Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Active discussions
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.

Piranha (1978) - Comedy?Edit

Anyone willing to take a look at this edit to Piranha (1978 film)? AllMovie lists the film as a comedy horror film, but we have an editor claiming that TCM and Rotten Tomatoes do not list it as such. It doesn't make a big deal to me, but I would like a better understanding of whether TCM or RT are considered reliable sources for genre classification. I'm leaning toward No on RT, but I don't know much about TCM. Thanks for your help! DonIago (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering that genre can be subjective and fluid, it could be considered both. Database entries are not necessarily the most authoritative and do not have a ton of nuance. For example, AllMovie shows the main genres to be comedy and horror. Rotten Tomatoes shows only horror, where for Scream it shows "horror, comedy", which reflects that it does not deal in subgenres like "horror comedy" per se. I would probably look at prose-based sources in Google Books and Google Scholar to see if "horror" is more preferred than "horror comedy". Even other genres come into play; the book Dark Romance: Sexuality in the Horror Film says, "Though an obvious imitator of Jaws (1975), Piranha is effective as both thriller and comedy." Another possible approach is to simply call it "horror film" upfront but share the comedic elements in the next few sentences. We can't frontload the first opening sentence with all possible genres and can try to spread out the thematic detail instead. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems like "piranha" "1978" intitle:horror has more Google Books results here than "piranha" "1978" intitle:comedy here, though this does support at least mentioning it as a "horror comedy" somewhere. I would probably support calling it a "horror film" upfront and unpacking comedy-related commentary later. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The AFI categorises it as solely "horror" too. It is a Joe Dante film meaning it is stuffed with dark humor, but that doesn't necessarily mean it follows the conventions of the comedy genre. I have never seen it but Allmovie (as good as it usually is) seems to be an outlier in this regard. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't planning to challenge it unless there were strong arguments in favor of restoring "comedy" here, which there don't seem to be. I still have reservations about TCM and RT as genre sources, which I don't feel we've exactly addressed here, but I'm not involved in enough disputes where those sources come up to be especially concerned. I do wonder whether another editor will reinsert "comedy" at some point, but if that happens I think I might just steer clear. DonIago (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

To reply about TCM and RT, I think they can be good starting points in general, but I doubt that any of the staff puts in a lot of thought into populating the parameters. They could crib it from somewhere, or it could be one person making an on-the-fly gut-feeling decision. Looking at prose-based sources gets a little closer to a more intentional consideration of how a film fits in what genre. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Eric. That all makes sense to me. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

List of films that pass the Bechdel test at AfDEdit

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessment needs some loveEdit

Any WikiProject Film members with 10 minutes spare could make a dent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment#New requests, which seems to have otherwise been left to decay a bit. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Films by storyline?Edit

Hi all. I'm struggling on the best way to fix an article, or perhaps to determine if it is unfixable, and was hoping others may have thoughts. The page List of LGBT-related films by storyline is currently entirely uncited, and held up what seems to be only by OR and individual editor discretion. It has a more straightforward section of lesbian and gay relationships (although these aren't necessarily "storylines" in many cases) and quite a number of entirely arbitrary categories. While these could be deemed "storylines," there's not really any set standard for how that is determined -- what prompts whether a film goes under "with tragedy" or "persecution" or "historical event" or just "with LGBT characters"? When in the relationship a storyline, vs. being a biographical LGBT film?

I'm wondering if:

  • A) are there other "by storyline" pages that may be helpful for guidance? I'm not finding any, which isn't a shock as it would likely suffer from the same issues -- how does one decide if in a list of "Action movie storylines" a film should be "international crime" or "terrorists" or "familial revenge" or "premeditated kidnapping" (bonus points for naming the movie!)? Is a romance storyline "tragedy" or "violence-driven" or "forbidden-love?"
  • B) Any good suggestions to improve? Or is this AFD material?

To be very clear, I am not proposing a problem with lists of LGBT films -- we have List of LGBT-related films (although there are issues there on sourcing what counts as LGBT-related, by year, with women directors, as TV films, etc. All things that can be sourced and not rely on OR and editor judgement. But the "list by storyline" concept seems tricky to fix, and perhaps not solvable.

Appreciate any thoughts!--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My not-very-nice gut reaction, sight unseen, is that the list sounds like it needs a machete taken to it to cull out the unsourced material, especially if it's been tagged previously. List of disaster films may be a worthwhile example...it does subcategorize films by the type of disaster, and used to be largely unsourced, but in the last few months/years I think it's gotten a lot better. The problem with these types of lists is that editors who aren't familiar with WP:LISTV will come in and add films with no regard for sourcing, and you end up needing to do regular maintenance, though it sounds as though the List you're concerned with is probably updated less frequently.
I don't really know enough about LGBT-related films as a genre to say whether there are recognized subgenres. You probably could find sources such as "The Top 10 LGBT Romance Films", but I'm not sure that makes a strong case for this list; it would just indicate where on the list to place the films in question.
In the end, I think it's worth asking whether categorization is a more effective way to deal with this situation than a list article. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea for a list, and I don't even think categories are necessary. Maybe categorizing LGBT films by subgenre, like LGBT action films, is worthwhile, but not by storyline. Kingsif (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessment for importance of American films inducted into the National RegistryEdit

I posted a few months ago on the talk page of the American cinema task force a question regarding the assessment of the importance of the American films inducted to the National Film Registry. It went unnoticed ever since, so I'm here to try to bring some attention to it and maybe some comments.--GDuwenHoller! 21:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/The 40-Year-Old Virgin/archive1Edit

Can someone please leave comments for this? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Order of fields in the infoboxEdit

Hi. Incase anyone hasn't seen this discussion, and there's an RfC too. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this WikiprojectEdit

Run (2020 American film) 581,093 19,369 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

B movie FAREdit

I have nominated B movie for featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie/archive2. Please join the discussion! 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Rating tableEdit

So Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) recently removed the rating template in the reception section of Living in the Age of Airplanes, stating it is against consensus to put it. And in his talk page, he stated it was a long-ago discussion, and that it could be revisited, considering tempus fugit. And so here. What do you think regarding the film rating templates (review scores, not MPAA)? GeraldWL 02:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In essence, is it best to include something like {{Video game reviews}} in a reception section for film? BOVINEBOY2008 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Additional context: Such a template once existed at {{Film reviews}} but was deleted. BOVINEBOY2008 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
One problem, as I see it is that you can't quantify most film reviews. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: BTW, the template doc says it should have refs for every entry. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The template is {{Film and game ratings}} more specifically {{Film ratings}}. From the [usage report] you can see that only a handful of film articles use this template. (Several of which were recently added by Gerald Waldo Luis.) IIRC the issue was WP:PROSE. (I think some people may have also complained that they were "reductive" but that's Rotten Tomatoes for you.) The template does strenuously warn that they are supposed to be only in addition to the text, but it was too easy and {{Video game reviews}} was added to just about every Video game article indiscriminately, often without any Reception section. I got the impression that Project Games accepted the de facto reality of these tables not that they actively encouraged them either. (The Project Games style guidelines for Reception sections warns against As far as I can see Gerald Waldo Luis has been careful and only added the template to articles that had proper reception sections, but I doubt others will be as careful. I'd love to believe tables like these could offer some consistency but I think they are a step in the wrong direction from creating an encyclopaedia, away from summarizing meaningful prose from notable sources. -- 109.78.194.208 (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The template has a "noprose" parameter, which would allow editors to tag that the reception section only has the table and no prose. And either way, people will misuse certain things; [citation needed] exists and people will just spam it everywhere, for example. I have trouble understanding your last stance; the ratings are from notable sources, and the rating compilation gives a compact, unique look at what critics think of it. Video games aren't films, okay, but they have few differences, and if video game articles can have ratings, how are film ratings detrimental to Wikipedia? GeraldWL 02:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In theory this template could give a consistent summary of the reception section in tidy little box, I understand that. In practice I don't think it will work out that way. I don't think people will use it carefully. I believe it will be misused, and abused, so much so that it would be better to not use it at all.
Alaney2k above pointed out the difficulty of quantizing a review. That problem is already visible. Gerald used the template in the article Living in the Age of Airplanes [1] and in the table included the Variety review as: "40/100 (Metacritic interpretation)". I do not think it is appropriate to substitute the Metacritic number, when a publication has not provided a numerical grade.
If editors actually do want to change and start using {{Film ratings}} more, I hope the guidelines and documentation will be made a lot clearer about what is recommended and what is not. -- 109.78.194.208 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Still, the fact that anything can be abused is not a justification to disallow a template for good. I can remove the Metacritic scores if you insist, but the others are officially from the critics itself, and to disregard them can be detrimental. Also, what would you like the /doc to be more clear of, if I may ask? GeraldWL 06:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Update: I've removed the MC scores. Also pinging Bovineboy2008, Alaney2k, and Betty Logan for additional input, maybe. GeraldWL 06:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The Film project has been consistently opposed to a Film ratings aggregator box down the years. The reason being is that there will always be disagreement over which reviews warrant inclusion and whether the selection is representative of the critical consensus. Consensus can change over time, but that is a good reason for starting a discussion about whether the consensus still stands; I don't think it is a reasonable justification for simply ignoring a long-standing consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Did I make the rating table? I think I made the TV-by-season one and users requested film, but knowing the objections I tried to make a merge with video games? Either way, I don't have a fish in the game as far as that's concerned.
Now, if we're going to, as Betty suggests, discuss if there is value, I'll compare to video games again. On the one hand, video game reviews don't have something like Rotten Tomatoes to aggregate reviews. But, on the other, there is a sizable and growing objection to using Rotten Tomatoes %age ratings as-is because they don't necessarily reflect the critical ratings (WP generally only mentions the %age positive-negative) - Metacritic solves that by using weighted average, but is also contentious. A table could solve those issues by using critics from reliable sources (per our own source guidelines, not e.g. top critics or Metacritic choice) and displaying the native score. Kingsif (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, hmmm... but Metacritic does aggregate video games. For example, see FS2020#Reception. GeraldWL 11:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
But like I said, Metacritic doesn't use native scores and is even contentious here for games... but the point was that the video game articles may be better suited to having tables because they don't have RT like films do - so are you wanting to say video games do have that option but the tables are still fine despite it? I do think using native scores rather than aggregates without explanation of their limits is better, but it can keep Metacritic if you want. Kingsif (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, ah I see, i thought "whaa why are we talking bout MC?" But as you can see above, there's a discussion about the problem with quantifying reviews; I agreed with that (MC often does errors too) so I removed the MC interpretation scores. GeraldWL 13:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know that we should be in a place of deciding what reviews warrant inclusion in the table. It forces us out of a neutral perspective because then we are placing weighted value to certain reviewers. If you don't do that, then you have a fight over a never-ending table of reviews as everyone wants to include "their" favorite reviewer, or debates over the value of another reviewer's placement. Then, you also force people into more tabular, non-prose sections which goes against our principles for writing articles. We already recommend that people not simply quote reviews, but provide a summary of the overall information. A table seems to move us away from that by providing out of context star/number ratings that don't necessarily reflect what the review says (hence the same criticism of RT now). As such, I lean toward not including them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is not entirely clear to me. Editors have commented generally but not said that they are opposed to including film ratings tables but also they have not proposed how things should be done properly if such tables were allowed. Would editors please make it clear if the recommendation is to remove the tables that Gerald Waldo Luis (or others) have added, or are editors are going to actively encourage their use by providing clearer guidelines on how best to include these ratings tables in film articles? -- 109.79.179.206 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

#Tabulated data below discusses a similar issue with cast, earnings, etc. rather than ratings. Certes (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

GottiEdit

Please see the discussion at Talk:Gotti (1996 film)#Franzese reverts as to whether to include non-film critics in reception section where YouTube is primary source. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Films and Filming magazineEdit

I'm no expert in film, but I read about this magazine and believe it warranted an article (it was already a redirect). If anyone here has any more information on the magazine I would appreciate their help. Thank you! --Bangalamania (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this person's edits?Edit

Hello all, stumbled on ZIGMUND_JHAEY's edits while doing recent change patrol and honestly I lack the background with film/movies to evaluated/research these effectively. They mostly seem to be making edits around release dates and changing the names/captions of movie posters, etc. If all of these edits are good, great! I just thought that a set or two of eyes that are familiar with the material would be helpful. zchrykng (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force has been createdEdit

The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert Taylor (American actor), Robert Taylor (actor) or Robert Taylor (the primary topic of the Robert Taylor disambiguation page)?Edit

A discussion regarding the most intuitive form for the main title header of Taylor's entry is currently active at Talk:Robert Taylor (actor)#Requested move 7 June 2021. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Fake film creditsEdit

I initially posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but nobody seemed to want to dive in and help.

I stumbled on an editor or editors who put the same wall of fake credits into numerous articles. So far I have found:

Examples of the edits:

I thought it would be a good idea to notify the project to keep an eye out for these edits. The vandal appears to enjoy adding Jessica Lundy and Alex Mckenna to acting credits. Those come up a lot. Also adding William Brent Bell and Rick Friedberg to production credits as fake writers and/or directors.

There may be more. I am slowly working my way through by using one of the names in their list and seeing what articles it is linked in. It is a very slow process but if anyone wants to help I would appreciate it. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, ANI sometimes moves at a rather "deliberate" pace, especially when not dealing with immediately pressing problems. I don't think it's fair to them to say nobody wants to help when this is still a fairly new issue. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tabulated dataEdit

Does the project have an opinion on a new style of film data introduced by Bhushan m bhandari, for example here and here? I've raised the issue at User talk:Bhushan m bhandari# Film tables but it's possible that they can't hear me. Certes (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd revert it immediately for lacking sources, personally. I also think the appearance is suboptimal. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. To be fair, it's mainly a reformatting of text which already lacked sources. I'm still inclined to revert, as we generally prefer prose to an infobox-like table of item-value pairs. However, I'm not a film buff, and wanted to check that there's no local consensus that we should (or can) do things this way. Certes (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
To put it diplomatically: Not that I'm aware of. :)
If the info was there before but unsourced, I'd probably tag it instead of doing an outright delete...though I suspect nobody will provide sources and you or another editor will eventually end up deleting it in any case. Still, sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised and sources surface. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Edits duly reverted, and mostly re-added. Rather than edit war, I'll leave it for an expert to take any further action. Certes (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Their edits are actually getting worse. They insist on readding a WP:TRIVIA section to Yudh (film) entitled "15 Unknown facts about this movie" that is completely unreferenced. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Film".