Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Sholay peer review

The article Sholay is in peer review. Please review the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look? We intended to take this to FAC in the near future. BollyJeff | talk 17:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Year help, please

At We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks. It was first shown in 2012 in preview form (at least to the New York Times) in Los Angeles, and may even be copyrighted 2012 (?), but lots of sources are quite sensibly saying it's a 2013 film, since it debuted in 2013 at Sundance. I'll go with whatever consensus film folk come up with. --Lexein (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We generally go with its official release date, so that would be (from the information you've given here), it'd be 2013. drewmunn talk 08:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Or more like the "first public showing" to be exact, whether it is general release, festival showing or premiere open to the public. A preview showing restricted to the NY Times isn't a public showing. Think of the year of "release" being the publication date, and that is when it is shown to the public for the first time. Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(To clarify, the preview may have included many other media outlets, but I only have the NYT reporting on it.) So, if we've settled on public first showing (2013), then we learn the copyright date (say, 2012), which gets precedence in the article and infobox? --Lexein (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Many films are completed/previewed for the media/copyrghted a year or so before they are released, but most secondary sources use the "year of release". WP:FILMLEAD also insists that we do too. A release in this context would mean a public showing as opposed to a press screening. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Belated thanks, all. --Lexein (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

American Godzilla

If anyone wants to throw themselves into an interesting situation, there is an article called American Godzilla for which there is a request to move it to just Zilla. It is an interesting case for which I would not mind additional viewpoints. Discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-narrative film

The redirect Non-narrative film, currently targetted at non-fiction, is being discussed at RfD. As part of that I have suggested merging that concept into the article fictional film (which would require only a little rewording, as it is presently mainly about the contrast) and renaming it something like Narrative and non-narrative film. Your views and comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 4#Non-narrative film would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Prometheuss - (A parody of Aliens which doesn't work very well) - Prometheus FAC 2

The above is up for Featured Article again. It's a solid article and one that should be among the very best the project can offer, but the last attempt failed purely on lack of interest, noone got involved, I am posting here so people are aware and that perhaps we can avoid the same situation again. The comments of the members here are valued, or if you know a non film project user who might have some interest in the film itself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stylized titles

Should we bother including "stylized" titles in lead's of films? I don't know how much it helps people recognize a film as it's just some usually some advertising or poster stylized text. I'm thinking like it's shown on Scary Movie 5, where it says "Scary Movie 5 (stylized as Scary MoVie)". Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the point. If we have a poster a reader can see how it is stylized. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

We also have a mention of one in Goodfellas. While I can see Betty's point I don't know that it does any harm to mention it. Way back in my early days of editing here there was some page move warring over these "stylized" titles and I think that mentioning them in the lede was a compromise to avoid this - though I could be wrong. Whoosh have eight years gone by already. MarnetteD | Talk 17:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Goodfellas?! You're a funny guy... Seven is a good example, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Heehee. Those both seem fairly simple when compared with what they did with the Layer Cake (film) title :-) I notice the poster that we have doesn't have the convoluted one that my DVD cover has. MarnetteD | Talk 18:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree in that I see no particular harm in it, especially where it may not be visible in the poster. drewmunn talk 18:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that there's no harm, but it just seems kind of silly and kind of non-notable. Unless films have a several really different titles, such as Female Vampire or something, we should probably stick to common titles in the lead, and expand on alternative titles in sub-sections if they are actually different enough or important enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

In several of the ones mentioned the stylized version is the common title. It is Wikipedia's naming conventions that forced a change in the title that is seen onscreen and in all promotional and home release materials. A brief parenthetical mention in the lede would seem to handle the situation quickly and without having to go into unnecessary detail about why we didn't used the common title. On the other hand if it was truly non-notable then I am not sure that we would need to mention it at all let alone in a separate section of the article. We should leave this thread for others to respond to for a few more days and then we coould proceed from there. MarnetteD | Talk 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Aren't there edit wars from people who try to introduce the stylized title anyway? It seems like including them in an appropriate manner would prevent the edit wars. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with you Marnette. Since we are all sort of stating our opinions and not really discussing it, maybe we should take it to a Support / Remove kind of thing. That way, we can get a standard on what people want. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it should depend on how unusual it is. For example, I find the Goodfellas/GoodFellas distinction pedantic. However, something like Seven/Se7en is worth the mention, especially if we can at least verify that kind of styling has been pretty widely noticed. Another consideration is accessibility; visually impaired readers may benefit from what amounts to an alternative text highlighting of something that's obvious to others. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this; for instance, it may be good to specify that titles that are the same as their stylised counterparts should they both be rendered in all-caps then no extra mention is necessary. Anyway, as an attempt to move this forward, I'll play devils advoccate and open a proposal below for their removal. drewmunn talk 19:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

In an effort to reach consensus, or otherwise move this forward, I'll ask for your opinions on the following statement:

• Stylised titles should not be mentioned in the lede

I personally oppose this proposal, what do you think? Should we develop this into something that separates the wheat (Se7en) from the chaff (GoodFellas)? Anyway, opinions on the above proposal would be a good start. drewmunn talk 19:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I don't mean to rain on your parade Sdd and thanks for getting things going. Perhaps we could rework things this way as this seems reflect the discussion above. Depending on which of these sections other editors like responding to we could collapse the one that isn't used.

Stylised titles should be mentioned parenthetically in the lede

1. I support this version. It keeps things brief and acknowledges the item without overemphasizing it. Most (though not all) alternate titles are handled this way and this keeps things going in that vein. MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support for the same reason. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support for the same reason. This also seems a good time to note a distinction between a stylized onscreen spelling that neither print publications nor studio promotional materials generally use, such as "Se7en," and a movie's official, onscreen title. As an encyclopedia, we need to be the place people come to to see for themselves that the title is Die Hard 2 and not Die Hard 2: Die Harder (to give just one of a million examples). In this case, which doesn't involve any stylization, the official, onscreen name of the movie does not go secondarily within parentheses. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support as per above. drewmunn talk 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stylised titles should be mentioned in body of the article

1. Support. I don't think they help the user with any information, unlike things like alternative title and break up the word flow of the introductory sentence. Alternative titles that are just graphic design should only be mentioned if there is enough information to back them up in some sort of promotion section, which could be used for articles like Se7en or something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Film series articles

The article Journey (film series) is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (film series) due to only two films in the series. I invite editors to weigh in to determine a consensus and perhaps set a precedent since MOS:FILM#Film series is currently empty. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's something we need to develop a few guidelines for, and then apply them to Kill Bill. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association of America

On the talk page of Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA Kyle (talk · contribs) is an editor who works for the MPAA and is proposing updates to one of the article's sections. His proposal can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

R.I.P.D.‎ Genre discussion

There is a discussion on the talk page of R.I.P.D.‎ based on adding genres to films that haven't been released yet. If anyone is willing to take part in the discussion it would be greatly appreciated! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)‎

Peer review request

The article on the film Sholay is in peer review. Please help in improving the article. All comments will be highly valued. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

A set of proposals regarding awards in infoboxes has begun here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Awards in infobox. Any thoughts and input will be appreciated. Also, if you think this link should be included on any other projects talk page please feel free to cut and paste this to them. MarnetteD | Talk 16:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Should ArcLight Hollywood be renamed?

As the company expands from its single location into a chain (currently with 5 locations), should the article be renamed to ArcLight Cinemas to better cover the entire company? Alternatively, if the Hollywood location is notable enough to have a standalone article, then should a new article be created to cover the chain? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say we can have two articles. ArcLight Hollywood was notable before the expansion, and the added theaters make it worth having a company article at ArcLight Cinemas. I Googled both terms with the modifier site:latimes.com, and there seems to be coverage for both the flagship theater and the company in general. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Bengali film lists move requests

Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Review on The Evil Dead

The GA reviewer is requesting a copyedit to clean up the prose, can someone take a look at the article? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness plot summary ... again.

Star Trek Into Darkness was released yesterday in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, parts of Europe, Peru. It was released in Mexico today. These are not special "premiere" screenings, but showings in the usual theaters open to the general public. But one editor over at the page is insisting that this does not count as a "general release" and so a plot summary cannot be posted yet. In an edit summary he has claimed that "since it isn't in general release, there's no way to verify plot." he also has asked people who disagree with him to ask over here for confirmation that he is right. Anyone want to weigh in? 99.192.50.95 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion, but perhaps the anonymous IP account (one of several in succession, it would so appear) could share with us a citation that indicates the film has been generally released in these countries, as opposed to special, pre-release screenings? There is a difference between those and a general release, which the studio itself has moved it from May 17 to a day earlier, and for IMAX, the 15th. A glimpse at my calendar puts the earliest of those dates as almost a week away. Plot summaries allow all editors to contribute to the plot summary, not just a selected few who saw a pre-screening. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It was certainly released in UK cinemas yesterday - and that's generally, not special screenings or pre-releases. See dates of release. SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviews, even reviews of preview screenings, include enough to write a plot summary. This is done very frequently. Refusal by a single editor to allow plot summaries unless the film is in general release is, IMHO, indefensible, and not standard practice in film articles, and is disruptive. --Lexein (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course, you are wrong, Lexein. It wasn't a "refusal by a single editor", which could have been easily avoided by, you know, that pesky practice of looking before editing. In point of fact, most agreed not to post before general release - based upon the idea that plot summaries are created by a consensus of editors, not a select few who attend a pre-release screening. Since a wider release has occurred, consensus has shifted (myself included). So, your comment is, you know, ill-informed and, you know, dickish. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair Jack it was once it was in general release within the UK. You refused to see it as a general release until editors unanimously called you up as wrong. Hat off to you though buddy, you did take a break from the page to cool down (intentionally or not) and when you came back you had a much cooler head on your shoulders. :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File:The Red Movie Poster.jpg

File:The Red Movie Poster.jpg has been nominated for deletoin -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves

Several film-related requested moves are underway:

• (Discuss) – Miracle on 34th Street → Miracle on 34th Street (1947 film)
• (Discuss) – The Champ → The Champ (1931 film)
• (Discuss) – Brazil (film) → Brazil (1985 film)
• (Discuss) – Room at the Top → Room at the Top (1959 film)
• (Discuss) – See No Evil (film) → See No Evil (2006 film)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sightseers film poster

Hello, I am wondering if other editors see the new English-language file at File:Sightseers film poster.jpg. I replaced the French-language poster, but I still see the French-language poster as the main image of the file page. The French-language poster also still shows at Sightseers. I tried a hard refresh to see if the page would update, but that did not work. I'm wondering if it is a problem with the image upload system itself. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing the English on the article, the French on the File page. Caching issue, I think. Give it a few minutes...  drewmunn  talk  18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

et voilà! It's changed.  drewmunn  talk  08:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good! :) For some reason, I had the same issue at The East (film), and that took much longer to actually change. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's worth mentioning to someone. It's something on the server, but I wonder if it's actually meant to happen, or whether it's a glitch.  drewmunn  talk  11:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall

Morning! Would a couple of you be able to mosey on down to the Skyfall talk page and take a look at the conversation occuring at the bottom regarding edit warring. Much appreciated!  drewmunn  talk  08:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications

Wikipedia now has notifications that we can use to our benefit. In addition to seeing new messages on our user talk pages, we can also see when other editors mention our user names (in linked form) on another talk page. This can be used to "summon" other editors, to give them a heads-up of a discussion they may want to join. (Especially if there is a likelihood that the person does not have a page on his or her watchlist.) Templates to this end that I've seen so far are {{user link}} and {{replyto}}. The latter is probably best used to direct a specific comment in discussions with multiple participants, where the former can be used for the aforementioned "summoning". This is what I have seen so far; if there are other ways to benefit from the notifications, share with us here. :) Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifying a featured article candidacy

The article Kahaani is a featured article candidate. Please comment in the FAC page. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Screenwriter templates on film articles?

{{Jo Swerling}} was created a couple of days ago and added to a whole raft of film articles. As I understood it we only added "director" templates to films articles, so I was wondering how commonplace it is to add screenwriter templates? Personally I think it's an open door for template spam, since it is not unusual for a script to pass through several writers, some of which may have made relatively small contibutions. Do we have any guidelines on which templates should be added to articles? Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Betty, I checked a few films that recently were nominated for major Academy Awards and found a number of them with writer templates attached. Moneyball (film) has two, one for Template:Aaron Sorkin and one for Template:Steven Zaillian. Other films have templates attached for writers Template:Diablo Cody, Template:Peter Morgan, and Template:Charlie Kaufman. Even The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has Template:Guillermo del Toro attached, and he's only the fourth credited writer and the article has seven templates attached in total. So I think it's common enough and I think they pass the spam test. 99.192.52.19 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think all of those templates belong to people who have directed or otherwise gained notability in other fields as well such as book writing. The writer herself while notable for ana rticle does not really need a template, and I think the practice of creating a template for and adding every single template possible for every crew member no matter how tangential like apparently in the case of the Hobbit, is just abusing the system. Steven Spielberg executive produced? Add the template! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is where do you stop: directors, writers, producers, actors? I can understand a director template being added to a film article because they are perceived as the principal author, or one for a playwright being added to plays, or authors added to novels, but beyond that it seems pretty arbitrary. These film crew templates should be limited to principal authorship i.e. the director, and a single writer—or team such as the Coens—in the case of original screenplays. When you have 3/4 people—whose contributions may just amount to a bit of script doctoring—adapting someone else's novel, their claim on being a principal author is a bit of a stretch. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Def. not actors. There's already a consensus on that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Darkwarriorblake - A few of those templates are for people who are only notable as writers, and Jo Swerling has a non-movie writing credit that is notable as well, so I don't see the cases as so distinct. Also, even the people I used as examples who have non-writing notability have their templates added to articles for films where their only contribution was as a writer, like the two writer templates on Moneyball (film).

In reply to Betty - I agree that it could open the door to people arguing for more template add-ons, and I am not really sure what to say about that. Personally, I don't understand why we need both "List of X" pages when we have "Category:X" (eg; List of horror films of the 2010s and Category:2010s horror films), but there are a ton of those. Similarly, since there is a Woody Allen filmography page, the Template:Woody Allen seems unnecessary. Or since why we need all of Alfred Hitchcock filmography, Template:Alfred Hitchcock, Category:Films directed by Alfred Hitchcock. There seem to be a lot of redundancies that I don't really understand.

But I would say this about writers: Yes, like Guillermo del Toro on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, sometimes the writer being added by template might have had only a very small role in writing the film, but in general the number of credited writers is small and the contribution to the film thought significant. So on the whole, I'd say I don't really have a preference one way or the other since the information is already all quite easily available anyway, but part of that indifference is because I am not sure I really understand how even director templates are useful, given that lists of their complete credits are easy to get on their own page, a "list" page, a "category" page, or all three. 99.192.50.54 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.52.19)

Read WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We should not have navigation templates for crew members other than the director because the other roles can vary in importance. A navigation template has to be comprehensive, so if we have a screenwriter template, it necessarily includes everything he or she has done. A director template can be problematic that way too, with certain directors not having their name advertised in trailers, but it is a singular enough position for having that specific kind of template in general. Beyond that leads to too many templates. We already link to crew members' names when pertinent, and screenwriters are frequently considered pertinent enough for linking in and outside the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that these template can be fun to make but these really are a template too far. They will be prone to bloating since there will be many examples of X was brought in to rework the script and received an onscreen credit even though the bulk of the work was done by Y. I would recommend listing them as a group at WP:TFD and see whther a consensus can be arrived at there. MarnetteD | Talk 16:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Joy Luck Club and The Joy Luck Club (film)

I nominated the film article to be part of the "Did you know..." project. I want your help on researching the novel or film and expanding or copyediting either article. There are sources to look at: [1] and [2]. To Google it, type "The Joy Luck Club" (film OR movie) in Google Books. --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cult film is up for peer review

I just put up Cult film for peer review. I've almost completely rewritten the article, expanding it greatly, but I've received little feedback. I've raised a few issues in the peer review, but any feedback at all would be welcome. This is my first major undertaking, in six years of sporadic editing. I think the article looks pretty decent, but I'm obviously a bit biased. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes to the definition section to make a little more encyclopaedic in style, but otherwise, I feel it's good. I'll take a more thorough look at it tomorrow, but all seems fairly dandy at the moment. Well done!  drewmunn  talk  19:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian film at Requested Moves

Some editors maybe interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming film category up for deletion

As part of a group nomination. The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded: An invitation

Greetings, film editors. On behalf of the Vital Articles project, I would like to extend a personal invitation to you to participate in the ongoing discussions regarding films, filmmakers and actors at the Vital Articles/Expanded main talk page. There are currently 16 pending discussions regarding specific films to be added, removed or swapped from the existing VA/E sublist of films, as well as 21 active discussions regarding actors and actresses, and seven discussions regarding film directors and producers. As regular editors in WikiProject Film, we would welcome your knowledgeable participation in these discussions. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Template for deletion: Fast and Furious Chronology

Template up for deletion, please discuss. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Les Misérables (2012 film) reception section.

Hello. There's a discussion regarding the reception section of the Les Miserables film article. The discussion is at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Reception section. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Colour vs. Color

Would be grateful for some help with the correct title of Blue Is the Warmest Colour. Please see the edit history and talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This has now turned into a requested move. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on French film titles

Could someone point me in the right direction of the MOS that deals with French naming conventions. For example, should the French title in the intro of Blue Is the Warmest Colour be La vie d'Adèle or La Vie d'Adèle? Apparently this is something everyone knows. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

La Vie d'Adèle, if I read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/France_and_French-related#Works_of_art correctly. This is also the capitalization used on frwp. jonkerz ♠talk 20:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jonkerz. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Iron Man & Jarvis

There is an ongoing discussion at the Edwin Jarvis talk page regarding the way we refer to Tony Stark's computer system. Could I please ask for your views on the matter? Thanks.  drewmunn  talk  10:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review.

Just curious if A-Class reviews still exist here? I followed a instruction here and created this. But it doesn't seem to clearly be used as a assessment now. Should the instruction page still be here then? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We do not have A-class reviews, unfortunately. Someone asked the same question last month; see this discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will request a speedy delete the project page. What is the instruction page still doing here though? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Linking to full film via YouTube in External Links?

Is there a consensus (or ideally a policy) regarding posting links to full copies of movies on YouTube? I'm in a dispute with an editor regarding the appropriateness of doing so. I'm presuming the link itself is legal and not a copyvio. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the link is legal. The home page seems to be this, and when I write "starship-troopers" in the URL like how Jack Reacher has "jack-reacher" in the URL, I see this, which requires payment. It might be that the URL that the editor is adding may be an illegal workaround. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"This movie is not available in your country" is another reason to remove it. Copyvio or not, I think the link should be avoided due to its commercial nature. We should not favor some providers over others. jonkerz ♠talk 01:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Doniago (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree here, if it's a commercial link, we shouldn't include it, just as we don't list sites where you can purchase the DVD. However, if the film is made available via YouTube for free by the distributors, then it's a different matter...  drewmunn  talk  06:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If the link serves only a purely commercial purpose it should not be included. The only exception I can think of is when such a link is a "unique resource" i.e. if a film were only distributed online through a single provider, which clearly isn't the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, see WP:YOUTUBE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that this is even up for discussion. It seems to me that nothing could be more relevant to an article about a film than a full YouTube video of that film, which is an authorized upload (not copyvio), and is viewable for free just for watching a couple of ads. Hgrosser (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have to watch ads, then it's a commercial link, and therefore not acceptable. Also note that it is only available in some territories. Now, if it was on archive.org or similar, or made available free (i.e. no ads) by the distributors, then you might have a case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The case I was specifically thinking of as an example was Tell, which was initially released via YouTube. It is ad-free and free to watch, and there are a growing number of such films (especially shorts and indies) appearing on YouTube and similar sites as it becomes a more recognised distribution platform.  drewmunn  talk  11:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd probably agree it would be acceptable in that specific case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure it's fair—or at least consistent— for us to say, "If you have to watch ads, then it's a commercial link, and therefore not acceptable." We link to commercial sites all the time; the majority of newspapers we cite exist for financial gain and carry advertising in their online incarnations. For another example among many, we're quite happy to link to academic journals that are behind enormous paywalls. Wikipedia couldn't operate the way it does without links to commercial sites. Even the EL section, which one could at least argue is not vital enough to waive such links through, seldom does without. The majority we include as standard (IMDB, Wikia, etc.) are commercial in nature and will assault the eyes in a far more distracting manner than a couple of ads before a film. I have no idea whether the link the OP gives is legal or not, but in a theoretical future situation where such a link is presented for our consideration, I don't think it should be dismissed on the commercial aspect alone. Steve ^T • C 21:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We link to newspapers as sources, not external links. WP:EL draws this distinction. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Um, I think you need to read my comments again, because that's not the point I was making. To be clear, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of this link, just pointing out the contradiction of arguing that a theoretically legal link to an ad-supported full film in the EL section is somehow worse than that Trek link I pulled from the same section of the Into Darkness page. Steve ^T • C 07:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a commercial link just because there are ads to support it. A commercial link is a site or page whose main purpose is to sell things. Articles on companies have links to their official sites (usually as the first one in the list), many of whose main purpose is to promote the sale of those companies’ products. Just about every worthwhile video on YouTube is preceded by an ad that you have to sit through. Just about every site on the Web, that you don’t have to sign up and pay for, has ads to support it. If somehow we could embed links to over-the-air broadcast channels in articles, would that be unacceptable just because these channels are filled with annoying commercials? In this specific case of Starship Troopers there’s only a single additional ad in the middle of the film, which is shown by a yellow dot in the video timeline, and which you can force to play at the beginning if you wish by clicking to the right of it, after which you can view the film undisturbed. Hgrosser (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what your dictionary says, but mine states that commercial is [a broadcast method that is] funded by the revenue of broadcast advertisements. As such, that link is commercial. Having the advertisement forced as part of your viewing, no matter whether it is in the middle or at the beginning, makes that commercial viewing.  drewmunn  talk  21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not see the link as commercial as it does not seem to fall under anything at WP:ELNO. However, like I mentioned above, the "starship-troopers" URL leads to a page where payment is clearly required. It is the same interface as the link you tried to add, so I am concerned that the specified URL is inappropriately a workaround. Is there any background to this particular setup? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I simply did a YouTube search for Starship Troopers (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Starship+Troopers), and that link came up at the top of the list, as it just did when I just repeated the search. However, earlier today the result was to the link that charges you $7.99 to watch the film (always one or the other, not both), so maybe it varies by time of day or some other criterion. The YouTube channel that offers these films, Crackle, has its own site http://crackle.com, but the technical quality is better on YouTube. Hgrosser (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: If you do the search as I specified above, you get the free version. But if you specify “long” (meaning 20 mins. or more), either by adding “,long” to the search terms (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Starship+Troopers%2Clong) or by checking the “long” box from the filters box on the results page (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Starship+Troopers&filters=long), you get the pay version, both of which are the same length. (2:09:46) Hgrosser (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it is Crackle, whose parent company is Sony Pictures, that is streaming this film for free. See this. I would suggest including that link instead of YouTube (with an "at Crackle" modifier) since YouTube raises red flags as it did here. Per WP:ELYES #2, we can link to this legally distributed copy as long as it does not run afoul of WP:ELNO. I am not sure if any of these criteria restrict this link from being used. Possibilities are #7 (country-specific) or #16 (as I see expiration dates for some films). I do not consider seeing advertising as a reason to restrict the link; IMDb and the other "staple" external links have advertising. What do others think about linking directly to Crackle and if it is permissible per WP:ELYES #2 without any WL:ELNO preventions? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, but we should also have a subsidiary link also that goes to the YouTube version for those who prefer that — it has features not available on Crackle’s own site such as two window sizes and the ability to jump back 2 seconds by pressing the back arrow key. Hgrosser (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not something that I think should happen, else we're basically starting a directory of possible viewing options. It's not really our place to provide different content options because a user may prefer one to another, the content is there as a citation and example of that which is described.  drewmunn  talk  10:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Erik, #7 and #16 both apply here. Also, we are not here to increase traffic to commercial sites such as Crackle. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, some of you keep saying "no commercial site". What in the external link guidelines says that? Internet Movie Database and Rotten Tomatoes are two commercial sites we often link to. I mean, a link to a legally distributed copy is inevitably going to be commercially based. I want to clear that up before looking at the WP:ELNO criteria. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTPROMOTION could be interpreted as such, plus probably a few more on WP:NOT. Maybe this needs wider input from the community for clarification of guidelines at WP:EL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In software articles, you're actively encouraged to link to the official site for the software, which are nearly always in some way commercial. I think it's better to link to a commercial site that offers the product for free (but ad supported) than not link to it at all, link to a paid distributor, or link to an illegal version.  drewmunn  talk  11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but this isn't the "official site" for the film, but a third party that (currently) has the rights to broadcast it (in some territories). It's okay to link to Crackle for an article about Crackle, but we shouldn't be promoting their site in other articles. If we add a Crackle link here, why not for every film in their catalogue? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"If we add a Crackle link here, why not for every film in their catalogue?" That would be acceptable to me. WP:ELYES #2 is two of just three points under "What can normally be linked", so I think it is reasonable to treat such a link "as a unique resource" (per WP:ELNO #1). Crackle may be a third party, but it is operating as a legal host with no registration needed. I really do not think that kind of setup is common, especially not needing registration. If needed, we can post about Crackle at WP:EL/N to see what editors who specialize in ELs have to say. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've popped something on the noticeboard. Commercial issues aside, we're still failing #7 and #16 though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

All external links go to 'commercial sites' (and also the references); for every external link that we add, someone is making money with that site. Every site is commercial, even cnn.com and wikipedia.org. Thát is not the point of not linking to commercial sites, and that is not a reason to exclude the link - it is a reason when an external site just has a 'buy me' button, no added info, no nothing else. Does it primarily exist to sell, or does it give significant extra info?

Looking at this site, however, I find "In April 2009, Crackle blocked access to anyone not in the United States of America. On June 8, 2010, Crackle announced it had opened up access to selected content on the site to viewers in the UK, Canada and Australia" worrying .. it is simply not available in the majority of the world, where many English speaking people live (including countries which have English as their main language like India, or me as a non-native English, born in a country that does not have access, living in a country that also does not have access, still, most of the movies I watch have, at best, English subtitles, sometimes subtitles in a language I do not speak/read, or most of the time, simply have no subtitles ...). That, simply, fails an important part of our WP:EL guideline - the material is inaccessible to a large part of the readers. Moreover, there are still people who can not access YouTube, even in the supported countries, due to the devices they are using (viewing YouTube movies needs the correct software), or speed-restrictions. For me, YouTube links (in general) simply fail WP:EL in such ways, that they should not be linked unless they really add something that is otherwise detrimental to the understanding of the page - which is not the case with the full movie.

Is this content available through the official site of the movie - http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/starshiptroopers/ ? If Sony, through Crackle, provides this movie online, this link should be there from the sonypictures page, which would make YouTube and/or Crackle not necessary (if a mainpage of a subject prominently links to their facebook and twitter, we do not also include the facebook and twitter in our list of external links, the official site if enough).

By the way, I think that there is already a linkfarm on the page, do all these external links provide unique information that is a) not already in the Wikipedia article itself, and b) is not already provided by all the others, and is that unique information that site number 5 is giving really extending the information that is not already there through the others (and similar, as I mention above, does the YouTube full video add anything significant that is not provided already?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw the note at ELN. I've been thinking about it for a few days. I think I'd avoid it. A reasonable number of ads is okay, but it (based on comments above) fails WP:ELNO#EL7 by not working outside the US, and when it asks for payment, then in fails WP:ELNO#EL6. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the two comments above. If the video was accessible worldwide I would be ok with it. ThemFromSpace 17:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dwight H. Little and Deep Blue

I planned to create Deep Blue (2003 film) to provide a blue link at Walking with Dinosaurs (film), and in my looking around, I noticed Deep Blue (2001 film). It is supposedly directed by Dwight H. Little, who is known for a few other films. However, I could not find coverage about the 2001 film. I only saw mentions of verifiability, but I suspect that such mentions were only cribbed from IMDb. AMG (at The New York Times) does not mention Deep Blue, and BFI's Film Index International (very comprehensive) mentions all the other films under Dwight Little except this one. Is Deep Blue a hoax or some obscure personal project? I wanted to bring it up in particular since this is a director known for other works and since IMDb's listings were likely referenced by sources that do mention it. Anyone else able to shed further light on the matter? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I found a few mentions here and there, such as this link and a brief mention on Dread Central and IGN. It does seem to exist, but it looks to be a fairly non-notable flick that ran solidly under the radar, so I don't think it was a hoax. I think it's just one of those direct to video jobs where it was filmed, but was never really widely released or mentioned, except in relation to something else the director has done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Gertie the Dinosaur FAC

I've nominated Gertie the Dinosaur for Featured Article status. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review. All feedback is much appreciated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're prepping it to put on the Main Page for its 100th anniversary this February! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actor navigation templates

The navigation templates {{Common}}, {{Pink}}, {{RZA}}, {{Erykah Badu}} (and probably more) are being inserted in film articles because of each person's appearance. Per MOS:FILM#Navigation, these should not be placed in such articles. I'm removing what I can but could use a hand. Anyone have a way to automate removal? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed {{Bette Midler}} as well. Should these receive a TFD? While I have no idea whether the albums and songs are okay the films should be removed per the policy that Erik mentions. MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with such templates is that their roles range from minor to major, and regardless, they make up only one part of the whole film. What I've done is removed the list of film appearances and removed them with a link to the filmography section on a person's article. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If the template soley exists to list acting credits, head to TFD with it. With these, remove the filmography section and then start removing them from the film articles (or vice-versa). I did this with the Lindsey Lohan template a while ago. Prepare for reverts to the template though. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Good advice. Also, this demonstrates the indiscriminate nature of adding templates where there's a media appearance. That series has a rotating celebrity panel. Can't imagine that page having a template for each famous person. If a removal is reverted, this discussion should be referred to. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review

1. Fuck (film)
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man name change

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) had 2012 in it's title because another film supposedly had that title. But now one editor moved the other film's name saying that the film wasn't referred to as that. Does this mean that the 2012 film should probably be renamed to as just (film) in it's title? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd support the move, and BBFC backs this up; the earlier film was entitled Spider-Man. A search of their archives also returns nothing else for "The Amazing Spider-Man".  drewmunn  talk  14:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although we'll need to be careful with linking. And I've moved Spider-Man (film) to Spider-Man (2002 film) to properly disambiguate, but also some more link clean-up needed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and requested it then. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To Round or not to Round that is the question.

So I have just come across Darkwarriorblake and User:Asd17 edit warring over on Fast and Furious 6 over the rounding of the Box office totals. I point out that GA articles that are specific according to the Box Office Mojo and other reliable sources and then he comes out out a load of other GA articles (all of which he edits) all with rounded. Info box parameters aren't very specific and nor is MOS. Any insight you could all provide would be great.

I am for being specific because the info box is ideal for posting precise figures like that and it is a lot easier to read rounded numbers within the context of the article. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter that I edit them? Did I stealth edit in the rounded figure after they passed or did they pass regardless? And again, Prometheus is a featured article now (waiting for the BOT to update it), and that uses a rounded figure as well. When dealing with millions of dollars, the end numbers become meaningless, if it earned 400 million dollars or 400 million 100 dollars, the only part that people care about is the 400 million, the only thing which has any bearing on its success is the 400 million, and when such formatting is in place, there is no guideline that demands it be changed. Industry sources do not report it in long form manner, and BOM like all other sites, has estimates from countries that actually report figures or can track figures. In Fast and Furious 6's case, the user kept changing it, I restored it WITH reasoning that was not argued against in any manner, which is not a justification against the justification I was giving for the formatting in place. So I'm not sure why you've opened this discussion, because quite frankly I am in the right there, and when you challenged me on it I presented you with multiple examples I have to hand that back up that, that way is acceptable and part of successful articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If the figure in the infobox is being cited by Box Office Mojo, and that website is showing the specific total, then that's what should be used in the infobox. Rounding it off, and using different information to back it up, is WP:OR. And Darkwarriorblake, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that you're right. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rounding is OR? Gimme a break. It's pretty silly to raise "other stuff" when the argument here is that "other stuff" uses long form, cuts both ways and there is no guideline so I direct you back to my argument which is what is in place works without some justification for change, rounding is NOT OR, that is the biggest reach I've seen in a while. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The "other stuff" I'm referring to, is the fact that you're using other articles that you've rounded, as examples to back up your POV [3]. And I stand behind my assertion, that if Box Office Mojo is to be used as a reference, the number being used should match the number listed at that website. Using Box Office Mojo as a reference, to back up a number that is NOT listed there, is misleading. Please keep in mind that this discussion was created in order to form a consensus, and that taking this personally is not helpful or constructive. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally I'm debating, you raised points and I pointed out that they were invalid points. It is not OR to round figures and there is no misrepresentation. Again, an article has been raised to FA status doing this. What does it matter if I'VE rounded the figures? Do you want to point out how the rounding was inaccurate? Or are you not able to? The articles in question are what I have at hand because I don't keep a directory of articles with rounded figures, it is no different than saying "these articles do it the other way" except I can actually back up what I'm saying and show that they've seen success regardless. Claiming that two numbers that are the same while rounded beyond numbers of any significance are different is a pedantic and unreasonable argument, you know it is not true, you can not honestly claim that you are looking at the rounded number and being misinformed or that it is in any way modifying the perception of the film in question. Then we come back to BOM being only one source of this information which can differ from others. If you want, I can go and add every single possible box office figure from every source to the infobox to ensure we are not getting an inaccurate picture, 6 or 7 different numbers that might differ by a few hundred dollars and I'll throw in the rounded ones also, and I will expect you to leave them all in place lest someone get confused. OR we can accept that the figures are estimations and offer the rounded figure that industry sources use themselves. Misrepresenting the evidence I brought forward I find incredibly unhelpful and non-constructive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

On the OR issue, I would like to clarify it is not OR to round figures; basic arithmetic calculations are permitted. There is no MOS guideline for this simply because both formats have always been considered acceptable. Box Office Mojo may report a figure to the dollar so in theory we can be as precise as they are, but in reality does anyone care about anything after the decimal point? One format offers precision, the other uniformity, and personally I can't think of a compelling argument to swing it either way. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of if you stealth edited or not. Point is that there are two competently opposing views. Neither is correct or incorrect, but the point you seem to be making is that you dont like it. Despite other editors disagreeing with you. 95% of the articles I come across editors are using the full number in the info box and rounding in the article. Mainly because the rounding is, unless they are providing a direct reference to the amount the film made, is a lot easier to read. Besides, where do we round from? The nearest Million? Hundred Thousand? Thousand? Hundred? Who gets to decide it? -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"but the point you seem to be making is that you dont like it" that's an outright lie, I've stated why the rounding is superior multiple times, never once have I said it was because I just didn't like it so I suggest you retract that. As ford says, other stuff exists is not an excuse, you're talking about thousand of articles, some with little oversight and people simply copy and paste, this is the reality. Do you type out the BOM figure or do you highlight, CTRL+C, CTRL+V? Be honest now. Rounding requires additional effort and users simply don't think of it, just copy and paste, job done. That is not a justification, it's not a cause, it's a function, why type and round when you can copy and v? There is no guideline that enforces that style so why do you think that users do it that way other than they look at the source and copy and paste. As for the last part of your query, to the fourth significant figure if there is one, that is the standard, unless talking in abstract -> "earned over $400 million", you wouldn't say "earned over $400.1 million". If it is 400,101,202, the figure would be $400.1 million, if it is 400,000,202, then it'd be $400 million, it isn't hard and it is how the figures are reported in decent box office sections now (excluding opening summary if there is one) and how industry professional sources cite it even post exit from the theaters.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No I wont. Because you put in the rounded figure because you prefer it to the other version no? The reason you don't put in the full number is because you don't like it and you feel that it is "superior". So what if people Copy/Paste. It doesn't matter. Doesn't mean that they aren't making an effort or lazy as you put it. They are still providing a valid edit. Besides Copy/Paste is a good way to ensure that an accurate figure is being given and that mistakes from typos aren't being made. Besides, I believe you are missing the point I am making. I am saying the precise figures should be used in the infobox and where relevant the main article. Putting the rounded figures in the article body is better than a full figure because it makes for better reading. But for the infobox the precise figures should be used. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave and have given reasons here and in articles for why I prefer using that format, preference does not undermine those reasons, why would you do something you don't prefer? So you will take back your false statement or provide evidence for where I have said I don't like the other format and that's the only reason why I don't use it. Or you can admit you're lying about what I have said. Preferring precision but giving no reason for why an estimated yet somehow precise figure is beneficial isn't an argument. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This could be one of those cases where a number with too many significant digits implies a precision in the measurement that does not match reality. We don't know any film's actual box office down to the dollar! Unless it's less than 100. There is so much error in these numbers that it is arbitrary past two or three lead digits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ring Cinema about the fact that having it to the dollar is overly precise. Such figures are reported for a studio's bottom line, but I do not think it imparts value for Wikipedia's readers. To put it plainly, it's chump change. I support rounding (and do not see it as original research) as a more direct way to read the numbers that matter, the ones at the beginning. I would say that precise figures are more acceptable with indie films that only gross tens of thousands of dollars. I don't know about making such practice a guideline, though. Maybe apply MOS:RETAIN in these cases? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact you prefer another format over another implies you don't like the other one. You don't like it because you don't think it is a reliable precise figure. Don't forget we are an encyclopedia guys, it is our job to provide precise figures where appropriate and where they are found. Especially when those figures are so regularly available. Darkwarriorblake is the only editor I have come accross who is actively reverting other editors and edit warring over another equally correct format. -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like it. I used the exact figures for the longest time, but I think I rounded one day to resolve edit warring and decided that it was an improvement. (And yet here we are with a different kind of edit warring... haha.) For me, the logic is that it is straightforward and simple to read $30.5 million as opposed to $30,514,925. It is marginal, but I find it better. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, so we are not compelled to cover every nuance. We don't mention all the actors, we don't cover technical specs unless relevant to context, and we don't have to report box office figures to the dollar. I don't find value lost in rounding; I find value added in improving readability. Another way to think about it is that when the trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter talk about the box office in prose, they do not get that detailed. They say something like, "The film had a $50 million opening weekend." Granted, Monday reports are estimates, but I think even in retrospect, they still don't ever get that specific. It's something to acknowledge. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Is the rounding of some numbers really worth all of this? If this keeps up much longer, this may qualify for WP:LAME. If you make the change to one number (rounded or not) and someone reverts you, here's some advice: let it go. Like I said already, it's not worth it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not like a debate over whether something should be "color" or "colour". By rounding we are changing the fundamental nature of the information—sacrificing precision to improve readability/digestibility. It feels like an area the MOS should address to me, but my own views on the matter are mixed. I would like to see a wider range of views. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The "precise" figure is accurate for a very short time; the rounded figure, longer. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Erik I was talking to Darwarrierblake. In my defence, this may seem lame, and the only reason I raise the issue is because I came across the two said editors warring over it, whatever I see on pages, rounded or not, I tend to leave it be. I realise that it is an MOS issue, but thought the best place to start was here. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the only reason I offered my opinion, was because of the edit warring. I apologize for comparing this issue to WP:OR, I realize now that was a mistake. But I still think that it's wrong somehow, to use BOM as a reference in an infobox, if that figure has been modified from what is listed on the website. Personally, it doesn't make much difference to me, as long as we come to a consensus about whether either (or both) ways are acceptable. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Created new article Steve Anderson (director)

• Steve Anderson (director)

I've created a new article on the film director, Steve Anderson (director).

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be welcomed, at Talk:Steve Anderson (director). — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film)

Eyes needed to determine whether the prominent addition of the opinion of an unknown reviewer writing for a non-notable website should be removed per WP:WEIGHT or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the addition, but I'm assuming you brought it here so you don't have to continue to edit war over it. If not, please don't revert it again as I'm sure you're aware of WP:3RR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worth having a discussion about the validity of the review. All I see so far is edit warring with both sides presuming with ease that they are in the right. "Non-notable" as used by Beyond My Ken and MarnetteD is meaningless; notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. We reference film critics whose own names may not be known, but the publications are known. (For example, Justin Chang of Variety.) In addition, while World Socialist Web Site is not a mainstream publication, it appears to be an acceptable reference, as it is seen in Google Books results. The question is, in what situations do we use such political references in a film article? Someone needs to start a discussion; such dialogue cannot happen in edit summaries. A good start would be to consider if the film has any larger socialist coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I would almost certainly say that the World Socialist Web Site isn't qualifed to provide film reviews, but it seems to be held in sufficient esteem to provide political insight, and the V for Vendetta (film) article actually has a section dedicated to observations of a political nature. I think the addition would serve as an effective counterpoint to the comment by David Graeber in that section (2nd paragraph), and it's just a case of making it a bit more integrated into the article. If we choose to reject Walsh's analysis I don't personally see an argument for retaining Graeber's: both seem qualified to discuss the concepts of democracy and anarchy, and they offer opposing views, so we should address both perspectives or ditch the point completely. Given the theme of the film it seems a reasonable thing to cover to me. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late addition. In the last couple weeks we suddenly had we had an uptick in additions [4], [5], [6], [7] (among several others) of WSWS reviews by Walsh so, along with notability I had COI and selfpromotion concerns. I now note that most of the reviews were added by a different editor than the one editing on V for V. While I don't think the reviews on their own merit inclusion if Erik, Betty or any other editors can find ways to include them in the articles with better context then I will be glad to have any of the removals reversed. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with much of what Erik and Betty Logan have to say, but add that Walsh is certainly qualified to write film reviews: he covers plenty of film festivals, and often interviews film makers. In the last five minutes looking at their own page I see interviews with Jem Cohen, Bryan Wizemann, five directors from different countries at the Toronto film festival, Mahdi Fleifel and Patrick Campbell, Ken Loach, Woo Ming-jin, and Asli Özge. As to notability I also see him cited in various books, a few odd journals or articles, and ironically in one instance by The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International. I can't see any basis for systematically removing Walsh's commentaries from wikipedia, and think that kind of project would be highly inappropriate. -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be mindful that notability is not the standard for inclusion in an article. Most of the sentences in articles are not notable by themselves. Notability is the standard for inclusion of an article in WP. The articles are composed of mostly non-notable facts that are drawn from reliable sources. I believe reliability is the standard in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Erik and Betty are only discussing the site in relation to the V for Vendetta article and the political nature of that film. You should note that Betty states "World Socialist Web Site isn't qualified to provide film reviews" also the mention of the site in Journals like the C&HSI has no relation to any film criticism. MarnetteD | Talk 21:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I should retract that remark, since I did a search on "David Walsh" at RT (our acid test) and didn't get a hit. However, a search of the publications list reveals that the WSWS is among the surveyed publications, and Walsh is included among the critics: [8]. I don't know why it didn't come up in the critic search I did, but regardless, if Walsh and his publication are good enough for RT then they should be good enough for us. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, art criticism does involve some level of criticism, and as far as I can tell nobody here is disputing any facts. What fact from Walsh's review, and quoted on the V article, is contested? Otherwise it seems clear that presenting Walsh's political critique, for a political film, is helpful to readers. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that we need to cover more, but I just searched the WSWS site for Walsh's interviews, and rather than write out the list, I'll just post the link here. Note that not all interviews are with directors... one is with Olivier Besancenot, and another with historian James M. McPherson (I'd strongly recommend Battle Cry of Freedom to anyone interested in the civil war). -Darouet (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dot the I

Are we satisfied that the closing admin made the right decision on this move review? I don't think I am... Have left something on the closing admin's talk page... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Sorry to be a pain, but someone's created Mission: Impossible 5 (movie) and it needs serious work (possible deletion). Anyone have any views on what the best course of action. I'd move it to the correct location, but don't want to if we're just going to delete it.  drewmunn  talk  16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It fails notability so I have redirected it to Mission: Impossible 5 (movie)#Fifth film. Once principal photography begins it can be revived. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Iron Giant genre discussion

Hi. There's a genre discussion regarding the use of The Iron Giant's lead section over at Talk:The Iron Giant#Genres in the lead. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Creating redirects to future films.

User:Captain_Assassin! has been busy creating redirects to films that have yet to enter production, in some cases redirecting to actors who may or may not be in the film, with the targets not including any information about said film. How do we feel about this? See Cleo (film), The Golden Tux, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we can only justify a redirect to another article if the subject of the first is mentioned on the other article, with citations backing it up. Preferably, if the other page has a section on the film, direct it there. I don't think redirecting to actors is a good plan, only directors, maybe writers, and perhaps producers. Other examples of a good use would be Interstellar that, until recently, redirected to Kip Thorne, whose work was the basis for the script. However, that situation is, as with redirecting to other articles, reliant on strong references proving that it's the place to be.  drewmunn  talk  11:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've popped something on the user's talk page - they seem to have stopped for now. What's the best way to go about deleting these? I thought about csd-g8, but probably not appropriate... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm stopped for some other reason but there is a thing that if the film project goes to someone other actor or director, we can redirect it to that article, simple method to go. I've seen this.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but as drew says above, ONLY if there is sourced information regarding the film at the target, and no redirects to actors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I came across this a while ago, and an admin resolved it, give me a sec and I'll find out how...  drewmunn  talk  12:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Right, he moved the redirect to the target page without leaving a redirect, and reinstated any lost content on the target page. A bit of a pain, really. It may be easier to redirect to a relevant disambiguation page for now (if that's acceptable).  drewmunn  talk  12:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think most of them can just be deleted outright. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

According to a previous attempt, redirects aren't applicable for speedy delete, so it'd have to be the long process (or a helpful admin on hand).  drewmunn  talk  12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any admins here at the project? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A few at least, MichaelQSchmidt being one of them.  drewmunn  talk  12:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've CSD-R3 some of them, some I have redirected elsewhere if appropriate. Still more to go though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Creating redirects FOR future films

• Per POLICY it IS okay to speak about sourcable future events (such as planned films) somewhere even if they do not yet per guideline merit their own independent article. So yes, in order to serve this project and its readers, and IF the proposed target has sourced information about the redirected topic, a redirect to a sensible target is fine. However, as a sourced topic might be properly mentioned withing several different related articles, such as production company, producer, director, writer, an/or main cast, we discuss and determine on a case-by-case basis just which potential redirect is best. IE: a redirect to an actor could be okay if the totality of available news coverage centers around that actor and his relationship to that film. Same for directors, writers, or producers. IF the bulk of early coverage is mostly in relationship to a particular director, writers, or producer, such may be worth considering as a possible target. What must be remembered is primary notability guideline. There must be enough coverage of a planned film so that the redirect target can itself contain enough information to inform our readers of the redirected topic and likely merit a proper WP:SPINOUT when an individual target is merited. So to whomsoever wishes to create such a redirect, please do not do so unless the target contains sourced information to serve our readers. Before anyone deletes such a redirect, please notify and give the creator of it the opportunity to include and source information at the target. If after notification, the target still does not speak toward the redirected topic, THEN we might propose such for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the redirects in question had no information at the target, and I have successfully R3d a lot of them. Others I have amended to redirect to somewhere more suitable, and have left the ones where there was information at the target. Not necessarily good information, but have given the benefit of the doubt in those cases. There are others still to be removed mind you... --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you did not ask the creator to include information before R3d-ing, I do hope you tell him that after including sourced information a return of those redirects would be worth considering. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I discussed on his talk page before removal that any redirect he created would need to point to an article that included sourced information at the target. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Super. I hope he realizes that a valid redlink in some articles encourages new article far better than does a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor will not desist!

He's still at it! I know User:JohnCD has put something on his talk page too. User:Captain Assassin! agrees to stop, but then continues. Should we take the issue to WP:AN?

screenshots

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 10 where many screenshots are up for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion regarding Spider-Man (1977 film) in navbox

Does anyone have any input regarding the inclusion of Spider-Man (1977 film) in Template:Marvel Comics films‎ at Template talk:Marvel Comics films‎#1977 Spider-man film? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability of film series articles

Is there a guideline for the notability of film series articles? In the past, I've heard there should be at least three films, but I cannot find anything to back that up. In particular I am referring to the notability of DC Cinematic Universe. To complicate things, I have only found a handful of sources that actually uses the term, and nothing official.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we generally only have "series" articles for three or more films, as there have been discussions in the past as to whether two films constitute a "series" or not, but we have had overview articles for Kill Bill, etc. However, "DC Cinematic Universe" would fail WP:GNG anyway - it seems to just be WP:SYNTHESIS based on there being a "Marvel Cinematic Universe". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a strange blur around the 2/3 mark, although I'm of the opinion that 2 films is more of a film/sequel than a straight out series. Anyway, no DC universe currently exists. The contents of that article just lists every single film ever to have any DC in it. A universe is when films take place in the same continuity. As it is, each film (or set thereof) currently exists in its own bubble, so the article's factually incorrect.  drewmunn  talk  14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My personal rule of thumb is three films, which is why I argued to "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Santa Clause (series) and to "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (film series). I would say it is too soon to have a DC Cinematic Universe article. The so-called fictional universe is not yet proven. We've already seen them try to make a Justice League movie a few years ago. What about having the coverage at DC Comics itself since it is involved with films, not just comic books? EDIT: Drew, that link redirects to a different article. See TriiipleThreat's referred article here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we actually try to create a guideline for film series articles? Maybe a minimum of three films but leave room for series with two films under special circumstances like those with an overabundance of reliable sources on the topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it warrants a sentence, but that's all - if a series of two is notable per WP:GNG, then we shouldn't be legislating against it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) so that whatever we add to the guidelines can be reviewed on its talk page. I've started a discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Feedback

I realize this isn't in regards to a film article, but I believe some of the same principles that were used as a basis for WP:FILMRATING may apply at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. I've asked for feedback at WT:TV and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television without results thus far. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it or Is it?

In the lead sentence for lost films (ones that we're sure are definitely lost because a reliable source says so), should the film be referred to in the present or past tense? WP:FILMLEAD only deals with a work that still (presumably) exists. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it still is a film, just lost into the ether. Things that are lost still exist (or do they?), and can still be found; see the Doctor Who missing episodes, some of which have turned up even when BBC believe all copies to be lost. As such, I personally believe "is" to be technically correct.  drewmunn  talk  08:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENSE. Films are works of fiction, and as per WP:TENSE - "Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And as I said, it doesn't cease being a work of fiction because they lose the reels...  drewmunn  talk  09:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To note, be careful to mix up the tense one would present the narrative, and the tense used in WP on the film itself. A film's plot should always be in the present tense, even if the film was cancelled (past tense in article) and we only have basic details of what that plot would have been (present tense). --MASEM (t) 13:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the part about tense regarding the plot (I rarely write those because I'm terrible at it) but I was under the assumption that if something no longer exists, we refer to it in past tense - work of fiction or not. The story/plot exists but the film itself is gone. Example - Saved from the Titanic - as a newbie editor, I changed "was" to "is" in the lead paragraph (because a film is always a film, yeah?) and was promptly reverted. It still says "was" and it's a GA soooo...WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I guess. Regardless, thanks for the insight. It's very much appreciated. I'm now off to undue five years worth of mistakes. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say when talking about the film as a concept you would use "is", but the film as a physical product you should use "was". As in "Foo is John Smith's only lost film. The film was destroyed in a fire." Etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, perhaps better not to refer to the destruction of the film but the prints or negatives, to keep the distinction. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that keeps it simpler in practice. My example of usage was just for illustration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox cast list

I know this has been discussed before, but recent edits indicate that this needs to be discussed again. Over at Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Corvoe altered the infobox cast list, with the edit summary "Changing infobox cast list per the infobox film template". He made similar changes in various other articles. SchroCat reverted, and Corvoe reverted back. Today, I reverted to the earlier version, my basic argument being that the actor's names are visible on the poster, even without enlarging it, and common sense seems to dictate that this is the main cast. The names Corvoe added are not even visible on the poster, even if enlarged, so their addition seems dubious to me. I fully believe that Corvoe is acting in good faith, I simply feel that these edits defy common sense, and can lead to confusion. If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list? I know, speaking only for myself, that this has been a source of confusion in the past. Do we need to consider altering the infobox film template? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This happened with Fight Club too. The editor added Jared Leto and Meat Loaf to the "Starring" field, where I think it is perfect to just mention Pitt, Norton, and Bonham Carter. It looks like the edits are based on the film infobox guidelines' recommendation to use the billing block. That may apply more to films with larger casts, but I agree that such application needs a dose of common sense. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just following the template. Truth be told, I agree that the idea of basing it on the billing block seems sort of off when it comes to cast members being listed above (or below) the title, but I've been reverted and told that I was wrong for the same things I'm now reverting. The names I added are visible on a higher resolution version of the same poster used in the article. I'm not trying to be a pig headed policy thumper, I'm just operating under the assumption that most people aren't aware that the billing block is where the cast list is technically supposed to originate from. I'll stop making these edits until this is resolved. I'm actually on your side in the matter, Jacobite. I think you said it best: "If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list?" I would definitely agree that that makes sense. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Way back when, I think there was a suggestion that we include names above the title in the billing block unless there are no names above the title. Maybe that would be an improvement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Film award "footer templates"

I notice that a lot of film awards have navigational succession templates (for want of a better word) that link to other templates.[9] I've nominated a few for deletion. Hopefully you'll see what I mean. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Film editors and civility

All, I have been concerned about the conduct of Wikipedia editors of film articles, either toward each other or toward novices. I ask you to remember that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is, "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility." This is grounded in policy as seen at Wikipedia:Civility, and I reiterate the "nutshell" version here:

• Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users.
• Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.
• Try to make coherent and concise arguments rather than simply attacking others, and encourage others to do the same.

Many of us here are well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially as they pertain to film. It can be a chore to reiterate our knowledge to new editors all the time, but in such exchanges we have the opportunity to educate or even recruit, however informally. Nor does our knowledge excuse hostile conduct toward others. I believe a lot of such interactions stem from edit warring, and edit warring is not restricted to one person. I encourage you to move slowly in such conflicts. Consider holding off on reverting even if the article is now on a "bad version" in your eyes. Try to prompt a discussion with the other editor. If that is a struggle, this talk page is always available as a place to post notifications about conflicts at individual articles. There are enough of us following this page that we can help weigh in, and I think our perspectives vary enough to avoid groupthink.

When talking to another editor, consider the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The main point for me is to "focus on content". Many of you know your policies and guidelines; reference them! Use examples. In discussions, consider a passive tone. Instead of saying "You're wrong because", say "I disagree because". Wikipedia is not a battleground; policy says, "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue." All this advice goes to editors old and new. I have seen behavior that is, quite frankly, dickish. I do not want to see new editors follow older ones in edit warring and hostile conduct. If you want to express, express positively. Tell others that you agree, or even commend them. If it is going to be negative, take a breath and re-frame your response. I hope you'll consider this. Make it part of your personal editing philosophy. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Greed FA Review

Hello, I have nominated Greed for Featured Article consideration and it has been suggested to me that I notify this board about the nomination. A lot of work has gone into this article in the past year or so and I think that it is up to standards and would be great addition to the growing list of featured films (only one other silent film has been featured so far). Anyway, I am just following through on the suggestion to post a notice here. It was previously nominated a few months back but was denied based purely on no one commenting on it one way or another, which is what appears to be happening now.Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the review link. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli (2nd nomination)

Opinions are needed for the second James Berardinelli article deletion debate. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions for films released in different years

Sometimes this has been an issue for page moves (Avatar, Titantic, etc), but WP:PDAB has recently become policy via this. Maybe our trusty WP:NCF should be updated to include this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems we beat the village pump to the punch on this one, since we updated our guidelines to stipulate this last month. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This may be a slight change of topic, but I've only just noticed this policy change. Would this apply to Iron Man (film), given the existence of Iron Man (1931 film) and Iron Man (1951 film)? I started a discussion about it on the article's talk page. (It is move-protected) -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. I was not sure before because I could barely find any information about Iron Man (1931 film) (other than the Grindon book I added). Since there's also Iron Man (1951 film) as well as the policy implementation, we should request a move. Someone's going to have to fix all the links, though... Erik (talk | contribs) 03:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd think re-linking would be automated by now wouldn't you? It's a real disincentive to initiate page moves. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I leave it to some other chump to fix. The main issue is that the redirects in the templates take forever to refresh once they're fixed. So currently Iron Man (film) looks like it has hundreds of pages still linking to it, despite all the templates on the 2008 article now linking to 2008. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've logged a requested move for the Iron Man article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Y Performed the move per WP:NCF. Redirects are in place and may be addressed as we can get to them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "audience interest" claims

The article for Atlas Shrugged: Part II includes the statement: "Despite not being screened to critics in advance, the film was noted for positive audience interest." The source given for the claim is an article on the Fox News website. That article reports, "despite its review moratorium, Part II has managed to pique the interest of the general public, with a 72 percent audience interest rating on Rotten Tomatoes." So since RT is the source of the claim that Fox reports, I removed it from the article noting in my edit summary that the RT "audience interest" information is not considered usable according to the Film MOS. Another editor reverted my edit saying that since Fox News is being used as the source, and not RT directly that it can be included. This makes no sense to me, so I posted on the talk page and mentioned I would ask here for input. Comments on the subject can be made here: Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part II. Thanks 99.192.73.242 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be removed. This would be the same if FOX News was stating that "According to IMDb, Russel Crow is set to star as Hercules in the new movie". We know that IMDb is not a reliable source, and the fact that the writer of the article doesn't care is not our problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a more accurate comparison would be if a reliable source used IMDB's score of a sequel's predecessor to state that the predecessor was well-received by fans. That would not render the reliable source unusable. Just because Fox News chose to use Rotten Tomatoes to substantiate their report does not mean their report is unusable. They are subject to editorial oversight, and the information being used is of an editorial value.  Chickenmonkey  00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Bignole. Could you put your comment on Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part II? A second editor has already commented there supporting inclusion of the audience claim. Thanks. 99.192.73.242 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Chicken, see my comment on the article talk page. That doesn't negate the fact that they are using unreliable information...information I would add that we say not to use on the MOS page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality improvement project for Chris Field (Los Angeles musician)

• Chris Field (Los Angeles musician)

I've rewritten the article Chris Field (Los Angeles musician), DIFF.

Further suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Chris Field (Los Angeles musician).

— Cirt (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusion over films by Manaki brothers

There is a mess at The Weavers (1905) (the page has been moved five times already) about whether or not the Manaki brothers (Balkan filmmakers) produced two separate films, one called Baba Despina/Grandmother Despina, and one called The Weavers, or if they are the same films. I don't have time yet to research the matter, but I hope others can weigh in to clear up the mess of content and page titles. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: I think I figured it out. See Talk:The Weavers (1905) for research on the matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Robsinden got the article moved to The Weavers (1905 film) instead of The Weavers (film) because of another film, The Weavers: Wasn't That a Time! I support this and am wondering if others agree if it is a good rule of thumb to disambiguate films' main titles from each other completely. For example, it would be easy to refer to the latter film shorthand as just "The Weavers", so we would want to ignore subtitles in disambiguating. Rob already created The Weavers (1982 film) as a useful redirect to that one. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears The Weavers (1927 film) has now been added, so The Weavers (1905 film) was the correct call in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gojira

The usage of Gojira is under discussion, see talk:Gojira#Requested move 2 -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Cue sheet"

The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes and adjusted scores

I don't know much about the RT site to be honest - what do others know about "adjusted scores"? I'm referencing this edit on the article Mud. Does anyone else think a score of 105.184% doesn't feel right, despite the source from their website? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it is part of the website's Summer Movie Scorecard 2013 in which it compares movies with each other. Basically, Mud is a lot better than other recent summer films. I think it is just the website's way to re-publish the scores, kind of like their "Best <Genre> Movies" lists. I would say not to include it because it is not valuable comparing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included. There are severe notability issues, and the score is scaled against whatever it is compared against: if you don't provide that context then the score is meaningless. It also goes against the spirit of our MOS to limit RT scores to just the "All critics" rating. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, I'm one of several editors opposed to the prominent use (really, any use) of RT in 'Reception' sections. Because it's derivative of other RS, with no clear policy about scoring of unscored or ambiguous reviews, is authored anonymously, and is of low usability on films prior to 2000, it has always seemed to me to be a pretty useless source. Have a look at the Talk archives here for discussion of RT and Metacritic, some of it rather heated (grin). --Lexein (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lexein is referring to this discussion. I disagree with what he says about "several editors", though. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but no thanks for the rest. There have been several discussions, and I'm not the only editor opposed to the prominent promotion of a commercial website presented as opinion leader for nearly all new movie release reception sections on Wikipedia. That's what putting RT and MC numbers first in reception sections does: promotes them. IMHO the practice is unseemly: such placement undermines the importance and analysis of individual reviewers, and implies that it is even possible that pretend-objective-but-really-quite-subjective numbers mean more than thoughtful essays on how well a film is done as judged by film criteria. The only time RT and MC are actually accurate and even agree are when critical opinion on a film is nearly unanimous. Back to my key point: this encyclopedia does not, and should not promote commercial ventures. WikiProject Film is no exception. Film reception sections should not deprecate insightful analysis, or promote sports-like obsession with "stats", especially when such "stats" are so deeply dubious. --Lexein (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Lexein, what I mean is that there is no actual group of editors fighting to repeal the use of RT and MC in articles. We are not the only ones who reference either RT or MC when it comes to a film; various periodicals do the same. Any kind of promotion is incidental. I do agree that film reception sections should not leave out insightful analysis. Some films, like Apocalypse Now, can do without RT and MC because of both its age (preceding the Internet) and the amount of retrospective coverage. For run-of-the-mill films, though, RT and MC are considered appropriate channels for reporting the consensus. Additional context always helps; I try to reference the trade papers (Variety or The Hollywood Reporter) for how critics as a whole responded to a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What about the verbal summary, though? That is often picked up, yet its origin is just about unknown. I don't consider it reliable but it's often used even when there are critics to quote. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume the Rotten Tomatoes staff writes the summary. Essentially, the same people who assess the accumulated reviews and determine scores. I've referenced such summaries myself (along with as much else I can). Such summaries are an attempt to report the general gist of the reviews, like some periodicals (the trade papers and Los Angeles Times comes to mind) try to do as well. Any kind of summarizing like that is bound to be subjective. Rotten Tomatoes probably derives more from their statistics than periodicals do. We can discuss summaries more in depth, though, to see what the consensus here is. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Is every reliable source (newspaper, magazine, web site, etc) not a commercial venture? --SubSeven (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of sources are commercial, sure. But the repeated deliberate, elaborate quoting and citing of one source (RT and/or MC) at the top of nearly every Reception section is IMHO grossly undue emphasis and promotional. A few IP and registered editors regularly push RT and MC to the top of every Reception section: I've ended up in revert wars over it, only to be shouted down by that minority. --Lexein (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Those two sites come up because it is not possible to cherry pick which reviews the editor wants to emphasize. The number may not be perfect, but at least it accounts for every critic that wrote about the film. So, yes, there is a relative lack of bias and that's good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe a large number of editors are, in their minds, acting responsibly and in good faith, when continuing to cite RT and MC prominently at the tops of Reception sections. However, I must protest, just about every six months. There's no such thing as the average (mean) of a number of non-numerically-scored opinions. To promulgate the idea that such a thing exists is shockingly reductive, and unseemly, for an encyclopedia which aspires to promote knowledge and understanding of, yes, the arts. The use of a single "score" adds no information, and in fact loses fantastic amounts of information, when reviewer opinions vary from unanimity. The greater the divergence from agreement, the less meaningful MC & RT "scores" become. Scores are also meaningless wherever reviewers don't give a letter or number grade. In both cases the results become only more meaningless as the number of total reviews grows. I wouldn't complain so much if they gave two numbers: score with confidence number, or score with variance, or score with some measure of reviewers' strength of opinion (0-100 score, 0-100 certainty), or listed their approximated "score" for each non-scoring reviewer. Yes, I'm insisting on accountability. Wikipedia has no business endorsing a non-academic, non-journalistic, for-profit venture which keeps its scoring criteria secret, does not account for divergence of opinion, and accepts advertising on the same page for the very films for which it purports to present accurate summaries of reviews. We are not required to assume good faith of sources: per WP:RS we are strongly encouraged to be skeptical, and to vet sources carefully. These two sources are not "better than nothing", they're actually worse for Wikipedia, because they're being foisted by Wikipedia on the reading public as if they were authoritative or even reliable. Their use also makes Reception sections emphasizing only critic reviews more WP:UNDUE, especially where theater count, ticket sales, and audience poll stories are not cited. And no, I don't think RT or MC are more reliable - per RS - because they've been cited by Fox and other media outlets: they're paid by Fox and other media outlets (indirect COI), as well as film marketers (say, Fox, a direct COI), so that makes them non-independent, and therefore less reliable. In my opinion, the best redress is to eliminate RT/MC results. At least eliminate them where reviews don't state a score, and also where opinions diverge greatly. At least deprecate their results to the ends of Reception sections, as indicative of Wikipedia's low objective evaluation (per WP:RS) of their reliability. We bluntly should not promote review aggregators. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ride Or Die

There is a French (RAP Connection) and a German (Ride or Die – Fahr zur Hölle, Baby!) article about Ride or Die. Whenever I try somehow to link them all together, I get the error message this was impossible because the French and the German article were already connected. Je ne comprends pas. NordhornerII (talk _The man from Nordhorn 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You probably should ask this question at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I know that they did something a month or so ago to where the foreign language wikis were connected automatically but that doesn't seem to be the case with the article that you are mentioning. Someone here might know as well but I think the answer will come faster there. MarnetteD | Talk 23:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It was probably just server glitch or something because the "add links" function just worked fine for me. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem was that the articles were linked to different items, d:Q1519997 (de/fr) and d:Q7332533 (en).

You need to add the fr or de link from the en article, by pressing the "edit links" on the en page, because then Wikidata will remove the en link from the en item (in the background without telling the user) and add it to the fr/de item --> no interwiki conflict. It's not possible to do it the other way around (using the edit link on frwp to add the en link) because Wikidata will not remove the fr link from the fr/de item without telling the user (it knows that they belong together) because that would give us an en article linked to a fr article that should be linked to a de article that is NOT linked to the first en article --> interwiki conflict.

Fix: enable the Merge script from d:Special:Preferences. jonkerz ♠talk 13:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I like to thank Betty Logan for adding the links. As I explained in the meantime (on the page recommended by Marnette) I intended to add the link from the en article (just as Betty Logan successfully did it) but I was told I wasn't logged in for Wikidata although I was logged in for Wikipedia. Even after Wikidata had confirmed I was logged in there too, I still received the error message I wasn't whenever I tried to edit the links as usual. Well, next time I just try one or two other browsers. That's what I also often asked our customers to do when I worked for a helpline and when customers had issues downloading their software. (But sometimes we eventually told them a programmer from India would call them back...) NordhornerII talk_The man from Nordhorn 00:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, crap. I thought I had solved the mystery ;) I never had the problem you described, but I found out today that I had unknowingly orphaned quite a few Wikidata items by removing interwiki links without even knowing it. jonkerz ♠talk 01:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday after posting My Worst Nightmare I received the same error message when I tried to add fr. Then I went to the French article and tried to work the other way around, adding en to the French one... and then I found myself in Wikidata, looking at the English (!) title of my English version... But: All's well that ends well. NordhornerII talk _The man from Nordhorn 23:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The English title was added by an IP just a few hours before you created the English article; labels can be added in any language even if there's no article in that language. The other error was probably caused by some kind of sorcery. jonkerz ♠talk 09:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Magical Negroes

If anyone has any thoughts to offer on Talk:List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction#One source is sufficient.3F I'd appreciate hearing them. I'm concerned that for this kind of list it may be appropriate to have more than one citation per entry. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Shadow Games

Hate to keep coming here requesting input, but we've got another situation here regarding including actors' salaries for films. DonIago (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about applying WP: OVERLINK to Infobox Film

There is a discussion relating to this project at Template talk:Infobox film#Point me to the guideline about linking twice in the infobox.3F. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the next step

• Emperor: Young Caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this article today. It was created by this SPA Charleshh25 (talk · contribs) over three years ago and the person hasn't edited since. One of the two refs provided no longer has any info about the project on it and I can find no info about wjether the project is still in the works or not. Some of you are more proficient at internet searches than I am so could you please check for any new info. If there is none my next question is how should we proceed in dealing with the article? Should we make some brief mention of it as a shelved project on Burr Steers article and add a redirect to the film article or should we just run an AFD and let things take their course. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 04:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

AFD sounds good to me. Even IMDB doesn't list anything against the director, and they usually have all the WIP projects, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say to propose it for deletion first. I highly doubt the tag will get removed. It does look like no progress was made on this project, and it is a good example of WP:NFF applying. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I filed the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor: Young Caesar today. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot incorrectly tagging film posters as orphan files

Just a heads up that this bot is incorrectly tagging masses of images as being orphaned when they are not. Examples include File:ATownCalledPanic.jpg, File:Mother film poster.jpg and File:Dogtooth(2009) poster.jpg. If you have any on your watchlist, please double check them. I've reverted and let the bot owner know. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't show up as "used" on the file page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• That's it. If we don't include "File" in the infobox, it won't show up as used. So you have to include "File:" when transcluding the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The pages must be re-cached, this is why adding "File:" worked, because editing a page tells the server to re-cache it. A WP:null edit to the page where the file is used will fix the problem (just purging the page or file description does not work). jonkerz ♠talk 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• That works. Now why? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why it was broken in the first place, but different tasks have different priorities when it comes to re-chaching. Most of the time it works without any intervention, but some tables in the database are only updated after the page is visited, some after purging the page and some only after the page is edited. How do we fix this: ???????. jonkerz ♠talk 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback

If you would like to use article feedback on an article that you've written, you can enable it by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 to the article's categories. While not all feedback will be useful, there may be some helpful suggestions. I was browsing the feedback this morning and saw someone say that Man of Steel (film) reported the CinemaScore results incorrectly as seen here (choose "Resolved" from the drop-down). I corrected the information. When an article has feedback enabled, you can read feedback by going to the talk page and clicking "View reader feedback" on the top. Thought I would share in case anyone wanted to experiment with it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

FfD for soundtrack cover image

File:Product 500 days of summer soundtrack.jpg, used at (500) Days of Summer, is posted at FfD here. Posting notification here due to previous attempts at removal being reverted; seeking wider consensus to resolve this matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at The Dark Knight

There's an ongoing discussion at The Dark Knight regarding the page title. Any input from the members of this project is appreciated. Randomuser112 (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Documentaries

Is anyone interested in helping to create and expand documentary film articles? I'm sure that many of you stream them on Netflix as well and I feel like documentaries possess a lot of educational density. I'm a fairly new editor so if you don't mind helping me learn along the way, don't be afraid to let me know! Jamodalamo (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

While I personally don't have an interest in documentaries as a subject matter, I have always thought that there should be a task force for them, to differentiate them as part of this wikiproject from other types of films. Some sorting is also needed of documentary stubs, specifically in the Category:Documentary film stubs. Good luck with your work on documentaries, and welcome to the project! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Jamodalamo, I'd be happy to help. :) We have some guidelines for documentaries at MOS:FILM#Documentaries if you have not already seen them. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I'm definitely trying to operate along those same guidelines. I'm not too confident in forming a task force just yet since I am a beginner, so my focus would be primarily on writing and expanding the synopsis of the documentaries until I get more familiar with coding. Jamodalamo (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternate film run times in the infobox

My memory may be faulty but I thought that we had a past discussion where it was decided that we would only place the original theatrical release run time for a film in the infobox. Alternate, directors or restoration cuts, etc were to be discussed in the appropriate section in the article. Cutting down on infobox bloat and the need to give context to the alternate run times were among the reasons behind this. There were to be some exceptions like Once Upon a Time in America where the European and US releases had different run times. Now, as I say I could be wrong about this, but if we did discuss it and come to a conclusion we didn't make any changes to the instructions at the "film infobox" template. So we could either reopen - or start - the conversation now and finish up by acting on whatever consensus we come to. MarnetteD | Talk 04:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought the way it went was that any first showing counted even if it was a minor festival and for that reason wide release dates were at least discussed if not endorsed...? At the time, there was no mention that we might consider the first release by the film's first distributor. That would finesse the festival issue if we wanted to. But then what about films that are never distributed after a festival showing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We are quite specific about which release dates we include: premiere release (which can include one of festivals, premieres, previews, home video or TV broadcast depending on the nature of the release) and home country release. A really simply approach would be to ensure the running times (if different) match up to the releases indicated by the dates we include. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies but my question isn't about release dates. It is about runtimes. If you compare Alexander (film) we list four different runtimes to Blade Runner where we only list one. In the later article we explain the other versions in the Blade runner#Versions sections. I am just trying to discover if we ever had a consensus over which way to list the various runtimes is preferable and, if we didn't, do we want to form one now. MarnetteD | Talk 16:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ultimate Cut? Chortle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You got that right Lugnuts. here is the only "Ultimate cut" that I want. HeeHee. MarnetteD | Talk 16:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Alexander infobox, I think it's safe to say that the consensus was not in favor of infoboxes looking like that, and all of those times are post release, no different than the policy we endorse in every other article, theatrical runtime or first release. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is what I thought D but if you look at the edit summaries here one editor disagrees. Next the instructions at {{Infobox film}} do not specifically state that we want only the original theatrical release run time in that field. Thus, my questions about whether we want to add that to the template instructions or not.

Much like the double linking, it's a simple thing that if not already in our guidelines should be considering we all are getting these guidelines from somewhere, I will gladly support it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know your question is not about release dates. My suggestion is to apply the same rationale to run times that we apply to release dates. A notable release is a notable a release at the end of the day: if we include a date for a particular release there is no logical reason to exclude the run time; if a release is not notable enough to list the date then that's a valid reason for excluding the time. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Betty, I don't have a problem with more than one run time in the infobox as my Once Upon a Time In America example shows. In saying "A notable release is a notable a release" does that include DVD releases as is the case in the Alexander example - or directors cut releases that occur years after the films release? Again, I am trying to work towards getting a wording added to our template instructions. MarnetteD | Talk 16:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is that we define what a "notable release" is as far as the infobox is concerned in the context of release dates. That guideline can be simply extended to include running times as well as dates. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am still not sure why you keep mentioning "release dates" - We already have WP:FilmRelease. I am perfectly happy with the guidelines there and I did not start this thread to try and make any changes to them. I am trying to determine whether we want to add specific instructions to the "Infobox film template" page so that we avoid a situation like the one that exists at the Alexander article. Perhaps a section titled "Run times" with a "WP:FilmTime" as a shortcut to it. If, on the other hand, it is determines that any number of run times be included in the infobox then so be it. I am just trying to get a consensus that we can direct editors to when questions come up. MarnetteD | Talk 19:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

FILMRELEASE explicitly defines which releases should be documented in the infobox, and thereby which dates we should include. All we need to do is extend that to also apply to running times. We don't need a completely new guideline for running times, because then we could end with releases being included in the infobox with a release date and no running time, or a running time and no release date. Either the release is notable or it isn't, and if it is then both pieces of information should be included. The simplest way to do ensure consistency is to extend FILMRELEASE to running times too. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been striving for. The problem is that currently we do not have any guidelines or instructions at the film template page and, thus, we have the mess at the Alexander infobox. I opened this to get input as to what we want to say in the new guideline. Since the "infobox film template" is full protected I thought I would get opinions on what wording we wanted before filing an edit request for the change. If we don't get any more input in the next couple of days we can have a go at writing the guideline and then file the request. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrible Histories

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

NeverEnding Story discussion

Hi. There's a discussion regarding the countries in The NeverEnding Story (film) article. The discussion is located at Talk:The NeverEnding Story (film)#Countries. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Adam Harrington and Adam J. Harrington

Please see here. Bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Freak Next Door

Resolved

 – AfD has closed with the article being deleted. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This AFD has been going on for a month now and has already been relisted twice. I'd like to avoid getting it relisted a third time. Any participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with bio of silent film star

My first article, a bio of child silent film star Miriam Battista Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miriam Battista, was rejected on the grounds of insufficient notability and unverifiable references. As a newbie, I didn't understand that primary sources are not welcome on Wikipedia (more's the pity...), so I'll put in the effort to find secondary sources to replace the primary ones. But there's a basic problem/challenge here: for a biography subject born in 1912 whose heyday was in the 1920's, there are not a lot of secondary materials with web links! I have access to plenty of newspaper articles, reviews, playbills, etc., but none of them exist online.

Has anyone else dealt with this problem? If so, how??

Any and all assistance will be very welcome! --Ailemadrah (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I consider this an inadequate job of reviewing by User:Arctic Kangaroo. I have returned the AFC to its state of waiting for a review. I will also add whatever references I can to help confirm the actress's notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this actor having an obituary in The New York Times warrants an encyclopedic article. I found the full obituary available behind a paywall and read it, and it is a good overview of her career. Adding a "Filmography" section may help show that she does indeed comply with WP:ENTERTAINER. (As a side note, it may be worthwhile for us to revive WP:ACTOR, at the very least as a forum for this kind of topic. Obviously, people are coming here because we are much more active, but if people interested in actors and filmmakers' articles watchlisted WP:ACTOR, we could categorize discussions accordingly.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: "Influences / Influenced"

It may be time to rethink this portion of the filmmakers infobox, or at least set specific standards. Right now it's little more than a dumping ground for fans' POV assumptions of who they believe influenced so-and-so, or who so-and-so influences. Yet virtually never do they give citations for these claims. And how could they? Mostly these claims come from own minds. At Tim Burton, people have added names with no basis other than the editors' own POV assumptions. Cites in the article body support only the two influences currently in the infobox — which has been cleaned out before, and will almost invariably get filled in again with fans' uncited presumptions.

Do we really need those two fields in the infobox? Additions there are almost never cited, and these fields seem to do nothing but encourage amateur film buffs from adding their own POV claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been a problem ever since the "actor infoboxes" (in which we had eliminated several of these subjective POV fields) were merged back into the "person infobox". At the very least these should be sourced. IMO it would be better to have their mention in the body of the article where some context could be given. It would also be nice to keep them to a minimum but I don't know if either of these are workable. Whatever we decide we should note it at our MoS at the actors and filmmakers project. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This may become less of a problem when the Infoboxes are migrated to Wikidata (due to start tomorrow), with the complexity to adjust them putting off those embarking on a simple POV insertion and more eyes (across multiple wikis) watching that subsequent changes. I agree entries should be sourced at minimum, ideally with a self-declaration for influences and a declaration from the 3rd party subject of the influenced field. for that field.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I favor their complete removal from the infoboxes, where they serve no purpose. The infobox should be exclusively for simple facts (date and place of birth and/or death, etc.). A discussion of influences should be in the body of the article, with sources. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal of field. In an article, influences can be discussed in prose with sources. The infobox should deal with hard facts, not subjective information like this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with The Old Jacobite and Rob Sinden, the infobox should be for simple uncontroversial facts.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree also. I've restored this discussion from Archive 46, since we reached what appears to be a consensus as of May 2 and no one made additional comments after enough time that the auto-archiving took this. No one acted on this consensus, but in the interest cautious and prudent before we remove that problematic field, let's post this one more time to make sure all voices have been heard. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal too, per the rationales given above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal as well, per all of you. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Randomuser112 (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Fortdj33 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. You are asking for trouble when you start adding anything but objective facts to the infobox. "Influences" makes little sense without accompanying context. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Along with the rationales provided the fields are a magnet for fan entries. I have seen IPs add all manner of names simply because the like the person the article is about. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Man, great idea. Banish them from infoboxes for eternity. --SubSeven (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Infoboxes should keep to hard facts. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is one of my pain points and pet peeves. Too many entries in these parameters are unsupportable. Delete both of them. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. A bare list does a poor job of presenting this type of information. For one thing, the definition of influence varies greatly from one case to another; e.g., "A was inspired to become a filmmaker at age nine after seeing a film by B"; "A is widely considered to be a slavish imitator of B";"A learned filmmaking from B and then went on to make films of a completely different kind"; "A once made a film parodying the films of B"; "A once expressed admiration for the work of B"; and so on. An infobox reductively lumps all these together as though there were no distinctions. Ewulp (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to make sure a related project is aware, I've put a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that we in the film project have agreed to remove the fields in question. I should point out that other projects - BLP & Biography, Novels etc - have not. Thus, if any of us were to go to the "infobox person" and remove the fields I am guessing there would be resistance if not outright WikiDrama. So, I want to suggest that we simply add to the MoS for the film and filmmakers projects that the fields are not used and to be removed from individual article infoboxes whenever possible. This is just one editors idea if any of you have other ones please feel free to mention them. I do hope that we move on this. We have had discussions in the past about altering the film MoS and then time goes by and threads get archived (as this one did) and we forget to followup. Please note I don't mean this to sound accusatory - I am as forgetful about this as anyone (as the thread I am about to add below will show.) Thanks to everyone for adding their thoughts and opinions to this thread. MarnetteD | Talk 04:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This project has, I think, a solid basis for removing this parameter from every person who is primarily known as a film director or producer. There might be a little resistance if we apply the removal to actor and actress infoboxes. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct - although I can't really remember seeing the fields used in the later - not that they aren't out there I just don't remember seeing them. We can always direct editors to this discussion if they question our changes to the MoS's. MarnetteD | Talk 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am copying this discussion to Template talk:Infobox person with a request for action. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Travel documentary, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Citations in lede

Hello, there is an ongoing discussion taking place at Batman Begins regarding the need to cite a source to back up the claim that it is the first part of the Dark Knight Trilogy. Your input is appreciated. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Jack

We are having some difficulty determining what to do with {{Jack}}. Most importantly, we are trying to determine whether Jack the Giant Killer and Jack and the Beanstalk should have separate templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Template:Jack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Unacceptable Levels" (film)

Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article "Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary film of the same name.

• Unacceptable Levels - Pollution just got personal: a new movie | Jennifer Sass's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC (June 18, 2013)
• About | Unacceptable Levels
• Unacceptable Levels

—Wavelength (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with "play on words" from French to English translations of two film titles in Jacques Rivette

I am attempting to add content to Jacques Rivette. There are two films in Rivette's filmography titled: Duelle and Noroît. In the French language, neither of these titles are real words and therefore cannot be literally translated. They are both portmanteaus. I have direct sources for English translations of both titles. Duelle roughly translates to "Twhy-light" and Noroît roughly translates to "Nor'west". Both of these translations come directly from the source, which I clarified in the body of the article. This appears to be a tricky case since there cannot be literal translations for either "words" used in the film's titles. The phrase "roughly translated as" used in the body of the article refers to the fact that a play on words cannot be accurately translated from one language to another and not to something completely made up by the author of the source (or by myself).

User:Robsinden has been reverting these translations in a section of the article that is clearly intended for the English translation of all titles. Not everything can be clear cut and by the book, and ambiguity does exist. So I figured I'd come here to have the issue resolved. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is no official release title translated into English, we shouldn't be going with "roughly translated as" in a filmography table. We should leave the titles as how these articles were named per WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I really think you're missing the point. It is not possible for the translations to be anything but rough.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Then we don't use a translation. We should only be putting official or release titles in a filmography table. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is too much ambiguity for we, but if a film was officially screened in an English speaking country with the exact same English translation for the title, would that satisfy we? I'm finding several examples on the web.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Were the films released with the English translations "Twhy-light" and "Nor'west", or were they released in the English speaking world as Duelle and Noroît? I can only find examples of the latter. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean, did these films even have a "first run" release in English-speaking countries immediately after they were made, I honestly don't know if that even happened or if they have only ever been publicly screened at festivals or retrospectives. But I suspect that realistically the latter is the case. Give or take an apostrophe, here's an example for "Nor'west": http://hcl.harvard.edu/hfa/films/2006winter/rivette.html. Here's an example for a review for both films that even makes reference to the difficulty in the translations: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/rivettes-rupture/Content?oid=879206 . I can't figure it out from the second link, but its reasonable to say that a review in a newspaper is published when a film is being released or screened. Have you found any evidence that either of these films were released in the traditional sense in English-speaking countries?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify what Rosenbaum means, Duelle is the feminine form of "duel" in the same way that Chairette would be the feminine form of "chair", although that is not a real word. Is there a wiki-rule for something like that?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Allmovie usually supplies an English language title if there is one. It usually documents the film under its release title and then supplies the original title or English translation. For example:

L'Avventura (alt: The Adventure)

Breathless (alt: À Bout de Souffle)

For the two Rivette films:

Duelle (alt: Women Duelling)

Noroit (alt: Northwest Wind)

A Google Books search seems to indicate those are the accepted US versions of the titles, although both films seem to be more extensively written about using the original French titles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying that an English language title in the filmography section of the article is warranted? Also, both of those translations are the literal translations meaning and lose part of the meaning of the original French title, which was part of the whole point of what I've been saying. Since I've also found good sources that refer to the two films by the English translations that were originally used in the context of these films being publicly reviewed or screened, and given that in the English language version of wikipedia its better to have clarity, would it be reasonable to simply return the article back to how it was before?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if we are going to supply English language titles we should should go by what is supplied in books, databases etc.The point of a filmography is to identify a film to a reader, so we are not especially interested in literal translations per se. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. That's exactly what it was like before all of this, other than the sources not being right next to the titles. Thank you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No it wasn't! The titles used were described as rough translations! And they are not identical to the ones in your sources above. I'm not convinced that the ones Betty gives aid us in recognisability either (but at least they are definitive rather than an explanation of how something roughly translates) - most English language sources use the original French-language titles - we should not be translating here unless we can find a widely-recognisable title for the films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, be aware of WP:3RR - wait for resolution here before reverting again. Please also note that anyone clicking on the link with an English title may be WP:SURPRISEd when they end up on a page that does not show the title as an official title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Okeydokey. I'll wait for clarification, which is what I had thought that I had. To be fair, I think it makes the most sense for a third party to make decisions. BUT I would like to point out that your tone is beginning to cause me concern and alarm.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have already fully explained that the title is complex, perhaps even complicated. I realize that this seems to upset you, but I do think that this is worth mentioning in the body of the article. To be clear, the body of the article is where the "rough translation" which you keep exclamation pointing about exists in the article, and not in the filmography section. You seem to be saying that "Twhy-light" and "Nor'west" are only "rough translations" and not "release titles". But I am saying (and sourcing) that they are both.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem with mentioning this in the body of the article, it's when they are given as definitive titles in the filmography table that I think is misleading. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I almost feel like I've said this at least once before, but its sourced. Its specifically sourced from a book. If you look just slightly upwards it says "we should should go by what is supplied in books, databases etc." I almost feel like I've said this at least once before, but its sourced. Its specifically sourced from a book. Its not misleading. In fact its the opposite of misleading since it retains the full meaning of the title. If you look just slightly upward it says "we are not especially interested in literal translations per se." The versions that I supplied are not simply the literal translations. Oh and also, I almost feel like I've said this at least once before, but its sourced. Its specifically sourced from a book.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Betty Logan, could you please clarify what you had said yesterday?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is not a contradiction in saying that a translation is both a rough translation and a release title. In fact, it is good information to include in the article in cases like this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Jinx quote box

Please consider joining the discussion at Talk:Jinx (G.I. Joe)#Jinx quote box, regarding whether a quote about the character in G.I. Joe: Retaliation needs to be in a quote box or not. Thank you. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tim Kirk (producer) at AfD

Would welcome any extra eyes to look at the article for Tim Kirk (producer) and the related AfD discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Les Forgerons.jpg

image:Les Forgerons.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WallaceReid.jpg

image:WallaceReid.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Classification of miniseries

Is a two-part TV miniseries considered a film? An IP removed all the film categories from Wallenberg: A Hero's Story, which set me to wondering. As a more extreme example, The Winds of War (miniseries) is categorized as a 1983 film and is included in the template "Films directed by Dan Curtis". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It can probably be counted under both definitions. I wouldn't get too precious over categories, they are there to aid organization of the articles, and it may be helpful to have the article listed in both sets of categories. If readers want a list of films/programs that share similar traits we should facilitate access to that type of information. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:LeonGaumont.jpg

File:LeonGaumont.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Hello, all. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (a.k.a. WP:ACTOR) has been a defunct WikiProject for some time now. I am wondering if other editors were interested in reviving it in a minimalist fashion. Here at WikiProject Film, our key strengths are this forum and the guidelines that establish our best practices. I would like to replicate that at WP:ACTOR. I believe it would be beneficial to create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Actors and filmmakers to provide better guidance. In my experience, there are a lot of frustrating tables in actors and filmmakers' articles. Not to mention that I've noticed a lot of "Filmography" sections are just split into list articles. For example, when I go to Bruce Willis, I have to go down to "Filmography" and click yet again to another article to even see the body of work that defines him just as much as his career. In that case, there could at least be a simple list where the filmography sub-article would be more detailed. Would others be interested in discussing that kind of thing? If so, I hope you can add WT:ACTOR to your watchlist. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What about merging it into this project? I see alot of overlap as the two go hand-in-hand. But I agree, the MOS needs to be better. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging is an option, but I feel like it would be a lot to absorb, structurally speaking. It would involve a lot of re-tagging. I think that the biographical subject matter is important enough (especially in regard to living persons) for the WikiProject to stand alone. Maybe it could be better defined as a WikiProject below WP:FILM in terms of hierarchy? WP:FILM itself is predominantly individual films with all the technical and historical detail behind them. While actors and filmmakers are part of that (warranting the hierarchy), it is a significant enough body to have its own WikiProject treatment, especially in terms of guidelines. I suppose I am making this suggestion because as a reader, I've been dissatisfied with the bio articles and want to see the articles better connected to film articles, so I'm hoping for dialogue to do this. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think that the two projects should be merged. I have always understood that {{WikiProject Film}} decided to not include biography articles, because it already covers so many articles related to film. Actors, filmmakers and screenwriters are better covered by adding the parameter |filmbio-work-group=yes to the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner instead. In fact, there are several task forces associated with this project, where the parameters |film=yes or |cinema=yes should probably be removed, since the article deals with a person, and doesn't really fall under the scope of WikiProject Film. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Maltese Falcon film prop created by Fred Sexton for John Huston.jpg

image:Maltese Falcon film prop created by Fred Sexton for John Huston.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Les Mistons

Hello, the article about Truffaut's milestone Les Mistons is no longer a stub. Somebody please re-evaluate. Thanxalot. NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't need an assessment to upgrade a stub to start class, anyone can do that including editors who have worked on the article. Assessments are more for C & B-class ratings which are submitted at WP:FILM/A. Betty Logan (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Betty, thank you. Well, there is a saying in Germany: "Flattering yourself stinks". But lifting a stub to start class is indeed a rather modest achievement. NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Biographical information on actors in cast lists and relevance to the film.

Over at The Blue Angel, User:Beyond My Ken keeps adding biographical information relating to the death of one of the stars in a concentration camp 14 years after the film's release.[10][11] Whilst relevant to the biography of the actor in question, I fail to see the specific relevance at the film's article. Thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, here are some thoughts:

• I didn't "add" anything to the article, it's been in there for a while, you removed it
• Why did you open the discussion here rather than on the article talk page, where you advised me to go?
• Why didn't you follow WP:BRD and open the discussion on the article talk page instead of reverting again after your Bold edit was Reverted by me. Are you unaware that "D" stands for "Discussion"?
• Why do you assess the death in the gas chamber of one of the major actors in the film as "trivia"? "Trivia", by defintion is trivial - is a death in the Holocaust trivial to you?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And I removed it because it was not relevant. Something another editor also thought, but you added it back in anyway.[12] It doesn't matter where we discuss this, but it seems likely that more people would see it here. By discussing here, we are following WP:BRD. It is obviously not "trivial" to the actor in question, but it is in terms of a film that was made 15 years prior to his death. Please could you explain how biographical information regarding the later life one of the actors is relevant to the film article in question. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia." It's something this is interesting to the reader, and relevant to the period of time. Do you think our readers give shit about MOS guidelines (not policies, guidelines)., or would they prefer to find an interesting fact about one of the actors without having to read that actor's biography? What do you think we're here for, to slavishly follow "rules" like robots, or to use our intellect, talent and judgment as editors to create interesting and informative articles for our readers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

But please explain its relevance. We have individual articles for actors, so why include their biographical information in the films they are in? Why don't we also explain that Emil Jannings died of liver failure, or Marlene Dietrich died of kidney failure? Simply because it isn't relevant in the context of the film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. In your world dying of kidney failure is exactly equivalent to dying in the Holocaust. You see absolutely no relevance in an article about one of the major films of the Weimar Republic to the death of one of its actors in the Holocaust, nothing whatsoever? No relationship or relevance at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm done. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The sarcasm is unhelpful, Ken. As an outsider to the issue I tend to agree that the actor's circumstances ex post facto are generally irrelevant to discussing the work in question. Unless the actor's death is considered by critics to be essential to understanding the film, it belongs in the actor's page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think that the reference as presented, would be better applied to the article for Kurt Gerron, as it doesn't appear to have any relevance to the film The Blue Angel. And Ken, part of discussion is respecting other opinions, so that we can form a consensus. Lashing out at other editors is not constructive, and goes against WP:CIVIL. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Butler

There is a request to move The Butler to Lee Daniels' The Butler as seen here. You can read the story behind the renaming here. Maybe with this new wave of "brand awareness" (looking at you, Marvel's The Avengers), we won't have to worry about disambiguating future films. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh - I really dislike the use of the plural possessive apostrophe on singular names. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Avengers 2, Thor 2, Captain America 2, etc., in article lead

Despite all these films having received titles, the provisional informal numerical placeholder titles (The Avengers 2, Thor 2, Captain America 2) are all still mentioned in the articles' leads. As we have a redirects from these numerical titles, and the leads mention that they are sequels, it seems redundant and unprofessional to still refer to these "titles". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(Copied-pasted response from your other thread) People still call them by these names, and they are still referred to as such by reliable sources for simplicity sake or just to identify with general audiences. Whatever the case maybe, it used enough to warrant inclusion to put readers first. We use them so when a reliable author or someone affiliated with the film uses the term, readers now what they're talking about. Example: the title for Thor: The Dark World was announced over a year ago but sources less than 24-hours ago still call it Thor 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How is any reader coming to Thor: The Dark World from the redirect Thor 2 disadvantaged if "Thor 2" is not specifically mentioned? Should we include "Indiana Jones 4" at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because it was referred to as such elsewhere? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What if they didn't come from the redirect? What if they came directly to Thor: The Dark World but see a direct quote or check a reference which calls it Thor 2, without any preexisting knowledge, they might know they are the same film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's why we say "sequel to..." --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sequel could be any film in a sequence of films, 3, 4, 5, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't describe them as that though, we'd say "second sequel" or "third in the xxx series/franchise" or similar. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You may not but a new reader doesn't know that. You may not like it but its better to be as clear as possible and not make any assumptions on part of the reader.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, we're presenting these as if they were the actual alternative names, which does more harm than good - I'm happy to go along with Erik's suggestion below, but still think the inclusion is unnecessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw your edit at The Wolverine (film), what if we instead use Template:Redirect?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As in simply "Thor 2 redirects here"? I could go with that... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't work because of the "other uses" part. Maybe a new template is needed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Hatnote is free text. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Very well then.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sort of fine with removing these, but maybe in their removal, move the sequel mention up a bit more? It's easy for us to be deeply familiar with these films, but not all readers are like that. EDIT: I just saw TriiipleThreat's comment after an edit conflict. Maybe we could instead de-bold these alternative titles and remove them fully when it gets closer to the films' release dates? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in having these alternate titles in the lead, especially if the article contains references that use the abbreviated title. But I agree that a hatnote is preferable, if the title could be applied to something other than the movie. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would endorse the hatnote approach as well. It is separate from the lead section but still highlights that the query indeed deposits the reader at the right article. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, most of them covered by WP:NCF. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Note this doesn't affect WP:NCF. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

---

On a related note, I was wondering if anyone knows if WP:NCF was created with community consensus? (That version was imported from WP:NC) I know things used to be different ten years ago, for example WP:NC is now at WP:AT, but pages still being named after the first. Also, this is the oldest version of the page, older versions appear to be lost or in Nostalgia. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell you if it was created with community consensus (it predates me), but it seems to exist with community consensus. For example, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name was completely redrafted just a few months ago after extensive discussions on the talk page. The Film series section was revised last year too, so the guideline has certainly been subject to community consensus since its inception. If there is a specific problem with it then it would be simpler to just revise that particular aspect of the guideline rather than deciphering what is there with or without consensus after all these years. Betty Logan (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the reply. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Countries of Production

An editor told me that IMDB is not an allowed source not just to find references of countries of production but for everything else, is that true because I find IMDB to be a very good. reliable and reputable source? ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/IMDB, IMDB is not allowed to be used as a reliable source, because it relies on user-generated information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you need sources for things like countries, the BFI database and the AFI catalog are often used in that capacity. You can get a full list of vetted sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BFI and AFI are user-generated too. Much like any source... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of funny that IMDb is not allowed on Wikipedia of all places because its info comes from readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really, we're not allowed to cite ourselves either, and atleast we can check to see from where the information came.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So how do you know for 100% that x bit of info on BFI isn't straight from IMDB, as their data monkey was lazy that afternoon? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is funny because IMDb is the most reliable source for a lot of information (everyone uses it) but apparently there was some nervousness that if you just let anyone edit there might be inaccurate information. We are so different! (No, wait...) --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, noone here is saying Wikipedia is better than IMDb, that is why we cannot cite ourselves. Also IMDb like Wikipedia can be very unreliable especially for future films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct that we can't cite Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it's correct that we can't cite a source where the contents often change regularly (and sometimes are deleted entirely) and frequently aren't attributed to their original source or another reliable source? WP:CIRCULAR DonIago (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a straw man there. No one said that. I said that citing Wikipedia is not forbidden, at least I can't find anything that says WP is not RS. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR, "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (film) article

Hello, everyone. More eyes might be needed on the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (film) article. There's a person, using different IPs, who keeps adding an old version of the article that has, for example, an overly detailed plot section and an overly detailed section about the film's sequel (the sequel now has its own article). Though I have not yet looked in the article's edit history to see if it is an old version of the article, it's easy to see that it's an old version by comparing the overly detailed section about the sequel to the less detailed version of that section...and when comparing the existence of the interwiki links (an outdated method) to the non-interwiki links version. See here. The IP might also have edited the old version before pressing "Save page"; for example, the inappropriate capitalization of "Reception" for "Critical reception," which the IP has also done elsewhere. Looking the edit history of that "elsewhere IP," this person is perhaps reverting to an older version of other articles as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll watchlist that article. I reverted the edits at Airplane! as well. I wonder if we could do a range block based on the shared part of the IP addresses seen in the page history. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. I see that the IP has struck again soon after I posted this section. The IP might also be using open proxies, which can also be range-blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to file a rangeblock report at WP:AIV, but most recent IP address was just blocked, which led to the report being removed. I've asked the blocking admin CactusWriter about a possible rangeblock. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. And at least CactusWriter gave the article a form of page protection in addition to blocking one of the IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I did block the current IP for 72 hours. The IP address appears to be dynamic, so I don't think a longer block is worthwhile and I do tend to worry about the bigger range blocks because of the collateral damage. I've also semi-protected the page for a month. I hope the vandal gets bored by then. I'll keep the page watchlisted, too, in case the problem continues. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, CactusWriter. If the IP is using open proxies, a range-block is usually fine to do, but I understand your hesitance to range-block if those are not open proxies. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)