WikiProject iconFilm Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Film General information (.mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}vte) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

Upcoming films[edit]

Current advice regarding upcoming films where a release date is not yet known is as follows: "For upcoming films where the release date is currently unknown, use (upcoming film) if disambiguation is necessary, for example Wikipedia (upcoming film)."

Title such as Wikipedia (upcoming film) have no long term value and are frequently deleted at WP:RfD. I would therefore like to suggest that, where possible, we use titles such as Wikipedia (Alan Smithee film) which would continue to have purpose as redirects after an article has settled at its proper title. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that would make sense.★Trekker (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like this should be dealt with by making it possible to speedy delete "... (upcoming film)" redirects rather than introducing a different disambiguator. Using a term that implies anything other than the date or state of release leads to a situation where we have articles named e.g. "XYZ (2010 film)" and "XYZ (Alan Smithee film)" at the same time, which upsets the equilibrium achieved by using the release year as the default disambiguator. Nardog (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not feel bad deprecating "(upcoming film)", but I'd not want to replace it with a different new disambiguation method, like director. Perhaps we should use country disambiguation, as the country of origin is almost always known when a new movie is announced: for example, Let It Snow (American film) instead of Let It Snow (upcoming film). Such redirects would then continue to be useful to retain post-release. -- Netoholic @ 12:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you suggest to do when Let It Snow (2001 film) is also an American film? Nardog (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since its currently a redlink anyway, create the article for the upcoming film at Let It Snow (American film), place a hatnote there directing people to Let It Snow (2001 film) (and vice-versa). Post-release, when the upcoming film is moved to its (year film) title, then the leftover redirect at Let It Snow (American film) can be repointed to the disambiguation page Let It Snow (disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 12:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing in "American film" that specifies the upcoming film rather than the 2001 film, which runs counter to WP:PRECISION. What's the point of a disambiguator that does not fully disambiguate? And what justifies the use of the country for upcoming films only? If we allowed that, it wouldn't really make sense we allow "Noise (2007 Australian film)" but not "Noise (Australian film)", unless it doesn't have a release date yet. Your suggestion makes no sense to me. Nardog (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is inherently wrong with using "upcoming film"? Redirects are cheap either way, to be left alone or to be deleted. To use a non-temporal disambiguation is to be inconsistent with film disambiguation terms generally used. It's going to lead to unnecessary confusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It leaves behind outdated and sometimes confusing redirects and creates work for WP:RfD; that should be perceived as a problem. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with using an alternative form of disambiguation when the situation calls for it. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing the problem with "upcoming" either. I see more problems with adding "Director's film" to it, because it implies that somehow this one person is the single most important factor in the film being created. What happens when the director changes because of creative differences? Then you're back to having to delete the redirect. I'd be supportive of allowing "upcoming film" be a speedy deletion candidate if necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see a problem with upcoming as well. I don't think it's worth the time and effort to bother listing them for deletion either. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that "(upcoming film)" is fine and non-problematic. It makes it clear the film does not yet exist, which disambiguating by director or country does not. Adding in the expected film year is actually a recipe for the proliferation of a lot more ultimately unneeded redirects which would be more confusing and can create a lot of cases where the final article is linked to via a confusing morass of previous release-date titles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 9#"Upcoming" subjects no longer upcoming (and the discussion above as well). Perfect example of how redirects are costly. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incomplete disambiguation matter[edit]

The 2019 film Parasite has been moved from Parasite (2019 film) to Parasite (film). See RM discussion here: Talk:Parasite (film)#Requested move 2 September 2020 (permalink). This move, based on WP:INCDAB, conflicts with WP:NCF where we have the 1997 film Titanic at Titanic (1997 film). Policy at WP:PRECISION indicates respecting Wikipedia projects' naming conventions. Here, if Parasite can be moved, I see no reason why the same logic can be applied to Titanic. I've discussed this matter with the closing admin and those who support incomplete disambiguation as seen here. To quote myself from that, "...films are going to be susceptible to this 'relatively rare' approach since films are more prolific in today's world than other types of media and are more likely to have Wikipedia articles than books. This means that there will be numerous sets of films with the same title that is rooted in a primary topic, and the newer films will more likely have more page views than the older ones."

I ask other editors what they think of incomplete disambiguation. Regarding Parasite, I was considering WP:MR or starting a new WP:RM discussion, the latter because the closing admin didn't see that the opposing !votes were favoring the original disambiguation policy. Furthermore, the RFC that allowed certain editors to push for more ambiguity was based on cricketers, where films are actually going to be on the receiving end of this incomplete-disambiguation business because of what I said above. So it may be appropriate to have an RFC to see the role that films would play in this. Otherwise, it seems obvious to me that this can be used as precedent to promote the most popular (often newer) film from a set of secondary-topic films to be a primary secondary-topic film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should not have been moved because it contravenes WP:PRIMARYFILM. WP:PRIMARFILM is not a "local consensus"; it is guideline in Wikipedia's manual of style. While the manual of style may permit partial disambiguation in some cases, it clearly does not for film articles. The issue of partial disambiguation has been resolved for film titles. Prior to the page move the title did not contravene the manual of style, but now it does. The RFC should be reviewed IMO. The MOS was correctly interpreted by the majority of respondents and the closer has overruled them and the MOS with their own personal opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would be your response to WP:INCDAB, in general or as applied to film? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously if you have a film article at the primary topic it should direct there. But if you don't and you have a disambiguation page it should redirect there. I personally would redirect Parasite (film) to Parasite_(disambiguation)#Film_and_television. If neither scenario applies then you possibly have to re-evaluate the disambiguation of your topics. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is WP:PRIMARYFILM doesn't mention either WP:INCDAB or WP:PDAB, so it doesn't say it doesn't apply to films. It can well be interpreted that INCDAB and PDAB are more specific regarding primary topics of partially disambiguated titles, and thus trumps over PRIMARYFILM—as I did in that RM—, since PRIMARYFILM doesn't even take into account when films are more searched, known, or popular than others. If INCDAB and PDAB truly don't apply to films, then it should be explicitly stated there. El Millo (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone contemplating a "fix" to an inconsistency between a specialized guideline and a general guideline by specifying a contradiction to the general guideline in the specialized guideline needs to stop and reconsider. What they need to do is make the specialized guideline consistent with the general guideline. The whole point of general guidelines is to have consistency across all articles on WP. Specialized guidelines are there to fill in the gaps - specifying guidance specific to a particular set of articles in areas where the general guidelines are silent. That's not the case with treatment of primary topics and partially disambiguated titles with primary topics. General guidance on this is quite clear. --В²C ☎ 04:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bad close which goes against the high bar for PDAB and NCFILM specifically. It should be challenged. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense. The high bar was met with 99% of the page views of all films named Parasite. This was not even questioned. As noted above and in the RM NCFILM doesn’t address PDABs. So INCDAB trumps NCFILM in this issue. —В²C ☎ 00:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that is nonsense. We simply require all secondary topics to be disambiguated from each other. That includes Titanic. You're setting up for wasteful discussions when the matter could properly be simpler per this Wikipedia project's preferred naming conventions. You seem like such a zealot to push for this so hard all the time. I see that you pushed for this back in 2017. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've said at the RM from Titanic, this whole discussion is nonsense. We need to discuss the guideline itself, and decide whether PDAB applies to films or not, whether the wording at PRIMARYFILM actually overrides PDAB even if it doesn't explicitly mention it, and lastly which is this "higher standard" for partial disambiguations. I suggest the Titanic RM be paused for now, and Parasite (film) be restored to Parasite (2019 film) until we've settled this down. Otherwise, Erik is just completely disregarding the existence of WP:PDAB and В²C is just personally choosing the higher standard that needs to be met. As I hope it's clear by my vote at the RM for Parasite, I would side with B²C here, but if you check Nohomersryan's !vote at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020, you'll see they have a very different view on what a "higher standard" is. Until we've decided which one is the standard to meet, both all and none of these are valid. El Millo (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erik, the claim that NCFILM requires all secondary topics to be disambiguated from each other, even when a partially disambiguated title of one of them meets the higher standard per WP:INCDAB (I've addressed Nohomersryan's interpretation of what that higher standard should be at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020), is the problem. If the claim is true, then NCFILM needs to be brought in line with INCDAB. In the mean time, that particular guidance needs to be ignored per WP:IAR. It makes no sense to treat film articles differently from all other titles on WP with respect to PDABs. --В²C ☎ 04:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The high bar is a measure of consensus among discussion participants, not page views. Otherwise we could replace all RM discussions with a bot that looks at web stats. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional language

With Parasite (film) being moved back to Parasite (2019 film), I have boldly added language to address WP:INCDAB. As the policy page WP:PRECISION indicates, Wikipedia project-specific naming conventions are permissible. If the general guidelines at WP:DAB are supposed to override WikiProjects' conventions, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should force Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) to be at Leeds North West and should force M-185 (Michigan highway) to be at M-185. Yet the policy page indicates that these are permissible. Disambiguating secondary-topic films by release year is extremely minimal compared to these other examples' detailed parenthetical disambiguation terms. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on films not movies[edit]

Made it clear that using the disambiguator (film) is actually a rule - that is; using (movie) or similar is not just alternative usage, it is not accepted. CapnZapp (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to properly disambiguate films from the same year?[edit]

What is the proper procedure when you can't disambiguate films with the same title in the same year easily "by country"? E.G. Wolf (2021 drama film) vs. Wolf (2021 thriller film)? Are you supposed to disambiguate by director? Or by "genre"? The latter seems problematic to me, which is why I have reservations about the "Wolf" example above. Or is there some other way?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film) and Wolf (2021 Indian film) too bad? —El Millo (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would go by geographical location of the owning company before it would be director/genre/etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a mix
By director: Carmen (1915 Cecil B. DeMille film), Carmen (1915 Raoul Walsh film)
By genre: The Visitor (2007 drama film), The Visitor (2007 short film)
By country: Michael (2011 Austrian film), Michael (2011 Indian film)
Personally, in the case of Wolf, I'd stick with the current page titles (genre) and def. avoid country in this case, as one of them is a co-production. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambig'ing "by genre" is generally a terrible, imprecise way to do it, to the point where WP:NCTV goes to great lengths to avoid that. Diambig'ing "by format (e.g. "animated" vs. "live-action", "short film" can also work in this case) is vastly preferable, where applicable, but disambig'ing "by genre" is a pretty bad idea (e.g. "thriller" is actually a "subgenre" of "drama", so how are we even disambiguating here?!). My advice: if you can't disambig. "by year", "by country", or "by format", then the next choice should be something like "by director" – disambiguating "by genre" shouldn't even really be an option, or it should be a super-last-resort option, at best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. The example "by genre" that Lugnuts brought up is also incorrect as "short film" isn't a genre and the short film could still be a drama, so the disambiguation doesn't work. The Visitor (2007 drama film) should be The Visitor (2007 feature film) to be properly unambiguous. —El Millo (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that genre is not the way to go with this. As IJB states it is imprecise. At this moment the one labeled drama has no sourced info describing it as such (or as any other genre for that matter) and the one labeled thriller includes a reference whose title is "Wolf Movie Review: Engaging psychological drama derailed by a shaky third act" and another ref that says watching it is a thrilling experience but does not ascribe the film to that genre. I have a vague memory that we used the directors name as the dab years ago but I could easily be wrong. In this case I think using the names is the best choice. MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree that genre isn't the best disambig to use. Director would probably be the best (or least-worst) choice for this case. Shame that the Irish-Polish film wasn't a Hungarian production, then at least it could be Hungary like the wolf... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your director examples are like that because they are both American films. Thus, they had to be taken to another level because you couldn't use "1915 American film". Just because I'm not sure why this wasn't mentiond from the getgo. But this is directly in the guidelin: "For multiple films of the same name that are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin (adjective), like Noise (2007 Australian film) and Noise (2007 American film); or contrasting descriptive adjectives, such as Heidi (2005 live-action film) and Heidi (2005 animated film) or Skin (2018 feature film) and Skin (2018 short film)." Notice how we started with country of origin, and then moved to the next disambiguation (animated vs. live-action). The next one would be akin to genre, but again we started with country of origin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bignole I'm probably wrong about this but I sense that guideline comes from a time when the film project was more simplistic (and I don't use that word as a negative) in its use of "country" - since then we've had discussions about the term in relation to whether "county where filming took place" or "country where the production company was based" etc, as the defining factor. I'm pretty sure the use of country in both the infobox and the lede has altered over the years. It might be worth a discussion to update the guideline you mention. My apologies if I am way off base on this. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, the term has had some debate over the years, but I don't think that's a problem with this guideline. We've had more issues with films and identifying a defining "genre" for the film. There are more edit wars and debates over whether a film is a comedy, drama, superhero, action, romance, etc. film than there are as to whether it is a US film versus a UK film. Genres of current films are also more fluid today than the country of origin of a film. Additionally, there are more roles to making a film than the director. Saying "Superman (1978 Richard Donner film)" makes it seem like the most important fact is that it is a Donner film and minimizes the roles of the writer, producer, etc. By saying the country as the second disambiguation (after year), the most you're going to have to worry about is whether or not there is disagreement over the country of origin, which really does not happen that much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I should add that two films with the same title in the same year doesn't occur very often so your point is fine. IMO the two Wolf films that this thread is about should be moved sooner rather than later MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The country of origin tends to be the country of the production company, not the country where filming takes place. These two films' countries aren't in question, their leads list their countr(ies) of origin. The "problem" is that one of them has dual "nationality", that's why it seeems it shouldn't be moved to distinction by country, but I see no problem with doing it. There are no length problems here, since the title is one four-letter word and the countries' names are rather short as well. Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film) and Wolf (2021 Indian film) isn't bad at all. —El Millo (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that genre disambig is bad. Usually I'd be put off by the hyphenated dual nationality for the one but the scourge of director primacy is much worse than that, as Bignole implies, so I agree with Facu-el Millo about using nationality being the least worst option. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about language? Most readers wouldn't know the English-language film is an Irish-Polish production, while they would definitely know it's in English. Had it been a production of a single anglophone country, the countries would have been perfectly intuitive disambiguators, but readers couldn't be quite sure if the "2021 Irish-Polish film" is definitely what they're looking for upon seeing it. There are precedents, like Dracula (1931 English-language film) vs Dracula (1931 Spanish-language film), even though many of them seem to be old multiple-language versions. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the reason you have "English language" and "Spanish language" for Dracula is because they were both US productions by Universal in the same year. So, in that special case it made sense that you would go down further so something else that separated them out. That's more of an outlier than something that needs a rule.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When was WP:PRIMARYFILM added to the page?[edit]

There can be no such thing. We have an editor now at WP:RM undiscussed moves here arguing on the basis of this shortcut that there is such a thing as primary film rather than WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This shortcut should be removed from page and the shortcut deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you disputing the technical shortcut or the content it leads to? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The shortcut, it suggests that there is such a thing as primary film, there is not. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a shortcut to this section of the MOS is useful. The section simply stipulates how to disambiguate film titles when the film is not the primary topic. The editor at that discussion quoting this guideline is not making the case that there is a "primary film", they are correctly opposing the move on the grounds that MOS:FILM does not do partial disambiguation. The nominator of the move is the one incorrectly arguing that there is a "primary film", but he is not quoting this guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what is the point of a guideline link to a guideline that (correctly) says the opposite? Or maybe that is the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formerly untitled/upcoming media[edit]

After a months-long discussion at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, there was no consensus to create a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming" that point to creative works no longer untitled or upcoming, despite clear consensus from past RfD discussions that these redirects should be deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). As an alternate proposal, I suggest the following be added to WP:NCFILM, which can then be referenced in future RfD discussions: After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Untitled Wikipedia film, Upcoming Wikipedia film, and Wikipedia (upcoming film) are no longer accurate and now misleading to readers. These redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion when this happens, preferably after all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated. Once again pinging participants of the previous discussion: @Steel1943, Cryptic, Thryduulf, Kusma, Jclemens, Tavix, A7V2, StarTrekker, Shhhnotsoloud, Mellohi!, Buidhe, Pppery, BD2412, Jontesta, TNstingray, Oiyarbepsy, ValarianB, and Tamzin. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I have added in the text to WP:UFILM, with a few slight adjustments and minor c/e. Thryduulf, I hope this satisifes your concern regarding updating incoming links. Feel free to perform additional c/e as needed. Thanks all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles (a/an/the) as disambiguators[edit]

Hi all - I recently participated in a requested move discussion (at Talk:Endless (2020 film)) where it was stated that the terms a/an/the are generally, on their own, seen as insufficient to distinguish titles of films from one another. I was curious to see if this was the case, so I did a bit of searching - but the first applicable case I found, Prestige (film) vs. The Prestige (film), seemed to contradict the claim. However, I'm not well versed in this topic area, so I wanted to bring my question in front of people who are better informed about film-article titling practices than I am. My thoughts are mainly as follows:

ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, a/an/the should be sufficient in disambiguation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree... WP:SMALLDETAILS says an article would be sufficient. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OVA[edit]

Should original video animations be disambiguated as (OVA)? I'm asking because someone tagged Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA) as not having a correct name per naming guidelines, but I looked through other OVAs, and many of them are disambiguated as such. I think this needs to be added to the guideline. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Willow[edit]

Apparently, there was an RM in November of last year which attempted to move Willow (film) to Willow (1988 film), per WP:PFILM, but it was closed as no consensus. Looking at WP:PDABLIST#(film), this is — as far as we know — the only article on Wikipedia which doesn't conform to our guideline. What can and should we do about this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RMs challenging PFILM[edit]

information Note: Two RMs have been opened directly challenging WP:PFILM:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General conventions[edit]

I find it somewhat odd that this page doesn't have more "general" guidance on how film articles are named. There's only that small blurb at the top of the page, but it only mentions capitalization and italics. At a minimum, I think the following points should be noted:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what I'm thinking:
General

In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its billing block, MPAA certificate, official press releases, or government copyright agencies.

If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be the bolded term that opens the lead sentence.

Did I miss or go overboard with anything? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is just spitballing, but maybe something more like this:
  • Stylized titles – It is common for films to be stylized differently in promotional materials.
Examples: Seven (1995 film), Ghostbusters (2016 film), Birdman (film)
  • Onscreen titles – It is also common for films to use a slightly modified title onscreen.
Examples: Dune (2021 film), Iron Man 3, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
  • Retroactive changes – Use the title used at the time of the film's release, disregarding retroactive title changes.
Examples: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Dark Phoenix (film), Star Wars (film)
...
Just my 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated version:

In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its billing block, MPAA certificate, official press releases, or government copyright agencies.

If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be the bolded term that opens the lead sentence.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to add this in now, seeing as there has been no opposition. As this wording documents existing and longstanding practices, I don't feel additional !votes of approval are strictly necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gonnym: Special:Diff/1183755278 – How so? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the article title is X and the film's actual title is Y, then it would be acceptable to open with something like: "X, theatrically released as Y, ..." or "X, officially titled Y, ..." While there may be some instances where you'd want to mention Y first, it would seem unnecessary to enforce a particular approach. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because we bold the article title, official names and alternative names. That is clearly stated in MOS:BOLDLEAD, MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Unrelated to my comment, but also relevant, this is a naming convention guideline, bolding names does not belong here and is a guideline fork. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:FIRST: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms. I have never seen a film article's lead structured the other way round, or any article about a proper name, for that matter. Can you give an example? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borat. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? That article very much does not open with "Borat, officially titled ..." InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you even remember what text I removed? You wrote the bolded term that opens the lead sentence which can be understood to mean that other terms should not be bolded. If everything should be bolded, why mention it? If you actually meant to say, that the official film title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence then you should have written it like that. Either way, again, that belongs in MOS:FILM and not here. Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Birdman (film) is an example of an article starting with the short name and not with its official long name[1] Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you just changed it? If an article title is a stylization rather than the official title, the stylization should of course not be the first title that opens the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you ignore sources that contradict your beliefs anything works I guess. So if the Library of Congress is not good enough, how about the studio that distributed the film?[2], BFI[3] or one of film's most important film critics?[4] It's pretty easy finding important sources claiming this is the official name. Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are certainly going to be contradictions, but the billing block credits and the U.S. copyright listing are clearly the most authoritative sources. You are welcome to discuss further on that article's talk page if you wish. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant, the actual title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence. I am not calling for the other titles to not be in bold. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it would be better if you provided an example of a situation that illustrates what you were trying to accomplish, in case we are misunderstanding. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borat. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per MOS:BOLDLEAD: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence."
The article title Borat qualifies as a widely accepted name and should therefore appear first per this guideline. Birdman is a similar case. There are always exceptions, of course, but that is generally how I'd approach it, especially when the film's actual title is very long, as it is with Borat. I'm not sure we need any additional guidance here. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me just add that since there are multiple variations of the title Borat, the current approach in that article works fine. It's one of the few exceptions to the general guidance that the article title appears first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) As I wrote above, I have never seen an article about a proper noun that does this. MOS:FIRST gives United Kingdom as an example. For films specifically, we have Borat, Rogue One, The Avengers (2012 film), Frozen II, etc. We also have NASA, Julius Caesar (play), New York City, Amazon (company), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we focus on common names (shorthand titles) vs official names (lengthier titles), it happens quite often where the common name is listed first: The Empire Strikes Back, The X-Files, Battlefield Earth, Tower of London, North Korea, and Rhode Island (where the official name isn't even mentioned until the last paragraph in the lead). I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that says you have to specify the official title first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the first three examples, the shorter title is the official name. As far as I know (and no one thus far has been able to prove otherwise), no film articles list an alternative title first before "officially known as". The intent of the wording was to document this standard practice on film articles, but if there is a desire not to "mandate" this (even though guidelines aren't mandatory), I can live with that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, perhaps my film examples weren't the best, but it does seem to come down to the sources you choose to go by. Episode V is in the official title at BOM and The Numbers, and Borat's full title is listed as an alternate title at AFI. And we definitely know official titles aren't always enforced as the first occurrence in other non-film GA and FA articles. If WP:FILM wants to recognize that as a common practice, then perhaps it would be better to place it in MOS:FILM as Gonnym suggests and take a deeper dive on the subject at WT:MOSFILM. I'm definitely not opposed to documenting a common practice if we want to ensure consistency across our film articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps that is a larger question to discuss at WT:FILM, which source(s) are the more authoritative when it comes to determining a film's "official" title. Personally, I think the billing block is king since it's essentially a form of credits, but maybe that's just me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Started a discussion at WT:FILM#Determining a film's official title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200162185/
  2. ^ https://www.20thcenturystudios.com/movies/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance
  3. ^ https://www.bfi.org.uk/film/c9f41790-6dd7-5446-b846-2128e0a664e8/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance
  4. ^ https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/birdman-2014
Categories