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 British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

FYI all, I have been working to improve The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and have just nominated it for GAN. I intend to get it to FA someday, although it's not quite there yet. This is one of the core films so I thought I'd bring the nomination to the WikiProject's attention. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've done an amazing job. I've been watching from the sidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks fantastic! Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks guys, much appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 12:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not any time in this month, but in the near future, I may go over it with a comb as I have the Masters of Cinema blu ray with a commentary from David Kalat. Kalat refutes some claims that have long been made or assumed since Janowitz's recollections on the film in the 1940s, as much of the history of the film is based on those notes. I'll listen to it later and give you a heads up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film Love at First Sight (2012 film) is currently up for deletion. Issues seem to be non-notable awards added by a COI account/spammer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Dot the i#‎Requested move 17 March 2015. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Internet Archive film has been nominated for deletion. Because this template is within the scope of WikiProject Film, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new article about the crime film, Hard Choices (film).

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (film).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the film Mind Meld has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Film Threat is now redirecting to a Kickstarter page. It might be wise to start archiving articles before it disappears into a black hole like Fearnet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiProject, I need clarification on IMDb's utility as a source. WP:RS/IMDB says unambiguously that it should not be used. The WikiProject Television FAQ doesn't consider it a reliable source either. Editor @Gothicfilm: has twice added it as a reference to Nighthawks (film) [1][2]. Ultimately I'm satisfied with his solution to use AFI's credits instead, however he and I seem to be differently opinionated on whether IMDb is suitable for this stuff otherwise. Gothic has stated on his talk page, "IMDb is not considered reliable for trivia. That is what WP:RS/IMDB is talking about ... Per several discussions, IMDb is considered reliable for credits, particularly below-the-line credits like stunt coordinators." If Gothic is correct and some clear consensus has been established for how and when to use IMDb, this should be added somewhere obvious, such as to the WikiProject Film Resources page, or something. For background, here is a link to our brief discussion on his talk page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can state with absolute certainty that IMDb is often total bullshit and it should not be trusted for anything that comes from user editing and does not show reliable sourcing itself. IMDb is not a reliable source because of that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS specifically identifies the IMDb as unreliable. When the WGA signs off on the writing credits of a film, those specific credits are reliable. Otherwise, the IMDb is not reliable for credits, especially unreleased projects. It's a good resource to use as a starting point for further research, though. For example, I use it to tell me what to search for on Variety. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb's problems extend well beyond their trvia their trivia and quotes sections. They have incorrect actor and technical credits and, in one case, I have submitted a correction several times over the years and the item is still in error today. There is always better sourcing out there. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know when WGA signs off on the content? Is the page marked in some obvious way? Regarding my position that IMDb is user contributed and that "anyone can add that information", Gothic replied, "That is often stated, but it is untrue. User submissions have to be approved before they are added to an IMDb page." Does anyone have any insight into whether this is actually true? Maybe some other regulars here: Betty Logan, Lugnuts? I know that the few times I've submitted content at IMDb it doesn't get added right away and has to be approved. But I've never seen the discussion that says definitively that their approval process is the same thing as actually vetting the content. If they have the means of vetting the user-contributed content, why wouldn't they move the information from that database over to their IMDB database preemptively? Doesn't seem logical. And I doubt they're calling up Sony every time some yahoo adds a bloody gaffer credit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big IMDB fanboy. Always will be. For use on here, IMO it's fine as a starting point for basic info (director, cast, etc), but that's where it stops. It's pretty reliable for that basic info TBH. It's only when you start to step outside of the Anglo-centric world does coverage become less reliable. Same for early cinema releases. Did D W Griffith direct that film? Was that really Chaplin in an uncredited role? Maybe. Maybe not. But then you start to search other sources to find more info and build from there. Saying it's unreliable because it's user-generated content is laughable when you're editing WP! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do have people that look submissions, however, not all of them fact check those submissions. I am sure that some of them do but others do not. Also, they do not check new submissions against what is already there. Take a stroll through the "Quotes" section of a film and you can find the same line repeated two, three or more times. You can read this former article Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin. IMDb was happy to have a page for the person until the hoax was uncovered here. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival IMDb also had listings for this non-existant and that was used to add items to award sections in WikiP articles. As much as I like going to their website for info I wouldn't relax the current rules regarding its use here. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the WGA credits go, it's indicated on the credits page on the IMDb. For example: this entry. Notice the (WGA) in the writing credits. Anyway, Col Needham insists that the IMDb is reliable, but there are just too many incorrect entries. The subject comes up often in interviews. I have a book here in front of me that has interviews with directors and producers who express confusion over where the imaginary numbers for their film budgets come from, and it's not rare for actor interviews to have at least one confused response where the actor says, "The IMDb is wrong; I was never in that." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is rare for a film that has onscreen credits. When it happens it's usually someone talking about a film in development or production - not yet released. It will be updated at some point. Thanks for explaining the WGA note which is visible as described. I was going to point that out myself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking the IMDB is not a reliable source as it at least partially works like a Wiki. However that does not necessarily mean you can't use it at all or at all in a footnote. It really depends what you want to use it for. You generally can use it for filmographies, cast, soundtrack (usually information you could in doubt get from the film as a primary source anyhow). However you certainly cannot use it for biographical information (other than maybe assembling an actor's/actress' filmography), budget infos/sales figures or reviews.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the complaints are not about the credit listing, but trivia and now budgets. Those are not like onscreen credits. The very fact MarnetteD says he submits corrections that don't show up on the site refutes the argument that anybody can add content to the IMDb. That is often stated, but it is untrue. User submissions have to be approved before they are added to an IMDb page. That doesn't mean it's always accurate, but it's a very good resource for below-the-line credits, and in my experience it has a very high percentage rate for credit accuracy. When I find a problem I submit corrections myself. Simply comparing a film's onscreen credits to its IMDb page shows its accuracy. Most trivia, of course, is not onscreen, so it is much harder for their staff to verify unless they were there on set. So apparently they relax their standards with trivia. The Trivia section being considered unreliable should not be used to disregard its usefulness for credits.

The biggest cause of credit problems is IMDb lists credits for films that are in production. Those are useful for those who want to know who is working on a currently shooting project, but sometimes the credits change by the time a film is released. Most of the corrections I do on recent films seems to come from this. But even these advance credits are overwhelmingly accurate. And no source is perfectly accurate.

The AFI is the single-best resource for representing onscreen credits, but unfortunately it doesn't have a page for every film. I would recommend using it when you can, and using other sources like TCM and even IMDb if necessary. In the case above I should have gone to the AFI first, but I didn't expect it to be a problem, and indeed the AFI backed up what the IMDb listed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the IMDb is reliable – per WP:RS itself. There is longstanding consensus on this. If you want to source a filmography, use a different source, such as Variety. If you can't find it anywhere but the IMDb, then it's not worth mentioning. There are no situational exceptions for the IMDb. It's user-generated content, and we don't allow that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC) edit: Well, I lied. The WGA thing is reliable, as stated earlier. Besides that exception, there are no exceptions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about film credits, not filmographies. I have never used IMDb for filmographies. And I said above to start with the AFI, and other sources can usually be found beyond the IMDb. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that film credits are exactly what one uses to compile filmographies.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with NinjaRobotPirate. Many times, I've interviewed celebrities who say there are incorrect credits for them at IMDb and that no matter what they do or who they have contact the site, the errors remain online. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, from a purely logical standpoint, since everything at that user-generated site is supposed to come from some other, presumably verifiable source, then we should just go to the source that whoever made the IMDb edit used. And if we can't find such a source, then that's a red flag right there. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these celebrities you're talking about? - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would require outing myself. It's OK if you don't believe me — it does happen with journalists besides myself. I do know David Schwimmer's Wikipedia article makes this point. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Gothic's comment above: "Most of the complaints are not about the credit listing". That is simply not true, as evident by the responses above. Nobody's mentioned the trivia. You say "User submissions have to be approved before they are added to an IMDb page." I say that approval does not equal vetting. If you have evidence that actual vetting occurs, and can explain how that vetting is performed, then I'm interested in hearing about it. Keeping in mind too that we're talking not just about big budget projects, but small productions, non-union projects, foreign films, obscure TV shows etc. Implying that actual vetting occurs when we've all had spotty results is not the same as demonstrating that it occurs. I don't understand your statement "Simply comparing a film's onscreen credits to its IMDb page shows its accuracy". If I'm looking at the primary source, I don't need to use IMDb as a reference. If I match the credits of that film to the IMDb page and it comes out perfectly, that doesn't mean that the other million pages at IMDB are accurate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second entry above looked like it was about trivia. If it was about credits, it was quite invalid. No source is perfectly accurate. And I'm all for using the onscreen credits as the primary source when you can. But people here usually want a source they can click on. The onscreen credits don't do that, unless it's been made into a clip on YouTube, such as with GWTW. But using that would probably be discouraged. In any event I've made my point here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Gothicfilm I don't think you have. You attempted to convince me that there have been numerous discussions allowing IMDb as a source for "below-the-line" credits, but provided no examples of these numerous discussions. You challenged my interpretation that IMDB is excluded as being WP:USERGENERATED with the line "That is often stated, but it is untrue" (even though it is explicitly stated in the guideline). You claimed that WP:RS/IMDB was intended to cover trivia, and "It should be amended to make that clear" but you didn't substantiate that as well. It wasn't my intention to put you on blast, but the only reason why I'm here bothering the community for clarification is because I assumed good faith of your cocksure assertions. Got anything more definitive than "Uh huh!", or can we assume you're on board with the "IMDb is not considered a reliable source barring some clear 'Verified' exceptions" party line? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I'm somewhat irritated at the loss of time for no productive benefit. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gothicfilm: Yes, when you look at primary source, you strictly speaking don't need the IMDB as a "source" for that information. However many distributed forms of the primary source have that information clipped these days (if you see a movie on TV that information is usually clipped to safe time/make room for commercials) and in general the primary source is often rather hard for other editors to check/"verify" and here the IMDB is useful informal/inofficial "source" (note the quotes). Note that it is used used for assembling information that is commonly not explicitly sourced anyway (primarily filmographies and maybe things like cast or soundtrack) and based on the implicit assumption that you could retrieve from an original unedited/clipped version of the film itself (which in practice editors might not have access to).

One thing which irritating me is the suggestion to use "other" (better) sources like AFI for filmographies & co. While it is true that the AFI catalog is more reliable and should be preferred over the IMDB, one can hardly ignore the fact that it only covers a fraction of the materials of interest. It doesn't even lists all American movies nevermind all globally notable movies, which makes it often utterly useless for assembling the filmography for American actors even. The problem here is that (to my knowledge) there is simply no other "source" out there that comes even close to the coverage of the IMDB, hence to a degree we are simply stuck with it for certain tasks.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see SchroCat raised the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 55#Kingsman: release date question but I'm unconvinced that it is the right thing to do. The audience who saw the film in 2014 was extremely small. If it was commercially released in the US in Dec 2014 and then UK in 2015 for me it would be a 2014 film but the fact that it wasn't released commercially anywhere until 2015 it seems wrong to me to call it a 2014 film. Based on the current idea we would move a lot of films back a year purely because they happened to be pre screened somewhere or audience tested. I really think we should go by its official commercial release date, and I think that should apply to any film on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know of at least one 2014 screening date, and it's possible that there are others; the same logic in reverse applies: how can it be a 2015 film when it was shown in 2014? I'm happier calling this a 2014 film than I am calling it a 2015 film, but happy to hear the opinions of others on this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it was shown to an extremely small percentage of people, not much more than a typical pre-screening. Well we know what Erik thinks, somebody else please..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal consensus states that a film is not considered published until it is made available for the viewing public through a distribution channel (like exchanges) so a private screening of the film would not count. Advance copies and advance screenings are not formally release dates... I've had a heck of a time with this recently, but not much has changed in the last hundred years. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The festival itself may have criteria for who can attend, but if the studio has relinquished control over who can view the film to a third party (as opposed to hosting the screening itself) then from a copyright perspective it has been published. Therefore a festival screening would be a "public" exhibition (albeit extremely limited) whereas a test screening/press screening would be "private". I think the lead of the article takes the correct approach from what we know: it identifies it as a 2014 film but acknowledges that to all intents and purposes it is a 2015 general release. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have seen 100s (if not more) of film article where both a festival screening and a general release are mentioned in the "release date" field in the infobox or the lede or both. I am pretty sure there have been more than one discussion about this and I think (though I could be wrong) the consensus is to allow both. As long as they are sourced I don't see why there is a need to change that. Remember that these limited December showings are often done (though I don't know if that is the case for this specific film) to make a film eligible for the Academy Awards (as well as the 1000 other award shows) and that is a fairly significant bit of info of the films history. MarnetteD|Talk 15:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how big or small the auidence was for the first screening, as long as it was a "public" screening (as defined above). I was at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival and saw the documentary Pearl Jam Twenty. It was sold out, but one of the curators of the festival said it wasn't uncommon for documentaries and lots of small-budget world cinema titles to have next to no-one going to see them being screened. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, where's you main beef with this? Is it the opening line "K is a 2014...", or is it in the classifications at the bottom. If it's the opening line, then I have no problem taking the date out of there – we cover the year issue a few lines below, so it's not a major problem. If your concern is more around the classifications at the bottom, I'm not sure what to do about those, as it certainly needs something there, and the only thing I can think of is either to come up with a consensus one way or t'other, or to add both 2014 and 2015 classifications in there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno it just doesn't feel right to me, not in cinemas for 99.99% of people in 2014 and only seen by 200 people. If the official premiere was at the Butt festival in 2014 though then I suppose we have to go with it. Personally I'd go with official commercial release date but I seem to be in the minority in thinking that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would taking the date out of the first line work for you? It's not actually needed, as we cover the release dates in both the IB and lower down the lead... - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it would be better. I noticed somebody on the dab page called it a 2015 film too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FILMLEAD a film's year of release belongs in the opening sentence, as can be seen on virtually every WP film page. Not mentioning the year until the second sentence of the second paragraph does not look right. I understand not wanting to say 2014 here, but that is what is done on other film pages with similar release patterns. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have to slavishly adhere to it – WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a good thing to listen to from time to time. Don't forget that FILMLEAD is a guide, and it doesn't have to be stuck to rigidly and unthinkingly just because "that is what is done on other film pages". – SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having the year in the opening sentence is neither crap nor unthinking. Every other page where this situation exists I've seen lists the year in the opening sentence, and so should this one. There's no reason to bury the year until the second sentence of the second paragraph. To do something so unusual you should have more than one person here agree to it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But your sole rationale seems to be "because other pages do...", which just isn't good enough. Can you give any other good reason for not including it? (I've also tweaked it so the dates now appear in the first paragraph, not second, but even so, with two very short paras, it's not even close to say the information was "buried" anywhere). - SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another good/bad example is Mud which was shown at Cannes in 2012, before getting a limited US release more than a year later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of TFDs you may be interested in at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Eva Longoria and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 19#Template:Kent Smith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 23#Template:Rosemary Blight. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[3] I just read about the original script for Indiana Jones 2, which is mentioned in the article for temple of doom; however in a documented brain storming session for the first film, Spielberg and Lucas considered having Dr. Jones romantically involved with a 12 year old Marian? Are documented brainstorming sessions worth mentioning under production? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place on Wikipedia for content from Cracked.com. That's not a reliable source. It's a humor site. If you found a citation from Variety or The New York Times, then, yeah, you could that in the production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2014, there has been an increasing trend in adding unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of Wikipedia film articles. I believe that Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs) is the main editor responsible for this trend. I explained to him on his talk page the page why I have a problem with this; I told him: You've seen me revert you at times while citing MOS:Paragraphs; the part I am referring to is where it states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." It is usually not good form to create a subheading for one-sentence material, material that is a couple of sentences or material that is otherwise significantly small. Just like the Critical reception section usually does not need to be broken up into Positive reviews and Negative reviews, the Box section usually, or at least often, does not need to be broken up into North America and Outside North America or North America and Other territories. The non-heading text can inform readers what content pertains to "outside North America," like the Cinderella (2015 film) article does. That is why I reverted you here, here and here at that article. If the box office content becomes hefty, like the box office content at the Fifty Shades of Grey (film) article currently is, then it is a good idea to split the content into subsections.

Josephlalrinhlua786 ignored me, and has continued to add unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of the Cinderella (2015 film) article. He usually ignores editors, often WP:Edit wars, and does not discuss matters on Wikipedia talk pages, which makes it difficult to seek WP:Dispute resolution concerning him. This is seen on his talk page, where he has received various warnings and two WP:Block notices (for WP:Disruptive editing) so far. I decided to bring the matter here as a second step, and will post a message about it at the MOS:FILM talk page, directing editors here, for those who may be watching that talk page but not this one. Also look at the current state of the The Divergent Series: Insurgent article, which is also Josephlalrinhlua786's Box office setup. How exactly is that setup good for that article at this point? Why should we tolerate and/or encourage this setup at articles when it is not needed? If you look at the Man of Steel (film) article, which Bignole got to WP:Good article status, the setup is also there, but it is somewhat hidden because Favre1fan93 added Template:TOC limit to the article after I reverted Dibyendutwipzbiswas there. I noted that Template:TOC limit helps, but that I still don't see the need for those subheadings in that case. Again, when it is a little bit of text, what is "outside North America" can be adequately relayed with non-heading text. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is unnecessary to break down the article to that extent. Third-level headings are generally not necessary unless the section is unusually long, and aesthetically it makes the article look "bitty" as is the case at The_Divergent_Series:_Insurgent#Box_office. Josephlalrinhlua786's block log seems to indicate a history of problematic edits: copyvios, false edit summaries etc. The fact that he is adding MOS violations to his catalog and edit-warring over it indicates that he is going to continue disregarding the rules. Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely doesn't need level 3 headings. To my mind, unless a film did major business throughout a long run and/or broke many records, film articles shouldn't have BO level 3 headings. Bolded headings are sufficient. If Josephlalrinhlua786 continues deliberately ignoring guidelines then perhaps ANI is the next step, although I would try giving him another chance if only because he has made a lot of constructive edits, and seems to be the only one updating BO information there. Lapadite (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments on this matter. I would have fixed the Box office section at The Divergent Series: Insurgent by now if I hadn't seen Lkaliba editing there. Lkaliba is another film editor who is prone to ignore Wikipedia's rules. I'd rather not deal with Lkaliba's constant reverts.

As for other articles with this aforementioned format, it would be good to read what other film editors of this WikiProject think of this matter. If a film article obviously does not need these subheadings, then why do you allow these subheadings? Like I stated, this trend is significant now. Josephlalrinhlua786 has been aided by film editors not caring about ridiculous subheading setups like the aforementioned one at The Divergent Series: Insurgent. Is it that you do care, and will now remove the unnecessary subheadings? It's a pain being the only one removing subheadings that treat our readers as though they are stupid. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't enough content to justify splitting, I say don't use subheadings. But if you have a decent size amount of content (maybe 1 paragraph+) then there isn't any harm in the headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the issue until it was raised here, so it depends who is watching what I guess. I would advise editors to revert these changes on sight providing a link to this discussion in the edit summary and if they are re-reverted then report it here and other project members can assist. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Lapadite77's comment above, bolded headings were used instead of the level three headings, until it was brought to at least my attention, that it is a violation of MOS:ACCESS. Thus, they need to be changed to level 3 headings, and if necessary, at TOClimit template can be added. However, as I stated above, if there is enough content (I said maybe 1+ paragraphs), the headings would be fine (see Guardians of the Galaxy (film) or The Avengers (film) as examples of what I feel is an acceptable use of this). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, right, fourth level, as shown in the Guardians and Avengers' articles, with TOC limit is the alternative (aside from the less desirable non-bolded text). My issue is only with unnecessary subheadings on the TOC, particularly level 4 and up. There can be as many subheading as needed in the prose, if warranted, without cluttering up the TOC. If those editors revert to visible and/or unnecessary subheadings, report if they disrupt again after they've been reminded of the guidelines and this discussion. Wherever this subheading issue arises the guidelines along with this discussion should be linked on the talk page of the article(s). Lapadite (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, it's not about what is being hurt. That is, unless we are speaking of the look of the article coming across as just a tad silly. Then it's the look of the article that is being hurt. Not to mention that, without Template:TOC limit, the article looks bigger than it is from the table of contents in these cases. This is about following a simple rule: MOS:Paragraphs. There should be a valid reason to have the content split into subheadings. Look at the subheadings you readded to Man of Steel (film)#Box office. Or look at the subheadings currently at Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Box office. Why are those subheadings needed? How are they helping readers, when readers can clearly see what content pertains to "outside North America" without the headings? Or since if they cannot see that, we can make that aspect clear to them with non-heading text? You stated "maybe 1 paragraph+," but one paragraph can be a single-sentence paragraph, a two-sentence paragraph or an otherwise small paragraph. And a single paragraph usually does not need its own subheading.

Thanks, Betty. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Box office sections were doing just fine without these unnecessary subheadings, and we can simply go back to that state of being fine without them. Subheadings are meant to make article navigation easier, from the table of contents; they are not meant to be there without good reason. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm okay with the Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Box office and The Avengers (2012 film)#Box office examples; those are fine uses of subheadings. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still believe we get back to one crux of the issue, which was MOS:ACCESS. For the Cap: TWS page you mentioned, beyond having a general consistency across the MCU film articles, at one point I believe bold heading were used. It provided the separation but not with headings. Which I believe is a variant on your version of just starting the content with "In NA" or "Outside NA". But if we want that separation and would prefer not to word it as you suggest, MOS:ACCESS does not allow us to use the bold headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against the bold headings as well, per MOS:ACCESS, which I also made clear at Dibyendutwipzbiswas's talk page. And consistency across articles is fine, except for in cases where that consistency violates a rule and/or is not beneficial. If it's a valid WP:Ignore all rules case, okay then, but that is a rare exception. If you look at the current state of Captain America: The First Avenger#Box office, you can see that it does not have have unnecessary box office headings. Yes, it has significantly less content than the Box office sections at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles do, but, as already noted, I fail to see why those box office subheadings are needed at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles. They are not helping from the table of contents since they are hidden via Template:TOC limit, and the "North America" and "Outside North America" content would be easily identifiable without the subheadings since it's a little bit of material. Again, if we argue that they are not easily identifiable to some people, we can simply use non-heading text by stating "In North America," [etc.]." Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The First Avenger also doesn't have any international box office info to potentially have the headings. It's all NA info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, you have not provided a good reason for keeping the unnecessary box office section headings at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles. Consistency with other Marvel articles is not a good reason by itself, which I already noted in my "05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. If a good reason is not provided for keeping those subheadings, I will remove them. I intend to squash this "unnecessary box office subheading" trend, and this discussion has given me the means to do so. The next step will be a WP:RfC if necessary; then again, maybe not since WP:RfCs have not had a lot of traffic these days, and I'm not sure that publicizing the WP:RfC at the WP:Village pump and across WikiProjects will help. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do much work on newer films, only have touched a couple of dozen or so, most of my work is on older films. However, the arguments brought up here are very valid. I think the crux of the matter boils down to points made by Favre1fan93 regarding MOS:ACCESS, as well as the point made by Flyer22 about the purpose of subheadings. If the main purpose of headings/subheadings is for navigation, then clearly simply bolding headings should be verboten. And, again if navigation is the main purpose, that should be the guiding principle, as many others have said, to when subheadings could, and in some instances should, be used. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, trying to shut down an editor or editing trend with MOS:PARAGRAPHS seems a bit of an overreach. Wikipedia does provide SIX levels of subheadings, and tools to keep the ToC uncluttered. As for the editorial case, well, there is a decent argument to be made for subsectioning Box office for "North America" and "Other territories," not necessarily in every case (and we don't have mandated layouts), but probably whenever an editor wants to:

1. For English-language feature films in particular (the articles most likely to be consulted), NA (USA+Canada) is the leading market, and statistics pertaining to NA are quite easy to understand. Box office elsewhere can be quite difficult to understand: there is no uniformity of regions covered between articles, it's not clear whether the figures refer to dubbed or subtitled versions, etc, and sometimes the figures seem quite arbitrary and meaningless (for example, in Man of Steel (film), why is there a figure for "United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta," what is the significance of that grouping regarding film box office?). Separating the two sets of figures, which can read like apples and oranges, may help with navigation and zeroing in on what a reader is looking for.

2. Reliable sources for film box office stats, like Box Office Mojo, have a top level division between North American (Domestic gross, which is US+Canada[4]) and foreign earnings; this is the box office reporting convention.

3. For most, probably all major English-language feature films, a Google search for "film name box office" (a likely search phrase) returns the corresponding Wikipedia article in the top 10 results (for Man of Steel, it's the #3 result, with a direct link to the Box office section), so making Box office in particular, as clear and easy to navigate for readers is a reasonably important consideration.

I've checked a few films, and in some cases, the content in the Box office section would work well as a single paragraph. However, as soon as there's any sort of detailed breakdown of stats, especially separating NA and elsewhere, a good case can be made for subheadings (specifically, NA and Other, per above), even when the content of each section is quite brief.

I'm not supporting Box office sectioning, simply pointing out that it is one valid view, and often there is no single "right" or even "better" approach, just opinions. Sometimes, we are all not going to agree, then it's necessary for one side to voluntarily disengage for a period, which is a fundamental Wikipedia principle (and something I've somewhat painfully learned to do :). Hope that helps the discussion! --Tsavage (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage, there is no overreach here; there is a guideline, which is a rule, and there is common sense. In the aforementioned cases that I have a problem with, the subheadings are not needed, and I've explained why they are not needed. No one has explained how those subheadings are helpful. Like I stated above, "I fail to see why those box office subheadings are needed at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles. They are not helping from the table of contents since they are hidden via Template:TOC limit, and the 'North America' and 'Outside North America' content would be easily identifiable without the subheadings since it's a little bit of material. Again, if we argue that they are not easily identifiable to some people, we can simply use non-heading text by stating 'In North America,' [etc.]." We don't need headings to let readers know what content pertains to North America or otherwise. I see WP:Consensus against the aforementioned subheading cases that I have a problem with, and to not use any other unnecessary subheadings, and I will be adhering to that. As for your comment, I understand what you mean, and I'm not stating that we should ban box office subheadings; we don't have that power anyway. Even MOS:FILM is simply a guideline, not mandatory. I am arguing that editors use common sense with regard to when subheadings are needed. I don't think it's always opinion in that regard; some subheadings are clearly unneeded. And, from what I and others see, the ones that I am against are clearly unneeded. That goes double for how The Divergent Series: Insurgent#Box office is at this very moment. On a side note: I don't mean to come across as rude by stating that you should consider keeping WP:Too long, didn't read in mind when you reply. And I state that as someone who sometimes makes long comments, and have had people complain about that. I was worried about my initial post in this section being too long, but I knew that enough editors here would read that hefty, two-paragraph comment. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You do seem rude with your TL;DR comment. To read only replies under a certain word count, just do it!) My point: it is not Wikipedia to use guidelines to force contributors to comply with personal opinions. In my opinion, Man of Steel (film) is a good use of NA and Other subheads, and its Box office section is directly linked to in Google: "Man of Steel box office". That's a single case. You started this thread with "an increasing trend in adding unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of Wikipedia film articles," which is what I addressed above. I've added what I can, and I will now...disengage. :) --Tsavage (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage, I was not trying to be rude by pointing to WP:Too long, didn't read; like I stated, I've had editors tell me that my comments are too long and that either they didn't read them or didn't read them in full, or that my points got lost in them. As recently as this case at Dibyendutwipzbiswas's talk page, that aspect was noted to me. And in that case, my comments are not even that long; at least they are not to me. I told Dibyendutwipzbiswas, "If the comment requires a paragraph or two from me, that is what I will provide. But I do keep the length of my comments in mind." All that I meant to note to you on length of comments is that the WP:Too long, didn't read essay exists because a lot of people are like that (not wanting to read comments that they deem too long) on and off Wikipedia. The comments that I have seen from you at the MOS:FILM talk page and here are typically long. As for the Man of Steel (film) article case, we agree to disagree on that; I've been clear above why I object to that setup. And yet again, no one has named how that setup is needed or is otherwise beneficial; no one has named how we are not acting like readers are stupid by that setup. Regarding your Google link, I see nothing in that link that specifically points to the "North America" and "Other territories" subsections; pointing to the Box office subsection is what I see of that Google link, and that would still happen without the "North America" and "Other territories" subsections. I use Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they should be used; if people want the personal opinions of those rules changed, they should make their cases at the talk pages of those rules. I noted more than one case of unneeded subheadings in this discussion. Yes, there is "an increasing trend in adding unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of Wikipedia film articles," and I listed examples. I edit and otherwise see enough Wikipedia film articles to know that this is the case, and that it started in 2014 with Josephlalrinhlua786. There is no need to have an exhaustive list in this discussion on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get the argument against subheadings. MOS:PARAGRAPHS does not discourage their use for anything but short single paragraphs, and the paragraphs in the provided examples I’ve clicked to don’t seem particularly short. It seems like a lot of the argument against them is rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Things were fine without them? Great. Doesn’t mean we’re better off without them. (Of course, it doesn’t help matters when an editor proposing an equally valid alternative does so by edit-warring and doesn’t deign to discuss anything. But that’s beside the point.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been clear above that MOS:PARAGRAPHS states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." It also states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text." Those aspects without a doubt apply to the aforementioned cases. You stated "[the paragraphs] in the provided examples [you've] clicked to don't seem particularly short." Firstly, MOS:PARAGRAPHS does not state "particularly short." But let's go with your "particularly short" angle for a moment: Really, Cinderella (2015 film)#Box office is not particularly short and the subheadings in this version don't show that particularly shortness at all? Really, The Divergent Series: Insurgent#Box office is not "particularly short"? Your eyes are clearly seeing differently than mine in this regard. The same goes for the other aforementioned subheadings that I have a problem with. There is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument with regard to anything I, or those who agreed with me, have stated above. I do not edit Wikipedia with a WP:IDONTLIKEI rationale. Bottom line is this: I will continue removing the unnecessary subheadings, and doing so is in line with MOS:PARAGRAPHS. On a side note: You should sign in. I don't buy that you don't have a registered Wikipedia account or that you never had a registered Wikipedia account. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly looking at your edit history, I see that you are the IP who has continually come into conflict with WP:Film editors. I wanted to see where we have possibly interacted, so I used this tool. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Cinderella example, six sentences under the first subheading in that version, and multiple paragraphs (albeit one of them single-sentence) under the second; similarly for Insurgent. No, they do not seem short by any reasonable definition, in my opinion. (You may however note that I’m overlooking the paragraph introducing those subsections—which certainly seems lacking as an introduction.) I won’t strongly take a position either way, though, other than to agree that the manner in which some subheadings were added (with no regard for consensus) was entirely unacceptable. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s fair to say “continually.” The only conflict was over a single WP:NCFILM issue which in my opinion is still unresolved, but that’s all I’ll say about it here and now. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I dislike disjointed discussion, I appreciate that you replied about whatever account you have. As for "continually," your edit history reveals that you've been in conflict with Lugnuts more than once, and that you've been in conflict with Betty Logan. As for the subheading matter, I agree to disagree on the "too short" aspect. The aforementioned subheadings that I have a problem with are useless for the reasons I've mentioned. And I've seen useless subheadings mess up articles, as they make the articles look significantly longer than they are and make navigating through the articles more difficult for our readers if Template:TOC limit is not used. I've seen articles tagged with Template:Too long because of such subheadings when the article is not a WP:SIZE issue at all. And, like I stated above, the table of contents is to help our readers navigate through the articles. They are not being helped from the table of contents by subheadings if Template:TOC limit is used to hide those subheadings. And they are not being helped by the subheadings if what is "North America" and "outside North America" is readily clear, which it usually is. We usually don't need subheadings to spell out the content to our readers. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings states that headings "selected for emphasis [...] is not the purpose of headings." In the cases I mentioned (the ones that I'm against), non-heading text suffices when the content is small or medium-sized. When the content becomes too big, then we should use subheadings to help our readers navigate from section to section; that is exactly how subheadings should be used in Wikipedia articles. So I cannot agree with your take on this issue. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is against sub-headings in the Box Office sections; Flyer even highlights several where she agrees with sub-headings. What she does disagree with—and I apologize if I am putting words into her mouth—is turning it into a standardized format. Introducing sub-headings at The Divergent Series: Insurgent#Box office clearly goes against the spirit of MOS:PARAGRAPHS. They are simply not needed. A paragraphed format easily accommodates the different groupings of information without a reduction in readability. It seems to me some editors here are effectively arguing for the elimination of paragraphs altogether and turning them into sections, and in most cases it is unwarranted to refine the information to that extent. Betty Logan (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not aware of any rule to use headings only where strictly needed, but you do have a point. Like I implied earlier, I consider both ways valid and can see some valid arguments for each. One may be preferred in these cases, but neither is wrong. That’s this editor’s opinion, at least. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:Paragraphs is a rule, and it let's us know when we generally should not use a subheading. Again, I agree to disagree; my other "18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)" post (above) explains more on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large amount of editorial discretion permitted in this regard, but turning short paragraphs into sections is discouraged by MOS:Paragraphs. So what counts as a short paragraph? Well according to this source paragraphs in business are typically 4–5 sentences while in academic writing 8–10 sentences, so we can take from that anything below 4 sentences is a short paragraph, and many people would regard anything below 8 sentences to be a short paragraph too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even though Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs) knows that this discussion is going on, he re-added the subheadings with a little bit of material to the Cinderella (2015 film) article, as if the subheadings are needed after that little addition. Josephlalrinhlua786 apparently thinks that a little extra material makes the section need those subheadings. And it's not like I know exactly what Josephlalrinhlua786 is thinking on this matter, since he refuses to let me know what he is thinking. I reverted again, and indicated that I will take him to WP:ANI over the matter if this continues. He's been taken to WP:ANI before, though, and will not care. For another recent case where his subheadings are unnecessary, see this setup at the Home (2015 film) article. I reverted that setup as well. Indeed, this editor has nearly single-handedly made this setup standard across Wikipedia film articles; so there are various articles I will be removing this setup from. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I just started a discussion concerning this article immediately above this section, but opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Cinderella (2015 film)#Reviews. The discussion concerns whether or not the Critical response section of the Cinderella (2015 film) article should only consist of positive reviews, including whether or not it should include only one negative review if any negativity concerning the film's reception is to be included. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussions for the Gian Luigi Polidoro film and the Federico Fellini film. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever contacted contacted Variety Insight to ask about the possibility of free subscriptions through the Wikipedia Library? Per this article, a subscription costs $1000, which doesn't really seem feasible. However, it's a fact-checked database, which would make it very useful for Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Variety directly for a subscription (back in July 2013), but they declined. Not sure about doing it through the Wikipedia Library. Their email address is variety@pubservice.com, if you want to try to make that suggestion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Schnepp's documentary documenting the failed attempt at bringing Superman Lives to life entitled "The Death of 'Superman Lives': What Happened?" is slated to be released on May 1, 2015. I'd like some help with creating an article based around the film. I wouldn't even know where to start. Some help would be awesome! Npamusic (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to deal with the scope of this category. It seems to be getting populated with any film that has a strong female lead, rather than films that are specifically women-centric. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing in the article supports the intended categorization (which hopefully is made clear on the category page), then you'd be within your rights to revert and notify the editor who added the category. I might recommend Template:Uw-badcat.

Failing that it might be worth raising the question at categories for discussion. DonIago (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the issue - the category page isn't clear on what it's meant to be for. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding title of the 1929 film, Wolf Song. There is no 'The' in the title. The word 'The' is listed as the title on the Wolf Song page. The title should be Wolf Song. How do I change the title, deleting 'The'? As long as it remains as is, unable to correct the title throughout.

For reference, look at the Wolf Song poster showcased on the page. That IMDB has it wrong, too, doesn't mean Wikipedia should.

Thanks,

Chrish65 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)chrish65Chrish65 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. The Library of Congress has the title sans the "The". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody be interested in taking up the editing of the page Before I Disappear? This IFC film won a good deal of awards and has plenty of reputable articles about it. I would make it fuller, but I have two issues impeding this- I am not very active on Wikipedia anymore and more critically, I've actually become a friend and collaborator of the film's director, Shawn Christensen, since I wrote the article, so I'm technically facing a COI. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an IP user, 2600:1006:B119:FD87:9DA1:6D69:46F7:C1C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), shortening plot summaries that have been tagged with {{plot}}. Normally, that's a good thing, but this editor seems to be indiscriminately deleting multiple paragraphs without summarizing them, and he's doing it rapidly across many articles. I don't know if the plot summaries are still coherent after that. Maybe someone could look at that and see. I'd rather not deal with the added stress right now. I just created a new article, and the executive producer showed up within 30 minutes of my pressing "save" to edit war with me over whether he's credited in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC) edit: Well, I left what I hope is a friendly and non-bitey message on the IP's talk page and requested that the editor respond here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been around awhile. they used 2600:1006:B129:3526:45EB:1B6E:84F:D418 (talk · contribs) earlier in the month. There might have been other IPs used but I can't find them at the moment. I can't remember them ever responding to talk page messages. While the plot summaries could use trimming they are reduced to something that barely describes what went on at all. This is a good example of why WP:FILMPLOT has a word count recommendation at the low end. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've come across this editor; see the recent edit history here. And the recent edit history here and here when the editor was 73.132.78.108 (talk · contribs). I tried to explain to the editor at User talk:2600:1006:B02F:EE16:90D:60FB:4922:354A, but, as you can see, it didn't work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also 2601:A:6400:39E:99D8:5AD6:5CA5:EE6E. In some cases an over-long film plot can simply be rolled back to the last time it was compliant with WP:FILMPLOT, but not always. This person is going to extremes to reduce film plots, and I consider it disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I never noticed this IP user before. I think he gave a response on his talk page, but I'm not quite sure if he was replying to me or to RefernceBot. Maybe this means there has been progress? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That editor's plot summary cuts are usually a mess, and the articles are better off with the larger plot summaries in those cases. As my diff-links show, he also targets articles that are not tagged with Template:Plot; in some of those cases, he seems to have run the text through a word counter, while, in other cases, he bases the "too long" aspect on his opinion. Whatever the case, I doubt that his cutting will improve. I was clear to him before; he returned and engaged in more bad cutting. If he had not read my message, he would not have returned to that article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 14 articles missing for Bottom 100 IMDb movies (5 of them in the Bottom 10): de:Benutzer:Jobu0101/Die Bottom 100. Look ar the last but one column. --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them probably fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). We already have Saving Christmas. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for pointing out the Christmas issue. I'll update the table later appropriately. Do you really think that some of the movies fail notability? In German Wikipedia I don't think so and as you probably know German Wikipedia is much more restrictive concerning notability. --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those film exist... you just linked to the wrong title. We don't disambiguate the way you did on your list. You can see our notability guideline at WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't link any of those films of which I think that there is no English article. I just wrote "–" instead. So which of those 13 films has an article here? --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:RS/IMDB as well as the fact that voting on films on their website is just a popularity (or lack of) contest. There is nothing critical or scholarly involved in compiling the numbers. Thus, as others have mentioned, just because a film is on that list does not mean that it merits an article here. Although I haven't used the German WikiP if they allow IMDb as a reference, or basis, for their articles then they aren't more restrictive than the English WikiP for notability when it comes to films. MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. After I saw Kod Adı: K.O.Z. and Planet Prince (which is Prince of Space, I think), I think I got confused on the columns. Sorry about that. Birdemic 2 is currently a redirect, which is a bit odd. I can probably create an article for that. I think you're right about the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, I created a short article for Birdemic 2: The Resurrection. It's not great, but it'll do. It's got a few reviews, including one by Variety, so it should be relatively safe from deletion. I think there may be more, but I didn't see any offhand in the usual spots. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I updated the list. Now, there are only 10 articles missing. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did Surf School, too. I looked at the others, but I don't see enough coverage. Maybe someone else will create them, but I don't think they'd survive AfD. One of them, Brothers in Arms, has a Rotten Tomatoes page with lots of reviews, but almost all of the listed reviews are for a different film of the same title. I think I read somewhere that the Bottom 100 is only open to films that have had a theatrical release, but with a limited release of a few dozen theaters, it's very difficult to find professional reviews. Most of them come from blogs, web forums, YouTube channels, and other sources that en.wp doesn't consider reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done about the gigantic top ten lists on Under the Skin (2013 film)? I'm stumped. I want to just delete it all because it's a mess, but is this information useful in some capacity? Is there some sensible way to limit it to just a few? Popcornduff (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a related discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Awards organizations' notability. General consensus seemed to be to limit awards to those verified by a third-party citation. For top ten lists, I would suggest that listed critics demonstrate notability through the existence of an article. I will note that List of accolades received by WALL-E does not have any top ten lists, and it's a featured list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As seen on my talk page, I am in agreement with Popcornduff that the top ten list in the Under the Skin (2013 film) article should be removed; it is WP:Trivia-like/is WP:Fancruft. As seen with this edit summary for NinjaRobotPirate's above post, he called the information "a bit indiscriminate." Anyone else has thoughts on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed in the following matter: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Film_years_and_film_made_.26_produced_from_certain_countries. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Censoring the Empire quote. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this RfC and the discussion directly above it too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I cannot verify the claim, there is an editor purporting to be the cinematographer for Saving Christmas and is asking to have his name removed from that page. Motivation is clear, presuming this is him. Not sure how to proceed; this is an easily verifiable credit, but I don't know if we commonly list non-primary technical roles on small films. Advice and eyes appreciated. Kuru (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, there's really nothing that can be done. Even if we establish a consensus to erase his name from the infobox, it will continually be re-added by helpful IP editors. The IMDb is infamous about never removing any verifiable data from their database, and they will laugh off any threats of a lawsuit. He's pretty much screwed. And by making a big deal of it, he's inviting the Streisand effect, which will just feed the drama once some Hollywood gossip blog finds out that a filmmaker is edit warring to erase an embarrassing credit from Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that there is a particular reason to pass anything binding removing this from the article. The material is, AFAIK, true. It is clearly verifiable. Heck, the editor trying to remove it isn't arguing otherwise.

While I can't think of a good reason to exclude it, there's certainly room for normal discussion on the article's talk page as to whether this particular role belongs in this particular infobox.

Yes, this is a prime candidate for the Streisand effect to kick in. In fact, given the relatively limited coverage available on this film, any hint of coverage of an effort to hide anything pretty much guarantees that coverage will be added to the article, locking in the name and significantly magnifying it from a mere infobox mention.

Realistically, I don't really think anyone is looking at Saving Christmas and saying, "Damn! This film would be awesome if it weren't for the cinematography! Steer clear of that guy." Good, bad and indifferent professionals are involved in good, bad and indifferent films. Leprechaun isn't exactly a film anyone would want as their acting debut, but there's clearly no dearth of roles being offered to Jennifer Aniston. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cinematographer for Leprechaun did recover and eventually work his way up to Tooth Fairy 2, so all is not lost. Kuru (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've opened a discussion at RSN about whether or not cinechicken.com, a RottenTomatoes copycat review aggregator for Bollywood films, could be considered a reliable source. The link is here and I invite you all to participate! Though many of you (like myself) are not familiar with the Bollywood film du jour, it is an area that really needs help adhering to existing Wikipedia Film standards. Wikipedia is often used as an unwitting mouthpiece for promotion, and the Bollywood realm could use more disinterested parties helping out. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]