This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Film page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:FILM

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Film Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

An editor has requested that Bruce Wayne (1989 film series character) be moved to Bruce Wayne (1989 film series), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

For film pages, I think it is WP:COAT to create a soundtrack section that includes both information boxes and track listings (just a section of prose that provides an overview and anything of note). I see this similar to why we don't put track listings on musician pages. MOS:FILMMUSIC is a little confusing for me as it says that track listings for prerecorded songs can be made but that film scores cannot. Yes, I understand the difference but still believe track listings and information boxes are COAT as they should be presented in a separate page if they are notable and do not contribute anything of benefit to the film page. I searched and found a few discussions about this but wondering if there is a discussion that found consensus for the "current" MOS or if anyone feels this should be re-visited. No issues either way but would like clarification for future editing. CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, if a soundtrack is not notable for its own article and is instead covered in the film article, you don't think there should be an infobox or a track listing as part of that coverage?

I feel like infobox details are consistent whether or not the soundtrack is notable enough to stand alone. As for soundtracks' track listings, I always thought that it was more appropriate than scores' track listings because the tracks could be links to existing songs or a variety of musicians (whereas a score usually has one composer). So for including that, I see it as about linkability. The soundtrack has to get enough reliably-sourced coverage about it for the soundtrack section (presumably including the infobox and track listing) to have its own article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I do NOT think an infobox or track listing should be included in film articles as it does not do anything beneficial for the film, only the soundtrack. What it does do is clutter up the film page (especially when an infobox winds up next to another section such a "reception" because the soundtrack section is so small). We have pages where there is one line saying that the soundtrack exists, then the infobox and track listing.

This is where I get confused on the MOS which states, for film scores, that "noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose." Even with prerecorded music not all of the tracks are noteworthy. So believe it would be better to cover in prose if there is anything. Otherwise it is nothing more than an indiscriminate list that does not add value to the page about the film, only value to the soundtrack (which again, should probably have its own page if notable - if not, the extra details I would consider COAT). Hope that helps to clarify where my brain is melting. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a soundtrack pretty much gets no coverage in reliable sources, there could be a case for not bothering with a "Soundtrack" section at all. We want to include content that is verifiable and not indiscriminate. Obviously if there is a lot of coverage, there can be a standalone article with all the elements there. The challenge lies in soundtracks that have gotten some light coverage. As for identifying tracks, prerecorded music tends to mean preexisting notable songs by notable musicians, which is why I mentioned "linkability". For a score, a composer is usually the only key person and can be named and linked in one sentence, and the names of the tracks for such a score are rarely linked, unlike prerecorded songs. Happy to see what other editors think of this. Do you have any examples of articles that shouldn't have "Soundtrack" sections and articles that should have them but without an infobox or track listing? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation says we are on the same page. I believe the COAT information be handled by WEIGHT as well. Here is a good example of one that was added and I removed. You can see it is one line, the track listing, and the infobox. I can putting a line saying it exists and naming any noteworthy tracks (with reliable sources of course), but you can at least see what I mean by clutter. For transparency, that link is one that an editor disputed on my talk page and I have notified them of this discussion. I will look for some that I think are good with prose and do not need infoboxes and add them here later. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I will say I don't really do much with "Soundtrack" sections. One time I recall adding it is at About Last Night (2014 film) § Soundtrack, where I put it at the end of the article body (as relatively unimportant) and has links to the songs and musicians. The placement makes it less intrusive and still provides that "linkability". I only included the infobox as a standard practice, though the paragraph covers these same details too. Not sure if other editors think that there is still value in that track listing with the blue links, as I've never been one to care about films' soundtracks, and open to discussing that as one of the examples. As for Yuva (2024 film), the infobox does look bloated on its own with that level of detail, but the track listing does not strike me as problematic, especially with just three. If the rest of the article was more fleshed out, the listing would to me seem to be just a small part of it all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That brings up another question. Should we cite Apple Music or other commercial websites for the track listings?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I know, that's fine for basic information. If there is a non-commercial database that is more suitable, that's probably even better. (I don't know what one would be, though.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooru Peru Bhairavakona is a good example of what I feel would be appropriate per WEIGHT. It gives a brief description of the soundtrack and even mentions a few of the tracks (I am assuming they were worthy of mention). Here is a version of that page with the infobox, track listing, and cover.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kranti (2023 film) is one I just came across that is an example of what it should NOT look like. Outside the fact nothing is sourced, the track listing and infobox takes up the majority of the page.--CNMall41 (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should only have tracklists and album infoboxes for film soundtracks that are truly notable enough to have their own pages — and then the tracklists and infoboxes should go in that article and nowhere else. If it isn't notable enough for its own page, we don't need these things weighing down the main film/TV/game/whatever pages. They're just cruft. Popcornfud (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have felt. Trying to add the information into a film page for a soundtrack that isn't (or may not be) notable is coatracking. Either it is notable for its own page which is what infoboxes were created for, or we give a brief overview in prose. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that basic soundtrack should be the part of the film article if separate article for music is not created. MNWiki845 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic info, yes. An infobox and tracklisting, no. Too many of these are unsourced and the infoboxes such as the examples above, carry over into other sections and clutter the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think soundtrack inbox already added in many film articles so don't disturb these articles. CNMall41 now have many problems with this issue then he can create separate pages for soundtracks. Also for separate soundtrack page needs to add appropriate sources. It was very different situation to add appropriate sources.CNMall41 at suddenly you can't say to create separate pages for soundtracks. In Wikipedia only you have this issue. So need to stop revert back our edits. Sush150 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to ping one time. I am not the only one with the issue as you see from above there are users who agree. And, this is what the discussion is about...to determine if this is something we deem appropriate or not. Once this discussion runs its course, I will likely open a RfC on the MOS:FILMMUSIC page. In the meantime, please discuss the policy here and any conduct you have an issue with at ANI.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, discussion started here since there still seems to be some conflicting views. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm hoping to get some peer review for one section of an article I'm working on. I'm posting here instead of going through the formal peer review process because I only need help with one section, not the entire article. The section in question is "Cultural impact."

I've been looking at WP essays and how-to pages about how to write a cultural impact section, but I've learned all I can from those pages at this point, and now I need an actual person to look at the section and give feedback.

I've been editing the entire page a lot, but have hardly touched that section because I'm not sure what it needs. Therefore, most of the content in the section was created before I started editing the page. I've done a little trimming, but that's it. I'm aware a few of the segments are unsourced. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section is, not to put too fine a point on it, atrocious. It starts out with misrepresenting the scope of the AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains list and it's all downhill from there. IGN is an okay source but should by no means be treated as an authoritative one and is given outsized WP:WEIGHT the way it is used here. What follows is a random assortment of references in media without any sourcing to back up that these are significant ones, let alone the most significant ones. A species is named after Vader—sure, species named after popular culture items are a dime a dozen. The same thing applies to astronomical objects, by the way. Architecture inspired by Darth Vader might be relevant here, but architecture that is just compared to Vader almost certainly isn't. Darth Vader being a kind of shorthand for "villain" is probably noteworthy... but merely listing examples isn't enough, that kind of overarching analysis needs to come from WP:Reliable sources making that exact point. The borderline personality disorder thing is in the wrong section—that's in-universe character analysis. And so on. In summary, it's all an arbitrary collection of trivia. The way to fix it is to start over from scratch using sources that actually cover the overarching topic—(the cultural impact of) Darth Vader. That's the only way to ensure that the section is compliant with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies. In particular, we need sources to tell us what's an important WP:ASPECT and what is not so we can treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply! Unfortunately I'm not the person to re-write the section at this point in time, because I'm still getting my head around everything you said, and I don't feel confident in my abilities to discern between important information and trivia when it comes to a section like this. At least not yet...I'm learning and growing as an editor every day. Should I just leave it as-is with the clean-up tag, or should I remove some of the most atrocious bits? Wafflewombat (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea of relying on sources on the overarching topic is that editors do not have to (and really, are not supposed to) discern between important information and trivia—the sources do that for us. This is admittedly oversimplifying things as there is a bit more to it than that, but merely identifying quality sources on the topic and covering the same things as they do in roughly the same WP:PROPORTION will get you most of the way there. If you have already located quality sources in the course of working on other parts of the article, I would encourage you to give it a shot by removing the entirety of the current section and starting over. It's not like it can get much worse than it currently is. TompaDompa (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll see what I can do. Do you mind if I copy this thread onto the talk page of the article, so other editors can see your feedback? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Just make sure to make it clear where it was originally posted and when it was copied (WP:Copying within Wikipedia), and perhaps add a link to the current version of the article to make it easier for people reading it in the future to follow. TompaDompa (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tompa, could you take a quick look at the cultural impact section of this page and tell me if you think the items there should be removed? My impression is that the Chewbacca defense is more about the cultural impact of South Park, rather than Chewbacca. As for the Chewbacca Mask Lady, that seems like a singular occurrence that happened to reference the character, but isn't really about Chewbacca in any meaningful way. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a quick look at it, I would say that those are reasonable "See also" items but not more than that. TompaDompa (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Where would the "see also" links go on the page? As is stands, if I remove those items from the cultural impact section, that section won't exist anymore. Wafflewombat (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a dedicated "See also" section, above the "Notes" section. See MOS:SECTIONORDER. TompaDompa (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section needs more meaningful content than what exists, and that may exist better in books and academic articles. Two things I recall seeing in the past come to mind: the notion of blackness (as covered here), and the notion of technophobia (e.g. "more machine than man", framed as bad). There may be a fatherhood angle as well, seeing an article like this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! If I have time, I will do some research along the lines of what you suggested. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me if ScreenCrush is a reliable source? The first button at the top of the website says "Win Cash" which is a red flag for me. I removed a sentence citing a ScreenCrush article on a page I'm editing, but someone else reverted my edit because that particular article was written by Matt Singer, who is apparently a credible film critic. Wafflewombat (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found them to be good enough for basic entertainment journalism like Screen Rant and that sort of site. I'm not sure how reliable they would be for a big scoop that the trades didn't pick up on. Matt Singer is a RT/MC listed critic so yes does appear to be credible. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even not having any previous familiarity with the site, I am confident that a place that (in addition to the major "Win Cash" red flag you rightly point out) has "The Dumbest Questions People Ask Google About Movies" and "The Worst Movies of the 20th Century, According to Letterboxd" on the front page (at time of writing) is not exactly the most serious outlet—even if both of those are written by Matt Singer (whom I am also not familiar with, but taking what a quick Google search reveals at face value seems to indicate is indeed a credible critic). It is obviously not a high-quality source (i.e. not suitable for WP:Featured articles per the relevant criteria), but it might be comparable to Screen Rant as suggested above—in which case it would be usable for straightforward statements of fact (e.g. release dates) within its area of competency, but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis, and not a source to rely on for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is about my reversion at Changes in Star Wars re-releases. My reversion is based on the fact that it is an editorial piece for a reception section written by a credible and established film writer and critic. My assessment is based on Singer as an individual, and on the context of how the piece if being used, because the general situation to me seems to be a situational one. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for elaborating. I understand where you're coming from. What do you think of Tompa's response, above? Do you think Singer's article on Jabba qualifies as analysis? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Back in December 2023, there was a brief discussion on Template talk:Infobox person § Education and alma mater parameters regarding the usage of the alma mater and education parameters in certain film-related articles such as actors, filmmakers and entertainers.

Given that, as well as the fact that we shouldn't use both parameters simultaneously as per Template:Infobox person, I have a general question for the other project members: which parameter(s) should we use for actors/filmmakers, if relevant? Also, should we include all colleges/universities they attended? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the difference is just about the amount of information, so it would depend on the individual. It may be that for some actors, we only know where they went to school and nothing more, and "alma mater" would be appropriate. If the actor is very famous, details of their academic background would probably be identified, and "education" can be used.

As for including them, I don't see the number being more than two most of the time. Is there a particular case where it's three or more? If it's usually one or two, I'd be fine with it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is, actually. On the Peter Weller article, three universities are listed: the University of North Texas, Syracuse University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate take is that since he has a PhD, it seems lacking to not mention what came before. I guess I am thinking of someone who may have changed colleges multiple times before graduating with a BA/BS. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams may have switched colleges multiple times, but I'm not sure if he obtained a degree. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Superman (1978 film) § Disputed – Discuss. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just calling attention to user:181.2.127.197's edits. User is currently editing many film articles. Removing sources and tweaking language. I am doing some anti-vandalism work, and it is a little difficult to discern if the edits are constructive to movie-based articles. Thought I could use an extra set of eyes on the user's contributions. Thanks in advance! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki, appears to be a mixture of helpful and unhelpful, with the bad outweighing the good. Not sure if they are trying to do just enough to stay under the radar, but edits like these are real head scratchers. Looks like a few editors watching some of those articles have already intervened, but the number of articles hit in a short period of time is concerning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60, Yes, it is/was hard for me to tell if there was some stealth vandalism going on with the seemingly good edits. Let me know if you think the user's edits should be reverted or sent to AIV. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki, from my perspective, I don't think I'm comfortable calling it stealth vandalism at this point. In this edit and others like it, they may be trying to replicate something they saw in another article (though generally inappropriate for the lead section), so we can probably chalk this up as an educational issue for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the A-Z list in List of American films of 1967 compared to what has been done to List of American films of 1970 onwards with the massive bloated cast lists which makes it difficult to find films. I'm going to restore them to the simple A-Z format rather than release date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At List of cult films, there is a discussion which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Editors are coming up with ideas about refining the selection criteria. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments to Talk:List of cult films § List criteria. Thank you.—Alalch E. 23:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion to move The Grudge (2020 film) to The Grudge (2019 film). The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Grudge (2020 film) § Requested move 27 March 2024. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to come in here to post this but I've seen you beat me to it. Thanks @Erik ! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Intellectual_blockbuster. This looks like a mix of low-quality sourcing and synthesis to me. I really don't care about the article enough to hash it out with someone determined to insert the material because it's not in great shape to begin with. If it really is a thing the sourcing needs to be much better IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to raise an issue for discussion, around Category:Independent film stubs and its associated template ((indie-film-stub)).

Obviously, the main purpose of stub categories is to facilitate collaboration, by grouping articles on a status that represents a community of collaborators, so that the articles can be expanded to the point of not needing to be templated or categorized as stubs anymore — but I question whether "indie film" actually represents a useful basis for such collaboration. There isn't really any discernible community of editors who specialize broadly in "indie film" irrespective of national borders — many editors associated with this project know a thing or two about the indie film scenes of a couple of countries, but very few have any overarching worldwide expertise. Like, I'm obviously one of the go-to guys for Canadian and/or LGBTQ independent films, but my point of expertise has far less to do with "independent" and more to do with "Canadian and/or LGBTQ". So I question whether a single transnational "indie film stubs" category that groups independent films together regardless of their country of origin is actually serving any useful collaborative purpose — because people's areas of expertise, for the purposes of collaborability, are generally going to converge around countries and genres, rather than around "indie" status per se.

Furthermore, even after reviewing just 30 articles in that category with about 180 left to go, I've already found a lot of films that were stub-templated only for their indie status, and not at all for any combination whatsoever of decade, genre and/or nationality — and even worse, they were sometimes (though thankfully not always) also missing any mainspace categories for genre or nationality. But again, editors' ability to collaborate is going to cut on countries and/or genres, meaning that stub-tagging films for indieness while eliding stub tags for genre or nationality is isolating those films from the more useful groupings.

I do plan to go through the entire category to make sure each film in it also has appropriate nationality-based stub tags and categories added if necessary, but I wanted to ask if other editors here believe the "indie-stub" tag and category are actually useful in ways I'm not seeing, or should be taken to CFD. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:? (film)#Requested move 9 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has modified several articles to change Special Effects to Visual Effects. I don't think is necessarily apt in all cases but I was unaware special and visual are two different areas, with special relating to practical and visual to more image trickery and CGI. Is there a general term that can be used instead? Naming a section "Effects" seems wrong but maybe it's right? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they are both "visual effects", and awards that are given for VFX often include practical and digital effects such as the Oscar. In my experience, "special effects" and "visual effects" do get used to differentiate the two but I don't think that is the best approach for people who aren't in the know. I would go with "Effects" or "Visual effects" and then clarify what is practical versus digital. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MonsterVerse#Requested move 31 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just made aware of Category:Films about fictional presidents of the United States being used on a film in which I don't think the category is applicable. Given it's title and the heading used at the cat, should this category include any film which features fictional presidents, even if they aren't the major character focus of the film such as X2 (film), or should it only include films in which they are the sole/major focus of the film such as Air Force One (film)? If the former, then perhaps the cat should not use "about" in its title but rather "featuring". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a WP:DEFINING feature of the film. TompaDompa (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the practice of using "upcoming" in a film's lead intro only until the film has premiered? As opposed to leaving it in until films are theatrically released? I believe the former practice is misleading to readers. The general public and sources view films as upcoming until they're released in theaters to the general public. I think that if a lead intro reads "is a 2024 film", it implies that the film was released. There are always films that are scheduled to be theatrically released months from their premiere date. Lapadite (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the film was premiered it has been released in that year. The reason we use "upcoming" before that is to indicate that it has not been released, not that it is upcoming for every reader. Just because the reader hasn't had the chance to see it yet doesn't mean it is still upcoming for everyone. Most films get theatrically released in only a few countries at a time as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the common removal of "upcoming" once a film has premiered, instead of keeping it until its release date. If there hasn't been a project consensus on this, perhaps there should be so that it can be referenced when some editors remove "upcoming" once a film has premiered and others reinstate it because it hasn't been released. Lapadite (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the possibility of dropping "upcoming" once the release year is known, period? When we have "upcoming", we are guessing at what this indicates to readers. While an official premiere can mark that the film is effectively "published", it's still not available to general audiences. Yet, if we write "upcoming", even if it comes out in one territory but has yet to come out in other territories, that word will be true for some readers but not others. Especially on an encyclopedia intended for a global audience that only happens to be in the English language. I feel like it's too convoluted for the relative circumstances that can exist. Not to mention that these are encyclopedic articles about films, so being a going-out guide is completely incidental. If readers want to know release specifics, they can read the lead section's last paragraph (or the "Release" section itself). Food for thought. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean, for instance, in 2024 dropping "upcoming" once a film's release date is set to 2025 to call it a "2025 film", can't say I agree because release dates far off from when they're announced can change and that introduces more variables that a number of editors won't follow. We know that a film's scheduled release date is what journalists use to refer to an "upcoming film". When you Google "upcoming films" you get a list of films that are scheduled to be released in theaters, from Rotten Tomatoes, Fandango, IMDb, Box Office Mojo, and journalists (here's a Variety article). That's always been conventional wisdom, what the general public understands "upcoming" to mean: that it will be released in theaters, or, in this age, on streaming. On English WP, we use the release date of the country of production. I'm suggesting that, for the sake of simplicity and serving readers, we reflect that understanding by removing "upcoming" from the lead only when a film has been released in theaters or streaming. At least, establish a project consensus either way so editors follow one practice. Lapadite (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are still talking about a relatively small window of time, because eventually within a few days or weeks (occasionally months), the issue will be in the rear-view mirror. That's only a fraction of the timeline in the article's lifetime. Personally, I don't think it's worth trying to keep "upcoming" in the lead. Removing it altogether once the release year is known or after it has premiered shouldn't significantly change anything, especially if we believe visitors are reading past the first couple lines of the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest having all film articles read as "is a [year of release] film" without using "upcoming" at all? I'm not opposed to that if the project establishes it as standard practice for all film articles. It's still accurate. What I don't think is accurate is using "upcoming" for a film's premiere date, as opposed to its release date. Lapadite (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at The Fall Guy for example, "upcoming" could technically be removed, considering the film has already premiered. Although I wouldn't go out of my way to remove it, I don't think doing so would confuse readers, especially if they read past the opening paragraph. They're going to see "scheduled to be released" in the second paragraph, but more importantly, any possible confusion you could argue will only exist in a time span of several weeks. If an editor gives you trouble about "upcoming" at a particular article, then there should be a variety of alternative solutions you could come up with to remedy the situation. I don't think we necessarily need to hard code a solution we all agree with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dr. Strangelove § What is the problem with my edit? You can't explain the reason?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon MGM Studios Distribution division was said to be handling distribution for all of Amazon MGM's subsidiaries. However, the full name is almost never used anywhere (ex. credits, reviews, etc.); it's always simply Amazon MGM Studios. I always figured we'd add "Distribution" when referring to in relation of such (like the "distributed by" section of an infobox), and not include it for everything else. However, it seems to just be the latter regardless of context. Should we add "Disribution" when necessary, or just leave it as is? IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this today and had never encountered such a thing before on a director's biography page. The table was added back in 2013. Is this an accepted practice on WP? I've tried to do a bit of research on it and can't find anything definitive, other than WP guidelines that state RT scores can be mentioned in the reception section of a specific film, and that they should be used with caution and explained well in the prose. Thoughts?—The Keymaster (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have to be used "with caution". It's not medical advice. If you mean "Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original and later dated reviews", that's just saying that using Rotten Tomatoes to describe the critical consensus of The Thing (1982) may need explanation. Rotten Tomatoes' critical consensus in 2024 is not the same reception that the film received on release. But if you just want a quick rating for a film, who really cares? You want to know what the overall reception is right now, not what it was in 1982. But if you don't like it, why not just post to the article's talk page and see what other people think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But if you don't like it, why not just post to the article's talk page and see what other people think?" Because no one ever responds to talk page messages. At least in my experience. In fact I've been specifically told on numerous occasions to take concerns to Wikiproject talk pages instead. Hence my post here. But this doesn't really answer my question. I'm asking if it's customary/acceptable or even preferable to have filmography tables with RT ratings on a director's page, because I had never seen that before today.—The Keymaster (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding article talk pages... Some articles do get less traffic than others, and you can usually tell which ones those are, but it's generally bad advice to say "no one ever responds" on talk pages, therefore don't use them. Localized issues are best discussed at their respective article talk page first, and then escalated with a discussion notice at another venue when needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that approach. I just know that whenever I've done that in the past, I've received crickets in response and had to take the discussion elsewhere before anything actually got done. The Keymaster (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can try new approaches as long as they meet policies and guidelines and holds up to scrutiny. There is no policy or guideline that forbids this, and there is some some precedent of showing RT scores together, with film-series articles having that. But that and box office numbers tend to reflect the series as a whole. Here, it is not clear for which credit the film and score are for. If a listing is for a writing credit, it seems a bit much to share the related film's score, as if his writing directly correlates with the film's quality. Maybe if it was focused only on his directing credits? And included Metacritic scores too? This article having this table does not necessarily mean all articles should have the same approach. I've created a "Cast" prose section that had a cast-list table embedded in it. I've seen a Featured Article that has a "Characters" section. Another one includes a video clip (with the critical commentary, of course). What do you think? Is it fine as is, could it be improved, or should it just be removed, and why? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were solely up to me, I'd remove it, for much the same reasons GoneIn60 mentions below. The Keymaster (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quick and dirty answer is that there is no quick and dirty answer. Wikipedia evolves as editors try new things, particularly in regard to article presentation. Sometimes new ideas stick, multiply, and propagate. Other times, they die a speedy, painless death. However, it's important not to shoot down a new idea on the basis that it isn't being used in other articles. That's not a reasonable justification in and of itself.

With that said, RT is only one aspect of critical reception. It would seem like an unordinary emphasis of RT to include it there without taking other aspects of critical reception into account, especially in regard to older films where some additional context may be necessary. The other thing that stands out to me is the unnecessary duplication, with the article now listing the films twice – once under Filmography and a second time under Critical reception. Oddly, The Langoliers TV miniseries was also added midstream into the list of films. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RT table is basically harmless and like @The Keymaster I haven't seen such a table before on a Director's article. I suppose it might be helpful for some readers. By definition it places unbalanced emphasis on RT, and as those scores are often (but not always) based on low response numbers. I personally find thus kind of data meaningless, and far prefer published signed textual reviews. But it's a matter of opinion. If I were ediing the page I wouldn't delete the table, but neither would I add it! Tobyhoward (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60 @Tobyhoward Yeah, I agree with both of you on this, although I'm also inclined to remove it entirely. It seems like unnecessary, repetitive clutter. The Keymaster (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been that way on M. Night Shyamalan. Along with Metacritic, CinemaScore and box office. Mike Allen 14:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the section titles need some work, and it still produces some unnecessary duplication (listing the films a second time), I can see how others might find that kind of presentation useful. It helps when most of the director's film history is more recent (post-1998 when RT first launched). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes is a single data point, not the be-all and end-all of critical reception, and as such no substitute for actual sourced analysis about the overarching critical reception of somebody's oeuvre. It can, on the other hand, be a starting point. TompaDompa (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my thinking, too. If the consensus is that the table should be left up, then perhaps it needs to be expanded to include ratings from other aggregate websites as well? The Keymaster (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's beneficial in a film series article when it's supplementary to the prose in a reception section, serving as a quick glance at how reception changed for the series. For an individual's article, I think having a separate table for RT & MC scores is generally unnecessary and redundant. It repeats the filmography (in which a column for RT & MC can be added if that's preferred, or both can be used as references); the reception for each film should already be mentioned in the career section; and the links to someone's filmography on the RT and MC websites can be added to the external links section. The MOS advises against overusing tables when prose would suffice (or, in this case, an external link too). I think, for most cases, there isn't a benefit to including another table of an individual's filmography just to list RT & MC scores. Lapadite (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That, to me, seems like justification for just removing it. The Keymaster (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes repeating the list of films so problematic in itself? Film series articles repeat the list twice more, for box office numbers and aggregate scores. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a film series article, though. It's a filmmaker biography page. The Keymaster (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be fair, I think the point Erik is making is that if it is commonplace to repeat lists in one type of article (i.e. film series), then there isn't an inherent reason why we couldn't do the same in other article types (i.e. filmmaker biography page). If repeating the lists is problematic, then "Why do it at all?", is the question he's asking.

In response, one might argue that film series articles generally contain shorter lists, so repeating them will consume less real estate. Lists in filmmaker biography pages tend to be longer, so repeating them can quickly become a real estate concern. MOS:LIST advises that articles "consist primarily of prose" and to use lists sparingly. At WP:CFORK#List formats, we are told that tables create readability concerns for certain devices (opt for bulleted and numbered lists instead when sortability is not needed). Putting it all together, unnecessary duplication of long lists in the table format is best avoided when possible, especially when the ratio of readable prose to non-readable prose suffers as a result. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I agree with your line of thinking on that as well.

I should add that while I do have a preference here, this isn't a super big issue for me one way or the other and I could just move onto other things, if need be. I just happened to look up Holland's page that day and found that RT table to be odd and uncommon. When I originally posted my query, I was just hoping to get an answer about standard protocol, but it seems there isn't a "right" answer on this one, necessarily. At least that's my takeaway thus far. The Keymaster (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GoneIn60, for clarifying what I meant. Like why it is essentially okay at a film series article and not a biographical article.

I don't think it needs to be a practice in general, nor do I think it to be a practice to be completely banned. It's not outright detrimental to Wikipedia, but it's possible it could be better utilized for some people better than others. Like The Hollywood Reporter recently talked about a director's past RT scores being looked at. This from Slate (from 2011) is a deep-dive about actors' and directors' trajectories. What is the extra element that could warrant that kind of presentation? If there was plenty of reliably-sourced prose written about how the director is consistently good or bad (in terms of RT scores), maybe? Or if we talk about the highest-grossing directors of all time, would it be so bad to have a box office table for them, like we're discussing RT scores here? In any case, I agree with what your takeaway, that there isn't a "right" answer. Just pitching questions on when it could be more right than not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder that this falls under the purview of this project. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Myers (Halloween) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm the nominator of this candidate, and it could use some attention from editors more familiar with the topic areas of anime and film, at the suggestion of a couple of the reviewers. I have addressed certain concerns about the comprehensiveness of the article (criterion 1b of the FACR), but some doubts remain about whether it covers all aspects of the subject and includes all notable sources. This is also the first Studio Ghibli–related article to be brought to FAC, so I would appreciate any comments you have! For anyone interested in conducting a source review, I have copies of almost all the offline sources and can email them to you on request. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrWikiDetective (talk · contribs) is an account that primarily exists to add only reviews from British film critics. I find this to be WP:REFSPAM, as adding reviews should depend on the topic and if it fits the balance of critical reception. It does not appear that they take this into consideration, only inserting reviews as they get published. Mentioning here since I reverted a lot of these additions as not genuine contributions and wanting additional opinions and any feedback about actions to take. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you similarly post about an editor who only added reviews from American critics? Because I can assure you that there are very many of those. MapReader (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would. I'm talking about a serial pattern of adding only specific critics/periodicals, which is what is happening here. Editors should be making well-rounded contributions, not behaving like shills for a specific publication. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a loose interpretation of refspam. It's not like the Telegraph and Guardian are unacceptable sources either. This person reads a couple major publications and decides to use them to contribute, what a scandal. From the outside looking in it seems more like you have a vendetta against them. 203.211.79.73 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that they are acceptable sources. If it was a case of just one film critic that the editor was proliferating, that is an obvious case of refspam. This case is less clear-cut, which is why I posted here. But nobody should be proliferating a very specific category of review without regard for what is in the article. For example, for less noteworthy films' articles, sometimes there were just aggregator scores, and the editor just shoved in a British film review, regardless of whether or not it matched the consensus, and moved on to their next target. The WP:BALANCE of the section needs to be considered, as well as the WP:WEIGHT of the review, especially compared to existing ones. Adding a review should be an assessment of, oh this is missing, I'll add it. Not favoring specific periodicals and embarking on a mission to proliferate them. This very narrow behavior has been going on since beginning of March. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. In an article with a Reception section that's already in good condition, adding one more review is probably not much of a concern. If the Reception section is barebones (or even non-existent) though, and an editor only adds one review, and one that may not represent the general consensus regarding the film's reception, that has a disproportionate effect on the section. So I guess my feeling is that we shouldn't simply revert this editor's additions, but they should be reviewed and reverted where it presents a biased view of how the film was received.

I know you pinged the editor, but I think you should also mention that their edits are being discussed here, as it would be nice to get their perspective, or at least an acknowledgement that they're aware there's concern about their editing pattern. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I messaged the editor again and linked to this discussion. My concern with a review of contributions is that this was being done across many articles, not to mention that there is a nationality slant to it. I totally recognize that many articles can have US-centric sections, but adding only British reviews isn't really an improvement to providing a global perspective. Imagine if an editor just adds French-language or Spanish-language reviews just because they exist, and only focuses on that language. A review, to me, implies that such a serial editor doesn't have to do anything but continue on their mission. Should the "burden" really be on well-rounded editors to assess single-purpose editors' contributions one by one? Better for a single-purpose editor to become well-rounded and broader in their contributions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they really did it indiscriminately and across many articles, I agree that that's an issue, and maybe our best course of action is to either unilaterally revert all of their additions or involve the admins; I'm concerned that we'd be throwing out good contributions along with the bad, but I'd like a wider opinion on that question. I'm not really sure I agree with your concerns about the nationality point; if I only added reviews by Roger Ebert to film articles, would that be similarly problematic (provided I wasn't invoking the same WEIGHT concerns)? I'm not really inclined to fault an editor for using the sources they're familiar and comfortable with, is my point, I guess. I'm willing to be swayed by what others might think of this, but as an example, for a very long time I was using AllMovie for genre classification purposes because I found it very user-friendly and seemingly "good enough", even though I thought I had heard some concerns about it. I only recently changed to primarily using AFI. Hypothetically though, if I'd mass-edited articles to use AllMovie or AFI for genre definitions, overriding anything already in place, because that was the source I was comfortable with and considered reliable, would that have also prompted you to start a thread? Just food for thought! DonIago (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I did think too about what if someone proliferated Ebert reviews. I've quoted him a few times in the past, but to me, there's something forced about thinking, "We must make sure Ebert is mentioned in every single article of every film he reviewed," and acting on that. Yet he's iconic among film critics that nobody would blink an eye over seeing him quoted. Or if an editor one time happened to like their regional film critic's take and added the review to the article, not a big deal either. It's the nonstop focus that flags it for me.

I think cross-article proliferation of anything runs a risk of one-size-fits-all. Editors mean well to go around and try to make sure good content and structure is there and that bad content and structure is taken out. But I think widespread changes should be very universally accepted (cleaning up typos) or rooted in general or project-specific guidelines. Otherwise there will be pushback. Like to use your genre example, I feel like there should be community consensus that AFI is the gold standard before making many edits. What if there are issues that the original editor did not think about? What if AFI says just "comedy" and articles about "screwball comedy" films (a clear subgenre) get changed? Or that Fight Club can't really be put in a specific genre because no matter what AFI says, the record shows across reliable sources that there's no common genre for that film? Not to mention databases are databases, it's not like for every film there is a roundtable discussion among film-genre scholars to conclusively categorize the film in so-and-so genre. Most determinations will be pretty easily accepted, but certain films mix genres or defy genres, and a database record won't handle that best. Anyway, sorry to go on with this tangent! I guess to get back to the point, maybe the original editor can give their feedback and explain their thought process. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case other editors are interested, the following link shows activity on articles' talk pages that have the WikiProject Film project banner. It can be useful to find discussions and weigh in as a third opinion. Link here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]