Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

A film festival which has been renamed

Dear film experts: While checking out this old AfC submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CAAMFest, I realized that this is the same festival as San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival. Since CAAMFest is the new name of the festival, should the article be moved to the new name? Should the history section in the draft be moved to the mainspace article? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Nothing out of the AfC seems all that well-sourced or well-written. I would advise taking some of the information from the AfC, transposing it in your own words, and trying to find better, secondary sources. Also yes, moving it to CAAMFest would be appropriate. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved some content, rearranged and rewritten some, move the main article to CAAMFest, and changed the draft in to a redirect to maintain attribution. Maybe someone who knows more about the film industry could look it over and make any necessary adjustments. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. If you need more secondary source articles to support the name change you can use [1] [2] [3] -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I used two of them. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Bit of citation spam going on

I've found two people, Navq (talk · contribs) and Golgothirteen (talk · contribs), mass-adding citations to Influx Magazine reviews written by Nav Qateel. These edits usually consist of nothing but a citation – no other text at all. Frequently, they're added haphazardly and break the formatting of articles. An example (from Haunter (film), which I fixed) would be:

<ref>{{cite web|last1=Qateel|first1=Nav|title=Haunter (Review) 'An Entertaining Retro Haunter'|url=http://influxmagazine.com/haunter/|website=Influx Magazine|accessdate=18 Oct 2013}}</ref>==Reception==

There may be more of these accounts, but so far I've counted just two. It would be worthwhile to keep an eye out for more citation spam. I issued a weak warning to Golgothirteen and a stronger one to Navq already. Hopefully, Nav will stop with this nonsense, but if he doesn't, we're going to need to clean up after him. It's a pain in the ass, but I've cleaned up a few of the articles already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I had to deal with a cite spammer a while ago; Special:LinkSearch proved useful for finding all the ELs. jonkerz ♠talk 00:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's helpful. Thanks. I think this situation has been cleared up; Nav said that he only had those two accounts, and Betty cleaned up all the articles that I didn't get. I think I explained the relevant guidelines to Nav well enough that he's going to stop bulk-adding citations now, but I'll keep an eye out for more. I've been tracking a separate Turkish IP-hopper who repeatedly adds trailers to external links, and this should make that guy a bit easier to find, too. I can't believe I never saw that feature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw this the other day. You might say that there's been an influx of spam. Chuckle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking advantage of the topic... there is also some spamming of Criterion.com by 46.116.224.227 (talk · contribs). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of those articles are in bad shape. I'm honestly not 100% sure about the Criterion external links. I reverted a few of the more overt attempts to overwhelm the articles with information about Criterion, but I'm honestly conflicted as to whether these external links violate policy. My first thought was that they couldn't possibly be anything more than promotional ad copy, but they turned out to be rather in-depth. I dunno. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the Criterion Collection links the filmproject has a long history (right back to when I started editing over nine years ago) of allowing the CC links that go to the essays written about a film. However, we do not link to the CC's page where the film is sold. The essays are written by film scholars and/or critics or, occasionally, by people who has worked in the film industry. In other words the info at the other end of the link enhances a readers understanding of the film. The links that I have seen the IP add go to are the pages with the essays. It should be noted that the CC have had numerous DVD/Bluray releases in the last several years and I suspect that the IP was catching up our articles for those films with the corresponding essays. This has not come up for a few years and I do not know where to send anyone who wants to see the previous discussions. Perhaps @Erik:, @Dr. Blofeld: or @Betty Logan: may remember and be able to provide the relevant links. I, for one, would recommend restoring any new links to the CC's essays but that is just one editors opinion. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'd go with whatever the consensus is. The one that bothered me was Salo, which had turned into a massive essay about the Criterion releases rather than an article about the film. But if I'm editing against consensus, I'll accept whatever trouts are offered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I see what you are saying. I don't think we need links to all seven essays for that film, but, then it is a POV choice of which to keep so your removal of all of them may be the best way to go. No trouts needed (unless they are in a white wine sauce with capers - okay not everyone likes capers) Thanks for your posts to this thread and for your work on so many articles. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's always nice to be recognized! Whenever I'm that bold in my editing, I live in fear that my user talk will explode with angry rants. As far as Criterion goes, I don't have a problem with it, as long as articles don't turn into the mess in Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. As an infamous art-house film, I would expect it to attract a substantial amount of original research and cruft, but that was extreme. Maybe we can find a better way to organize the external links if we decide to keep all seven in that article, such as: Essays on Criterion.com: link1 link2 link3 ... link7. I find that more tolerable but still a bit overcrowded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what we should do on this... Agreed that we don't need links to seven essays though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mad Max: Fury Road RfC: recast vs reboot

There is a discussion at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#RfC: recast vs reboot? that may be of interest here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request for Layer Cake (film)

Leave your comments right here. Thank you! Sock (previously Corvoe) ^{(be heard)} 12:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Information for the Box office and Critical reception sections of the Hercules (2014 film) article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Hercules (2014 film)#Box office and Critical reception sections. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Actors' nationalities in lead

Myself and Atotalstranger have found ourselves in a bit of a predicament, and an argument that seems to be going in circles. You can read the full discussion at Atotalstranger's talk page, but here's the gist. The end of the lead for Endless Love (2014 film) reads: "A remake of Franco Zeffirelli's 1981 film of same name and second adaptation of Scott Spencer's novel, the film features British actors Alex Pettyfer, Gabriella Wilde, and Joely Richardson." The area of disagreement is "features British actors"; personally, I think this information needs to be removed, while Atotalstranger wants to keep it. If this small cast list were to follow our standards, Bruce Greenwood would be before Joely Richardson, and it would make the sentence inaccurate. Atotalstranger's suggestion was to change it to either "the film features Bruce Greenwood and British actors Alex Pettyfer, Gabriella Wilde, and Joely Richardson" or "the film features Canadian actor Bruce Greenwood and British actors Alex Pettyfer, Gabriella Wilde, and Joely Richardson", but I disagree with both of these wordings. They both make it seem like Bruce Greenwood is the lead, which he isn't, and would give undue weight to his nationality (or lack thereof). The original edit was me changing "British actors" to "an ensemble cast led by", which I stand by. Basically, we can't line up on this, so it comes down to a question: do you think actors' nationalities should be mentioned in film leads? Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 17:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To me it fails the "So What" test. So what if they are British? I don't see the importance of including that in the lead of a film article. To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen that on any other film article (although I do tend to stay away from the big-budget films). If it was, say a Japanese film, in the Japanese language, and all the cast were British, then that would be worth mentioning. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I said almost exactly the same thing on his talk page: "The nationality of the actors has no bearing on the film; if they spoke a different language (say, it's a British film with entirely Spanish speaking actors), that would be noteworthy." Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The arguments from Sock and Lugnuts pretty much nail it on the head. Onel5969 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree actors nationalities do not belong in the lead, especially if it interferes with the correct listing of those actors in credits order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree actors nationalities do not belong in the lead. I do not see the notability.AbramTerger (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a consensus to me. I've been bold and removed the wording. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the same situation as your example? It's an American movie and the characters have American accents, yet the actors British, it's the same situation. It's trivia worth mentioning in my opinion, it's not worth removing or having a discussion over whether it should be removed. Atotalstranger (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anything people disagree upon is worth having a discussion over, Atotalstranger, and it seems that the consensus is against the inclusion of the information. Also, speaking in an accent and speaking another language are two wildly distinct things. Both British and American actors use accents all the time, it's much less frequent than, say, Will Ferrell speaking Spanish in Casa de Mi Padre. And even then, we don't mention that Will Ferrell is American. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

On a related matter, an IP editor changed all references in the article of "Endless Love" to "Everlasting Love". I see no evidence that this is the title, so those changes have been reverted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Thing (2011 film) to The Thing (1982 film)

I have a disagreement at Talk:The Thing (1982 film)#The two Norwegians with another editor or two, and I think communication is braking down.

Is information on the prequil The Thing (2011 film) useful to The Thing (1982 film) article? Should a film article only include information that can be found by watching that same film?

I don't see how communication is breaking down at all. You aren't agreeing with each other, but the conversation is still active. I've lent my voice to the conversation, but you probably aren't going to like what I had to say. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead-in summary of the Critical reception section at the Lucy (2014 film) article

Anyone mind providing some assistance on this matter? See Talk:Lucy (2014 film)#Critical reception section: Lead-in summary. A WP:Permalink is here. From what I know of the reviews for this film, having read many reviews for it, and having watched almost all of the YouTube reviews regarding it (both professional and amature reviews), calling the critical reception for this film "generally positive" simply because of a 60 score on Metacritic, a score that is one point away from being categorized as "mixed," and because the Rotten Tomatoes score has gone up by two percentages in a few days, is very misleading. The fact that the Rotten Tomatoes score has improved by two percentages in a few days does not, contrary to an IP's claim, make sources that have called the critical reception "mixed" an outdated matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've said before that I find "mixed" to be an absurd way to describe overall critical response, because all response is "mixed". "Neutral" would be better, but we're in a shitty situation because neither RottenTomatoes nor Metacritic endeavor to describe response in terms of favorable, neutral/undecided, and poor. My personal talking points now out of the way, I'm also the sort of lad who prefers to not summarize critical response since we only have two aggregators, and they don't always agree, and, because this is an encyclopedia and sometimes over critical response takes some decades to properly establish. I propose that maybe summaries of response be curtailed until the film has been out for a fiscal quarter or whatevs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Cyphoidbomb. Yes, as you know, we recently discussed lead-in summaries in the Summary statement for "Reception" section discussion here at the WP:Film talk page, and I stated in that discussion that I've expressed similar feelings to your take on "mixed." In fact, I think it was me in one of the other discussions who caused you think of "mixed" in the way that you now do. But like I stated in the "Summary statement" discussion, I'm certain that people generally know what we mean by "mixed" -- that the critical reception is split or nearly split between positive and negative reviews. At Talk:Lucy (2014 film), I stated that I'm an editor who believes that a lead-in summary helps readers to assess critical reception to films, and, in my "23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)" post there, I explained why I think we should have a lead-in summary for this film; I've left out "mixed," however. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Departures (film) FAC

We've nominated Departures (film) as a Featured Article, and invite you to take part in the review here. Thanks, Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Katsudō Shashin FAC

I've nominated Katsudō Shashin as a Featured Article, and invite you to take part in the review here. Thanks, Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access

Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Mauro Bolognini navigation template

Could you take a look at Template:Mauro_Bolognini? Is it ok? It sounds a bit excessive to me... --Cavarrone 09:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sweet zombie Jesus! Well, it's comprehensive, if nothing else. The awards section should be the first bit to go. We don't want to start these for every nomination. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominations... yeah. And it lists more credits than the page's Filmography, including his credits as Assistant director. I've never seen that before in a template. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've removed that bit out. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with a draft article, please

Please may we have experienced eyes on Draft:The Art of the Game. I am unsure of the specialised criteria for a film to have an article and woudl like an experienced editor form this project to give the author guidance. If you are not a WP:AFC reviewer please do not let that stand in your way. The comment format is thus:

{{Afc comment|1= your words ~~~~}}

This format ensures that the comment, while placed upon the article, is stripped out should the article be accepted, but is always part of the article history. Those who are reviewers already will have access to the review helper script.

The article has suffered from an inappropriate review in the past. I believe that draft may be improved to be worthy of an article, but the WP:FILM criteria are not things I am as familiar with as I would wish. Fiddle Faddle 18:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Description of IMDb on project Resource page

I've started an RfC here about how IMDB is described on the project Resource page. Your comments are appreciated. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Filmography question

We're having a discussion about how bios with separate filmography articles should be handed at Talk:Barbara Stanwyck#Filmography list. Other opinions would be most welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rupesh Paul (Productions Limited)

Please see this edit and earlier edits to Rupesh Paul Productions Limited, in particular my actions merging its content to Rupesh Paul with this edit.

It is my belief that Rupesh Paul Productions Limited is not sufficiently distinct from Rupesh Paul, the company's founder and leader, to require its own page. All of the films produced by Rupesh Paul Productions were directed by Rupesh Paul and are described on his biography page.

User:Erlinfl apparently disagrees with me, as does an anonymous editor from Mumbai, but neither has made any argument, either in edit summaries or talk pages. I'll be happy to back away slowly, if that is what most people think is best. Since no one has made any comment other than the default "Undid revision by Cnilep", however, I am seeking comment here from members of this WikiProject, as well as WikiProject Actors and Filmakers and WikiProject India. Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If editors are opposing your actions then you need to establish a consensus via a formal merge application. You can find instructions at Wikipedia:Merging. Betty Logan (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer. A "formal merge application" was proposed at Talk:Rupesh Paul#Merge from Rupesh Paul Productions Limited in June, and open until late July. It was also announced on this page at the time; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Rupesh Paul and Rupesh Paul Productions. What would be most helpful is arguments opposing or supporting the merger. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Affluenza (2014)

Help Stacie Croquet (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Help rendered. I added an infobox, categories, and premiere date. Besides the usual aggregators, I added reviews by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter to start. Didn't write a plot, and that's the biggest issue that still remains. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, I didn't know enough even to articulate what I wanted. Guess I didn't want to start a Film article that would not get past the AFD police. Much appreciated. Stacie Croquet (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

List of films with boats

Please see the deletion discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Cast section and Soundtrack section of the Lucy (2014 film) article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lucy (2014 film)#Cast section details and the Soundtrack section. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

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.

---

I know this has come up before, but a situation needs to be addressed. The production companies for World War Z (film) are Skydance Productions, Hemisphere Media Capital, GK Films, and Plan B Entertainment, as well as Paramount Pictures. They're all American. Yet the article says the film is British-American. A closed discussion on the film's Talk page reveals this is because one of the film's executive producers, Graham King, is British. That's right, this film is being listed as a 2013 British-American disaster horror film because one of its many executive producers is British. RS do not list it as British. His production company GK Films' own website http://www.gk-films.com/legal/index.html lists its address in Santa Monica, California. It's an American company with American staff and American lawyers set up by a British producer. Can we agree it's the nationality of the company that counts? - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the nationality of a single producer should not affect the nationality of the entire film. It should be listed as solely American. STATic message me! 20:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. RoboCop (2014 film) will never be considered a Brazilian film even the director, one of the editors, the composer and the cinematographer are Brazilians. Nuff said. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that where the production company does most of its business would tend to determine the film's nation of origin. Do we know for a fact that none of the companies are run in Britain? The back-and-forth on the talk page isn't terribly clear on this, specifically about GK Films. And more importantly, can we find any reliable sources that call the film either America or British or both? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

According to BFI, the film was produced in Malta and the United States. I feel like the British Film Institute would probably include in a film was co-produced in the UK. I'd dock the UK completely, and look for other sources to try and clear up what Malta's involvement is. If there are other places that don't note it, then it's simply American and we leave it there. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Added note: AFI lists it as American only, though they do that a good bit for films that are listed as multi-national in other places. Worth mentioning, though. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The European Audiovisual Observatory has it down as just American too. None of these major catalogs acknowledge the UK so it should be ommitted. The BFI's Malta nod seems slightly spurious too, so that should arguably remain out unless it can be substantiated. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it's entirely filming based, which isn't what we'd use the country parameter for. Going ahead and changing the nationality using the EAO and AFI sources. Also, this discussion should probably be transposed to the film's talk page. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, this needs to be put on the film's talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

BFI

Unfortunately it appears the BFI database should not be used for the Country field. It includes every country, even those of minor companies only listed in a film's end credits crawl. And it lists them alphabetically, so as we saw with World War Z a minor country can be listed before the principal country. If a company is not in the film's main titles or the poster's billing block, we should not list it or its country on WP. The AFI is much more reliable, the single best database. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: This whole statement feels like a lot of original research and opinion. The alphabetical thing is right, but its inclusion of multiple countries is warranted unless it is contradicted by another reliable source (like in this case). However, saying that the AFI is "the single best database" is undue weight; all of them have their strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the AFI doesn't list Gravity as a British co-production, when a solid 90% of the film was done in England. Also, the end credits crawl is used to identify countries in FA Dredd, because we follow the primary source (read: the film) if it explicitly says what countries it was produced in.

Also, when are countries ever listed in billing blocks or main titles? I don't know that I've ever seen "An American film production" in either of those areas. I think we just need to handle it on a case-by-case basis and use local consensus to work through it, rather than making AFI the be-all and end-all. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 11:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course countries are not listed in billing blocks or main titles. I said If a company is not in the film's main titles or the poster's billing block, we should not list it or its country on WP. That said, I do agree the film itself is the primary source, and should certainly be used if it lists countries in order, as some European co-productions do. We go to a database when the film does not list any country, as most don't. The AFI is the single best database. And single best does not mean be-all and end-all. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For my understanding, BFI seems to list every country related to a production company with prominence to things that are "produced by" and then "co-produced" as the next country in line. Is there any page on the BFI site that is explanation of how they sort things? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I don't know that I've ever seen a BFI entry that wasn't purely alphabetical, to be honest. And unless there's a part of the site I'm not seeing, they don't explain their organization methods. For instance, their listing of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World has Japan higher than the United States, but only one company from Japan worked on the film and they were listed as "in association with". Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 13:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe:, good point. I was thinking of the older BFI database. Your Scott Pilgrim point nails it. I can't find specific sources, but if I had a choice I'd lean toward shoving those "in association with" companies further back as they aren't getting as much notability. I like also using [filmportal.de], [4] for production countries. Course, those are only really good for films that are german or french co-productions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree - "in association with" companies should be listed after those getting Production credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For most uncontroversial claims, BFI is perfectly suitable to use a reference. Controversial/disputed claims may require additional referencing and should be determined through WP:LOCALCONCENSUS.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The BFI is not perfectly suitable if there is more than one country listed, as it puts them in alphabetical order and (as described above with World War Z) it includes every country, even those of minor companies only listed in a film's end credits crawl. So I encourage people to go first to the AFI, as it is much more reliable, the single best database. If something about its listing looks wrong or controversial, then spend time looking at how other databases list a film's countries. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"the AFI, as it is much more reliable, the single best database": sorry Gothic, but that's just not true—and the Gravity reference should be enough to flag that up as a warning to all. I've seen other glaring errors in the AFI on this point previously. The BFI is entirely suitable, except in the order of the countries (although the BFI is also imperfect). They have a published formula on how they decide what constitutes a production country, and it is decided on an overall level of involvement within the film as a whole. I've seen no formula on how the AFI decide these things (although I presume one exists), and local consensus on a balance between all available sources is the only way to come to a landing on who should or should not be involved, rather than anyone's personal choice of their preferred institute.

In terms of Malta, much of the Maltese film data is incorporated into the British film industry for historical reasons, and much of the box office returns of the UK also include the Maltese intake as well. No idea exactly why that is, but there you go. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What does that mean? Are you saying we should list Malta on World War Z? I don't think so, and others above don't either. The AFI is correct more often than the BFI. I've certainly seen more glaring errors on the BFI. Only Gravity has been mentioned as a problematic AFI listing here, while all BFI listings with more than one country are incorrect unless the order of importance happens to coincide with being alphabetical. That is a real issue. However I agree no database is perfect and controversial listings should be looked at case-by-case. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Where on earth have I suggested adding Malta to anything—I merely explained why it appears so frequently in unexpected films.

I strongly doubt the AFI is "correct more often" then the BFI: both have flaws, and both are guilty of some absolutely shocking howlers. I'll reiterate what I've said above and you need to read it carefully: "The BFI is entirely suitable, except in the order of the countries". That still stands and is not an "issue" in terms of which country in involved in the process, only in terms of trying to double guess the (normally false, pointless and misleading) order of countries. To be honest, it's a minefield trying to work out the weights of involvement in a team sport, such as film making, and alphabetical is would be a sensible way to go—which is what the BFI now seems to do. You can bang on about the AFI as much as you want: it is no more or less reliable than the BFI in most of the information it provides. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The AFI is very reliable in listing credits by how they actually appear on screen, while the BFI bundles together the director, the second unit director and the assistant directors with no distinction between them. The same with other categories. It mixes together cinematographers with camera operators and camera assistants. Take a look at their listing for The Wolverine: http://explore.bfi.org.uk/51c0dcee596d2. As for countries, it sounds like you're admitting Malta should not be listed. That means the BFI should not be used for World War Z. I've been doing this for a while and I stand by the statement I've seen more glaring errors on the BFI. But again I agree no database is perfect and controversial listings should be looked at case-by-case. But I would disagree with any proposal that we should list countries in alphabetical order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"it sounds like you're admitting Malta should not be listed": FFS, you're not reading what I've said: I have at no.point suggested it should be included. If you're going to reply, at least read what I've written first!

I will stand by what I've said: the AFI is riddled with some shocking howlers and omissions (try and find John Barrymore's 1922 film Sherlock Holmes, for example: that's only one of his films they've missed out—and yes, we, TCM and the BFI all manage to show,full details for it). No database is perfect, but the AFI catalog seems to be much less perfect than others, and I'd question relying on it alone, without any other sources being consulted. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You should read what I said. If Malta shouldn't be listed, yet the BFI includes it without any distinction or qualification, that is a problem. And for the third time I agree no database is perfect and controversial listings should be looked at case-by-case, which I thought clearly meant going beyond the AFI. Obviously if the AFI does not list an old film you're going to look elsewhere. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did read what you said, but you're still missing it: the BFI do make distinction and qualification – you just haven't looked properly. And you missed the whole point about Sherlock Holmes: there are lots of gaps in the AFI listings, not just for non-American films (they don't even mentioned any of George Formby's films for example) but for solely US-produced films too. The massive gaps in their listings makes it a decidedly sub-optimal resource and certainly not one to ever be trusted without recourse to other sources. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not miss anything. I said if the AFI does not list a film you look elsewhere. And where does the BFI give any distinction or qualification to its World War Z listing of Malta? - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you did, or I wouldn't have raised it. Try searching for the Malta info on the BFI site: that's where I found it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying one has to do a country search on BFI after looking at their page for a particular film? That would not be giving any distinction or qualification for the World War Z listing of Malta on the BFI page for the film itself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the trouble of citing the 5-6 major reliable sources (AFI, BFI-explore, BFI-db, TCM, lumiere and any other sources), for country to highlight the differences in some infoboxes. See for example Rush (2013 film) where GB is listed as sole or part in 4 of the 5 citations, Germany is listed as sole or part in 3 of the 5 citations and the US is listed as part in 3 of the 5 citations. There are no guidelines for choosing between the reliable sources so, to me, it makes the most sense to include all the citations and put the order based on a rank-weighting.AbramTerger (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd not count TCM as reliable for this: there are way too many gaps in their listings to be taken seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? Suggesting that TCM is not reliable suggests to me that information in their database may not be accurate (which raises all sorts of questions and would suggest that we remove it as a reliable source for anything. From the context, it seems you are more suggesting that TCM may not always have country information so it can be "unreliable" as a source to be used. I would not call a lack of citation "unreliable", to me having gaps (due to the lack of confirmed information) is the mark of a reliable source. You can depend on the information that is there.AbramTerger (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wolverine

It looks like we need to arrive at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in another case. The minor company issue can also be seen at The Wolverine (film). Warner REBORN has now three times put in the UK despite WP:BRD and WP:3RR. I explained on his Talk page the three production companies given in the film's main title credits - 20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment and The Donners' Company - are all American. Rather than discuss it he put in the UK a third time, now also adding Ingenious Media as a production company even though it's listed as "made in association with" buried in the film's end credits crawl. Why only add Ingenious when there are two additional minor companies listed in that crawl? Ingenious is a UK media investment and advisory group, not a production company. It should not be added to the infobox simply to justify adding UK as a production country. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't give a monkeys what goes in there, but your list of those three companies doesn't match the much-vaunted AFI listing.... - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Those three companies come from the film's main title credits, which we have agreed on this project is the primary source. They are the production companies, and they were put in long before I did any editing on the article. If you don't care about the issue, kindly leave the discussion to those that do. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Despite trying to point to your "reliable" source, and pointing out a discrepancy between it and the primary source, I shall consider myself censored and shall withdraw, without waiting for explanation from you as to why, despite being shown time and time again the AFI has errors, you still consider it to be "the single best database". – SchroCat (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you even know what "single best" means? It's leaving room for errors. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added citations for Country. I couldn't verify Kim Newman Screen Daily reference as I did not have access, so I just left it. If someone could verify that it indicates just the US as a country it would be nice, or remove the citation. But AFI lists the country as just US. BFI lists it as Great Britian and US and Lumiere lists it as US/GB co-production. TCM does not have an listing. It seems to me that listing US and GB is correct based on reliable sources which are cited.AbramTerger (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I can access the review. It says above the summary paragraph, "Dir: James Mangold. US. 2013. 129mins". Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik (talk · contribs). I had presumed as much but I often find it good to verify the citations and the information they provide. So 2 citations for only US and 2 citations joint US/GB. I did not cite IMDB due to wiki policy but just for the record it indicates "US and UK" for the country. I see no reason why Great Britain should not be included (it could be changed to "United Kingdom" if desired, but both cited sources list "Great Britain"AbramTerger (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A possible reason why not would be because the three production companies are all American, and only they are in the film's main titles. It's one thing to put in Legendary Pictures and Dune when they have "in association with" credit, because they're prominently placed in the billing block and in the film's main titles. That is not the case here. The "made in association with" credit for Ingenious Media is buried in the film's end credits crawl with additional minor companies. Ingenious is a UK media investment and advisory group, not a production company. Should it be added to the infobox simply to justify adding UK as a production country? - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I see Hotwiki came in and took care of this issue, apparently brought there after Warner REBORN also added Ingenious to another film page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hotwiki went a little too far in his/her edits however. It was one thing to remove Ingenious, but he/she also removed other citations in Country and Gross. I added them back and also made an entry on the Talk:The_Wolverine_(film)#Infobox_country_and_Gross if you want to discuss these particular ones. This is information that does not come from the film and is cited. There is disagreement from the reliable sources, so it seems for WP to remain neutral we must include them all, unless there are guidelines for picking one reliable source over another.AbramTerger (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, proper practice is to leave an article as it was and discuss. Not to "include them all", which just happens to coincide with your preferred version. You should have left the Country field as it was and discussed it. You have never given a reason why non-production companies or countries should be included. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not change any production information. I only changed the info in the country parameter. An editor does not need to discuss to add citations to reliable sources to maintain a neutral point of view. Hotwiki's removal of citations to alternate points of view, seems to me to be the problem. I took no stand on the issue. I only reported the facts and cited them: AFI and Screen Daily indicate only US, BFI indicates GB and US, and Lumiere indicates US and GB. If there were citations with alternate views I would report them as well. To cherry-pick the citations seems to me to be the violation of WP policy. What guidelines indicate that editors should choose AFI over BFI or Lumiere? A source is either reliable or it is not. If reliable, an editor should not ignore it to push their "preferred version" as this is a violation of WP:NPOV.AbramTerger (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Proper practice is to leave an article as it was and discuss. You have never given a reason why the countries of non-production companies should be included, despite my pointing that out several times. On Warner REBORN's Talk page, Sock (pka Corvoe) wrote "only listing the countries of those mentioned in the billing block actually makes sense to me too. I think the article needs to be reverted to just United States for the moment, since that's the long standing consensus and it's not got a solid argument for inclusion. According to Template:Infobox film, we should only report universally reported countries, and the BFI seems to be the only one mentioning the UK, and one reliable source doesn't override two." You since put in Lumiere, but that does not make it universal. Further discussion can be done at Talk:The Wolverine (film)#Infobox country and Gross, since you opened the thread there.- Gothicfilm (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Lumiere was in my original as well. Where does the Template:Infobox film indicate that "we should only report universally reported countries"? It indicates: "For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety." Therefore if we want to ignore lumiere we should also ignore the Screen daily but there is no indication of a preference for AFI over BFI as citations in the template. Thus to maintain a WP:NPOV we should AT LEAST cite both of the "infobox preferred" citations as WP:RS so people can judge for themselves. Personally, I think since I see no reason that any of the citations are UNreliable, they should all be included, just to indicate it is not a cut-and-dried answer (as the template points out). As mentioned before I did not include IMDB due to WP policy, but this adds the variant: US/UK. You brought the question here for opinions, and when I looked into the facts and presented them to try and resolve the dispute, you chose to ignore the facts to keep your own POV which seem to me to be decidedly non-neutral. I am not going to start an edit-war, but it is never good practice for an editor to remove reliable citations that have been presented just because they disagree with your "preferred version" since doing so violates WP:NPOV. Any other editors want to chime in (@SchroCat:, @Hotwiki:, @Sock:, @Erik:, @Warner REBORN: you have all commented to some degree on related issues) on the country aspect? Also Should we discuss here or should we move it all to Talk:The_Wolverine_(film)#Infobox_country_and_Gross.AbramTerger (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

AbramTerger, it doesn't say "universally reported" (I paraphrased because I couldn't remember the exact wording), but it's two sentences after the one you stated; "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations." That was my bad for the confusion. Personally, I think the addition of the UK while it was still under discussion was unfair, seeing as we aren't exactly close to making a decision. I have to agree with Gothicfilm that we should have left it how it was, with just the US listed as a country in the infobox and lead, until we sorted all of this out. I'm relatively neutral in this argument (both sides make sense to me), but I'm leaning towards only have the US due to the primary production companies being US-based. I would say we probably should move this conversation to The Wolverine's talk page, also. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 11:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks AbramTerger, but as my good faith input has been spurned, I shall leave it to those who don't listen when their deeply entrenched views are shown to be flawed. Life is too short to bang my head against a brick wall. - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Okay, I definitely don't agree with Gothicfilm's behaviour toward you there. You're clearly trying to help in this discussion, and you made a very good point. Sorry to see you leave the conversation. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 12:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: sometimes you need to bang your head to make things better and build consensus. But I understand. If you change your mind, I think others will listen... @Sock:I apologize for any confusion I caused, but to me the question raised was about the production companies and secondarily about the Countries. I am also neutral, I only reported the facts. It seems to me that the "common published nations" are the US and Great Britain. [If it were the practice to list what is only given in all the references, then many films (eg as discussed earlier a film like Rush (2013 film) would have no countries listed as no country is in every citation.] My edit was an attempt to follow WP:BRD and make a change to resolve the issue raised by reporting all the facts I had availabe. And to be clear, I did not add the UK to the infobox, I changed it to "Great Britain" and I added additional citations to what was already there (my edit was right before you changed "Premiere"). Hotwiki removed it when he/she changed many things we had under discussion here. This is fine in WP:BRD. I put back the country and gross since they were cited as a compromise and started a discussion on the talk page (again part of WP:BRD). So it was Hotwiki and then Gothicfilm who chose not to leave the article as it was, but AFAIK (he/she hasn't discussed so I don't know for sure, but I give him/her the bendfit of the doubt)Hotwiki was using WP:BRD to try and resolve and find a compromise. I find the claims of Gothicfilm to be flawed based on the actions and comments to me as well as to SchroCat. As editors it is not our job to take a single position and cherry-pick citations. We should report the facts that we have with citations to reliable sources. If that means multiple sources to keep WP:NPOV I don't see what the problem is. This seems to be the standard practice.AbramTerger (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@AbramTerger: I wasn't saying you caused any confusion, I was apologize for not being clear on the wording at the infobox. Great Britain and the UK are the same thing, so that's not really a point of contention for me (I think we can safely change it to the UK should we so choose). I also apologize for not having kept fully up to date with this conversation, as I missed both the Rush discussion (a very valid counter-argument) and the Lumiere citation. I'm convinced; if it isn't only the BFI listing Britain as a co-production company, it's noteworthy enough to add it in. Always a pleasure, Abram! Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 12:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I agree that Gothicfilm's comments to you two in this discussion have been inappropriate (as I expressed above to SchroCat). Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 12:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sock: What? All I did was try to follow proper procedure under WP:BRD. The UK was not in the infobox before Warner REBORN put it in three times a day ago. So under BRD it should have stayed out. AbramTerger then put it back, never answering my question as to why the countries of non-production companies should be included. That is not neutral behavior, it's taking a stand and going against BRD. But I'm engaging in inappropriate behavior for pointing that out? As for SchroCat, his discussion was becoming increasingly off topic. What good point was he making that involved The Wolverine country discussion? That because the AFI did not list some films from the 1920s it is not RS for films it does have pages for? Do you agree with that? He wrote The massive gaps in their listings makes it a decidedly sub-optimal resource and certainly not one to ever be trusted without recourse to other sources. First, that's a straw man, as I repeatedly said I agree no database is perfect and controversial listings should be looked at case-by-case, which I thought clearly meant going beyond the AFI. So what good point was SchroCat making? He did not answer my last question in the BFI discussion, asking for clarity, but then went to this Wolverine discussion and made the off-topic remark Personally I couldn't give a monkeys what goes in there, but your list of those three companies doesn't match the much-vaunted AFI listing. That was of no help in trying to address the Wolverine Country issue. How exactly was I supposed to respond to that? I said Those three companies come from the film's main title credits, which we have agreed on this project is the primary source. That's inappropriate? He's the one who left the BFI discussion, refusing to answer my last polite question to his point that apparently meant we should do a country search on BFI after looking at their page for a particular film. You're going out of your way to be polite to both of them, and that's fine, but you're being at best impolite to me when I was trying to follow procedure, with very little help from anybody else at this project. Makes me question the time I put in here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: I'm not trying to be impolite to you, and I apologize that I'm coming across that way. I just found your comments inappropriate and said so. I can understand your frustration; there are many times when people don't seem to interpret policies and guidelines the same way I do (that's kinda going on right now). I also agreed with you that the restoration of the UK/GB while the discussion was still ongoing was a move I strongly disagreed with (see Warner REBORN's talk page) and that nothing should be changed until the discussion was over. As for the "Those three companies come from the film's main title credits, which we have agreed on this project is the primary source" being the inappropriate comment, no; assuming he didn't care about the discussion and telling him to leave was what I was referring to. I take issue with that. SchroCat is a very good editor, I've always thought so, and he's bringing up valid counterpoints in my opinion. Noting the differing production company listing on AFI made sense to me, since that shows it doesn't necessarily follow the same standard we keep (the companies in the title sequence), so why would it necessarily follow the way we identify countries of production? It's a reasonable question, though I disagree about it's applicability in this case and I can see how it doesn't add a whole lot to the country debate (seeing as TSG is also American, that doesn't change anything). I'm trying very hard to keep my thoughts concise and I'm failing, and I'm sorry for that too, but I can honestly say I think many aspects of this discussion have not been handled very well (not excluding some of my contributions to it), but I think it's nearing its end. Your point about the main companies being American makes sense to me, and I personally would agree that we should only include the US. But my opinion doesn't really matter; two reliable sources are saying that the film was co-produced in the UK. The AFI has been known to exclude non-American companies from time to time (Gravity) and that makes it a bit tougher to rely on in the muddier cases such as this. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 14:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We all know the purpose of a Talk page is to address the issue at hand. SchroCat left the BFI discussion, but came to this one with a remark that did nothing to help. You know the film's credits are primary, not any database, so I don't see how saying so was inappropriate. You're saying that he was clearly trying to help in this discussion and that I was inappropriate was startling to read. I spend too much time debating people who use off topic and straw man arguments. I couldn't believe it when he apparently said we should do a country search on BFI after looking at their page for a particular film. Then he refused to clarify that. I don't see that as appropriate behavior, but I tried to remain polite.

As for the topic at hand, I have not often seen the AFI exclude non-American companies. Gravity was not common. The BFI is just as often mistaken, more in my opinion. See World War Z, etc., as discussed above. Here's another: it lists Britain as the sole country for Superman II, even though the 1978 film Superman was multi-national. How can that be, as they were originally shot back-to-back by the same producers using the same production? It's clearly wrong, but once again Warner REBORN came in and took out the US and made UK the sole country, as can be seen here and here, using the BFI as his source. That should be reverted. Regarding The Wolverine, we know the production companies are from one country. The fact the BFI includes the countries of minor non-production companies has been demonstrated by World War Z. So I don't understand giving more weight to the two sources that include the countries of minor non-production companies over the two that don't. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How are we giving more weight to the two that are listing it? We're giving equal weight to all four; half of them say it's just US, half say it's US/UK. Two reliable sources don't cancel the other two, but they introduce a disagreement that we can't settle without the end credits saying "A ___ production" (like Dredd) or something similar. While I would naturally agree to basing it off of the production companies in the opening credits, you have to consider that the infobox film template actually includes a quote from the Lumiere project about how they judge things: "countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country)." Lumiere and BFI are both reliable, so are AFI and Screen Daily. Four sources, two different reports of information. It makes sense to list both, in my opinion. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 15:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Gothic, Trying to point out that the use of one database to "prove" you point of view, when the film tells us something else, isn't disruptive: it's putting a massive red flag on the use of just that one source on it's own. I have no idea why you are on about Superman II (1980): Apart from the BFI, both TCM and the NYT show the UK and no other countries. The AFI crashes out on the detailed view, but the summary view shows only the same UK production company as the other sources. I'm not going to get dragged back in, but next time someone tries to discuss relevant and pertinent information in a thread, don't try and push them out. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The original Superman movie started out as a British/Swiss production: the Salkinds owned Dovemead, an independent British production unit that made the Three Musketeer films. They took out a 20 year lease on the Superman film rights and put the first two Superman films into production with a $70 million investment from a Swiss consortium. They ran out of money and pre-sold the US distribution rights for the first film to Warner so they could complete production on the first film. So in that sense Warner was a financier on the first film, which is why it is sometimes listed as UK-US co-production. I am less clear on the situation with Superman 2 & 3 (the Salkinds sold on the rights for Superman 4) but I'm guessing the different country labelling is mainly detemrined by the nature of the funding. I don't think Superman 2 is particularly relevant to Wolverine, but if anyone is interested there you go. Betty Logan (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:, @Erik:, @Gothicfilm:, @Hotwiki:, @SchroCat:, @Sock:, @Warner REBORN:. Do we need more discussion or can be come to some consensus on these 2 items? As I see it, the issues are:

• Production Company seems to be leaning towards going to the primary source (the film itself). The Primary source lists 5 companies. There are 3 main companies and 2 secondary. Just to help make the decision, here is how it plays in the film. At the end of the film, after the billed actors are listing, it lists the casting credit and then the 3 main companies (each on sep screen shot):
  • "A Twentieth Century Fox Presentation"
  • "in Association with Marvel Entertainment"
  • "A Donners' Company Production"
  • Then there are other credits ("A film by James Manglo", "The Wolverine") then the mid credit scene for 2 yrs later, then the film goes to scrolling credits, a few credits (First Unit Prdn manager, First Assistant director, 2nd unit prodn mgr, 2nd Asst dir) and then the secondary prodn companies:
    • "Made in Association with TSG Entertainment"
    • "and Ingenious Media".

With the major distinction in listing, I think only the 3 main ones can be justified in the summary infobox, but I can also live with using all 5 if desired. I don't agree with just using the 3 from AFI ("Donners' Company", "Marvel Entertainment", "TSG Entertainment") since it does not match the film. [as mentioned in other comments, this seems to me to shoot the whole idea of AFI being "the single best database" and even on some level is "reliability" since it misrepresents information that can be gleamed directly from the film, but at the very least it supports the need for using other reliable sourcese to ensure accuracy which is part of WP guidelines anyway]

• Country is more problematic. [This fact is mentioned explicitly in the template]. It genearlly can NOT be gained from the film, so must come from citations from reliable sources. We have been discussing 4 citations (Screen Daily AFI, BFI, and Lumiere). [I have not seen anything posted to suggest any may be UNreliable (other than the inaccuracies in AFI's listing of Prodn companies) but I still judge them all as reliable sources, there will always be some inaccuracies in large databases that should be used to damn the entire database.] AFI and Screen Daily indicate only the United States for Country, while BFI and Lumiere indicate a co-production of the United States and Great Britain. [I speculate the "dispute" is in the criteria being used by each source. For example imagine that prodn was 70%US and 30%GB. If your criteria indicated listing only companies with >=50% you would only list US, if your criteria was >=25%, you would list both. With this criteria even a 51% US/49% GB split would give some with US and some with both]. If there is a policy on ranking citations I have not found it and could someone link to it. The closest I have found is in the country parameter in Template:Infobox film where it states: "For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety." so I could see choosing AFI and BFI over lumiere Screen Variety. But this does not resolve the dispute since it still remains half the sources say US and the other half say US/GB. I think we need to stick with neutral point of view guidelines and accurately represent the facts we have. [[[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]]'s and @Hotwiki:'s removal of the BFI and lumiere citations to only list the US as the country seems akin to removing the text and citations from 2 reviewers with a mixed review of a film and just keeping the 2 rave reviews. This Wikipedia:Cherrypicking of citations goes AGAINST the policy of neutrality]. I think to remain neutral and also accurate, we should do what was done on Rush (2013 film). Rush has 5 citations: 2 said UK, Germany, and USA, 1 said just Germany, 1 said just UK, 1 said just UK and USA. All 5 citations are used so that one can see directly and differences and the citations do not get "cherry-picked" by WP editors. Thus I think the listing that keeps with WP policies would be to list both countries:
  • The "United States" first with all 4 citations (Screen Variety, AFI, BFI, Lumiere)
  • and then "Great Britain" with the 2 citations (BFI, Lumiere). [Even though the citations list "Great Britain", I would also becontent with using "United Kingdom" if that is preferred by others]

Can we come to a consensus about these items? Or if someone believes this is not an accurate reflection of the facts, explain why it is inaccurate and propose a different alternative that goes along with WP guidelines. As mentioned, the current infobox for the film, as far as i can see, violates WP:NPOV by WP:Cherrypicking the citations being used. AbramTerger (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would leave out the "in association with..." production companies since the wording implies they weren't an integral factor in producing the films. Ingenious Media will be there on account of partly financing it, while Marvel is there as a rights-holder etc, so unless we can find verifiable evidence of active involvement in the production I am happy to leave them out. As for the nationality, the sources you have listed favor the United States as the primary producer with a bit of help from the UK. The UK is most likely there on account of the financing provided by Ingenious Media so I think it is ok to leave the UK out of the infobox—it's not like a proper co-production such as James Bond or Harry Potter. Betty Logan (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Other sources can be found if this is to be determined by secondary sources. For example, AllRovi lists it as solely American - see http://www.allmovie.com/movie/the-wolverine-v496814. But it was decided by earlier discussions country is determined by production company. Here they're all three American. The "in association with" companies are non-production companies, like Ingenious, a UK media investment and advisory group - not a production company. The primary source for credits is the film itself. The BFI routinely includes the countries of non-production companies, like listing Malta for World War Z. We decided not to go with that. The same should be done here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nationality isn't purely determined by production company; different sources have different criteria. As Template:Infobox_film#Country states "defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film." Besides, it would be original research for Wikipedia editors to create their own criteria and apply it. All we can do is look at the what the different sources say about the nationality/country of production and represent the gist of the sources the best we can. Betty Logan (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the BFI listing for World War Z shows Malta as a production country because of the financial incentives and input from the Maltese government to the film—adequately referred to in numerous primary and secondary sources—(which could be argued to be in the "in association with" category, I suppose). BTW, if we're deciding to rule out the "in association with" companies, then the WWZ production countries need heavy editing, and I would hazard a guess that a fair few other of our articles will need a trim too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:I agree that it may be "ok to leave the UK out of the infobox" but the reasoning: "it's not like a proper co-production" seems to be original research so for me would require a citation of its own. @Gothicfilm:I don't see an issue with increasing the number of citations to 5. If IMDB was considered reliable I would its US/UK. TCM at this point does not have a listing for this film, or I would include that as well:

• The "United States" first with all 5 citations (Screen Variety, AFI, BFI, Lumiere, allrovi)
• and then "Great Britain" (or United Kingdom) with the 2 citations (BFI, Lumiere).

For me the issues remains WP:NPOV and no WP:Cherrypicking to eliminate citations that disagree with an editor's opinion and also no WP:OR on how the sources come to their conclusions. As editors we need to report the facts, not try and interpret how they come to them or to misrepresent the scope of them. [eg no reporting just rave reviews, because you may disagree with the reviewers who did not love the film]. @SchroCat: I know you were kind of removing yourself, but since you are commenting, I think you might as well chime in your thoughts on the 2 topics... AbramTerger (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not like cherry picking out bad reviews. It's excluding what we know to be non-production companies. Whether you accept that or not, we now have three sources that list only one country. That outweighs the two that include another. And I'll add the infobox does not look good with five or more references attached to the Country field. Or any field, for that matter. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the main thing is to be consistent in our approach, but we are limited to what we can do with the infobox. In the prose and the lede you can mitigate, qualify, contextualise etc, but the infobox is binary information. You either include something or you don't. So the choices are limited to these: a) include any country you can source; b) include only countries that are common to all sources c) only list countries when the vast majority of sources are consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I recall earlier agreement to use the country of the production companies. I would rather go with that when it is clear, as it really is here. However it won't always be clear to every editor, so I can see the utility of Betty's approach. I agree we should be consistent, and if we're going by secondary sources, then I agree with most of how Betty has laid it out - though we can't not have a Country field in the infobox. I would say choice A is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It would have us include things like Malta for World War Z when only the BFI gave that listing. One could make a case for choice B, but that is likely too restrictive. Sooner rather than later, editors will have a problem with that: if one source leaves out one legitimate country, as seen with Gravity, it couldn't be listed. So the best choice is a less restrictive version of B and C - I wouldn't include the word "vast" as there are usually only a few RS that even list a film's country, like here, where at the moment we only have five. I would say something like "list countries the majority of reliable sources include". The majority of RS here only list one country. We should go with that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:, @Erik:, @Gothicfilm:, @Hotwiki:, @SchroCat:, @Sock:, @Warner REBORN:. Well it seems that we are straying from the topic at hand. I think the discussion of the guidelines and policies for the Template:Infobox Film need to be discussed, it is outside the scope of this one film and needs to be addressed in its own topic. The question of re-examining whether the infobox even needs the country in this global environment and how WP will define it and how editors here to determine it (financing, just prodn companies, a combination, etc, or even the country of a company: eg is Sony Pictures Japanese or US: it is an American subsidiary of a Japanese company) is a much larger question that needs a lot more input. Some of the criteria listed by Betty Logan cause other problems. For example including "only countries that are common to all sources" will leave some blank: eg the disputes with Skyfall and Rush are so large that no single country is listed in all the citations. And to "only list countries when the vast majority of sources are consistent" will require at least 5 citations if there is a single disagreement in the experts. But until new policies and/or guidelines are established, we need to stick with the current policies which as far as I can see are being violated...

@GothicFilm:I can understand the stylistic desire to not clutter with 5 citations. We can get around that with a single note as a citation and explain the disagreement from the experts (with citations) in the note so the infobox is not cluttered. But on some level that seems to me to be more a hollow argument from GothicFilm to try and mask the violation of the WP:NPOV argument. 2 citations are currently used and I have offered a 2 citation (AFI and BFI) compromise that sticks with WP:NPOV and also uses the guidelines from Template:Infobox Film that these 2 sources are prefered over others. You mention that "This is not like cherry picking out bad reviews. It's excluding what we know to be non-production companies. Whether you accept that or not, we now have three sources that list only one country. That outweighs the two". This is exactly the violation of WP:Cherrypicking a POLICY (not a guideline) that I think you need to review. 3 experts that come to one conclusion do NOT override 2 other experts that come to a different conclusion. It violates WP:Cherrypicking and also leads to a violation of WP:NPOV since it choosing the arguments of some experts over the arguments of other experts. And your statement "It's excluding what we know to be non-production companies" needs citation. How do YOU know that. I do not KNOW that, I am not an expert, I am an editor, citing experts. And one of the citations explicitly indicates "US / GB [Co-production]" which seems to me to dispute what you claim to "know". And remember it is the experts' knowledge we use, not our knowledge. @Betty Logan: You mentioned: "it's not like a proper co-production such as James Bond or Harry Potter" Could you cite a source for this statement. As mentioned to GothicFilm, that is not what lumiere indicates. And it is odd that you mention James Bond with a "proper co-production". The opening credits of Skyfall indicates only 1 Prodn company: EON Prdn Ltd. This is a UK company. Financing (not prodn) comes from MGM and Sony Pictures. Sony Pictures is a US subsidiary of a Japanase company, so it is not so straigtforward either. For the record, AFI and BFI both list Skyfall as Great Britian and the United States. TCM indicates JUST Great Britain and allMovie indicates JUST the US. Lumiere indicates "GB inc / US" which means it is a "film produced in the United Kingdom (GB) where the main producer is a United Kingdom-registered company which may be wholly or partially owned or controlled by a US company" [For The Wolverine, lumiere lists "GB / US" without the "incoming investment" indicator.]

As far as I can see, this is POLICY issue, not a guideline issue. Currently there are no policies that I can see for the country parameter that override the WP:NPOV or WP:Cherrypicking policies. The guideline from Template:Infobox film that "preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety." to me could be used to limit the list of 5 citations to just AFI and BFI (I did not find a reference to Variety which cited country) without violating policies. That keeps only 2 citations, but still keeps the WP:NPOV by listing US and GB. As mentioned before, until the policies are changed, it remains our responsibility as editors to stick with those policies and not violate them. AbramTerger (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me you want to prevail here by citing your interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:Cherrypicking, but they are not the most important policies here. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are, since some interpretation is required. There have been more than a few disputes because reliable sources do not agree. There are many causes for that. One is they do not always put their best effort forward, for example with every entry in their databases. And they are not making a claim of being experts, particularly not in reference to this given entry. No database is perfect. None of them are without mistakes. Or vagaries. For example, Lumiere listing this film "US / GB [Co-production]". Unless you have specific indication of what they mean by that in this particular instance, it looks to me like that is their way of indicating there was British financing involved. A clerk may have made the mistake of not following their own guideline. That is far more likely than they really believe that there was a UK production company involved. If this entry were pointed out to them they would likely correct it. If anyone is an expert on the issue, it's the filmmakers, and this is expressed in the film's onscreen credits. Three production companies are given in the film's main title credits - 20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment and The Donners' Company. They are American. Ingenious Media is listed as "made in association with" buried in the film's end credits crawl. Ingenious is a UK media investment and advisory group, not a production company. But it is the most likely reason BFI and Lumiere included UK/GB. I do not agree with your earlier statement it seems for WP to remain neutral we must include them all, unless there are guidelines for picking one reliable source over another. Perhaps better articulation is needed in the guideline, but ultimately the Country field has to come down to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm:, I do believe, even if it is only a tiny thought, that you are trying to help, however all you seam to do is repeat the same points, that other editors like AbramTerger and @SchroCat: have proved you wrong on. You keep saying that professionals like Lumiere and BFI, two of the most trusted film resources ever, have made the mistake instead of you just not listening. The general weight on this discussion seams to be to have the UNITED STATES first with 4 references and then the UNITED KINGDOM with 2. This is backed up by past experience. So I think it is time to correct the page to meet the discussion. --Warner REBORN (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been proved wrong? On what point? Are you now saying Lumiere and BFI are to be blindly followed in all circumstances? Did you see the discussion above on World War Z regarding Malta? Coming here and declaring that I have been proven wrong is not helpful. And as the one who three times put in the UK without discussion despite being warned about WP:BRD and WP:3RR, thus causing me to start this thread, I don't think you're in the best position to declare your version should go in an hour after the last post. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

AbramTerger proved you wrong that you are doing WP:NPOV and/or WP:Cherrypicking, which you are effectively doing.SchroCat has given you plenty of information on why BFI is an extremely trustable resource, even after this you have thrown his help to you back in his face. I have read the full above discussions in detail. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to present non-opinionated facts. Co-Production between US/GB = FACT. Fully American just because GB investment isn't glorified = OPINIONATED. We should, from past experience like with Rush (film) and Skyfall, merge together and compromise reference, not just unhelpfully ignore a more common reference ie. BFI on "Flimsy", sorry, "NO" evidence. Absolutely nobody here is denying US involvement, but ignoring GB involvement even when there is clear evidence is just wrong. I agree myself adding Malta to World War Z was wrong, BUT The Wolverine is a different case. If it wasn't for Ingenious Media, X-Men franchise would probably not be here they have co-produced X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, THE WOLVERINE and X-Men: Days of Future Past. Every single one of those articles except The Wolverine has embraced that fact. It is widely recognized, leaving out on The Wolverine is just pointless. Now GOTHICFILM, try to read what I have said and not repeat the exact same thing again. T Thank You. --Warner REBORN (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your tone makes me just want to drop this discussion. The first half of my post four paragraphs above responding to AbramTerger was new points that have not been answered. And I have to repeat myself when people don't read or ignore my other points:

Regarding SchroCat, his discussion was becoming increasingly off topic. What good point was he making that involved The Wolverine country discussion? That because the AFI did not list some films from the 1920s it is not RS for films it does have pages for? Do you agree with that? He wrote The massive gaps in their listings makes it a decidedly sub-optimal resource and certainly not one to ever be trusted without recourse to other sources. First, that's a straw man, as I repeatedly said I agree no database is perfect and controversial listings should be looked at case-by-case, which I thought clearly meant going beyond the AFI. He did not answer my last question in the BFI discussion, asking for clarity, but then went to this Wolverine discussion and made the off-topic remark Personally I couldn't give a monkeys what goes in there, but your list of those three companies doesn't match the much-vaunted AFI listing. I said Those three companies come from the film's main title credits, which we have agreed on this project is the primary source. He's the one who left the BFI discussion, refusing to answer my last polite question to his point that apparently meant we should do a country search on BFI after looking at their page for a particular film.

You read all of that, and then claim he proved me wrong? Instead of proving me wrong, he didn't even answer my last point. I have to repeat myself again because of your straw man argument Fully American just because GB investment isn't glorified = OPINIONATED. I never said it was fully American. I said the countries of non-production companies should be excluded. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Co-Production between US/GB has not been proven a FACT because of investment by Ingenious Media. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite trying not to return to this, I have been pinged a couple of times and seen this thread, and have to reply to this crap here. I was not "off topic": I was pointing out that there are issues with the AFI database, and not just about the films of the 20s, but the fact that they couldn’t even get their details about Wolverine to match what the film says. You just blithely ignored that so you could get a pointy little dig in and try and censor me, which is why I left the thread. To call that "off topic" and a "straw man" is just bollocks, I'm afraid. Reading through I see you’ve misrepresented my comments a couple of times and ignored points you don’t like. As to the lie that I ignored your question about Malta, I told you to look for it, as I don't see why I have to spoon feed you what is clearly findable if you decide to look for it. As it was obvious that you didn't bother looking for it subsequently, I left an explanation, which you have continued to ignore. (It's not difficult to find: it's on the main listing at the BFI, listed in the film's credits, but crucially missed off the AFI's listing. That's not a good sign at all, if you're relying solely on one database. (BTW, yes, I did see the discussion on article's talk page: no-one there bothered looking at why Malta was listed, a "decision" was made with no recourse to actual facts, which isn't exactly constructive).

I am seeing a fair amount of opinion from all sides going into this argument about what levels of involvement from various interested parties should be listed. I have not seen anyone use any guidelines from a reliable source as to what constitutes a production company. Seemingly basing a decision on narrow nationalistic grounds—or only using one nation's website—seems counter-productive to me, but not nearly so counterproductive to you ignoring comments I have made and providing information that may be of use. I've had my say, largely to counter some of the nonsense above and straighten out one or two of the lies. Life is too short, and I'll not bother coming back: it's obvious that Gothic would rather I wasn't involved in this. – SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

On the BFI post I said "I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying one has to do a country search on BFI after looking at their page for a particular film? That would not be giving any distinction or qualification for the World War Z listing of Malta on the BFI page for the film itself." You never answered that until just now, and what you said here does not address my concern with how Malta was listed on the World War Z page. Your linked dif - "because of the financial incentives and input from the Maltese government to the film" - seems to admit Malta is not a production country. Your other link goes to the film's BFI listing which includes Malta. I don't know what you're trying to suggest. But to accuse me of lying is uncivil at best. And yet again I have to point out I was not saying we should solely rely on the AFI. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been proven a US/GB co-production by BFI and Lumiere. That is a fact!!! Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean it is not. I am not creating facts, I am presenting them. You call my argument Straw Man, and yet you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. If you only have one country which is USA, then you are suggesting it is fully American - how can you not be. As regard to my tone, I think most people will agree, I try my upmost best to be as polite as possible - you however do NOT. In the past I have made wrong actions that have involved AbramTerger and SchroCat. But I moved on and learned. You refuse to listen to anyone else, who like you, believe they are right. You keep complaing about people not responding to your questions, well I have news for you this isn't Mastermind . My main issue is we have to apply the same rules to each article. Ingenious investment/production has applied to other x-men films and other films, so changing how it works for one article is pointless. I don't expect you to listen to anything, I just said and will now just repeat yourself again. Please try not to continue attempting to make quite flimsy and un-researched articles. I am sure you could make a very good editor if you listened to others and researched issues a bit more. That is all I will say for now. Thank You for your time, --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Did your learning and moving on come before or after you three times put in the UK without discussion, prompting me to start this thread? I never said it was fully American. I said the countries of non-production companies should be excluded. That is a distinction. Lots of people, elements and countries are involved in some way on a film that are not listed in the infobox. And simply because something is listed on your preferred database does not make it a fact. Simply because it's on other WP film pages does not mean it belongs on this one. Check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's been claimed Superman II and the 1978 film Superman are different nationalities, even though they were the same production. So we're not going to take into account what happened on other X-Men films to determine nationality on this, a different production. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha-ha. Your pity argument really does amuse me. I correctly added quite a while ago and then recently added because it is right. We don't discuss correct information for every edit or we would never make any progress due to all the time. And as it goes for Superman II and the 1978 film Superman, you'll find it was a switch of production companies. However, Ingenious has had the sane involvement in each film I mentioned. You clearly, as usual, have not listened. You really are beginning to embarrass yourself. I am glad to say I will try to leave this discussion as you are way too stubborn to deal with. All I can hope is that the majority of people go to IMD and see the truth not a piece of opinioned rubbish, that you are intent on keeping. You can reply if you must, repeating yourself with the same pointless reason you have given us about 9 million times. If we keep it the wrong way, then FINE but the page will then always have an issue. Goodbye --Warner REBORN (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Gosh after reading this tirade I guess we can discount your post here User talk:Betty Logan#Apology. Also if G had made 9 million posts they would be far and away the most prolific WikiP editor ever. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• The problem arises from trying to push a square peg through a round hole: the infobox only accommodates factual information, and problems occur when you attempt to add anything subjective. The relevant policies here are WP:OR, WP:V and WP:WEIGHT: WP:OR means we cannot lay down our own criteria; WP:V is fairly straightforward here since both countries are sourceable; WP:WEIGHT is causing the problems. The sources are split between identifying the film as a US production and as a US/UK co-production. Since we are not dealing with a fact that is provable or disprovable then it doesn't match well with the restrictions of the infobox. If you look under the "bonnet" of the film's production this is what you find: the copyright is owned by Fox and TSG Entertainment (US based); the film was "produced" by Fox and the Donner Company (a US studio and production outfit); the film was shot in Australia and Japan; the film was directed and written by Americans. The only credited UK involvement seems to be Ingenious Media, which is a UK financier/investment company i.e. they invest in films, but they don't go out and shoot films. The national interests are actually very easy to identify, except when you reduce it to the rather oblique US or US-UK labels then different sources weight the involvement of the various national contributions differently. In such instances WP:FILMLEAD advises us to detail the different national interests when it isn't clear cut, but this is impossible to do with the infobox, because you are still left with three basic choices: i) US-UK; ii) US; iii) leave blank. Personally I would just drop the parameter from the infobox in this case because it is obvious by now there isn't going to be consensus for either adding or leaving out the UK, and WEIGHT doesn't really advocate either stance. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan, what are you saying. If we can't reach a consensus weather to have US or US/UK, then there can only be one remaining choice - to leave it blank. It is the only fair way. If we do exclude UK, then there is a lot, and I mean A LOT of articles we need to change like Skyfall and Mad Max: Fury Road that need to exclude US who are purely funding and investment, similar to Ingenious involvement. PS. MarnetteD, if you come here again and add useless, badly researched and dam right stupid comment that doesn't help at all - then you will struggle on Wikipedia. Thank You --Warner REBORN (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please make it stop. :( Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: You should probably re-read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". Where do you think the policies indicate that editors can use WP:CONSENSUS to try and override WP:NPOV and WP:Cherrypicking? That philosophy would allow many one-sided arguments in articles as certain sides flood the talk pages creating a "local consensus" that violates WP:NPOV. And your premise that "some interpretation is required" seems to me to be the crux of the problem. It is NOT our job as editors to interpret. Interpretation by us violates no original research policy. It is our job as editors to report the facts and the interpretations of experts which we then cite. Also if you believe a source is inaccurate, you should take it up with them. You suggest (with no proof) that lumiere is inaccurate. It can be demonstrated that AFI has inaccurate information for this film since their info does not match the info in the film due to not including all the information, which raises the question of failing to include all the information for other parameters as well. If you have an expert (with a citation) to indicate that both the BFI and lumiere databases are inaccurate regarding this film, then you should present the facts for us to consider.

@Betty Logan: Excellent points. But, I disagree with your assessment that we cannot present the facts (even disputed as they are) in the "restrictions of the infobox". I think my earlier proposal does just that. It uses no original research, the citations are all listed and verifiable and by listing them all allows the weight to be given explicitly in the box. One can see directly that references 2&3 cite only US, and references 4&5 list both US and GB. It thus maintains WP:NPOV and does no WP:Cherrypicking of the sources. If this type of dispute would cause the Country parameter to be blank, as Warner REBORN pointed out, it would be many articles that need to have the parameter removed (which as I mentioned before, may be justification for just removing it altogether from the infobox template). The problem I see with leaving it blank, is that it still would require some explanation and citations or the problem will probably come back as someone sees the parameter blank, finds a WP:RS and fills it in. I think a similar issue will exist with just putting the US with the "cherry-picked" citations: someone will invariably find one of the other WP:RS and edit the country adding the other citation. Using all the citations presents the facts directly and in most instances should not cause editing if the WP:Cherrypicking policy is respected. If we don't want to list all the citations explicitly in the infobox, we could list both US/GB with a note and then add the citations to the note, but I think explicitly listing them individually in the infobox keeps the WP:WEIGHT more up-front.

@Lugnuts:What do you propose as a compromise that you think will create a consensus?AbramTerger (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It still seems to me you want to prevail here by citing your interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:Cherrypicking, which is usually discussed on film Talk pages regarding film reviews. WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. I do not agree with your "we must include them all" philosophy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

But consensus should not violate WP:Cherrypicking: "an article as a whole should reflect the range of sources available on the article's subject. This does not require using every source that exists, just that the sourcing cited be reasonably representative of the range of sources that exist." Your desire seems a clear violation of this policy. How do you think I am misinterpreting that statement. The policy also indicates "if you are familiar with a different and unused source that should be used, feel free to edit an article consistently with the different source, if the source is otherwise eligible to be used in Wikipedia." It makes no mention that I need a consensus to add these other sources as you claimed when you reverted my additions. And how am I misinterpreting from WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." The Policy explicitly indicates "All Wikipedia articles", not just some articles where editors indicate they should. Your suggestions does NOT include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" just a few that match your WP:OR interpretation. ("This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You have cited no source that shows Lumiere or BFI content is inaccurate, only sources that suggest alternate interpretations from experts about the data. I am just trying to stick to Policies that you seem to want to violate. I want to "prevail" in the sense that " All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." and that the "article as a whole should reflect the range of sources available on the article's subject". How is ignoring some citations not a violation of WP:Cherrypicking and the WP:NPOV? What policy do you think is violated if both cited countries are included in the infobox with the appropriate WP:RS?AbramTerger (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

How about this? Put "see below" in the infobox. Then explain the details in the production section. If you don't like that idea, then try dispute resolution. I suggest opening an RFC or going to DRN. I am unaware of any form of voodoo in which beating a dead horse causes a compromise to magically appear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2014 (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.

Themes section at Lucy (2014 film) article

Opinions are needed on this matter: Talk:Lucy (2014 film)#Adding cites and four linked articles: Themes section, about whether or not the inclusion of a Themes section is WP:Original research, or specifically the WP:Synthesis part of it, in this particular case, and whether or not the section belongs. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast lists

In the interest of consistency I would like to suggest a change to the way many cast lists are presented on this wiki in articles about films and the like. My suggestion is that where possible, cast lists be presented in a similar way to the way the credits roll up at the end of a production, as in this example:

Character	Played by
Alloycious the Dreadful	A Good Boy
Joseph Bloggs	Harold Axtoe
Jimmy the Spiv	Michael Tysoff
Christine Jones	Charles another actor

I think this a better way to present this kind of information to the reader. At the moment cast lists are presented in many different ways. I feel that a more consistent approach would give a better impression to readers (not editors). Some tidying up is probably needed, for example a smaller line spacing could be used (which I don't know how to do yet). I've already had some (negative and unconstructive) feedback at the Village pump. I look forward to any (positive and constructive) comments. Jodosma (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating extra formatting and un-needed tables only adds extra complications for the editor. Is there really any issue to the reader with this layout:

• Joe Bloggs as Jimmy the Snitch
• Homer Simpson as Rembrandt Q. Einstein
• Burt Reynolds as The Bandit

I'm assuming, of course, that the reader can grasp something as straight-forward as that layout. And that's before we start on the subject of edits warring over 5 spaces or 6... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts that in general, most film articles should use the simple bulleted list approach. It is easy for most editors to work with. Table coding is a bit advanced. I would say it is ideal to use table coding if an article is well-tended, meaning that the cast list is probably not going to be tinkered with much more. Panic Room#Cast is a personal example of table coding. I don't think the simple bulleted list approach has been so detrimental as to warrant a more complex implementation across the board. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the simple bulleted list is fine. Actors names should come first, followed by characters. That allows all the actors' names to line up properly by default. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What I have noticed is that the Actor as Character format places the emphasis on the actor, who appears on the film's poster (star billing) as well as the opening/closing credits before the scrolling detailed cast section. But if the film emphasizes the character first and then lists the actor afterwards, as with some television shows, then the table would be fine, although by then it can be merged with the Characters list. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I get the message and won't mention it again. Jodosma (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rush countries

There is a discussion at Talk:Rush (2013 film)#Infobox Countries that could use some input from project participants here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Before clicking the link, I'll bet everything I own that AbramTerger has started the discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good guess. I started the thread to explain that I had moved the citations to a single note (like was done on The Wolverine). But the content of the infobox was not changed by me.AbramTerger (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Some help with a new award-winning film article

I recently started an article for the feature length film, Before I Disappear, which has been sweeping up awards left and right, as well as being acquired for distribution by IFC Films. Finding sources for distribution and release is easy, but not for production. As well, I wish to have an accolades section similar to what there is for Boyhood, but I can't figure out how to make it work. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Genre-specific and special interest websites can be very useful for this. For independent films, Indiewire is usually your best bet. Alternative weeklies (The Austin Chronicle, LA Weekly, The Village Voice, etc) will often have interviews and spotlights, especially after a film festival. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen Daily, Deadline.com, and The Wrap can be useful, too, especially for awards and basic facts. I'll see what I can find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you using standard Google-search protocols like quotation marks? Asking because I'm finding what seems to be tons of information: [5], [6], [7]. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I should be a little more specific, I suppose. The accolades table is the real killer for me. I keep on goofing it up and can't figure out why. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I started one for you. It could use more secondary sources, but it's a fair demonstration of how to do one. I modeled it closely after the page you described. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DVD Talk

DVD Talk reviews are used in many film articles. And while it has happened many times in the past,[8] an editor in a current deletion discussion wishes to know specifically why we consider it a suitable source for DVD reviews. I feel that with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, reviews in it meet WP:RSOPINION, and through editorial oversight and long-standing WP:USEBYOTHERS it meets a subsection of WP:RS. Anyone wish to add something here to which I may direct the editor? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

They have DVD Talk listed at Rotten Tomatoes (see [9])), but interestingly their reviews are not "Tomatometer Approved" (see [10]). That means when RT weight the critical consensus they don't factor in DVDTalk reviews, so it does raise the question as to whether we should. Do you know of any other publications we regard as RS that refer to DVD Talk's criticism in some way? Just being used in lots of Wikipedia articles probably doesn't cut it, otherwise we'd accept IMDB as a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:: Sadly RT does not rate all sources determined as notable here, but interestingly it does show up in searches through http://mrqe.com and others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but what we need to establish is whether DVD Talk contributes to the critical consensus in any way at all. Being an RS means that the source is reliable for sourcing the review, but it doesn't mean that the critical opinion is significant at all. The only way to assess that is to look at what weight secondary sources attach to it. For example, you will find plenty of film literature referring to the critical writing of Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael so we regard those as significant opinions i.e. opinions that shape the critical consensus. In the case of aggregators such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes you have secondary sources whose purpose is to take a litmus test of the consensus, so if they explicitly acknowledge them as a factor in shaping the critical consensus then we can assume they are significant opinion. In other words, if secondary sources don't care what DVD Talk think about films then why should Wikipedia? I think that is the crux of the question being put forward at the deletion review. Betty Logan (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:: Well, it does seem that other sources do care. When ignoring the book sources which relying on Wikipedia (how dare they!) there do seem to be great number of them that look to DVD Talk as a . That is why I feel WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:RSOPINION are considerations. A difficulty in searches is that "DVD Talk" has so many Google results that separating out the non-DVD TAlk sources discussing DVD Talk is a bit tough. NinjaRobotPirate made some great strides below. Me... I'm still checking. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced by those search results, since it is not clear what exactly the hits are referring to. Nobody is disputing that DVDTalk is a reliable source, they are disputing that their reviews are significant. Those search hits could just be listing DVD features, interviews and numerous other things. Of the links put forward by NinjaRobotPirate only one actually refers to a critical opinion (the WSJ). Betty Logan (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's RS, then it's RS, thank you. Actually, I brought this question here specifically when an editor elsewhere wondered if DVD Talk was a reliable enough source for film reviews... and if their coverage of a film (even a bad film) could be counted when determining if a film topic met WP:GNG. The definition at WP:SIGCOV is simple and clear: "Significant Coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The reviews he questioned from DVD Talk did just that... addressed the film topic directly and in detail. If it is conceded that they are RS for films, then they are RS for films. NinjaRobotPirate's building of an article about DVD Talk itself is a different issue (and one I support), and he is welcome to peruse the book findings. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"If it's RS, then it's RS, thank you." – I'm sorry, but that isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy. Reliable sources are reliable for accurately relaying content, but they do not govern content inclusion. WP:SUBJECTIVE states "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation". In other words, just because we can source critique by someone from a reliable source does not automatically imply it is appropriate to include their opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:: That phrase was only a grateful reference to your own statement "Nobody is disputing that DVDTalk is a reliable source", and not intended to reflect policy. The DVD Talk film reviews which brought me here have not had their opinions included in the article, and I am not questioning an editorial choice whether they could or should be or not. My question was brought here to determine if A) the site was reliable enough in context to DVD film reviews, and B) whether a significant review in DVD Talk can be counted when determining or declaring elsewhere that WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing a DVD is not the same as reviewing the film. If you want to use DVD Talk as a source for an Easter Egg on Avatar or to review the image quality of the disk then I doubt there is an issue, but a review of the DVD is not a critique of the film. WP:NF requires that the film is reviewed by two "national critics" and WP:SUBJECTIVE recommends that they are "notable" i.e. they would qualify for articles on Wikipedia. So far I have not seen anything to suggest that a review of a film in DVD Talk meets those criteria, and subsequently satisfy WP:NF. Betty Logan (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:: A film being released on a DVD does not make it "not-a-film", and reviews of a DVD version of a film does not make it "not-a-review". Wikipedia does not expect nor have the chutzpah to demand that every reviewer must only review what he has seen in a theater, and WP:NF does not tell us that DVD reviews of a film's DVD release cannot apply toward consideration of a film's critical response or analysis... ie: coverage. Indeed, there are many direct to DVD films that have been found notable through just that type of coverage (See Category:Direct-to-video films). What WP:NF#General principles tells us is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". WP:NF does not require "national critics". That is but one of the considerations of WP:NF#Other evidence of notability that are turned to when the GNG is not already met. Those aspects are not a mandated criteria, simply a "consider this". So in returning to discussion about film notability and about reliable sources (Your own words: "Nobody is disputing that DVDTalk is a reliable source"), if DVD Talk is considered a reliable source, then it meets the criteria for determining topic notability as clarified at WP:RS and WP:GNG. Use of it or or not becomes an editorial decision. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that a film cannot be reviewed on DVD; not all films have a theatrical release. However, there are different types of DVD reviews. There are reviews that review the DVD and those that review the film on the DVD, and you have not yet presented any evidence that DVD Talk are notable for the their film criticism. To take NinjaRobotPirate's citations below:

1. LA Times – mentions that DVD Talk has an "Easter egg" section on their website.
2. LA Times – discusses business practices
3. LA Times – discusses how campaigns on DVD Talk have initiated a DVD release.
4. LA Time – discusses a technical review by DVD Talk: "The difference with Superbit, reviewer Geoffrey Kleinman wrote in the online newsletter DVD Talk, is richer colors, sharper picture, better skin tones and improved sound."
5. Variety – quotes an interview with Geoffrey Rush
6. Wall Street Journal – quotes part of a film review

Out of all those sources only The Wall Street Journal discusses DVD Talk in the context of an actual film review. When we say "reviews by two national critics" in NF we do not mean a description of Easter eggs to be found on your DVD, or how nice the colors look on the transfer; we mean a proper film review that discusses whether the actual film is good or not, whether the acting was good or not etc. All these namechecks and quotes (bar a single mention by The Wall Street Journal) establish nothing about the reviewer. What they do establish is that they are reliable for discussing the technical aspects of DVDs, quality of transfer etc. We are not discussing the reliability of DVD Talk, or even the notability of DVD Talk, we are discussing specifically whether their film critique satisfies WP:NF which is a criterion for film notability. So far there is very little evidence that it does. Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:: Essentially, what NF asks for is "coverage in reliable sources". What you have exemplified above describes WP:RS's WP:USEBYOTHERS requiring that DVD Talk be "used by others". I am not trying to evaluate their content, but if DVD Talk is a reliable source, then coverage in it meets WP:NF's presumption of notability. And please, "reviews by two national critics" in WP:NF is NOT a film notability mandate ( see WP:OEN ). So when WP:RS tells us the "reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both, it does not demand both. If DVD Talk is accepted as a reliable source, we do not need evaluations of the individual staff of that site. Just so long as the work is IN a reliable source in a more-than-trivial fashion, a lengthy review praising OR panning a film meets WP:SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not helping, but after reading this page, I wonder if there are any women on the payroll. Perhaps that affects the perception of reliable source? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's a reliable source, and I seem to be one of the more outspoken hardliners on issues of reliable sources and notability. They've got an editor listed on the staff page, the site is used extensively in good and featured articles, and it does pop up in reliable sources as a source for DVD information and reviews. For example: [11], [12], [13], [14]. The Wall Street Journal quoted one of their reviews, and Variety has quoted it, too. Though problematic, lack of diversity isn't really a issue in terms of reliability. In fact, I think I think there's enough info for an independent article on them. I might get to work on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:: I would like to see that done, and was thinking of it myself. Unfortunately an early version DVD Talk was redirtected to its parent company. I think individual notability would be easy enough to establish. AFD from September 2012 did not receive much attention, or discussion at all. I would have definitely spoken up in support under WP:RSOPINION and WP:USEBYOTHERS and called for a relisting at minimum. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just a couple weeks ago DVD Talk passed a source review at the FAC for Departures. Suggests to me that it is recognized as reliable for reviews. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• A very cogent point, as FAC source reviews are darn strict. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've expanded the article. Here are a few other mentions on Bloody Disgusting: [15], [16]. Not the most compelling evidence ever, but it's more kindling for the fire. It also gets mentioned occasionally on Highbeam Research, but the results are a bit uninspiring: [17], [18], [19], [20]. I can summarize the articles for people who don't have access to Highbeam, but, basically, what you see is what you get. Many of them are trivial mentions, but the articles do treat DVD Talk as a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice job. The new DVD Talk article is better than the old. Certainly not a scholarly site, but film reviews are rarely scholastic in nature. And that others we find reliable feel it worth quoting is exactly what WP:USEBYOTHERS is all about. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, none of the film scholars I work with at NYPL-Lincoln Center consider a DVD the equivalent of a film; even wheth the exact same material is shown, the cotext and thus the impression is different. For many famous fils, , there are known differences (sometimes major) between the theatrical release and whatever restored of supplemented version may be available on DVDs. (King Kong is one of the clearest examples, or the expanded DVD version of Tolkein's Ring. Similar a series as broadcast on TV from week to week, is not the same as the collected edition, either in impression or in contents. Proper academic writing at a series level requires consideration of all of the versions. (This is true of books also--some of them like much of Shakespeare and zJames' novels, have versions with sharply different contents, and an advance scholar deals with this. )

Writing on WP is rarely at that level, thou ofter differences are taken account of. Reviews can he RSs for film in two ways: RSs that are sufficiently substantial and reliable to show that the film is notable. and RS sufficient to establish information about a film, whether the bnsiness aspects or the critical reaction or the analysis of the meaning of the plot. In particular, review sources in popular media are rarely sufficient for the plot, because they almost always as a matter of policy avoid discussing the ending, . WP is not censored and does not employ spoilers, as a description of a film or any work of fiction that does not include the conclusion in as much detail of the rest of the film is inadequate. Most of our reviews for all types of fiction are. sources are not divided into reliable and non-reliable -- they form a complex spectrum of reliablity for different purposses. DGG' ( talk ) 16:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)�

@DGG:: Fair enough. But more simply asked, is it reasonable to assert that a substantial review in DVD Talk (whether positive or negative) may be applied toward WP:NF's consideration of WP:GNG in our gauging per the notability of a DVD or film (good or bad)? This question stems from an editor elsewhere granting that while DVD Talk may be reliable sources for their opinions, he is still uncertain as to whether reviews on the DVD Talk website are acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. While that AFD discussion seems headed for a keep, the question itself remains cogent. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Breath of the Gods

Hello, the documentary Breath of the Gods had a theatrical release in Germany (I actually watched it in a cinema in Münster where it ran für several weeks!) and there was already a German Wiki article online before I added an English version. In the German Wikipedia nobody doubted the notability yet. The English version includes a number of references and external links. However, a newcomer who is apparently not interested in films but merely in yoga (nomen est omen) tagged the article as not complying with notability guidelines. Please check it out. NordhornerII I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Kudos to NinjaRobotPirate for expanding the article to establish the topic's notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I can do it pretty quickly now, especially when I'm not too concerned with making the prose look pretty. Stephen Holden is kind of a pain, though, because he never outright says whether a film is good or bad, and my lazy, minimalist style depends on such a statement. Anyway, the article looks a bit better now. I don't mind expanding reception sections or streamlining plots, as those are two of the easiest tasks. In most cases, I don't have the patience to expand an article to Good status. I'm about halfway there in Cold in July, but it's been months since I touched that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Edge of Tomorrow and retitling

At Edge of Tomorrow (film), there is some back-and-forth going on about the film having a new title, based on coverage of its home media packaging. There is also a discussion here. Other editors are invited to evaluate the coverage and comment on if a new title should be reported or not. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the country a film is set in a defining characteristic?

There's been some thought given as to whether the country a film is set in should be considered a definining characteristic, in the sense of whether it merits a category. I can see that there might be films where the country or countries it occurs in is pertinent, but in many cases I can see it being argued that the country itself doesn't play a major role (for a generic chick-flick, does it matter whether it's in the US or Canada?). Anyway, I can see how nominating the appropriate categories for deletion might turn into a bit of a hornet's nest, so I'm asking here before I consider going any further with it. Right now the only CFDs (links available upon request) are "Films set in a fictional region" (tending towards deletion I think) which I nominated largely because "region" is overly-vague to me, and "Films set in a fictional country" (my guess on this one would be no consensus), which I nominated largely because I was curious to see how it might develop and because I'm not sure that that's a defining characteristic. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a definite yes/no for this D. As you state many flicks are filmed in a generic setting. Also budgets can determine where a picture is filmed. Canadian cities are less expensive to film in and the rate exchange is as much a factor as anything else. So in those cases the answer is "no it is not a defining characteristic." OTOH for a film like Local Hero the locations in Scotland are an integral part of the story. I don't know whether any of this helps but I would say that we can always rely on criteria like "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" and others on the WP:CAT. Just one editors thoughts, of course, and I look forward to hearing what others have to say. MarnetteD|Talk 13:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response! It sounds like the categories themselves may be appropriate, but it may or may not be a good idea (I haven't looked) to audit the articles that have been placed in said categories. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen IP editors add Category:Films set in the United States (or similar) to film articles. I don't think the over-broad country level category should be included on an article, but something such as Category:Films set in Portland, Oregon, for example, would be more useful/defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like I should probably include a link to the CFD at this point. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC relevant to this WikiProject

An RFC relating to The Simpsons Movie has been opened by me. It can be found here. Thanks for your interest, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Box office and Gross values

Hi, I've started a conversation at Template talk:Infobox film. Briefly, it's about the preferred format for Budget and Gross values in the infobox. Long form numerals: $12,345,678 or condensed form: $12.3 million. There is no consistency between articles and it seems like there should be. Please comment there if you get a moment. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved. Lugnuts was kind enough to point me to a prior discussion on the matter. I have adjusted the template docs accordingly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Most recent Empire magazine

Does anyone have the most recent issue of Empire (I would assume it was just released or will be very shortly)? There is an interview with Netflix COO on the Marvel Cinematic Universe Netflix series, and I would like the quotes/source. At the moment, only non-reliable sources are reporting on the content. Thanks in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Voila!Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You rock Dark! Thanks!!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, turns out it wasn't in the magazine. It must have been a separate interview. I think I'll just need to be eagle-eyed for an RS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

An editor has pointed out an inconsistency in the soundtrack listings of the film in our articles. There is also an inconsistency in the listing in the primary source that seems to be a blatant mislabeling. How should we proceed with any changes? We need to form a consensus one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Link to discussion: Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show#Floor Show/Rose Tint My World. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek article inclusion criteria

See talk:Star Trek (film franchise)#Star Trek: Axanar on whether Star Trek: Axanar belongs at the article Star Trek (film franchise) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Batman, Spiderman, Superman and James Bond in film articles page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sin City 2 - Box office bomb?

Please see this discussion on the article's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry category at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia launches new tool that tells it how it is!

http://tools.wmflabs.org/legobot/cgi-bin/contentcontributor.py/?user=Betty%20Logan

Trust me, some of you really don't want to type your names in! Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Singapore Sling

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.

---

The 1990 Greek film Singapore Sling has an article about it in the French Wikipedia yet it does not appear in the foreign languages section here on the English Wikipedia and I do not know how to add it. Would be great if someone who knows could. While we are at it, while I am fluent in neither Greek nor French, it would also be great if an editor who is could translate the entries about some of this director's other films from these Wikipedias in order to create entries about them here. Thanks! 46.116.239.142 (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to add the French entry to the language links and received the following message: "The link enwiki:Singapore Sling (1990 film) is already used by item Q16238336. You may remove it from Q16238336 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." What did I do wrong? Can someone please help me? Thanks! 46.116.239.142 (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see the link is available now. Thanks! 46.116.239.142 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I merged the Wikidata items and nominated Q16238336 for deletion. I think you need to be logged in to access the merge tools, but I'm not sure. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 12:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Can you kindly do the same with the Turkish article about Angst essen Seele auf? I just found out about it and I will search now for more foreign-language articles not linked to the English Wikipedia. 46.116.239.142 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just saw you did! Thank you very much! I will post more such examples here if I will find them. 46.116.239.142 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done! Wikidata is not always easy to deal with. I checked, you need to be logged in to use the merge tool (log in and activate the tool under 'Preferences'-->'Gadgets', and you'll find the tool under the 'More' link next to 'View history' on each Wikidata page). Thank you for posting here, jonkerz ♠talk 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another one, the Malayalam entry about Au hasard Balthazar. 46.116.239.142 (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, you're good at finding unlinked articles :) jonkerz ♠talk 13:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) 46.116.239.142 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Federico Fellini in Albanian and Copie conforme in Finnish. These two foreign-language entries should also be integrated here. 46.116.239.142 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Done and done. Neither of these pages needed a merge (unlike the above pages). To add a page not already linked to another Wikidata item, click 'edit link' in the language section and add the language/article under 'Wikipedia pages linked to this item' on Wikidata. jonkerz ♠talk 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks for the instructions! 46.116.239.142 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, do you (or anyone else reading this) know any editor(s) fluent in Greek and/or French that will be able to translate the two aforementioned articles in order to create their equivalents in English? If not, do you know where can I go in order to get assistance with this issue of finding such an editor? 46.116.239.142 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Translation for help. You can search for editors that have taken the time to specify that they are bilingual. For example, Category:User fr, Category:User el, and Category:User en. 1 is basic, and 5 is professional; you probably want someone with skill level 3 or better. I can't really help you. I sunk all my skill points into arcade games, and I didn't have enough left over for more than basic French. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have placed two requests for translation here and here. Thank you for directing me to this page and let us hope someone will see my requests soon. 46.116.239.142 (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Also try the talk pages of the French and Greek projects too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Requests are now posted here and here. This is 46.116.239.142 talking, I just have a dynamic IP. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also searched yesterday and found many editors fluent in Greek and/or French (and quite a few fluent in both). Is it considered customary and in good manners here just to ask someone out of the blue to translate articles from foreign-language Wikipedias in order to create new entries? 89.139.184.202 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You can ask anyone, but editors tend to be very busy and may not have time to translate articles. A better place to find translators would be Wikipedia:Translators available, but even the listed translators may not have time due to the backlog of untranslated articles (e.g. Category:Articles needing translation from Greek Wikipedia). If there's already a page in the English WP, you may add {{Expand Greek|Greekarticletitle}} to the top of the article. If there's no article on enwp, feel free to create a stub article and then add the Expand template. jonkerz ♠talk 16:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. IP users such as myself cannot, to the best of my knowledge, automatically create new article without them being approved first by registered editors, so, in the meantime, I have posted requests here and here asking assistance from editors listing themselves as translators. Nevertheless, do you suggest creating an AfC draft submission with the expand template? 89.139.184.202 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Another film by the same director has a Russian article. I have meanwhile posted a translation request here and was answered affirmatively. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This film now has an article here. One down, two more left to go. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have more than one entry about films directed by him and will possibly have some more soon, I have asked the translator with whom I have previously corresponded to kindly create a Category:Films directed by Nikos Nikolaidis here. I myself do not know how to create one and I doubt IP users can automatically do so anyway. I have also deleted my previous requests for translation at the talk pages of the French and Greek projects and at WP:Translation given that I have now requested such translations from individual editors. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The category is now up and available here. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to receiving no replies regarding the translation requests I have posted last week, I have now attempted to ask other translators here and here. I am also querying about the possibility of creating a Template:Films directed by Nikos Nikolaidis here. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to post an update of every single edit you make. Maybe setup a Twitter account, or better still, register an account here. Then you can create all the pages, categories and templates you want. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry for the mess! 89.139.184.202 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2014 (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.

Dispute resolution requested

Hi, at Talk:Planes: Fire & Rescue feedback is requested by WikiProject Film as it relates to the presentation of long-form box office gross ($94,213,585) vs condensed, rounded values ($94.2 million). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Movie marathon and Star Wars marathon articles at AfD

Please see the discussions here and here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject film template

For info, I've requested this change. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. We've got a jobsworth admin (no surprise). Anyone against this change? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First film article

Hi all: I've been editing for a while, but I haven't created an article for a film before, and I'm not sure of WP:FILM's style when it comes to these kinds of articles. If you have the time, could you check out The Battle of Waterloo (1913 film) and make sure I haven't done anything too horrendous? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! Just had a quick check and made some very minor changes. Always great to see a new film article from the silent era. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions for award categories

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reboot debate

An editor has put in a third opinion request at Talk:Planet of the Apes#"Reboot" dispute. I am leaving this note to make WikiProject Film editors aware of it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do we erase the schedule when awards are announced?

We shouldn't have to dig through old versions for the schedule content. here is an example of why these schedules are still useful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

List of film accents considered the worst at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fictional character disambiguation

For fictional characters, what is the proper disambiguation? Character (character), Character (fictional character), Character (Show name character), Character (Show name)? I.e., I have recently created Crazy Eyes (character), but should it be Crazy Eyes (fictional character), Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black character), or Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black)? However, I have also created Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Titus Andronicus (character) and Malcolm (Macbeth). I am beginning to wonder what is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If two articles exist about a fictional character with the same name, then I'd disambiguate it with the show title in the parenthesis [e.g.: "John Doe (Foobar character)"]. If a character is clearly a primary topic, however, I would just use "character". (If there's nothing else to disambiguate besides other characters, I'd put no disambiguation at all for the primary topic.) ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 23W. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the above, with the exception that if a character is from a series, the show title is sufficient disambiguation, and the word "character" is unnecessary [e.g.: "John Doe (Foobar)"]. Otherwise, the word "character" is sufficient, and should not be expanded upon, unless there is more than one character article with that name, per WP:PRECISE. But the default should be "Character Name (Show Name)" if disambiguation is needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

23W, Softlavender, and Fortdj33. I am not talking about disambiguating two fictional charaters from each other (I have never seen that case). I am requesting clarification on how to disambiguate a fictional character from biographical articles with a shared name. What is the proper disambiguation in that case. I.e., I have created two pages that are at Character (character) (Crazy Eyes (character) and Titus Andronicus (character)) and two that are at Character (Show name) (Frank Underwood (House of Cards) and Malcolm (Macbeth)). Which way is correct for a character versus biographical subjects?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I think that the default should be "Character Name (Show Name)" if disambiguation is needed, otherwise, the word "character" is sufficient. Therefore, of the examples you provided, the only one I would change is Crazy Eyes (character) to Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black). Fortdj33 (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would opt for Crazy Eyes (fictional character). Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black) isn't really that helpful if you are not familiar with the name of the show (and sometimes characters appear in more than show) while Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black character) is probably more precise than it needs to be (but would be a good disambiguator if different characters share a name). Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As a note, nearly everywhere else (video games, TV shows, etc.), we use "character" if that's sufficient, and then use the work name if more specificity is needed; the idea is that if we're disambiguate it anyway, a user is never likely to arrive on that page on a single search, and thus the shorter dis. is fine as needed. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crazy Eyes (fictional character) is unnecessary disambiguation, as the word "character" is sufficient to convey that it is fictional. But I agree that Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black) is probably only needed, if there is more that one article about a character named Crazy Eyes. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On reflection I agree with that. I'm not in favor of having "individual" disambiguators (i.e. name of book/show) unless further disambiguation is necessary. If we just use (character) that pretty much covers everything unless we need to disambiguate characters from each other. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• If Crazy Eyes (character) is correct, that means I should move Frank Underwood (House of Cards) and Malcolm (Macbeth) to Frank Underwood (character) and Malcolm (character) no?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article for Malcolm needs cleanup. It shouldn't have the entries for the given names and surnames since there is already Malcolm (given name). The only entries for those should be cases where the person is primarily referred to by that name only. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Article cleanup is a whole other issue. I am asking you what the page should be named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would leave the Frank Underwood and Malcolm articles alone, even if the disambiguation may technically be more precise than necessary. But since there aren't other character articles for either name, in this case "(character)" would also be acceptable. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how helpful it is if you just tell me to leave everything alone. It seems to me that at least two of my articles need to be moved. It can't be the case that both Crazy Eyes (character) and Titus Andronicus (character) are properly named and Frank Underwood (House of Cards) and Malcolm (Macbeth) are properly named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the standard disambiguation for articles about characters from TV shows, is to use the name of the show as disambiguation. So personally, I think that Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black) and Frank Underwood (House of Cards) are the most accurate titles for those articles. But as pointed out above, some see that as being too precise, since there are no other articles for characters with those names. If you agree, then titling them Crazy Eyes (character) and Frank Underwood (character) would be sufficient. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Christmas films categories

Just an FYI that it has been proposed that Category:Christmas films and Category:American Christmas films be renamed to Category:Films featuring Christmas and Category:American films featuring Christmas respectively, for additional clarity. Those wishing to offer opinions can find the discussions here. Cheers! ...or would that be Merry Christmas? DonIago (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with a minor character's description in a disambig page

Matt Ellis is a disambig page that includes the fictional POTUS from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The character appeared Iron Man 3 but was also specifically name-checked in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The current description implies he was a character in only the former film, but this is required because the actor only portrayed the character onscreen in that film. We can't say "portrayed by William Sadler in the Marvel Cinematic Universe" since assuming he will not only appear in future movies but be portrayed by the same actor would violate WP:CRYSTAL. However, currently the only article wiki-linked is not the actor but the film.

Should we drop the actor's name entirely and refer to President Ellis as "a fictional President of the United States of America in the Marvel Cinematic Universe"? It seems to me like if we aren't wikilinking the actor's name there's no need to mention him, and mentioning the series in which the character appears seems like it might be more useful to readers, but I'm not sure. Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering it's a disambiguation page to disambiguate between articles and there isn't actually an article about the character then why does he need to be mentioned at all on the disambiguation page? Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Betty is correct. WP:DAB pages are not list articles. Not every person, place or thing that has the same name belongs on a DAB page. Having said that the description on a DAB page is also to be kept brief and succinct I would be inclined to use your phrase in quotes except I would shorten it to "a fictional President of the US in the MCU". There is no need to mention the actor(s) at all. MarnetteD|Talk 19:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Look into a bot's function

I was hoping someone with bot knowledge could investigate Theo's Little Bot's Task 22 (to populate data on film articles that utilize {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}). The bot has not made a positive contribution to a template subpage since April 17, 2014, with the few attempts at the end of August/early September 2014 producing the template's error message. I have personally created a template subpage for use on a film page (Guardians of the Galaxy (film)), in hopes of intially "kickstarting" the bot to come by, but soon realized that I would have to manually update it (as seen in the edit history). I have attempted to contact the bot's owner, Theopolisme, as well as Technical 13 as they have previously helped with the template/bot, but did not receive any answer from either. I'm hoping someone here can look into the bot's operation, the code, and how the task is being executed, to find out if the bot is the problem, or possibly Rotten Tomatoes' API has changed, preventing the bot from working as it needs to. This bot was really helpful for updating this data, and it will be a shame (though not the end of the world) if the task no longer works. Thanks in advance. Note: This was originally posted at the WP:VPT, as well as WP:BON. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

3 Ninjas (film) WP:Disambiguation matter

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:3 Ninjas#Any good reason why this article title is not covering the first film only?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

List of African film awards

Can anybody think of any more?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

List of FESPACO award winners. Obviously. Duh! Mr Thicko! etc, etc... :D Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Those entries should really be sourced in some manner that establishes their significance. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Raising Genius

I've proposed that the article Raising Genius on the 2004 film of the same name be deleted. Please contribute there if you have an opinion on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

I have submitted the article Not My Life for a featured article candidacy here. The article deals with a documentary film about human trafficking. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski documentary films … neutral editors help required

I have been advised to post here about help being required on a number of pages, these relate to documentary filmmaker Boris Malagurski, whose films include The Weight of Chains. What you need to know, is that these are VERY controversial films about Kosovo and FYR - and US, NATO and EU involvement there. These film's main audience is on YouTube.

There have been constant neutrality problems on the article pages and frequent POV from both the pro and anti-Malagurski camps and quite a lot of vandalism from anonymous IPs, so a strong stomach and a very discriminating commitment to neutrality would be an advantage. I'm not watching this page, so editors are advised to just 'jump in' on the relevant talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The latest dispute on Talk:The Weight of Chains seems to be whether a Vice article is an promotional blurb or a professional review. It could probably use more input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:American films

This category (among others) bears a hatnote indicating that all articles about American films are to be categorized within it. Is that still the case? If so I'd be happy to run it through AWB and add the category where necessary. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is still the case. I mistakenly removed it from a few articles, and Lugnuts explained to me that it's non-diffusing. That was a little while ago, but it seems as though there's still consensus for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I ask only because I started using AWB on some articles earlier, and I was surprised to see that a lot of them didn't have it when I was expecting they would. I'll go ahead and see what I can do with it, then. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. It is Wikipedia-wide general principal that parent cats should not be added to articles which already have child cats. Noone has overturned that as far as I have heard, so this AWB action needs to be stopped. BMK (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I don't know what Peter Noone has to do with Wikipedia policy, but the category itself says that it is non-diffusing. WP:FILMCAT seems to indicate that Category:American documentary films is sufficient and Category:American films is not necessary. This should either be changed to match Category:American films or the category should not be marked as non-diffusing. In any event, mass-reverting someone's good-faith edits that are backed by policy is rather disruptive. Using rollback to do so is especially dispruptive, and I'm tempted to bring this to AN/I to have your rollback rights revoked. You need to stop immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh stuff it, don't try to threaten me with "disruption", I'm not a fucking newbie, I've been here years longer than you and have 20 times more edits. It's much more likely that the editor who misuses AWB will have their AWB rights revoked then that I will have my rollback rights removed for upholding, with notice, a basic categorization principle -- that parent cats should not be added to articles with child cats.

If someone wants to explain to me why the action of adding Category:American films to articles which already have Category:American Western (genre) films is an exception to that principle, I'm all ears. BMK (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"I've been here years longer than you and have 20 times more edits. " Get off your fucking high-horse. Ignore this sock, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, continue with adding the category per WP:FILMCAT. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

Right. I'll start afresh in the morning. (I should be in bed now, but...well, let's leave it at that "should".) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you do, the edits will be reverted, as parent categories should not be added to articles which already have child categories on them. If you have a reason that this should not be the case here, I'm more than willing to listen to it, but in an absence of a legitimate explanation, these edits would be considered to be "controversial", and AWB is very specifically not to be used to make controversial edits. BMK (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"If you do, the edits will be reverted" by you? Haha. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Read more beyond your crying at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding articles to a non-diffusing category is not controversial. If you were correct in this instance, then Category:American films wouldn't currently have over 20,000 articles in it, since nearly all of them are also in the appropriate by-genre categories. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the tenor of the discussion at ANI, I am holding off on this for now. (Besides, "this morning" was an optimistic prediction at best, which hasn't come to pass.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sam Raimi film at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Easter egg links in plot section?

The plot section of The Wolverine (film) currently contains the following two passages:

Jean Grey (whom he was previously forced to kill)

and

Magneto, who warns him of a grave new threat to the mutant race

This style would seem to contravene the guideline on "easter egg" links, but in the past when I've changed passages like the above (or exactly the above, for instance: [21]), they invariably get put back, though not usually right away. What is the community's preference here? --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who's inserting egg links should be directed to the appropriate policy. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur that such links are Easter egg-ish; readers should not have to go elsewhere to understand what a link means. I support the clarifying note you wrote instead, Fru1tbat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with D & E. These also violate the WP:INUNIVERSE section of the MoS. They are cute for those well versed in a given subject but they make little sense to the outside reader. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: six month interaction ban between Flyer22 and zzz

Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. I and the other editor edit film articles. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing the Cheshire Cat page: Request for Guidance, Support

Hello, my name is Hannah and I am part of a Cornell University class project where we are hoping to edit and improve the Cheshire Cat page, dedicated to the character from the Lewis Carroll novel and its several film adaptations. I see that the WikiProject Film community is interested in this topic area, and I therefore wanted to reach out to you on behalf of my team to ask for help/advice. We are looking to add on to each of the page's existing sections to expand the cultural impact and cross-disciplinary influence of the icon, to give the page a general design overhaul (including charts, quotes, images, etc.), and to add a comparison of the different cinema representations of the character. Do you have any suggestions for articles or other sources we could use for our project? Or any suggestions at all for engaging in the editing process on Wikipedia?

If you would like to learn more about our class assignment, this is the link: [[22]]

The other members in me team are: Isabella Krell , Abby Sonnenfeldt , and Carolyn Sussman

Thank you and look forward to hearing from you, Hkm24 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There are several different forms such a project can take on. James Bond, Batman and Darth Vader all have "cultural impact" sub-sections. If you are predomiantly just cataloging the character's media presence then the article could be modelled on articles such as Batman franchise media and Superman in other media. If you have a lot of material it may be wise to create a new article along the lines of Cultural influence of Star Trek and Cultural impact of Wonder Woman. In regards to sources, the Film project's resources can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources; for more general information you may be able to find some books on the subject at http://books.google.com/bkshp?hl=en. Remember to observe Wikipedia's two main policies though: WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. If this is for a graded assignment it may be better for you to undertake the work in your sandbox so other editors don't interfere. Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hit the Deck

Please see his edits on Hit the Deck (1955 film) and the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsolicited opinion: Though I know that we sometimes happen upon users who irritate us, I don't see the value in putting someone on blast and calling them a dick. Not even vandals. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

When WP:DICK applies, it does. Are you being a dick? Then you're a dick. Seems straight forward to me. This user clearly hasn't a clue what this project is about, as his recent edits have shown. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And you do? Eric Corbett 18:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding Deleting co-stars from the infobox and lead

It would be good to get some additional opinions on whether actors designated as "co-starring" should be included in the infobox and/or lead of a film article is going on at the infobox talk page. AbramTerger (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that we're incapable of having disputes over anything but the most trivial things imaginable. Well, at least I didn't start this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think editors would be wise to expand their contributions beyond the focus on such minutiae. There's so much content to be added in film articles. Not only is there content to add, it's good to "walk away" occasionally and do something else for a while. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the principle. Insisting on labelling all but the single top-billed actor as "co-starring" is indeed trivial. Removing six actors from the lead and infobox, leaving only one, is not trivial. This subheader should have been titled Deleting Co-stars, as that is what it was about. In fact, given how badly phrased the title is (Adding Co-stars intoBox and Lead), I'm going to change it now. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your change G but you know how quickly charges of refactoring talk pages can cause problems so I have added the original word and struck through it as is the usual procedure. MarnetteD|Talk 22:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Forthcoming

A couple of enthusiastic contributors asked me to drop by and explain why I had edited the lede on some articles about forthcoming film releases. Briefly, forthcoming is the established term - in all varieties of English - for an event which is imminent. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forthcoming for a formal definition. 'Upcoming' is a redundant neologism; a recently made-up word which does not do anything useful. Some readers will be able to work out what it means, of course, but it could confuse English learners or elders. Like all informal terms, it is not appropriate for use in an encyclopedia when a formal, readily understood word is already available. 'Hope that's helpful. John Snow II (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

wikt:upcoming: "Happening or appearing in the relatively near future." Since 1949[23] it has been a synonym for forthcoming. However, wikt:forthcoming: "Approaching or about to take place." Slight difference in meaning, the latter implying more imminence, which is the incorrect use for a film that is in production but has no confirmed release date. BOVINEBOY2008 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting detail there, thanks! But no, they are not two formal terms with slightly different meanings. 'Forthcoming' is a formal term with a clearly defined meaning in English dictionaries (all varieties of English) for centuries. 'Upcoming' is not a formally defined term in scholarly published dictionaries (sorry Wiktionary, you're not quite up there with the OED just yet), and until very recently was only used informally in US English. It would be a real headache to have to use a different term just for American films, so it makes a lot of sense to use the correct term throughout the Film project. John Snow II (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with using "upcoming". Just because "Forthcoming" has more history does not make "upcoming" not an English word. Is there a requirement that we only use words that are in the OED, because if so, I have not come across that suggestion in any policy or guideline. BOVINEBOY2008 23:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the OED it is a term that is mainly confined to the US, but it is a word that has been in general usage for the last 50 years in American English. That said it does seem largely synonymous with "forthcoming" which is common to all varieties of English, so I don't really have any objections to the switch; however, if editors are resisting the switch then WP:RETAIN should be observed on articles about American films. We should probably consider renaming Category:Upcoming films though, since it is a category that applies across all films of all nationalities. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

EVERY "upcoming" film I have seen in the Bollywood film space, and there are LOTS of them, mostly created as far as I can tell by editors from the Indian subcontinent speaking Indian British English, uses "upcoming" and not "forthcoming". Claims of usage only in the US will need actual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming would make more sense, esp. with the Category:Upcoming films as mentioned above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My vote = Upcoming; it's clear, precise, commonly used, and unmistakable in meaning. "Forthcoming" is too uncommon and abstruse and has too many alternate meanings, as in someone not being "forthcoming" with something -- i.e., being stingy or withholding. Softlavender (talk)

I am finding that "upcoming film" is far more common than "forthcoming film". The former has 24,500 results in Google News where the latter has 864 results. In general (on Google with domain-specific search operators), Variety has 1,030 vs. 5, The Hollywood Reporter has 3,500 vs. 435, Los Angeles Times has 6,630 vs. 518, but it does look like The New York Times has 2,370 for "upcoming film" vs. 3,530 for "forthcoming film". Looking at other highly-circulated newspapers, The Wall Street Journal has 2,670 vs. 105, and USA Today has 4,260 vs. 209. Clearly "upcoming film" is a very acceptable term in major periodicals, so I don't think there should be a systemic change. Since "forthcoming film" is acceptable, I am fine with having it in cases of WP:RETAIN, if it is an editor's personal preference in developing an article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To add on, I realize that I focused on U.S. sources. Here are how "upcoming film" vs. "forthcoming film" compares for non-U.S. sources: BBC News has 2,950 vs. 1,160, The Independent has 253 vs. 1,400. The Guardian has 488 vs. 1,160. The Times of India has 70,400 vs. 17,200. Sydney Morning Herald has 472 vs. 75. The Japan Times has 45 vs. 1. New Zealand Herald has 434 vs. 34. UK-based Empire magazine has 339 vs. 73 (I used -inurl:forum for article results.) It does seem like "forthcoming film" is more common than "upcoming film" in traditional British press, but other non-US sources seem to prefer "upcoming film" instead. Honestly, in all my years here, this is the first time I've seen someone take issue with the word "upcoming" used, and I really don't think that readers are being thrown off by it. So I stand by not doing a systemic change and being fine with use of "forthcoming" in cases of WP:RETAIN. Maybe I'll use it in British film articles. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Erik for the (as ever) stellar research. Per WP:ENGVAR and WP:STRONGNAT using "forthcoming" for UK films would seem to be acceptable. OTOH it should not replace "upcoming" in the article for US films for exactly the same reasons. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming, is NOT generally understood in the UK, nor to 'oldies' like me, to whom it also has a very 'promotional' feel. MarnetteD, makes a sensible compromise proposal, but often how do we know whether films are UK (in terms of funding etc. … or in terms of 'source or spirit'). I don't any reason to not recommend the (slightly more formal), but internationally understood 'forthcoming', though, like Erik, I wouldn't get very upset unless EITHER word was IMPOSED as standard.Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If BBC News, The Independent, The Guardian and Empire magazine are using the term "Upcoming" to any extent, one would expect it is generally understood in the UK. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

John Snow II changed "upcoming" to "forthcoming" at Interstellar (film) and Penguins of Madagascar. There is no consensus for going ahead with these changes, except maybe for articles about predominantly British films, and that is only per WP:RETAIN, if an editor was actually improving such articles. John, it is considered disruptive editing to continue edits against a clear consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

'Very impressive to see such detailed research here! My sense is that usage statistics are fascinating, but inconclusive; this is an issue of style, rather than popularity. Interesting neologisms and engaging colloquialisms can certainly add a great deal of colour and variety to a popular newspaper article or blog, yet nevertheless be quite inappropriate for a more formal text such as an encyclopedia. In this context an error, however often repeated, is still an error. It is curious to see this being interpreted as a US/UK language issue - as someone educated on both sides of the Atlantic, I don't buy that really. Nevertheless, ensuring that the correct term is at least used in 'British English' and 'Indian English' film announcements may help in the long run, and I tend concur with the pragmatism above. John Snow II (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Indian English? The Times of India uses "upcoming" far more than "forthcoming". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@John Snow II: i dont buy your reality. all of the articles created about upcoming indian films the vast majority of which are created by users who speak indian english use the term "upcoming" and no one but you has ever objected. it is not a slang term.

that you happen to be stuck in a language usage of 70 years ago is not reason to pull Wikipedia back. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

John, if you believe that the current terminology is incorrect, then please raise a WP:RFC at the relevant style guidance page. If a consensus shows it should be changed, then it will, otherwise please abide by the current MOS. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Set designers, set decorators

There are categories for both Category:Set designers and Category:Set decorators. I'm thinking these should be merged, but I'm not sure. Can somebody in this project take a look? — Brianhe (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't addressed those two categories on WP, but I can tell you for a fact set designer and set decorator are two very different jobs, so no, they should not be merged. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gothicfilm on this one. Onel5969 (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)