Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:34, 2 February 2008 editSteve (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,235 edits →Rotten Tomatoes: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:14, 11 January 2025 edit undoErik (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers100,655 edits →Nomination of List of economics films for deletion: AfD relisted, editors invited to comment
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|WT:FILM}}
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="background: #ccccff; width: 100%;"
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	\|-
			{{WikiProject Film}}
	\| style="width: 40px;" \| ]
			}}
	\| ''] • ''
			{{ombox
	\|}
			\| image = ]
	{{WPFILMS Announcements\|simple=yes}}
	{{~~shortcut~~\|]\|WT:FILMS}}		\| imageright = {{Shortcut\|WT:FILM\|WT:FILMS\|WT:MOVIES}}
			\| style = margin-left: 0; margin-right: 0; background: lavender; border: 1px solid silver;
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Archive index\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}
			\| textstyle = text-align: center;
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| text =
	\|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
			''] • ] • ''<inputbox>
			type=fulltext
			prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive
			break=no
			width=60
			searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
			</inputbox>
			}}
			{{WPFILM Announcements\|collapsed=yes\|simple=yes
			}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive index \|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K		\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = 17		\|counter = 86
	\|minthreadsleft = 10		\|minthreadsleft = 6
	\|algo = old(~~20d~~)		\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject ~~Films~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}}
	{{AutoArchivingNotice\|small=yes\|age=20\|index=./Archive index\|bot=MiszaBot II}}
	{{archives\|index=./Archive index\|auto=yes}}		{{archives \|style=background: lavender; border: 1px solid silver; \|index=./Archive index \|auto=yes \|search=yes \|age=21 \|units=days \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
	__TOC__
	{{WP Film Sidebar}}

	== Help ==

	''Conversation moved to ].''

	== 2008 Hollywood strike in "Cinema of the United States" template ==

	I think ] should be added to the template {{tl\|CinemaoftheUS}}. Please see the discussion at ]. Thanks. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''23:23, 09/30/2007''</div>

	== "international" receipts ==

	It has been brought up ] that it is inherently POV to use the term "international" when referring to box office receipts outside of the US and Canada. One editor seems to be against changing the use of the term, while a couple others think it makes sense for the term "international" to include all nations receipts. Has this project addressed this issue in the past? ] (]) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:One term that we try to avoid usage is "domestic" because this is the English Misplaced Pages. I imagine that the proper way to refer to nations is either individually or call them "other territories". For example, "''Film X'' grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 in other territories." Hope that helps. —] (] • ]) - 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::"Other territories" sounds like "colonies". Keep common usage: "''Film X'' grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 '''world wide'''." Lets be realists. ] ] 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::How is it possible to earn less money world wide than you earned in two countries? "World wide" includes the United States and Canada. Just say "other countries", as we don't specify box office takes in specific states or towns, but countries as a whole. ] ] 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Leave it as it is. 'International' is how the industry uses it, it's how all the wikipedia pages that use it apply it, and it's fairly obvious to any reader who actually reads the pages. 'Other countries' implies selective counting, 'International' is inclusive of all non-singularly identified countries. We're not listing every single nation, there's no way a table could support that with a reasonable page layout. The categories are fine as is. This belongs on BJAODN or one of the other top stupid argument lists. ] (]) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

	It's not at all obvious at a quick glance that "international" means something other than its plain English meaning, which is "across all nations". Whether this is in fact how the film industry as a whole uses it, or for that matter even the American and Canadian film industry, is a matter that has not been settled -- burden of proof is on ThuranX. If it ''is'' so, then this non-intuitive usage should be explained in each article that uses it. --] (]) 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

	:BUrden is on those seeking change to find good reasons to ignore the actual, often cited information and vocabulary. I suggest that instead you all write up an article on the applied use of 'international' so the heading can be linked. ] (]) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

	I would think that "international" would not mean non-US markets, but rather non-domestic markets. So US receipts for ''Amelie'' would be part of that film's international receipts, for example. As far as I'm aware, that's usually the meaning of international: non-domestic areas. Worldwide would be the completely inclusive term for all markets. Just my 2 pence. ] (]) 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

	I think there's something wrong with the whole table. As an example I shall use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a joint UK and US production.
	*I get the worldwide profits in US dollars, fair enough.
	*I then glance at the US/Canada column, again in US dollars. Nothing wrong with with that.
	*Then I see the column international. Huh? I already saw the worlwide profits. I haven't got a clue what this column is supposed to mean, but oh well.
	*I then see the UK column. Now this is weird. There's a dollar sign in front of the amount, yet the little note at the bottom says it's in British pounds, which have the symbol "£". Furthermore, it's not exactly easy to compare the different earnings in each country when they are in different currencies.
	*I finish off with the Australian column, the different currency throws me off again.
	Here's my suggestion:

	{\| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" border="0"
	\|+ align=bottom \|''U.S. and box office gross figures are listed in ]s.<br>U.K box office gross figures are listed in ], Australian box office gross figures are listed in ]s.''
	\|- bgcolor="#dae3e7" align="center"
	\| rowspan="2" \| #
	\| rowspan="2" \| '''Title'''
	\| rowspan="2" \| '''Studio'''
	\| colspan="5" align="center" \| '''Box Office Gross'''
	\|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC" align="center"
	\| '''Worldwide'''
	\| United States and Canada<ref>
	"2007 Domestic Grosses" (top 100), webpage:
	.
	</ref>
	\| United Kingdom <ref>
	"2007 UK Domestic Grosses" (top 100), webpage:
	.
	</ref>
	\| Australia<ref>
	"Australia: Movie Marshal Total 2007" (top 100), webpage:
	.
	</ref>
	\|-
	\|1
	\|''']'''
	\|]
	\|'''$961,002,663'''
	\|$309,420,425
	\|£81,415,664
	\|$29,085,288
	\|-
	\|2
	\|''']'''
	\|]
	\|'''$938,450,062'''
	\|$292,001,817
	\|£101,360,911
	\|$29,409,933
	\|-
	\|3
	\|''']
	\|\|]
	\|'''$890,871,626'''
	\|$336,530,303
	\|£67,049,819
	\|$19,667,403
	\|-
	\|4
	\|''']
	\|]
	\|'''$794,561,223'''
	\|$321,012,359
	\|£78,790,741
	\|$28,500,981
	\|-
	\|5
	\|''']'''
	\|]
	\|'''$702,927,087'''
	\|$319,071,806
	\|£48,603,202
	\|$23,885,803
	\|-
	\|6
	\|''']'''
	\|]/]
	\|''' $612,190,493'''
	\|$206,435,493
	\|£49,836,496
	\|$13,240,587
	\|-
	\|7
	\|''']'''
	\|]
	\|'''$525,468,939'''
	\|$183,121,527
	\|£78,259,436
	\|$26,511,779
	\|-
	\|8
	\|''']'''
	\|]
	\|'''$456,068,181'''
	\|$210,614,939
	\|£27,994,700
	\|$12,304,031
	\|-
	\|9
	\|''']'''
	\|]
	\|'''$441,802,915'''
	\|$227,471,070
	\|£48,142,337
	\|$18,396,410
	\|-
	\|10
	\|''']'''
	\|]
	\|'''$409,534,000'''
	\|$228,055,662
	\|£21,974,780
	\|$8,499,825
	\|-
	\|}
	A summary of my changes:
	*I deleted the "international" column. I don't see it as useful in anyway, it's just "profits outside US and Canada".
	*I changed the abbreviations (US;U.K.) to fuller names (United States; United Kingdom)
	*I changed the dollar sign to a pound sign in the UK column.
	*I linked the currencies to their articles, before only the Australian dollars had been linked and it looked kinda weird.
	If anyone agrees with this, we can put it in the article. ] (]-]) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	:This makes sense. I'd prefer the USA and UK abbr. again since the columns are wide otherwise, and how about linking the currencies in the top film's totals only?:

	{\| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" border="0"
	\|- bgcolor="#dae3e7" align="center"
	\|rowspan="2"\|#
	\|rowspan="2"\|'''Title'''
	\|rowspan="2"\|'''Studio'''
	\|colspan="5" align="center"\|'''Box Office Gross'''
	\|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC" align="center"
	\|'''Worldwide'''
	\|USA/Canada<ref>http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2007&p=.htm 2007 Domestic Grosses (top 100) U.S. & Canada].</ref>
	\|UK<ref></ref>
	\|Australia<ref></ref>
	\|-
	\|1
	\|'']''
	\|]
	\|''']961,002,663'''
	\|]309,420,425
	\|]81,415,664
	\|]29,085,288
	\|-
	\|2
	\|'']''
	\|]
	\|'''$938,450,062'''
	\|$292,001,817
	\|£101,360,911
	\|$29,409,933
	\|}
	:-- ], 2008-01-19]21:37z

	== Actor templates redux ==

	Do we have any guidelines under WikiProject Films that state that it's inappropriate to create a template for actors? I keep seeing a new one every once in a while, the most recent being {{tl\|Bale}}. Such a template is a bad idea since it has usually included every role, minor to major, of an actor in an entire career. This is in opposition to a director template, in which there is only one (sometimes two), and the director is consistently one of the most important people involved with the film. —] (] • ]) - 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

	:I've nominated {{tl\|Johnny Depp films}} at ]. Is there some kind of precedent we can build into MOSFILM regarding this? —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	::I'd say just propose it at MOSFILM talk; I can't see it facing terribly much opposition. ] (]) 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:The conversion of films materials is something that I've run across on a few pages, which requires a bit of work to revert to a filmography table. I'm not sure who started that precedent but it is something that has been brought up at the sister project ]. I revert them as I find them. I'd actually be most grateful if anyone who finds these templates would notify me so I can salvage the material, which did take a bit of work to compile. Thanks. ] (]) 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	== Update on The Film Portal ==

	*{{FA-icon}} -- '''Update:''' ] has recently become a ''']'''. There is also a featured version at the French Misplaced Pages, called . All of the articles at ] in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections are of ]. Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material! ] (]) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
	::Wow, Cirt, congratulations! You really did a great job putting it all together. We're all very proud to have such an excellent portal. ] (]) 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. Couldn't have done it with out all of the great ] to utilize in the portal - so much of the thanks goes out to the '''WikiProject Films''' participants. ] (]) 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
	:I'm a newbie: other than ''cudos'' what does this status entail? Thank you, ] ] 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::That's pretty much it, and it gets listed at ]. ] (]) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

	== ] is up for deletion. ==

	Title says it all. ] (]) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

	:You don't have to mention every AFD for every film article. A good place to look for this listing is at ]. Maybe we could make this a part of WP:FILM somehow? —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	::There is a link to it on the the project front page. Could maybe add to the side menu, along with the possible AfD links. ] (]) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	:::Yeah, that would be a great fit. Is the template easy to edit to implement this? —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	::::Yep, its just straight text. I was bold and popped it in there :) ] (]) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I will add it to the watchlist then, what's the name of the page? I'm tired now if I won't get answer by the time I wake up I will look for it myself. ] (]) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::For the deletion sorting? Erik gave it a few responses above: ] :) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== ]s ==

	I've submitted two articles for ], and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:
	*'']''. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and ], I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other ] films) quality.
	*]. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks ] ]. Although I've already requested ], as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other '']''-centric articles.
	Thanks! — ] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	== Nomenclature Problem ==

	Back in late 2005-early 2006, the term ''Film'' was stabilized as Wikipedian for both the medium and the product with which this WP is dealing, with "Cinema" referring to the place of exhibition only. Yet I am finding innumerable article names, category names, and text references all of recent vintage, which utilize "Cinema" for the film product, and also "Movie" or "Motion Pictures". Obviously, text is open to revisionism of terms which anyone can edit and revert, but how are improperly-worded article and category titles making "end runs" around the administrators and jumbling up the section, especially since these "end runs" can only be interpreted to represent either functional illiteracy about ] at Misplaced Pages, or deliberate, POV-based ignorings of the rules by those who create and save them to the site? Only certain people can fix these article titles and category names, and there is clear need to form a janitorial team to clean up the rampant revisionisms and a security system to prevent others from committing future breaches. Thank you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Perhaps if you could cite some specific examples, we could address the issue? ] (]) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	== List of Western actors up for deletion ==

	Apparently it's already been deleted once. Post comments for keeping/deletion ]. Thanks. ] (]) 08:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	== New Project ==

	A new project ] have started. ] (]) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:You might want to read the ] first. ] (]) 18:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	I have created the project as per ]. ] (]) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:See ]. There's absolutely no good reason to run yourself into the ground with project admin overhead for the small quantity of articles the project would cover. ] (]) 08:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	The Terminator series have various articles, and it is a ground breaking film in film industry, in the history of film. The series is going on, many new suquels are coming. This project will help to co-ordinate all terminator related articles, articles on the characters in a good manner. The project will be dedicated for betterment of a specilized subject. Please add your membership (it would be good if you take the responsibility of project co-ordinator there) in the new project. Thank you. ] (]) 08:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Hi, he was ] in pointing out that the amount of work which goes into coordinating a Wikiproject can be overwhelming, especially if only a few people sign up for active participation. You'll be creating work for yourself, taking up time which could be more usefully directed towards making improvements to the articles. I wish you luck, however. Best regards, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Ah, I see that you have since edited your comment to ask Girolamo Savonarola to take on that responsibility. Seems a bit cheeky, but you might get lucky I suppose. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 09:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	OK. So if you don't think that the project will not be so helpful, you can delete it. ] (]) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:OK. I am taking your arguments. Now how can I delete the project? By MfD? ] (]) 09:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	::No-one is being an arse about this; we're just trying to help. Should you wish to continue with the project, that's up to you, and I genuinely wish you luck. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 09:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	The project have been speedy deleted in request. Thanks. ] (]) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	== Australian task force ==

	I would like to announce the creation of a new ]. All interested editors are encouraged to sign on as participants, and article tagging is currently underway!

	Some editors may also have noticed that this task force was created without a request. This is because the "en." encyclopedia is already biased towards English-language cinema; I have no doubts therefore that the task force will do well. I will also likely be creating task forces for Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and US in the coming months. ] (]) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	== RFC re previous discussion about revealing unsubtitled English translation in Plot section ==

	Pasted from ]:

	'''A user has requested comment on media, art, architecture or literature for this section.''' Would it be inappropriate to include the phrase ''I love you'' into the plot because the phrase was spoken in Czech language and was not subtitled in English but a reliably sourced translation has been found. ] (]) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Discussion on this topic has been ongoing long before the above editor joined the conversation. Please refer to the long discussion above and to the discussion at ], where editors reached consensus that the information, if sourced, should be included in the article, but outside of the plot section, since the English translation was intentionally withheld in the film (other Czech dialogue was subtitled; this was not). The non-Czech character being spoken to and the non-Czech-speaking audience of this English language film would have received a completely different meaning of this scene and the movie itself, had the English translation (of "I love you") been provided. But it was withheld by the filmmakers and therefore should not be presented in the Plot section as if those words were given by the film. It is in the article, but in the Production section. --] (]) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	::Considering that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, I think that it'd be inappropriate to detail the Czech phrase, which would require specialist knowledge to know. I've seen the film with English subtitles, and it does not translate the phrase. For whatever reason, it's not a detail intended to be readily acknowledged by audiences. I think its placement in the Production section, with the citation, is sufficient. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	As I stated on the article's ], I disagree that a clear concensus has been reached in the above mentioned discussion. Furthermore, I do not think it to be innapropriate to insert a unsubtitled phrase in a language other than English if a verifiable translation can be cited, which it was, so long as it is clearly stated that it was unsubtitled. ] (]) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:My issue with this is that there is an established division between the plot summary and real-world context across film articles. The plot summaries are primary sources -- the film themselves -- so a plain description is always used to avoid subjective and interpretative language. If scenes need to be analyzed, like with this certain phrase, then it can be done so in a real-world context section using independent coverage from reliable sources. The scene can certainly be explained briefly in relation to the phrase used in the real-world section, but I'm not sure if embedding secondary sources in the plot section is the best idea. Including one seems to take us down the road of analysis, which should be reserved for the other sections. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	::It was probably unsubtitled because it was an ad-lib on the part of the actor, who also tried out other ad libs in that moment, and the director didn't want the meaning of his film radically altered by that ad-lib. As it is, it's kind of like an Easter Egg for Czech speakers, which is fun. --] (]) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	You're absolutely right about the Easter Egg for Czechs. But the main point I was trying to defeat was your statement that ''if it's not presented on screen in English, it's not a part of the plot''. I disagree that the plot is different for us than it is for Czechs. It can be verified, and, therefore, it is a part of the plot. ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Right, but not everyone knows the Czech language. This is the English-language Misplaced Pages, so we can easily assume that people who come here will be versed in the English language. However, take a look at ]: ''"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage agrees with the primary source."'' The sentence is indeed verifiable, but if we're looking at the primary source only, Czech language is the specialist knowledge needed to understand that. I think that implementing the secondary source in the article starts changing the section from a basic description of the film to what the film means. For what the film means, that content should be covered in real-world context sections. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	I think it is much more suggestive of explaining what the film means to say that a line of the film "must" be kept out due to "intended ambiguity" on the part of the filmmaker, which is what was suggested before, then to list it translated and verified, clearly state it is unsubtitled and not delve into what it could have meant. Hypothetically speaking, if, indeed, the film makers wanted to keep a secret or be creatively ambiguous, why wouldn't they have worked in their own version of the final scene from ] rather than put something out there that can be understood by an estimated 12 million speakers worldwide? Of course, if that information is to be made available on Misplaced Pages, it has to be sourced and verified. However, from a point of view of a filmmaker trying to keep a secret, one would know very well that the secret couldn't be kept due to the number of people who both speak Czech and have internet access to parlay to the rest of us what was said. Hence, if a secret is known to not stay a secret, it ceases to be a secret. ] (]) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:I'm not sure why you think leaving out the translation would be suggestive. Here's how it's broken down:
	:#Everyone can acknowledge in their viewing of the film that the Girl utters a Czech phrase to the Guy that she won't translate.
	:#Those who can speak Czech and watch the film know what she's saying on the account that they are familiar with the language.
	:I don't know anything about ], so I don't know what to make of that example. What I mean to say is that #1 is agreeable on a descriptive level for all filmgoers, even those who know the Czech language. #2 is not as applicable because of the specialist knowledge of the Czech language. A lot of things could be pointed out by independent sources in the plot section, such as the fact that the Guy's flat was the actor's flat. I know what you're trying to say, but I think the way to approach elements in the film that are not universally clear is to leave it to independent sources. This observation just isn't clear-cut for all viewers, IMO. There's no hiding that's being done because the plot summary is intended to complement the film article. The real-world context is the meat of the article -- it can exist with or without the plot section. It's just that the plot section is included to provide a stronger background to the entire context. Now, I think I've really argued my points (and have repeated some, sorry about that), and I hope others can weigh in. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	::I think you're being very honest and fair by saying what you just said so I will do the same and let someone else have a say on this. Thanks for the input. ] (]) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	I've posted a response on the article talk page. '''I'd like to request all interested parties to continue the conversation there. (Re-copy and paste as need be.)''' ] (]) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 02:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Unrealized projects discussion ==
	== Juno: Canadian? American? Canadian/American? ==
			I launched a discussion at ] that I feel would benefit from having wider input. In regards to if currently still in development films count as "unrealized" or not. ] 06:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			:It’s very frustrating this has not seen any contribution to. ] 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm a novice at determining the nationality of a film. I see all over the web that '']'' is Canadian, but seems to have been funded by Americans. The director is Canadian, the writer is American. It seems to have been shot in Canada. Etc. How is the determination made whether it is Canadian, American, or a co-production? Where should I try to find the information. ''Variety'' wasn't helpful, and IMDb lists it as USA/Canada/Hungary! --] (]) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			{{collapse top\|title=Offtopic instigating}}
	:Sounds like Canada/USA to me. ] (]) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			::No, it's not. ] (]) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::It also depends on your criteria. Nationality of director/writer/producers, where the money is coming from, where it's filmed, etc? There's no hard answer for this, but since we also don't require there to be a single country per film, there's no reason to be overly restrictive, either. ] (]) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			:::What purpose does this remark serve except for antagonism? ] 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::OK, thanks y'all. Seems like Canadian/American is the proper adjective for the lead. --] (]) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			::::Absolutely nothing. ] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}

			== Help with Review for "The Misguided" Draft ==
	== Template change request ==

			Hello,
	There has been a request to change the {{tl\|Infobox Album}} that I think needs a bit of input before it's done. Your input at ] would be appreciated. ] (]) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Are you sure this was meant for the Film project? ] (]) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

			I'm seeking assistance with the review process for the draft article "]". I initially submitted the draft for review on December 3rd. On December 12th, I followed up on my request and added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score to further demonstrate the film's notability. I believe the draft is well-sourced, comprehensive, and meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion.
	== Request for help in fixing an item ==

			Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the ], but the situation remains unresolved.
	This is a request for help in fixing an oddity that I have come across. Please take a look at the infobox for ] where you will see this {{{laurenceolivierawards}}} in the spot where the role and performance should be. When you go into edit mode the correct info is there. I am not computer, or wikicommand, savvy enough to know where to go to fix this and I don't know if it is affecting other pages so any help that can be given will be much appreciated and thank you in advance for your time. ] \| ] 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:<s>The answer to your question is that there is no infobox parameter for the Olivier Awards.</s> ] (]) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::I take that back - there is no ''discussed'' parameter in the template instructions. But it is there in the template code, so I suspect that the code may contain errors. Perhaps worth asking there? ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your notes GS. I will copy this discussion and put it on the talk page for the template. If there is somewhere else that I should do this please let me know or feel free to copy it there yourself and thanks again. ] \| ] 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

			Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this draft reviewed and moved to mainspace? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?
	== Deletion of film templates ==

			Thank you for your help! ] (]) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	There's a discussion going on ] about the deletion nomination of a number of film templates. I've added in my thoughts as well, since I personally find them useful. ] (]) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

			:What is the hurry here? (and here ?) ] (]) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Clarification on application of trivia guidelines ==
			:There's no guarantee that a draft will be reviewed or processed within a certain specific timeframe. You're not guaranteed a one-week or two-week response time at all — drafts get approved or rejected when an AFC reviewer gets around to them, and you're simply not entitled to demand that your draft receive more prompt attention than everybody else's drafts. ] (]) 15:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::FYI, see the currently-blocked user's talk page. There has been a lot going on with their contributions. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The user was indef blocked following this ANI thread . The user was an obvious promotional ] and I'd suggest that readers not be drawn in to forwarding their agenda. ] (]) 16:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	I was reading through the guidelines on trivia, and was wondering if I could get an experienced opinion. A few months I reverted some vandalism for ], and found it on my watchlist a couple days ago. When I saw the trivia section, I tried to remove it, but it was reverted by an anon. I read through the policy here on trivia, and with the exception of the first two entries, nothing appears to hold any encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the entire trivia and errors section appears to be OR and unsourced. I spend my time with video games, and have dealt with trivia before there, and I was wondering if I could get some opinions on what to do. I was thinking of removing all but the first two, put those two in a "production" section (to discourage trivia in this amount from returning and encouraging more development of a section like that) with a fact tag. This is not really my area of expertise, but I can spot a bad article when I see one. Thanks.--] (]) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Submission to the Academy Awards ==
	:I'd remove it and the errors section. Both are unsourced, OR and have no place in the article. For the two good items, move in as you suggested and give a few weeks to be fixed. The anon user who put it back gave no justification and doesn't do much editing so they hopefully didn't realize it was inappropriate. ] (]) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

			Hi, a quick question...
	:I concur with Collectonian's suggestion above. This article could use ''some'' form of real-world context. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
	::I took care of my original plan, but any help watching out for the inevitable revert by an anon would be helpful. Further problems exist, however; I have never seen this film, so I lack the ability to adequately summarize the overly long plot, and you already mentioned the lack of real-world content. Could I get some help with the formatting of the cast section? It appears to contain too many characters, but I am not familiar with how to properly structure it.--] (]) 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

			If a film is a submission to the Academy Awards (or any other awards) does this imply any significance, or is submitting a film just something that any minor film-maker can do with any minor film?
	== lists > categorization ==
			Clarification on this point would be much appreciated.

			Kind regards, ] (]) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	The template {{tl\|americanfilmlist}} contains links to pages that are nothing but incomplete lists of American films for given years (]—]). As I mentioned before (]), these lists will '''(a)''' probably be perpetually incomplete, '''(b)''' be better served by categorization, '''(c)''' are magnets for ] violations, and '''(d)''' so far as I can tell they're only linked to by (i) some of the articles listed within (ii) {{tl\|americanfilmlist}} itself (iii) various internal Misplaced Pages pages (talk, WP:, etc.)<p>I intend to create the categorizations pertinent to replacing these lists (i.e. ]), and making them subcategories of the apropos film year category the articles may or may not already be in. I bring this up here for further discussion than there was before, before I ]. Thank you. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
	<br>
	<br>
	<br>
	'''comment'''
	ABSOLUTELY NOT. Given time they will be filled in and completed and will be showing details which categories will never be able to achieve. Terrible idea. And are you kidding me that you don't think pages like ], ] etc aren't useful?; many of the lists are more complete than you are making out. These lists are supposed to serve a purpose which categories can never do. Given time they could even each be written into articles with text summarising the years in American film and then the detailed tabled lists underneath. Aside from the fact I've put in an enormous amount of effort in setting these pages up they are only incomplete because not one single person from WP:Films aside from Andrzejbanas, Rossrs and Nehrams with 2007 has bothered to even think about helping out.

			:Which categorie(s)? ] (]) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	We made a WP:Film consensus about a year ago that to categorize as PD Thor has suggested would be gross over categorization -remember I initially started with this and people quickly made a decision it wasn't a good idea and lists would be the best alternative. All they need is people so make some sort of effort to chip in with them to get them completed. The fact is that if each of the "400" film members put in even ten minutes work on them each it would be done in a few days period]</span> <sup>]</sup> 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
			::Short documentary. ] (]) 13:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If it helps at all, it would seem that 104 films were submitted in the year in question, so I'm assuming that this is not particularly exclusive company. ] (]) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::For clarity, that is 104 films ''in that single category''. ] (]) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::That is pretty exclusive if you consider how many short documentaries there are in the world. A submission itself may not be significant, but the meeting of ] may be, like winning an award at a festival. ] (]) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If I'm reading the link correctly, a film would only need to {{tq\|complete a commercial showing of at least 7 days in either Los Angeles County, California or anywhere in New York City before being released to other non-theatrical venues such as DVD or TV}}. Winning an award does not appear to be necessary. So, being a submission doesn't seem to me to infer any particular significance.
			::::The broader issue here is the rather promotional article about director ], authored 90% by the accounts of the subject and his publicist (whose activities can be seen here ).
			::::In trying to establish how much of the article needs to be culled it would be useful to have some input on the significance of the awards listed in this part of the article . A good number of the awards have articles on Misplaced Pages, but note that in many cases that is because Tuschinski's publicist created the relevant articles. ] (]) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I didn't say it was necessary. I just pointed out what made the submission possible, rather than the submission by itself, ''may be'' significant, depending on which criteria were fulfilled. ] (]) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It would depend on the category. International Film, for example, is a category where each country has to have a committee ''select'' just ''one'' film from its entire cinematic output in that year to submit to the category — so that selection would indeed represent a ''distinction'' in and of itself even if the film doesn't ultimately land in the final five nominees. For most other categories, however, being submitted for Oscar consideration wouldn't be a notability claim in and of itself, although a film that gets submitted may very well have other reasonable notability claims — for example, some categories (I believe short documentary is one of these) essentially extend automatic consideration to films that win certain specific awards at certain specific qualifying film festivals, so the ''film festival'' award already constitutes a meaningful notability claim as it is.
			:Ultimately, however, the clincher is how well the film can or can't be ]. If the film can be shown to pass ] on its coverage, then it wouldn't matter whether we considered submission to be a notability claim or not because the film had already passed GNG as it is — and if it ''can't'' be shown to pass GNG on its coverage, then simple submission to a preliminary awards consideration pool probably wouldn't be enough in and of itself to exempt it from GNG. Remember that awards are ''one'' alternative among ''several'' notability paths, not a necessary condition that every film always has to have — films that have no award claims at all can still pass other criteria anyway, so the presence or absence of awards isn't the be-all and end-all by itself. ] (]) 15:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Moviefone reliablitly ==
	:These tables give much more information than categories do. Categories only give you the films name. These tables give directors, actors and genres - along with a spot for notes. Thus a reader can go in many directions while perusing these as opposed to a category page. If a new consensus needs to be reached regarding these my vote is to keep them. ] \| ] 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
	::The tables are a great idea. Sure, some of them are stuby and lack detail, but only for the reasons Blofeld has given above. They do serve a purpose and are handy for identifing important gaps in missing articles for films, directors and actors. ] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

	~~:::~~I ~~agree~~ ~~with~~ the ~~comments~~ ~~above~~ in ~~support~~ of ~~these~~ ~~lists.~~ ~~Categorization~~ ~~isn't~~ ~~much~~ ~~more~~ ~~than~~ a ~~navigation~~ ~~tool~~ in ~~this~~ ~~regard,~~ ~~and~~ I ~~think~~ ~~these~~ ~~lists~~ ~~are~~ ~~already~~ ~~quite~~ ~~useful,~~ ~~and~~ ~~have~~ ~~the~~ ~~potential to be even more so.~~ It ~~seems~~ to me ~~that~~ ~~gradually~~ ~~they~~ ~~are~~ ~~being~~ ~~improved~~ ~~and~~ ~~added~~ ~~to,~~ ~~and~~ ~~they~~ ~~just~~ ~~need some more time and attention to begin to~~ ~~mature~~. ] (]) 14:47, 21 ~~January~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		I searched RSN and the archives here but no real guidance, so I was wondering if Moviefone is reliable to use as an inline source? I'm leaning towards no given it looks like a database a la IMDb, but wanted to see if any other editors have come across this or its use on articles. Thanks. - ] (]) 20:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Looking at ], it may have had a reliable publisher in the past, but I'm not sure about now. It may also depend on what part of the website is being used. Are we talking about the "News" section, or the reviews it has, or something else? ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I agree as well. Granted, the lists aren't complete, but then, nothing on Misplaced Pages is ever technically completed. The lists grow as articles are created, and that takes time. Categories don't contain the details that a list can and should. I can, and will, certainly start checking to see if individual films are contained within these lists as I am working on filmographies for actors. It's a simple matter to take that one extra step. ] (]) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
			::It would be the "full cast and crew" tab/page for a film. The specific example I've come across it was trying to source new writer credits and an actor appearing for ] and its Moviefone page . - ] (]) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I see at the bottom of the Moviefone page, ''"This product uses the TMDb API but is not endorsed or certified by TMDb."'' Maybe these details came from there? It looks like TMDb is "a user-editable database". (Wow, I tried to link to TMDb, but it's apparently blacklisted... that may indicate something...) ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The poster seems to confirm the writing credits? See the left and right of the bottom line of the billing block. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, other active editors at that article are aware of the billing block (that's what's stemmed this issue at that page), but no third party reliable sources have reported on these adjustments, so we have been cautious proceeding adding the information in and not sourcing it in the body of the article. Another editor found the Moviefone page so that's how we ended up here checking its reliability. But per your first comment about its connections with TMDb, seems unreliable as a user database. - ] (]) 16:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm not sure why the billing block is in question? It's like referencing the official website for basic crediting information. We can use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, per ]. I'm not sure if it's possible for the billing block to become outdated or wrong (other than the cases of where others are unofficially deserving of certain credits). ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::The billing block isn't being questioned, just the act of how to source it in the article's when no third-party source exists covering this information. We seem to have determined Moviefone is not reliable per my original comment. If we want to have further discussion on sourcing approaches, we can continue this discussion at ]. - ] (]) 17:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Help needed for Hong Kong film ==
	:<unindent> Agreement here as well. Categorization here would only be useful in a navigational sense and would give only the film names. These pages work not only for navigation, but also as a guide to what needs to be done (missing articles). There's also a good parallel to the similar work being done for other countries, which gives some consistency to the project as a whole. ] (]) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
			Hello, I was trying to of a HK film, fixing link and adding source to ]. This was rejected by ], see ]. Is any specialist able to help? Thanks in advance. --] (]) 00:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Jeff Sneider ==
	:I concur that the tables would be more appropriate than categories. A) Misplaced Pages itself is perpetually incomplete, B) Tables, like others have said, can go in better depth than categories, C) Standards can be set for using non-free images, if at all -- there are lists that don't use any images, and D) The linking in this context seems appropriate, as these aren't articles that would necessarily be wiki-linked all over the board unlike a specific film or actor. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

			There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at ] which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - ] (]) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Or try to use only free images. For films pre 1960 the commons has many trailer shots which are free images. With film I do feel that limited images are very useful ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	:In broad agreement with everyone else here, though I would just like to say that I slightly resent your implied criticism of the rest of the project's members, many of whom put a lot of time and effort into their own particular corners of this vast project. That few have chipped in on your particular area should not be grounds for such criticism, just the same as your lack of participation in other editors' areas should not grounds for criticising you. There's enough work to ensure that one can spend weeks on something project-related without ever encountering another member. All the best, and I wish you luck in your continued improvements. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			== The Demon (1979 film) ==
	Wow, vehemence, that was unexpected; I only had one comment/reply the previous time I brought this up. The chief problems with these pages are their insular nature and the prevelance of unnecessary decorative copyrighted images in them.<p>If this project ultimately has plans for integrating these pages into the whole of Misplaced Pages, I don't intend to piss in your Cheerios. Since this collection of pages are almost wholly insular, I thought they were the abandoned chaff from some previous project initiative. My only input on them would be to name them as lists as the majority on Misplaced Pages are; i.e. ], w/o the "list of" differentiation it might be construed to be an encyclopedic article discussing the whole of American filmmaking of that year. Capiche?<p>Many of these list articles (how many, I didn't check) have a copyrighted image heading the list as representative of whichever film won the ]; that is wholly unnecessary and failing of ], ], and ]. If the project is going to remove them, I'll leave them to your auspices, or if you're obliged, I'll remove them. Cheers. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

			There's a problem at ] which needs some attention, as there's been past edit-warring over whether it's a 1979 film or a 1981 film. IMDB says 1981, but that's based on the film's ''American'' release, while there are claims that it premiered in South Africa (its home country) in 1979 — and because of the edit-warring, the page is now in the problematic state of being ''titled'' as a 1979 film, while being categorized and infoboxed as a 1981 film, which is a situation that can't stay as is: either the text needs to be revised to 1979, or the page needs to be ''moved'' to 1981, so that the title and the text aren't in conflict.
	:Oh yeah thats right, you're the loon who fussed about the Dances with Wolves image and ended up deleting it from the whole encyclopedia if I'm not mistaken. And now you want to "remove" the lot. You act as if there are twenty on each page. I personally think one single image of the Academy winning film or top grossing film of that year is useful, with film to disregard images completely seems implausible when film is about the visual. If possible I do think images can be replaced with free images if possible (earlier films more likely) e.g see ] but remember each of the singular images have a detailed rationale for use. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

			As I don't have access to archived South African media coverage from the 1970s and 1980s, however, I can't verify whether the claim of a 1979 release is accurate or not, but the article's title and text absolutely can't stay in conflict with each other. Can somebody with more knowledge about South African film take a look at this, and either revise the article's text or move the title to 1981 depending on what you're able to find? Thanks. ] (]) 19:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:In answer to Steve I always appreciate the work that others do across the project and didn't inend to imply as if nobody was doing anything. I am fully aware that many members of the film project are doing great things. What I was referring to was that despite a request on the monthly newsletter for people to add least help a bit nobody did anything. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
			:It's been eight days since I posted this and no action of any sort has been taken to resolve the issue, but the article really can't just stay templated and categorized as a different year than its title. This really needs to be resolved one way or the other. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Discussion at ]==
	:American films of 2001 is quite suitable particularly as I intend that we turn them into more than just lists eventually ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
			] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

			== 2025 Utah Misplaced Pages Day at Sundance Film Festival ==
	Anybody else have ] on this subject? With regard to the use of copyrighted images in lists of films: I find them unnecessarily decorative, but if this project's consensus is for their retention, I'll bring the subject to ] for their specific review. OTOH, If this project has no objections, I'd be happy to remove them from these lists myself.<p>And did anybody have any input on the subject of duly renaming these lists as such? {{user\|blofeld of SPECTRE}}'s ... reply gave no input regarding this on his or her (or the project's) behalf. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

			] Please see the ] page. ] ] (]) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I would say that images should be removed, as there isn't much context for why one over another (and picking the Best Picture winner is tantamount to endorsement of the award, thus POV). Deletion would be a bad idea, I think, as it leads to the proliferation of excessive categories for a given film, assuming international co-production, etc. We've been trying to keep the categories to simple non-intersections, not only for category proliferation control, but also because it has been promised (although without a specific date) that dynamic cat intersection is going to be added to the wiki software shortly. (ie, one would request Category:American films of 2001 by asking for the common articles which are in Category:American films and Category:2001 films.) Additionally, recategorization is a time-consuming process, especially with the number of articles our project covers, so changes to category schemes generally are encouraged to proceed slowly and with a great deal of prior discussion and deliberation. As for the renaming, what did you have in mind, again? ] (]) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: Oh, no no. I'm not advocating their deletion any more, I originally thought they were a forgotten niche project of this WikiProject, since the last time I brought it up only one person had anything to say about them. If you guys want 'em, I'm happy to leave you to them, no biggie! I'm just now suggesting renaming them as "List of..."; for example renaming ] to ]. Since they really are more lists than prosed encyclopedic articles, it would seem more appropriate titling than current. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I personally wouldn't have an objection to renaming. ] (]) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	== Knocked Up/Judd Apatow/Katherine Heigl ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' 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.
	I'm sorry if this sort of thing doesn't belong here, but I've noticed something worrying about a small collection of articles all pertaining to the 2007 film '']''. A single anonymous user has contributed a disproportionately high amount of content concerning supposed 'sexist'/'discriminatory' themes in Apatow's work; in '']'' particularly. The content is relatively well-written and well-sourced, although it seems that the sources are being misused: for example; as is clearly stated in the article, an ''"online survey of 927 individuals was performed by lifestyle publication Buzzsugar (a media product of Sugar Publishing) in which the majority (59%) of movie-goers agreed that Apatow's film was sexist or could be viewed as sexist (while 38% were not personally offended) and 37% of viewers saw the film as devoid of sexist aspects"''. I followed it up, and, well, frankly, the results are nothing like that.

			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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Of course, I would like to Assume Good Faith. With 100% of his/her edits concerning this 'controversy', however, the user obviously wants to give this undue significance. The female characters in 'Knocked Up' ''were'' a bit uptight, but surely all this isn't as notable as these articles, as they are now, would have us believe. ] (]) 12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

			On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of ] as seen ]. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Considering that the section is a back-and-forth between both sides about sexism or lack thereof, it should be re-titled to encompass both arguments. In addition, I notice bits of ] like the poll you mentioned, the unrelated aspect of Heigl being conservative, and the Queenan review that does not explicitly talk about sexism. I also see the same context copied over to ], and seeing the user's , there may be ] weight as you say. The matter should be brought up at ] for ] in particular -- actually, I'm going to remove it because it's film-centric, not director-centric. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

			This discussion has been relisted to get more input. Editors are invited to comment. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	== 80th Academy Awards ==

			== Starring parameter ==
	The nominations are out, and can be found , for those of you who are interested in adding the information to the relevant articles. I'll do a couple myself should I have the time this afternoon. Here's a quickie citation template to use:
	*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web \| url=http://www.oscars.org/80academyawards/nominees/index.html \| title=80th Academy Awards nominations \| publisher=] \| accessdate=2008-01-22}}</ref></nowiki>
	All the best, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Appreciate the setup! In case some people haven't seen them, there are also nominations by the ], which can be seen . Here's the template for it:
	:*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web \| url=http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominees-in-2008,224,BA.html \| title=Film Awards Nominees in 2008 \| publisher=] \| accessdate=2008-01-22 }}</ref></nowiki>
	:I mentioned a while ago that we should focus on these nominees' articles due to the heightened visibility, and from what I've noticed, a good portion of them have pretty solid real-world context. Cheers to those who were able to contribute, and let's keep up the good work! I think some articles that could use more context are '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the sources! --] (]) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

			There is an edit and a discussion about the guideline for the film infobox's "Starring" parameter here: {{sectionlink\|Template talk:Infobox film#Starring 2025}}. Editors are invited to comment. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== FAC page? ==

			== Needed articles: ], ] ==
	I would like to suggest the creation of a subpage on this WikiProject that would display all film-related FAC processes. We already have an assessment subpage and a peer review subpage, and I feel that it would be beneficial to the community to have a subpage that shows active FAC processes. It could be modeled similarly to ] in having a brief description (especially referring to MOSFILM and general FA criteria) and the simple list of FAC processes. I'm suggesting this because some FAC processes seem to have come and gone without much community awareness. Thoughts on this? —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I support 100%, a lot of hard-working people have goals on getting the articles of movies they love so much featured. ] (]) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	::A couple of articles undergoing the FAC process are ] and ]. There could be more, but I'm not aware of them. Thus, centralizing them would be a good collaborative effort by everyone so the articles can be reviewed by multiple editors. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	I've been ] and created it at ], which has three FAC processes listed now. I'm not sure how to go about possible bot archiving, though, like the deletion listing page has. Any feedback would be appreciated. In addition, if this subpage is OK, where in the table could it be inserted? It doesn't fall under a department, so I guess general information? —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I think it's a good idea, but I must admit unfamiliarity in this area. We have the announcement board, which seems to have some impact, but a dedicated and watchable page would be another good step. By all means steam ahead! :) ] (]) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	;Note
	*Feel free to let me know about successful results from film FACs, at ]. Cheers, ] (]) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

			Not sure if we need both, but several wikis have separate article on them. We have neither. See ] <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 01:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Judy Garland, Reese Witherspoon FACs ==

			== Sharksploitation ==
	The articles on ] and, even more significantly, ] have been nominated for FAC; both are in need of more decisive reviews, particularly ], which has been peculiarly ignored. Both reviews are in danger of being archived, and I think that many people in this WikiProject may be veyr appropriate reviewers. Please take a look if you can. For examples to compare with, you can find a list of other actor FA articles at ]. --] (]) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

			There is a discussion about the appropriateness of a list section of sharksploitation films at ]. Editors are invited to comment: {{sectionlink\|Talk:Sharksploitation#Removal of inappropriate content}}. Thanks, ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 12:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			== Opinion on scope of WikiProject ==
	This article has been listed for deletion at ]. ] (]) 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

			I'm part of the ] and we are looking for feedback on if foreign films produced by Israelis should be included or not.
	== World cinema templates standardised ==
			See ]. ] (]) 02:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Plot summary discussion on ''Pokémon Heroes'' ==
	::: I noted the following back in July:

			There's a discussion about the length of the plot summary for '']'' (which was recently made a GA) here: {{sectionlink\|Talk:Pokémon Heroes#Plot summary length}}. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, ] (] - ]) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	A user pointed out to me that 2 templates exist, ] and ]. The former had only 2 linking articles (under special:whatlinkshere/) and the latter had 12, so I took the easy route and amended the 2, meaning the template with "Cinema" with an uppercase C can now be deleted.

			== Valnet, Collider, and MovieWeb ==
	However, I took a look at the other similar templates and they're not standardised:
	* ] - lowercase c, no space. This is the main World Cinema template containing links to all countries.
	* ] - Uppercase C. Contains links to 6 continental cinema "parent" articles and the 4 sub-continental Asia articles.
	:* ] - Uppercase C.
	:* ] - Lowercase c.
	::* ] - Lowercase c, different template format.
	::* ] - Uppercase C.
	::* ] - Lowercase c.
	::* ] - Lowercase c.
	::* ] - Uppercase c.
	:* ] - Uppercase C.
	:* ] - Uppercase C, no space.
	:* ] - Uppercase C.
	:* ] - Uppercase C, different template format.

			I feel it has come time to (re?)discuss the reliability of sources such as ] and ]. I bring them up together, as they create similar content and owned by ] with Collider being purchased in 2020 and MovieWeb (). As the topic has not been addressed before by in great detail by ], I've looked at the other WikiProjects, such as ] for example, as they went as far to apply their own ] regulation to try and find alternative sources, use it as a source sparingly, or to not use the source at all.
	So are we happy with the format of these templates? Should they be standardised?

			As other WikiProjects such as discussed other ValNet owned sources such as ], (here by ] and ], consensus was found to stop using the site entirely among its editors. Similarly, ] also has its own rule for ''Screen Rant'' in 2021 declaring it only "marginally reliable"(]) Similarly, ] lists it as "Screen Rant is generally reliable for attributed opinions and columns. However, it should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons or for news made based on leaks or references to unreliable sources." (])
	] 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

			On to the topic: Collider and MovieWeb
	:Yes. I am happy with the templates. And, they should be standardized, both in design and naming conventions. I prefer the format that is used on the majority of the templates, such as ], with the light purple background. Lowercase c, with a space makes the most sense. Something additional to address would be a replacement for the film reel that was formerly in the templates, but went away with the deletion of the stock images. I had tried using a map image inside a clapperboard, similar to the flag icons that have been created, but I am displeased with the results and would urge a different direction, possibly finding another freely licensed film-related photo, like a camera lens or film reel. — ''']''''']'' 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
			*: ''ValNet'' mission statement on their site is "" and Collider themselves stating "" I have found many articles citing highly questionable sources for their material, misleading statements, unattributed quotes, and reviews, or overviews with little insight, direct referencing, or commentary you couldn't find from any mainstream newspaper or film magazine ]. , which makes bold declarative statements with little depth or meat on its bone to back it up.]. Valnet owned companies, as stated by at ], state their websites tend to write "], articles that are strictly character plot synopses, and regurgitation of statements from social media outlets such as Reddit". I've gathered material that shares these with both MovieWeb and Collider.

			*: Collider editors share content from user-generated sources, such as ], IMDb, and LetterBoxd. For easier navigation, I have hidden them under banners.
	::: I just remembered about this, and so have now made some amendments. I haven't touched ] and ], because I don't quite know what to do with those. However, I've standardised all of the other template titles, and fixed all redirects to each. So we now have:
			{{collapse\|title=Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to IMDb, Reddit, and LetterBoxd.\|
	:* ]
			* Collider using Reddit for content: (, , , , , , ).
	:* ]
			* Collider using ]: , , , , , ,
	::* ]
			* Collider using ] , .
	:::* ] - this is an old duplicate, and is now due for speedy deletion.
			* MovieWeb on Reddit , , , ,
	::* ]
			* MovieWeb reposting Twitter Reviews as reception , .}}
	::* ]
	::* ]
	:* ]
	:* ]
	:* ]
	:* ]
	] (]) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

			While I think any seasoned WP:FILM regular editor would apply ] than cite sources that are blatantly pulling content from these sources, the article on '']'' (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's article. An article that touts "The highest-rated thriller movies on the site are almost always award-winning classics that represent the best that the genre has to offer." To clarify the complicated nature of this statement, IMDb's Keith Simanton managing editors states "Our Top 250, as voted by users, is just that, a list of the Top 250 films as voted on by our users. It's not a classic (ah, there’s a subjective term!) list by any measure, nor is it a critic's list. We leave that to the professionals." Compare the article to something like journals analysis on the IMDb charts for a general comparison of depth of research on such topics.
	I don't see how standardization could be a bad idea. Please do feel free to be bold and make the necessary changes (providing that everything stays fully functional and working). ] (]) 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

			*: While the mission statement on ValNet is to provide "authenticity and reliability of our content, achieved through meticulous research" The ValNet sites feature more than a few which showcase either self-contradiction, or apply very low-quality research. Along with the endless lists above citing user-driven sites, i've found the following.

			:* Collider: " "John Carpenter's Halloween in 1978, director Sean S. Cunningham decided to blatantly rip it off with his own slasher movie... 1980's Friday the 13th.]" cited to a .
	== Creating a core list ==
			:* Collider "" is also sourced to a .
			:* MovieWeb " cites a as part of the directors biography.

			As WP:VALNET has called their sites "]", the majority of ''Movie Web'' and ''Collider'' is simply regurgitating others sources, peppered with plot synopsis's and little if any critical commentary. Even just by looking at one recent film, in this case I've glanced at ''Nosferatu'' (2024), most articles either re-posted material from other sites, or worse, attributed quotes the real-life people stating the origin. While it does not showcase the sites being wrong, per ], it would be better to cite the actual source in question. Among the two original sources on ''Nosferatu'' from the site for news, they were interviews from collider: and .
	The question of the importance parameter ] ] ] ] in the past. In lieu of this, a core list has been proposed at ]. I'll let you read the page instead of rehashing the details, but if you'd like to help out, your comments and questions on the list's talk page are welcome! Thank you, ] (]) 08:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

			{{collapse\|title=Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to other sources just on ''Nosferatu'' (2024)\|
	== Consolidation: ] now up and running; A-Class reviews ==
			** MovieWeb re-sharing news from , , , ,
			** Collider quoting , , . ,
			* Worse, occasionally they will quote actor or film makers, and not attribute to quote to any source. This can be seen on this , which I have clarified as being taken uncredited from }}

			Both sites either misattribute their research, contradict themselves within their own articles, or post misleading content.
	Well, taking the ball from the FAC page, I've decided to consolidate all of the review processes into one page, so as to keep it simple. Following on the model of MilHist yet again, ] has been brought on board as well. This will allow us to distinguish between the informal process of general article guidance (]), formal content review (]), and final, tightly-polished review (]). All of the relevant reviews are transcluded, so there is no need for editors to wander amongst several locations - this is the one-stop shop for all editors interested in film to go! :) Your comments are always welcome. ] (]) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
			{{collapse\|title=Misattributed sources, poorly researched material, or applying fan-sources for film history\|
			** When not attributing sources, they well make share quotes from filmmakers and actors which would have the sites violate ] standards.
			* have an uncited quote about Robert Eggers, which I've soured to
			* Quote attributed to Bill Skasgard from ''Collider'' with no attribution, taken from taken ] (]) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* states that Jack Nicholson's film ''The Shooting'' "was never given an official theatrical release" while in the same article says the film "receives occasional screenings in art-house and independent theaters".
			* article on the golden age of hollywood they state "The exact timeline of the Golden Age is often disputed and varies in start and end dates. Some say the age was finished by the 1950s, while others say it remained until the late 1970s. This depends on what exactly you call the Golden Age. People label only the years of technological advancement as the real Golden Age, which is a shorter period, and others include the years of film that were directly impacted by those advancements, which would lead practically into the 1980s. Other sources say the end of the Golden Age came with the start of World War II in 1939. Therefore, in some cases, this iconic Hollywood age is said to have started in the 1910s and finished in the late 1970s." No statement on who these sources are, and I struggle to see how this conclusion is drawn from the previous statements.
			* presents a list of the "The 10 Best Horror Movies of All Time, According to ]" There is no attribution to the numerical order or when Ebert (who died in 2013) had potentially made such a list. The site also claims Ebert had said Murnau's ''Nosferatu'', that "as a modernized version makes its way to the screen, audiences are reminded of Ebert's opinion that the original Nosferatu holds the title of greatest vampire movie of all time." I've skimmed through RogerEbert.com and can not find any suggestion Ebert holds this opinion, with the closest being him calling it " in 1994. While if someone could showcase that Ebert had published such a list, that would be great, but I find it unlikely. In about voting for '']''{{'}}s poll, he commented that "Apart from my annual year’s best lists, this is the only list I vote in." and that in his opinion: "Lists are ridiculous, but if you’re going to vote, you have to play the game." Despite this, the site continues to farm Ebert's reviews for similar lists such as , and . The author of said article is credited as a "senior author" on the site with .}}

			That said, reliable sources have cited both Collider and MovieWeb as a source on occasion.
			{{collapse\|title=Reliable sources using Collider as a source.\|('']'': ,, and , as has '']'' and . These sources have been made since the ValNet purchase, but their only consistency is that they cite interviews, not articles about historical overviews, reception, lists, or any other sort of article.}}

			While there was no serious consensus from ] on the reliability of the sites, I have tagged prominent editors, and pinged them on their previous statements.
	== ] ==
			'''The 6 Responses on WP:FILM That Took Me by Surprise From Editors You Should Really Know Right Now''':
			*
			* {{ping\|MikeAllen}} has previously said he would only use the site for interviews.
			* {{ping\|Darkwarriorblake}} followed that the interviews on the site are most of the original content they have, a lot of the film news is linked to a source like ''The Hollywood Reporter'' or ''Deadline''.
			* {{ping\|Erik}} has brought up that '']'' was had doubts on ''Collider'' reporting as a reliable source where they say "If a report in Collider is to be believed..."
			* {{ping\|BarntToust}} points out other content such as interviews and cover of popular films citing these articles: .
			* {{ping\|Gerald Waldo Luis}} highlighted the . and .
			* {{ping\|Betty_Logan}} has suggested that , this was shown to be incorrect by Darkwarriorblake.}}

			That's an essay, but I wanted to be thorough to get across the vastness of issues in one swoop. Generally speaking, most discussion on the site does appear to be from content that one could find written about better from more mainstream film news sources (film journalists and critics, general newspapers, etc.), countless books and authors discussing film, and particularly genre work, film academia, or even more fan-oriented publications like ''Empire'', ''Fangoria'' or ''Total Film''. As the material from these sites was previously more glacially paced, both sites content before the ValNet buy out is probably permittable (look at the amount and how the articles were written before these buyouts, you'll spot the difference immediately). I feel that with the suggestions from other editors above, and how more mainstream publications treat the sites, we should probably only use them for interviews where its very clear on how the interview is taken. I look forward to thoughts and apologize for my jokey last header ahead of time ;). ] (]) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	There are currently about 260 films in this category currently that need to be sub-categorized. Please take a couple of minutes to help empty this category! ] (]) 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Collider, MovieWeb, Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, etc. are all in a similar boat: still good to use for direct interviews and I think there is merit in their reviews/opinion pieces/analysis articles if written well, but more and more they are just churning out crap that we need to wade through to get to the good stuff. I think the important thing is making sure editors are not just using any article from one of these websites, they need to be looking at what style of article it is, where the information is coming from (WP:FRUIT), whether there is a better source available to cover the same information, and so on. I just opened Collider's website and found 8 different articles on the front feed, all posted in the last few hours, that are just inane lists meant to fill space / get clicks (i.e. "10 Superhero Movie Flops Everyone Saw Coming", "14 of the Longest Movies of the Past Decade, Ranked by Runtime") but they also have genuine reviews of upcoming shows from long-time critics and they regularly have great direct interviews with cast and crew for different projects. - ] (]) 09:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''DWB Commment''' I think some context is required here re "'']'' (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's ". It is not used to cite that Seven is one of the best thrillers, it's used to help cite "Pitt's line "What's in the box?" as he asks Somerset to confirm the contents of Doe's box, has become iconic, and is used in popular culture and internet memes" which is commentary by Collider itself.
			:'''DWB Comment''' Additionally, there needs to be clarity about timeframe. Sites like Collider, Screen Rant, and other Valnet sites WERE reliable (typically pre Valnet) and I would oppose any kind of retroactive discounting. That said, the modern versions of these sites, like most media sites, has become very clickbaity and the front page at the minute is filled with "10 best" or "10 worst" and it is getting harder to discern quality content. ] (]) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''DWB Comment''' This is a similar situation with Forbes, which was reliable, particularly articles by the senior contributor whose name escapes me, but is now considered generally unreliable. Corporations have destroyed the media basically. ] (]) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''WDB comment''' It breaks my heart to ask this but are any media '''''not''''' victim to this these days? I swear I've seen so many garbage articles from '']'' recently that I seriously wonder if they're AI written. This seems like a bigger issue that all of Misplaced Pages has to contend with eventually. Almost all of our old reliable sources are garbage now.] (]) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I've said before (many times) that '']'' is a low-quality source (to a large extent a ] ]) whose uses on Misplaced Pages are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, ] material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing ] or assessing ]. '']'' is similar, and the others appear to be so as well. Overall, it should only rarely be necessary to use these sources in the limited cases where they are usable since there should be higher-quality sources that can be used instead. ] (]) 23:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ~~Request~~ ~~for~~ ~~help~~ - ~~] ==~~		== '']'' ==

			] and ] appear in the film's mid-credits scene, but are never named or credited since they are silent cameos. {{u\|TheJoebro64}} forcibly includes their names into the plot, rather than through footnotes as I believe should be the norm. Please see ], accusing me of "fanboyish hypercorrectness". In fact, in '']'', the popular comics character ] appears unnamed in the narrative, but is named in the credits, yet the plot section names her in a footnote. That's the example I'm following here. Joe's claim that "All sources verify that it's Amy and Metal Sonic" is incorrect, since the only source "verifying" is . It traces back to , where the screenwriters don't mention her name, only that they have plans for her in ''Sonic 4''. Metal Sonic isn't mentioned by them at all, only the article writer. Is Joe correct to name characters in the plot when they aren't named onscreen or in the credits? I believe not. Will he agree he is wrong? I believe not. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 14:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Please can someone help me with this - see the talk page for more discussion about the issue. --] (]) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

			:Since they aren't named in the film, using their names in the plot summary requires reliable sources. There is no requirement when it comes to the formatting, though I personally prefer to use footnotes for these things as it makes it clear where the information is coming from. Using a footnote allows you to explain that the characters were not named in the film but were confirmed by X. - ] (]) 15:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] needs your assistant. ==
			:] covers this -- if the film is not defining them, knowledge about Metal Sonic and Amy Rose would be "specialized knowledge". Not all readers are Sonic fans. There definitely needs to be secondary sourcing in some form. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:IMO the version that Kailash29792 proposes doesn't help anything. It still identifies the characters, but makes that info harder to find by burying it in footnotes, ''and'' doesn't add any source — so it's the worst of all worlds.
			:If we're going to identify the characters, let's keep the prose simple and add a reliable secondary source (the DigitalSpy source looks fine to me). ] (]) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Its certainly become complicated for us that popular blockbuster films that post-credit scenes introduce unnamed characters to what I presume, is to create discussion and hype about a series or franchise. ] does state "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." while ], part our manual of style, says "The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, " In this case, from my statement above, it is highly like an audience who might not be familiar with the series, see this, and would come to the article wanting to know who these unnamed characters are, as I have done with many a Marvel/DC film. and may come to Misplaced Pages to try and find out. The Digital Spy article does identify "Metal Sonic" and "Amy Rose". I haven't seen the film, do they have any speaking roles? I don't think they would be required to be listed in the credits for any legality reasons. As for Joe's comments about it being Easter Egg like, I respect this editor, but I will agree with you, Easteregg is about misleading links, like me saying ] or "the farmer bought ]." with links leading to unexpected articles based on the title. While I wouldn't go overboard on footnotes, I don't think it would confuse the average reader, as most well cited articles will have citations that use footnotes all the time. ] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The thing is that if we don't name the characters in the prose ''but'' still link to Misplaced Pages articles about them then we're still effectively naming them. It's a non-solution. ] (]) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My view of this is pretty simple: naming a character in a plot summary should not matter if the character is not named in the film's dialogue as long as it can be verified in a reliable source. Reliable sources are in unanimous agreement that it's Amy and Metal Sonic. (.) Shoving the information into footnotes is counterintuitive; the reader has to open the note to learn who the character is—in essence creating the exact same problem as ].
			:tl;dr, let's adhere to the ]. ]]] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thank you all for your input. I too prefer "]", but the plot section must never contain info not explicitly revealed in the narrative; it must strictly stay in-universe. Adding footnotes helps clarify the ambiguity like an asterisk. That's why the plot of '']'' doesn't state that ] cheated death. We don't even include obvious ones such as ] in '']'' since he was just called "your doomsday". These ambiguities are easily clarified by footnotes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's not true that it must strictly stay in-universe. ] explains about leveraging out-of-universe context. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Would an acceptable compromise be adding the word "presumably" before Amy Rose, etc.? That would reflect that both A) RSes think it's Amy Rose, but B) The film doesn't name her and dumber stuff has happened before in weird retcons from film-to-film. The "presumably" can probably be dropped in a year or two after information on a sequel comes out and we find out if it was confirmed or not. ] (]) 21:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That injects our own guesswork/fuzzy interpretation into the plot, which would be inappropriate ]. ] (]) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The simplest thing would be to simply leave them unnamed in the plot but named in footnotes. Not to copy the MCU, but stick to guidelines and ]. Whether they end up calling them "Rosy the Rascal" or "Mecha Sonic", I'm least bothered. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 02:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No it doesn't? This is the film being fuzzy, not Misplaced Pages editors, unless I'm missing something. Reflecting uncertainty in a work itself on Misplaced Pages is fine. ] (]) 04:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No it isn't. If we're certain of something, then we should say it directly. If we're not certain of it, the we should avoid saying it at all rather than injecting our own interpretation using weaselly words like "presumably". Per ], "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". ] (]) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Roger Ebert on YouTube ==
	] for more information. ] (]) 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

			Recently on editing articles, I've seen a source cite this account here https://www.youtube.com/@TheOfficialRogerEbert . While it does say Official Roger Ebert all over it, I'm a bit in doubt of its legitimacy. There is no YouTube check next to the name to clarify its connected with the Ebert family or Rogerebert.com. There are links to purchase Ebert's books, and visit his website, but, does Roger Ebert even have the rights to the videos from '']''? At RogerEbert.com I can't find any connection with the YouTube channel, even if there is a YouTube link which seems to be currently just a place holder. Thoughts? ] (]) 03:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	''Note: Please don't reply to this section, instead reply where it's leading you to. The reason for that is because this discussion can get mixed up with all kinda movie discussion by the time it archives, it's easier for the future if people can can just look at the movie talk page to see why the article was cleaned up, instead of having to look for it on the highly active WikiProject.''

			:I just looked myself and can't find anything to confirm its legitimacy! It's a strange case for sure. I went ahead and contacted the RogerEbert.com website asking about it to see if they can shed light on it. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	== WP:FICT has been revised ==

			== Film screenshots (in Italian Misplaced Pages) ==
	], the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. ] 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

			In Italian Misplaced Pages, film articles are usually illustrated with film screenshots only uploaded there (example: ]). Does Italy have a legislation enabling this for Misplaced Pages? And then, why only there? Are there any exceptions where it's possible in English Misplaced Pages? --] (]) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Rotten Tomatoes ==

			:I think there are a couple of points to discuss here. First, the Italian-language Misplaced Pages, like the English-language Misplaced Pages, are under Wikimedia Foundation, and their non-free content guideline says, ''"Non-free content can be used in articles only if... Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria."'' For what you linked specifically, ] says this is acceptable: ''"Cover art from various items, for visual identification ''only in the context of'' critical commentary ''of that item'' (not for identification ''without'' critical commentary)."'' I'm not sure why that ''Top Gun'' page is using a screenshot (which seems interchangeable with any freely-licensed air carrier takeoff image) instead of the Italian poster for the film?
	Is the news section of IGN's "Rotten Tomatoes" considered a reliable source for industry news? -- ] \| ] 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	:~~It depends on how the information is reported.~~ I'm ~~wary~~ of ~~movie~~ ~~websites~~ ~~over~~ ~~actual~~ ~~newspaper~~ ~~coverage.~~ ~~They~~ ~~usually~~ go ~~two~~ ~~ways~~ -- a ~~report~~ ~~from~~ an ~~anonymous~~ ~~source,~~ or ~~information~~ ~~upfront~~ ~~from~~ ~~the~~ ~~filmmakers.~~ If ~~it's~~ ~~the~~ ~~former~~, it ~~can't~~ be ~~dependable.~~ ~~If it~~'s ~~the~~ ~~latter~~, ~~then~~ ~~it'd~~ be appropriate. Of ~~course~~, ~~I'd~~ ~~favor~~ ~~newspaper~~ ~~coverage~~ ~~over~~ ~~movie~~ ~~websites~~ ~~whenever~~ ~~possible,~~ ~~but~~ ~~sometimes~~ ~~the~~ ~~websites~~ ~~get~~ ~~more~~ ~~information~~ ~~than~~ ~~newspapers.~~ ~~That's~~ ~~how~~ ~~I've~~ ~~seen~~ it. ~~—<font~~ ~~face="Palatino~~ ~~Linotype">~~]~~</font>~~ (] • ]) - 06:34, 1 ~~February~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		:Also, I'm not sure if you see screenshots used elsewhere, outside the film infobox? Across all Wikipedias, WP:NFCI says this is acceptable: ''"Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)."'' In essence, cover art is most appropriate for film infoboxes, and screenshots are best used in the article body with critical commentary (e.g., for a famous shot in some film that cannot be shown with free images). Hope that helps. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I'm concerned in particular about a copy of a film's production notes from a press kit, which was posted by a contributor there along with a stack of stills and other promotional materials.
	::Rotten Tomatoes actually one of a number of online sources that have published the same document; that's just the link that happens to be in use at the moment, so I guess I should have said "sites like Rotten Tomatoes", as it's not really that site in particular that's the issue. -- ] \| ] 06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Which article in particular is this relating to? Want someone to take a look at the source? ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 08:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Sure. They're the production notes for Cloverfield, posted . I ''think'' they'd fall more under the 'word from the producers' category Erik mentioned above? -- ] \| ] 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I think it would be unlikely to dispute these production notes unless someone really wanted to believe that the notes are susceptible because they're being posted on a possibly questionable website. I'm in support of the notes -- I've actually cited them in my revision of ] due to the AFD apparently not being successful midway through. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Must concur with Erik here. (Speaking of which, we're probably due for a discussion regarding guidelines for film character pages.) ] (]) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::If that's the case, that would probably involve those at ], since it has a lot to do with the issue of notability. The guideline's been revised, so I don't know if that would be genuinely applicable. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::There's more to be said, but I want to wait for FICT to settle down, first. ] (]) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	Deindent. Thanks for the input, guys. One more question: there's also been a discussion on the source at the RS noticeboard, which started a little while after this thread. Only one uninvolved editor weighed in there. He's said the problem with the source was that Giles doesn't give an author's name ("Documents that have no author are puzzling to cite.") Is it unusual for marketing materials like these to have no author listed? I was under the impression that when there's no author available, we should use the publisher. (I asked the same questions there yesterday, but the only response I've gotten was from an involved party.) -- ] \| ] 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Yeah, publisher is fine (just leave the ''author'' field blank). Another example would be official press releases, which Misplaced Pages also considers acceptable sources despite lacking a named human author. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 17:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:14, 11 January 2025

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:FILM

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

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

Shortcuts

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews

Today's featured articles 21 Jan 2025 – Ada Wong (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 10 Jan 2025 – Scrat (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by PrimalMustelid (t · c); see discussion 10 Jan 2025 – Death Angels (A Quiet Place) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Di (they-them) (t · c); see discussion 08 Jan 2025 – Huaju Film Company (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 07 Jan 2025 – Mufasa (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Therguy10 (t · c); see discussion 07 Jan 2025 – Top Gun: Maverick (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Lankyant (t · c); see discussion 29 Dec 2024 – United Palace (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Epicgenius (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2024 – Last Song for You (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 26 Dec 2024 – Scorsese Baby Daddy (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by PSA (t · c); see discussion 25 Dec 2024 – Loew's Jersey Theatre (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Epicgenius (t · c); see discussion 21 Dec 2024 – Lonely Orchid (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 05 Dec 2024 – List of accolades received by Hidden Figures (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 29 Nov 2024 – List of Mingxing films (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 07 Jan 2025 – Princess Mononoke (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by TechnoSquirrel69 (t · c); see discussion 06 Jan 2025 – Attack of the Robots (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Andrzejbanas (t · c); start discussion 03 Jan 2025 – Loew's Jersey Theatre (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Epicgenius (t · c); start discussion 27 Dec 2024 – Mingxing (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); start discussion 23 Dec 2024 – High and Low (1963 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Plifal (t · c); start discussion 18 Dec 2024 – 42 (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Yovt (t · c); see discussion 15 Dec 2024 – Miss Shampoo (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion 09 Dec 2024 – Hundreds of Beavers (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Jon698 (t · c); start discussion 09 Dec 2024 – Pixels (2015 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Yovt (t · c); see discussion 07 Dec 2024 – Two Stars in the Milky Way (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); start discussion (14 more...) Featured article reviews 16 Nov 2024 – Boogeyman 2 (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Caleb Stanford (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 01 Jan 2025 – Green Lantern (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2024 – Wings (1927 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion 31 Dec 2024 – The Simpsons Ride (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Boneless Pizza! (t · c) was closed; see discussion Peer reviews 27 Dec 2024 – Billy (Black Christmas) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Paleface Jack (t · c); see discussion 19 Nov 2024 – Kill Bill (SZA song) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by PSA (t · c); see discussion 18 Oct 2024 – How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by M48SKY (t · c); see discussion 09 Oct 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

WikiProject Film

General information ( v t e )
Main project page	+ talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines	talk
→ Multimedia	talk
→ Naming conventions	talk
→ Copy-editing essentials	talk
Notability guidelines	talk
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles	talk
→ Nominations for deletion	talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests	talk
Spotlight	talk
Film portal	talk
Fiction noticeboard	talk

Project organization
Coordinators	talk
Participants	talk
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk

Departments
Assessment	talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization	talk
Core	talk
Outreach	talk
Resources	talk
Review	talk
Spotlight	talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop	talk

Task forces
General topics
Film awards	talk
Film festivals	talk
Film finance	talk
Filmmaking	talk
Silent films	talk
Genre
Animated films	talk
Christian films	talk
Comic book films	talk
Documentary films	talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe	talk
Skydance Media	talk
War films	talk
Avant-garde and experimental films	talk
National and regional
American cinema	talk
Argentine cinema	talk
Australian cinema	talk
Baltic cinema	talk
Belgian cinema	talk
British cinema	talk
Canadian cinema	talk
Chinese cinema	talk
French cinema	talk
German cinema	talk
Indian cinema	talk
Israeli cinema	talk
Italian cinema	talk
Japanese cinema	talk
Korean cinema	talk
Mexican cinema	talk
New Zealand cinema	talk
Nordic cinema	talk
Pakistani cinema	talk
Persian cinema	talk
Southeast Asian cinema	talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema	talk
Spanish cinema	talk
Uruguayan cinema	talk
Venezuelan cinema	talk

Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Requested move at Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Unrealized projects discussion

I launched a discussion at Talk:Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects that I feel would benefit from having wider input. In regards to if currently still in development films count as "unrealized" or not. Rusted AutoParts 06:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s very frustrating this has not seen any contribution to. Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic instigating
No, it's not. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC) What purpose does this remark serve except for antagonism? Rusted AutoParts 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Absolutely nothing. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Help with Review for "The Misguided" Draft

Hello,

I'm seeking assistance with the review process for the draft article "Draft:The Misguided". I initially submitted the draft for review on December 3rd. On December 12th, I followed up on my request and added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score to further demonstrate the film's notability. I believe the draft is well-sourced, comprehensive, and meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion.

Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous), but the situation remains unresolved.

Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this draft reviewed and moved to mainspace? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the hurry here? (and here ?) Axad12 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that a draft will be reviewed or processed within a certain specific timeframe. You're not guaranteed a one-week or two-week response time at all — drafts get approved or rejected when an AFC reviewer gets around to them, and you're simply not entitled to demand that your draft receive more prompt attention than everybody else's drafts. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, see the currently-blocked user's talk page. There has been a lot going on with their contributions. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The user was indef blocked following this ANI thread . The user was an obvious promotional WP:SPA and I'd suggest that readers not be drawn in to forwarding their agenda. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fantastic Four in film

Fantastic Four in 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Submission to the Academy Awards

Hi, a quick question...

If a film is a submission to the Academy Awards (or any other awards) does this imply any significance, or is submitting a film just something that any minor film-maker can do with any minor film? Clarification on this point would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Which categorie(s)? Nardog (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Short documentary. Axad12 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If it helps at all, it would seem that 104 films were submitted in the year in question, so I'm assuming that this is not particularly exclusive company. Axad12 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, that is 104 films in that single category. Axad12 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is pretty exclusive if you consider how many short documentaries there are in the world. A submission itself may not be significant, but the meeting of the criteria for it to be eligible may be, like winning an award at a festival. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading the link correctly, a film would only need to complete a commercial showing of at least 7 days in either Los Angeles County, California or anywhere in New York City before being released to other non-theatrical venues such as DVD or TV. Winning an award does not appear to be necessary. So, being a submission doesn't seem to me to infer any particular significance.

The broader issue here is the rather promotional article about director Alexander Tuschinski, authored 90% by the accounts of the subject and his publicist (whose activities can be seen here ).

In trying to establish how much of the article needs to be culled it would be useful to have some input on the significance of the awards listed in this part of the article . A good number of the awards have articles on Misplaced Pages, but note that in many cases that is because Tuschinski's publicist created the relevant articles. Axad12 (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was necessary. I just pointed out what made the submission possible, rather than the submission by itself, may be significant, depending on which criteria were fulfilled. Nardog (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would depend on the category. International Film, for example, is a category where each country has to have a committee select just one film from its entire cinematic output in that year to submit to the category — so that selection would indeed represent a distinction in and of itself even if the film doesn't ultimately land in the final five nominees. For most other categories, however, being submitted for Oscar consideration wouldn't be a notability claim in and of itself, although a film that gets submitted may very well have other reasonable notability claims — for example, some categories (I believe short documentary is one of these) essentially extend automatic consideration to films that win certain specific awards at certain specific qualifying film festivals, so the film festival award already constitutes a meaningful notability claim as it is.

Ultimately, however, the clincher is how well the film can or can't be reliably sourced. If the film can be shown to pass WP:GNG on its coverage, then it wouldn't matter whether we considered submission to be a notability claim or not because the film had already passed GNG as it is — and if it can't be shown to pass GNG on its coverage, then simple submission to a preliminary awards consideration pool probably wouldn't be enough in and of itself to exempt it from GNG. Remember that awards are one alternative among several notability paths, not a necessary condition that every film always has to have — films that have no award claims at all can still pass other criteria anyway, so the presence or absence of awards isn't the be-all and end-all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Moviefone reliablitly

I searched RSN and the archives here but no real guidance, so I was wondering if Moviefone is reliable to use as an inline source? I'm leaning towards no given it looks like a database a la IMDb, but wanted to see if any other editors have come across this or its use on articles. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Moviefone, it may have had a reliable publisher in the past, but I'm not sure about now. It may also depend on what part of the website is being used. Are we talking about the "News" section, or the reviews it has, or something else? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be the "full cast and crew" tab/page for a film. The specific example I've come across it was trying to source new writer credits and an actor appearing for Captain America: Brave New World and its Moviefone page here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I see at the bottom of the Moviefone page, "This product uses the TMDb API but is not endorsed or certified by TMDb." Maybe these details came from there? It looks like TMDb is "a user-editable database". (Wow, I tried to link to TMDb, but it's apparently blacklisted... that may indicate something...) Erik (talk | contrib) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The poster here seems to confirm the writing credits? See the left and right of the bottom line of the billing block. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, other active editors at that article are aware of the billing block (that's what's stemmed this issue at that page), but no third party reliable sources have reported on these adjustments, so we have been cautious proceeding adding the information in and not sourcing it in the body of the article. Another editor found the Moviefone page so that's how we ended up here checking its reliability. But per your first comment about its connections with TMDb, seems unreliable as a user database. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the billing block is in question? It's like referencing the official website for basic crediting information. We can use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, per WP:PRIMARY. I'm not sure if it's possible for the billing block to become outdated or wrong (other than the cases of where others are unofficially deserving of certain credits). Erik (talk | contrib) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The billing block isn't being questioned, just the act of how to source it in the article's when no third-party source exists covering this information. We seem to have determined Moviefone is not reliable per my original comment. If we want to have further discussion on sourcing approaches, we can continue this discussion at Talk:Captain America: Brave New World#Poster billing block. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Help needed for Hong Kong film

Hello, I was trying to restore an article of a HK film, fixing link and adding source to HKMDB. This was rejected by User:JalenBarks, see talk page. Is any specialist able to help? Thanks in advance. --2A00:20:3004:F761:4CCF:894C:6F06:4CF6 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Sneider

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

Wings (1927 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The Demon (1979 film)

There's a problem at The Demon (1979 film) which needs some attention, as there's been past edit-warring over whether it's a 1979 film or a 1981 film. IMDB says 1981, but that's based on the film's American release, while there are claims that it premiered in South Africa (its home country) in 1979 — and because of the edit-warring, the page is now in the problematic state of being titled as a 1979 film, while being categorized and infoboxed as a 1981 film, which is a situation that can't stay as is: either the text needs to be revised to 1979, or the page needs to be moved to 1981, so that the title and the text aren't in conflict.

As I don't have access to archived South African media coverage from the 1970s and 1980s, however, I can't verify whether the claim of a 1979 release is accurate or not, but the article's title and text absolutely can't stay in conflict with each other. Can somebody with more knowledge about South African film take a look at this, and either revise the article's text or move the title to 1981 depending on what you're able to find? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been eight days since I posted this and no action of any sort has been taken to resolve the issue, but the article really can't just stay templated and categorized as a different year than its title. This really needs to be resolved one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Utah Misplaced Pages Day at Sundance Film Festival

Please see the Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Utah/Wikipedia Day 2025 page. Peaceray (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of List of economics films for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of economics films is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of economics films 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) 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of economics film as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been relisted to get more input. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Starring parameter

There is an edit and a discussion about the guideline for the film infobox's "Starring" parameter here: Template talk:Infobox film § Starring 2025. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Needed articles: detective film, police film

Not sure if we need both, but several wikis have separate article on them. We have neither. See Talk:Crime_fiction#Is_police_film_different_from_detective_film? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Sharksploitation

There is a discussion about the appropriateness of a list section of sharksploitation films at sharksploitation. Editors are invited to comment: Talk:Sharksploitation § Removal of inappropriate content. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 12:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion on scope of WikiProject

I'm part of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Israeli cinema task force and we are looking for feedback on if foreign films produced by Israelis should be included or not. See this discussion. LDW5432 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Plot summary discussion on Pokémon Heroes

There's a discussion about the length of the plot summary for Pokémon Heroes (which was recently made a GA) here: Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Plot summary length. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Valnet, Collider, and MovieWeb

I feel it has come time to (re?)discuss the reliability of sources such as MovieWeb and Collider. I bring them up together, as they create similar content and owned by Valnet with Collider being purchased in 2020 and MovieWeb (since 2021). As the topic has not been addressed before by in great detail by WP:FILM, I've looked at the other WikiProjects, such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games (WP:VG) for example, as they went as far to apply their own WP:VALNET regulation to try and find alternative sources, use it as a source sparingly, or to not use the source at all.

As other WikiProjects such as discussed other ValNet owned sources such as Comic Book Resources, (here by here at WP:VG and WikiProject: Anime & Manga (WP:A&M), consensus was found to stop using the site entirely among its editors. Similarly, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources also has its own rule for Screen Rant in 2021 declaring it only "marginally reliable"(here) Similarly, WP:A&M lists it as "Screen Rant is generally reliable for attributed opinions and columns. However, it should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons or for news made based on leaks or references to unreliable sources." (archived discussion here)

On to the topic: Collider and MovieWeb

ValNet mission statement on their site is "prioritize the authenticity and reliability of our content, achieved through meticulous research and thorough revisions conducted by our diverse team of journalists, researchers, editors and specialists." and Collider themselves stating "Collider chooses its reviewers based on talent, experience, and expertise. Our core of critics represents the best editors and writers from the Collider team and several freelance reviewers chosen for their skill and expertise. We assign films or series to a reviewer with deep knowledge of and experience covering the relevant genre, director, or franchise whenever possible." I have found many articles citing highly questionable sources for their material, misleading statements, unattributed quotes, and reviews, or overviews with little insight, direct referencing, or commentary you couldn't find from any mainstream newspaper or film magazine Empire. see this Interstellar article, posted just 5 days ago, which makes bold declarative statements with little depth or meat on its bone to back it up.]. Valnet owned companies, as stated by at WP:VALNET, state their websites tend to write "churnalism, articles that are strictly character plot synopses, and regurgitation of statements from social media outlets such as Reddit". I've gathered material that shares these with both MovieWeb and Collider.

Collider editors share content from user-generated sources, such as Reddit, IMDb, and LetterBoxd. For easier navigation, I have hidden them under banners.

Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to IMDb, Reddit, and LetterBoxd.
Collider using Reddit for content: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Collider using IMDb: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Collider using Letterboxd 1, 2. MovieWeb on Reddit 1, 2, 3, 4, 3 MovieWeb reposting Twitter Reviews as reception 1, .

While I think any seasoned WP:FILM regular editor would apply WP:RS/IMDb than cite sources that are blatantly pulling content from these sources, the article on Seven (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's The 35 Best Thriller Movies of All Time, Ranked According to IMDb article. An article that touts "The highest-rated thriller movies on the site are almost always award-winning classics that represent the best that the genre has to offer." To clarify the complicated nature of this statement, IMDb's Keith Simanton managing editors states "Our Top 250, as voted by users, is just that, a list of the Top 250 films as voted on by our users. It's not a classic (ah, there’s a subjective term!) list by any measure, nor is it a critic's list. We leave that to the professionals." source Compare the article to something like Bright Lights Film journals analysis on the IMDb charts for a general comparison of depth of research on such topics.

While the mission statement on ValNet is to provide "authenticity and reliability of our content, achieved through meticulous research" The ValNet sites feature more than a few which showcase either self-contradiction, or apply very low-quality research. Along with the endless lists above citing user-driven sites, i've found the following.

Collider: "here "John Carpenter's Halloween in 1978, director Sean S. Cunningham decided to blatantly rip it off with his own slasher movie... 1980's Friday the 13th.]" cited to a fan-made YouTube video.
Collider "Coppola had a fondness for the book Dracula dating back to childhood." is also sourced to a fanmade youtube video.
MovieWeb "How Mario Bava Paved the Way for Generations of Horror Auteurs cites a TriPod fanpage as part of the directors biography.

As WP:VALNET has called their sites "Content Farms", the majority of Movie Web and Collider is simply regurgitating others sources, peppered with plot synopsis's and little if any critical commentary. Even just by looking at one recent film, in this case I've glanced at Nosferatu (2024), most articles either re-posted material from other sites, or worse, attributed quotes the real-life people stating the origin. While it does not showcase the sites being wrong, per WP:NEWSORG, it would be better to cite the actual source in question. Among the two original sources on Nosferatu from the site for news, they were interviews from collider: here and here.

Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to other sources just on Nosferatu (2024)
MovieWeb re-sharing news from Games Radar Rotten Tomatoes, DeadLine (twice), , Vanity Fair, Collider quoting Variety, IndieWire, Time. Happy Sad Confused pocast, Worse, occasionally they will quote actor or film makers, and not attribute to quote to any source. This can be seen on this MovieWeb article, which I have clarified as being taken uncredited from IndieWire

Both sites either misattribute their research, contradict themselves within their own articles, or post misleading content.

Misattributed sources, poorly researched material, or applying fan-sources for film history
When not attributing sources, they well make share quotes from filmmakers and actors which would have the sites violate WP:BLP standards. MovieWeb have an uncited quote about Robert Eggers, which I've soured to IndieWire Quote attributed to Bill Skasgard from Collider with no attribution, taken from here taken from USA Today Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Collider article states that Jack Nicholson's film The Shooting "was never given an official theatrical release" while in the same article says the film "receives occasional screenings in art-house and independent theaters". Collider article on the golden age of hollywood they state "The exact timeline of the Golden Age is often disputed and varies in start and end dates. Some say the age was finished by the 1950s, while others say it remained until the late 1970s. This depends on what exactly you call the Golden Age. People label only the years of technological advancement as the real Golden Age, which is a shorter period, and others include the years of film that were directly impacted by those advancements, which would lead practically into the 1980s. Other sources say the end of the Golden Age came with the start of World War II in 1939. Therefore, in some cases, this iconic Hollywood age is said to have started in the 1910s and finished in the late 1970s." No statement on who these sources are, and I struggle to see how this conclusion is drawn from the previous statements. Collider here presents a list of the "The 10 Best Horror Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert" There is no attribution to the numerical order or when Ebert (who died in 2013) had potentially made such a list. The site also claims Ebert had said Murnau's Nosferatu, that "as a modernized version makes its way to the screen, audiences are reminded of Ebert's opinion that the original Nosferatu holds the title of greatest vampire movie of all time." I've skimmed through RogerEbert.com and can not find any suggestion Ebert holds this opinion, with the closest being him calling it "the first great vampire movie" in 1994. While if someone could showcase that Ebert had published such a list, that would be great, but I find it unlikely. In his own article in 2012 about voting for Sight & Sound's poll, he commented that "Apart from my annual year’s best lists, this is the only list I vote in." and that in his opinion: "Lists are ridiculous, but if you’re going to vote, you have to play the game." Despite this, the site continues to farm Ebert's reviews for similar lists such as The 10 Worst Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert, and The 18 Worst Horror Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert. The author of said article is credited as a "senior author" on the site with an "Expertise" on Roger Ebert as credentials.

Misattributed sources, poorly researched material, or applying fan-sources for film history

- When not attributing sources, they well make share quotes from filmmakers and actors which would have the sites violate WP:BLP standards.
MovieWeb have an uncited quote about Robert Eggers, which I've soured to IndieWire
Quote attributed to Bill Skasgard from Collider with no attribution, taken from here taken from USA Today Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Collider article states that Jack Nicholson's film The Shooting "was never given an official theatrical release" while in the same article says the film "receives occasional screenings in art-house and independent theaters".
Collider article on the golden age of hollywood they state "The exact timeline of the Golden Age is often disputed and varies in start and end dates. Some say the age was finished by the 1950s, while others say it remained until the late 1970s. This depends on what exactly you call the Golden Age. People label only the years of technological advancement as the real Golden Age, which is a shorter period, and others include the years of film that were directly impacted by those advancements, which would lead practically into the 1980s. Other sources say the end of the Golden Age came with the start of World War II in 1939. Therefore, in some cases, this iconic Hollywood age is said to have started in the 1910s and finished in the late 1970s." No statement on who these sources are, and I struggle to see how this conclusion is drawn from the previous statements.
Collider here presents a list of the "The 10 Best Horror Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert" There is no attribution to the numerical order or when Ebert (who died in 2013) had potentially made such a list. The site also claims Ebert had said Murnau's Nosferatu, that "as a modernized version makes its way to the screen, audiences are reminded of Ebert's opinion that the original Nosferatu holds the title of greatest vampire movie of all time." I've skimmed through RogerEbert.com and can not find any suggestion Ebert holds this opinion, with the closest being him calling it "the first great vampire movie" in 1994. While if someone could showcase that Ebert had published such a list, that would be great, but I find it unlikely. In his own article in 2012 about voting for Sight & Sound's poll, he commented that "Apart from my annual year’s best lists, this is the only list I vote in." and that in his opinion: "Lists are ridiculous, but if you’re going to vote, you have to play the game." Despite this, the site continues to farm Ebert's reviews for similar lists such as The 10 Worst Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert, and The 18 Worst Horror Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert. The author of said article is credited as a "senior author" on the site with an "Expertise" on Roger Ebert as credentials.

That said, reliable sources have cited both Collider and MovieWeb as a source on occasion.

Reliable sources using Collider as a source.
(Variety: here,here, and here, as has The Hollywood Reporter here and here. These sources have been made since the ValNet purchase, but their only consistency is that they cite interviews, not articles about historical overviews, reception, lists, or any other sort of article.

While there was no serious consensus from WP:FILM on the reliability of the sites, I have tagged prominent editors, and pinged them on their previous statements. The 6 Responses on WP:FILM That Took Me by Surprise From Editors You Should Really Know Right Now:

Original discussion here
@MikeAllen: has previously said he would only use the site for interviews.
@Darkwarriorblake: followed that the interviews on the site are most of the original content they have, a lot of the film news is linked to a source like The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline.
@Erik: has brought up that The Guardian was had doubts on Collider reporting as a reliable source here where they say "If a report in Collider is to be believed..."
@BarntToust: points out other content such as interviews and cover of popular films citing these articles: .
@Gerald Waldo Luis: highlighted the extensive fact-check policy. ethics-policy and corrections-policy.
@Betty Logan: has suggested that Collider appears to take user-submitted content, this was shown to be incorrect by Darkwarriorblake.}}

That's an essay, but I wanted to be thorough to get across the vastness of issues in one swoop. Generally speaking, most discussion on the site does appear to be from content that one could find written about better from more mainstream film news sources (film journalists and critics, general newspapers, etc.), countless books and authors discussing film, and particularly genre work, film academia, or even more fan-oriented publications like Empire, Fangoria or Total Film. As the material from these sites was previously more glacially paced, both sites content before the ValNet buy out is probably permittable (look at the amount and how the articles were written before these buyouts, you'll spot the difference immediately). I feel that with the suggestions from other editors above, and how more mainstream publications treat the sites, we should probably only use them for interviews where its very clear on how the interview is taken. I look forward to thoughts and apologize for my jokey last header ahead of time ;). Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Collider, MovieWeb, Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, etc. are all in a similar boat: still good to use for direct interviews and I think there is merit in their reviews/opinion pieces/analysis articles if written well, but more and more they are just churning out crap that we need to wade through to get to the good stuff. I think the important thing is making sure editors are not just using any article from one of these websites, they need to be looking at what style of article it is, where the information is coming from (WP:FRUIT), whether there is a better source available to cover the same information, and so on. I just opened Collider's website and found 8 different articles on the front feed, all posted in the last few hours, that are just inane lists meant to fill space / get clicks (i.e. "10 Superhero Movie Flops Everyone Saw Coming", "14 of the Longest Movies of the Past Decade, Ranked by Runtime") but they also have genuine reviews of upcoming shows from long-time critics and they regularly have great direct interviews with cast and crew for different projects. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

DWB Commment I think some context is required here re "Seven (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's The 35 Best Thriller Movies of All Time, Ranked According to IMDb". It is not used to cite that Seven is one of the best thrillers, it's used to help cite "Pitt's line "What's in the box?" as he asks Somerset to confirm the contents of Doe's box, has become iconic, and is used in popular culture and internet memes" which is commentary by Collider itself.

DWB Comment Additionally, there needs to be clarity about timeframe. Sites like Collider, Screen Rant, and other Valnet sites WERE reliable (typically pre Valnet) and I would oppose any kind of retroactive discounting. That said, the modern versions of these sites, like most media sites, has become very clickbaity and the front page at the minute is filled with "10 best" or "10 worst" and it is getting harder to discern quality content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

DWB Comment This is a similar situation with Forbes, which was reliable, particularly articles by the senior contributor whose name escapes me, but is now considered generally unreliable. Corporations have destroyed the media basically. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

WDB comment It breaks my heart to ask this but are any media not victim to this these days? I swear I've seen so many garbage articles from People recently that I seriously wonder if they're AI written. This seems like a bigger issue that all of Misplaced Pages has to contend with eventually. Almost all of our old reliable sources are garbage now.★Trekker (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've said before (many times) that Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Misplaced Pages are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. Comic Book Resources is similar, and the others appear to be so as well. Overall, it should only rarely be necessary to use these sources in the limited cases where they are usable since there should be higher-quality sources that can be used instead. TompaDompa (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

Metal Sonic and Amy Rose appear in the film's mid-credits scene, but are never named or credited since they are silent cameos. TheJoebro64 forcibly includes their names into the plot, rather than through footnotes as I believe should be the norm. Please see this edit, accusing me of "fanboyish hypercorrectness". In fact, in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, the popular comics character Clea appears unnamed in the narrative, but is named in the credits, yet the plot section names her in a footnote. That's the example I'm following here. Joe's claim that "All sources verify that it's Amy and Metal Sonic" is incorrect, since the only source "verifying" is this third-party source. It traces back to this link (not used), where the screenwriters don't mention her name, only that they have plans for her in Sonic 4. Metal Sonic isn't mentioned by them at all, only the article writer. Is Joe correct to name characters in the plot when they aren't named onscreen or in the credits? I believe not. Will he agree he is wrong? I believe not. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Since they aren't named in the film, using their names in the plot summary requires reliable sources. There is no requirement when it comes to the formatting, though I personally prefer to use footnotes for these things as it makes it clear where the information is coming from. Using a footnote allows you to explain that the characters were not named in the film but were confirmed by X. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:FILMPLOT covers this -- if the film is not defining them, knowledge about Metal Sonic and Amy Rose would be "specialized knowledge". Not all readers are Sonic fans. There definitely needs to be secondary sourcing in some form. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO the version that Kailash29792 proposes doesn't help anything. It still identifies the characters, but makes that info harder to find by burying it in footnotes, and doesn't add any source — so it's the worst of all worlds.

If we're going to identify the characters, let's keep the prose simple and add a reliable secondary source (the DigitalSpy source looks fine to me). Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Its certainly become complicated for us that popular blockbuster films that post-credit scenes introduce unnamed characters to what I presume, is to create discussion and hype about a series or franchise. WP:AUDIENCE does state "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." while WP:FILMPLOT, part our manual of style, says "The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, " In this case, from my statement above, it is highly like an audience who might not be familiar with the series, see this, and would come to the article wanting to know who these unnamed characters are, as I have done with many a Marvel/DC film. and may come to Misplaced Pages to try and find out. The Digital Spy article does identify "Metal Sonic" and "Amy Rose". I haven't seen the film, do they have any speaking roles? I don't think they would be required to be listed in the credits for any legality reasons. As for Joe's comments about it being Easter Egg like, I respect this editor, but I will agree with you, Easteregg is about misleading links, like me saying two cows or "the farmer bought two cows." with links leading to unexpected articles based on the title. While I wouldn't go overboard on footnotes, I don't think it would confuse the average reader, as most well cited articles will have citations that use footnotes all the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that if we don't name the characters in the prose but still link to Misplaced Pages articles about them then we're still effectively naming them. It's a non-solution. Popcornfud (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

My view of this is pretty simple: naming a character in a plot summary should not matter if the character is not named in the film's dialogue as long as it can be verified in a reliable source. Reliable sources are in unanimous agreement that it's Amy and Metal Sonic. (.) Shoving the information into footnotes is counterintuitive; the reader has to open the note to learn who the character is—in essence creating the exact same problem as WP:EASTEREGG.

tl;dr, let's adhere to the KISS principle. JOE BRO 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I too prefer "keeping it simple, stupid", but the plot section must never contain info not explicitly revealed in the narrative; it must strictly stay in-universe. Adding footnotes helps clarify the ambiguity like an asterisk. That's why the plot of Captain America: The First Avenger doesn't state that Bucky cheated death. We don't even include obvious ones such as Doomsday in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice since he was just called "your doomsday". These ambiguities are easily clarified by footnotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not true that it must strictly stay in-universe. MOS:PLOT explains about leveraging out-of-universe context. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Would an acceptable compromise be adding the word "presumably" before Amy Rose, etc.? That would reflect that both A) RSes think it's Amy Rose, but B) The film doesn't name her and dumber stuff has happened before in weird retcons from film-to-film. The "presumably" can probably be dropped in a year or two after information on a sequel comes out and we find out if it was confirmed or not. SnowFire (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That injects our own guesswork/fuzzy interpretation into the plot, which would be inappropriate MOS:PLOT. Popcornfud (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The simplest thing would be to simply leave them unnamed in the plot but named in footnotes. Not to copy the MCU, but stick to guidelines and WP:CRYSTAL. Whether they end up calling them "Rosy the Rascal" or "Mecha Sonic", I'm least bothered. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

No it doesn't? This is the film being fuzzy, not Misplaced Pages editors, unless I'm missing something. Reflecting uncertainty in a work itself on Misplaced Pages is fine. SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't. If we're certain of something, then we should say it directly. If we're not certain of it, the we should avoid saying it at all rather than injecting our own interpretation using weaselly words like "presumably". Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". Popcornfud (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Roger Ebert on YouTube

Recently on editing articles, I've seen a source cite this account here https://www.youtube.com/@TheOfficialRogerEbert . While it does say Official Roger Ebert all over it, I'm a bit in doubt of its legitimacy. There is no YouTube check next to the name to clarify its connected with the Ebert family or Rogerebert.com. There are links to purchase Ebert's books, and visit his website, but, does Roger Ebert even have the rights to the videos from Siskel & Ebert? At RogerEbert.com I can't find any connection with the YouTube channel, even if there is a YouTube link which seems to be currently just a place holder. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I just looked myself and can't find anything to confirm its legitimacy! It's a strange case for sure. I went ahead and contacted the RogerEbert.com website asking about it to see if they can shed light on it. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Film screenshots (in Italian Misplaced Pages)

In Italian Misplaced Pages, film articles are usually illustrated with film screenshots only uploaded there (example: it:Top Gun). Does Italy have a legislation enabling this for Misplaced Pages? And then, why only there? Are there any exceptions where it's possible in English Misplaced Pages? --KnightMove (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of points to discuss here. First, the Italian-language Misplaced Pages, like the English-language Misplaced Pages, are under Wikimedia Foundation, and their non-free content guideline says, "Non-free content can be used in articles only if... Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria." For what you linked specifically, WP:NFCI says this is acceptable: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I'm not sure why that Top Gun page is using a screenshot (which seems interchangeable with any freely-licensed air carrier takeoff image) instead of the Italian poster for the film?

Also, I'm not sure if you see screenshots used elsewhere, outside the film infobox? Across all Wikipedias, WP:NFCI says this is acceptable: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." In essence, cover art is most appropriate for film infoboxes, and screenshots are best used in the article body with critical commentary (e.g., for a famous shot in some film that cannot be shown with free images). Hope that helps. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: