Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 70

This has been a debate between @Erik: @Masem: and me for a while now, centering on what I thought would be a fairly non controversial edit here on the page for Hotel Artemis. We had establish previously through an RFC (link) that casting timetables and general announcements to the public were not appropriate for a Wikipedia article and I was removing material which corresponded to that. I got push back almost immediately from @Rusted AutoParts:, which Erik and Masem soon joined. The crux of the issue seems to be that the MOS doesn't explicitly forbid including the material (despite the fact that it highly advises against the inclusion in the first place) and that the it may be 3useful at some point (although I am not really sure how) This reasoning seems problematic for me as it would mean that most work on cleaning film articles up could not commence, it also appears to be in stark contrast to the RFC's ruling in the first place.

I opened up a discussion on the Film: Manual of Style talk page (here) to try to get a consensus but it ,with a few exceptions, boiled down to the three of us debating among ourselves and got too big to truly invite many onlookers.

The question I guess I'm trying to get answered is should frivious material such as contextless cast announcements dates and public announcement dates be removed from film articles --Deathawk (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My stance has been and still is that as part of a collaborative project, that while a film has yet to be released, these types of additions are fair game from less experienced editors and should not be discouraged, but when it is possible, and certainly near, at , or after the film's release, the exact dates should be reduced or integrated with more concrete development information. In this case, the MOS should be used to judge the quality of the article and to argue for the removal of the casting dates/etc. but that's going to be after a film's release, and the MOS should not be strongly enforced prior to that. In general rough dates (month and year) are helpful for key milestones of a film: when the project was greenlit, when pre-production, filming, and other factors started, and in some cases, casting dates can be important to understand an actor's commitment. (For example, just today, we learned that Bill & Ted 3 is happening, and with this news was focus on how Keanu Reeves would be balancing his current work in John Wick 3 with this project). But if all we can say about how someone was casted was a date when that was announced, then in the long run it should be removed, but you aren't going to know that until the film's actually done and being released. --Masem (t) 06:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The MOS states a preference. An imperfect article is not going to meet that preference. That's fine. Removing the information without replacing it with information of the quality standard you expect, is not. Stop. --Izno (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not really an argument against removing information that isn't relevant in the first place, though. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

In the long term, information about when things like casting is announced usually isn't notable or relevant, and worth removing after a bigger picture of the project emerges (usually after it's released). I think details of announcement are defensible when essentially all a project is is a set of announcements and there isn't much more to go on.

This doesn't just apply to film articles, by the way. I don't like reading that, for example, a band announced a tour for 2015 when we can just say they went on tour in 2015. The thing itself is the subject, not the announcement. Popcornduff (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of that is related to WP:PROSELINE - it's a "problem" that its an easy way for unexperienced editors to add information (we want that) but doesn't have the necessary cohesion for a more proper article in the long run. I'd rather us accept rough work that should include sources to polish up rather than have no work to start from at all. --Masem (t) 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that proseline is a problem to address. But it is fully possible to have scenarios where every fact behind a proseline-type sentence is relevant. I find the opposite hard to believe, though, that a section of only proseline-type sentences has zero value to warrant wiping out the section completely. At the very minimum, it seems like the very beginning of the production is worth staking out. It is a valid starting point and helps create a space to summarize relevant facts about the production (obviously subject to discussion between editors). I think that's why the outright blanking at Hotel Artemis is anathema to me. If it was simply replacing the original draft with a super-condensed write-up, then that means at least the space continues to exist to put in and take out detail based on talk page discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A common objection I hear is something like "Casting news is all we have early on" well then why, do we have a production section at all at that phase? If we all can agree, that when cast members were announced should at some point be removed, then what's the point in even having the information in the first place? That does not accomplish any goals that a production section should be addressing. A significant issue also is that these production sections are almost never cleaned up afterwards, and by including them in the first place we are just adding material that we know we are just adding to a mess that we have to clean up at some point without adding any net positives. I'd like to finish up by having people look at the current revision of the article for Robin Hood, an upcoming film whose trailer was just released and, who no doubt, many people are flocking to the Wikipedia page. That page is a mess and it's embarassing for us to be presenting a page like that to the world. For most film articles about upcoming films this is the norm. --Deathawk (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to state, that while Masem's worry about stifling new editors is admirable, the reality is that most new editors aren't the ones creating these style edits and that by and large it's a handful of experienced editors creating the problem. The ones done by new editors seem to mostly air on the conservative side --Deathawk (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I seem to only read film articles after the film's release and always wondered when and why certain actors and actress signed on or dropped out was important to even know. The article was outdated for many lead stars change and production stops and starts in movie making world. The history of how a movie progresses may be important to know but the article should not read outdated. Editing by many may be the simple answer.Eschoryii (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Oppose blanket removal of this information from production sections unless better content is immediately inserted to replace it, just blanking is a retrograde option Atlantic306 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The information is that, depending on the movie, better information may never be available. If you look at films made in the 80s 90s and 2000s this is not a problem as there are only production sections for movies that warrant it. However in the last few years I'd say 90% of all film articles have a production section attached to it, which often consists solely of information that we identify in the MOS as inappropriate. Removing this information is not a retrograde approach, it makes articles look cleaner and causes people to look at substansial information when it appears. Going with our current ways of doing things, I worry that even when there is substantial information about a film, a lot of readers just won't bother looking at it, because of the glut of bad production section. --Deathawk (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There is insufficient consensus for removal of these sections unless something better replaces it and we can't guess what the reader requires as for example I would rather read a by the numbers production section than the plot sections which I always skip unless am copyediting as they are full of spoilers and if ive seen the film I know the plot, the readers would obviously have diverse viewpoints which can't be guessed, Atlantic306 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess to get a clearer picture I'll ping those who were involved with the initial RFC. Pinging @SMcCandlish, MapReader, NinjaRobotPirate, BattleshipMan, Alsee, Argento Surfer, Betty Logan, Pbsouthwood, Hijiri88, Huggums537, and Tenebrae:. Erik and Masem have already commented so that represents everybody who voted. What do you all think we should do? --Deathawk (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Would prefer this be determined on a case-by-case basis, without editors insisting that this content be included even when the only sources that can be found are bullshit pre-release sources that get pretty much every detail we don't cite them for wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, I guess I would say I oppose blanket removal but also oppose mandated inclusion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

FTR, the specific instance I had on my mind while writing the above was this, where a pre-release source was the only one that could be located, and it was being cited for information we knew was inaccurate. When pre-release promotional materials universally mislead regarding what certain characters' roles in the story are, we can't use the same sources to write that a certain actor was offered the part of "a character" with "a certain role". Saying that a certain actor was offered an unspecified role but turned it down, which is really the only thing we can say with certainty based on the bad sources we have, basically violates WP:TRIVIA, and encouraging editors to include this information regardless is definitely a problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should only make sub-suctions on production sections to make things less of an issue with production sections. Casting sections should be used when essential actors join that particular movie. For sequels, there should be who is returning and which essential actors joined that movie. The question is how to make it more encyclopedic. Most older films tend not to reveal production information back then. Many newer films tend to have production sections, which is necessary in many ways, if not all. That's an issue we need to figure out.

Another words, I oppose blanket removal of production sections, but we should think on certain issues with production sections to avoid issues, including who joined the movie, where the filming took place, sourcing and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The debate above has spun off in some unhelpful directions. The question here is whether casting dates are notable encyclopaedic information, and the consensus is that generally they are not, but sometimes they are (and if they are, month and year are sufficient). Really that's the end of the matter. The MoS remains guidelines, not mandation. No-one is suggesting deleting all production sections. The suggestion above that we should include inaccurate or irrelevant information if nothing better is available is obviously contrary to WP-wide policies. MapReader (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@MapReader: FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting we should do more to prevent that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping by Deathawk: I concur with MapReader's summary of 04:57, 13 May 2018 above, so my answer to the question in the section header would be "No, in general we should not be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined, and frivolous material such as contextless cast announcement dates and public announcement dates should be removed from film articles". Since the general case would be to not include, and to remove when included, such material, the onus would be on the persons wishing to include it to show that it is sufficiently notable and relevant to be included, and that the sources are reliable and accurate. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should try to avoid routine announcements from glorified press releases, but I'm most concerned with egregious proseline – the stuff that reads, "On X date, Y magazine reported that Z actor joined the cast". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose any blanket removals from articles that are being done based on the grounds that the content is "not notable" enough. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, which clearly (and prominently) states, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". [Emphasis added] WP:NOTEWORTHY. If you want to remove content from articles, then find a better reason like unsourced or some other reason besides "not notable". Notability is a judgement reserved for deciding whether a topic should have it's own article or not. It's not a judgement to decide if a topic should have it's own sentence, paragraph or section... Huggums537 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel like your using the term "notable" in a different context than we are Huggums. The actor being in the film is obviously notable which is why they're listed under the cast listings along with other places, however the question we're asking is "Does this casting announcement help us understand how the film came together?" which is what we mean when we say "notable". There are million such business maneuvers done during production of a film and not all of them are worthy of inclusion. --Deathawk (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Huggums537: When people talk about "notability" in this context they almost always mean avoiding trivial content within articles, and this is borne out by the fact that a lot of the "non-noteworthy" content under present discussion has in fact been covered in "multiple third-party reliable sources". It is not helpful to wikilawyer over the fact that WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOTEWORTHY do not necessarily mean the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, both Popcornduff (talk · contribs) and MapReader (talk · contribs) nuanced "notable" with "encyclopedic" or "relevnt", so dismissing their arguments because they appeared tp apply "notability" to content within articles (and in common parlance "noteworthiness" and "notability" are synonyms) misses the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we actually are all talking about the same kind of notability here. Especially when we are suggesting that the "onus" is on the one introducing the content to "prove" that the content is "notable" in an article. You say, "The actor being in the film is obviously notable which is why they're listed under the cast listings along with other places", but that should not even be a question since we are talking about content within an article. It should not matter if it is "obviously notable" or not since we are talking about content within an article and notability DOES NOT APPLY according to WP:NOTEWORTHY. You have missed the point entirely. As far as wikilawyering about WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOTEWORTHY not meaning the same thing, well they are talking about exactly the same thing as both links go to exactly the same page, so yes we are talking about the same thing. It's all about notability on that page. I also think it IS helpful to educate fellow editors about WP:NOTEWORTHY so they will know for themselves that they do not have to prove to anyone that their content within articles is notable (only that it is reliably sourced) unless they are creating an article. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, think about this; if anyone is talking about any form of "notability" outside of what is outlined in the notability guidelines that I just pointed out to everyone then their viewpoint is not founded on guideline such as mine is and amounts to little more than wanting to remove the content simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I couldn't help but notice how Hijiri 88 likes to do his own wikilawyering by piping in links to guidelines while trying to accuse me of doing the same thing simply because I also choose to back up my position with actual specific guidelines. I bet you didn't think I would see that did you? Huggums537 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Huggums, Hijiri 88 was right when they said I used "notable" in the sense of "worth mentioning". This isn't a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation - I think it's pretty obvious that there are lots of things that don't belong inside articles, because they're too trivial or just not important enough or whatever, and we have to make judgements there. Popcornduff (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, everyone, when you start feeling the urge to yell at people, remember that the MOS is under discretionary sanctions – and this debate centers around a recent change to a MOS guideline. For what it's worth, when people talk about how someone "has an onus", they're paraphrasing WP:ONUS, which says that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the onus to demonstrate consensus is on the person who wants to keep contentious material. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish that the WP:ONUS is on us to demonstrate "consensus" of disputed content within articles NOT to demonstrate "notability" of disputed content within articles and that is the all important distinction that I was trying to make because disputing content based on it being WP:TRIVIA might be perfectly valid, but basing a content removal dispute on not being "notable enough" is certainly invalid according to WP:NOTEWORTHY and basing a content removal dispute on WP:TRIVIAL could possibly be invalid as well. As Popcornduff stated, these are all important judgements to consider when deciding how to form a consensus on the content in question. Huggums537 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the date and order of when stars — the leads and main supporting cast — were cast is significant; many projects only happen because a particular star got attached at an early stage, and the order in which main roles are filled represents creative and/or production-necessity choices that seem notable for posterity, within the obviously narrow niche of a particular movie's history. Beyond those stars, I don't imagine the dates and order of the perfunctory remaining cast is necessary (though cites, of course, would still be required for any included in the Cast section before the movie's release).--Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A film "only happening because" a particular star got cast is worth mentioning - but does not make the casting of the main cast worth mentioning as a general principle! MapReader (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think what should we do about that issue is only list lead stars and main supporting cast as well as any cast member who is returning for a sequel, which are considered significant. I think we should do so in month and year to avoid issues. For example:

Gerard Butler and Bryce Dallas Howard joined that movie in early May 2018. Robert Redford signed in for a role in mid May 2018. Keith David and William Fichtner joined in late May 2018.

With this suggestion, we will have to put sources to confirm those who have signed in for the roles. What do you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this takes us back to the original issue and I stand by the view that a load of data of months and years when each cast member was given their role simply clutters an article without (in most cases) telling me anything about how the film came to be made. However, before a film is released, editors that start to assemble a cast list, showing character and corresponding actor, would (without the film itself to act as a reference) need to add citation with sources giving the casting information. Such citations don't need to be removed when the film is released (or indeed could be added afterwards - there is nothing to say that the film has to be used as the only source). In this situation therefore the minutiae of the casting arrangements would be available via the linked publication.MapReader (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by the view that a load of data of months and years when each cast member was given their role simply clutters an article without (in most cases) telling me anything about how the film came to be made. Yep. I think this is an eloquent way to state the problem. Popcornduff (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see us traveling through all kinds of directions in this thread and the answer as to what to do is becoming less clear by the second. To get us back on track I would like to simply just ask if when I made my initial edit if I was following the correct interpretation of the Manual of Style? If so, can we enhance the MOS wording in any way to make it more clear? If not, what am I missing.? --Deathawk (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• • No, as you took out valid information such as when shooting started and additional information beyond casting details such as distribution rights. This thread clearly shows that such blanking edits do not have consensus, and the MOS RFC was not decisive as it had insufficient participation with more participation here, so the MOS changes to production should be reverted not strenghened when there is such a lack of consensus and large opposition, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Atlantic306. Especially when we see the WP:PRESERVE policy go into a fair amount of lengthy detail about different ways to creatively retain content in a positive manner as opposed to simply blanking it. We also see that the all-mighty consensus is not the "end all be all" we seem to think it is when we realize that other policies such as WP:CONEXCEPT and WP:CONLIMITED do exist. In light of this, the consensus of a few over at an MOS should not over-ride well established policy, which should take precedent over guideline. Likewise, the MOS guideline should compliment policy, not contradict it. Huggums537 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

To recap what I've said in previous discussions, I generally support removal of trivial "production cruft". It is not the case that we want to retain such filler just to pad out an article's length. This, in particular, is unencyclopedic, misguided thinking: "Oppose blanket removal of this information from production sections unless better content is immediately inserted to replace it, just blanking is a retrograde option". Just, no.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• • see WP:ADHOM you really dont need to quote a passage just near to yours, and trivial production cruft is subjective if you are including information on shooting schedules and other details that other editors here are suggesting is of interest and relevant. Just blanket removing sourced content without making any effort to improve the section based on a small consensus is the unencyclopedic act Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Atlantic306 once again. There is a HUGE difference between pruning some trivial information here or there and just blanket removal of a whole section without any more thought, action, or work than it took to create "the mess" in the first place. In fact, I would argue it is even more lazy and takes even less thought, action, and work to perform a blanket removal. Yet, the "blanket remover" is looking down their nose criticizing "the mess" to begin with. How ironic that the "blanket remover" is possessed with enough knowledge and skill that they are able to determine others work is a "mess" (implying that others were lazy, substandard, or otherwise failed to make improvements). Yet, by doing nothing more than performing a blanket removal when they obviously have superior knowledge and skill to make better improvements than that, have themselves demonstrated the very same lazy, substandard failure to make improvements they judge others for. If you want to prune trivial information, then by all means do so and improve the article. However, a blanket removal is no improvement and it's not the answer. As Izno stated early on, Wikipedia is a work in progress (WP:IMPERFECT) and if we follow the "blanket removal" line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, then we would probably be forced to remove the majority of articles on Wikipedia and that is not helpful or an improvement to anyone. The better approach is to contribute whatever skills and knowledge we have to apply them to existing content to improve it to the standard we expect, if we expect a higher standard, not erase it all. That is the whole spirit of collaborative growth which Wikipedia seems to stand for in the first place, but it seems a few elitists want to have "truth and usefulness prevail". Yet, they fail to realize this is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too because they cry out that "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Yet, they want "truth and encyclopedic usefulness" to prevail. It should be duly noted that just because information maybe should not be included, does not in any way mean that it can't be improved, altered, moved, or otherwise WP:PRESERVEed and it also doesn't in any way suggest that entire sections should be blanked out without any thought or bearing any scrutiny to make sure any good information is retained.

P.S. Note to Deathawk: It should be pointed out that when I talk about "blanket removers", I am not speaking about you personally. So, please understand that my POV is purely topic related and nothing personal at all. Thanks very much for inviting me to the conversation even though it seems I am not on the same side of the debate... Huggums537 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel like it's almost impossible, not to be attacked by that , but I also feel like it's coming from a place that is feeling attacked, and that's weird to me. My pruning is not meant to be a sleight against you or any other editors that work on production section. It is just trying to do the job that we're expected to do. I would say about 90% of the time my work in production section works with what's already there. A great example of this is The Happytime Murders (Before, after The issue with the 10% is that there is nothing to use in accordance with what we determined in trivial at the MOS. If someone could come back find out some context and then re-add the info than that would be fine, however adding lists of casting timetables and when things were announced is generally frowned upon. We have to look at the bigger picture: Are we adding the info because it'll be useful to readers and it'll be something that they want to read. or are adding it because it gives us a big green number and makes us feel good? With the latter I worry that it's causing production sections to be irrelevant and content that's skipped by a majority of readers. I desperately do not want that to happen. Again I'm sorry if you take this personally that is not my intent. --Deathawk (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To answer your Q directly, I think you were right to delete most of the detail about casting, but there appears enough material there to justify and appropriately reference a couple of sentences about how the film first came to be made - rights being granted, shooting starting, etc. Deleting the section wholesale could be seen as overkill, hence why we are have this discussion. I also see that, whilst most of the discussion here has been about the MoS wording on casting dates, the justification you gave for your edit was actually the MoS wording about announcements, which is a different if related matter?MapReader (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

is this true? Because my main concern is the long list of casting news, and if we can all agree that that's excessive that'd be a huge relief. I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter though: Do others agree?Deathawk (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The original edit, pointed to above, that started the discussion refers to announcements, not casting dates, which I took to be a reference to the MoS "referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process."MapReader (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree with MapReader. The bulk of the removal was justified. However, there was a small portion of salvageable content. Huggums537 (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Deathawk, thank you for providing The Happytime Murders example for us because it is proof of concept for a couple of important points. Firstly, it exonerates you from being in the "blanket remover" category and so you should have known my comments were not a personal attack against you by virtue of this example representing 90% of your own good work, which excludes you from being put in the "blanket remover" category. 90% of your own good work should be more than enough to convince you of that.

Also, I actually found the "Before" version of the article to be much more interesting than the "after" version. The "after" version was easier to read, less cluttered, and more concise. However, it was also plain, boring, bland, and uninteresting. I find the "before" version to be much more appealing with all the depth of information you would expect to find from reading anything of interest.

To address your concerns noted earlier about this: "I worry that even when there is substantial information about a film, a lot of readers just won't bother looking at it, because of the glut of bad production section."

Well, should we really be worrying about or catering to anyone who has an aversion to reading on a Wikipedia website full of articles designed specifically for reading purposes? This makes no sense.

I must assume the utmost good faith that your main goal here is to make a better Wikipedia, and not just satisfy the MoS. I believe that it is and I think you want to make the experience better for the reader. This is evidenced by your comment, "Are we adding the info because it'll be useful to readers and it'll be something that they want to read. or are adding it because it gives us a big green number and makes us feel good? With the latter I worry that it's causing production sections to be irrelevant and content that's skipped by a majority of readers.". We have to remember though, that we are talking about readers and readers are naturally supposed to like to read, right? I think your worries are unfounded, and fear-based. Especially when I see that, as a reader, I derive more satisfaction and enjoyment from The Happytime Murders article before your good work was applied to it, than after, even though it took me longer to read it. I'm not saying that I would change your work, or that it was bad, just that I got more out of the article and even found it to be of particular interest before you stripped it down to plain, boring, who-cares, if-I-wanted-a-paper-encyclopedia-I-would-go-to-the-library, uninteresting version. ;) Huggums537 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition: to speak to the part you said about, "I worry that it's causing production sections to be irrelevant and content that's skipped by a majority of readers." I think it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Plus, having it gives readers the option. They can skip it, or not. If you remove the content then you give them no choice but to skip it. This seems contrary to your goal of satisfying the reader. If your goals truly are in favor of the reader then wouldn't it make more sense to give the reader the option to make the choice for themselves rather than to unilaterally decide for them that they don't need the information? Huggums537 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The better to have... argument inside the above (lengthy !) contribution is a well-known dead end; progressing it onward we would then add the date on which each scene was filmed, and add "morning of" or "afternoon of" in front of dates. The point is that WP is an encyclopaedia with judgement about what should be included, because we cannot and should not include every known fact about every known subject. MapReader (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

MapReader, I think this: "we cannot and should not include every known fact about every known subject." is debatable. We can't? Technically, we can. We have all the resources needed to do so, (a virtually unlimited writing medium and editor pool) and if ever not enough, technology and manpower is always scalable. We shouldn't? I really think we should and I think it would be an even better and more unique model of encyclopedia than the current model we work with today.

Also, when you said my "better to have" argument, "is a well-known dead end; progressing it onward we would then add the date on which each scene was filmed, and add "morning of" or "afternoon of" in front of dates.", I could see right away this is just another cheap device to dismiss my argument that is only based on fear because if we actually progress the scenario onward all the way through to it's logical conclusion, then we will eventually see that there are ultimately only so many scenes, dates, cast details, announcements, etc. that could possibly be included in an article. It is a FINITE, exhaustible, source of material that will - for sure - inevitably HAVE TO run out of steam on it's own without our help.

My dissenters would play on your fears and have you believe that if we allow ANY of these "trivial" details then "the sky would be the limit" and there would be "no end" to the "infinite" list of details! So, we must "cut the dragon off at the head before it grows 10 more"!

This is very problematic for people who find relevant use from the details. This fear quite literally drives people mad and it even makes otherwise completely rational and intelligent people like Deathawk to perform random and senseless acts that they might otherwise never do 10% of the time such as the random blanket removal we discussed earlier.

I really wish I would have been a part of the discussion at the MoS because I feel like I'm making some very points that make rational sense. Huggums537 (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly see that you don't rate highly the value of keeping things concise. You need to read this and, if your opinion remains unchanged, challenge it on the relevant talk page; it's not a debate to be having here. And, please, don't ever go into publishing ;) MapReader (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about WP:NOT. It's funny you mentioned publishing, because I was actually thinking about it...:) Huggums537 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Huggums537 I appreciate your concerns. Before I get started diving into them I want to make you aware of that the production section was largely the collaboration between myself and an editor named TheMovieguy. This is actually the result of the work I did, but Movieguy wanted to make some edits, which I found made the section read a bit more "boring" but overall still worked so I wasn't going to fight it.

As for your issue about preferring the "before" version, that's your preference but it comes contrary to what a lot of of us at Wikipedia think. Although it was made before the official MOS change, there was already talk about how notoriously bad production sections of films were at the time, and the MOS change was in keeping with the spirit of the work I did there. The whole point of having guidelines is so that we're not writing based upon our personal opinion we're writing based upon the widely accepted consensus. Another thing that I think you may be reacting to is the fact that the before version simply had more words, although it wasn't necessarily saying more. I paid particular attention to make sure that everything was covered just to make everything more concise. As the film remains unreleased there will be more info that comes out about it, and over time the section will be beefed up again.

I have to say I disagree with your last point though:Having a messy production section, I feel anyway, actually causes information to not be read, and is thus either as bad or worse than not having a production section in the first place. It simply does not let the readers find the information they are looking for. Not everybody is going to want to sift through a bunch of meaningless casting news and rote business maneuvers to get to the crux of the matter, the result is tons of readers missing out on important information about the making of the film.--Deathawk (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What I'm hearing from a couple people here is that my removal of the production section at Hotel Artemis was largely right, except that I accidently deleted to much. I wanted to get a consensus on what should ideally be kept and thrown out. For the record I would write a production section like this:

Lionsgate acquired the international distribution rights to the film at the 2017 Berlin Film Festival, with WME Global dealing with the North American release.^[1] Filming started in Los Angeles in May 2017 .^{[2] [3]}

I left out the part about production begining in November 2016 because it was unsupported by the source linked to it, which merely was about Jodie Foster's Casting. My next question is how do we feel about production sections where there is no salvagable information For instance this was an edit I did for the film Early Man, which I feel I was in the right for. --Deathawk (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My stance still remains that the additions of the cast is fine so long as it’s not written in a repetitive way. We talk of Production history, yet is casting for the film not included in that? I saw someone mention wanting to know how the film came to be. Isn’t casting a factor in that? Sometimes the first big update on a project is the additions of those who’ll be staring in it, so why isn’t that worth noting? Fact is most films just don’t have lengthy articles or stories written up about its cinematography or its visual Effects or editing or music or what have you unless it’s a film that meets a substantial reception or gains instrumental interest in every facet of its creation like Star Wars. With casting news it allows us to makes note of When one joined the film, and if in some cases it’s due to replacing a previous member. It may not be as interesting as other aspects of production history, but it’s still part of its production history. That’s my two cents. Rusted AutoParts 04:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The best case scenario for including this is that it looks very strange and comes across as unneeded, in the worst case scenario it completely clogs up the production section for something that is largely trivial. There is a reason that the MOS had multiple debates on how to deal with the problem. It also, is strongly discouraged by the MOS. In the best case scenario to comply with our quality standards the production would, at some point have to be completely redone to get rid of such info, so why not now. Why is it so important to have this in the first place? --Deathawk (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

·:: I would also say that in more general terms even if you say your making these sections non repetitive by their very nature they are . Let's say you have a film with five principal cast members, it's a foregone conclusion that all five joined at some point, some after other people, so there's very little reason to point that out to the reader. If this happens for one or two films, it's fine, but we're getting to a point where it's a listing for Every.Single. Film, which regardless of how you massage it does come across as redundant. There are so many unique aspects to an indivisual film, that this shouldn't be the standard way film articles are read. --Deathawk (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for a little under a month now, and the arguments seem to be going nowhere. Feeling like I may of not expressed myself clearly at the start of debate, and because I am just so tired of going around in circles (By my count the discussion is a stale mate) I have started a new section called "Frustrated" You can view it here. --Deathawk (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Because this project hasn't discussed production enough lately, some editors of this project might be interested to know there has been a discussion started at the Village pump regarding how/when notability is judged for films. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Jonatalizio (talk · contribs) moved the Enemy (2013 film) article to Enemy (2014 film) per "the official release date." Which title should the article be at? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)‎

2013, as it was first released in that year at the TIFF. See this and this for more. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And this, which states "....add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings)." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the 2013 disambig. Looking at the editor's edits, it looks like a good faith move, and they're not aware of the ins-and-outs of the finer details of how we name articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This was meant to be a part of another ongoing debate but I feel like for various reasons it's best suited here. Over the past couple of years I have grown frustrated with Wikpedia's construction of film articles. Specifically the production section within them. It seems a lot of them are unending streams of when cast members were announced which seems to me like for a better term "empty calories". An example of this can be found in Flarsky, which I would say is written about how 85% of upcoming film production sections are written. That would be bad but not detrimental except that about 95% of them are never cleaned up. Take a look for instance at Get a Job, a now two year old film where the content remains largely similar.

There was a successful RFC done in attempt to eliminate the problem and it passed unanimously and seemed like a major step forward in cleaning up Wikipedia. Since then I have tried several times to initiate discussion about how best to clean up these articles which mostly fell on deaf ears. Things came to a head recently when I tried to clean up the Hotel Artemis article to make it look presentable and got blowback from a large group of editors. Part of the problem is that I also removed the date the film started shooting accidentally. but the debate, while acknowledging that also seems to argue that such repetitive casting news should stay. It's really taken a lot out of me, and I haven't edited a film article since. I am honestly trying to improve Wikipedia by making the unique aspects of film production stand out, however I'm worried that they're being ignored based on bureaucratic ideas. I decided to make this a new section and not a continuation, not in an effort to sway things in my favor, but because the old debate is quite lage and I fell like I may not have made my case clearly the first time through.--Deathawk (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It May be frustrating for you, but making new threads about the same topic within a short period of time isn’t going to fix it. Check out the talk page of Stanley Kubrick where it seems almost weekly there’s a new discussion about whether an infobox should be added or not. Let the discussion breathe a bit before refreshing it again. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't about not having made your case clearly, but about sensitive editing. Even where there is consensus on a point, only a few editors will have participated in that discussion. Taking a point agreed in one place and using it to remove a whole chunk of other editors' work is very likely to lead to discussion, as indeed you have found. If only you had taken the time to carefully remove the listed casting dates whilst preserving the section and as much of the other editors' content as the MoS could justify, we probably wouldn't be here. MapReader (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess my main purpose, and why I wanted to start a new discussion is I'm confused on things beyond Hotel Artemis. I think we can all agree that there was a problem there, however a lot of the arguments seemed to be in favor of keeping the casting dates in place, and that's what's so confusing to me. I also feel like the another objection is to the removal of the section itself, so I'm also confused with how to deal with sections that only contain material forbidden from The MOS, The example I brought up last time was this edit from Early Man. Was that a "correct" edit? --Deathawk (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

People are entitled to different views, even where there is consensus. Inevitably, if an issue reappears on a talk page, they will take the opportunity to argue their case. The MoS doesn't 'forbid' since it is a set of guidelines, not rules. I don't think it's appropriate for any editor to go through your past edits giving them marks out of ten; the fact remains that this discussion started because of a wholesale deletion of a section, when carefully editing out the trivial detail was really needed. If there is a section entirely of trivial information then, yes, under the MoS you would be 'right' to delete it - but that doesn't guarantee you won't get complaints (by firing up the 'better something than nothing' debate) and an extended argument before getting there! A more sophisticated approach would be to take the trouble to find and insert some relevant and appropriate material, both demonstrating to other editors the real purpose of the section and delivering a better end product for the user. MapReader (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

While the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, it's also a set of best practices that we as editors found helpful to determine the course of the project. This is what upset me so much, rather than attempt to understand why the guidelines were applied, @Rusted AutoParts: came in with a response that seemed to constitute, Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT The correct response, I feel, would of been to attempt to understand the reason why the RFC was conducted at the first place and maybe start a discussion over the policy itself if he so vehemently disagreed with it, not to blatantly ignore the consensus.. --Deathawk (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we catalog DVD releases like Twilight Time (DVD label)#List of releases? It seems to run afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. Someone added it today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Think its relevant but would be better in a collapsed list format, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Flesh for Frankenstein article here, specifically about different running times, cast section and formatting of some sources. Any suggestions in would be welcome. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate if a couple of you could please watchlist English Vinglish. I'm worried about POV/puffery being added into the article: 10 minute standing ovation! "Widespread" critical acclaim vs. plain old critical acclaim, "major appreciation", "massive commerical success" vs. "commerical success", etc. I did a puffery purge the other day, and I might be too grouchy to be 100% objective. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For the film infobox is there no option to add a film rating? Govvy (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, see WP:FILMRATING. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

heh, should be added, why can't you do a similar thing to release, you have release dates for different countries, it's not hard to add the ratings for different countries. This would be inportant information to adults that want to run a quick review on a film rating if they want to show it to their kids or not. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Govvy (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to run "a quick review on ratings", IMDb is a more apropriate site IMO. Hoverfish Talk 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And wiki shouldn't be appropriate for film ratings? That makes no sense to be like that. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: did we run any consensus on this in the past, and if so where? I'd like to link there for reference, but there are several places such a discussion could have taken place and usually you know best where. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 15:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There have been quite a few discussions on both WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM. Looking up "rating" will list a lot of them. In comparing ratings to release dates, though, we don't list release dates for different countries indiscriminately. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, not a guide to help parents or anyone else decide if a film is worth watching. Something like the Rotten Tomatoes score exists with the encyclopedic purpose of reporting historically how a film was received; it is only incidental for a reader to use it to decide to see a film. There are resources elsewhere for parents to look up ratings. I use FilmRatings myself. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

heh, except a lot of new film articles have reception part so it kinda negates what you're saying there, even an encyclopaedic should have all the information as correct as possible including the rating of a film. You seem to want to distance yourself from it for some reason which I don't quite understand why. I can only ask why no ratings, it seems relevant information to add to an article to me so I was curious why it's not included I guess articles are just going to lack that information through-out wikipedia at the moment. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Which countries would you recommend we include, and why? Put another way, if you were going to edit MOS:FILM to allow for what you'd include, what changes would you make? DonIago (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well this is English wikipedia so I would go for;

• Australia
• UK
• US

Maybe France and another European country. Thanks just my views anyway. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What if it's an Indian film, or an African one? DonIago (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you also apply the rating for the appropriate country of origin! Govvy (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You see the problem though. It's one thing to say "include the rating for the country of origin"; quite another to pick and choose which other countries we include. Why did you say Australia, the UK and US? What makes their rating systems any more significant than those for any other country, all things being equal? DonIago (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

English speaking countries, English written encyclopaedia! Govvy (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the English speaking countries Wikipedia. India and Pakistan combined have almost as many English speakers as the United States. Articles on Wikipedia should adopt a WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Rey (Star Wars)#RfC: Can/should we state that Kylo Ren told or led Rey to believe that her parents are nobodies?. A permalink for it is here. The dispute concerns whether or not to follow, or report, what reliable sources state about Kylo Ren and Rey's interaction with regard to her parentage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A plot specialist might want to take a look at Perder es cuestión de método. Possibly way overlong. Hoverfish Talk 13:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to just make do with a revert button specialist. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was a single-edit latest development :) Thanks, it looks just about right now. Hoverfish Talk 14:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute at The Grand Budapest Hotel as to the runtime listed in the infobox. The crux of the dispute are two slightly different pages at the British Board of Film Classification site, both for this same film, but with different runtimes: an "approximate runtime" of 97 minutes on one page and an "approved runtime" of 99 minutes 39 seconds on the other. I favor the latter runtime, which has been in the infobox for a long time. LightKeyDarkBlade favors the other. Which of us is correct? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion at the article's Talk page? If there is one, can you please provide a link to it? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion. I've just started one. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You are correct TOJ. Te difference in times is due to PAL speedup; I have provided a fuller explanation at the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time this issue has come up. The BBFC measures each individual version so perhaps our guidelines should clear this up and instruct editors to make sure they are sourcing the time corresponding to the film and not the video (unless of course it is DTV). Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. I hadn't realized there were separate pages for different versions of the film. Clarification seems necessary. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That reply Betty gives on the article's talkpage is one of the best replies I've ever seen. If I had a hat, I would take it off to you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have drafted out some new guidelines at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Runtime_ammendment. It is a comprehensive re-write so I would welcome editor input. Feel free to to be critical/make suggestions. We need to get it right. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rajja Rani

The article Rajja Rani has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hoverfish Talk 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You could always remove the prod if you disagree with it. I find South Asian cinema a bit intimidating to edit because I know so little about it. It's funny, because I probably don't know much more about Russian cinema and Mexican cinema than the average person, but I still edit those films. Sit a man in front of a few Tarkovsky films, and he thinks he understands Russian cinema, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion about what films should be included in the List of box office bombs (2000s) that members of this project might be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on Portable hole. When I started, it was almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. I've made some progress finding sources, but not as much as I'd like. Many entries remain unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are, admittedly, not reliable. There's no doubt that this is a notable concept, having been used in film, cartoons, and literature by many authors. But, good sources are hard to find. I'd appreciate any help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I did some brief skimming but could not find anything talking about the topic, just brief mentions. Per WP:NEO, we need treatment in secondary sources. I know TV Tropes brings together many references to highlight an "obvious" trend in certain media, but for there to be an encyclopedic article about such an element or concept, we need coverage that discusses it directly. I'm not seeing how this topic could be more than a few sentences under a broader topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of you may recall the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_68#Best_Directing_Academy_Award_and_related_changes over whether the Academy Award for Best Director article should be at that title or Academy Award for Best Directing, given that the award is officially for directing. There was some preliminary discussion over renaming the article but it looks like the discussion got archived and faded from memory. Anyway, I have started the formal move process at Talk:Academy_Award_for_Best_Director#Requested_move_14_June_2018 because currently the name of the article is inconsistent with analogous categories. Whichever way this pans out its is necessary to make the article and categories match up. Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone could help improve the article Women and Documentary Film. It's up for deletion and I've done a major overhaul to it. I think that there's definite potential here and at the very least the current work could be merged into an existing article (women in film? documentary films?), but I wanted to see if I could breathe some life into this. If it's going to be deleted, I wanted to see if I could rescue it first. For full disclosure, this was created by a Wiki Ed student in one of the classes I oversaw this past semester. I also posted to the women WP as well about this. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that I have found them to be a rather tendentious editor, I would ask that other editors weigh in at Talk:The Swimmer (1968 film)#Plot revert, in which Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) reinserted Cast members into the Plot section of a film article that already had a Cast section and reverted other plot changes; acknowledging the former while neglecting to discuss the latter. It has been my understanding that it is generally considered acceptable if not an improvement to remove cast members from the Plot section in cases where the length of the plot summary is a concern and a separate Cast section exists. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

((ping|Donaiago}} I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with WP:CANVASSING. It's perfectly legitimate to post a notification on this project's talk page about our dispute, but such notifications are required to be neutral -- on the order of "There is a discussion at X which members of this project may be interested in" -- which this notifcation is clearly not. It's also usual to put a notice in the discussion itself that you have posted a notification to a WikiProject talk page, which you failed to do. Fnanlly, your description of my editing as "tendentious" is unwarranted, and, since you present no evidence to support it, is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions. Please either strike it, or provide proper evidence of my "tendentiousness" in the proper place, which is at WP:ANI, and not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doniago: Fixing ping. Please see previous edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, I came here to the film project to ask for opinions on edits to a film article, and this is the only place I've come to for opinions. That's not canvassing.

My description of the issue is, to my mind, reasonably neutral and fact-based. Sorry you disagree. My claim that I have found you to be a rather tendentious editor may have been more information than was necessary, but is an explanation for why I am asking for other editors to review the matter as well. Would "An editor I have experienced difficulty collaborating with, and who has experienced difficulty collaborating with me" better suit you?

Thank you for notifying me of what's usual. Usual does not equal required.

If you have a problem with my conduct, you're welcome to bring it to ANI, since you're clearly aware of that noticeboard. Otherwise, I'm not clear as to what purpose your response is intended to accomplish beyond proving my point that we have difficulty working together and other opinions probably are appropriate in this matter. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not BMK's biggest fan either, but describing an editor you are in a dispute with as "tendentious" isn't a neutral notice, even if it is true! The neutral version would be to simply say you are in a dispute with BMK. Personally I would strike that bit out before anybody else responds at the discussion because if consensus goes your way BMK will have just grounds for an appeal. Betty Logan (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck, with apologies. DonIago (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Plot sections are for summarising the plot. Cast sections are for listing the cast. There's no need to put cast in the plot. Popcornduff (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. This issue has been discussed extensively and consensus is that actors' names don't belong in the plot section. MapReader (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Honestly, I thought this was settled. Why does it keep coming up again and again? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If it's a high profile star vehicle that is built around the stars' personas (something like the Ocean films) then there is actually a valid argument that including actors names in the summary is helpful. On the other hand they are redundant if you have a cast list and they can lead to plot bloat. If I had to come down on one side I would back removing them (provided the article had a cast list) but to be honest I never really engage on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A role for a high profile star will surely have been mentioned in the lead, normally just above the plot section. And there'll be a cast list, normally just below the plot section, where they'll be mentioned again. There is no need to litter the summary of the storyline with various actors' names in brackets; really this isn't an "on the one hand..." issue, as far as readability is concerned. MapReader (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that BMK has stated that a consensus here would be non-binding on the article in question. I am therefore re-requesting that users weigh in there. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On a related note (sorry to bounce this again), WP:How to write a plot summary, which is an essay, states, "As key characters are introduced in the plot of a film or play with a known cast, list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor), where applicable." I don't believe that reflects current consensus. An editor raised that very point over three years ago at Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Cast in summary, but nobody else commented, and that appears to have been the end of it. I think it may be worth revisiting that subject and potentially updating the essay if it's considered to be at variance with current consensus. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see that removed. Popcornduff (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help evaluate this draft for Notability. In my non-expert opinion it's close to acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is currently underway at Ghostbusters (2016 film) about splitting the budget into "net" and "gross" figures. As I said there, I have never seen this done in any other film article. Masem responded, agreeing with me. GoneIn60 restored the figures to the infobox, responding on the talk page, he pointed toward this RfC Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 28#Request for comment for his justification. I say again that I have never seen this done in any other film article. Furthermore, how can a budget be divided between "net" and "gross"? These are terms that apply to money coming in, not going out. I think this question needs to be addressed again, because that RfC only confused the matter. The question of reliable sources is wholly different than this question about terminology. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Many films get tax rebates, meaning you get a gross budget figure and a net budget figure (after deducting the rebate to the studio). It is fairly common these days. The question is which figure you go with? Let's take Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice as an example; The Hollywood Reporter reported that its cost was as high as $325 million, which came down to $250 million after a tax rebate. So you have two figures there, the gross cost and the net cost. Some publications report the gross budget and others the net. Box Office Mojo (a common source on Wikipedia) generally—but not always—goes with the net figure, opting for the $250 million figure for Dawn of Justice. Taking the Ghostbusters example, the Hollywood Reporter states that it had "a net production budget of $144 million (tax rebates and incentives brought it down from $154 million)", so you have two distinct figures there. Box Office Mojo goes with the net figure of $144 million. Some editors argue that the "gross" cost is the true cost so that is the figure that should be reported, but this would put us at odds with many sources that use the net figure. The problem is there is no universal standard, so including both figures spares us from many potential edit wars. Betty Logan (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be to use a range, such as "$45-55 million," in the infobox and have a longer discussion of these issues, with reliable sources, in the production section. I realize we have to go with what the sources say, but my gut instinct is that the terms "net" and "gross" are being misused here. I don't think we need to repeat that mistake. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I restored the infobox based on a former consensus and answered the question you posed on that talk page. I have no stake in whether or not this issue is revisited and ultimately changed. However, the idea of using a range was suggested in the discussion section of that RfC and was shot down for various reasons (have you read that?), but we can certainly take another look. As for the comment of "gross" and "net" applying to budgets, my understanding is that it most certainly can. Back when that RfC was going on, I found quite a few sources that used those terms in that context, so I have no reason to believe they are being misused. Furthermore, it might benefit you to read the follow-up discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 28#Gross and Net. If there is enough pushback against the outcome of that RfC, and you feel there are new items to take into consideration that weren't previously brought up, it may be time to have a new one. That previous RfC, after all, only had a handful of participants. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a disagreement over at the She's the Man article over whether the line "it is a remake of the 1985 film Just One of the Guys" should be included. The user @Fireflyfanboy is attempting to add the line citing IMDb as a source. I have advised that this is not an acceptable source, and have reverted twice, but am not going to get into an edit war over it. The last revert by Fireflyfanboy included the edit summary "Can't find other source", which makes it pretty clear to me that this content shouldn't be included. Could project members keep an eye please? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've removed the claim and started a discussion on that article's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War has been nominated for deletion. Users are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War. Tutelary (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's a weird one: Race 3 appears to have not fared well with the critic public. This critic gave it a 5/5 star review, but the review sounds over-the-top tongue-in-checek (that's four hyphens!) Would we include content from this review in the mix, or would we omit it? One commenter writes "Only India today has given positive review of this movie while the rest have given negative reviews." Would we consider it "positive" just because at face value it's 5/5 stars? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The review is clearly tongue-in-cheek. Personally I would completely discount it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Wot Betty sez:) ∯WBG^converse 04:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion underway on the Blade Runner 2049 talk page concerning some plot details. I'd like some other editors to weigh in over there. It involves what I regard as the minor question of whether the character K dies at the end. The discussion, once again, involves whether the plot section requires references to clarify vague plot points. The plot section has an NPOV template, which another editors insists must stay until this is sorted out. As I say, other opinions are needed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't really help with the discussion itself (I have yet to watch the film) but it seems like a reasonable request to keep the notice while there is ongoing discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There's been some disagreement over the inclusion of a gross and net production budget as of late, specifically on Edge of Tomorrow and The Equalizer. My process has largely been subtracting the incentives provided in FilmLA reports (seen still active on Jessabelle and Tammy), and using that number as the "net" budget.

I wanted to bring this here to gauge further opinions, as Geraldo Perez believes the subtraction constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS, and I disagree. I'd like to note that I have not had a discussion with Geraldo personally, but opted instead to ping him here to gather a wider view of opinions and prevent the circular arguments I find my stubborn self getting into. Sock (tock talk) 14:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not SYNTH if both the gross figure and rebate are from the same source. It is a form of OR but of the kind permitted by WP:CALC, unless of course the other editor is directly challenging the view that the net budget is derived from subtracting the rebate/incentive from the gross figure? However, the relationship between a gross budget, a net budget and the incentive/rebate is a fairly simple one to understand as demonstrated by these sources: [1][2][3][4] (and perform a word search on tax). Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox instructions for the budget attribute just say "cost of the actual filming" and net and gross tags to differentiate different estimates from different sources as to how they are tagged in the source. I don't see any standard definition of what net means so calculating a value for a loosely defined term based on raw estimated data is dubious. I would have no problem with covering the issue in the production section of the film. Adding an editor calculated value in the infobox based on two estimates adds no value. The synthesis is not just the calculation, it is defining a term not brought up in sources for that particular project. In looking at the source used, they didn't even define what the term net meant. In a general sense money from others sources is just additional funding for the project. The cost of filming doesn't change based on where the money comes from. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This really grabbed my attention: "The cost of filming doesn't change based on where the money comes from." It's an excellent point worth addressing. If a studio gets a tax break for filming in a particular location, for example, is that money coming from another source? I'm not sure that it is in that specific example. To me it sounds like a discount in the sense that a portion of the cost didn't have to be paid by anyone. You could argue how tax incentives affect a location's net revenue in taxes, but the simple fact is that no money is collected. As for the other point regarding the definition of net, I'm not sure that term needs to be explicitly defined in order for us to use it. However, I can understand the desire to see the resulting net amount be explicitly stated in a source as opposed to a Wikipedia editor doing the calculation. That's a fair point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

They don't define "net" because it's a very basic concept. In the sources I link to above the "net" is the same in every case: the resulting value after the rebate/credit is deducted. "Budget" and "Cost" are not always synonymous terms anyway: if Amazon gives you a 10% discount does mean that your $100 item only cost you $90? Almost certainly; however, if Amazon gives you a $10 voucher instead of a discount does that mean your item cost $100 or $90? There are two ways of answering that question. Ultimately though it is not down to Wikipedia editors to debate whether a tax credit constitutes a part of the budget or not; that is for sources to decide and there is no standard approach to this issue. Some use the gross figure, some use the net, and some such as The Hollywood Reporter tend to provide both figures, which is why Template:Infobox_film instructs to add "gross" and "net" when applicable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue at all with reporting what the sources tell us tagged as needed. That is not my issue. Only 2 of the 4 example sources you listed defined net in the context of the discussion of the article. The FilmLA sources don't give a definition of net, they just give Budget Est. and Incentive Amount. I would expect that source in particular to give net amount. I don't see any standard industry definition of what is offset from gross to get net, it seems to vary project to project. I have no problem with reporting what the source states explicitly properly tagged as needed, my issue is mostly Wikipedia editors making a determination of what a term means in the context of an article. A lot of the net vs gross issues look to just be ways to massage the numbers for their marketing value. We shouldn't be creating our own definitions, evaluating the raw data and making our own assumptions of what the data means. We should just report what the sources state, no more than that. I do check sources and look for matches for data when I do verification checks. When I don't see the data my first assumption is verification failed. When things are reported in context and it is explicit that a calculation has been made and the raw data supplied for the calculation is provided, I am much more inclined to go with it if it is a simple calc. There is not enough room in the infobox for that level info. Keep it in the article section where things can be explained. Actually if the tag and data in the inbox was incentives instead of net, I'd have gone with it as that would be directly verifiable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

To add. Actually if what was being done was all explained in the production section with all the raw data used well-referenced there and what net means as used in the article as a calculated value, I'd be a lot more amenable to transferring an extract of what was explained in the production section to the infobox. Don't even need to source it in the infobox if the data is sourced in the body of the article although a hidden note next to the infobox data that pointed to where covered in the article would help for verification. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need a "parade" of various budget figures in the infobox – keep it simple. The article's prose is where details can be hashed out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say that's pretty much the case in 99% of all film articles. The exceptions tend to be those that don't lend themselves to simple solutions (i.e. conflicting estimates, net/gross figures, currency conversions etc). A potential solution would be the one at Dunkirk (2017 film) where there were lots of conflicting figures flying around. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ugetsu, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

According to AFI, Jurassic World is classified as science fiction and horror. BFI lists action, adventure, and fantasy, but for Jurassic Park, it also lists science fiction and horror. It seems wildly inconsistent across each film:

Film	AFI	BFI
Jurassic Park	Adventure, Science Fiction (link)	Horror, Science Fiction (link)
Lost World	Adventure, Drama (link)	Horror, Science Fiction (link)
Jurassic Park III	Adventure, Drama, Science Fiction (link)	Crime, Science Fiction (link)
Jurassic World	Horror, Science Fiction (link)	Fantasy, Action, Adventure (link)

Do we treat each article individually, or does anyone have any thoughts on how to best identify the primary genre(s)? Adventure and science fiction appear the most across the franchise followed closely by Horror, but I find it odd that there's so much variance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They are all definitely science fiction films, so shouldn't that be used as the primary genre? Keeps it simple then. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree about science fiction, but currently each article labels it as "science-fiction adventure". --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"adventure" has always seemed like a vague, probably-should-be-avoided term. It will also be easier to have the undeniable genre (science fiction) in the opening sentence, with subsequent discussion covering where on the scale of adventure/action/horror the specific film falls. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice it until I compiled the chart, but it does appear that "adventure" is supported by at least one of the film institutes for each film, whereas "action", "drama" and "horror" are not (though horror comes damn close). Maybe it's not worth messing with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Allmovie has the primary genre down as "science-fiction" too. I can understand the inconsistency between the sources though: only the first film feels like a proper science-fiction film and the sequels had a more escapist fantasy-adventure feel to them. Science-fiction is definitely the primary genre though because it is embedded in the DNA of the films, with other flavors thrown in for good measure, and I think the sources demonstrate this overall. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. So should we drop "Adventure" or just leave it the way it is? I don't feel too strongly about it either way at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would remove it from the articles with a link to this discussion in the edit summary. If there isn't a clear secondary genre (such as Alien being a horror film in the sci-fi genre) then adding one is not particularly helpful IMO i.e. you just end up with genre cruft. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article for the new Gotti film, I noticed that it was in the following three categories: Biographical films about American gangsters, Biographical films about mobsters, and Biographical films about criminals. I removed the third, which is a parent cat to the two previous, but that still left the other two. Honestly, I don't see an inherent difference between films about mobsters and films about gangsters, so do we need two bio film subcats with these titles? If one is to be deleted, which should it be? Both cats have existed for about 4 years, and I am surprised no one has noticed this. I'd like to hear some other opinions, please. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Well, in wikipedia mobster redirects to gangster so perhaps the mobster category should be merged into the gangster category, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see this discussion to help gather consensus for the recently announced Blackhawk film, and its inclusion or lack thereof in the DC Extended Universe. Sock (tock talk) 22:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I get some third opinions on the edits being undertaken by Matías2028. He has been adding what I would regard as listcruft and trivia to articles. Here are a few of the edits that I consider unencyclopedic:

• Arbitrary chronological records: [5][6][7][8]
• Listcruft: [9][10][11][12][13]
• Trivia: [14][15]
• Original research/synthesis: [16][17][18][19][20]

It's not just the odd problem, I am finding myself reverting practically every edit this editor makes so I would like some further opinions on these edits. If the film project is cool on the whole with edits of this nature I will withdraw from the situation, but at this stage I would appreciate some extra eyes. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

On one hand, the content seems trivial and unencyclopedic to me. On the other hand, it also seems pretty harmless. I don't know. I think stuff like that belongs on some other site (maybe the IMDb?), but I probably wouldn't revert it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this kind of thing standard practice? – Lasse Hallström is the film's primary director. Joe Johnston did just reshoots. I'm pretty sure just Hallström is going to get the director's credit on the film. So, is it appropriate to include Johnston's navbox?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, this report sourced in the article says they will both get directing credit. I don't see why this wouldn't be valid unless we got contrary information. Sock (tock talk) 02:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I missed that. If they both are getting a credit, then yes it's "kosher". Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for mentioning this IJBall. I have removed the item from the article and template for the moment. IMO the sticky bit is that Hallström seems to have agreed to a joint credit as director for Johnston - or at least that is what the article states. If there is a consensus (and Sock has provided one RS) that merits a full mention in the template and article please feel free to restore the items. Okay my mistake. I'm off to revert my edits. MarnetteD|Talk 02:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't very common, but it sounds like they both agreed to be credited as directors together and got the thumbs up from the DGA, so the article's infobox and their respective navboxes should list them as actual directors. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for a movie title. In this film (crime) a woman killed few men. The killer appears on the dating advertisement. A detective posts and dating advertisement. He tries to find the female killer, who shoots the men in the head in the bed. This detective gets together with a blond woman. Doncsecz^talk 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend trying Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sea of Love ? Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page of this article. I feel like people are confused about what exactly it should be about.★Trekker (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As it may be relevant to this WikiProject, this is a notice that I've created the template {{Draft notice}} for ease of access in alerting user and article talk pages of drafts. -- Alex^TW 08:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography content, and I feel it's important enough to ask for more opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Could I get some help with notability? Zeebo Newton Film Shane198three (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness 2.0? Hopefully not, but additional editors are welcomed to discuss if the "from" in Spider-Man: Far From Home should be capitalized. The discussion is here Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#From or from?. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen some in various articles, but I can't find one to see how it's set up. Can someone instruct me or point me to the relevant documentation? The clip (or rather the entire short) has already been uploaded by someone else in Wikimedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Check out Gone with the Wind (film). We have a clip illustrating the "burning of Atlanta" there. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I and The Confederate Ironclad thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see this and this. Are we going to lose all the pictures used in Kurosawa film articles. I will particularly miss the one from Ikiru - the view of Watanabe (Shimura) in the swing is iconic. Also does it have larger ramifications for other articles where the director has only been dead for XX number of years. The rules for pics have always been above my pay grade so I thought I should check with those of you who understand them. If we should be asking in other venues please feel free check there as well. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if an image is non-free, we can still sometimes have it as a fair use item. However, commons has stricter rules ("no non-free images, period") than English Wikipedia ("fair-use images okay for cases meeting WP:NFC guideline"), so the image would have to be hosted locally on en.wp. Essentially, an editor needs to check each image specifically to make sure it is actually used in an article and that it adds definite encyclopediac value to the article. So I don't think File:Stray Dog 1-30-27.jpg substantially adds to the textual description of the plot in Stray Dog (film) and File:Stray Dog65.png is not used anywhere, but File:Ikiru 1.jpg is citedly an "iconic" image from Ikiru and therefore might be okay. DMacks (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your post DMacks. Would it be possible for you (or anyone else reading this) to perform the necessary edits. I just don't have any experience with these. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the one for Ikiru is now OK, per this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup to you both DMacks and Lugnuts. MarnetteD|Talk 10:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I copied the Ikiru file to en.wp and tagged it nonfree, with fair-use for Ikiru (the film) and Takashi Shimura (the actor). I removed it from Gondola no Uta because it seemed mostly only decorative there (not legitimate use of nonfree content). DMacks (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I once examined Category:2015 film awards and made {{2015 American film awards}} offline but lost interest. I have not added it to any articles or made templates for other years but I thought others might be interested so I saved it now. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. In a recent discussion, it was asserted by Popcornduff that "there's no need to put cast in the plot," and MapReader added that "this issue has been discussed extensively and consensus is that actors' names don't belong in the plot section." Anyone got a link to the discussion that led to that consensus? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions over the years. Here's the most recent (I think), from 2017. Popcornduff (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

MOSTV explicitly deals with this, with: "avoid...any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names" in its Plot section. It might be a good idea to consider something similar for MOSFILM? MapReader (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support that, though there always seem to be a few editors who support including cast in plot sections. Popcornduff (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Popcornduff and MapReader. -The Gnome (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have made the proposal here, attn Popcornduff & The Gnome MapReader (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a slow edit war[21] at Thoroughbreds (2017 film). This is the latest iteration of it. There was a little discussion back in March about it, but otherwise it's been conducted in edit summaries.

• WP:LEAD does not explicitly indicate how much of the plot to summarise, but "most important elements" can be reasonably read as including plot points including twists and endings.
• WP:SPOILERS addresses the use of explicit spoilers in sections such as "Plot" in which the section title provides the implicit spoiler warning and spoilers are expected. It doesn't really cover whether spoilers should be avoided if possible in the lead section (other than stating "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with... any other element of article quality (e.g., the lead section)".
• WP:FILMLEAD does not currently cover how much of the plot should be included, and whether spoilers/twists should be included or avoided
• Spoilers in the lead section are unexpected. It's reasonable for readers unfamiliar with the film to be able to read the lead without having the film spoiled. This is not censorship but consideration. Spoilers further on may be expected and/or unavoidable
• A quick scan of films in Category:FA-Class_film_articles shows that endings and plot twists are not spoiled in their leads. I'd expect that attempting to add a fuller summary to Fight Club, Manhunter (film), American Beauty (1999 film), and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan would prove to be an interesting experience.
• Proposal: WP:FILMLEAD should provide more explicit guidance in what is expected in terms of plot summaries, to reflect common practice.​​

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

From all previous discussions on this, my understanding is that spoilers should not be removed because they are spoilers, but they should not be kept just because they are spoilers either. If you can't justify including something beyond the fact that we don't remove spoilers for spoilers' sake, then it should not be included. So all of our guidelines just need to make that clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that an encyclopaedia should be telling readers about the film, and someone who really doesn't want to know what happens in a film shouldn't go looking it up in an encyclopaedia. MapReader (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, "Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as 'Plot' or 'Ending') which imply the presence of spoilers.... When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." Since WP:SPOILER specifically mentions section headings, there must be a very compelling reason to write the plot in full in the lead section itself. Fuller plot write-ups in the lead section can happen with articles with hugely impactful endings (or mid-film scenes) because the impact is determined by the reliable third-party sources themselves. For example, I could see The Sixth Sense's lead section discussing the ending because so many sources have talked about it. However, in the case of Thoroughbreds, there is no encyclopedic purpose being served. A search engine test shows no impactful mid-film or ending scene that would warrant such detailing. Its lead section doesn't even include how the film was received, which is far, far more important to mention. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"The film tells the story of Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment), a troubled, isolated boy who is able to see and talk to the dead, and an equally troubled child psychologist named Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) who tries to help him. The film established Shyamalan as a writer and director, and introduced the cinema public to his traits, most notably his affinity for surprise endings." - That's actually a very good example of talking about the ending without actually revealing that actual ending. --Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We have to remember that that Wikipedia article is not in good shape at all; it covers the topic fairly superficially. If I were to write it in full to be a Featured Article, I would convey the premise in the first paragraph, and in the third or fourth paragraph, go into detail about the ending as discussed by sources. Probably start that paragraph with indicating that the film's ending will be discussed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And, of course, a good encyclopaedia entry shouldn't be concerned with whether its content 'reveals' anything to the uninitiated, since revelation and enlightenment are central to its very purpose. While editors shouldn't be going out of their way to "spoil" the film, equally they shouldn't be making efforts to write their text in a way that doesn't do so. MapReader (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER clearly mentions the use of section headings, not just the content disclaimer. In this vein, it makes sense to have similar lead-in language in the lead section. The point of WP:SPOILER is to not remove content that has an encyclopedic purpose because it is also spoiler content. The plot by itself has no inherent encyclopedic purpose. Per WP:PLOT, a concise plot summary complements coverage presented in an "encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance". So the question is, what of the plot should be covered in the lead section? Essentially, the most important parts as determined by the weight of reliable third-party sources. This is most often the basics (e.g., the premise), and beyond that, spoiler content should be included if there is weight for it. Controversial or specifically praised content should be included even if is spoiler content; that can be characters' deaths, twist endings, etc. This is going to be more likely for more noteworthy topics (e.g., classic films) because they are thoroughly scrutinized. For Thoroughbreds, no one is discussing how the film ends. The summary of a summary is just tacked on with no visible encyclopedic purpose. There seems to be discussion about the nihilism within, and spoiler content related to that could be included. But there's not even any reception information in the section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

While only Good Articles, Memento, Inception and The Prestige manage to convey the film without clearly writing out the last act. I doubt there is really reason for that to happen in the lead in any film. Detailing the story or analyzing plot (including ending) is for body of the article itself.--Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We've discussed lead stuff a lot at the WP:Spoiler talk page; for example, this discussion. And in this one, an RfC we had at that talk page about spoiling is noted. In that RfC, editors generally agreed that spoilers are usually not needed in the lead. Others and I cited The Sixth Sense article as an example of it not being necessary to spoil in the lead, at least as far as the twist ending goes. It's not just any spoiler; it is a big twist, which does, in fact, spoil the entire film. There are reliable sources noting this too. The whole film is built around that twist. So although I understand what Erik is stating about including spoiler information in the lead of that article, I personally can't support explicitly noting what that twist ending is in the lead in the case of that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD maybe could be made even more explicit, but on this issue, it seems clear enough to me. It suggests to give the premise in the lead, but says nothing of a plot summary. --SubSeven (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposal, and in terms of limits to plot elements in the lead, I agree with Erik. Hoverfish Talk 15:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Am against any spoilers in the lead of any film article and plot description in the lead should be minimal, I dont think a new reader would expect spoilers other than in the plot or if necessary in a later section if it is very notable and that section should be structured so that readers are aware that spoilers are coming up. Many leads are just too long and if too much is included there people wont bother with the rest of the article as they will have had their fill of a bloated intro. A lot of film articles are read by youngsters and why should we spoil their enjoyment of a film just to be "encyclopedic" ? thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with all the above. Spoilers belong in the lead when they serve an encyclopedic purpose. We shouldn't just throw in spoilers because we can. In the case of Thoroughbreds, I don't see any reason the ending** belongs in the lead based on the current state of the article. Would support a minor amendment to WP:Lead or WP:Spoiler to make this clearer.

** It also seems that Koavf's preferred summary gives undue weight to the ending compared to the rest of the plot. Sums up some 60 or 70 minutes of movie in the same length as the last few minutes. (It has other errors also, like calling Olivia Cooke's character a sociopath when she says in the movie that she isn't a sociopath.) Boycool (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As far as the plot is concerned, the lead should just convey the basic premise. For example, you don't need to reveal the ending of The Empire Strikes Back to convey the premise. However, revealing the ending may be justified if there is significant RS coverage of the ending that is discussed in the article. As a basic rule of thumb I do not accept it is necessary to include spoilers that only appear in the plot summary; if the spoilers are discussed in a real-life context (such as the production, themes or reception sections) then the amount of coverage they receive in the article may justify a mention in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support I don't think I stated my case very well, going to try again: WP:FILMLEAD should be touched up just to squash any future confusion, but as far as settling the actual debate, it is fine. WP:FILMLEAD is not shy about stating exactly what should go in the lead of a film article. If a plot summary belonged in the lead, then the guideline would say so. That is the project consensus, it has been for a long time, and the project's best articles are completely in sync with that consensus. As Erik states, the primary goal of these articles are real-world perspective. The plot section is the place that is designated for in-universe perspectives. If the film's endings constitutes a significant part of its notability, then the lead should of course summarize that. Even that wouldn't justify a plot summary in the lead, but rather a summary of what third-party sources say about the ending, and if that requires disclosing details of the ending, so be it. Spoilers should not be omitted, due to WP:SPOILERS, but at the same time, spoilers should not be shoe-horned where they don't belong in the name of WP:SPOILERS overreach. --SubSeven (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I read FILMLEDE, and as per LEDE, that there should be a very brief summary of a film's plot if there is a plot section since this is a significant part of the article. That summary should be 1 sentence at most, never more than two. That sentence should not try to summarize the whole film but only its major thrust, as well as placing key actors in their roles. In how that relates to spoilers, I think the summary in Seven is about as spoiler-ish as this one sentence could ever get (in that it reveals the role Spacey had). One-two sentences do not get anywhere close to enough space to allow for more detailed spoilers without being far too long or losing more higher-level elements of the film. --Masem (t) 05:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A detective solves a crime in which a butler murders his employer? ;) MapReader (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

MapReader your scenario did happen once. Well until the final reveal that is. Oops I think I just posted a spoiler :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing a lot of identical opinions in this discussion. I'd love some input from ​ Koavf on this. Boycool (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for soliciting my opinion. The function of a lead is to summarize the article. If you summarize the plot of a film by only giving the initial premise but say nothing about what happens in the rest of it, you aren't summarizing it. Romeo and Juliet has a "spoiler" saying that they die; why are films somehow exempt? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree to this. The lead should summarize the article. Also we should make sure that what is present in the lead, in terms of plot, stays in Due Weight with the overall article, except maybe in underdeveloped articles where all we find is cast, plot and little else (There the lead should be kept to the bare basics about the film IMO). No spoilers in the lead are needed for this. Some tact should be used if the plot is very sensitive to some end result. In Sleuth (1972 film), for example, revealing the final phrase would be too much for the lead so instead of spoilers, just avoid mentioning it. Something a little more elaborate than what is presently in the Plot sectioon of Sleuth (2007 film) would be fine for the lead. Hoverfish Talk 05:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What the responders here have said is that there must be due weight. The deaths of Romeo and Juliet form a substantial part of the article and are integral to the coverage of the topic. I doubt anybody here would argue that their deaths should not be covered in the lead. However, it is perfectly possible to describe what Romeo and Juliet is about without giving away the ending, so the decision to reveal the ending in the lead should be determined by how much coverage the ending receives in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The ship sinks, Verbal is Keyser Söze and the dam gets busted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The plot in the lead should be the setup IMO. Deadpool forms a new team to fight against a time-travelling super soldier bent on killing a young mutant. John McClane is a new york cop who finds himself trapped in a tower block with a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber. In 1997, the artificial intelligence Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill the future leader of the human resistance, John Connor, when he is only a child. The resistance sends back its own Terminator to protect him, each in a race to find Connor first. There's no need to go beyond that. The lead should summarise the article, you should be able to read the summary without being exposed to massive spoilers, I think that is a fair expectation. Imagine if Wikipedia was around in the 80s and the Empire Strikes Back article opened with "While Luke Skywalker confronts Darth Vader, his father!!!" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to contest the existing WP-wide disregard for spoilers, you're in the wrong place, and need to make your case on the talk page for WP:Spoiler MapReader (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not contesting spoilers, I'm explaining what does need to be in the lead. If Avengers Infinity War opens up with "and they all die in the end", it's a dick move to start with but it's also not necessary in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

How is it any different than saying that Hitler dies at the end? Why are movies treated differently than actual events. Is it "spoiling" World War II to let you know that Uncle Joe teamed up with the Allies and beat the Nazis? It's just ridiculous. Why is someone reading an encyclopedia article assuming that a movie won't be "spoiled"? Also, since spoilers make you enjoy a movie more, you are the one trying to deprive others of enjoyment as well as make for a less encyclopedic article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not treating them differently. If the fact that Hitler died at the end of World War II was not that notable in the grand scope of the article, it should not be mentioned in the lead. The question that (apparently) needs to be asked is "do we need to spoil the film here?" And in general, I would say no. Even for films like The Sixth Sense where there is an obvious spoiler that could be noted in the lead, it isn't actually requried so it should not be stated (the important thing with that film is that it has a twist ending, not what the twist ending is, and so that is why I was in support of the current version of that article which does not spoil the film). We should not be adding spoilers to the lead unless we would be putting them there if they were not spoilers, any discussion regarding whether spoilers in general should be included or what the benefits of spoiling are is just a red herring. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you call anything a "spoiler" shows that you are segregating it out from the rest of the information with some arbitrary rule about how it "ruins" a movie by knowing about it. A lead should provide a comprehensive overview. If you don't know that Bruce Willis is dead the whole time, then you don't have even a cursory understanding of The Sixth Sense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's strange that I suddenly started using the term "spoiler" as if it was the topic of the discussion or something... adamstom97 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And what is a "spoiler" is just arbitrary. The difference is nonsense. Is the outcome of a war a "spoiler"? Is it a "spolier" to say that Lincoln was assassinated? It's just whimsical nonsense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What's nonsense is editors adding things to the lead that just shouldn't be there, like plot details beyond the most basic premise, and then justifying their inclusion by citing WP:SPOILER. It has to stop. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Koavf, The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is just about the worst possible counterexample you could have used. Their deaths are discussed in the opening of the play. Clear consensus is for the premise but not the plot to be in Film leads, but yet you continue to edit war at Thoroughbreds. That said, this discussion needs to be opened up (probably at VPP given the scope) since the same premise vs plot issue affects other fictional media including books (Murder of Roger Ackroyd) and games (Bioshock) and probably other things such as radioplays. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Agreed. Would you like to open the thread there or should I? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm on phone only for a while, so complex editing is painful. If you feel that you can lay out the issue / dispute / arguments / positions neutrally and fairly, then go for it. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that this issue has not been clearly resolved. Policy needs to established and followed by all editors. Those in power need to set rules and enforce them.Eschoryii (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No one is in power. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

i note same issue in Sorry to Bother You. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear here. The lone dissenter who incited this dispute has continued to edit war in various articles even as he was aware this discussion was underway, so can we get a better guideline in place? There has been ample time to discuss, many people have checked in, and literally nobody agrees with him. The existing consensus, which is reflected in the top articles (and virtually all articles, really) the project has produced, clearly has strong support.

Since nobody else has, I'll make a first proposal for an amendment to WP:FILMLEAD (in bold). Feel free to improve it as this is not really my forte. --SubSeven (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. For presentation of foreign-language titles, see the naming conventions for foreign-language films. If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified. If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise. Do not include a complete plot summary, as this is considered beyond the scope of the lead.

If others like this, then I would not object to its addition. I think it could be helpful in general, as I have seen some articles that try to give the whole plot in the lead (with spoilers or not) and it is just silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't really like this, and would have to oppose. "Complete plot summary" is vague and a recipe for argument. What if the plot can be summarised in a short sentence? Does "complete" mean that a partial summary is OK? Moreover, what's the point of saying this? Including justification for the guideline within the MoS is often a sign of weakness, and here we simply have a tautology - effectively it says "don't do this because we don't think you should". The words after the comma therefore add nothing, and the words before the comma aren't sufficiently specific. Insofar as it adds value, the same result could be achieved by adding "briefly", "concisely" or "in a sentence" into the existing words that suggest a summary of the premise. Or if, as is likely, the proposal is intended obliquely to imply "don't spoil the film by putting the ending in the lead" but without actually saying so, then this isn't good policy making. If we mean this, say this; if not, not. Otherwise we simply fuel new argument over "complete" and "premise" v "plot". MapReader (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, by all means propose a better version. The point is that the lead should contain the premise, and that's all. That's what this discussion has arrived at. Most good-faith editors can understand what is implicitly meant by that, but now there is at least one editor taking advantage of the fact that WP:FILMLEAD doesn't spell out VERY CLEARLY its stance on plot summaries, and using that as a loophole. --SubSeven (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is an alternate version: --SubSeven (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. For presentation of foreign-language titles, see the naming conventions for foreign-language films. If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified. In terms of plot, it is sufficient to merely convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise.

• • Support the above amendment as it makes it clear only a premise is needed, and if the spoiler editor is editwarring he should be blocked, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support amended version as reflecting widespread practice, however suggest tweaking "convey" to "include", and changing two instances of "paragraph" to "lead section", since a lead may have multiple paras. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

    Your tweaks are correct and I think entirely uncontroversial. Let's go with that. --SubSeven (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this edit by SubSeven; I support it, but I think "usually sufficient" is better. There might be cases where spoiling in the lead is needed, and we also know that people can disagree on what a spoiler is (although what is a spoiler is usually clear). With Star Wars, Darth Vader being Luke's father has been mentioned before. But can that really be considered a spoiler (in a significant manner anyway) these days, given how common knowledge it is? Yeah, I know, the newer generations and all that, but even they are commonly spoiled on the matter due to popular culture references. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Template:WikiProject History of photography has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Photography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Qono (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The film naming discussion is currently active at Talk:Chi l'ha vista morire?#Requested move 15 July 2018.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Addition to Blood of Dracula

I think that the theatrical release poster of this film by Reynold Brown should be added to this article, so that it can match its fellow articles I Was a Teenage Werewolf, I Was a Teenage Frankenstein and How to Make a Monster (1958).Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Addition to The Return of Dracula

I also think that the theatrical release poster of this film should be added to this article, so that it, too, can match its fellow articles The Monster that Challenged the World, The Vampire (1957) and The Flame Barrier.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_July_19#File:Requiem_for_a_Dream_rapid_cuts.ogv and comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor input is requested at this thread Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep#Awards descriptions. MarnetteD|Talk 18:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there's seems to be a bit of confusion on Scooby-Doo! and WWE: Curse of the Speed Demon regarding WP:FILMRELEASE. Specifically, the policy states: The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. Because of this, Bovineboy2008 has deleted the date the film was first released on DVD in favor of a Comic Con premiere, which was not very widely covered other than by a few select sites. However, since this is a direct-to-video film, I personally believe this is taking WP:FILMRELEASE a bit too literally. This edit brings up several issues, including consistency with other Scooby-Doo direct-to-video film articles. All other articles list the date this was first released on DVD. Additionally, this being a direct-to-video film, it seems like common sense to include the main date it was first released on video in the infobox, rather than a one-off premiere. Most likely, if this were a theatrical film, we wouldn't delete the world premiere date it was first available to the general public. Arguably, I think the US DVD date should be restored to the article, since it was the main date it was first available to the general public, with the Comic Con premiere deleted. Any help or guidance on the best interpretation of the policy in this case would be greatly appreciated. All the best, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. Please ignore the fact I accidentally restored the UK date in the diff I linked above. This was accidental and I agree that the UK date should not be included in the infobox.

The Comic con date should be in there as the de facto premiere i.e. when the film was first made available to the public, but many articles also include the general release date too. The Scooby Doo article also does that by including the digital release date and I think that is sufficient. As a rule film articles don't include release dates for each separate format, and even if the Comic con date wasn't in there I would still not be in favor of including a separate DVD date. The film entered the home video market with the digital release so that is the most important date; I agree with Bovineboy2008 that the fact it came out on DVD a couple of weeks later is secondary information that doesn't really belong in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I still can't say I agree, especially given it's not called a direct to video film for nothing and I think it's going to create a lot more issues with people constantly re-adding it. However, seeing as I've been opposed by two editors now, I suppose we should leave it as is. The issue, however, is that if we're doing this here it needs to be changed on every Scooby-Doo DTV article. Thoughts? Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not called "direct-to-DVD" for that matter either: "video" is an anachronistic term that these days refers to a whole bunch of formats e.g. DVD/blu-ray/digital/VOD/streaming. As for the other Scooby-Doo articles the date may well be notable if the DVD release was indeed the first release. At the end of the day once the film has been released the exact date doesn't really serve much purpose anyway; its primary use thereafter is simply to inform readers how old it is. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. This has been fixed in the two other DTV articles that more than two dates were listed in the infobox. Appreciate the advice. Peace, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Zoinks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I work for Executive Writing, and as part of my consultancy work, I've drafted new Wikipedia articles for David Kramer (talent agent) and Jay Sures, who serve as co-presidents of United Talent Agency. Both articles are currently in poor shape, and on their respective talk pages (Talk:David Kramer (talent agent) and Talk:Jay Sures) I've provided further detail about the problems with each. You can view my proposed drafts at User:EWChristine/David Kramer (talent agent) and User:EWChristine/Jay Sures. I realize these two biographies are tangentially related to Film, but I've posted a similar request at WikiProject Biography, and I've still not received any response. Are any WikiProject Film members willing to review the drafts and replace the existing articles? I believe I've disclosed my conflict of interest appropriately, but please let me know if not. Thank you in advance for any help. EWChristine (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute over which poster to use at The Birth of a Nation. One editor wants to use one featuring the Ku Klux Klan while another objects. Both poster versions are posters that accompanied the original theatrical release. Beyond personal preference the choice would seem to be completely arbitrary. It needs to be settled though because the editors keep reverting each other. The discussion is at Talk:The_Birth_of_a_Nation#Infobox_image in anyone cares to chime in. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Will somebody based in the United States please check this TCM link please:

• Titanic at the TCM Movie Database

This is the link from the external links section at Titanic (1997 film) and uses the {{tcmdb title}} template but it is not working for me. I am wondering if this is some weird EU crap or whether it was down for our transatlantic cousins too! Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It works for me. For what it's worth, the final URL for that page is http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/454250/Titanic/. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Still down for me in both IE and Firefox, including your alternative link. It is therefore either a problem with my ISP or some form of geoblock (possibly related to the new EU data privacy laws). At least we don't have to fix a load of links, but if this is more than just a temporary problem it could lead to editors removing them because they think they are dead. Betty Logan (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, links don't work for me either at home or work in the UK, in multiple browsers. I still don't regret voting leave. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

As this goes to show there are extremely strong and powerful reasons for leaving the EU but let's not forget there are some very fine people on both sides. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I live in the suburbs of New York City and use Chrome and Safari on my desktop iMac. Both browsers linked directly to TCM's Titanic entry. The URL is the same as that indicated by Erik.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. It does definitely seem to be some sort of geoblock. I just accessed it through Wayback Machine and had no problem viewing the page even though I cannot access the site directly. It's pretty strange but at least we don't have to go about repairing a ton of links which was my main concern. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Just encountered it again at http://www.latimes.com/. This time I'm getting a message: "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." Betty Logan (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with an Indian newspaper website (I forget which one) when I was sourcing some cricket info earlier in the week. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's insane. Since when did the EU have jurisdiction over American and Indian websites?? Doesn't this go against the First amendment anyway? Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been going on for quite a while now. Use Google cache (prepend https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache: to the URL, e.g. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://en.wikipedia.org/) or Archive.org/.is, always works. I reckon these sites believe it's not worth it to turn off privacy invasive ads for EU users, but they're wary enough of EU laws (the companies that own them probably do other business in the EU) that they'll geoblock to comply instead. If that's true, I don't mind not viewing their ads in Google cache. Daß Wölf 21:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Betty, the first amendment only applies to US law. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but as I understand it websites are subject to the laws of the country that the servers are based in so I don't see how the EU has jurisdiction over US based websites. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in some feedback/suggestions on how other editors collaborate on film summaries.

In my specific case, I am encountering editors at the Back to the Future article who seem genuinely well-intentioned in fighting "plot bloat," but are increasingly discouraging others who are making a good faith attempt to contribute to the project.

When resolving a RfC back in January, @Llywrch: gave a gentle PSA about potential WP:Ownership issues [22], yet the situation has continued to worsen. Recent comments on the article's talk page seem to strongly discourage others from participating [23] and are more often than not focused on debating whether the summary should be edited (rather than the potential merits of the edits themselves). [24].

It would be great to get some feedback on how to best handle this. We all obviously want to contribute positively to this article. Thanks — Schistocyte ^(talk) 02:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't look at the edits in question, but you're exactly right that the edits themselves should always be taken into consideration. Discussions on the talk page should focus on the content of the edits and why any particular one was rejected. Comments like "we revert 95% of the changes" and "leave the plot alone" are counterproductive and could be considered indications of ownership behavior (which is unacceptable). Both sides should show mutual respect and be willing to listen to suggestions. Articles are never finalized, no matter how complete they may seem. In the same vein, editors new to an article should respect the time and effort of those who are actively maintaining it. Mass changes to a well-written section of a popular article isn't the right approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

In my experience there seems to be a general practice of discouraging changes to plot summaries unless there is a major issue. Basically, everyone will always have a different opinion on a summary and will always want to make changes, so once a group of editors have established a summary for a given film then changes for the sake of personal preference should be avoided. I know this can be a pain if you feel that you could improve the summary, but overall it saves a lot of trouble. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I stopped editing plot summaries a long time ago because of what Adam said. A film is going to be able to be described in so many ways that the plot summary will always be changing. Even if you think the summary is perfect as it is, it will be rewritten anyway (perhaps in full) on some later date. It is a lot of unnecessary grief to "protect" some "ideal" write-up. This energy is best spent on writing the rest of the article, and in my experience, article text based on secondary sources will rarely change. So I'd rather see editors worry less about the plot summaries (unless it's vandalism or becomes too long) and more about other sections, where their contributions will be much more lasting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to add the Parody films category to the article, but after doing some research I am confused. I mean, Simon Pegg stated it is not a parody (and he did it even twice), while some other sources say it is (e.g. Karen A. Ritzenhoff, Angela Krewani, The Apocalypse in Film: Dystopias, Disasters, and Other Visions about the End of the World, p. 89). I just don’t want to make a mistake, so if I could, I would like to ask you, as much more experienced users than me, about your opinnions. Can Shaun of the Dead be considered a spoof film? Thank you very much in advance. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The rise of postmodernism and "The Death of the Author" can make this difficult, as some academics will ignore authorial intent when writing about a work. It might be best resolved in prose rather than using categories. Categories can't give you any nuance or context. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Also note that while similar to parody to the untrained eye, there is a (small?) difference between parody, satire and pastiche. In the first article you mentioned, Pegg calls the movie a pastiche. Not that this helps solve your question in any way... :) --Gonnym (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, your comments are respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Request for Comment: Star Parivaar Awards. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

At Dog Treat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the directors have been listed as Wan Laiming and Wan Guchan since the article's creation in 2006. Recently, Clayblockmc changed the article to list Huang Wennong as the director. I reverted and commented on Clayblockmc's talk page. On my talk page, Clayblockmc told me the following: "In zh:中国动画列表(Chinese animation list), the author of Dog Treat is Huang Wennong(黄文农). This is my cause. But Chinese Wikipedia didn't have a good citation about Dog Treat, so I leave this uncited. I'll find a better citation later."

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any references cited in the article, so that would be my top concern. I came across this, but I'm not sure it's reliable enough to use. If we can't find anything to cover it, then the article probably shouldn't exist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I would like to know if we count reviews published by Indian newspapers equal to nationally known critics as required by WP:NFILM or do this kind of reviews support WP:GNG for notability? e.g. this (and many more) published by a non-notable critic. I personally believe that this kind of reviews are fine to be used in an article but not to support notability unless it's given by nationally known critics. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the reputation of the paper itself may be enough to "validate" the review. Times of India is a major national paper. A similar review in an American or British mainstream national paper would hardly ever be questioned. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Dodger67, I know and as I said there is no issue to include them in the articles but do we still count this kind of reviews as equal to nationally known critics to support NFILM? Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

How would I, an English speaking South African, even recognise whether a critic published in a Indian newspaper is "nationally known". The unstated problem here comes down to Anglosphere systemic bias. IMHO if the critic is good enough to be published in a highly reputable newspaper, who are we to decide that he or she is "not known". Many editors here at en.WP might know who the regular movie columnists are in the New York Times or Sydney Morning Herald, but how many of us have any clue who the "big dog" critics are in the Nepali or Rwandan press? The reputation of the paper itself should be the guide, not a random WP editor's personal opinion about a critic from a country halfway around the world writing in a language the Wikipedian cannot even read. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In short, national newspapers should be OK, but if you have any specific issues with a publication, then it's best to raise it at the reliable source noticeboard. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's just clumsy writing. Hardly anybody is nationally known unless they have been on TV. I think a couple of critics for nationally known newspapers would suffice, as far as WP:NFO goes. What the guideline is basically trying to do is filter out local interest where a non-notable local production might have some low-level media interest. My local newspaper (before it went bankrupt a couple of years ago) used to review school plays. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. Film reviews in widely-circulated periodicals are acceptable for both notability and referencing purposes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello.A notable actor may acted many junior actor/one scene/not important appearances before he/she becoming established actor.is it important to add all those films in their filmography in wikipedia? I like to know wikipeida policy about the same. Thank you Sameershan (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any policy on that. It would be up to consensus on the article's talk page. Some actors have too many roles to detail all of them. On these pages, sometimes we just give a brief overview of the most important roles, then spin-off the complete filmography into its own article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @NinjaRobotPirate: for your kind comment. This question is based on the filmography of Parvatii Nair which is currently being debated for several months. Apparently she was casted in few (2-3) movies but later moved out of the movie for whatever reasons. But since an announcement of her casting was already in the news, there are a few sources stating that she was casted, while in reality she left out. This has led to a situation of unreliable (fake?) sources. She herself had admitted in Interview and over emails(one such mail with Sameershan above and facebook)--DBigXray 13:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, if she didn't appear then the films shouldn't be included, perhaps in this case only using reliable sources post the film's release such as film reviews might clear it up, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Sometimes reviews don't mention smaller roles, so you have to be careful – but it's probably better to miss a role than to attribute the wrong role to her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: and @Atlantic306:, So based on your valuable comments above, it appears to me that it is NOT MANDATORY that the filmography of an actor be an exhaustive list of "ALL" the movies he appears and it is not mandatory to include all the movies even with minor 1 minute or cameo roles. Per my understanding of the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I believe this understanding that I just summarized above is justified. What do you say ? --DBigXray 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

How much information to include would depend on the consensus at the article's talk page, really. But if there's consensus to avoid listing certain roles, I think that would be justifiable from a policy standpoint. If you can't find consensus for the way you want to do it, you could try dispute resolution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see this discussion and the related talkpage conversation. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, and I think it's approaching GA status. One thing I have some trouble with is trying to make film's plot accessible to people who are unfamiliar with the film series. This was raised in at least one review, which said the series had become too confusing for non-fans to understand. Still, I'm sure this is a surmountable problem. Especially if you haven't seen any Hellraiser films, could you give this plot a look and see if it makes sense to you? It's difficult for me to judge this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It could do with some clarification. What is the background for Joey's investigation (para 2)? How did Terri come into possession of the box if it was trapped in a pillar (para 2)? How did Joey come into possession of the box (para 4)? How were Terri and Monroe killed (they seem to be living people early in the summary and then they are cenobites by paragraph 4)? I think I might even have seen this but remember absolutely nothing about it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I partially rewrote the plot. There's a thread at Talk:Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth#Comments regarding the plot where I responded to someone else's comments, which were similar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)