Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

The use of Template:dagger

Hello everyone, is there a way if we can use something else to denote the unreleased films instead of Template:dagger? I respond to a ticket today and the customer raised a concern that the symbol is not instantly recognisable and confused with a symbol commonly used to indicate death so any suggestion if we can use a different symbol. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, I've never seen that used in that context. Generally, they're just described as unreleased or if in a table, a parenthetical or a note in a notes column stating "unreleased" or some prose. Do you have a specific example of this usage, to better figure out how to change it? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I've seen the dagger used in some filmographies. I agree that it would be best to keep to prose instead. Looks like this works for finding "Filmography" sections that use the dagger. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Dagger (typography) says: "A dagger or obelisk ( † ) is a typographical symbol usually used to indicate a footnote if an asterisk has already been used." Wikipedia uses it in many different types of articles, and {{dagger}} has 11353 transclusions. The search "unreleased films" hastemplate:Dagger only finds two articles: Mohanlal filmography#Films in Malayalam and Kriti Kharbanda#Filmography. The latter currently fails to include it in the explanation so that should be fixed. Apart from that it sounds like an issue for another venue if somebody doesn't want Wikipedia to use daggers for footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We should look at cast and crew articles as well as company articles since they may use the dagger too. They won't have "Unreleased films", I think. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

But should daggers be replaced? I see no need for film articles to do that when daggers are common elsewhere, it's a valid typographical symbol for the purpose, and there is no Wikipedia guideline against it. Film articles also use them for different purposes, e.g. currently playing films in box office lists like List of highest-grossing animated films. Like the above examples with unreleased films, it's combined with a background color. Some users don't see colors so there is also a symbol per WP:COLOR. I don't think it's worth an extra column with text to explain it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to having a guideline against it, their usage within the English is described at Footnote as thus:

Typographical devices such as the asterisk (*) or dagger (†) may also be used to point to footnotes; the traditional order of these symbols in English is *, †, ‡, §, ‖, ¶.[1] Historically, ☞ was also at the end of this list.[2] In documents like timetables, many different symbols, as well as letters and numbers, may be used to refer the reader to particular notes. In John Bach McMaster's multi-volume History of the People of the United States the sequence runs *, †, ‡, # (instead of §), ‖, Δ (instead of ¶), ◊, ↓, ↕, ↑

.

If they are not going to be replaced by an asterisk then they shouldn't be replaced at all. This is the English-language Wikipedia after all. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol and PrimeHunter: For example, Cate Blanchett on screen and stage#Film and a list of 459 article show a small box above the list of films which reads † Denotes films that have not yet been released. I think the customer was confused/disagree with the use of dagger/cross because it's been used mostly in biography articles. I agree it's a valid typographical symbol for the purpose, and there is no Wikipedia guideline against it but can't we replace the dagger with something else especially in the BLP articles? GSS (talk|c|em) 09:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool, cool. I just wanted to make sure what the issue looked like. I think in the Cate Blanchett example, that should just be removed entirely, because it's denoted in the notes column that the films are in post-production. (I was also curious if "unreleased" meant "never released" or "upcoming".) I think to the whole thing about whether they should be replaced, there's a valid argument, I believe, to the dagger being mistaken for "death" (i.e., posthumous release) in biographical articles. Additionally, is the dagger necessary? If there is a notes column in these articles, which in my experience there is 90% of the time, then such a note could just be easily noted there instead. I say just remove them entirely and use the notes column.

Sidebar, I do notice that a lot of these are Indian related articles, and iirc, there's been an issue over at WP:TV about Indian television articles typically ignoring general conventions of style, both in codified MOS and de facto. I'm not sure that's entirely related to this issue, and I don't bring it up as a mark against keeping the daggers, but it's just a general note that if the daggers go, they may come back. (See a current discussion regarding Indian TV articles.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film) at FLRC

I have nominated List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cowlibob (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dawgtown

Hey all, Dawgtown may be of interest to some of you. The article was created in July 2014 as an upcoming independent animated film. It was deleted in November 2016 after a PROD expired. It was recreated by editor Cartoonist 101, then deleted again in December 2016 after another PROD expiration. It was recently created again by a brand new user. At a casual glance to me, it seems like someone's trying to establish legitimacy for their vapor project by setting up a Wikipedia article--we're basically hosting content about an upcoming film that has been trying to get off the ground for three years. Why? Anyway, I'm hoping the community could take a look and decide whether it should stay or it it should be taken to AfD since the PRODs have not dissuaded re-creation. The current version of the article is very much like the last deleted version (sorry, only admins will be able to see this link) but the production section has been expanded a bit and more references have been added. In my experienced opinion, someone saved the previous version and built the new version on top of that, which raises some questions about editor involvement. I think we're being used for promotion here, but contrary thoughts are invited. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like WP:NFF applies here. The best source looks like the Jacksonville article, which goes a long way to establishing notability. I'm not sure that we've got anything that covers "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced" yet, but I can't see all of the sources from my office.--Killer Moff (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Killer Moff: Your thoughts are appreciated, thank you. Would you or anyone else at the project be willing to go pull the trigger on an AfD? Is it worth it? Other options are moving to draft space. @FW365668: since you are currently the chief contributor of this article, I think you deserve to be aware of my issues with this article. I'm concerned that Wikipedia is being used both as a promotional vehicle, and to host information about what appears to be a neverending vapor project. The existence of the article seems indulgent to me, to say the least. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Well, turns out the creator was a Nate Speed sock. Since there have been minimal edits to the page by other editors, would that make it eligible for WP:G5? Sro23 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Looks like NeilN thought it was--it has been deleted. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Actually, one question: How do we know it was a sock of Nate Speed? I don't see that info in the block log or any attempt to link FW365668 to Nate Speed in the Nate Speed SPI. What am I missing? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

They restored content added by IP socks to Warner Bros. and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Sro23 (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Worldwide distribution as redirect for discussion

The redirect page "Worldwide distribution", currently retargeted to "Film", is tagged as RfD. I invite you to the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The Conjuring (franchise) move request

Just to let people here know, there is a name change being debated at Talk:The Conjuring (franchise)#Requested move 4 April 2017 for the The Conjuring (franchise). I encourage everyone to participate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone have opinions on when we should and shouldn't note something as fictional within a piece of fiction?

I just spotted this conversation and it seems like the kind of thing that could get tempers flared, though it's fine right now. In short, the film is set in a fictional village that is located in a real world county and two editors disagree on whether noting the village as fictional is helpful. I dropped in my two cents but 1) I'm not super invested either way, just idly interested and hoping to head off any drama and 2) I've been wikilite/absent for several years so I may have missed some chats that could inform this. I was hoping some of you who have been more active recently might have something to say at the target discussion. I can only think of a few examples of when we have done this and though I know they exist, can't think of any for where we decided not to. Millahnna (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising that. I haven't been around long enough to provide anecdotal examples of when this has and hasn't been done. However, there has been a recent discussion relating to writing 'in or out of universe' here that is somewhat relevant I think. It certainly seems a fallacy to state that we should not state something is fictional because that would mean that we would have to all the time with all aspects/characters or that nothing is ever served by explicitly mentioning that something is fictional. There is certainly no requirement to state that characters etc are fictional within the context of a plot summary, this would only need to be done if it serves to add clarity or impart some specific information about the work of fiction in question. So the question then would be, is it appropriate in this particular article? The questions to consider IMO would be;

• Is the setting otherwise realistic and could readers assume that this is a real place? (Yes and yes in this case. If it was a film set on the planet Zanix 6 in the city of Gadigody then we can safely assume that the reader probably won't think that Gadigody was a real place due to its context).
• Is it relevant to the fiction that it's a invented place? (A little in this case. Sandford could be seen as a stereotype of Middle England and its mindset, so making clear that its a fictional place helps emphasise that for the reader).
• Is the possibility of confusion and the importance to the narrative high enough to warrant a stylistic shift within a plot summary which otherwise doesn't indicate that its a work of fiction to highlight it? (Debatable, I would probably include it, because to me, making readers aware of the fact that Sandford is fictional 'model' village complete with a model village within it within a film which derives much of its comedy of taking the tropes of American action movies and transplanting them into Middle England adds to their understanding of the film, but I can understand why others might disagree).

I thought I'd reply here to see if others think I'm way off base. Scribolt (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I personally think we are opening a can of worms by going down this route. If we start specifying that certain places are fictional where does it end, and where does that leave us? Do we have to start referring to the fictional planets of Tatooine and Krypton, and if we don't could we inadvertently mislead the reader into thinking they are real because some other articles specify when a place is fictional? Should we refer to Jack and Rose as "fictional" people in the Titanic article? And what of films that take scientific theory and play fast and loose with it? I notice the Hot Fuzz article does actually specify that Sandford is a fictional place in the "filming" section and this seems to me the proper way to approach this kind of thing. We should leave our real world knowledge out of the plot summary, but if it's relevant it can be discussed in other sections of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify (I tried to make to make this clear in my response), the decision to refer to something explicitly as fictional or to refer to the film-making should always be made on an article by article basis. I completely disagree with you on the 'We should leave our real world knowledge out of the plot summary' comment if by that you mean we should always leave it out. Does that mean that we can never refer to a flashback? Or the fact that timelines are presented in a non-chronological way? Or that a character breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience? What I do agree with is that in all the examples you listed above there is zero benefit to doing it, so it shouldn't be done. Referring to the real world should only be done exceptionally, and only when it adds something. The question therefore should be, does it add something in this specific case? I don't feel very strongly about this particular example, you could argue it either way. Please consider commenting at the MOS:PLOT talk page I linked to above, where these issues have recently been discussed. Scribolt (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A flashback or a non-chronological presentation is not an appropriate analogy. They are narrative devices used within the work and you are not reading real-world knowledge into the film. I don't need any specific real-world knowledge to follow the prequel story in The Godfather 2 and adequately recap the plot. However, I do require an atlas to ascertain that Sandford is not a real place. If it's real-world status is relevant I just think there are more appropriate places within the article to cover such details. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

But the line between 'real knowledge' and 'narrative device' is somewhat blurry isn't it? The decision to create a fictional village within an otherwise 'real world' could also be seen as a narrative device. And if I didn't know what a consiglere is, or what the Mafia was, or what the Cuban Revolution involved, I might struggle to understand the plot summary of Godfather Part II, which is why sometimes we do explain what it is being referred to by either using wiki-links or by adding an explanation. However I accept that consensus appears to be that in this case, Sandfords fictional status is not relevant enough to understanding the plot to warrant mentioning in the summary. I'm in complete agreement that these kind of things should only done when it's needed, and even stating that it should only be done exceptionally. I just object to the 'we should never do it anywhere' (which I appreciate that you haven't personally said) or the 'we shouldn't do it here, because we set a precedent for elsewhere' argument, which is something that I have never suggested or want. I agree with Flyer22 Reborn's position below, don't use this kind of language unless necessary, and it's usually not needed. Scribolt (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's a mistake to include any external real-world information in plot summaries, since this introduces ambiguity about what a plot summary actually is, and what sort of information it should contain. Keeping them to a strict in-universe perspective lets us get the plot-summarising business out of the way so the rest of the article can focus on the real world. It's a kind of shorthand - the reason, for example, that we don't need to begin every summary with "In the opening sequence..." (The only exception, as far as I'm aware, is our current use of "In a post-credits scene...", which I think is OK to mention since those scenes are separated from the narrative in a meaningful real-world way.) Specifying which elements are fictional could also confuse things when dealing with metafictional works - as long as we don't do that, we can describe the interplay between "real" and "fictional" elements without confusion.

If the fact that Sandford is fictional is genuinely important, we should be able to find a source discussing why, and fit it somewhere in the "Production", "Reception", or "Themes" section (with maybe a brief mention in the lead). —Flax5 13:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Plot summaries are supposed to avoid in-universe approaches and should include out-of-universe references as necessary to describe the work as a viewer would see it rather than a character within the work. In terms of describing elements as fictional or not, it depends. By virtue of being under a "Plot" section, we should implicitly assume that elements are fictional. If there's no unique dropping of real-world names or places, then there's no need to predicate that the characters and places are fiction (eg there's no need to id Gotham City as fiction in the Batman films). But when there's a mix, that's where some care needs to be taken. Titanic is a good example where there is a combination of fictional and historical characters, but it would weigh down the plot summary to identify these, so instead the cast list that immediately follows has been developed to distinguish between the two to help make clear to the reader which is which. In the case of Hot Fuzz, while the village is later identified as fictional deep within the production section, it's not as clear as the Titanic film cast, and because it mixes in London among other real places, the village should be clearly identified as fictional within the plot summary since it can cause confusion when its named next to real places. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• What Flax5 said. It's not important to the plot summary whether the setting of Hot Fuzz is real or not. This is not what plot summaries are for. Popcornduff (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, on WP, plot summaries are allowed because they are meant to help support the rest of the article on the film or other work; they are not meant to be treated as stand-alone recaps just because we do allow a plot summary in articles on notable works. It's why these are to be written out-of-universe style to avoid treating the narrative as "real". --MASEM (t) 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others that we should not get into real-world information in the plot summary...unless necessary. If it's "While in flashback" language, it might be necessary. If it's "This town is fictional in real life" language, then that's not necessary and is taking away from focus on the plot summary. As for the other stuff, I've argued with Masem at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction that the vast majority of our plot summaries are written from an in-universe perspective and only employ out-of-universe language when necessary. I'm okay with out-of-universe language when necessary, including explicit out-of-universe language like "While in flashback" and "In a voice-over," but the explicit out-of-universe language usually is not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Toy Story 4 page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Stage names" for animal actors?

Pal (dog) is a little weird. The dog was almost uniformly credited as "Lassie", even in at least one film that had nothing to do with the character Lassie.

I was going to post on that article's talk page asking if we should say that the dog was "professionally known as Lassie" or something to that effect, but then I realized that there might be a reason we don't already. This seemed like as good a place to ask as any.

Another concern is the fact that pet names are supposed to be nicknames (I don't think they usually have legal status -- my sister's rabbits names didn't, nor did my fish's, but maybe certain specific pets are exceptions), which means that a "stage name" by which the animal is almost universally known is, from a certain point of view, just as "real" as its "real" name.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea about the rest of it but some animals in films are pedigreed with papers and all of that and might have legal names because of the papers. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Millahnna (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is correctly worded as it currently is; I don't see any problem with it. Show-business animals with Wikipedia articles who portray(ed) named animal characters should have articles under their real name, not the animal character's name. The fact of how they are credited onscreen doesn't really alter that. The male dog was not "professionally known as" Lassie; he played the character of Lassie several times, just like Strongheart played several characters on film. The reason Pal was credited as "Lassie" in 6 out of his 9 screen appearances was to keep the dog's real gender a secret, for obvious reasons. When screen dogs play their actual gender their real names were and are not obscured in the onscreen credits: [1]; [2]. (Once in a while a dog/animal will actually play a character called their real name in various screen ventures [3], but that's pretty rare.) If needed, the wiki article can mention the fact that he was credited as "Lassie" 6 out of 9 times. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast and Stockholm syndrome

I'm wondering how best to address the "Belle has Stockholm syndrome" topic, and whether it should go in the Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) article or the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article. I don't think it needs to be in both articles (except for any commentary from critics in the critical response sections). I'm surprised that it's not already in either article (unless it was removed in the past due to poor sourcing and being too fringe...before it became as discussed as it is today), but I see that an unsourced mention of it was in the Stockholm syndrome article. A number of media sources argue that Belle has Stockholm syndrome, but there are also reliable sources, which sometimes include expert commentary, noting that she does not have Stockholm syndrome. The actress (Emma Watson) who portrays Belle in the live-action (2017) film has also addressed the topic. This Google search shows what I mean. I will go ahead and post a note on the talk pages of the two film articles and on the talk page of the Stockholm syndrome article so that concerned editors may weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It has probably turned into a debate in relation to this particular version because Emma Watson has set out her stall that this is a feminist take on the fairytale, so its feminist credentials are being more carefully scrutinized. If the criticisms are universal rather than applicable to just a single adaptation maybe add a themes section to the main Beauty and the Beast article? Criticisms and responses pertaining to a particular version could remain at whichever article they pertain to. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it specific to Belle (Disney) character article? Or Beauty and the Beast in general? There are also articles that show her as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Betty, yeah, the 2017 film article is likely the best place for the material since Watson has weighed in and is quoted (or otherwise pointed to) in a number of sources on the topic. I've considered adding a paragraph on it to the Controversy section of that article. Given that sources are about the Disney films, I don't think the material should be placed in the general Beauty and the Beast article. A little content could go in the 1991 article and we could point to the 2017 article for further detail.

AngusWOOF, in my opinion, it's not specifically about Belle; it's about the film and the message some people think it's sending, especially to young girls. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• In order to avoid OR and UNDUE, it should only be mentioned in articles the subject of which has been repeatedly mentioned vis-a-vis "stockholm syndrome" in mainstream journalism at the time, I think. It would be OK in Emma Watson's article, along with rebuttals. Other articles would be a harder sell. In other words, the 1991 film wouldn't work in my opinion because that's retroactive. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, what do you mean by "in mainstream journalism at the time"? It is a discussion being had now, mainly as a result of the 2017 film. The sources are specifically talking about the films in question; so WP:OR is not an issue unless adding the material to the Controversy section of the 2017 article would be considered WP:OR if the sources do not specifically use the word controversy. The material doesn't have to go in that section, though. And I would keep WP:UNDUE in mind, which is why I suggested a paragraph (not more than one paragraph) above. I don't think that the material should be regulated to the Emma Watson article. Also, I'm sure that whether I add material on this topic or not, someone will eventually add it to the 2017 article. I'd rather go ahead and do it and get it right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked to see if any film critics refer to any aspect of the films as "Stockholm syndrome," but I will later. This section of the Passengers (2016 film) article mentions the syndrome. This type of stuff shows that the world thinks somewhat differently than it used to about romances told in this way. Either way, in the Beauty and the Beast case, I think it's important to note that experts disagree with people using this term without much thought or care, or with simply misusing the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It reminds me of the controversies over Revenge of the Nerds and Blade Runner, both of which have scenes that, 30 years later, have been described by critics as rape. Interestingly, our article on Blade Runner makes no note of this, despite the existence of high-quality academic sources. If I recall correctly, it was reverted in the past by angry fans. Controversial criticism like this can be difficult to keep in an article about a popular film. Something to consider is to look into Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, which was interpreted by some critics as commentary on the perceived Stockholm syndrome of films like Beauty and the Beast. It may lead to further sources. I never really thought about it before, but we probably have enough sources to write about this topic somewhere, either as a section in Stockholm syndrome or an independent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Blade Runner is up to snuff as a Featured Article anymore. It became a FA a very long time ago, and I think newer FAs do a better job comprehensively referencing multiple academic sources. In the case of the recent Beauty and the Beast, I see numerous headlines about this matter in Google News, so I think it is proper for Wikipedia to summarize that discussion and to update it as it evolves. Similar content can be covered elsewhere in a more general Beauty and the Beast article, under the article for Stockholm syndrome if there is any film-related or popular culture-related section there, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not suggesting any changes, just wanted to add my support for what seems to be the current general view - on the article for the 2017 film, including material regarding Disney's and Watson's portrayal of this aspect of the story specifically in the 2017 film. At present the section is about 230 words long which is probably about the right amount considering the length and content of the rest of the article. I guess if a detailed section of this subject citing analyses spanning several different works, a section could be added to the original fairy tale page, or an appropriate article here. Swoophle (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this discussion. I'm a fairly new editor. Before finding this discussion, I added a section under controversies in the 2017 movie page about "The Beast Imprisoning Belle," the Honest Trailers parody to the 1991 film, and a mention about the arranged marriage context on the fairy tale page. We'll see how long it lasts.Beauxlieux (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for that information. And, yeah, I was thinking that there might be opposition to adding material on this; that's why I started this discussion. Erik, thanks for your input as well. As noted above, Beauxlieux has added some material to the 2017 article. I tweaked it, as seen here, here and here. Beauxlieux, thanks for the addition. I think that the only thing currently missing from the section is an explanation about why some critics and experts state that it's not Stockholm syndrome, and why there are arguments that Belle was no longer being held captive after initially being prisoner. I'll get around to adding material on that if you or someone else does not beat me to it first. As for the section you added to the 1991 article, I think that giving that parody its own section is WP:Undue weight. It would better to move that little bit of material up to the initial section, without a subheading and point to the 2017 article for material on the Stockholm syndrome matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Good points Flyer22 Reborn Thank you. The explanation of why critics say it's not Stockholm's was in the article I cited so I just added it to the 2017 article. A lot of people are talking about whether it's Stockholm or not, but I think using the explanation by the man who coined the term is a definitive source on the topic. Not sure I know/understand: arguments that Belle was no longer being held captive after initially being prisoner.

As for the 1991 article, as I said, I'm a new editor. I thought this issue should be added somewhere. So I agree that might not be the best place/way. I think people are definitely going back to look at the original Disney now that the new film came out. The Elite Daily article I footnoted in the 2017 article talks about the cartoon film and compares the two in regard to the imprisonment issue. Beauxlieux (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Beauxlieux, thanks for this, but there are other reasons why people state that it's not Stockholm syndrome. I'm looking to add a brief summary of those reasons. As for "there are arguments that Belle was no longer being held captive after initially being prisoner," I mean that people have argued that she is not a prisoner because she is free to go. Initially, she is a prisoner, but this changes. And it's another reason that people argue that Belle was not suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it noted that Belle is not confined to any one place in the castle; she is free to wander the castle, except for one room (the one the Rose is in), and she is free to leave the castle and does leave it twice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn o.k. Ochberg goes into more explanation in the article I cited, too. I think it's pretty clear that it's not Stockholm's syndrome so I don't know that we need to beat a dead horse. It depends on how in depth you want to make the section. I would then want to include more on how it is nevertheless still problematic in order to maintain balance.Beauxlieux (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I also just separated the first sentence into two in order to clarify that not all who have issue with the film think that it is Stockholm'sBeauxlieux (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I was only talking about a brief summary of why it's not Stockholm syndrome -- as in more than one reason. And it should obviously be noted that Belle is not a prisoner throughout, which counters the material that she is a prisoner and that's that. So there is no need for any more material on why some people believe that the relationship is harmful. I'm also concerned about the following line: "The Beast does not apologize to Belle for imprisoning, hurting, or manipulating her, and his treatment of Belle is not painted as wrong." I am concerned because this is one viewpoint and there's currently nothing there to counter it; many do not consider that the Beast manipulated Belle or was without remorse. These two missing aspects I mentioned only need a sentence each. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I was confused why you gave a definition of Stockholm if there's an internal link to it. Not sure what the protocol is on that.

I understand your concern about the line but I do think it is balanced with the not Stockholm's argument. It is a summary of the article cited and is meant to support the "some therapists" sentence. I think the issue here is how we define what the controversy is. I did not label it "Stockholm's Syndrome" because I think it's a bigger issue than that. Some people, like Watson, are saying it's not Stockholm's syndrome, so it's o.k. Get over it. And others are saying: it's not Stockholm's syndrome but that doesn't mean it's o.k. Beauxlieux (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave a definition of it in the section (in parentheses) so that readers know what it is without clicking on the link. The link is for further detail. The definition, readers knowing what Stockholm syndrome is, is important for the context of that section. Readers should know what it is in that section. Briefly explaining what a term means in a section, for context, is common on Wikipedia.

As for the rest, I still feel that there should be one sentence noting why people argue that it's not Stockholm syndrome; and I mean more than just this bit you added. And I still feel that there should be one sentence that presents the argument that Belle was eventually free to leave at any time. I will be adding these two sentences if no one else does. When it comes to the line I am concerned about, I would change it to something like, "While some state that the Beast does not apologize to Belle for imprisoning, hurting, or manipulating her, and his treatment of Belle is not painted as wrong, others argue that, after a while, Belle is free to leave at any time and the Beast is remorseful for initially holding her as his prisoner." I'd rather avoid "some people" wording when possible, though, per WP:Weasel wording. And, really, I would cut the "his treatment of Belle is not painted as wrong" bit. That is an opinion and it contrasts what we see in the film. The film, via other characters and Belle's feelings and attitude, quite clearly shows that some of the Beast's behavior toward Belle is wrong.

On a side note: It is not necessary to ping me to this section; this talk page is on my watchlist. I stopped pinging you above because I knew that you would check back here for a reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I used WP:In-text attribution for the sentence I was concerned about. The in-text attribution takes care of the neutrality issue I had with that sentence. I still plan to add two sentences regarding what I stated above, but I'll do that another day. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that she isn't a prisoner for the whole movie has anything to do with whether she was suffering from Stockholm when she was imprisoned.

If you want to add another sentence about why it isn't Stockholm, I'm not going to argue but I think it's unnecessary. I just clarified that therapists think "the relationship depicted is dysfunctional and abusive" so as to name the issue that they have with it and not just say what it isn't. (I also added the Vanity Fair article which is the original source for Watson's comments.)

I think the in-text attribution was a good solution. My only hesitation would be that I don't know if Menta is the main thinker on that train of thought but she did say it so I think that's good.

On a side note, I do appreciate the pings, even tho this page is on my watchlist. I find the watchlist confusing.Beauxlieux (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Beauxlieux, the fact that she isn't a prisoner for the whole film has to do with the fact that she could eventually leave at any time that she wanted to. It is a part of the "Belle was a prisoner" argument. And, in fact, one believing that they are a prisoner has much to do with Stockholm syndrome. As for the rest, I have nothing else to state. And I'd rather not be pinged when you reply since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx for the ping Flyer. I'm still a bit dense on this point apparently. What is your cite going to be? Seeing that might help me understand. Beauxlieux (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't yet know what sources I am going to use. I've read various articles on the topic (the Belle matter), and watched some YouTube videos on it, and am repeating what I've seen debated/otherwise mentioned. When I first started this discussion, I wasn't even sure which sources I would use. And, as we know, you beat me to creating the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Taxi Driver page move

Earlier today, Lawrencegordon moved Taxi Driver to Taxi Driver (film) without consensus. Back in early February, he started a discussion on the article talk page, suggesting the move, to which both Lugnuts and I objected. Gordon never responded to the argument I made, but here he has moved the article anyway. The article should be moved back to its original location and Gordon should explain why he made a page move without consensus. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Lugnuts has taken care of it. I can't see an encyclopedic reason for the move, so unless Lawrencegordon can forumlate a statistical rationale then I don't foresee his proposal being successful. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me...? Hehe. Looks like LG has form for recent page-move warring. I've pinged them on the article's talkpage and linked them to WP:RM, if they wish to make a formal request of it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Lugnuts. I think you reverted before I'd even finished my post here. At any rate, I think it's important to get the opinions of other editors in the Film Project and to encourage people to keep an eye out. I'd like to see him explain himself in some forum. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page and his contributions, it looks like he's performed several page moves without consensus. His move of The Bride (Kill Bill) to Beatrix Kiddo was certainly against consensus and should be reversed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it back. If he performs any more bold moves you are entitled to move them back without discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, from the sound of it, if he performs any more bold moves, he might need to be reported to ANI. He's already been warned three times, and now a fourth. Softlavender (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

His recent contributions have almost entirely been page moves. I checked a few of them and saw no discussion. The Beatrix Kiddo move goes against an old discussion on the subject, with no new discussion. He's clearly not getting the message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME

Before it goes any further, I'd like to get a few more opinions on whether our default in discussing characters in film articles should be to use the guideline at MOS:SURNAME or to ignore this and use forenames. It's becoming a bone of contention with a plot editor on the Zombi 2 article, and while I recall a similar discussion at Eraserhead in the past, I'm not sure how frequently or recently this has come up elsewhere. Obviously my preference is to stick with surnames when they're unambiguous, as it keeps the project as a whole more consistent and maintains a more encyclopaedic tone (it is also jarring to discuss characters by forename, but then cast and crew by surname, in the same article), but what is the consensus? GRAPPLE ^X 22:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I view MOS:SURNAME and the whole of MOS:BIO as being about real people. There it's customary to use surnames when discussing people you don't personally know, especailly in formal contexts like an encyclopedia. Fictional characters are treated differently and their surnames are often mentioned rarely if at all. We should help the reader identify the character by mainly using the name the character is best known by whether it's a forename, surname, nickname, code name, pseudonym, or whatever. For example, Seinfeld#Characters says Kramer about Cosmo Kramer but Elaine about Elaine Benes. Viewers of the show would find it odd to say Cosmo or Benes, and many casual viewers wouldn't even know who they are. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, especially in articles which will also discuss "real" people at the same time—with no real reasoning but "feeling" you get into a sort of two-tier approach to how to use names. I mean, I can understand WP:COMMONNAME being a factor in something like a long running television series, where a greater number of uses of a name will start to build a clear image of common usage, but over the course of a single film I don't think we're likely to get into the same situation as Elaine and Kramer. I mean, pulling some examples out of thin air, The Godfather would have cause to refer to Michael, Sonny and Vito since Corleone is ambiguous, but as a single work I don't see that Luca versus Brasi would win out in common usage; likewise I don't see that we'd be best served referring the main character of Psycho as just Norman, over Bates, but Marty from Marty or Martin from Martin would work the other way. I just don't see the merit in discounting how we use names throughout any other field just due to the element of fiction. GRAPPLE ^X 23:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Prime Hunter. The film itself should be the primary reference regarding forenames/surnames, and the MOS does indeed refer to biographies of real people. It is not inherently more encyclopaedic to use surnames when discussing fictional characters. Would you refer to Romeo and Juliet as "Montague" and "Capulet" in the plot summary?? Of course not, because it wouldn't make sense. I'm afraid I think Grapple X is simply trying to maintain some sort of "ownership" over the article in question, and frankly I feel he/she is just being incredibly insular. 82.4.178.56 (talk)

Would you refer to Romeo and Juliet as "Montague" and "Capulet" in the plot summary?

As already mentioned, WP:COMMONNAME clearly allows for exceptions, in established circumstances, and even beyond that, the existence of multiple characters sharing those surnames within that work clearly makes them ambiguous in usage. It's far from a solid yardstick. It's certainly a far cry from one-off characters in a film seldom discussed and never revisited, who could hardly be argued to have any commonly-used names outside the work. As for questions of ownership, I simply watchlist pages that I've written to make sure they're not vandalised or allowed to drift away from assessed versions; if that's somehow considered problematic you'd have a lot of editors to draw over coals for it. GRAPPLE ^X 23:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that there was a lengthy television related discussion about this in regards to a single article, and the discussion did bring up MOS:SURNAME, over at Talk:Arrow (season 1)/Archive 1#First name or last name? and it was eventually subject to an RFC which closed as: "The general consensus is that the principle of WP:COMMONNAME should be followed, even though the relevant policy is a naming convention. This will likely mean most characters are referred to by first name and others by last name." It's possible to achieve a different consensus there, but it might be worth looking into first. Disclaimer, I was heavily involved in that discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Common usage absolutely makes sense, but this would be more about situations where there is no ready example of common usage to fall back on—in the absence of an established practice, do we have cause to deviate from standard naming conventions or do we stick to them? GRAPPLE ^X 00:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would make the most sense. Pulp Fiction, for example, would always be Vincent and Jules, not Vega and Winnfield. I'm not familar with the zombie film to be honest, but seeing as it's a GA, maybe the opinion of those who helped get it to GA would be helpful? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe MOS:IDENTITY is more appropriate in this context. Go with what the sources say, but if it is unclear or undocumented go with the principal form of identification within the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Genres and fancruft (or not) at Cube film articles?

Anyone here keep an eye on the Cube (film series) and its assorted individual film articles? They don't have a lot of watchers but I may have stumbled onto a fancruft problem (and a genre bloat problem) at Cube 2: Hypercube and Cube Zero (the potentially crufty stuff is more a problem at the former than the latter). Honestly, that sort of thing is a little out of my wheelhouse. Those of you who know me know I'm usually just a text polisher and vandal watcher. So I'm not positive of my instincts on this and would appreciate a second look from anyone who gets more into the detailed stuff around here. Either way, I'm washing my hands of the situation. It's not like either article is all that well fleshed out to begin with so it's certainly not worth edit warring over. Millahnna (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding genres, I agree that there is a genre bloat problem. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we need to state the genre or sub-genre under which the film is verifiably classified. We would apply due weight for whichever is the most common classification. It means we should not mash up all identified genres into something that the film has never been called before, in this case the mouthful of "independent science fiction psychological horror thriller". We should keep it straightforward and use the lead section to elaborate distinct elements not covered in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick google search for the first film shows me that the Google summary for it lists "mystery/sci fi", imdb lists "drama/mystery/sci fi", Rotten Tomatoes has "Horror, Science Fiction & Fantasy", and the BFI just list "science fiction". I'd say it's a safe bet to just call it a science fiction film and let any prose make mention of whether it falls under any other genre. For reference,I listed two genres at Eraserhead based on the fact that they're the only genres actually discussed in the article, so you can make the cut that way. GRAPPLE ^X 20:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Naming romanizations on Pokémon: The Movie 2000

There's a discussion regarding the name romanizations at Pokémon: The Movie 2000. The discussion is at Talk:Pokémon: The Movie 2000#Name romanizations. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell (2017 film): Beauty standards in Japan as a reason for Japanese natives not being outraged by the casting of Johansson

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)#Beauty standards in Japan as a reason for Japanese natives not being outraged by the film. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The issue concerns whether or not we should include the view that one reason that Japanese natives are not upset by the casting of Johansson is because of beauty standards (especially white beauty being considered ideal) in Japan. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Help reach a consensus about plot length at A.I. Artificial Intelligence

The plot section is currently sitting at about 790 words (792 according to the counter I use, 802 according to another editor); a little long based on a strict numbers interpretation of WP:FILMPLOT but well within the range that has been established on plots that have become exceptions for various reasons. Some folks have struck up a conversation on the talk page about removing the tag but an anon editor is insistent on keeping. There are only three or four people in the talk page convo (not the anon, that's my next stop), so I was hoping for more opinions to see if there is more that can be trimmed or if this will be one of the films that becomes an exception. Millahnna (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's usually easy to trim these plot summaries down to 700 words. People use too many words to say simple things, like, "They decide to go to the city, where they eat some food". This can rephrased as, "After entering the city, they eat." It's almost the exact same thing but uses half the words. I posted a streamlined version of the plot to the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Jon done? MapReader (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Film auteurs at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Two articles on Timing

Could I have some people looking at the edit histories of Timing (manhwa)‎ and Timing (film), and get some input on whether or not the two articles should remain split? ~Mable (chat) 20:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

move discussion relisted

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:X2 (film)#Requested move 10 April 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent move against WP:NCFILM of Batman (1989 film series)

Please see new discussion at Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)#Requested move 19 April 2017. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Witness (201x film)

The Witness (2016 film) begins "The Witness is a 2015 American documentary" (emphasis added); it was exhibited at the New York Film Festival in 2015, but saw general release in 2015. For whatever it's worth, IMDB labels it "The Witness (2015)".

1. Should it be named as a 2015 film, or it labelled correctly now and the lede and other text needs to be updated?

2. If it should be renamed, there is already a Chinese film at The Witness (2015 film). IMDB also calls this "The Witness (2015)", but includes the transliterated original Chinese title Wo Shi Zheng Ren, which my very rudimentary Mandarin translates to "I Am A Witness."

How should these articles be named and (if necessary) be disambiguated? Country of origin? Director name? Something else? TJRC (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, good question. I would go with The Witness (2015 Chinese film) for the latter. And call me ethno-centrist, but I think since this is English Wikipedia we might get away with moving the former to The Witness (2015 film) (especially since the original name of the Chinese film is Wo Shi Zheng Ren); alternatively The Witness (2015 American film). -- Softlavender (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• If one is clearly the primary subject, just disambiguate the other; if not, disambiguate both. A disproportionate number of page views or secondary sourcing on the topic is usually a good way to check this. GRAPPLE ^X 20:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be The Witness (2015 Chinese film) and The Witness (2015 American film) per WP:NCF if neither are the primary topic. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, looking at WP:NCF, I think that's it. On my part 1... is the US film considered a 2015 film by virtue of its festival release in 2015; or a 2016 film by virtue of its general release in 2016? TJRC (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

2015 per WP:FILMRELEASE. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Betty. Happy to do the page moves, unless someone wants to drag it out at WP:RM. If there's no objections in the next 48hrs or so, I'll pick it up after Easter. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TJRC: - all done. I guess that was 47hrs instead of the full 48, so if anyone would like to complain, please do. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. ArbCom, ANI, or pistols at dawn? Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pistols! But only after I shoot into the air, and you shoot me in the leg. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was thinking more Russian, frankly. Onegin if you want a quick but desperately tragic end to it, or War & Peace if you merely want humiliation all around. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is The Beguiled a remake?

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:The Beguiled (2017 film) as to whether the film should be considered a remake. Walter Sobchak0 argues that it is, changing the article twice before posting on the talk page to make his case. He posted on the talk page earlier today, but it was a rant against Hollywood's lack of imagination and I deleted it. I responded that it is not a remake, that it is an original film based on the same source material, which is not the same thing. I'd like to get some other editor's opinions, please, because this is already contentious and has the potential to become more so. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rolling Stone calls it a remake. Variety calls it a remake. Slate calls it a remake. Indiewire calls it a remake. He may be ranting, but reliable sources seem to agree it is a remake. These are all from the first two pages of a google search, and there's dozens more using the term. There seems broad agreement in reliable sources. Regardless of the user's poor behavior, sources use the word remake liberally. --Jayron32 01:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The terminology is being thrown around loosely. We don't call the umpteenth Hamlet adaptation a "remake", it's an adaptation. The new Beguiled film is probably being referred to as a "remake" simply because it's more famous as a film. There is no evidence as far as I can see that it is in fact a remake—in the sense that it reuses the creative elements of 1971 film—and not in fact just another adaptation of the same novel. Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Betty's read of the situation. The film has a new screenplay, written by Sofia Coppola, it uses no elements of the original film. The word "remake" is being used incorrectly.

And, frankly, I am very concerned about Sobchak's behavior, since his response to every challenge is to become more abusive. Take a look at his comments on the talk page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

At Death Race (film), there was an edit war about whether the film was a prequel or a remake (like forever ago, might still be on the talk page). Media sources intermixed the terminology and it was easy to see it either way for many people. The film's creator, however, said that he thought of it like a prequel or some such. This led to confusion about what to call it in the lead of the wiki article, though. The compromise we reached was to just literally explain that; the film is described by many critics as a remake but the creator said he thought of it as blah blah blah. Would something like that work here? All you need are one or two notable sources discussing it as an adaptation and you can say something like, the film was referred to as a remake in multiple media outlets though blah blah and blah blah thought blah. Just throwing it out there. Millahnna (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Assignation of the "prequel" moniker is an assertion about the in-universe continuity which in many cases is down to the interpretation of the viewer. To state that something is a remake is a claim with a factual basis that can be proven or disproven. To refer to something as a "remake of Work X" is to essentially credit Work X as the source material and the credits in this case don't do that. According to IMDB the writing credits go to Sofia Coppola and the novel, so "remake" in this context is simply a misnomer. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, some extreme comments there from Walter. I see he's been warned by Betty on their talkpage. The rope is dangling. And FWIW, using the same source material for two different films doesn't make the latter a remake of the former. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a classy insult though. I have made a mental note of it, I am sure it will come in useful at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this now has enough eyes/input directly from the Film Project (thanks to all involved), so I've been bold and moved the core discussion back to the article's talkpage. Hope that's OK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject Film participants may be particularly interested in the following categories: Category:Films about cannabis and Category:Documentary films about cannabis. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Item was removed by a non-WPFILM editor who later retracted his over-zealousness in removing this call for collaboration from dozens of pages. This collab is definitely related to WPFILM, we have many ways film enthusiasts could help out, including a number of redlinks for cannabis-related films. Further, we have articles on films like The Marihuana Story that lack a plot outline, and a large number of films that lack a poster/screenshot to illustrate the article. Hope some folks here might find the crossover topic interesting and help out! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(The) Rack pack

Yesterday BBC 2 showed the movie mentioned above. Wikipedia does not have an article about this film. Due to restrictions I'm not able to make an article on Wikipedia myself, so could someone help me out on this? I was really surprised that it isn't included here, considering the fact that this the English Wiki... I'm from the Netherlands myself and snooker is such an unimportant sport here that I won't even bother to get it included on the Dutch one. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC) (O'Sullivan 4 ever!!!)

It's probably slipped under the radar with it debuting on BBC iplayer. I also belong to the Snooker project so I may as well kick it off. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanx in advance! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Betty, I've already kicked off a stub at The Rack Pack but did think of you, having seen your snooker-related edits. Feel free to work off of the stub. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ehm... That was fast!!! Thanks again. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Erik. I'll probably do some work on this. It got a surprisingly large amount of media coverage in the UK despite debuting on iplayer. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oxygene7-13, I had an itch to create content after some recent reverting. :) Betty will work her magic on it! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If this will keep up the pace as it did so far I might consider calling you guys "the rocket"(s)! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Are we allowed to add the iplayer link to this article? You can stream it for free in the UK if you have a TV licence (which virtually every household has) so it's like a very soft subscription service. Obviously people outside the UK can't access the material, so I was wondering what the rules are relating to this? Would it count as promotion? Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  I think it could count as an official link. IMDb listed http://www.therackpacksite.com/ as the official website, but it is a dead link. However, there is WP:RICHMEDIA to consider. Does the iPlayer link provide any information besides the streaming? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  The BBC's programme page might be a decent compromise. It has substantial supplementary content and a link that takes visitirs to the iplayer site if they want to watch the film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Casablanca (film)/archive2

Please note this FA article is now at FA review due to problems listed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)

Is there any chance we can get this permanently semi-protected? It's not an article and there is no cause for IPs to edit it. If you look through the history virtually every IP that has ever edited it has been reverted. Substantive changes should always be discussed anyway, and then a registered editor can install them if necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I took a look at the editing history and found that the page wouldn't qualify for temporary semi-protection (which would be the first course of action.) There is simply not enough vandalism. In fact, during the past two years only a single static IP has edited the page -- and that IP's edits appear to be more about content disagreements than actual vandalism. So, I would decline page-protection there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sadly this has become the standard response to page protection of late. It's obviously a better use of established editors' time to pick through some IP edits rather than stopping them in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's always been a foundational policy of Wikipedia not to protect pages because of a content dispute with a lone editor. If you truly believe the IP editor (an "established" account of ~2 years and more than 3000 edits) is persistently vandalizing and disrupting pages, take it to ANI. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And waste even more time over this IP user? No thanks. I guess an IP with 3,000 edits across two years is better than two registered users with more than 20 years and 660,000 edits between them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not better, but equal. Every case is made only on its merits, and if you can't do that, than you don't have one. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well if you looked a bit more closely at this, pretty much every single edit this IP has made to this one page has been reverted and/or challenged on the talkpage. Forget about this 3,000 edits/2 years red-herring nonsense. It's about the disruption on this one page. You'll also missing the fact that this is a core page that applies across the whole film project. Users rely on this page to be correct when citing precedent for article names. Not to worry if the current version has been updated by a sneak IP edit that goes un-noticed for two years. Just like this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on my experience as a reviewer I'm assuming the answer would be the same but this type of page seems ideal for the pending edits type of protection. Is that a viable possibility? Millahnna (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that pending page is a proper consideration here. And, you're correct: I had decided against that, too, because it shouldn't be "used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes." Of which this appeared to be the case. If the problem becomes persistent edit-warring or disruption, I would see it as a possibility. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:TRAILER query

I'm curious what the regulars here think of the following (from Mom (film)). Is it consistent with the intentions of WP:TRAILER?

The First Look of Mom was unveiled at the Zee Cine Awards 2017 by Salman Khan who hailed Sridevi on stage as "a bigger star than the Khans".[4][5] The actress made the First Look public on Twitter which went viral.[6] Subsequently the Teaser of Mom clocked 1.2 million views on YouTube on the first day itself.[7] It also met with a positive response in Pakistan.[8]

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think for the most part, it is, since some basic description helps support the independent details (going viral, YouTube views, positive response). I would drop Khan's praise here, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your response is appreciated. Perhaps I've been hardened in my role as gnome, but I'm having trouble understanding how the announcement of the first look (a preview, which would seem to qualify as mundane marketing) satisfies the bolded admonishment of WP:TRAILER? Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Same with saying that the actress promoted the first look on her Twitter page. Isn't that customary? And what is "viral"? That used to be more indicative of "whoa, this really took off unexpectedly", like that dancing Hamster, but now it's a default marketing buzzword for anything that received an arbitrary number of views. It seems far less noteworthy when major companies with substantial budgets are able to fund "viral" campaigns. Even the YouTube view count seems trivial to me without context as to why the numbers are noteworthy. What number of views did the last Hindi film preview get? How do I know 1.2 million views is noteworthy? The reception in Pakistan seems quite relevant, because it's unexpected for an Indian film. Anyhow, I could use a refresher course on WP:TRAILER. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I missed this earlier. What you quoted was in response to attempts to list every marketing tactic. A lot of tactics do not get mentioned by secondary sources, and even if secondary sources mention them, it is usually descriptive. So I think the idea is that there has to be something substantial in how a secondary source covers a marketing tactic, in this case noting that it went viral, that it got 1.2 million views, and that it got a positive response in Pakistan. It does not necessarily mean that such details have to be included now, but there is a better rationale for it. Such details can still be excluded if there is consensus that determines that it is not of value to include in the article. I tend to be more inclusive in this regard if secondary sources found fit to do more than to describe the newest marketing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I'm not sure if I really get your point about the guideline being intended to address every marketing tactic, since my interpretation of WP:TRAILER tells me that it wants us to exclude mundane marketing tactics rather than the off-the-wall ones. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your response? Maybe restating my query will help? The bolded print from the MOS seems to say that customary marketing (like trailers and posters) should not be included unless there's some beyond-the-norm reason to do so, like the uniqueness of the Cloverfield ad campaign. The prose I quoted from the Mom article is talking about first looks (mundane posters) and a mundane trailer. I don't see how Sridevi tweeting about the film would be noteworthy, since it would be idiotic for an actor on social media to not tweet about the film they're in. Her post going "viral" is actually a bit of an overreach, since the source says "trending", which is also fluffy on account of how vague "trending" is. (Also, the post has 3,032 likes. How is that "trending" or "viral" in a nation where 422 million allegedly speak Hindi?) I also don't see how Shah Rukh Khan's praise of Sridevi serves as anything but promotional fluff. Though I know Indian cinema isn't an area that most of the community has much experience in, I'd propose that the above content would be akin to writing:

"The preview poster of Sample Film was unveiled at the Prestigous Awards 2017 by Tom Cruise who hailed Scarlett Johansson on stage as "a bigger star" than himself.[1][2] Johansson announced the preview poster on Twitter, which went viral.[3] Subsequently the teaser of Sample Film clocked 1.2 million views on YouTube on the first day itself.[4] It also met with a positive response in Canada.[5]"

Every film releases a poster. Every film releases a trailer. Every film's acting staff does the interview circuit and gushes about how wonderful everyone was to work with and what an honor it was, blah blah blah. Everything is "viral" and the media is a complicit, willing participant in a film's promotion because it means clicks for them, so does the mere mention by a secondary source necessitate inclusion? So, basically, my interpretation of WP:TRAILER is that we would not include marketing techniques unless they were uniquely noteworthy. So no trailers, no posters, no tweets, no Selma Hayak spots on Letterman, unless any of those things got unique attention for being outside the norm. Joaquin Phoenix appears on Letterman in character, irritating the crap out of Letterman. A marketing campaign where random people get secret black envelopes and those people need to meet at X locale to solve the mystery to win tickets to the premiere of ____. etc. If members of the community are fine with introducing mundane marketing data about trailers and posters into articles, then I think the MOS should absolutely be rewritten to make clear what the specific expectations are, but in my opinion as an experienced gnome, this attitude would make Wikipedia a prime place to promote films, which is already happening far and wide in Indian cinema articles. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that coverage by secondary sources necessitates inclusion. I find coverage that includes an independent observation to be the minimum criteria that we can start working with. In regard to trailers, I think there has been more such coverage recently, especially to compare one trailer to other ones. I definitely don't endorse the "bigger star" detail myself. We can debate the particulars of the number of views or a country's general response. For what it's worth, my general approach has been to build up "Marketing" sections based on such coverage, and later on, I may decide to strip them down especially when the overall coverage is pretty uninteresting. In some cases, I think I have removed them entirely. You're right that I'm not familiar with Indian cinema. Is there an ideal "Marketing" section in an Indian film article to consider? We can go to WT:MOSFILM to discuss re-wording the guidelines, but I don't think the current one prevents you from taking out that passage. We can just talk about each particular detail. I don't see any basis for the "bigger star" detail, but I see how the number of views could be discounted if it is not being compared. (Recent articles about trailer views tend to rank them, so that kind of comparison is of greater independent value.) What would you like to do? Have consensus on the details or discuss general re-wording in the guidelines? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Columns, columns everywhere

I was just wondering if I'm the only person who has noticed the contributions of this anon editor. Their only contributions are to divide extremely short cast lists into absurd amounts of columns (I found one that was 4 columns for a list of all of 12 people, it was almost unreadable). And they are prolific.....dozens or more of these a day. Nothing they are doing is in violation of any specific rules, policies, or guidelines to my knowledge and I'm operating under the assumption that they are legitimately trying to be helpful. But it certainly messes with readability on some articles. I've dropped a warning for disruptive editing but I'm honestly not sure that I should have. SUggestions? Millahnna (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the best practice in having multiple columns is to use the parameter "30em" rather than a set number of columns. This would break up a list into a certain number of columns based on screen width. I assume the IP editor is adding a set number based on what they see, which they shouldn't. In some cases, multiple columns can be warranted because otherwise there is extraneous white space, but we should encourage use of "30em". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can't seem to find proof that "30em" is the best value to use. Not sure how to determine which em value is best to use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I frequently see 25 em settings which haven't caused me any problems as a reader on multiple mobile devices and desktop but that could just be a fluke on my part. I seem to recall an age old conversation about that sort of thing back in 2010 or so when I was super active but I haven't gone searching in our archives here for it. It may very well have been on a specific article page or even over at the TV project for all I know. This getting old crap is for the birds and my bad memory. Millahnna (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a fluke? 25em is probably barely different from 30em and is supposed to be based on screen width, so it seems like it is doing the job well. So if the IP editor wants to make column-related edits, they could use em values instead. They may not realize that forcing 3 columns will make it look terrible on mobile. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically because I'm just getting over a head cold and can't quite think through the full ramifications of the setting right now. Just knowing that displays between devices and browsers can vary as wildly as they do, my assumption is that it is entirely possible it looks terribad to someone while still looking ok on the four devices I've used most in the last few years. Millahnna (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think any use of the em value is better than requiring the columns to be greater than one everywhere. This is reflected in Template:Div col that says cols= is deprecated, "Now deprecated, as colwidth below is better suited to flexible formatting for a variety of display screen sizes (from mobile phones, tablets, etc to widescreen cinema-style displays)". It says to use colwidth= because it "Specifies the minimum width of the columns and determines automatically the number of columns based on screen width (i.e. more columns will be shown on wider displays). Overrides cols. Specified in any CSS unit, for instance in em, about the width of a capital 'M', e.g, colwidth=20em". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking that when I inevitably bump into the anon again, I'll suggest using that paremeter for them (no idea if they see their talk page messages yet). And in my cleanup efforts behind them (where warranted, anyway, some of the changes have seemed fine) I'll switch to using that myself. When I've fixed it recently I've either just knocked out the columns entirely or dropped down to two as appropriate. Millahnna (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also lol at you beating me to IP's talk page by minutes. CHeers. As always, your input is greatly appreciated when I can feel my stupid temper getting the better of me. Millahnna (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I seem to be causing everybody hassle here. I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience I have caused everyone, so from now on I will try to refrain from the whole dividing thing in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.158.34 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's all good. It's obvious you're trying to help. I just wasn't sure how best to proceed. I mostly play with awkward text and forget lots of wiki code frequently. I think that colwidth parameter will be super helpful to both of us. Apologies if I got too snarky with my edits. Millahnna (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Erik and Millahnna. I wanted to make you aware of something that I learned a month or so ago. As someone with aging eyes (an other body parts-heehee) I have my computer set at 133% to make reading and editing our articles easier/possible. When 30em is used my screen won't show any columns - of course those with lower settings will see them. They show up when 25em or less are used. Thus, if i add them to a cast list I will use that number. I don't know that this has any relevance to what you are doing I just wanted to make you aware of it on the off chance. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Marnette and I recently found 25em to be more effective than 30em. You can view the conversation at User_talk:Betty_Logan#Not_sure_what_is_going_on and the result at [9]. So while there is hardly any visual difference at all for normal font sizes it allows a bit of breathing room for readers who have their fonts set above default size. Obviously if they are set lower then it's not an issue. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment I have seen editors remove column divides altogether (Hayal12 is a persistent offender and refuses to engage in discussion over it) so you get a single column list. Personally I think on wide displays—1366 pixels and above—this looks aesthetically poor. It generally means that when it comes to the cast section that readers with wide displays have more whitespace on their monitor than text. It also means that the reader will usually have to unnecessarily scroll down to see the whole list. The whole point of setting column dividers using the "em" format is that it allows the number of columns to dynamically adapt to the user's browser. If you have an ipad the list will set to one column, if you are on a 1024 screen two columns, a 1600 display three columns and so on. It is not unusual to see editors hardcode the number of columns—this is common with image sizes too—to what looks best on their own display. Dynamically set columns maximise browser adaptability. This works best when there is a large cast list, such as at War_and_Peace_(film_series)#Cast. On the other hand I concede that multiple columns look aesthetically poor when when cast lists are small; as a rule of thumb the number of rows should exceed the number of columns. As Millahnna points out, 12 people spread across four columns (so three rows then) doesn't look good. In the case of small casts I prefer the box format such as the one used Jaws_(film)#Casting, which does a much better job of integrating the information into the article. It's a good format for up to about a dozen names. Betty Logan (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  Betty Logan, MarnetteD, I'd be glad to use 25em going forward. Do we perhaps want to have a "Columns" section at MOS:FILM under "Non-prose components"? We could just reference Template:Reflist for "References" and and Template:Div col for "Cast". We can talk about em values for both and encourage them for any other lists that may appear in a film article. Seems like this structuring knowledge is not as much in the open as it could be. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think adding some guidance to the MOS on this issue would be a good idea. Betty Logan (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I proposed some wording at WT:MOSFILM#Columns. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus building assistance for plot summary at Talk:Idiocracy#Introduction_Removed please?

The linked conversation should include the relevant diffs. We have a small dispute over how, when, and how much to write about the setting of the film. I think the disagreeing editors have a point that some small elements of the setting aren't immediately clear but the original proposed change was way too verbose and poor in tone to my eye. I've offered up a possible compromise but I'm certain there's a better way to clarify than anything I'm coming up with at the moment. Appreciate any good text type editors who can come up with other ideas. Thanks bunches. Millahnna (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

most expensive non-English films ever made

Anyone even MODERATELY interested in film knows that, in terms of 1967 U.S. dollars, the RUSSIAN "War and Peace" will probably always be the most expensive film ever made, using thousands of period costumed Soviet troops and six hours long. One can debate the at times melodramatic acting or the too-old casting of Bondarchuk AND his wife, but a low-estimate $250,000,000 film will probably remain #1 for a long long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:815:4E00:793A:2850:7432:C4F5 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's an urban legend which has been promulgated by lazy sources. It is not uncommon to find sources reporting that adjusted for inflation War & Peace cost $700 million in today's dollars, such as in this LA Times article. That figure is based on a reported cost of $100 million back in 1968. However, the $100 million figure has since been debunked by the release of the official financial records. War_and_Peace_(film_series)#Budget explains that the film cost only 8.3 million rubles (equivalent to $9.2 million in 1967), which it notes would be equivalent to $67 million in 2011. The $100 million figure (and $700 million inflation adjusted figure) was just Soviet propaganda. It's worth noting that if it had indeed cost $100 million that would have been more than three times the production cost of Cleopatra, which was the most expensive film ever made up to that point. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's worth noting that War and Peace was 4.5 times longer than Cleopatra, so those numbers wouldn't be surprising if they were true. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Template scope creep

I just saw this in which the {{Lawrence Kasdan}} template, replete with directing, writing, and producing credits in distinct groups, was added. This is template scope creep that I have been concerned about for the last few years. First, as we all know, a film can have multiple producers, so implementing navigation templates with producing credits to the fullest means that a film article could have multiple such templates, ranging from a handful to over a dozen. I've seen the argument that only notable producers should have templates, but I think we are going down the slippery slope of including any producer or throwing in producing credits for a director (for which we do support navigation templates since a director is usually a singular role).

This slippery slope especially happens because templates are largely behind the scenes. Templates are not on most editors' watchlists. Furthermore, some template names have been simplified, which radically opens the scope to be anything done by that person. I think we need to finally address this in a couple of ways:

1. Update MOS:FILM § Navigation to limit navigation templates to directors except for where there is consensus to expand the template beyond directing credits (someone will use Steven Spielberg as an excuse)
2. Rename navigation templates to "Films directed by <director>" to lock in the scope, maybe protect from moving if needed

Thoughts on this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERFNAV was implemented due to similar concerns. You don't need to change your MOS for any reason. --Izno (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, excellent! That makes everything so much easier. Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was installed last summer. We have Robsinden to thank for that one. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not surprised! Thanks, Rob. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem! I had the same concerns as you. Here is the discussion if you want to read the background. Is it worth updating WP:MOSFILM to mirror this in some way? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should update it to refer to that broader guideline. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Robsinden, WP:PERFNAV and WP:FILMNAV seem somewhat redundant. Aren't "performances of entertainers" or "productions... worked on" in the former passage the same as filmographies in the latter passage? Maybe the two passages could be combined (as well as the shortcuts). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:PERFNAV is about putting people in production navboxes (listing crew, etc), and WP:FILMNAV is about putting productions in people navboxes (filmographies). --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

So the former would be something like a franchise navigation template and identifying different actors and crew members involved? And the latter would be a navigation template about a person and their work? Can you cite an example of the former? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. How about the {{Firefly}} navbox, which once included the actors, creator and soundtrack composers and performers[10]... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Or this discussion: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Template:X-Men film series cast and crew --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, that makes sense. Thanks! I was about to write an update to the MOS but needed clarification on this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to help a newbie with something out of my wheelhouse; researching sources for a 1985 film

On my talk page, a newer editor has struck up a conversation with me about Day of the Dead (1985 film) and what seems to be a potential change in our article's release date information if I'm reading all of the appropriate policies and guidelines correctly. Shortish version; he has presented credible info that the film had an earlier festival release than previously covered but it's not anything we can use in terms of WP:RS. He details some research he's started in our talk page conversation. I know the topic of hard to find info for older films has come up here but it's outside my usual focus. I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this sort of thing and advice they can offer. I'm about to copy the conversation or a link to it to the film's talk page so that what few people follow that page can offer advice. Thanks in advance for anyone who can help. Millahnna (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Copied conversation over to the film article talk page. Millahnna (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC at Universal Monsters (2017 film series)

To all WP:FILM project participants this is a neutral notice regarding a request for comments at Talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series)#RfC on page title change. All comments are welcome. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comedy thriller at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Missing Links (1916 film)

The article The Missing Links (1916 film) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the template per a search engine test of Google Books that shows multiple results when searching for "the missing links" d. w. griffith here. If the nominator still thinks deletion is warranted, a wider discussion considering these results (meaning WP:AFD) would be appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems the deletion request has been removed already. So the only issue remaining now might be extend the article a bit.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done a little clean-up work, I'll take a look at it in more detail later. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing issue/discussion of interest for this project

There is currently a discussion at

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Referencing on appearances of actors_and_actresses, i.e. (sometimes) filmographies

that might be of interest for people here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Critical, creator and fan reception to betrayal and fanbase rivalry at the Lexa (The 100) article

Hi, everyone. Opinions are needed on the following dispute at the Lexa (The 100) article: Talk:Lexa (The 100)#Inclusion of betrayal and fanbase rivalry section. A permalink for it is here. The issue concerns whether or not these two aspects of the fandom should be covered in the article.

I'm contacting this WikiProject because there is an argument comparing "Audience response" (as seen at MOS:FILM) to what the content in question covers. Also note that, for anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled on this series, the discussion does contain a significant spoiler. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ghost Rider (film) - move and notability

Please see this discussion. The notability relates to another film with the same title. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Avatar's decline in popularity

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#How best to cover Avatar's decline in popularity?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

TOOSOON for Sundance premieres?

The film Sidney Hall only has six reviews, with five of them being negative. Considering that there have only been two screenings of the film to date and an exceptionally low number of reviews, even for a Sundance premiere, I wonder if WP:TOOSOON is applicable, with regards to having any reception section at this time? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I would probably not state a conclusion like, "Sidney Hall received negative reviews from film critics." I would instead lead with something like, "Rotten Tomatoes has sampled six reviews to date and has assessed five as negative, calculating a score of 17% and an average rating of 1.3/10," or something to that extent. It can be more conclusive when the sample set is larger (and a critics' consensus is actually published). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I added in something akin to your suggestion. But, you don't think we should simply cut the subsection until the wide release? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Either way is possible. We will have a passage referencing RT in the long run regardless. Just that with cutting it, I would not be surprised if someone else tried to restore it. When would you want it back in? When RT publishes a critics' consensus? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also worth noting that there are some films that never get enough reviews to get a critics' consensus, so it may not be the best milestone. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I would wait until A24 gives it widespread distribution. But, I unfortunately know what you mean about it likely being restored. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

notable 2000s and 2010s films

hi wikipedia, was just wondering why there isn't any notable films released from 2000 to 2017? for example once you search 1999 in film at the bottom it says notable films released in 1999 providing us a list of notable films released in that time? why isn't it the same for 2000 and 2017? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.119.238 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Are you talking about this page, Category:1999 in film? If so, if you click on the right-pointing arrow next to "1999" at the top, it will send you to the next year's category page, which will also show the links for films in the 2000s. You can click the right-pointing arrow again to see links for the 2010s films. If this is not what you mean, let us know what page it is. You can copy and paste the URL here for us to see. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC at NCFILM

Seeking feedback of any kind for a proposal at WT:NCF#RFC: Clarifying the intended meaning. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Psychological sci-fi films at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Country for Alien: Covenant

There's a dispute over the country of origin for Alien: Covenant. See Talk:Alien: Covenant/Archive 1#What makes this an 'American' film?. Please respond there to help settle this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Plot length on the Akira (1988 film) article

There's been a concern going on with regard to the Akira (1988 film) article. While Akira is a extensive work and the film is an adaptation of 2000-page manga, the plot guidelines are to be set between 400 to 700 words, but last time the plot was over at least 1,100 words before I and others trimmed it down to a manageable word count back in 2015. What should we do about this matter with regards to WP:FILMPLOT? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"financial success"

I've noticed this creeping into a lot of articles lately, which editors insist on labeling a "financial success". Examples: [11] and [12] from PsychopathicAssassin, who seems to think it's not original research if he finds it obvious enough (User talk:PsychopathicAssassin#Original research). Is this something we want to include in leads? I think it's best to simply state the gross without labeling it as a financial success or failure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"obvious financial success is obvious" - Oh dear. Def. not something to include in the lead. Anything that grosses more than the budget would be a success. If they continue, then it could be viewed as disruption. On a side-note, their userpage isn't telling the complete truth about them. PA claims to have 500,000+ edits, but the reality is closer to 2,000. Quite new to WP, but should know about WP:OR and editors' concerns by now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and check this section and the one directly beneath it on their talkpage. I'll give them a full week. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if he was providing sources the phrasing is still WP:EDITORIALIZING. There is no causal connection between critical and financial success, otherwise Michael Bay's mantelpiece would be cluttered with oscar statuettes. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

PsychopathicAssassin is also blanking a citation to BFI and adding puffery to the lead about actors being acclaim and becoming household names. Does anyone else see this as disruptive? I'm really starting to lose my patience for this stuff, but part of it is because I haven't been sleeping all that much lately. Am I overreacting to this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Puffery is the perfect description of that mess. Millahnna (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you are over-reacting. The editorialising is—technically—a content dispute but replacing sourced content with unsourced content is a disruptive red-line offence IMO. He's crossed so many red lines that I think it's time to send a powerful armada in. Betty Logan (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead to the article was already phrased like that before I even started to edit the page. I added multiple references to showcase the content provided was sourced, and that it retained an unbiased connection to the statements written. This is especially in consideration with critical reviews to the movies, where the references did nothing but support the already written statements. In terms of finances, the first movie gained over 445% in gross profit (calculation based off the mathematical formula for gross profit: revenue - cost / cost x 100), the second was 422%, and the third saw 86%. Mathematics dictates the movies were financial successes. Also, NinjaRobotPirate's lack of sleep is no reason to give the impetus for my, let alone anyone's, public disparagement, nor is the attack on me wished by Betty Logan cool, either. I'm here to help the cause, not destroy it. PsychopathicAsssassin (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your writing style needs work in Wikipedia terms. WP:SYNTH, WP:TONE, WP:OR are the three things I can think of off the top of my head that apply, en masse, to the efforts of yours I've seen. THe household names thing was the very definition of puffery and is covered by both the tone and original research pages. THe financial success content you keep adding is covered by synth and OR. It's best to just let the sources speak for themselves; note the budget and income as explained in the sources. Let the readers do the math themselves unless reliable sources make the claim. THere have been instances where a film has made a substantial profit but is still not regarded as a financial success due to studio expectations. If there's no source for the specific claim of success, we can't assume that the creators regard it as such (even if it is likely that they do). Millahnna (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @PsychopathicAssassin: There are multiple problems with your edits:
  1. "Success"—commercial or otherwise—is subjective and depends on various factors besides gross such as cost, ancillary revenues and expectations. MOS:FILM#Box office instructs editors to use sources to determine the success of a film and that "editors should avoid drawing their own conclusions about the success or failure of the film".
  2. There is no causal connection between commercial success and critical success so statements such as "Despite its commercial success, the film received generally negative reviews from critics" is WP:EDITORIALIZING. In fact, words such as "despite" is warned against at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
  3. Adding online user votes is prohibited by MOS:FILM#Audience response which instucts "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew."
  4. Removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content simply because you disagree is unacceptable.

At The Fast and the Furious (2001 film) you have reverted three different editors five times inside a 24-hour period. That is a clear 3RR violation. I am busy right now in now but if you have not self-reverted or fixed the problems I have highlighted above I will be reporting your behavior at ANI later this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Betty Logan: In response to your statements on the "problems" surrounding my edits:
  1. Success - The success that was described in the article focused solely on commercial success, rather than all outside costs. A movie wouldn't make SEVEN sequels if it didn't make the studio any money. MOS:FILM#Box office does instructs editors to use objective sources to determine film success, which was provided time and time again, that you and other editors chose to ignore. Here's another one, , I'm in a giving mood today.
  2. With "despite" being warned against, the edit in place on the article has refrained from using the word, yet, maintains a casual connection between commercial success and critical success. In case you think I'm "WP:EDITORIALIZING".
  3. I didn't add any online user votes, especially not the ones from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. The edits you are supporting are those that agree with the inclusion of these user submitted websites.
• I have altered The Fast and the Furious (2001 film), to fit with the things I have included above. I will also report your behavior at ANI, considering threats are things that you also promote. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

• You have not addressed the concerns; you have simply altered the wording. You are still editorialising by drawing a causal connection between commercial and critical success, you are still performing WP:Original research by proclaiming "commercial success" by evaluating the data yourself and you are still removing sourced content such as the co-production status between the US and Germany. Betty Logan (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  The point is, also, that providing a source stating that the film made more money than its budget isn't the same as "financial success", and the reasoning for why we cannot write "financial success" has been outlined in this section already. By who's measure is it a success? That's different for different entities and we cannot determine that for ourselves. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

PA now blocked for one week. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

...and he just restored his synthesis again. We may have to go to ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we insert "English-language" into the opening sentence of non-foreign films if one of the production companies is from a non-English speaking country?

From what I've seen on other film articles it's only inserted if the film is a foreign production and so it's an important fact to note. I thought that if a film is obviously not a foreign film and obviously done in English then putting "English-language" in the opening sentence is unnecessary and confusing, because it makes it seem like a foreign production. Am I wrong on that, does a Dutch production company's involvement mean "English-language" needs to be in the opening sentence? 2.102.186.194 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is prompted by a dispute at Dunkirk (2017 film); see discussion here. I would argue that "obviously not a foreign film" is personal opining, and we need to have a proper label for global readers. If the nationality is not singular, then the predominant language is the next definitive characteristic. I don't find it to "make it seem like a foreign production", I find it to be more globally accurate compared to film-related coverage that will usually be regionally biased. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of past discussions: February 2017 and June 2016. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is also an issue with Midnight in Paris, which originally had the label "American-French film". It turns out to have been a US-Spanish co-production, and the film is predominantly English-language. The IP editor also cites the same "obviousness" that the film is English-language and does not require telling global readers this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Since this is the English-language Wikipedia it is a plausible argument that "English-language" is the default but it is difficult to second-guess what assumptions readers make. In the previous discussions about this we settled on the fact that if it is not explicitly obvious from the nationality of the film then the language should be explicitly stated. The discussion I took part in was really concerned with countries that had two languages or more, but the logic also applies when you have more than one country i.e. basically where more than one language can be reasonably implied. As the Dunkirk article mentions two foreign-language countries I don't see the problem with making it clear. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a production company from the Netherlands and one from France but it's still a UK-US film and nobody is under the impression it's in anything other than English. I don't think the involvement of a non-English company alone implies another language. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying it's a UK-US film but that is not reflected by the countries mentioned in the lead and the infobox. Anyone coming across the film for the first time and unfamiliar with Nolan's work will just see four countries mentioned so it is reasonable to mention the language in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally people look up a film after they've heard of it, also the subject matter leaves no doubt it's in English. But this discussion wasn't on Dunkirk specifically, I'm wondering if the current practice of only specifying films are English-language when they are foreign productions is correct or we should specify it whenever one of the production companies is from a non-English country. Take the dispute over the Alien: Covenant movie, there's people involved from non-English speaking countries, do we need to insert English-language in the opening sentence? 2.102.186.194 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Generally people look up a film after they've heard of it" Try thinking longer term than this. Same with referencing Alien: Covenant (which is American per sources anyway). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable 2000s and 2010s films

Hi guys was just wondering if you could make a list for the notable 2000s films and notable films that came out in 2010. What I mean is if you search up 2003 in film it says at the bottom notable films released in 2003 is it possible we could do the same for the 2000s films and 2010s films? here is the link to 2003 in film what I'm talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in_film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkins102 (talk • contribs) 03:16, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, there is nothing supporting that these films are more notable than others released in 2003. Not only is it not feasible, but we need to remove that section and similar sections elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Eric - they should be removed. Seeing as there are at least 1,769 (notable) films released in 2003, picking a couple of hundred or so is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No why don't you keep them there its a good list you never know they may be classics was just wondering if you could make some notable films for 2000 and onwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkins102 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Jhawkins102, you have to understand, we as editors cannot make up our own content. Our role is to summarize what reliable sources have written about a topic. The section does not indicate any support from reliable sources that these are notable films. It's likely that an individual editor decided on their own that these films are notable, which is not appropriate per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary at Alien Convenant

It looks like an edit war might be heating up there (there's a convo on the bottom of the talk page about it) regarding whether or not it's appropriate to have the full plot when the film has only been released in one country thus far (wider release comes later this month). I'm unaware of anything in our MOS that says we shouldn't have the plot in place until the wide release. I just skimmed all of the appropriate guidelines and didn't find anything. But I thought I might have missed something since my focus is usually so limited here. Since of couple of folks there are so determined that this is some kind of policy, I figured I should double check. Millahnna (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Link to discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Mister X (1958 film)

I tried twice to reduce the sprawling rant at Mister X (1958 film) (1, 2), but the main author reverted. I wonder what members of this project make of that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page so other editors can weigh in to form a consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What makes something classic?

what makes an album, book, film, tv show etc a classic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkins102 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, authoritative and reliable sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you recommend a source for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkins102 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources is a good starting point for finding sources discussing films. I would recommend, though, that you don't set out with an opinion in mind and try to find a source to match it—don't go looking specifically for who called a film "classic", but when writing about a film, just frankly and impartially report back on what sources do say. GRAPPLE ^X 09:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Predominant language after nationality

There is a discussion on the talk page of MOS:FILM about having the predominant language after nationality in the lead section's opening sentence. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Mighty Joe Young (1998 film)

I'm having what's turning into a long-running dispute at Mighty Joe Young (1998 film) about analysis of whether the film is a box office bomb and why. I started a discussion at Talk:Mighty Joe Young (1998 film)#Editorializing in the box office section. More input would be appreciated to help establish a consensus one way or another. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Distinguishing between radio serials and film serials

On the page for the Dick Tracy film serials, the cast is listed incorrectly. I know because my father (Robert E. Marcato) was the voice of the original Chief Patton on the radio serial. But he was never in the film serial (he was a voice actor only). If you watch the first episode that is linked to on the page, his name never appears in the credits. Also, since Dick Tracy is a Federal agent in the film serial, and is a city police detective in the radio serial, it wouldn't make much sense to have a Chief Patton in the film. Unfortunately I cannot find any reference to the radio serials online, so I have left the page untouched. :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Tracy_%28serial%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.148.213 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The cast list for that article, a film serial, should not name voice actors from the radio serial. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a few searches, but it's not easy to find cast lists for 1937 serials. I guess one possibility is to find a legal service where one can watch the serials. That would probably resolve the issue. WP:FILMCAST doesn't explicitly say so, but I would assume a film's credits sequence can be used as a primary source for its cast. Both archive.org and Wikipedia seem to host the serials (for example, File:Dick Tracy, 1937 serial, Chapter 1.ogv), so I assume they're out of copyright. I didn't watch the serials, but if Marcato's name doesn't appear in the credits, you should be able to remove his entry from Wikipedia without controversy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I checked, he's indeed not in the credits. I'll remove his name from the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Archive 64/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Film.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Film, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Director/assistant director

We are having an issue with User:Onel5969. He is creating DABs for articles on assistant directors labeling them as directors, even when they never held that position, like Charles Kerr (director) and James Anderson (director). I started a discussion on his Talk page at User talk:Onel5969#Occupation, hoping to keep this low-profile, but instead of accepting the idea that they're different roles, he responded with an opinion I'd never heard before, apparently indicating I was wrong in wanting to draw a distinction between these positions regarding films up until the 1940s. I then saw he has also added assistant directors to the director parameter in the infobox for multiple film articles, for example here and here. He reverted my taking those two out of those infoxes, then deleted my new post on his Talk page when I pointed this out. Rather than edit war with him, I invite people here to comment and form a consensus on whether assistant directors should be categorized as directors in an encyclopedia. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The mere fact that GF starts off with "We are having an issue" should set alarm bells going off. GF and I disagree on the role of the AD historically, versus what it is in today's world. In response to that disagreement, GF then went and made the unilateral decision to revert the inclusion of ADs from old from infoboxes. I don't necessarily have an issue with that decision (when I added them, I was still learning), but what I do have an issue with is GF's dictatorial decision to do it without discussion.

To quote GF in a discussion, they say "All of these will have to be removed" in regards to the AD's in infoboxes. Again, not that I disagree with what may be the end result, but that's pretty dictatorial tone to take, which is why I deleted his comment. They also made the comment regarding the titling of an article of an AD as "director" as "Another DAB should be found for this page, if Charles Kerr (assistant director) is unacceptable." GF's confrontational tone is far from keeping it "low-profile". You can see my response to his query on my talk page at User talk:Onel5969#Occupation. Regardless, will abide (as always) by the consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe Gothicfilm was within his Wikipedia rite to revert you adding ADs, as it is not identified as an above-the-line position by today's industry standards and honestly, you were acting in a unilateral manner by attempting to implement it in the first place. I am sorry that you feel slighted by Gothicfilm's civility, however. Hopefully you two can address that on your own talk pages. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DarthBotto's general sentiments. Whenever these discussions come up the usual position taken by the Film project is that the infobox should reflect the formal credits as much as possible. For example, we had the same discussion about including executive producers and co-directors in the infobox, and the decision was ultimately to leave them out, simply because "producer" and "director" are not vague job descriptions but role-specific formal credits. That's not to say that "Assistant director" and "co-director" are not important roles, but they are not the credited primary director either. If the overriding view is taken here that these roles should be included in the infobox then the appropriate fields should be added; if the view is that they do not merit a place then they should not be shoehorned into another field. I also don't think "assistant director" and "director" are synonymous as disambiguators either; that would be like saying that "president" and "vice-president" can be used interchangeably. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Betty says above. If there is no further discussion I will move the DAB of the two articles Charles Kerr (director) and James Anderson (director) from (director) to (assistant director) tomorrow. If you click the "What links here" of those two and James Dugan (director), you will see an assistant director has been added to dozens and dozens of film infoxes. One I found (and just removed from a DeMille film) was an uncredited second assistant director. What sense does it make to put in an uncredited second assistant director without the first assistant director? It appears this user has a handful of individuals he wants to promote. There may be many more. It will be something of a task to remove them all. Perhaps User:Onel5969 can help with that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There's hardly consensus article titling, so please don't change those. Until consensus is reached on those, any changes might be seen as disruptive editing. And I would respectively disagree with Betty Logan's comment regarding Director and Assistant Director regarding dabs is on target either, as it appears to again be rooted in modern concepts of those terms. Film studios of the 20s, 30s and early 40s used the AD as a mill to see if folks could move up to the directing role. RKO in particular, as is cited in at least one of the articles GF linked above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said on your Talk page, there was no confusion between directors and ADs before or after the 1940s. You say Film studios of the 20s, 30s and early 40s used the AD as a mill to see if folks could move up to the directing role. That does not mean you label an AD as a director. The roles are quite different and they should not be blurred in an encyclopedia. Especially on a page whose subject never became a director. You have given no sources for your opinions, and no defense of putting an uncredited second assistant director in the infobox below the director. Or why you're promoting these particular individuals. No one has supported what you're doing. As DarthBotto said regarding your inaccurate labeling of an assistant director as a director: you were acting in a unilateral manner by attempting to implement it in the first place. Nothing disruptive about making it accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's actually not what DarthBotto said. And until consensus is reached, that is the absolute definition of disruptive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's actually not what DarthBotto said? Here's the whole applicable quote: I believe Gothicfilm was within his Wikipedia rite to revert you adding ADs, as it is not identified as an above-the-line position by today's industry standards and honestly, you were acting in a unilateral manner by attempting to implement it in the first place. I'll add that the AD was not identified as an above-the-line position by the industry standards of the 20s, 30s or 40s either. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

More than a week after this discussion began, no one has supported the position of Onel5969. I have moved the two articles mentioned above to their correct DAB. When I look at a WP bio, I expect its occupation designation to be accurate. That includes the DAB, if there is one. I'll start taking out assistant directors that have been added to film infoboxes, but that may take a while. Could use some help using "What links here" from Charles Kerr (assistant director) and James Anderson (assistant director). - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that User:Onel5969 is now engaged in a WP:Move war, having restored the two DABs to (director), an occupation neither ever had, and which no one at this Talk page supported and two were against. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that once again the incivility of Gothicfilm rears its head. No war move. No consensus has been reached. While a bare minimum of consensus has been reached regarding the inclusion of assistant director's in the infobox, the same is not true of the dabs. No reverts of your reverts of the infobox changes has occurred, and you were asked not to change the article names until consensus has been reached. You chose to ignore that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'd like to note one thing: there hasn't been any actual incivility as outlined by the civility policy. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, TenTonParasol, you are mistaken. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL clearly states "use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts" as one form of incivility, which GF did on my talk page. Then, his accusation that I was engaging in a "move war", since it was an "ill-considered accusations of impropriety", could also be construed as uncivil. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to agree with both GothicFilm and BettyLogan (who did state I also don't think "assistant director" and "director" are synonymous as disambiguators either). Director and assistant directors are distinct roles, and if the subjects have not held "director" as their PRIMARY job or only ever were credited as "assistant director", the (director) dab is inappropriate. The articles should exist at (assistant director). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Eleven days after this discussion began, no one has supported the position of Onel5969. I agree with TenTonParasol above and Betty Logan earlier. We have three in favor of accurate DABs. That should be enough consensus to restore the DABs to accuracy. If there is no further discussion I will move the DAB of the two articles Charles Kerr (director) and James Anderson (director) back from (director) to (assistant director) tomorrow. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Despite promising eleven days ago he will abide (as always) by the consensus, Onel5969 has once again moved the two articles to the blatantly inaccurate (director) DAB, a position neither of these assistant directors ever held. He put in his summary consensus is not a !vote - you should wait for someone other than yourself to agree that there is consensus. He wants to keep his inaccurate DAB because three people is not enough in his opinion to keep an encyclopedia accurate, even though no one has supported his position. Can we have some help here? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Onel5969 is also now reverting many of my attempts to clean up his proliferation of inaccurate credits. Assistant directors are not filmmakers, as he's now trying to push forward. Putting names in the infobox who were not credited as a producer in the "Produced by" field. (Per Template:Infobox film Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. That would mean also excluding supervising producers, especially when another person actually does have "produced by" credit on the same film.) Using findagrave.com as a source, when it has been discussed before and regarded as not a reliable source. Production supervisors are closer to production managers. Not producers. And on and on. Look at his editing history. Where are the people who hate to have anyone other than producers in the infobox? - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, GF is attempting to push his POV, and again his uncivil discourse, and has somehow managed to begin to target me. I'm not sure at what point this becomes WP:HARASS, but it's beginning to feel that way. First, his lack of understanding that supv in early RKO films stands for supervising producer, and not production supervisor is understandable. However, after having it explained to him and then him continuing to not agf is troubling. I even left a few sources on his talk page to help him learn about the period. He misrepresents the Find a Grave situation. He originally reverted it as "not being in the source", however it was. Then he deleted it as non-reliable, which is correct. However, I simply restored the data and left a cn tag, which would have been the more appropriate course of action. I'll see if I can't find a better source for it in the next few weeks. In another instance, he insists on putting the term "assistant director" for an individual who has held numerous posts in the film industry. When I changed the term to "filmmaker" he again reverted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You've been told by TenTonParasol your accusations of incivility are not valid, and they do not justify repeatedly putting in inaccurate information. You have repeatedly added Category:American film directors on the Fred Fleck page when he was never a feature film director. "Filmmaker" means director to most people, so you should not be listing that as an occupation for those who are not directors in an encyclopedia. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969 and Gothicfilm: you know, eventually some hardass admin is going to see this edit warring/move warring, and you'll both get blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So why don't you step in with an opinion here? Putting in inaccurate information is clearly going against what we're trying to do here. Yet by doing nothing you're making him think he can get away with it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think at this point I'd suggest Dispute Resolution? Be a shame if anyone got blocked over this. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously he would lose, with his WP:OR and blatant mislabeling. He's counting on no one being willing to put in the time. And it would be unnecessary if I got more help on this page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi NinjaRobotPirate - if he'll just leave me alone, I'm fine. I've added citations for the producer credits, since it seems to bug him so much. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your producer credits are inaccurate, and even if they weren't, they would go against Template:Infobox film: Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. That would mean also excluding supervising producers, especially when another person actually does have "produced by" credit on the same film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To support the above, I spot checked one of the three citations you put in from The RKO Story, the one for Hi, Gaucho!, and I found it misrepresents what is stated. The book, as far as I can verify, states that Burch was an "associate producer". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi GF (and TenTonParasol). You misunderstand the concept of unit production as implemented by LeBaron, and then expanded by Selznick at RKO. In those years, the film's actual producer was called "Associate Producer" or "Supervising Producer", while the person who sometimes (but not always - sometimes there was no "Producer") was credited as "Producer" was in reality what we would call the "Executive Producer" today. In other words, LeBaron or Selznick (or Merian Cooper or Pandro Berman who followed) would oversee the slate of 6-12 films at a time, while individual producers would actually produce the films. It's pretty well documented in the Jewell book I referenced on your talk page, as well in Betty Lasky's The Biggest Little Major of Them All. Both books, btw, also go into the use of the AD to develop directors. Hope this explains it better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Then-associate producer equaling modern-executive producer still means that they shouldn't be listed in the infoxbox. Because that field is for straight up, un-adjective'd "producer". The "individual producer" you refer to should be the one listed in the infobox for the film. You've simply presented a different argument for why they shouldn't be listed. And, again, assistant director as a position to groom directors doesn't make them the same role. (It's... done today often, still, too, y'know.) It just means they're part of the same track, the same broad category of job—but not the same position. That hasn't changed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I said, TTP... I said the associate producer or supervising producer was the equivalent of today's producer credit, not exec producer. Which then makes your statement, "The "individual producer" you refer to should be the one listed in the infobox for the film. You've simply presented a different argument for why they shouldn't be listed." align with what I've been saying. The individual producer should be the one in the infobox. Go check out the cite I just added for Hi Gaucho. It shows that the director was under the supervision (meaning supervising producer) of Burch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said for studio executives. They do not go in the infobox as producers. What you are doing with your new sources is WP:SYNTH. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I admit I misread. I still think the argument for the assistant director/director still stands, which is what this thread is initially about. And, well, the source for Hi, Gaucho! doesn't say that the director was under Burch. From what I can see, it states, plain: John E. Burch was the associate producer. I do concede my ability to properly check the entire page is limited, but from what I can tell, that's the whole of it. Perhaps it may be wise to add the quotes to the citations through the quote parameter? (And even then, like, so what, most producer position do involve working over the director.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Really, seeing as this is devolving into a back and forth that isn't going anywhere, I again put forward my suggestion of opening a WP:DRN. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi TenTonParasol... the Harrison's Reports article I've added clearly refers to him as the producer. And regarding the Assistant Director thing, if that's what the consensus comes out to be, I have no issue with it, simply don't see consensus yet. Regardless, changed one of the titles myself, because that individual had a broad swath of film roles. So the Assistant Director question is really down to a single article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You didn't mention you changed that one DAB to (filmmaker). "Filmmaker" means director to most people, so you should not be listing that as an occupation for those who are not directors in an encyclopedia. What do you have against calling an assistant director by his correct title? You act like it's a pejorative. It's not. Your new sources are not reliable for giving accurate credits (they are contradicted by the AFI refs you used yourself, as well as every other source I checked), and it's clear from what you wrote above you are using WP:SYNTH to justify what you're doing creating producer credits out of production supervisors - which even if it were accurate also goes against the infobox guideline. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dark Crystal discussion

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thank you! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Another dispute over nationality

Sorry, another dispute. This time, about the nationality of Chappie (film), a long-running debate over whether to use what reliable sources say. Please comment at Talk:Chappie (film)#Removal of "American" again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone recently suggested resolving these things by replacing nationalities with "a multi-national production", and since we don't seem to able to ever reach the utopian vision of not giving a shit about nationalities it seems the best compromise. GRAPPLE ^X 17:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, the US does not have any co-production treaties with anyone. No treaty means no co-production if the US is involved.

Foodles42 (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Run that by me again? GRAPPLE ^X 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In order for a film to be a co-production between one or more nations, there needs to be an actual co-production treaty. The United States has never entered into a co-production treaty with another nation. You can have co-productions between companies based in the US and elsewhere, but that doesn't make it a "US co-production". It just makes it a co-produciton between companies, not the nations they are based in. Foodles42 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an official co-production under treaty law doesn't really change it's a film produced by, for example, both American and Chinese production companies and doesn't exactly rule out one describing a film as produced by entities spanning multiple countries. And, colloquially, even without an official treaty in place, however that pans out, films produced multi-nationally, are termed co-productions. The Great Wall, for example:

• The Los Angeles Times [13]: "It’s a promising start for “The Great Wall,” easily the most expensive co-production to date."
• The Atlantic[14]: "The poster for The Great Wall, an epic Chinese-American co-production coming out next February"
• Forbes [15]: "Except The Great Wall is technically a Chinese/American co-production." (A weaker example, I admit.)
• Bloomberg [16]: "As the most expensive film ever shot in the country and the first major Chinese-American co-production..."
• The New York Times [17]: "When the trailer for “The Great Wall,” a high-profile China-Hollywood coproduction..." (Also talks about guidelines for films to qualify as a Chinese coproduction)
• NBC [18]: "Director Zhang Yimou said he believes "The Great Wall" will serve as a template for the future on how co-productions move forward."
• The Hollywood Reporter [19]: Okay, so a piece using The Great Wall as a jumping off point to talk about Chinese-American co-productions.
• Also, going to throw in interview with Lu Chuan with Vanity Fair [20] about Chinese-American co-productions.

That's just using one film and one relationship. But, yeah, you're right. The United States has signed no international co-production treaties, but that doesn't entirely rule out the term "American-X co-production" and apparently doesn't rule out American filmmakers from co-producing a film with another country. Exactly what the US not having signed a co-production treaty means, I'm not sure, but it appears that it doesn't stop anyone from calling it a co-production when Americans are involved. This isn't about the specific film mentioned at the top of the thread, obviously, but, like, in a general sense, "American-X co-production" isn't invalid. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we are in disagreement. Given the importance of actual co-production treaties for actual film production in places like Canada and the UK and its impact on the availability of better subsidies, perhaps a stronger distinction should be made. True, some articles are calling some films a US/China co-production (or whatever), but should their sloppiness dictate? Take Great Wall--regardless of how they refer to it, it was a co-production between companies, not the actual nations. This might be splitting hairs, and I don't feel strongly enough about it one way or the other. But it seemed to me that is was worth mentioning. For a page with a raging debate, maybe it would come into play?

Foodles42 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Language Oscar submissions for next year

Appreciate input on this AfD. As a side note, the article's creator has now been blocked (again) for making non-notable articles, and has a history of adding unsourced content into previous versions of this list (explained in the AfD). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced "simple, uncontroversial" character descriptions for unreleased films

I'm a bit concerned that, in a lot of our articles on upcoming films, we include "cast" sections with extensive citations that are only used to verify that Actor X will be appearing as Character Y, but we go beyond said sources to give "simple" character descriptions that could very well wind up being completely wrong (indeed in most cases are probably wrong in at least some of their excessive detail).

Our articles on Avengers: Infinity War and other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are particularly bad offenders here: the sentence Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron[...] [is] [t]he leader and benefactor of the Avengers who is a self-described genius, billionaire, playboy, and philanthropist with electromechanical suits of armor of his own making. is followed by two citations that don't appear to verify anything in the description, and "the leader and benefactor of the Avengers" doesn't appear to have been an accurate description since the beginning of 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron. The claim that Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk when "agitated" similarly appears in neither of the sources, and is actually contradicted by the previous films which state that he has very good anger management to prevent that from happening.

It seems like a near-certainty that if we do this for every article on an unreleased film, we will have a growing number of instances where Wikipedia contained OR and CRYSTAL speculation that wound up being demonstrably wrong. Ctrl+F "Kingsley" in this diff to see what I mean: we unambiguously proclaimed that Kingsley was portraying the Mandarin: [t]he leader of [an] international terrorist organization, and now ... we don't. If we had just said that he was reportedly playing "a version of the Mandarin" (which is actually what the reliable sources were saying at the time) we wouldn't have inaccurately described his character as the leader of a terrorist organization.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comic book films are pretty popular, so it shouldn't be all that hard to find an interview where one of the filmmakers gives a brief description of the main characters. On a film series, though, it might be a little harder, since audiences might be assumed to be familiar with the returning characters. Given that film adaptations often take liberties with characters, this stuff probably should stick to what's found in the citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of almost-definitely cancelled films?

What do people think of "In other media" sections of general pop-culture articles (and "Future" sections of film articles) that discuss film projects that clearly aren't happening? For reasons, I've been going back through my contribs history to find my earliest edit related to comic book movies, and found [21], but I just noticed that even after my edit, the article text very much implies that the film is still happening, even though this is clearly not the case. Is this a CRYSTAL-violation? The claim is reliably sourced, but there are a bunch of things found in reliable sources (SPECULATION, RUMOUR and so on) that Wikipedia is meant to neglect to cover. Do we really need a reliable source that says the film is cancelled, or should we just remove the material is being from a source that's too old to be a reliable source for the claim (or implication) that the film is still going ahead. This is likely a problem affecting dozens/hundreds of articles, mind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think our coverage of sequels is a bit too heavy on speculation and rumor, but I usually defer to how other editors want to deal with it. In Chappie (film), for example, we've got two paragraphs written about a potential sequel. It amounts to a line from the director who said, paraphrasing, "It'd be nice, but it's not going to happen." I think that's good enough. For something that's less clear-cut, I don't know. A film caught in development hell can stagnate for years. If there are regular reports on it, it's probably worth reporting on that. The problem is that you frequently end up with poorly-written "proseline". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

We can always try and phrase things to put more emphasis on the fact that it happened, but nothing has happened since. More recent sources that note a lack of development or announcements could also be useful. Just removing information because it is out of date will of course by fine in some situations, but when discussing the development of something we will often want to keep those details despite being outdated. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Six move requests bundled into one

Please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Film stubs with notability issues

Hi all, I have compiled a work-list of film stubs (by genre) that have been tagged for notability. I am still working on a similar smaller list specific to some countries that will be addded. If anyone feels like resolving some of them either way... Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 09:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In Toni's Footsteps: The Channel Island Occupation Remembered

Came across this article, does it qualify for wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion. I prodded it. It'll be deleted in seven days if nobody objects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

k, I thought as much, cheers, Govvy (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Dark Universe (Universal Monsters)

This a neutral request for comments at Talk:Dark Universe (Universal Monsters)#Requested move 22 May 2017, the article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Monsters (2017 film series).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles about films

Hi everyone! The Wiki Education Foundation is creating a guide to help students write about films. It's a handout intended to supplement their other resources, such as the interactive training and basic editing brochures. I'd love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Films. We're planning to send these off to the printer at the end of the month, so feedback by Sunday, May 28, would be appreciated. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Coen brothers article split

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Coen brothers about splitting the article and I think members of the Film project might be interested in offering their opinions. The discussion actually started back in 2014 and was intermittently returned to over the course of two years. I don't see a consensus, but another editor disagrees. Before the article is split, I think a more thorough discussion of the issues is warranted. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Lion King IP hopper

I saw an IP hopper based in NYC doing dubious changes and adding unsourced casting material to several Lion King-related articles like The Lion King II: Simba's Pride ([22], [23], [24]), Timon and Pumbaa ([25]) and Scar (The Lion King) ([26]) without attempting a discussion on the talk page despite my warnings. Any thoughts on what to do about this? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

IMDB

I saw a user @Boleyn: removing IMDB name template from article. Is that really unreliable or his personal bias? Or may be require some user with admin rights to have a look? Matthew_hk tc 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to specify the article and the edit. The IMDB name template is a standard External Link for all actors and filmmakers, and also people who have appeared onscreen several times. Softlavender (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Geraldo Hauers Alves
• List of Marathi films of 2006 Matthew_hk tc 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If this edit is what you are referring to then the removal was proper . Please see WP:RS/IMDB. The site is WP:USERGENERATED and, thus, should not be used as a ref. They can be used as an external link but not as a ref. The use of the site has been discussed numerous times over the years and WP:CONSENSUS has always come to the same conclusion. Their fact checking is minimal they have supported numerous hoaxes and errors. MarnetteD|Talk 21:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note the Alves article does not meet WP:GNG in its present form. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks silly to me that IMDB was no longer qualified as RS (due to content generated by user) but still have a surviving template. For the actor, it was acted as a placeholder. I don't have time to make a read stub yet. Watching football but it is midnight here. Matthew_hk tc 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've replaced the EL. It's standard for any actor or filmmaker or film (that's why those templates exist). No reason to unilaterally delete it from the ELs of a single article. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on characters link in infobox

I've been watching a small dispute now involving @Erik:, @Jedi94:, @Oknazevad: on Untitled Han Solo film, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and Rogue One over a link in the infobox. Excuse me to all, but I wanted to start a discussion before this heads into firm edit warring territory, and I thought this would be the best forum for it. I hope I'm summarizing everything adequately.

All three films have a "Based on" parameter in the infobox, essentially: [Star Wars] characters by George Lucas. It started on Untitled Han Solo film, where Erik changed "Characters" to "Star Wars characters", stating that it is better for the List of Star Wars characters wikilink per WP:EASTEREGG [27]. It was removed by Jedi94 [28], and Erik reverted it [29], and Jedi94 reverted it back saying that this doesn't seem to be a problem for The Force Awakens and Rogue One [30]. Erik reverted again, stating they would fix it across the other articles [31]. These changes were reverted by Oknazavad, who stated not to change the exact wording of the credit [32] [33] [34].

I don't necessarily have an opinion either way, as I see both sides have merit. The link is possible slightly ambiguous and would be clearer if it specifically stated Star Wars characters, otherwise it may look like it's linking to our article on the concept of a fictional character. On the other hand, "Based on characters by George Lucas" is the exact credit, and it may be better to preserve the exact wording of credit.

Is there a larger community consensus on this? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

These days there seems to be a consensus that the credits in the infobox are as close as possible to the actual film credits. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances (such as blacklisted writers that had their credits restored) but that is the general view. Erik is correct about the WP:EGG problem though. I honestly don't think it is necessary to provide a link in the infobox though if the link is provided in the "Cast" section. It looks like a lot of energy is being wasted on an issue that is easy enough to kill. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. Does it really need to link to the list of characters page? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it really does, and said as much in two of my edit summaries. I'd rather preserve the wording of the credit than keep the link if that's what it comes to. There's plenty of other places for that link, including especially the navbox. The infobox probably isn't even the appropriate place for it. oknazevad (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not an official channel for film studios. We only copy the credits out of convenience. For example, we would not hide the director's name behind a pseudonym to require readers to go to the article to find out who it is. We would state the director's name directly with a note that they were credited under the pseudonym. In the same vein of adjusting for Wikipedia readers, it should be acceptable to write a link to "Star Wars characters" per Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. Failing that, we should not perpetuate a misleading link. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Betty Logan, Adamstom.97 and Oknazevad. We are an encyclopedia, so we should not be making up credits or expanding them. This is not analogous to pseudonyms. When I look at credits here I expect them to be as accurate as possible. If the link has an EGG problem it can be removed. The link is unnecessary in the infobox and can be found elsewhere. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Also in agreement with Betty Logan, Adamstom.97, Oknazevad, and Gothicfilm; the credit should remain as accurate as possible to the original accreditation and the link to the character list is unnecessary in regards to the infobox. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 04:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding plot summaries of content that has been hacked/leaked

Input is appreciated here - on whether it's appropriate to write summaries of episodes that have not been released but were hacked and leaked. Also, whether or not the hack+leak should be mentioned in the lead. Lapadite (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WT:TV instead? DonIago (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:RS#Definition of published says, "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." I would say the episodes are not available through a reputable party and are therefore not sourceable. However, regarding the hack and leak, it depends on the amount of coverage from secondary sources it received. I am pretty sure it is enough since I have read articles about the matter without trying, and I recall commentary about Netflix's attitude in handling the situation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

To add on, WP:NFCC may apply as well. I cannot find specific wording about replicating audiovisual content in text, but I believe it is considered legally problematic to write in excessive detail about a film or TV episode. We can have a summary of such a work if it is limited, and also if it has been previously published. See #4, which says, "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor." Implicit in showing plot summaries is that the work has been published outside Wikipedia "by (or with permission from) the copyright holder". Netflix has not released it, so I do not think it is appropriate to include summaries. Wikipedia needs to play safe in this regard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago, yeah I posted it there now. So used to working within WP:FILM ha. Erik, thanks, and good reference. WP:V and WP:OR also covers the whole needing a published source to include content. These detailed summaries can't yet be verified by a published source, whather secondary sources or the primary source.

As for including the leak in the lead, I believe it is undue weight. Reliable sources only reported the facts of the leak. They can't yet qualify its impact (if any) on the show or Netflix. Without an understanding of its significance (if any), why should it be noted in the lead. Verifiably doesn't guarantee inclusion. Since it would be mentioned just because it happened, I think it's also promotional to include it in the lead. Presently, there's nothing to suggest the leak of the season's episodes will have any relevance after the season is released. In my opinion, it currently isn't notable content (for the lead). Lapadite (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

NFCC doesn't cover this, but WP:NOT#PLOT does. (NFC doesn't cover text, broadly) --MASEM (t) 14:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That is what I could not tell since NFCC did not really talk about it. Surely there are legal considerations in not describing a film in lengthy detail? An example I recall is The Harry Potter Lexicon that re-packaged copyrighted content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Trilogy

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight Trilogy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Raagdesh Page (Name Change)

Hi, We are looking to change the name of the page Raagdesh to "Raag Desh (2017)". Request you to please help us with the same. Regards! 10May (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@10May: - please take a look at the instructions at WP:RM. There's a template for you to use on the article's talkpage. You'll need to support your move request with reliable sources that show the new name is the correct/more common name. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)