Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 84

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and even newer to editing Film pages themselves, but stumbled upon the page for Dutchman (film) and, having seen the film, realized the notes on plot were a bit lacking. I'd like to assist with expanding this page, but wanted to ask for some clarification/guidelines for a new editor when it comes to editing a page like this. Are citations needed for a plot summary? Is there any introductory guidelines to writing something like that? Any information would be much appreciated. WW0CJ (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@WW0CJ You can refer to MOS:FILMPLOT for the guideline regarding plots in film articles. Citations are usually not needed for plots as the film would be the primary source itself. (P.S. Welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you will enjoy editing here.) Jolly1253 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. There's an ongoing discussion regarding the recent changes to the plot and lead sections of The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, which can be found at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride#Changes to the plot and lead. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

A discussion regarding this question is currently active at Talk:Murder, Inc. (1960 film)#Requested move 22 March 2024. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

When creating a list of cast members for a film (both in the main article and in the infobox), should the credits of the film be the basis for how the list is ordered, or a "billing block" found on a poster or elsewhere? For this page, a billing block from the poster was used, but the credits of the film lay things out differently, re-ordering the cast members and calling some of the stars from the poster "supporting cast." Wafflewombat (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Either can be used, but the default is typically to follow the billing block unless special local consensus has determined otherwise. If an article has done it a certain way for a very long time, it shouldn't be arbitrarily changed without a reason and without discussion, per MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You also use what's available. There isn't always a billing block on the film's poster, so check the beginning and end credits of a film. If there are discrepancies, a local consensus should determine how to go about it. Before a film's theatrical release, reviews and articles from reputable publications that list a film's stars and main cast can be used as a guide. Lapadite (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with MOS:FILMCAST? The general idea is to try to follow a rule of thumb (as opposed to deciding for yourself what the order should be). Generally speaking, the billing block can suffice, but if there are different orders available, try to see which order is more prevalent, whether in databases or in books that write about the film (since they sometimes do a cast list as part of that coverage). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• The billing for Jedi is as follows:

• Strangely Kenny Baker doesn't get mentioned at all in the prominent film credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pattern at Godzilla Minus One in regards to multiple sources being cited, see here. As you can see, some footnotes claiming "attributed to multiple sources" cite 5 sources, one even cites 8 sources -- but isn't this a violation of WP:CITEKILL? Or is there an acceptable variation of this pattern that I'm missing? Armegon (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It is acceptable to combine multiple references per WP:CITEMERGE, usually how I do it is put all of the cite templates inside a single set of ref tags, which would be cleaner than the solution used here. For example, many of the inline citations at Peacemaker (TV series)#Viewership combine multiple sources that cover viewership data for different weeks. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Mixing explanatory footnotes and these kinds of bundled references under the same heading of "Notes", as is done at Godzilla Minus One#Notes, should however be avoided. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that shouldn't happen. I would recommend doing something similar to John Wick (film)#Footnotes. I should also note that an efn with a list of <ref>'s (while common) is not the only way to do this; some articles just use a regular <ref> tag followed by a bulleted list. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this has been brought up here before. The purpose of bundling citations is to avoid CITEKILL, so no, it does not violate CITEKILL. Bundling is done pretty widely on Wikipedia, not just on film articles (especially for EXCEPTIONAL claims where bundling citations is essentially required). InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you all for responding. Armegon (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In trying to wikilink to Industrial film and Industrial films, I noticed that they went to two different articles. Are these the same topic?4meter4 (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as how Industrial films redirects to Sponsored film which links to industrial video as a type of sponsored film, then I would say yes and fix the plural redirect. Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, I obtained an incredible source: It's called the ACE Second Decade Anniversary Book. It has many biographies and deaths of various film editors that have never been posted on the internet before, as well as a summary of the Eddie Awards from 1961–1971. The some of the death dates are not 100% accurate, but most of them are.

Here's some changes that I've made using that book as a source:

• Conrad A. Nervig - I used multiple sources to highlight his time in the military before he began work as film editor.
• American Cinema Editors Award for Best Edited Feature Film - They gave out TWO awards in 1969!
• George Boemler - I completed his birth and death date using a combination of Ancestry.com (which I didn't cite) and the ACE book (which I did cite).
• George Tomasini - Added more context to his death date using a partially available film journal and the ACE book in hand.

Furthermore, I created the first FOUR Eddie Awards pages, using additional sources from Newspapers.com:

• American Cinema Editors Awards 1962
• American Cinema Editors Awards 1963
• American Cinema Editors Awards 1964
• American Cinema Editors Awards 1965

The 1965 one is an INCREDIBLE article, considering that it was the FIRST ever award by the group that introduced the "Eddie" awards. It also had multiple categories and a surprising amount of coverage from the Newspapers.com sources, including ONE source that is more complete than the IMDb listing for the award. Thus, I want some people to help me create all of the articles from 1962–2006, as well as clean-up and expand 2007–2021. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)#Hidden comment in plot summary that may be of interest to this project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Having gone through these two categories,African films and African cinema, I feel the contents should both be put under one mother category...perhaps Category:African film and television? This would have all the African film and television content under one mother category for easy sorting and location of related articles. We're trying to integrate the https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/ to the WikiProject AfroCreatives, but it can only link to a single category. Linking it to either African films or African cinema would leave out a lot of articles that could worked on, hence my recommendation to have the put under a mother category. Ceslause (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem with a lot of articles of recent films having the exact same defined order of section and subsection headings, which is not community-endorsed. That particular defined order is due to certain editors persistently going around and applying such changes. This has led other editors to incorrectly assume that this is the standard and that we need to follow that very specific structure every time.

The order should depend on the content available for that topic, and I have noticed a lot of skinny "Release" sections that are separate from any box office content, and MOS:OVERSECTION says, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." For most films, this means that just the film's release date is covered in one section, and the box office figures are covered in another section. Where the coverage is minimal, it is completely possible and reasonable to have that coverage together in a fuller section. Claiming that the separation is "always" done elsewhere is not a reason in itself. I encourage editors to structure articles based on the topic's content and not on a fake standard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it ok to call a movie a "classic" in an encyclopedia as a factual statement? I have a problem with this, because to me it sounds like praise.

I've discussed this with a number of people and some make the claim, that you only need to be able to quote enough people who are saying that a movie is a classic, to call it a classic.

But wouldn't that be like saying a movie is "good", and providing "sources" for that claim? Since there is hardly anything that is liked by literally everyone, i think saying "this movie is a classic" should be avoided in favor of saying "this movie is (widely) considered a classic".

"It is considered a classic" is provable. "It is a classic" is not really provable.

In my view it is probably ok to use the world "classic" when referring to something that is not from the modern era. "Romeo and Juliet" for example.

Some people seem to be of the opinion, that the word "classic" just means that a movie is very influential. But then why not just say that instead? The movie "Chinatown" for example has 98% on Rotten Tomatoes which means there are critics who gave it a bad review. They would certainly agree that the movie has been influential, but i don't think they would call it a classic. They would agree that it is "widely considered a classic" though, because that is a fact.

Why? Because the word "classic" encompasses two things: First, the general status of a movie and second the perceived quality of a movie (by the one using the word). That's the way i see it. Some people don't seem to see it that way at all but i'm not sure why.

Would be happy to hear a few opinions on this. Thanks! Dornwald (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For many films the single word seems an apt descriptor per WP:BLUESKY. Films such as It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, and Wizard of Oz come to mind as universally accepted classic films. The age of the film plays a role in the terminology, as newer films have not yet earned such a descriptor, but the older films which have merit Blue Sky wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. It has to be verifiable that a film is a classic. Not to mention that the films you mentioned are US-centric. Would you balk at seeing The Apu Trilogy being called a classic? The proper guideline to apply is WP:PEACOCK in which we would contextualize the application of such a label. The word "classic" is a qualifier like "famous" or "good" and needs to be verified. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You can't verify "good", that's part of my point. Dornwald (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can, in the example seen at WP:PEACOCK. It has to be given context. Like, "Critics called it a good film," if a reliable source said that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

right. "critics call it a classic" is also fine by me. "it is a classic" is not. Dornwald (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

To expand, a more basic description would be to call so-and-so film an early example of whatever genre. "Early" does not indicate quality. Maybe it was one of the first, but that does not mean it has notoriety. To say that something is a classic is that it is "serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value" (according to Merriam-Webster). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would generally expect to see "It is considered a classic" with supporting sources, rather than Wikipedia labelling it an objective "classic". - adamstom97 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Supporting sources justify using the term without adding the "it is considered a" descriptor. Classic, in this use, has a definitive meaning that would apply with brevity. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But it is still just the opinion of of those sources, it isn't a genre or similar label that is objective. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand the viewpoint, and this is a good discussion of the use of the term on Wikipedia. I would think that the bare descriptor is also widely used for novels as well as films, and so further Wikiprojects should be alerted if a change is to be made, and maybe an RfC instead of a brief discussion here would clarify. As with all things on Wikipedia, some exceptions are both allowed and encouraged (which could apply to some works and not others). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn Where could an RfC discussion take place? Dornwald (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably not needed, as it looks like I may be on a one-editor raft. It just seems an obvious word for some films, per WP:BLUESKY, but if it can't be applied to Wizard of Oz without being cited or couched in "some critics say"... Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not an appropriate word to use in wikivoice anymore than describing a film as garbage tier, dope, legendary, or totally sick would be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you can't call a film a "classic". You can quote a reviewer who thinks it's a classic in the reception section with attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is a core policy and can't be overridden by local consensus. If people try to do so, let me know, and I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I would expect to see phrases like "considered a classic". Similar to Tom Brady, which states "widely regarded as the greatest quarterback of all time", as opposed to outright making the claim (which, I would disagree with personally, as I consider Joe Montana to be the greatest). That being said, I wouldn't preemptively announce an intention to block someone for using particular verbiage - which could easily be seen as a good faith edit - after voicing an opinion on the topic, potentially rendering the admin to be involved. However, that is neither here nor there regarding the discussion at hand. Useight (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be made clear to people somehow. A lot of people think the word "classic" is different than say the word "good" and if you change it they don't understand that at all. There are examples all over wikipedia. I would say more than half of the people i talked to about this think "classic" is just an objective descriptor. Dornwald (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the word 'classic' is very different than the word good. NinjaRobotPirate may ban me for linking this, but see Classic book which shows that the subject and wording is often a "thing". Randy Kryn (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"A classic is a book accepted as being exemplary or particularly noteworthy."

Nothing is ever 100% "accepted" by literally everyone and even if it were you can't prove that (you'd have to talk to every single person or critic on the planet).

"What makes a book "classic" is a concern that has occurred to various authors"

All of this just proves my point that you can't state it as an objective fact. Dornwald (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The words "classic" and "good" are not synonyms. A person can (though doesn't have to), exit a movie theater and say, "That was a good movie" without also believing that same movie to be a classic movie. However, they are both subjective adjectives, making it preferable to word it carefully. That doesn't mean we can't use the word classic (or other subjective terms). For example, Robert Wadlow says, "His great size". The word great is subjective and it's not couched in carefully crafted words or cited by a source. We don't want to devolve into pedantry. If you want to change the wording on articles referring to various films as classic and/or add sources that refer to said movie as a classic, I don't suspect anyone is going to stop you. Useight (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course they stop me, that's why i started this discussion. "His great size" refers to an objective fact (him being taller than other people). Dornwald (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Being the objectively taller doesn't not inherently and objectively make it great. Perhaps I only consider twelve feet tall to be great size. As far as being previously stopped, I assume you're referring to this edit, which got undone because you made the change during the discussion about it on Talk:It's a Wonderful Life. It's best to leave the article untouched until the discussion runs its course. Useight (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone else told me to just change it in the discussion, instead of talking about it so... Dornwald (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we need to focus on the specific issue at hand because it is awfully vague to talk about the label of "classic" in isolation. It was about It's a Wonderful Life and the use of "classic" there. It seems like it was this edit. "Classic" is used elsewhere in the article body, and I don't know if that is being contested too. But in the "Remakes" sentence, I don't think we need to use "classic" there; it could just be "original" or not even have an adjective at all since "film" obviously refers to the topic. It seems like the other uses of "classic" elsewhere in the article body have sufficient enough context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, this is not about It's a Wonderful Life, it's about the use of the word in general. Dornwald (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not as simple as "the use of the word in general". We know we can use the word, but it completely depends on the context and the other words around it. Do you have a problem with the word "classic" being used elsewhere in that film article? It's used five other times. Do you have any issue with any of these five uses? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, i don't. I find "it became a classic" semi-ok (because it must refer to the way the perception of the movie changed, given that the movie itself didn't change. the problem of verifiability remains though. but it doesn't sound like praise to me). Dornwald (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with treating "classic" as a BLUESKY situation is that while the sky is blue is as objective a thing as you can determine, what a "classic film" even means is subjective, as this very conversation illustrates. (Some will take it to mean it's good, some will mean it's stood the test of time; others will call some of the examples above influential films but not necessarily classic.) It's also worth pointing out who is calling it classic; film critics are a major component of critical reception, but they're not the be-all and end-all, and there's demographic pitfalls (I'm sure there are some who don't consider Gone with the Wind a "classic" because of its message and racial politics.) If a film really is universally considered a classic... there shouldn't be any issue finding a plethora of quality sources that will say so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is ever "universally" considered anything. 8 billion people will never 100% agree on anything, and even if they did there's no way of proving it. Dornwald (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note the difference between denotation and connotation. The connotation of "universal" means "very widely", not "literally every". Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. David Fuchs is saying that if there is, indeed, a wide span of people who consider a movie to be a classic, then there would exist some reliable sources stating as such. And, in the event that such sources exist, then we can easily proceed noting that the movie is, in fact, considered to be a classic and provide said source. Please note that the text "considered to be a classic" and other similar phrases do not imply that it is considered to be a classic by everyone and the reader should not infer as such. Useight (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"considered to be a classic" is fine by me. Dornwald (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aadujeevitham (film)#Requested move 29 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An editor has requested that List of Korean films of 1919–1948 be moved to List of films produced in Korea under Japanese rule, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. toobigtokale (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This discussion still needs some input, please help out. toobigtokale (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Solaris (1972 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi everyone,

Michael Myers (Halloween) is under GA review at the moment. Does anyone have some time to go over to help address some of the issues with the page, as mentioned in the GAR on the talk page? I'm very swamped in real life and don't have the time to spend to go through the page and clean up some of the irrelevance that has crept in, as well as expand on some sections (e.g., reception). So, I'm hoping some film/horror enthusiasts, or just some willing editors with more time, can help out. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a discussion regarding the Monsters, Inc. article that may be of interest to to members of this project. The discussion can be found at Talk:Monsters, Inc.#Banish or Exile. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Everything_Everywhere_All_at_Once#Evelyn_Quan_Wang_character_article, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ae Fond Kiss...#Requested move 1 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cutthroat Island#Plot, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have started a requested move discussion for this article, which was recently given unnecessary disambiguation following the announcement of an upcoming film that may potentially have a similar name. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I've opened up a discussion regarding the plot summary for A Christmas Carol (2009 film) over at Talk:A Christmas Carol (2009 film)#Plot summary. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, this article about an American film composer is waiting review since a couple of months back. It has been marked with GA status. Please advice if there is anything that needs improvement, or if I should just be patient and wait.

Draft:Camara Kambon AnamSoul (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Toy Story 3#Plot discussion, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I have two questions:

1. What is the correct way to cite a film?
2. What is the correct way to cite a featurette or documentary that appears on a Special Features DVD that is packaged with a film?

Wafflewombat (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe you'd want to use Template:Cite AV media. For an example of usage, "Space Pilot 3000" has a bunch of Cite video templates that actually redirect to the AV media one and are being used to reference commentary tracks, so that could serve as a good example. DonIago (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion about the reliability of Mental Floss? I'm looking specifically at this article, which cites research by Michael Heilemann at kitbashed.com. Kitbashed appears to be an armchair research project and Heilemann doesn't appear to have any scholarly credentials, but nevertheless his website is cited by Mental Floss, and his research does look pretty good (and interesting). Wafflewombat (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes you can find past discussions at WP:RSN, such as this one: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Mental Floss. I would tend to agree with the feedback in that 2021 thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor has recently altered the release dates at List of Neon films to represent the awards-qualifying release dates (aka a "qualifying runs"). These are essentially one-week theatrical releases in one of six U.S. cities in the calendar year, which certifies a film eligible for the Academy Awards. The film is then given a limited and/or wider release in the following calendar year. But is an awards-qualifying release date appropriately represented as the "earliest release date" in this article or elsewhere such as film infoboxes? The impression I get from this type of release is similar to what I get with advanced screenings such as sneak previews, which are excepted at WP:FILMRELEASE. Οἶδα (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, these qualifying runs would qualify as the earliest release dates if there are none earlier (like with film festival premieres earlier in the year). A lot of award contenders come out around this time (late December) to make the cut for the ceremony early in the next year, and they often get reviewed (and their specialty box office results covered). Like even if they make big box office at some point in 2024, they're still "2023" films. Sneak previews never really seem covered in that way, as I never see that kind of advanced screening usefully covered in reliable sources. Not sure if that clears up anything. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate the response. It seems to make more sense to me now. However, I was wondering what the infobox date should be in a situation like Origin (film):

Origin had its world premiere at the 80th Venice International Film Festival on September 6, 2023 [...] It had a one-week qualifying run in New York and Los Angeles on December 8, 2023, officially opened in limited theatrical release on January 19, 2024, expanded to a wider release on January 26, 2024.

Οἶδα (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be the film festival date. There have been films that were released at a film festival one year but are released commercially (in theaters or streaming) the next year, and they're categorized under the prior year.

We try for the earliest release date to just keep it direct. What others said about sneak previews is sort of right, though world premieres can be exclusive too. I think it gets back to the fact that sneak previews are universally underreported in reliable sources. There's no fanfare, and there are no reviews being published (perhaps being disallowed), where the other types of releases have that. To have a public release is to be "published" in the public eye, if that makes sense. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 10:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A qualifying release is still a release, i.e. anyone can buy a ticket and go see the movie, even if it's not advertised much. Advanced screenings OTOH don't count because they're invite-only. Nardog (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it is still a release. Although, I recall attending preview screenings many years ago but I don't remember them being by-invitation only. They were available to the paying public, though you weren't always guaranteed a spot even if you bought a ticket. Are all sneak preview screenings invite-only? Οἶδα (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but they are generally expected to be for a small group of fans/critics/celebs etc. and that differentiates them from an early screening where anyone from the public could by a ticket and attend. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi I was wondering if MRQE or the movie review query engine and the critics choice scores could be added to a films reception? They both use the same critics like meta critic and rotten tomatoes and both there score seem reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acynet (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Acynet. I think that MRQE needs to be more widespread per WP:USEBYOTHERS to warrant inclusion. I was interested in using this years ago, but in retrospect, MRQE has not really caught on. Wikipedia follows the real world, so if MRQE or something like it ever becomes used by others, we could then seriously consider using it in film articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As as for critics choice? I’d think those are usable since we lost there’s awards on each films page Acynet (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to with critics choice? Do you mean Critics' Choice Movie Awards or something else? If you mean the awards, I assume they can be listed in awards/accolades tables like others. I'm not familiar with an aggregate score for a film. Can you link to an example, if that's what you mean? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Here https://members.criticschoice.com/movie-archive/

they basically use the same reviews as rotten tomatoes and meta critic and calculate it the same way Acynet (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this more clear ? Acynet (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean now! I am not seeing much detail about the score (like how many critics were counted as part of the score), and it's like MRQE in that I have not seen reliable sources cover it. I don't think it's usable, unfortunately. We can see what other editors think. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

They use 602 members that each vote on movies as and here’s every member https://members.criticschoice.com/members-page/ Acynet (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'd like an opinion from you: Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe), Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe), Arthur Curry (DC Extended Universe) and Diana Prince (DC Extended Universe) are all encyclopedic articles? I don't want to nominate these articles for deletion before a discussion, because I'm not sure about the encyclopedicity of these subjects. Redjedi23 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) EDIT: In alternative, could we merge some of these articles to Characters of the DC Extended Universe?

I find these standalone articles about the fictional characters to be notable. WP:SIGCOV says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is more a matter of grouping content related to the DC Extended Universe, and sometimes content is repeated in the process of having different scopes. Like DC Extended Universe will repeat a lot of information on a high level from across the films (critical reception, box office, etc), a standalone character article can repeat information on a high level from a character-centric scope and perhaps get more detailed in that scope where it would not fit in a broader scope. (For example, film articles' "Critical reception" sections focus on the film as a whole, where character articles can focus more on what film critics said about the characters.)

Think of these articles as being split off from Characters of the DC Extended Universe due to level of detail, like what we see at List of Smallville characters, with some characters having their own article and others just having a section in that list.

However, getting back to these DCEU articles, I wouldn't object to reducing the in-universe content in some of them; it looks like it is too much fictional detail in some places. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it true that "any article on any particular film should point users to other adaptations of a single work"? KyleJoan^talk 05:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Mostly it seems redundant to me because there's already a navbox that covers the various film adaptations. Since the editor you're in dispute with has started a discusssion at the article's Talk page, perhaps you might bring that up to see whether it addresses their concerns? DonIago (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's worth noting in the article, it should. Navboxes do not appear for mobile readers. Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking to resolve that local dispute via this discussion. I was asking whether film articles must list every other adaptation with which it shares the same source material, as that user said, which you both partly answered, so thank you. KyleJoan^talk 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize that. (Sue me, I like using Wikipedia on my laptop.) That makes a big difference. Of the last 20 days, Little Women has 59,203 views overall, and 16,077 them are desktop view, meaning that the rest of them are mobile app and mobile web. Nearly 73% of visitors don't see the template. I'm a little surprised this inaccessibility hasn't been addressed yet. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned at WP:NAVBOX, though not emphasized, and it wasn't something I was consciously thinking about with regards to this question either. Rather than listing every single adaptation, it would seem preferable to me to have a single link to 'List of Little Women film adaptations' or such, but I'm not advocating for creating an article versus linking to an anchor within an existing article or finding a more optimal approach. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, an anchor link seems appropriate, like a "See also" section linking to Little Women § Film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Dark Castle Entertainment, an editor who works for them has proposed a revision and is using the {{edit COI}} template. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment § Proposed updates. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, some editors are attempting to shoehorn all four parts of this film into one article, at least until each installment is released. The result is confusion regarding the article's scope, a clumsy infobox, and redundant subheadings. To my knowledge, no film split into multiple parts and/or filmed back-to-back has been covered in a single article. This unconventional approach effectively circumvents WP:NFF and doubles as a film series article. My stance is that if the second, third, or fourth part meets GNG and NFF, they should have separate articles; if they do not, they should be incubated in the draftspace per the standard practice. See the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a very badfaithed description of my intentions. It's not shoehorning in all four parts, its containing all the available information we currently have. You're speaking as if these other three chapters have already been released. The only confusion one can find is the confusion they force themselves to feel. The lead paragraph is explicit in what the page presently houses. It's about a four-part film. What's so headhurty? Right now the bulk of the information that exists about Horizon as a whole pertains to Chapter 1. We have sparing details about Chapter 2, barely any about 3 and none for 4. Who's coming back for Chapter 3? Where's it filming? When? Are there more specific details out there to aid in building the page out aside from extremely bare essentials to satisfy NFF? This is why I am employing NORUSH. Because clapping your hands together going :"chop chop" doesn't lead to presently any helpful details to build the pages out. Rusted AutoParts 07:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not referring to you specifically, nor assuming bad faith, unless you were solely responsible for structuring the article this way. I see on the talk page that there were other editors earlier who supported this approach. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The confusion is evident in the presence of subheadings in some sections, but no subheadings in others. The lead says "four-part", which an editor recently attempted to change to "two-part" (this wouldn't make sense with the article's title), but the Sequels section makes it seem like the article is solely about the first film. The poster used in the infobox represents Chapter 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. Again, if there is not enough information for Chapter 2 to have an article, then it should be sent to the draftspace like we do with all other films. We can't bypass this process and effectively create a film series article (the infobox looks very similar to something you'd find on a series article). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

…it’s confusing to highlight we have more information about one chapter than we do the other three? I have stated what feels like countless times now the page is largely Chapter 1 centric because that’s the film that is nearest to its release and the one that has the most information about. It feels like it’s you making the page be more difficult than it really is. Why would you not take the initiate then to create Chapter 2’s page in draftspace so that when it’s strong enough to be in main it can be moved? Why does this page entirely need to be thrown into draftspace because it’s too confusing anpparently? And then we can move this current main page to Chapter 1. Someone’s already gone and made a franchise draft to work with as well. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say we should move this page to the draftspace. I said the information about Chapter 2 should be moved to its own article, either in the mainspace if GNG/NFF is satisfied, or in the draftspace if GNG/NFF is not satisfied. But it's clear your position is firm, so let's see if other editors have any thoughts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, not any more confusing than editors merging multiple episodes into one article. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus, I think this could have been a neutral notification. My suggestion is to start a new discussion thread at the film article's talk page with explicit options on what to do (like an RfC but without the formal procedure), like making a film series article as part of it, and invite editors here to participate. If the March discussion was too recent, it could at least be done on June 28th with more activity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I was shooting more for informal discussion than a formal survey. It tends to resolve matters more speedily. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Waiting for June would’ve been appropriate because as stated then we would be working with a released product with a soon to be released second part. This present discussion feels like a strong-arming to have the split done right now. You’ve before acknowledged how there’s no rush to make changes for something, why is it so bad to be patient here too? Rusted AutoParts 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what the purpose of referencing a comment from an unrelated discussion was. I am certainly aware of the concept of NORUSH, as mentioned on the article's talk page. However, as stated, I think this is overkill and NORUSH shouldn't be used as a free pass to bypass the normal process described by NFF. It is generally preferable to resolve disputes speedily, for the benefit of readers, but if we are unable to reach a consensus here, I certainly won't throw a fit and will be happy to wait. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about this article I created years ago. I saw it popup on my watchlist just now had a look and it in all that time hasn't ever passed GNG, is it possible? Or shall we just delete it? Govvy (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a lengthy review by The Washington Post. There is a snipprt linked at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1996/07/27/space-marines-zero-gravity/425beb04-b0f6-4756-a1d3-ca04ead87f24/ which if searched at the Internet Archive gives the full review but for some reason I am unable to link directly to the archived fulll version, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Other than the Washington Post review, I am not seeing reliable sources cover this topic (and we need multiple RS). I would support deletion. You can propose for deletion following WP:PROD. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank, see above. "Multiple" is the key word for why I proposed deletion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. But it was not suitable for PROD (especially if you knew there was a review in the WP!!) anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Space Marines (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Marines (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Can Someone check this list. A lot of films on this list doesn't look like Superhero films (like Star wars and Indiana Jones films). Sid95Q (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've come across a film that needs some Wikiproject attention. Lovers Lane (1999 film) was originally created at its current title, with all the body content stating that it was a 1999 film — but last fall a user moved the page to Lovers Lane (2000 film), and updated all the body text, on the grounds of a source indicating that it was released in 2000, but then a couple of weeks later they reverted themselves on the grounds that the new source had been inaccurate. But then after that, an anonymous IP went and changed all the text in the article back to 2000 again without moving the page, so that now it has 1999 in the title but 2000 in the infobox and body text and categories (or 2000s, rather than 1990s, where the category is by-decade instead of by-year).

Obviously we need to figure this out one way or the other, but I don't have access to the kind of sources that would solve the question of when an independent American horror film was released, so I wanted to ask if somebody with more expertise in the area could look into it. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this says it was released on December 31, 1999, so it's quite the edge case (if that source can be trusted). Judging from the Wikipedia article history, it was created as a 1999 film without a specific release date or source. Earliest IMDb version, from November 2004, does show 1999 here. EDIT: That page says, "I'm Still Waiting for You (1999) (UK) (DVD title)". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Released where? Spain? Why would an American movie be released there first? Looks to me like it just defaulted to the last day as a placeholder for defective data. Nardog (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The source for the 2000 festival screening says "Public performance premier". Nardog (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that works well to lock in 2000. Good find! I couldn't find anything about a DVD or UK release circa 1999, probably bad IMDb user-submitted data, so I'm good on making it 2000. Bearcat, does that suffice? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the exact source that the self-reverting editor first read to support moving the page to 2000, and then disputed as misleading when they moved it back to 1999 — it was formerly cited in the article as support for a statement that the film premiered at Bainbridge, which the self-reverter walked back to "screened" just before moving the page back to 1999. That said, I do share the suspicion that "December 31, 1999" is just an "unknown data" placeholder rather than an actual premiere, since that seems like a really implausible date for a film premiere, especially without solid sourcing to support it. So if anybody else is comfortable moving the page to 2000 on the basis of the Bainbridge source, I won't stand in their way, but it's not a thing I would feel comfortable doing without some other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas0, see above. Is there any reliable source that indicates a 1999 release? A couple of us have not found anything clear-cut to confirm 1999. It seems like 2000 is most appropriate, especially the "public performance premier" label that Nardog quoted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The quoted source itself states "1999" as the release year. The description "public performance premier" indicates that it had previously been released on home video but is merely being premiered publicly (in a cinema) for the first time. That's how I would interpret it. Otherwise it would be described as a "world premier" instead of a "public performance premier". The description itself indicates that it had already been released in some other format, and the quoted article itself states a release year of 1999. If we're going to use that source as the reference to "lock in" 2000, then why not use the actual information explicitly stated in the same source to "lock in" 1999? That's the only real source we have and it explicitly states "10:15 p.m. 'Lover's Lane.' 1999. 90 min. 35 mm.". I agree that December 31 is likely a placeholder date because the actual 1999 home video release date is unknown, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't released on home video at all in 1999. The quoted Bainbridge reference certainly indicates that there was a 1999 home video release. Nicholas0 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, missed the "1999" in that one. Nardog, what's your take, if we were going to do 2000 based on that very source? Keep to 1999? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Film years are determined in various ways. We go by first public release because that's what can be verified in sources for most films, but others go by completion, copyright, etc. The interpretation that the film was released on home video strains credulity when the article says it was released on home video in 2000 (as confirmed on WorldCat: [1][2][3]). A simpler explanation is that they didn't go by release, and absent a reliable source that it was indeed released in 1999, we should go with 2000. Nardog (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Bridgit Mendler about including the University of Southern California in the infobox's education parameter. It can be found at Talk:Bridgit Mendler#Education. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm in the process of rewriting List of accolades received by Inception and I've gotten a bit stuck with the sourcing for the Kinema Junpo Awards. I know it came 10th in the Best Foreign Films category and 7th in the Readers' Choice Best Foreign Films.

I've managed to source the Best Foreign Films category with the magazine's official website. The link mentions (in Japanese) that the Reader's Choice award list was listed in the Special Late February issue of Kinema Junpo of 5 February 2011. This is Number 1575; for reference here's a listing with the cover.

I can't find a copy of this anywhere. The only thing I could find that mentioned it beyond the Japanese wikipedia was this blog post, which is not exactly a beacon of reliability. Does anyone have access to or can anyone help me find an online copy I can cite? Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a primary source (Kinenote is run by the magazine). Nardog (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, although that unfortunately only lists the Best Foreign Films and not the Readers' Choice Best Foreign Films. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Is that something we should be including in a "list of accolades received by" a film? It's a crowdsourced thing and it came in seventh. Nardog (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in reading WP:OFTHESAMENAME since a lot of films are based on works of the same title or remade from films of the same title. While it's an essay, I think it makes fair points. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's usually immediately gets changed back to of the same name jargon. There seems to be a real pushback that I'm not understanding. Mike Allen 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Blame the modern education system that teaches people that repetition is poor writing that must therefore be avoided at all costs. Reducing clarity and using more words to say the same thing is judged as better writing. I usually drop a link to WP:OFTHESAMENAME in the edit summary when I reword things to get rid of that tired cliché and that helps a bit. At least gets other editors aware of the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting read. I find the ambiguity and general inconsistencies in piping links ("the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name", "the 2008 novel of the same name" etc) to be a particularly unnecessary consequence of these "elegant variations". This inclination to obscure titles to reduce repetition results in less clarity and simplicity, and the piping adds a visual element to the distraction.

Compare to the essay's examples:

• "based on the 2000 novel Under the Skin by Michel Faber."
• "adapted the screenplay from The Martian, a 2011 novel by Andy Weir."

These unobscured variations bypass the added concerns of clarity and intuitiveness. Οἶδα (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is daft. In essence it suggests it's preferable to write "The Martian based on the novel The Martian" which seems poor grammatically and dull. I don't see why anyone would get confused when reading an article about a film of one name and saying it is based on a novel of the same name. Where the name is not clear, as in the non-film suggestion, then it makes sense to be very clear but if you are writing in an article called X then it does not seem to add much benefit to say that it is based on a novel called X (other than in the infobox). Sudiani (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Or simply write "based on the 2011 novel". That's one of the suggestions given at WP:OFTHESAMENAME per MOS:LINKCLARITY. Mike Allen 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But that lacks clarity. For example, "Blade Runner, based on the 1968 novel" doesn't make it clear what the novel is called, unless you click the link or look in the infobox and therefore lacks clarity. Using "of the same name" provides clarity and removes undue repetition and therefore is better grammatically. https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/c1-grammar/avoiding-repetition-text ETA: This isn't a modern education thing as suggested above. I am over 50 and believe that avoiding repetition is better. That's why most film articles use "The film" or "it" rather than repeating the title everytime the film is referred to. Sudiani (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding repetition is fine up to a point of not reducing clarity or using clumsy or convoluted substitutions. This isn't a grammar issue, it is a style issue, thus why it is considered "dull" as opposed to ungrammatical. For writing interesting essays and stories dull is bad, for an encyclopedia article clarity is preferred even if it is considered dull. As for style the "of the same name" is clichėd to the point of basically calling out that it is only used to avoid repetition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As above, using "of the same name" in film articles when referring to a source provides clarity. Using the same name also provides clarity but is dull. If I were to choose between dull and interesting, I would prefer writers were interesting rather than dull, even if some people think "interesting" is cliched. Sudiani (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ross W. Clarkson is a cinematographer, producer, actor, writer and director who has been working nonstop in the movie business for three decades. People underestimate him because he started in Asia and was credited under different names. When I started writing my article on him I didn't get along with the wayback machine and therefore I kept it short and I stuck to information that can be found on IMDb. Subsequently the article was quickly flagged for lacking of references. Little later it was added that Clarkson was perhaps not notable. Meanwhile I have learned to deal with the wayback machine and subsequently I have delivered references. (More is to come.) The quantity of information available about Clarkson indicates plenty of notability. Would somebody please re-evalute the overhauled, extended article? NordhornerII NordhornerII (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, this article Possibly in Michigan is missing a review section.

Can I get some help?CycoMa1 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Have you looked at Google Scholar results? There seems to be some potentially relevant results. You can cross-reference them with WP:LIBRARY to see which ones you can access. Link Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

At Special:Permalink/1225339037 § Highest-grossing films, I came across this note (which uses automatic date calculation to display the most recent week):

I find this to go directly against WP:RECENTISM, and to introduce a maintenance/sourcing nightmare (it's unclear how much it's being updated, and could easily begin misinforming readers if abandoned for even a short while).

Dismayingly, this is not an isolated problem — a quick search shows that more than 50 articles use the same note.

Therefore, I'd like to ask two things:

1. For purposes of having a consensus to reference, do others agree that such notes are inappropriate?
2. Assuming that there is such consensus, is anyone from this project willing to remove them all?

Best, Sdkb ^talk 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are making an ordered list and some of those elements are in the process of potentially changing order then that is something noteworthy to be pointed out. The box office numbers for films that are still playing in theaters are going to change every day and will likely be updated at least once a week. I don't see how that has anything to do with WP:RECENTISM. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Wish (film) be moved to Wish (2023 film), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Like every other wiki project has a importance scale why doesn’t this one have one 31.121.245.19 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, man, that takes me back. I think we removed it back around 2007-2008. You can see the explanation as to why here: WP:FILMCORE (though I don't think anyone is paying attention to "core" topics nowadays either). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Participants of WikiProject Film might be interested in adding these categories and their subcategories into their watchlist.

• watch Category:Film templates parameter issues
• watch Category:Film template tracking

This is part of the recently created category tree under Category:Template tracking by topic. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a DYK in progress for Score: A Hockey Musical which has been tagged for long plot. I've gotten the Synopsis down to 749 words, 49 words above the maximum recommendation of MOS:PLOT. 49 words also happens to be the total words of the song titles I included in parenthesis. I was wondering if I might be able to weasel my way around that, as I wanted to include where the songs fit in the context of the plot – it has been noted (sourced) in the article that the songs advance the plot. This is the first time I've written for a musical film and would appreciate any advice. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't include the song titles in the plot, since there is a Music section. It's not only redundant but bloats the plot summary (as we see here). Mike Allen 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have any guidelines on handling musical films. The only similar guideline I can think of is excluding actors' names in plot summaries, which to me a separate matter. If it's a musical film, songs seem to me to be the key highlights throughout, so I don't think there are explicit policy/guideline grounds to oppose their mentions. Open to further dialogue, though. It's not a common case. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is necessary to know what songs come when to understand the plot then I don't think it is wrong to include them, but I do think this is a similar situation to including actor names in plot summaries. I would be more concerned with the plot summary being overly detailed and focused too much on scene-by-scene minutiae. The 700 word limit is at the top end of a range to allow for more complicated plot summaries, which I don't think is the case here. I would focus on summarising the plot more and only make note of key songs where it is actually important for understanding the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason I think actors' names are a separate matter is that after mentioning the starring actors' names, it became indiscriminate to mention all supporting actors too. So without a clear line in the sand, it was an all-or-nothing approach. "All" was too indiscriminate and wordy, where "nothing" worked if we had the "Cast" section already. We could still tie the starring actors to the key characters in the lead section when writing the much-shorter premise.

Here, songs seem to me to be the backbone of a musical film and are as relevant as the events in between them, making their naming different from naming even minor roles. I'm not sure how exactly one decides which songs are actually important, since the songs seem like key attention-grabbing highlights throughout the film. Film events and songs seem intertwined to me, like how a structurally-complex film's structures and events are intertwined (e.g., Pulp Fiction), warranting some word-count flexibility. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is a musical film by definition of what a musical film is all songs advance the plot, the lyrics of the songs are part of the text of the story. For a plot summary listing the songs is unnecessary and are somewhat jarring parentheticals that really add noting in understanding when describing the plot. See plot summaries for other musical films such as The Sound of Music for examples of why the songs are not needed in the plot summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair example of a musical film that does not have songs in the plot summary, but that does not in itself prove that songs shouldn't be in the summary. Just that it could be done without them. However, it's a little weird that that Good Article doesn't even list the film's own songs within it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The song lyrics are basically part of the script for musical films. My Fair Lady provides a counter example that shows the song titles in the plot text and does show how jarring it is to read the plot description when they do it. A FA without songs in the description is Frozen II. There is no rule that I could find that says "don't do it", but I think descriptions read and flow much better without the parenthetical interruptions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Erik's point about actor names in the plot summary actually does apply to songs as well. While the point of songs in a musical is to move the plot and character development along, it is not necessary to list all the details of how this is done when summarising the plot. I think an apt comparison would be an action film where the action sequences are the key set pieces used to develop the plot and characters. That doesn't mean we explain each action sequence in great detail and include the behind-the-scenes name for the sequence in parenthesis. Just like any plot summary, some action scenes will need more details to be explained than others, and some may not need to be included at all for our readers to understand the film. The same is true for the songs in a musical, where some will need to be fully explained but others may not even need to be mentioned in a good summary. So what happens if one of the key songs in the film doesn't actually need to be explained as part of the plot summary, but some of the less noteworthy ones do? That is where we run into the problem Erik mentioned about actor names and determining where to draw the line. The priority of the plot summary should be to summarise the plot, not include characters it shouldn't just so we can list their actors' names or include song details it shouldn't just so we can list all of the song titles. Especially when there are separate sections in the article that can discuss the cast and songs with appropriate weight and focus.

I think the current summary that we are discussing goes against the recommendations at MOS:FILMPLOT and once it is updated to summarise what happens in the plot rather than explain the scene-by-scene breakdown of each song it will be a much better summary. At that point, there may still be mentions of every song in the summary and so there could still be an argument for including all of the song titles, but that won't necessarily be the case and if it is then there is still an issue of being indiscriminate. I would still argue that it is better for the plot summary to focus on the plot and the appropriate place to discuss individual songs and their use in the film will be the music section which can present information on the most notable songs, according to sources, without having to work around or twist the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The action-sequence point is fair, though I think songs are more delineated as signposts in the film. We don't list action sequences like we list song titles.

But if others agree that song titles shouldn't be named in plot summaries, then that's the consensus. At the end of the day, we are trying to build an encyclopedia. We oppose lengthy plot summaries because if one really gets detailed, a summary could easily be thousands of words long. We wanted to cap it off. Musical films definitely weren't part of the consideration for writing MOS:FILMPLOT. I can see the benefit in indicating the songs in some way.

Can we not think of a way to tie them together, other than naming them in running text? Like hover-over text, footnotes, anchor links? Like I checked out Encanto, and it's interesting how we never say at what point "We Don't Talk About Bruno" occurs, which seems to me to be an omission. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input and advice. I was starting to think about calling them parenthetic citations to the songs (WP:PAREN) but I see those were depreciated a few years back. Another editor helped get the summary below 700 words (including the parenthetics). I'm going to keep them for now and will probably footnote them if challenged down the road. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It was suggested that the current phrasing in the lead intro might not be pristine due to the screenwriting duo being named first. The order of the writers shouldn't be changed as Beck and Woods are the duo who conceived the story and wrote the script, which they sold to the producers. As cited, the producers gave the script to Krasinski as an actor, and he later contributed elements to the script, thus getting a writing credit. The two credited parties did not write together nor have a similar level of contribution to the writing. Changing the order or using "alongside", for instance, is inaccurate and misleading.

To change the flow of the first sentence, an option could be: "...directed by John Krasinski and written by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods from a story they conceived. Krasinski also has writing credit..." But that is an unusual intro structure to a film article, as we typically list all credited writers together. What are your thoughts and suggestions? Lapadite (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement to put all of those details in one sentence. You could also say something like this: "...directed by John Krasinski. The screenplay was written by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, with contributions by Krasinski after he joined the project. The plot revolves around..." You should also probably be discussing this at Talk:A Quiet Place rather than here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, the writing credits aren't the most noteworthy context; the premise is, so it is a bit much on harp on the credits at the very beginning. (See my essay at WP:FILM1STSENTENCE for relevant policies and guidelines.) So I would delay mention of writing credits to later in the first paragraph, which may allow for more flexibility in wording. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and Erik: I agree, but as there are editors who are sticklers for using the same format across all articles even if it doesn't suit a particular article, and get into revert wars overt it, I didn't want to change it significantly without a discussion here. I'll make the edit that adamstom suggested. I think, for the majority of scripted films, the writer(s) is the second most noteworthy content for a lead intro. A premise comes from a screenplay, and if the premise is noteworthy, who wrote it is equally, if not more so. This film is defined by the story and screenplay, so I think naming the writers in the intro is appropriate. Lapadite (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify about my essay, the point is to immediately connect the reader with the topic in the first sentence. Non-household names are not very likely to provide that connection, meaning here that naming Beck and Woods doesn't mean anything to most people (as reflected by reliable sources). They're named at some point and occasionally focused on, but the main connecting point of this film is the novel premise, monsters who hunt by sound. So much more has been written about that and the related moviegoing experience. Of course someone who knows A Quiet Place well won't really care about the order and presentation of details, but if someone has never seen it and only has a vague understanding, that first sentence mentioning the premise will make the connection. That's how I think the cited policies and guidelines would apply. We can look at coverage, including their headlines and bodies of text, about placement, to see where the weight lies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, notable elements can vary per film and an article's lead should reflect that. The issue from article to article is disagreements on what aspect of a film is more noteworthy than another, and some editors wanting to standardize the structure of the lead. It's not uncommon for drive-by editors to change it to the common format of director, writer, stars, plot.

The premise is currently about 3 lines of text, so I think it should be trimmed if it's moved to the second sentence. I'd have the writers mentioned alongside it. Much of the media / marketing did focus on the premise and the famous actor who directed it, not the relatively unknown writing duo who conceived the story and wrote the screenplay. Many articles only named the director as a writer: "directed and co-written by Krasinski". As I'm sure we all know, that's a common promotional practice, particularly for bigger names. My point is that as the notable premise came from the duo, and the director's frequently named as a writer in the media, the premise and writers go hand in hand and should be mentioned alongside each other, either in the same sentence or consecutively. Plus, the multiple articles reporting the journey of the actor-director coming on to the project may support the noteworthiness of mentioning who conceived the premise and screenplay. Lapadite (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)