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.


Director's cutsEdit

What's our policy regarding films that are recut and then rereleased as their own films? I notice that both Apocalypse Now Redux and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut have their own articles, and there are articles on the different versions of Blade Runner and Star Wars. When is it appropriate for a director's cut to have its own article? Is there a specific inclusion criteria for this, or is it simply WP:GNG? Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors, we do not have any guidelines about director's cuts. I think it should depend on the amount of related content. Some director's cuts are easily covered in the primary film article, but if there is a great deal of commentary from reliable sources about the cut, the content can be split into a kind of sub-article (with a section at the primary film article providing a high-level summary of the content). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability Should be Expanded to Allow More Room for Niche Independent FilmsEdit

I understand that we don't want every youtube video to be eligible for inclusion as a Wikipedia page. But I think any independent film which meets a minimum length requirement (say 30 minutes) and involves a minimum number of actors and production people (say, for example, 20), should be allowed into this "encyclopedia of all human knowledge," and has had at least one or more public showings to a minimum number of people (say, one hundred) should be eligible for an article if someone (excluding the actors, producers, financiers or others having some form of ownership of the film) cares enough to write up a description of the film.

One of the key valued of Wikipedia is that it is not limited by printed pages and the need to be brief.

Related to this is that it allows the creation of articles about minor topics that would never be notable enough for Encyclopedia Britannica but might be notable enough for a small niche of a few thousand people interested in a topic.

So, while I understand the desire to have guidelines that seeks to prevent self-promoters from turning Wikipedia into a free advertising vehicle (and also recognize that to some extent, that remains inevitable), I don't think the "notability" issue should become an obstacle to the fan(s) of a low budget independent film creating and maintaining an article about it.

If it is "notable" enough to a fan who saw the film at one of it's few public showings, or even it's only public airing, then it is likely notable enough to at least a few thousand potential readers out there that they may a appreciate that Wikipedia has a reference to it. This is especially true if the film is directed toward a niche audience that supports it's own niche, topic oriented news media. Just because the film is not notable to mainstream media doesn't mean it's not notable to thousands, perhaps millions, of readers/viewers in that topic niche.

As indicated above, absent the criteria that are already identified as making a film notable, I think one public showing to at least 100 people, and a production crew of over 20, and length over 30 minutes (or similar criteria) indicates that the effort to produce the film was at least serious enough to be notable enough in Wikipedia. At least it's not just a funny cat video.

I like the idea of Wikipedia being the equivalent of Captain Kirk's computer which held the entirety of human knowledge. Even very small, independent films which fail to get coverage in the "mainstream press" are part of our human knowledge and human creative effort. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GodBlessYou2, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, which generally means if there is not independent commentary about the film, we would not have an article for it. Wikipedia is not intended to be trailblazing in writing about films that no one else has. We are summarizing existing content about these films. The policy at WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." What can we write about a film if no reliable sources are covering it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the OP is referring to "films" like 22 Weeks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an editor must be able to cite other sources. The question regards avoiding a limitation of sources to "main stream media" -- especially when there are so many other sources of information and third party reviews and reporting, often in niches, as I indicated, which clearly indicate that a film was "notable" enough to niche media sources.

I didn't have a particular example, but ArtifexMayhem has suggested 22 Weeks as an example of a disputed entry. A quick glance shows he/she "combined refs" in a December edit on that article so I assume he/she has an opinion on this subject. What are your recommendations, Artifex? (May I call you Artifex?) GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD for LeatherfaceEdit

Leatherface (film) has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it fails the notability criteria, contains unreliable sources, and it is not clear if the name of the article will actually be the name of the film. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The name and topic of the film being considered, crewed up, cast and filming has been confirmed in multiple reliable sources, thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems inappropriate to reply to a notification with an argument… suggest moving this comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film). — (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Not an "argument" but a neutral statement of facts, as both sides of the viewpoint have been written of there. As the notification contained some erroneous comments toward film name and reliability of accepted RS, it is appropriate to address them here. Making incorrect statements and then inviting folks to go to the AFD with a set of mistaken preconceptions could possibly be construed as canvassing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Questions have arisen in this discussion about what exactly WP:NFF means, whether notable pre-production means notable production. I figured it was worth cross-posting here. If elements of a film’s pre-production (such as who’s been casted and what parts they’ll be playing) are notable, does that make its production notable? There’s no indication that “production” is being used here to encompass pre- and post-, but was it intended? — (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, I have not seen this particular sentence referenced in an AfD before. It looks like it dates back to the very first version of this page. It mentions "factors to consider" (that no longer exist here) that I think Leatherface would meet. It seems to be a vestige that could be re-worded. Maybe just change "production" to "film"? Pre-filming coverage counts toward notability because it reflects sources showing attention toward a topic before it has even started filming, which usually has to do with some aspect of the film being previously notable (the source material, the director, the actors). One may say that "obviously" Leatherface is notable on the face of it, being the latest in a franchise, but that by itself would not suffice as an argument on Wikipedia. However, the pre-filming coverage is what establishes that for us outside our personal opinions. It's reasonable to surmise that the reporting was done because of the nature of the franchise. If it was an indie film starring Stephen Dorff, it would not get this kind of coverage. But that is beside the point; the point is that independent sources found the topic worthy of note to report on, and Wikipedia can summarize that coverage, especially now that we have verified that filming has begun. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree fully. Under MOS:FILM#Production, "production" is an inclusive term not an exclusive one. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, the term "production" does not restrict article content to or mean "only stuff dealing directly with the actual filming"... which is why many film articles in Wikipedia contain sections dealing with the creation, planning, writing, casting, and the eventual making of those films... information included under MOS:FILM to increase our reader's understanding-in-depth of the overall film topic. All the many aspects of the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of a film fall under the "production" processes. Since the topic of the plans for production of a potential film Texas Chainsaw 4 (now confirmed as Leatherface), had been discussed directly and in detail for many years, its coverage meant it could (and was) spoken about somewhere per policy... IE: it was "mentioned" (although very poorly and very briefly) in a suggested redirect target. As no film is 100% until the box office opens and folks actually watch it, what is restricted by WP:NFF is that we should probably (not a hard rule) not have a separate article until we have confirmation of filming, and we now have such confirmation. But since the topic meets WP:GNG and filming has commenced a separate article is now merited under WP:NFF (paragraph 3)... an article which informs readers of all the aspects surrounding the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of this film. It's what we are here to do. And yes, in this unfinished encyclopedia which admits it is imperfect, the article is far from complete... but being incomplete is not a deletion criteria. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Any objections to changing WP:NFF to read: “should generally not have their own articles unless the film is notable per the notability guidelines”? — (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As an established editor in good standing and a coordinator of WikiProject Film I object, specially as the topic of preparation for a film can easily meet inclusion criteria before or even if never made. Indeed, we he had a long debate several years ago about perhaps titling pre-filming projects with the dab "(film project)". WP:NFF's current wording resulted after many years of discussion, and the community consensus for its current wording reflects our acknowledgement of the GNG being the primary inclusion criteria. Per Policy and guideline, the topic of this project being discussed in detail in reliable sources from 2012 to 2015 (even before it began filming last May) means it is notable per our primary inclusion criteria. You'd have to modify WP:GNG and WP:V to say that even if enduring and ongoing, coverage of project's preparation and pre-production can be completely ignored... and then you'd have to greatly narrow MOS:FILM's definition of the term "production", specially as a problem with your end-run here is that 1) MOS:FILM considers a film's prep-work worth including, 2) this one has begun filming, and 3) per WP:GNG and WP:V its prep-work coverage counts toward notability. However, anon IPs are always welcome to begin WP:RFCs in order to gain wider input, as one voice here asking to change existing guideline contrary to existing community standards is not consensus. Erik?? Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    Then can we clarify NFF’s use of “production”? Perhaps, “unless the production itself (including pre-production) is notable”? If this needs to go to an RFC, I’d prefer to have a specific wording to propose, and I can’t do that without knowing the intended meaning of the existing wording. Would this convey it? — (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The word and its application in film articles is already well defined by community consensus at MOS:FILM as pointed out above, so go and read it and ask for education there. I need not cut and paste that entire guideline page for you here. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
      Again I direct your attention to Filmmaking#Production. Either that needs to be rewritten a bit, or it’s not quite as clear-cut as you believe. — (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You're welcome to go edit that user article to have it say anything you wish...   I'd rather stick with understanding and use of applicable guideline. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    Wait, no, I’ve got it. RFC to follow. — (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Link the word “production” in NFFEdit

It seems as if there is some support for MQS's proposed linkage, but I'd rather hammer nails through Lugnuts's balls than read this a third time. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Only if they're Nine Inch Nails. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to WP:NFF, films that haven’t yet been released “should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.” The word “production” is ambiguous here; it’s not clear whether it refers to the phase of production as distinct from pre-production and post-production, as per Filmmaking#Production, or to all aspects of the film’s creation, as per MOS:FILM#Production. So I propose that the word be linked to whichever of these two is more appropriate; that should remove any ambiguity without any rewriting. (Note: User:MichaelQSchmidt has added a link to MOS:FILM#Production.) — (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, but did you read Filmmaking#Stages of Production before coming here? Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Only enough to see that it uses multiple senses of the word. In the subsection I linked, though, the word refers to a particular phase of production, “production,” which occurs after the pre-production phase of production. MOS:FILM#Production also refers to the production phase of production. So I stand by my claim of ambiguity. — (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Actually it is not ambiguous as both suggested links give us usage. The "word" and its application and usage in film topics is already well-described at guideline MOS:FILM, and refers to the many aspects of a film's production ... addressing conception, planning, scripting, crewing-up, casting, actual filming, and post-production. And yes, at Filmmaking#Stages of Production we have also have an expanded "definition" of the word and its various aspects relating to a film's production... but it is NOT a guideline. It is in the guide MOS:FILM where we have a detailed and well-considered explanation of how editors are to consider and deal with production information, as how we edit these pages is determined by following its long-existing policies and guides. I do agree that it would be helpful to add a wiki-link to the misunderstood NFF sentence. IE: "...films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The "underscoring" is simply my way to show share the link should be put. As NFF "knows" that coverage of the background of the planning of a film could meet the primary inclusion guideline even before filming has begun, that sentence was set to let us know that we need to wait until a film's principle photography is confirmed before consider the creation of a separate article about the film. Adding the link to MOS:FILM would lead worrisome or unknowing editors to the guide for handling such information and so improve the project. So as this RFC essentially breaks down to the question of which link best supports article creation and editing.
My response is that while linking to the article on filmmaking#Stages of Production is fine, if needed for clarification by the uninitiated, a linking instead to MOS:FILM as the specific guide for dealing with such information, is far better and more appropriate. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: A given unfinished film may only be notable for its pre-production, e.g. for casting announcements and the like. This may be particularly true if the film has just finished pre-production and begun shooting; or perhaps the film is entirely non-notable except for pre-production details like the people involved, and reliable sources will dry up indefinitely. Whatever the case may be, is it appropriate to create an article at this point?
  • If so, then we should link to MOS:FILM#Production to indicate that we’re using the term in the sense of making a film, of which pre-production is one aspect.
  • If not, then we should link to Filmmaking#Production to indicate that we’re using it in the sense of filming, distinct from pre-production. — (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Response: Yes the topic of a film in development could and sometimes does meet WP:GNG, which is why policy tells it that if spoken of within these pages it must must be well and carefully sourced... which is why we have mentions in sections in related articles. It is because setbacks can occur even with an otherwise demonstrably notable film topic, WP:NFF begins by telling us that setbacks happen and a film should not have a separate article article until after filming is confirmed, and concludes by stressing that even after filming is confirmed and before a film's release, a separate article could be created only if its production efforts are determinable as notable through existence of multiple sources speaking toward the topic directly and in detail. To address any personal sense that there might be ambiguity, we must look beyond the narrow subsections of an "article" to read how a term is dealt with in its entirety by applicable guideline. So, if a link must be made, linking to MOS:FILM#Production is the proper choice, as it is a guideline created through consensus of experienced editors, rather than just an article created by random editors who may or may not understand our policies and guideline. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    You talk like film production has a unique meaning in a Wikipedia context…my concern is that an editor reading this page may not know which meaning of the word is intended (especially in proximity to “pre-production”), because in the real world it is used to mean both. Saying “production efforts” instead would also be a solution, I think. — (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Response You are beginning to argue over minutiae. If you are so very worried about what might happen in the future, go ahead BE BOLD and make a linked change and refer to this RFC in your summary... but remember the advice of WP:KUDZU and that Wikipedia is not a grammar lexicon. Certainly linking to Filmmaking#Stages of Production could explain to the ignorant that the term "production" involves many related stages when creating a film but... if to be done, a link to the existing applicable guideline (built over time and reflecting community consensus) is far better in this case.... far far better than sending readers to an unsourced and rambling article section which being unsourced and edited by random users may contain WP:OR. If a link is required , it's Best if an ignorant and curious editor reading that term in WP:NFF could then find himself sent to the applicable guideline which educates that the term "film's production" speaks toward the entire process and not just one small part of it. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Opinion Erik II ? Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      Project space (including MOS) isn’t any more immune to the negative effects of open collaborative editing than article space. But you’re missing my point, I think… I’m saying the term “production” also means the stage in between pre-production and post-production. MOS:FILM corroborates this. I don’t care which meaning is intended by NFF; I simply want it to be made clear, so that we don’t have disagreements caused by the ambiguity as in the Leatherface AFD. Wikilinking the term seemed like the least intrusive way to do that. Or we could rewrite the sentence to avoid the term or to explicitly clarify. — (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      Sorry, I did not join Wikipedia 7-1/2 years ago to teach those who so not listen about WP:CREEP. I have wasted a lot of time explaining to you that the term is just as wide as guideline shares, and you have exhausted me. Someone else can help you re-write the project's guidelines to meet your preferences for extremes clarity in a project that is a Work in progress and admittedly imperfect. Bye. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      How in the world is it WP:CREEP to clarify a word with multiple meanings? Just add a link, or just replace the word with another. No creep. — (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      WP:CREEP is WP:CREEP. and a link to the applicable guideline has been added at WP:NFF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      WP:NOTCREEP. And I don’t see careful diction (word choice) discouraged there or anywhere in project space. — (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:CREEP is a padding of the existing guidelines so well accepted and understood and created through consensus of the Wikipedia community with unnecessary verbiage to make some point. WP:NOTCREEP cold apply if the extra verbiage has been shown as accepted through consensus. But I do not expect you to accept that, and fully expect another defensive response. Give yourself a user name and go edit the rules. Bye. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
        Again, changing one word to another or adding a link to existing text is not extra verbiage or CREEP in any sense. Please stop misrepresenting my request… which, if you hold to your “bye” this time, you will. Also: WP:NOTCREEP could apply if the extra verbiage has been shown as accepted through consensus”… isn’t that precisely why we’re here? Assuming it’s deemed a better solution than linking, that is. And it would have been more accurate to say: “NOTCREEP could apply if the extra verbiage reflects consensus more clearly and accurately.” Which it would. (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC) edited 03:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
        As the link has been made, it really does not matter any longer that you personally do not believe adding unnecessarily verbiage without a clear consensus is CREEP. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
        If that were the case, I would have added unnecessary verbiage without consensus. I haven’t; I’m seeking consensus, and my primary proposal avoids changing let alone adding any words. So, again, please stop blatantly misrepresenting my position. — (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a non-discussion, as the IP editor can't create new articles. And in any case, I'd rather hammer nails into my balls than go round in circles with this guy. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not having a username was a choice this anon IP made March May 16, 2014 when he began editing like a pro. I have no idea just who this very experienced IP from Florida really is, but I definitely agree... WP:IDHT is not how we create consensus. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    May, actually, not March. I appreciate the compliment to my editing ability, but I’m not clear on what I supposedly haven’t been hearing. You keep telling me what you think the sentence means. Fine; let’s make that clear, because it wasn’t. And (if you’re right) you’ve done so by adding a link, so, thanks. — (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Not what I "think", but an application of knowledge acquired through years of experience on Wikipedia since early 2008, being a coordinator of project film, and an understanding of industry knowledge. Your start date as a very experienced anon IP is corrected. So whoever you are, fine. Bye. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    No, you still have it listed as March… doesn’t matter, though. But fine, you’ve told me your expert opinion of what it means. IDHT doesn’t apply there, because I’ve long past accepted your opinion or I wouldn’t have started this RFC. — (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Folks seeing your incessant WP:BLUDing hints that you might not get much response.   No matter as the matter has been dealt with. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    I really don’t think that’s what I’m doing by responding to direct attacks on my argument or person, and with only two of us here in good faith so far. In fact there’s more of your text here than mine by half. — (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes... I'm sure there is... as my (repeated) explanations require a longer response than a short question. And my noting WP:BLUD is not an attack on you personally, but a reminder that you have been responding and asking the same questions over and over even after after explanations, and that others might see that tenacity and decide not to engage. You've read Lugnuts response, yes? Sometimes patient silence after a question will brings answers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    I welcome reasonable disagreement, but not denials of fact; I’ve responded to your explanations with my own because yours have seemed to deny the very existence of multiple valid meanings to a word. That reasoning was what I had a problem with, not your position itself. Maybe that’s not what you meant, maybe I misinterpreted you, I don’t know, you haven’t said. (I’ll feel really silly if all of this has been over a simple misunderstanding.) But hopefully, what you saw as bludgeoning makes a little more sense now. — (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
When was I asking about creating new articles? If you’re saying I’m barred from suggesting improvements to guidance simply because that guidance doesn’t directly apply to me, I respectfully disagree. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is an issue of confusing use of language that you can see evidenced in the AFD linked in the above section. You have just as much of a right to suggest improvements, if you like. — (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Support. It might seem like minutiae, but you'd be surprised at the amount of submissions we get at AfC where submittors quibble about the exact wording of policies and guidelines, demanding their drafts be accepted into mainspace. A simple link might solve such trivial discussions, whereafter we might unequivocally state to said submittors exactly why their current production is non-notable. A simple link that describes what precisely constitutes a notable Production might go a long way. Anyway, let this veer the discussion back on track. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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