know nothing else about it.". I would imagine in those cases, it would be simple enough to say "merge it somewhere".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. There is a disconnect between the notability guideline and the way that the notability guideline is applied by Articles for Deletion !voters. It is interpreted by AFD !voters to have a meaning that is entirely different than what it says. What it says is that a film that is still in principal photography is only notable if the principal photography itself passes general notability. It is applied to mean that every film that is in principal photography is notable. We can change the guideline to concede that it is normally ignored, or we can continue to leave it as is so that maybe the subcommunity of editors whose honorable mission is to fight the use of Wikipedia for promotion and advertising will see that films that are not yet released because they are still in principal photography are being advertised in Wikipedia. Maybe we (the editors who oppose the use of Wikipedia for promotion and advertising) are fighting a losing battle for now, but maybe we should keep on fighting. The guideline is not being applied as written. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC to amend this and related guidelinesEdit

Casting AboutEdit

Draft:Casting_About Saw this rejected draft and to me it seems notable. What does everyone here think? Egaoblai (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely notable. There are many mainstream reviews for the film. Why in the world did Eddie891 decline it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
EgaoblaiErik: When I declined this draft it was not because it did not meet NFILM, it was because it did not meet WP:V. Specifically, WP:PROVEIT. I looked and I saw that the awards section was uncited. PROVEIT clearly states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source usiT an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article."Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
For help citing sources, see WP:Referencing for beginners, and WP:citing sources. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
as a side note, I am no longer a participant in AfC. I left today as this is the third incident where I have been shown to have messed up. I you want it to be approved, I'm no longer the person to be approving it. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Eddie891, the "Critical reception" section was much more than sufficient for a film to be notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia. Notability is about having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant" does not even mean full or direct, but many sources review this film fully and directly. Reviews from such periodicals definitely make the topic a shoo-in. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Erik Of course. I understand that I made a mistake. One that I will never make again. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Second Glance (film)Edit

Second Glance (film) doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. I was completely unable to find any reviews. Nothing on Rotten Tomatoes, nothing on any reputable reviewing site. The most I've found is David A. R. White mentioning it in his own book (which makes it WP:PRIMARY), and a review by The Cinema Snob. While the "Hey Scotty... Jesus, man!" scene has become somewhat of a meme, I found absolutely nothing asserting notability toward this movie. "Second Glance + "Rich Christiano" gives me only directory listings such as this, and false positives on both Google and GBooks. I found no reviews, no evidence of historical notability, no proof of a wide release (it appears to have gone straight to VHS), and nobody involved with it is notable except for the director and lead actor (all the other actors are redlinked). Am I correct in my assumption that this fails the notability for films? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I found a couple of Christian-blog reviews that would not have a place on Wikipedia. There is a review at Patheos as seen here, albeit under the so-called "blog" section. Beyond this potential source, I am not finding anything else in periodicals or books that indicate this film's notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It was kept at AfD in 2011 so perhaps there was more on the web about it then, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the post-AfD version. The Fresno Bee source could qualify, but considering that it was only used to reference the film and its director, I don't think it had significant coverage. As for the meme, notability isn't inherited. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Erik: @Atlantic306: Yeah, I would say this is definitely on the side of non-notable if the Fresno Bee source is the only good one. The meme isn't noteworthy. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


Me and another editor have placed notability tags on Simmba. The first one by the other editor was deleted and nothing came of it. I put one on and started a discussion. It was deleted with no discussion (other than a long edit summary). I don't think it meets the notability guidelines but I opened the discussion because I would like to be educated as to where I am wrong. So, can someone here educate me? The person who deleted it this last time said in the edit summary that the film has press coverage. It does but none of it is critical as far as I can see. The film hasn't been released yet. It seems to me, perhaps wrongly, that the page is being used as advertisement based on the number of views it has. Anyhow, I don't want to start an edit war although I did put the tag back up with a note to discuss at talk page. I do want to learn and was hoping someone here could help me. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. An editor came along and added a production section with notable content. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

More on NFFEdit

I get the major point of NFF is to not to jump on creating film articles based on one or two sources announcing the project. Waiting for production at least assures there's probably more coverage.

However, this advice ignores the GNG. For example, today, WB made the first significant sign that the live-action Akira movie will be going forward after 18-some years of how-many-different-hands the project fell through. (it has set a date for release in 2021) As such between the original manga and anime article, there was a bunch of duplicate discussion of the film with at least 40 sources. EG, even if this current effort completely falls through, the coverage of the project is notable through the GNG. There's already been controversy over it too (whitewashing or de-Japanese-ing if it played out in the US) As such NFF should not be applied to such projects. This is not like 4-5 sources discussing a future film compared to 2-3 , but overwhelming many, so the GNG readily applies. --Masem (t) 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Are you suggesting that WP:NFF should not be used as a reason for editors to delete or redirect articles about films that are in pre-production? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It all matters as to how much has been discussed about a film, using some degree of common sense as well.
We do want NFF to step in and demand the redirect when all we know is John Q Smith will be starring in a brand new film that is not due for 3 years, and where that's legitimately all we can say.
We do not want NFF to interfere with films that have had well-documented development hell, ala The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, of which that production hell is clearly of interest.
We do want NFF to come in when we have an Nth film in a well-established series where there a reasonably fair number of sources on casting/directing, but where principle photography hasn't started, and what's on the page is just announcements and casting info, such that the redirect goes to the series page where that information should be fine in terms of SIZE concerns.
I think the idea that is better to think about is that for films not yet in production, the content of the article should be well past a stub or Start-class article in terms of quantity and sourcing, and we should consider as well other factors like planned starts of production, tax breaks applied for, etc. It just should not be a simple yes-no on production start only.
Also, if a redirect under NFF is undo under some claim, and it turns out the film gets cancelled or the like, we can always restore the redirect. --Masem (t) 00:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


Is a film notable if it has been released on Netflix?Eschoryii (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

    • Only if it has received significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources (at least 2, preferably more) such as independent reviews and /or features in newspapers, magazines, reliable websites, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Other evidence of notabilityEdit

I'm not sure how it isn't made clear that a film doesn't have to meet WP:NFO to be considered notable, but I have seen three different editors recently say that a film article must pass Other evidence of notability. I thought the word "Other" made it clear that it isn't the case. Maybe I'm missing something. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

John Wick: Chapter 4 article discussionEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:John Wick: Chapter 4#AFC reviewer note. This discussion involves the creation of an article that has not yet begun principal photography. -- /Alex/21 14:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Notability (films)".