Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Today's featured articles

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(11 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
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
Belgian 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
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Any experts on Finnish film?

[edit]

In the process of creating The Missile, about a legitimately noteworthy Finnish film that was screened at a Canadian film festival this past week (not TIFF, but still how it got onto my Canadian radar), I noticed that the director has previously won a Jussi Award for Best Director for her earlier film — but that article has some problems:

  1. It hasn't been updated at all since 2019. Have these awards gone defunct, or are we just not staying on top of it?
  2. Even though it lists only winners, without listing any nominees at all, the winners are double-coded as winners with both a yellow highlight and a double-dagger (‡) — but the double-dagger is entirely unnecessary if the winners are already highlighted, and even the highlighting itself is redundant if the article is only listing winners without also listing unhighlighted nominees alongside them. So is this a "we only know the winners" award where there aren't any nominees to list at all, in which case the winners don't need any special coding to denote their status, or can nominees be added to it, in which case we only need one method of denoting the winners rather than two?

But since I can't read Finnish and don't have access to the kind of archived Finnish media coverage it would take to upgrade the article myself, I wanted to ask if there are any editors with expertise in Finnish film who are willing to take some time to improve it. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the double-dagger is entirely unnecessary if the winners are already highlighted: this is a MOS:ACCESSIBILITY requirement. MOS:COLOR says Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the table only includes winners, the colors and the symbol are both not only pointless but also completely distracting. Also, as a related note, can we stop copying print and using symbols and instead use web-technology like {{efn}}? Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any quibbles about the formatting of the page, it's still lacking any of the winners since 2019. Does anybody have the ability to update that? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variety archives

[edit]

I thought project members might be interested to know that Variety seem to have opened up their archives (including Daily Variety) for free (at least for now), which is a good resource for many film and film-related articles.

https://read-archive.variety.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiani (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, thanks Sudiani. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sudiani. Alas it now appears to have changed to subscription only. Tobyhoward (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to note that you can access Variety (scanned content) at ProQuest via The Wikipedia Library. Tobyhoward (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sudiani do you have any tips on efficient searching the archives? I want info on the International Lethal Weapon box office but can only really pull up video sales so I think I'm doing something wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwarriorblake For that era, it is difficult to find international grosses. The international release during that era is often later than the US release so better searching outside of the year of release. Sometimes, they might have mentioned it when referring to sequels so useful to look at the reporting for those films. For some studios, they have published good charts of worldwide grosses in later years, often for a studio anniversary, but I have not seen one for Warner Bros. They used to publish annually (and sometimes more regularly) the international performance for the studios based on data published by the studios which would tie in with the studio's reporting rather than being for all the studios at once, and this will often flag the biggest performers. I have found such an article dated January 20, 1988 on page 3 where WB Intl had billed $148 million in rentals up to Nov. 30. Lethal Weapon is listed as the second highest performer with $49.5 million. I had thought this might be the rental given the total billings are rentals but it seems that these are the grosses as the figures add up to more than $148 million and the first figure for Police Academy 4 is listed as a gross. Sudiani (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I found the same source after my last post and was confused if it was returns, but given The Numbers has the gross at $55 million, it seems unlikely it'd just be returns so I agree with your analysis of the figures. That is the only one I've found so far but I will do as you suggest and look at articles around LW2 to see if there is more clarity as I'd also like to find out where it ranked in worldwide grosses overall if possible. The Numbers estimate is exactly $55 million so I'm not 100% on that being accurate, and BOM has barely any international figures at all for that year so it's impossible to tell, at the moment, what were the highest grossing films of the year worldwide. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you'll find a worldwide chart for that era in Variety (or any other contemporary source); only the best performers by studio. Sudiani (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams

[edit]

Hello. There's a discussion regarding a potential FA push for Robin Williams. It can be found at Talk:Robin Williams#FA plans?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "film" still the best terminology?

[edit]

With celluloid film nearly obsolete, have there been discussions about the terminology of film? I see this from 2005, but curious if this has been mentioned in this WikiProject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Film/Archive_1#Cinema,_Film,_or_Movie_as_the_primary_page - J. J. (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there have been any recent discussions but I think "film" is pretty commonly used even for movies shot digitally. It has transcended the original wording. Similarly, we still use "television series" to refer to shows made for streaming services that are not broadcast on television networks. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any widespread consensus, not just on Wikipedia but anywhere else in the world either, that a movie ceases to be a "film" just because it was shot digitally instead of on celluloid. The word "film" obviously started as "because it's on celluloid", but it's long since picked up a second definition of "any short or long movie regardless of its production medium". Films shot digitally are still called films. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up again briefly when trying to figure out what to do with the article I was splitting off from Horror film to Horror films of Europe. Generally speaking, a good conclusion I came to was with the term "movie", "film" or "cinema". Cinema might have been a bit grandiose, movie might have been a bit swaying in the opposite direction. I feel like "film" is probably more neutral consider the previous statements. We do make exceptions though, as we have an article on Monster movie and Road movie as that is far more of a common term than "Monster film" or "Road film". Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No score yet on Rotten Tomatoes

[edit]

In the past Rotten Tomatoes would give a film a score if it had 4 reviews. If it did not have a Rotten Tomatoes score it seemed to be generally accepted then that we did not add Rotten Tomatoes to the Wikipedia article. (Some editors liked to argue against including Rotten Tomatoes when the review count was less than 20, that never gained consensus though.) Occasionally when Rotten Tomatoes did not list a score people would instead write out something longform, like for example that Rotten Tomatoes listed 1 review as positive and 2 reviews as negative (I'm not sure there was any particular consensus for that either but it happened more than a few times on obscure horror film articles that didn't have very many mainstream reviews).

Rotten Tomatoes seems to be doing things differently now. Hellboy: The Crooked Man has 8 reviews already but no score listed. Editors have gone ahead and claimed (or calculated?) that this film has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 25% despite Rotten Tomatoes not yet posting a score.

Is this acceptable? Should Rotten Tomatoes be omitted (or hidden) until such time as a score is actually published on their site? What is the current consensus on adding Rotten Tomatoes when no score has actually been published? I was going to hide the Rotten Tomatoes text, but I thought maybe I should first check if the consensus is still no score, then do not include. -- 109.76.134.139 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 21:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC some critics or publications, even if they may be listed on RT, are excluded from the calculation of the Tomatometer. So it would probably not constitute OR to just say "two of eight reviews are positive", but converting it to a percentage is misleading and likely OR. Nardog (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they recently changed the number of reviews needed before a score is added but I'm not sure what to. Either way, Wikipedia should not claim that a film has a percentage on Rotten Tomatoes when it does not. I also don't see the benefit in counting the number of positive and negative reviews, just wait until there are more reviews and a score has been calculated. The most important part of Rotten Tomatoes is the average score and the consensus anyway, the RT percentage doesn't mean a whole lot and is widely misunderstood. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the average score important as reviews that don't give a score are discounted, and reputable publications typically don't. Metacritic is far more informative for this reason, though it often lacks enough reviews for smaller or new films. Nardog (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::: Rotten Tomatoes did eventually add a score for Hellboy: The Crooked Man it is currently 29% based on 14 reviews. I hope this issue doesn't come up too often but it will continue to make things difficult for smaller horror films.

I also don't see the benefit in counting the number of positive and negative reviews, just wait until there are more reviews and a score has been calculated. I wasn't suggesting that was a good way to do it, simply that in cases where a film had very few reviews some editors had attempted to make the best of what little was available and include Rotten Tomatoes anyway, even though we probably shouldn't include Rotten Tomatoes when no score has been issued. (While I admire efforts of editors trying to make an article based on limited sources, it might "benefit" this encyclopedia more to not include less noteworthy topics that haven't received significant coverage.) I haven't seen anyone trying to include Metacritic when not enough reviews were available, it would seem sensible to treat Rotten Tomatoes the same and not include it unless and until enough reviews were actually available. From this discussion it seems there is a consensus to not include Rotten Tomatoes unless a score has actually been issued. Thanks. -- 109.77.194.81 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of totals in Template:Infobox awards list

[edit]

Hello! We would appreciate your input at this discussion concerning whether totals (|wins=, |nominations=, and |honours=) should be removed from {{infobox awards list}}. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Films directed by X" categories

[edit]

Came across an issue yesterday that I wanted to ask for some input about.

We formerly had a consensus that a film director didn't qualify for a dedicated "Films directed by" category until they had a biographical article in place, so that we could track which of their films did or didn't have articles in order to ensure that any category was fully populated with all of the applicable films — but on doing some cleanup yesterday, I came across a lot of examples of categories for directors who did not have a biographical article to parent the category. I nominated the first few that I saw for WP:CFD, but soon realized that there were at least a few dozen of them just among the batch that I was looking at (and thus almost certainly dozens or hundreds more in the much larger set of categories that didn't need cleanup), and quickly lost interest in continuing to CFD them all.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask: do we want to uphold the old consensus that a director has to have a biographical article before they get a dedicated category for their films, or do we want to abandon it since it's obviously become almost impossible to monitor or stay on top of? If the former, then there will likely need to be a coordinated project to get rid of the violators — and if the latter, then I'll likely need to withdraw the set that I did nominate on the grounds that the old consensus no longer applies. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to read the discussion that led to the original consensus, if you can provide a link to it. Otherwise, I don't really see why there should be a need to wait until a director has a biographical article before creating a category for films they directed (I'm having trouble immediately coming up with a categorization P&G that that's falling afoul of). As you noted, it's almost impossible for us to stay on top of it in any case, and it seems a bit like creating more work for the sake of creating more work...not that I can't appreciate the intention; but is that intention being utilized in a meaningful manner at this point? I think there may also be a reasonable argument that we should be consistent, and perhaps barring WP:SMALLCAT scenarios should be applying this kind of category to film articles in general.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way though, given that I can't currently see myself getting involved in trying to clean up those kinds of categories. DonIago (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is, it's an incredibly important principle of categories (not just this project's categories, but all Wikipedia categories across the board) that we have to have ways and means to maintain them. If John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt is a film director with a films-directed-by category, then we have to have a way to figure out (a) how many of his films have Wikipedia articles, and (b) are they all in the category or not. If he's directed 15 films that have articles, but only two of them are in the category, then the category isn't serving its intended purpose — but if he doesn't have a biographical article listing the 15 films he directed, then I have no way to figure out that there are 13 other films with articles missing from the category and thus can't fix the issue — but the people who are editing the film articles don't necessarily know that the category exists, and thus can't add the films to it either, so the issue just doesn't get fixed because nobody has a way to identify it in order to fix it.
That's why the principle was, at least in theory, that a film director had to have a biographical article before he or she got a category for their films: so that we had a way to track whether all of their films with articles were categorized in it or not. Because if they don't have a biographical article, then I have no way to track whether the category actually contains all of their films or not and thus can't properly maintain the category to add any films that are missing. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the underlying theory; I appreciate it. I guess my question, though, is whether editors (besides yourself, clearly) are actually engaging in this tracking. It's a sensible and noble idea, but I'd like a sense of whether it's an idea that's being applied. DonIago (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Wild Wing (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wild Wing (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Ark

[edit]

The poster currently being used is from a 1982 re-release. But shouldn't the infobox traditionally include the original release poster? Here it is, but Darkwarriorblake insists the 1982 poster is more common, even being used on VHS. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with DWB? I skimmed the Talk page for the article but didn't see a dispute. I think discussing it there might be a good first step? DonIago (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did discuss, and his words were, "The infobox image is intended for ease of identification, and teh [sic] 1982 poster is used on most home media, it was even on the VHS". Now I'm seeking consensus. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that WP:FILMPOSTER says that, ideally, the film's original theatrical release poster should be used. @Darkwarriorblake: Could you please provide your reasoning as to why we should ignore that guidance in this instance? DonIago (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my explanation to Kailash, the image is meant to be for ease of and quick identification, and the second poster is the most common image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be at odds with what WP:FILMPOSTER says? The way I read it, the original theatrical release poster is emphasized. DonIago (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the beauty of words is that it says "ideally" not "must". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following. If the original theatrical poster is the ideal, and we can provide it, why would we not strive to attain the ideal? DonIago (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first theatrical poster for Raiders, it can be found here. Also, for reference, The Empire Strikes Back (an FA) uses the original theatrical poster. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the main purpose is identification and the current image is how Raiders has been presented to the public since 1982 so it is the easiest form of identification. The guideline includes links to Amazon to help search and if you do, you get this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular opinion on the choice of image for this film, but I do think that WP:FILMPOSTER is a bit out of sync with MOS:LEADIMAGE. DWB is correct that the primary purpose of the image (and what should drive selection) is to identify the article topic for the reader, not simply being the original. In the vast majority of cases the original poster serves this purpose fine so there's nothing wrong with using it as a default choice, but there may be some strange cases (see this recent discussion for a recent example in the book area). I'm going to drop a note on the template talk page to discuss further. Scribolt (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, the consensus at the discussion initiated by Scribolt is that for Raiders the original film poster is the best choice. As such, barring further input, the image used in the infobox for that film article should be updated. There's some ongoing discussion regarding whether the wording at WP:FILMPOSTER should nevertheless be updated for other cases, primarily involving non-American films. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Walt Disney Animation Studios

[edit]

Walt Disney Animation Studios 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Pre-Code Hollywood

[edit]

Pre-Code Hollywood 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:DC Studios#Requested move 6 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:DC Studios#Requested move 6 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor taste?

[edit]

Hi all, Yield to the Night, in the Reception section, contains the following sentence:

"A 19-year-old woman reportedly committed suicide within hours of watching the film.[ref]"

This raises a few issues for me. (1) While the citation to The Canberra Times, where it gets a micro-mention, might be an acceptable ref, I can't find any corroborating refs elsewhere. (2) It seems in poor taste, which I guess bothers me the most. I can't find any WP guidance on taste, so I guess it is up to an editor's discretion. (3) It seems irrelevant to an understanding/appreciation of the film. (4) It might be considered as film Trivia (although obviously it's not a trivial matter) and we know Trivia is not encouraged per MOS:TRIVIA. So I'm inclined to delete this sentence. But I'd welcome the views of other editors. What do you think? Thanks!

Tobyhoward (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although, obviously, a personal tragedy, it looks neither notable nor relevant in the context of the film. The newspaper item does not even claim that the suicide or the method used was inspired by the film. It just looks like innuendo, trivia, and a journalist filling space. I vote to remove it. Masato.harada (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very unlikely that including it would be WP:DUE. If that's the only source that covers this WP:ASPECT, I would simply remove it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Tobyhoward (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Idiocracy be categorized as a time travel film?

[edit]

Idiocracy is not a traditional time travel movie in that it doesn't feature any actual time travel (beyond suspended animation). However, a large part of the movie's plot focuses on the protagonists searching for a time machine (which turns out to just be a dark ride called The Time Masheen). Given that this is a main driver of the plot of the film, and that Category:Films about time travel is described as listing "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel," Idiocracy should be included.

Other people also consider Idiocracy to be a time travel movie, as evidenced by its #2 spot in The Guardian's 2023 top 20 list of time travel movies, #9 spot in Screen Rant's 2023 top 15 time travel movies list, and #9 spot in an IMDB poll of top time travel movies. FriendlyPedant (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a film about a person from the present that ends up several centuries in the future. I don't think the in-universe mechanism really matters. I would note that the "Time Travel" entry of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction includes mentions of both dreams and suspended animation as mechanisms. I wouldn't use the sources you list to bolster this argument, though. The Guardian, while WP:Generally reliable, is writing outside of its generally accepted area of expertise here; Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited, being reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis (it is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight); and IMDb polls are WP:User-generated content. A quick search on Google Books would seem to suggest that counting Idiocracy (and similar stories using suspended animation for this purpose, such as "Rip Van Winkle") as time travel fiction is at least not an outrageous proposition, see e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=6JtGEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA65 and https://books.google.com/books?id=42O2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT43. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources classify it as a time travel movie, then yes. But if we're just making a categorization decision within Wikipedia, I would argue that it is not a time travel movie. The film doesn't have in-universe mechanisms (such as time machines) for permit time travel. In-universe, time only progresses linearly. Yes, the movie spans quite a bit of linear time, but the quantity of linear time doesn't make it time travel. For example, a school year goes back in each (well, most) of the Harry Potter films, but they are not time travel movies (in before someone mentions the Time Turner exception in one of them). The linear passage of time within a film does not render it a time travel movie. Useight (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the suspended animation may not be enough to categorize it as a time travel film. I tried to be clear about that. Rather, it's the focus of the protagonists on going back in time via a promised "time machine" driving the plot of the film that both makes it a time travel film in my opinion and satisfies the Wikipedia category's description as listing "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel." FriendlyPedant (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you make a good point. Much of the movie focuses on a desire to perform time travel and the protagonist is led to believe that such time travel exists (and is available for use). Does the film include the theme of time travel? I would agree that it does. Is the film about time travel? I would argue that it isn't. I could see this going either way. Poking around a bit, I noticed that 13 Going on 30 is categorized as time travel, but 17 Again isn't. In the former, many years suddenly passed seemingly overnight. In the latter, time itself was unaffected but the protagonist changed. Idiocracy is similar to 13 Going on 30, in that the protagonist experienced the passage of time in an instant. But the thing is, with Idiocracy, it is known that everyone else experienced time at the normal, linear pace. This makes it more like Demolition Man. Someone in suspended animation that is awakened at some point in the future. And Demolition Man is not categorized as time travel. Thus, I feel confident that none of the time-related trickery in Idiocracy qualify it for the category. What remains is the question of whether or not a desire (or attempt) to time travel qualifies. I wonder if there are movies in which someone spends time trying to build a time machine but fails, or something along those lines. Useight (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misremembering the plot, there's nothing to say that actual time travel occurs in Safety Not Guaranteed. That one's currently categorized as a film about time travel, but to me the lynchpin is the about. The whole plot in that film is driven by the idea that someone claims to have a time machine and the ending leaves it ambiguous as to whether the device functions. I believe that's a stronger element than in Idiocracy, but I haven't seen the latter film in a long time either and might be misremembering how strong an element of the plot the desire to time travel really is relative to the other goings-on. I guess the question is whether the category is intended for scenarios where actual time travel is a major component of the film, or whether it's sufficient for themes of time travel to be a major component of the film. I'd argue that incidental time travel to serve a story purpose (suspended animation that isn't ultimately relevant to the greater plot) or a one-off discussion of it or such would be insufficient; I'm not claiming Idiocracy only has one or both of those. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don’t think it’s time travel Methastophles (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Council

[edit]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. If you are interested in helping WikiProjects, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Belgian cinema task force

[edit]

I would like to inform the WikiProject that I have created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Belgian cinema task force. I have been working on this topic for years, and I felt it was an area that needed dedicated coverage. I set it up without prior discussion, as I only realized afterward that proposals for new task forces should be discussed first. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this initiative. If necessary, I’m open to moving it to a sandbox, but I hope it can be useful as it currently stands. Earthh (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

best way to cite commentary?

[edit]

I have been improving She (1935 film) and I cited some commentary from the film. I included some citations to commentary and bonus features on the DVD release. I wasn't sure how to indicate that on the cite AV template. Instead, I ended up naming a plaintext ref and including time stamps as superscripts. Is there a better and more orthodox way to cite DVD features? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easiest through formats I've done on articles like Audition (1999 film). Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your example! It was just what I needed. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have helped! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite AV media can be used for this, just cite the features you are citing. If it's an audio track, maybe use |type=audio track commentary Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus needed for film list style

[edit]

Hi, just searched for films in 1981 in film. The list has been removed in favour of the country lists. Then I click List of American films of 1981 and it has a bloated release list with excessive cast which makes it difficult to browse and find films, and even has some films which aren't American or from that year. I restored the American lists from around 1970 to 2000 back to the clean A-Z you see in List of American films of 1956 a few months back but the IP has reverted back to the bloated tables on all. All I want is a simple A-Z list for easy browsing, consistently by year and country, it's why I created the lists in the first place! It is time consuming going back and finding the original text and restoring and even if I do that it seems like nobody is watching these lists and would help revert the ip if he did it again. There also seems to be a tendency on recent years for the big bloated release tables, I argue that even those should be converted to simple A-Z lists. Is there any agreement here that A-Z format is much easier for browsing and more desirable than by release date? Release date seems appropriate for the current or next year to see what is being released, but a simple A-Z is much easier for general browsing of past years. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion on this. The tables are sortable, so if you want an A-Z list, it's one-click away (but see my note further on), even if it's not as concise. That said, the 'cleaner' format does have a separate column for Director, which I think is good, but also one for Genre, which I think is problematic (unless sourced). Both lists have breaks in them that prevent a one-click sort of all the films on the list, which might be frustrating for readers. In the end I think which format is 'better' could depend on what kinds of information one is looking for. Was there any discussion about the changes to the format? DonIago (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion at all that I'm aware of. I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate list of films by release date but I think these lists should be simple A-Z, concise lists for quick browsing. The release lists are separated by months though, so A-Z isn't useful. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the alphabetical list (as demonstrated in List of American films of 1956) is much harder to read than the date-based list in List of American films of 1981. It's because of the whitespace in the Title column. The 1956 list is more cluttered, in that regard. Whichever way it's sorted, it'd be nice to retain good spacing. Useight (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't focus too much on spacing or formatting wikipedia to fit that. In the era of of people now able to adjust text size and other content on the site easily with a click of a toggle, it's never going to look the same for everyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the cast inclusion is excessive though Useight? You must be using a wider screen PC/laptop as it looks really bloated and cluttered on an iPad! I concede that the date format doesn't look as bad when viewed on a widescreen PC as it does on a small device. On a widescreen PC you could have a director, genre and even notes column if you cut the cast to the top billed stars. The problem is that the date format is harder to edit though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it's excessive. The cast should just be the actor/actress of the main character or two, if you ask me. But, yes, I always use my desktop computer. Useight (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was brought up somewhat similarly at Talk:List of American films of 2024. Generally, more for the side bar being that the sidebar causes some accessibility issues (i.e: not sure screen readers will pick up January being written up and down for example). I do feel like an excessive crew listing is going a bit overboard and it not condusive to sorting. Do we need to know who the crew to this extent, or at all? Most screenwriters aren't known by name. Directors are slightly more so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Andrzej. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could have two sets of lists for the US, by release date and by A-Z. I'm not opposed to by release date if we can have a full A-Z (as default). But I think the cast needs to be drastically cut for all lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume when you are saying two sets, you are talking about two columns? This would be my proposal. I'd use the notes section to indicate if a film is the production of more than one country "I.e: US-Canadian co-production" or if there are two films with the same title with one year, we can disambiguate it as a disambiguation factor that most people would catch. (i.e: the lead star, the director, etc.). Brevity is the soul of wit, and we probably should keep these tidy and easy to add too over becoming a database of credits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A24 films released in the 2010s
Release date[a] Title Studio Notes Ref.
January 5 The Painter Republic Pictures [1]
January 12 Mean Girls Paramount Pictures, Broadway Video, Little Stranger [2]

Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list should be initially sorted with a first column of release date. I support the above table example. However, I don't think a note column is needed. This is an overview so any additional information is in the article. If a specific note is needed, one can be added with {{efn}}. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The listed date refers to the film's public premiere, regardless if it opened in the United States.

References

  1. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (November 30, 2023). "Republic Pictures Picks Up The Painter For Paramount Global; Jon Voight Pic Plans Theatrical Release". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved December 1, 2023.
  2. ^ Couch, Aaron (September 22, 2023). "'Smile 2,' 'Mean Girls' Musical Set 2024 Release Dates". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved September 22, 2023.

Draft:Crystal Film Company

[edit]

Could I please have some help with this draft on an early studio? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control-style template for films

[edit]

I was looking at How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (film) (for example) and it struck me that, instead of:

which involves an awful lot of repetition, we could have a template, like {{Authority control}}, for film links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{FilmLinks}}? I don't know why the doc says that it should be substed; I didn't investigate. See also this MOS:Film section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice on plot summary changes?

[edit]

I don't know whether this could or should be done (the former may be more of an obstacle than the latter), but would it be possible to display an WP:EDITNOTICE when an editor is working on the plot summary of an article? This might reduce the number of instances where an editor inadvertently expands a plot summary beyond the applicable guidelines (not necessarily for a film article, but I thought I'd start here) and is consequently immediately reverted for having broached said guideline. If it's not possible it's not possible, but I thought it might be something that merits exploration. Since we have universal user warning messages for occasions where an editor expands a plot beyond the recommended guideline, I imagine we could come up with universal wording for such an editnotice as well, presuming it is possible. Thanks for entertaining my thought experiment! DonIago (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that can't be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alas! I've just started to feel badly when a well-intentioned editor adds 500 words to a summary that really didn't need to be any larger, because I think all of us have fallen afoul of P&G that we didn't know existed when we made our edits. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know there's an edit notice that shows up every single time you edit a biography of a living person? You've been here for years, so you've probably seen it thousands of times. Can you recite it without looking at the template at {{BLP editnotice}}? If so, I guess you don't have banner blindness. I think edit notices can work, but you have to fight against problems like that. Also, I think the best you could do is a universal edit notice when editing a film article, which probably wouldn't go over so well with the rest of the site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think new editors are probably more likely to pay attention to editnotices than us old fogeys, though perhaps I'm wrong about that? Anyway, as I said, I wasn't even sure this kind of thing would be technically possible; I just thought that if it reduced the instance of plot summary guideline violations by 25% without incurring significant costs, it seemed like something that might be worth pursuing. It sounds like it isn't technically possible though, in which case it's a moot point. DonIago (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal for Talent agent

[edit]

I have proposed splitting Talent agent into a new article Talent agency. Members of this WikiProject are welcome to contribute at Talk:Talent agent#Proposed split. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Pixels (2015 film)#Requested move 22 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pixels (2015 film)#Requested move 22 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film Music Reporter

[edit]

I have started a discussion about the reliability of this website, which is widely used in articles that fall within the scope of this WikiProject, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Music Reporter. All thoughts are welcome. My hope is to come to a definitive consensus on the matter which can be recorded at WP:RS/PS. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Manual of Style discussion that may interest the editors here.

[edit]

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Noteworthy exceptions to SOB, thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

feedback request on Might Joe Young production section

[edit]

Hello WikiProject Film, I work at the BYU Library. My student @Heidi Pusey BYU and I have been working on film pages that Marian C. Cooper was involved with (we have his papers in our archive). Heidi recently finished writing the production section for Mighty Joe Young (1949 film). We're used to researching films where there isn't a lot of information on the production, so we usually include whatever information we can find. For this film, there was a lot more information about its production. Would someone be willing to read the section and tell us if it's too detailed? Thank you, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks very good. While there is a lot of detail, for a film of this type and the era it was made in, I don't think it is necessarily overly detailed. I think the distinction between development and animation isn't clear with animation content seemingly in the development section. It looks like updates have been made to the release section too. It notes a release in New England/New York but not clear when that happened so would be useful to clarify that. Sudiani (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Reel Affirmations

[edit]

Reel Affirmations 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pierre de Wet

[edit]

I submitted a draft for this filmmaker but it was rejected. I think he clearly meets the relevant notability criteria and would be happy to have some help bringing the subject to mainspace. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The Congress of Mother-in-Laws#Requested move 22 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Congress of Mother-in-Laws#Requested move 22 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Cottage (1924)

[edit]

Some help is requested here by PrinceArchelaus and Merry medievalist:

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I think we have resolved the plot summary by now. I've contacted Merry medievalist on their talk page and have made the needed corrections. I'm ready to move on to other articles now. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1254563471"