Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

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

Shortcut WT:FILM

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Just in case anyone's interested, these films celebrate anniversaries during the remainder of the year

• Fiddler on the Roof (1971, 40 years)
• Reds (1981, 30 years)
• Cape Fear (1991, 20 years)
• Monsters, Inc. (2001, 10 years)

- Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:35 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fiddler actually turns 40 in two days, FYI. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:38 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And Monsters is 10 today. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:18 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey y'all. Does anyone recall, or have an opinion on, if music videos fall within the scope of this project? Or if they classify as a film? I've ran into an issue at We Found Love (video). At first, I thought that the {{Infobox film}} was inappropriate for this article, as it seems that we mainly use it for feature films. However, we also have used it for short films and it seems that we can qualify it as film; the article music video considers them short films. It seems now, there is an issue over the disambiguator "(video)". If we consider these films, then it seems that we should use the same naming conventions explained at WP:NCF and use "(film)". Any input? BOVINEBOY2008 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a vacillation. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Firstly, film infoboxes are appropriate for both feature length and short films. And in looking at two cogent examples, Michael Jackson's Thriller video has an IMDB listing as a video and so does M.I.A.'s Born Free. For Micheal there is use of a film infobox. For M.I.A. there is use of one of the Music infobox templates. With cast, crew, production information and enough information to write a nicely encyclopedic article, we can treat the more major and well-covered ones under project film and allow use of a film infobox, without a big worry. The minor videos which do not provide similar high levels of sourcable production information, we should not and instead use an appropriate Music infobox template. No doubt this contradiction in usage will be hashed out at project music, and such as Thriller can and will be converted, but for now... we can let sleeping dogs snore peacefully and let Project Music make the final decision. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Thriller is a short film which contains the music video - it's much longer than just the song portion, and is properly termed a short film rather than a promotional video. The same goes for a few of Michael Jackson's videos, but I can't think of any other artists off hand. However, other famous videos, such as Peter Gabriel's "Sledgehammer", are just the song's length and are mostly produced for promotional purposes, no matter their notability or content. Unless it's likely to be filled out to a signicant degree of completion, I don't really know what the merits of using the film infobox really is for those, though. GRAPPLE X 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six of one, half a dozen of the others. :) At at 14 minutes Jackson's Thriller video is definitely longer than the song. Similarly, M.I.A.'s Born Free video at 9 minutes is more than double the length of the 4-minute song performed live Thus, both videos might be considered films based upon the shorter songs which inspired them. In these two examples, one uses a film infobox and the other uses a music infobox. So I suppose if the video is markedly longer in length than the song which inspired it, and can be considered a short film in and of itself, we might best use the film infobox. Not arguing for a radical change though, as all any infobox is for is to assist readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there used to be a {{Infobox Music Video}}, but it has since been redirected to {{Infobox film}}. I really think we should be consistent with videos and decide what all of them should use. And still, what naming conventions should be used? BOVINEBOY2008 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might wish to avoid drama. :) While I agree with consistancy, there was a rather heated discussion a few months back over at project Opera about whether or not to even use perosn infoboxes for opera singers, and if so, what to include and why. In the cases of film infoboxes for music videos, there will be those wishing to treat them as music only and include information about genre and studios and albums and more. Things not consistant with treating them as film. And too, often a music video does not have the same independent notability as does the music or musician, and would best be mentoned in the artist's article or song's article. So I think we might best to consider such on a case by case basis, and not declare some style that cannot be appiled equally to all.... and consider we really do not want to clutter up a film infobox with paramaters applicable only to music and musicians. Perhaps this question might best be asked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music? Just when do they consider a muic video as a film? The way I see it it is creating a drama when non need exist by drawing a hard line in the sand between film and music videos... specially as both were created for similar reasons. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing after coming across of a few of them. I'm on the fence because some of them have a lot of production value but they aren't films in the classic sense. Pink sweat is a really strange one I found. I would like to know what the consensus is because doing it on a video to video basis is going to create a lot of arguments. --Peppage^tlk 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. If you look carefully at the info box for The Dungeonmaster, you'll see that it's a little screwed up. I'd like to fix it, but I don't know how. Help would be appreciated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox? Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll know how to do that next time I see that kind of problem. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B movie has an article, but A Movie and A Film redirect to unexpected places. Anybody have any suggestions for sources to create an article? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the term "A Film/Movie" was never used to describe a "feature film", which usually was the main attraction in a two-film engagement. Main features were called just that - "main feature" or just "feature" - so I believe the article Feature film would cover that. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you had the "main feature" and the "B-feature", which of course were referred to as "feature films" and "B-movies" when considered as separate entities. I have never heard the term "A-movie" or "A-film". Can we demonstrate that these terms were ever actually used in this capacity? If they weren't, there is no need to change where they link to. Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, people in the business often used the term "A picture" when referring to films that were not B movies. This was a big issue among producers and exhibitors of Westerns in the 1930s, for instance, because A Westerns were in general not successful and thus most Westerns were B movies. One of the significant things about John Ford's Stagecoach was that it was a successful A picture. One scholar talks about Ford, John Wayne and the A picture here. And some of the ads even playfully emphasized that it was an A picture not a B movie, such as here. I think it would not be bad to have a short article on the A picture. Michitaro (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it was an American term mostly, you can read up on its origins here. The term does seem to be "A picture" though, so I am not sure to what extent "A Film" and "A movie" apply. A Film is a redirect so that could just made into a DAB; A Movie is an article, so maybe we can hatnote that with a link to Feature film. As for an article about the "A-Picture", it's basically just historic terminology for Feature film so I don't think a separate article is required. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "feature film" has multiple meanings. It can of course refer to the feature movie in a multiple film bill, which in many cases would be equivalent to the A picture. But when the term emerged, it was a feature picture because it was long, which is why feature film is also a term used to refer to films more than a certain length (e.g., feature-length movies). This definition is not equivalent to A picture, since B movies can also be feature length. The Wikipedia entry on feature film emphasizes the latter definition, so one can say that the meaning of "A picture" is not represented on Wikipedia. Michitaro (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "A-picture" was widely used in any context other than that used by the two sources as the apparent "opposite" of B-picture. Are they assuming that because there is such a thing as a "B-picture", there must be an "A-picture"? I tried to find "A-picture" in numerous movie term dictionaries, which do mention "B-pictures", and found none. If it was that common a term, you'd think it would at least appear in such places. Consequently, anyone creating an "A-picture" article would be hard-pressed to find sources that A)explain its origin and B)document its widespread use similar to the ubiquitous "B-picture", but they are welcome to try. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good encyclopedias like the Ephraim Katz encyclopedia do have it listed (p. 48 of the 6th edition). It is true that is that is an antiquated term. It is very much a term that denotes a particular form of distribution and exhibition practice (making and releasing double features) that does not exist anymore. B-movie as a term has survived because its meaning has changed or expanded. It no longer just refers to the second, lesser feature in a double feature, but to a kind of filmmaking or genre. The term A picture did not last, except in film scholarship on this period of double features, because what it referred to didn't really exist anymore (or more precisely, because all films became A pictures in the sense that they were the main film you were paying to see). Whether we have an article on it on Wikipedia is merely a question of whether people think it is important to talk about a real, definite, but past historical phenomena. There are plenty of such articles on Wikipedia. But it would take some digging and require some expertise to create a good article. But it would not be impossible because it is an established term among film historians (again, Katz cites it), and is used in dozens of books and articles. Michitaro (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me, then, that the best course for the OP to take regarding such an obsolete and relatively obscure term would be to use the sources you speak of to integrate any "A picture" material into the B movie article, as the two terms were originally used in the same context, then create a redirect from "A movie/film/picture" to B movie. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to help in straightening this article out? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 17:30 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done my bit. Lugnuts (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment some time back on the article's talk page in regards to the plot section, which seems overly-long and -complicated. I think that could be honed down considerably. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 06:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, when I was working on the articles You Are the Apple of My Eye and Starry Starry Night, I discovered that Box Office Mojo did not present the full gross figures for the two films. For example, the figures for Taiwan and China are not included, thereby greatly reducing their gross figures. Therefore, should I find other sources with reliable box office gross and add into the one presented by Box Office Mojo, or does anyone know of an alternative to Box Office Mojo? Thanks.--Lionratz (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To show your support (or opposition), make your voice heard here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:31 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I've asked this question before, but I can't rememeber in what forum, and, worse, I can't remember if there was a good answer. What is the difference between marking a film/role as "nominated" and "pending"? I just changed pending to nominated in the Ryan Gosling article and stuck my question (mostly from exasperation) in the edit summary. Right after I saved the change, a possible explanation occurred to me. Is it that pending means that no one has been selected a winner yet and nominated means the person/whatever lost and it's over? If that's true, is this explained anywhere? And doesn't that create a certain amount of extra work for us because we would always have to change pending to nominated or won later, whereas if it was marked nominated from the outset, we'd only have to change it to won if the person/thing won?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the awards lists I've seen with pending results have either "nominated" or "won", not "pending". It would seem logical to put "nominated", then when the outcome is known, either change it to "won" or just leave it as "nominated". Shirtwaist ☎ 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I see pendings quite a bit. Just now at Vanessa Redgrave.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending is for when no winner has been announced, nominated is for after if they have lost. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending makes much more sense for upcoming awards, as it is clearly a forward-looking status - should someone encounter an article with past awards still listed as "pending", it prompts them to update the article; with "nominated", they will just assume it did not lead to a win when in fact it might have and was never updated. GRAPPLE X 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That was my speculation, but, first, where is that stated anywhere, and, second, how is the reader supposed to know that?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm a little confused... I've always seen "Nominated for X award" used after the list of candidates was announced but before the results of the voting were determined and announced. Before the list is announced though it has been "rumored", "likely to be", "should be" etc. - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw rumored or some such thing, I'd remove it. I don't believe "pending" is intended to indicate that the person hasn't actually been nominated, just that the winner has not yet been announced.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "The results are pending the televised gala event." makes sense, but only with regard to an article on the awards. With regard to the people up for the awards there are two states: "X has been/was nominated for Y award." and "Z won Y award." "Pending" makes no sense in those cases. - J Greb (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "nominated for" is completely independent of a timeframe, and can be dated very easily - and could then appear wrong if an award winner's article is not edited to reflect the win. It will then read as though they were nominated and lost. "Pending" easily counteracts this by being completely reliant on time. GRAPPLE X 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pending", if not edited to reflect the outcome, would also be wrong after a certain point, and might conceivably (although unlikely) be confused with "Pending nomination" instead of "pending final outcome". "Nominated" is a statement of fact, and will remain so if the person doesn't win, in which case no action is needed. "Pending", OTOH, will always have to be amended eventually one way or the other. Anyway, I seriously doubt there will be any significant lag time between an artist winning an award and the "nominated" being updated, as there's always some fan itching to do that for their favorite artist(me included). Shirtwaist ☎ 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TABLES talks about awards tables in general, but doesn't cover this particular aspect of awards on individual BLPs. I don't see any other guidelines covering this either. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending nomination? If they haven't been nominated and someone used it for pending nomination then that would just be Crystal Balling it and it would go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about how the reader might interpret "pending", not how an editor might use it. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussion. Reminds me of this article close to my heart. In this context, I think pending is apt with regards to the heading "result". Change it, and I will edit war you until I die. Lugnuts (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to reach consensus here about whether "nominated" or "pending" is appropriate when filling in the "result" column in this circumstance. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I don't understand your point unless it's just intended to be facetious.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that of the 60 or so on that list, only five will become nominated. You can't have a one-size fits all approach to this. Lugnuts (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that list have to do with what we're talking about - which is lists of awards and nominations on individual BLPs? Shirtwaist ☎ 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pending" does seem to conflict with WP:RECENT, and places an immediacy on the updating of information, and "Pending" actually becomes incorrect once the winners are announced, while "Nominated" still remains correct even after the subject goes on to win. However, I can see the logic in allowing the reader to know that the winners have not yet been announced, so would there be any value in using the {{show by date}} template?

  Example one: {{show by date|2011|12|11|Pending|Nominated}} produces Nominated

  Example two: {{show by date|2012|12|11|Pending|Nominated}} produces Nominated

This would mean only the winner's nomination would have to be addressed and all others would be updated automatically. The winner would also be updated too if not addressed straight away, but since a winner is still "nominated" then it would just become out of date, not actually incorrect. Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely follow, no doubt due to my thickheadedness. Perhaps you could give a concrete example of the nomination process (with dates) and how the template would help. By giving two date examples above, you've confused me as we'd have only one template, I assume, in any given entry. I can't figure out when you want it to say pending as opposed to nominated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only need one template; once the current date reaches the date in the template, then the text will change from "Pending" to "Nominated". So if you set the date to the day after the Oscars for example, then the day after the oscars all the "Pending"s will be updated to "Nominated". The only one we as editors will have to change will be the person who has won, which we would have to do anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments. First, during the pending part, how would the reader know what pending means? Frankly, I don't like the use of a word that means something other than what actually happened. Not that I'm crazy about it, but one way around this would be to use "Nominated (pending accouncement of winner)", which would then change to just "Nominated" after the date specified in the template. Second, it puts a burden on us to not only know that the person was nominated but when the announcement will be made as to the winner. This may be relatively easy for major awards like Oscars, but not as easy for lesser-known awards. It also puts the burden on patrollers (like me) to verify not only that the person was in fact nominated (it's rarely sourced directly), but also that the date in the template is correct. All in all, although an interesting (and clever) proposal, doesn't it strike you as a bit of overkill?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It possibly is "overkill", I was mainly trying to offer a compromise between the two camps. Using "pending" is really an argument for not adding the information at all until the winner is announced, but then if the nominations are still notable then there is no reason why the nominations can't be added straight away. Like I said above, documenting a subject as "nominated" is true even if the winner has not yet been announced, since a winner doesn't stop being nominated, so documenting all the nominess as "nominated" and then just updating the winner probably sits best with the policies. But that said, I still think there is some value in letting readers know that the nominee could still win the award, it's an issue of clarity as well as factual accuracy. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we haven't established a consensus on how to handle the issue, which means in real life we will continue to have some editors use pending and some editors using nominated. And at least some readers won't have any idea what pending means.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betty - I don't understand why both of your example temps produce "nominated". Did you mean the first temp produces "pending"? If they both make "nominated", what's the point? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yes, I've corrected it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're saying. That would save a lot of effort, wouldn't it. If there are 5 nominees, only the winner needs updating, thus cutting the work by 4/5ths, right? Sounds good to me! Now, if we could just devise a template that automatically detects winners...;} Another option would be:

• {{show by date|2011|12|11|Nominated pending outcome|Nominated}} producing Nominated and
• {{show by date|2012|12|11|Nominated pending outcome|Nominated}} producing Nominated. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an awards event is not notable enough that you know it happened, it probably shouldn't be being paid attention to in an article Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good in theory, but in practice, it's hard to know where to draw the line. I figure if the award has a Wikipedia article, it's good enough. If it doesn't, I (sometimes) look for any secondary coverage about the award. More frequently, I just throw up my hands because of the amount of work involved. There are LOTS of editors that update awards sections for actors and films all the time, and it's a thankless task to patrol their edits for sourcing and for notability of the award.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment: I saw "pending" used in some articles the other day, but it was under the column header of "result". So, in that context, pending makes sense, right? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a nice to see an example, but how does that make sense? Not to literal ole me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember which article it was, but after having a look around, they all seem to have the column header of "result". My bad. But anyway, it does make sense, doesn't it? It's saying X was nominated for Y award, and the result of that nomination is pending. But because you asked for an example, here's one: Captain America: The First Avenger#Accolades. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate some further input. Note that I nominated it after seeing it WP:REFUNDed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there isn't an article for the 2012 Disneynature film Chimpanzee. A number of reliable sources have reported on the film, including SlashFilm and Collider. It's not too early to create this page, is it? Also, which article title would work better Chimpanzee (film) or Chimpanzee (2012 film)? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite subject - films that have yet to enter production! Anyone have anything to add? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so after about a month of discussion, we've come up with the following template. Noone so far has any problems with it, so I figured I'd check with everyone here. If you have any feedback, yell out.

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot italicize the film title even after using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. Can someone see through the problem? DdraconiandevilL (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I could get it to work was by moving {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to the bottom, thus solving overrides from {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox album}}. jonkerz♠ 07:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, editors seem to use the film poster to determine who the stars of a film are for purposes of listing in the infobox. Has this ever been codified as a guideline, is it simply something editors have done on their own, or has there been discussion on this in the past? It seems to be a decent rule of thumb, even if it is not consistently used by all editors, as nonstarring roles are not listed on film posters. I ask, in part, because of recent edits on the Dark City article, in which what I believe is a nonstarring role has been repeatedly added to the lede and infobox. It seems to me that the four actors listed at the top of the poster are the stars, all others are supporting. Any thoughts on this? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 06:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is a centralized discussion, but I do know that we generally follow the poster as guidance so as to remain objective. With regard to Dark City, O'Brien is in the poster, along with a 6th individual when they poster identifies "starring". Just because they are not at the top part of the poster doesn't mean that they are listed as "starring". In the credits at the bottom of the poster, that is where you will see it list starring roles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posters are a good thing to be able to point to as it stops people just adding everyone in the film or people they think had a starring role purely because they like the actor/actress in question. Without the poster it's purely based on the editors own judgement, which means every editor will have a different opinion Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed repeatedly and at great length. The production poster is the authority as it matches the film credits. There may be a question at times about how many actors to include, but the original production poster is the most reliable source. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox instructions call for listing actors with "major roles" in the film, while WP:FILMLEAD merely asks for "star or stars" in the lead. Personally, I'd go with the actors who are featured most prominently on the poster as being the "stars". (In DC's case, that would be: Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly and William Hurt.) Shirtwaist ☎ 23:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2¢-ish

It looks like the infobox instructions and FILMLEAD need to be updated to take into account current consensus on best source for the list. That said, there is still going to be the possibility that there will be exceptions, but those need to be hashed out on the various article talk pages, and if challenged, need to show consensus that it is an exception to the general guidelines.

- J Greb (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we follow the production poster is so that we are not engaging in OR. "Most prominently" on a poster is a matter of judgement and uses an unreliable source (the publicist) instead of the reliable source of the production. This has already been covered ad nauseum in discussion on the infobox page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strong disagree with that characterization, Ring Cinema. It is not OR to look at the film poster, featured as it is at the top of the infobox, and list those actors featured most prominently, as Shirtwaist put it, on it. I also see no reason to regard that source as any less reliable. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, we could use some additional input at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)#Writing Credits. Essentially Thunderlippps (talk · contribs) is insisting that some of the credited writers on the film did not in fact have anything to do with it, and has resorted to edit-warring to get his way. Any additional opinions would be welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Ok, the main reason for this discussion was the heated argument taking place here. The question arises : For Indian films, should we use independent, third party sources for gross figures or rely more on the distributor's information taken from other reliable sources like newspapers? If we lack updated sources, should we wait till one party releases the required report, or use whatever we have and wait? Please post your opinions here and before you do, please take a look at this guideline. Thank you! X.One ^SOS 13:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To my comfort, I usually look at the distributor values because they know the best; after all, that's why they are the distributors. However, I do not object to third-party sources, provide the source includes all possible streams of revenue. I know that this discussion is coming up due to all the problems regarding Ra.One, but I feel taking the distributors' word is better since they include all the theatrical revenue, including multiple languages and/or 3D. AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Infobox can include the reports from box office sites like Box office Mojo and Boxofficeindia.com and if conflicting views exist, we can put it all in the "Box office" section, without violating Wp:CHERRY. X.One ^SOS 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also this releated AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The only consideration is whether the sources are RS or not. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources as per WP:RS, and I would say that a distributor qualifies as a primary source. The distributor may "know best" but that doesn't necessarily translate into accurate reporting of the figures. If two reliables sources conflict, then both figures should be included, possibly using a range like we do with budgets on some articles. Editors "choosing" which reliable source to go with violates WP:CHERRY and WP:NPOV, and even if there is a consensus for a particular source, policy trumps consensus. But the bottom line is that reliable secondary sources should take precedence over primary sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest for inclusion in the Infobox if primary and secondary sources conflict? X.One ^SOS 15:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well looking further at the sources I'm not sure Box Office India qualifies as a reliable source. According to their about page their figures aren't actually audited submissions from exhibitors, so I don't think you can elevate estimated data above data from a primary source. If Box Office India are estimating their data rather than reporting it, then that technically makes them a primary source too. I would be reluctant to include either set of data unless it is subsequently reported in secondary sources. Given the primary nature of both sets of data either both should be included or none at all. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• BOI must be made a standard site for box office figures of Bollywood sites, esp. when independent and third-party sources should be used on Wikipedia and distributors like Kamal Jain who inflate (and sometimes reduce) data to their own benefit (see the relevant talk pages for clarification); just like BOM is being used for Hollywood. 'Nuff Said! Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how sourcing works on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Box Office Mojo reports real data for the most part, whereas Box Office India estimates its data as I pointed out above, so there isn't a direct comparison; BOI is not an independent third-party source because it is creating the data, not reporting it, so its status as a reliable source needs to be established. Can you provide reliable secondary sources that cite Box Office India to establish it as a reliable source? Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty. I didn't really mean direct comparisons, but BOI is the most reliable third-party (something other than the principals directly involved in an agreement) and independent (not controlled by an official party or an interest group, and with editorial insight) resource we could get. I agree it doesn't report real data but its reliability has been extensively discussed time and again. Regarding the sources, here are just a few: Times of India, Economic Times and Hindustan Times. I'm done with this, and I hope I made myself clear. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a sad sight today: the state of Wings, the first Best Picture Academy Award winner. How have we neglected this for so long, it's such a historic and legendary film. And it's 85 years old next year (another major film anniversary). Shall we all chip in and make this the way it deserves to be. RAP (talk) 21:58 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have created User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. It is questionable whether the article passes WP:GNG. I started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Alfonso_Gomez-Rejon_.3F that has not gotten much feedback and none since I have done the sandbox creation. I need some more feedback on whehter this article is ready for article space either for WP:FILMMAKER #3 or for WP:IAR rationales.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Push it into the article-space and see if any clown sends it to AfD. Nothing ventured... Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and this. They smack of hoaxes to me, but I could be wrong. Both created by the same user, no refs given, nothing on Google, etc. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]