Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:11, 4 May 2015 edit174.141.182.82 (talk) →Proposals: getting this collapsed out of the way← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:15, 11 January 2025 edit undoSnowFire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,414 editsm →Sonic the Hedgehog 3 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|WT:FILM}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="background: lavender; border: 1px solid silver; width: 100%;"
{{WikiProject banner shell|
|-
{{WikiProject Film}}
| ]
}}
| style="text-align: center;" | ''] &bull; ] &bull; ''<inputbox>
{{ombox
bgcolor=
| image = ]
| imageright = {{Shortcut|WT:FILM|WT:FILMS|WT:MOVIES}}
| style = margin-left: 0; margin-right: 0; background: lavender; border: 1px solid silver;
| textstyle = text-align: center;
| text =
''] • ] • ''<inputbox>
type=fulltext type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive
Line 10: Line 16:
searchbuttonlabel=Search archives searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
</inputbox> </inputbox>
}}
| {{Shortcut|WT:FILM|WT:FILMS|WT:MOVIES}}
|}{{WPFILM Announcements|collapsed=yes|simple=yes {{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: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 }}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 56 |counter = 86
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}}
{{archives |index=./Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes |age=14 |units=days |bot=MiszaBot II}}
{{archives |style=background: lavender; border: 1px solid silver; |index=./Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes |age=21 |units=days |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-04-20/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day=20|month=April|year=2009}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-06-25/WikiProject report|writer=]||day=25|month=June|year=2014}}


== Requested move at ] ==
==Editathon==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 02:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Wikimedia UK Editathon invite |title = Celebrating ]'s film ] at , Kennington||description = This is a free event, one of a series of ] which ] organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations.|when = Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm|where = 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH|contact = Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsett{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK.|editathon = Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)}}


== Unrealized projects discussion ==
== The removal of non notable awards on film articles ==
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 will try to keep my argument short and sweet and to the point. I have always found it logical to remove film awards that do not have their own article from a films/actors/lists page and have cited ] in doing so. For example: When the Chlotrudis Society Awards and the Phoenix Film Critics Society pages were deleted, they were subsequently removed from articles that they were linked in. Which makes sense, if they aren't notable enough for an article then why would you want them in a films or actors article? Then every Tom, Dick and Harry award would be listed. I'm '''not''' saying remove the minor awards, JUST the ones that don't have their own article. Thoughts? I would love to finally be able to reach a consensus about this. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 11:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic instigating}}
::No, it's not. ] (]) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What purpose does this remark serve except for antagonism? ] 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Absolutely nothing. ] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Help with Review for "The Misguided" Draft ==
:I agree with LL and I thought we'd reached a consensus on this when it was raised previously? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello,
::There was ] at the MOS page which seemed to reach this consensus. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:16, 9 April 2015 (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.
::: I don't think ] was ever updated to reflect consensus. ] (]) 12:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the ], but the situation remains unresolved.
I'm speaking outside my area of expertise (film awards), but I know something about literary awards. There are a lot of literary awards and generally whenever I see one that doesn't have an article I'll make an attempt to create an article. This is ultimately easier. Of course the award will need to be mentioned in multiple reliable sources to avoid an AfD but typically that is not a problem (except for very new awards). Maybe the film world is different with many "festival" type awards. However with literary awards it's different and I think it would be a mistake to delete refs to red links as often they are notable but no one has bothered to create an article. If the MOS is updated it probably should reflect the film/TV industry. -- ]] 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:The awards that I am specifically talking about had articles, went through AfD and were deleted. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 13:45, 9 April 2015 (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?
::From my understanding, the consensus was &mdash; and the Film Project editors in this discussion all agree that a consensus was reached &mdash; that if an organization wasn't notable enough to have an article, we do not list its awards. Which is perfectly logical: Awards from a non-notable organization are by definition non-notable. --] (]) 14:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::::So long as it's limited to MOS:FILM it's fine with me. Often these things happen in two phases. The first is establish consensus concerning a change needs to be made. The second is propose specific changes to the documentation - how exactly is MOS:FILM going to be worded? The wording can be controversial, even if everyone agrees it should be done in general. Start a new thread with the proposed wording, and back it up with a link to the previous discussion showing general consensus for a change. If it was an RfC it would have a lot more weight, and would be closed/implemented by an admin. You could also start a short essay page describing the issues and guideline and aggregate all the links to old discussions and give it a short easy to remember name like ]. -- ]] 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your help! ] (]) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Is there a way to conclude any one of those discussion saying consensus was reached? I have another editor over at ] making a stink about it. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


:What is the hurry here? (and here ?) ] (]) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Tenebrae}}, there was no such consensus, and you should know that since you initiated those discussions and proposals, and . {{u|Lady Lotus}}}, I'm making "a stink" about it because the guidelines do ''not'' say they cannot be referenced in an awards article. There was no consensus and the guidelines weren't changed. Lady Lotus, you've ignored the guidelines I linked that contradict your assertion and have gone ahead and deleted it despite them. ] (]) 19:47, 9 April 2015 (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. ] (]) 15:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm pretty sure a consensus has been reached, it's just not official yet. Everybody except you has agreed that awards that do not have their own article should be removed, mainly because it's the logical thing to do and also it adds undue weight to articles. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 19:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::FYI, see the currently-blocked user's talk page. There has been a lot going on with their contributions. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It hasn't been reached in actuality, evidenced here and in previous linked discussions. Plus, , a guideline needs to be changed for a consensus to be official. ] (]) 20:15, 9 April 2015 (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)
::::::And with this discussion, not talking about a guideline being changed, there is a general consensus. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
GreenC, I'm sure such literary awards should also be removed if the main article was deleted through AFD. Same for those who never had articles beforehand. ] (] / ])</b> 15:41, 9 April 2015 (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)
:There is nothing in Misplaced Pages ''policy'' that supports that. In fact policy overrides it - content that is sourced can be included. The notability guideline only applies to ''topic'' level (if an article should exist or not). It doesn't apply to content within articles. Trying to end-run around policy with a misguided MOS guideline to exclude whole categories of perfectly reasonable content across the entire project, it's not supportable. You can make a heuristic (rule of thumb), a softly worded suggestion, that's ] but the discussion then turned more absolute about excluding all non-notable film awards (regardless of previous AfD), then someone else said to stop anyone trying to create an award article(!), and now it's growing to include ''all'' awards on Misplaced Pages not just film awards. If there is consensus I don't know what it is - at best it looks like there is consensus to exclude Film awards which have been previously AfD (ie. established as non-notable) in order to address certain abuses by spammers. -- ]] 16:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:: We're ] to include all verifiable information. Too much ] added to the article makes it difficult to read or navigate. Without independent, reliable sources to back up an award, it could very well be considered ] to include it. Furthermore, in a standalone list (such as ]), we are explicitly allowed to ]. Nobody in WikiProject Film has proposed that we disallow the creation of articles. WikiProject Film may be leaning toward deletionism these days, but nobody here is that much of an extremist. Furthermore, I really don't think we need an formal RFC to implement consensus on this matter. I have no issue if someone wants to do one, but I don't think it necessary. Misplaced Pages is ]. ] (]) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|Green Cardamom}} is correct. {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}, how many awards would = indiscriminate? Presently, that is up to editor discretion. A list of awards page is not indiscriminate when numerous awards from an IMDb page are left off the article. It should be clear that the guidelines do not disallow referencing awards that do not have their own articles (like they do not disallow referencing subjects and topics without their own article) and it should also be clear that - as stated in an older discussion Tenebrae had started (linked above), Wikiprojects do not make their own guidelines. Consensus needs to exist ''and'' a guideline needs to be changed to reflect it. Consensus in a Wikiproject, and there's yet to be one here, doesn't override guidelines. I agree with Kww on his comment below; there should be a commited discussion on this for a change, where consensus is reached on what amount = indiscriminate in a list of awards page and/or that awards without articles cannot be referenced in an List of awards articles even if RS' discuss them. And finally have a guideline directly reflect that. ] (]) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::: There's nothing in ] about numbers. It says data should be put into proper context and have a citation to an independent source. ] offers the opportunity to restrict entries to existing articles (or those that can be reasonably expected to have an article). Beyond that, I don't care all that much. And what guideline or policy is being overridden? ] (]) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Well, precisely. And right above WP:CSC (a MOS) - which also contains #2 and #3 agreeing with the inclusion of individual entries without articles - is WP:LSC, which broadly states "''Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.''" There is ], a guideline, which states, "''One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable''". More to the point, a guideline or MOS change that directly supports the assertion has not occurred. A consensus, should it happen, needs to be followed by a guideline change to support the consensus and become official. Again, Wikiprojects can't ] ]. (], please refer to the third paragraph in ]). Kww, GreenC, and myself have proposed this moves forward, so it can finally be settled, and a guideline that directly supports a consensus could be linked in edits on list entires. ] (]) 23:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


== Submission to the Academy Awards ==
We faced a similar issue on music articles years ago, and the result was ] and its main subentries, ], ], and ]. There's no strict reason to link "existence of article" to "allowed to be used in other articles", but there is a good reason for editors to discuss which awards make sense to include, reach consensus as to which awards to exclude, and have a central place to document the results.&mdash;](]) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:That's cool a good solution. The problem Film awards face is scale, there are ] and probably many more without. And it would be Sisyphian since every year new ones are added and old ones removed. -- ]] 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::Believe me, there are more record charts than film awards. It's upwards of ten thousand.&mdash;](]) 23:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There might be a technical fix to include the awards and keep it from cluttering the article. For example create a curated visible list with the important awards, and a second collapsed list with the goal of being a complete list of awards. In the end it should be up to the editors how to do it, but something like this is perfect for a MOS solution .. telling editors how to best structure the data, rather then disallowing them from adding something they would like (ie. a complete list of awards). -- ]] 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
: No, that's what the link to the IMDb is for. Film articles naturally collect cruft, and they need to be regularly pruned of excessive plots, comprehensive cast lists, non-notable awards, and reviews by bloggers. I don't think the solution is to push the questionable data into a ghetto. Misplaced Pages is never going to be as comprehensive as inclusionists want, but they need not wail and gnash their teeth; we still link to databases and other sites that collect the information that Misplaced Pages has seen fit to exclude. ] (]) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi, a quick question...
Lady Lotus has continued removing sourced information, disregarding lack of guideline change, ; e.g., Sydney Theatre Critics Award, a prominent theater award is reported by multiple RS such as , , , , , , , . ] (]) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::Those are all good edits by Lady Lotus. They're all (currently) non-notable award ceremonies. So what if they are covered in the press? An example I've used before is that I could set up my own film festival, get a couple of local newspapers to cover it (which wouldn't be too hard - you should see some of the rubbish they do cover) and award Ms. Blanchett some token awards. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:13, 10 April 2015 (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?
:Claims of site-wide consensus are nonsense. Editors are encouraged to use the article talk page to decide what is appropriate for that article. -- ]] 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Clarification on this point would be much appreciated.
::Thank you, I was just about to say the same thing. When it comes to article by article basis, a consensus for that page is appropriate. There doesn't have to be a guideline change in order to make that consensus official, it's whatever was discussed on that talk page. And the general consensus {{u|Lapadite77}} over at ] was to remove to non notable awards. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 11:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Kind regards, ] (]) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The removal of non-notable awards has been the default position at the Film project for quite a while now so Lady Lotus's edits are consistent with that. While ] may not be a site-wide policy it is unequivocally a ] on film award articles and sections. If there were a clear consensus on the talk page to include a particular award which was at odds with the general understanding here at the project I most likely would not go against that, but the way I see it the onus is on the editor arguing for inclusion to obtain a consensus first. ] (]) 13:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


:Which categorie(s)? ] (]) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Betty, Lugnuts, see my comment above (with some added words): {{quote|And right above WP:CSC (a MOS) - which also contains #2 and #3 agreeing with the inclusion of individual entries without articles - is WP:LSC, which broadly states "''Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.''" There is ], a guideline, which states, "''One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable''". More to the point, a guideline or MOS change that directly supports the assertion has not occurred. A local consensus, should it happen, needs to be followed by a guideline change to support the consensus and become official. Again, Wikiprojects can't ] ]. (], please refer to the third paragraph in ]: ''"in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ] within their scope ... and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is ] on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the ] process has the actual status of an optional {{tl|essay}}."''). Kww, GreenC, and myself have proposed this moves forward, so it can finally be settled, and a guideline that directly supports a consensus could be linked in edits on list entires.}}
::Short documentary. ] (]) 13:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Lugnuts, as {{u|Ring Cinema}} reminded editors ], and i'll quote him: "Notability is the standard for deciding if a subject should have its own article. It is definitely not the standard for determining if something belongs in an article. Most of the facts in an article are not by themselves notable but they are necessary to cover the subject at hand. This misunderstanding is chronic so I think those of us who supposedly know what we're doing should not misuse it." They are not good edits. They are now disruptive, POV edits that go against community-wide guidelines, and will be reverted on that basis. Local consensus does not override guidelines that allow information and list entries to be sourced in an article whether or not they have their own articles - which is not a requirement per se. Those of you still claiming this view and reverting should reread and understand the content in the above comment; community guidelines don't currently support your view, or prohibit the contrary. Again, Wikiproject editors don't decree. If you object to that then inquire at the guideline's pages or make a community-wide RFC, ask for third opinion or take it to a DR; they will tell you the same. {{u|Lady Lotus}} should familiarize herself more with relevant guidelines (and stop being disruptive with respect to this), as she's ; with regard to the third edit, see ], ]; the only link that may not meet WP:EL is the Sydney Theatre Company link, probably added because she was CEO & artistic director for some years. See also FAs ], ]. ] (]) 19:22, 10 April 2015 (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)
::{{u|Lapadite77}} you should also familiarize yourself with the guideline of consensus which has already been reached and for whatever reason, you aren't seeming to grasp. I find you more argumentative and stubborn that really trying to grasp the concept here. You want to just spit out guidelines and policy towards people but keep in mind the ], one of them being ] - '''Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for editorial decision-making'''. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
::For clarity, that is 104 films ''in that single category''. ] (]) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Lapadite77}} read ] and ] too. You're close to being blocked for the latter. And as for Ring Cinema's opinion. Well, if you can't say anything good about someone, it's best not to say anything at all. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 10 April 2015 (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 ==
:::You're both stubbornly refusing to accept community-wide guidelines not supporting your view, and disregarding the fact -linked twice above now- that you do not make or reinterpret guidelines as you please and expect other to abide by it. Lady Lotus see to your comment on my page, and again please keep discussion here. Lady Lotus, for the fourth time, WP:PROJPAGE: '''''projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ] within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain ] or must not contain ], and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is ] on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the ] process has the actual status of an optional {{tl|essay}}'''''; WP:CONLIMITED: '''''Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a ] cannot decide that some generally accepted ] does not apply to articles within its scope. Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to ] than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change'''''. Considering you both are pushing a view not presently supported by community-wide consensus, i.e., guidelines, you need to create a RFC or consult the guidelines' talk pages. Take it to DR as well if you wish. ] (]) 20:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I feel like I'm talking to a wall. We are '''not''' trying to reinterpret guidelines. Nobody has said that. Nobody is trying to do that. This is a discussion to get consensus to remove non notable awards or not. And consensus shows that pretty much everyone except you agrees with and has a logical argument to remove them. That is consensus. And that's what has happened. There is no need for RFC, only if a consensus could not be reached, which is has. This whole "community-wide consensus" isn't flying here and won't because it's bogus. The ONLY ] I see is you over at ]. Your territorial behavior and stubbornness towards this discussion shows that. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 20:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::"I feel like I'm talking to a wall". Precisely. Especially when the relevant guidelines '''contradicting''' your local consensus parroting is bolded. Of course, in your mind reverting your disruption based on pushing a local view not supported by commnity-wide consensus is ownership. ] is not an argument, and certainly, however many others were to locally agree with you, it does remotely not overrule community guidelines. Which you don't seem to understand. ] (]) 20:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I’d just like to say that I have had very similar feelings to you towards a couple of the editors you’re arguing against here, ]. But I also have to say that I agree with them here; if an award isn’t notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it’s fair to say that it’s not notable enough for inclusion in a given article—unless several reliable sources make a big deal of this particular subject receiving that particular award (i.e. it’s '''notable''' that the actor/movie/etc. won it). If it doesn’t seem to bear mentioning much anywhere outside of ultra-comprehensive lists and primary sources, it’s likely just a piece of trivia that doesn’t bear mentioning here. And I’d say that goes for any tidbit of trivia in any article, not just in WP:FILM. {{pb}} I feel like I should point out that I’m not saying ''all'' factoids on Misplaced Pages must be “notable.” I’m saying they should be ''about'' notable ''things'', if they’re not big deals in and of themselves. If an RS claims in passing that a given celebrity has a close friendship with ] (not a notable person), there’s no reason for us to mention it anywhere; if it claims a close friendship with the ] (''very'' notable person), that should absolutely be included. —] (]) 15:50, 12 April 2015 (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)
===DRN discussion ===
Opened one ]. ] (]) 21:52, 10 April 2015 (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? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
===RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? ===
::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)
{{rfc|media|proj|rfcid=90CACAF}}
:::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...) ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Do items, such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, need to have their own WP article in order to be included in List articles?
:::The poster seems to confirm the writing credits? See the left and right of the bottom line of the billing block. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Some relevant guidelines and MOS: ], ], ], ], ]. ] (]) 21:49, 15 April 2015 (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). ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <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 ==
Clarifying: This is '''not a proposal''' for a guideline change, but a request for comment on whether the present guidelines state that lists items are required to have their own articles to be included in a list. Given that some editors at the Wikiproject assert that they do and if they don't they are deleted (which has become a systematic practice), I'm interested in other editors' comments on what the guidelines state with regards to this (which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite). The aim is to get a proper consensus for the WIkiproject ''based on the present guidelines''. I personally think the support/oppose structure here confuses things. If anyone wishes to propose a guideline change they are free to do so in a separate section. ] (]) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (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 ==
Clarifying: This is about List articles, not film articles; e.g., List of awards and nominations received by an actor or film. ] (]) 20:41, 27 April 2015 (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)
====Comments====
Three editors (], ], ]) in ] say that the Wikiproject has a consensus that if an award/organization does not have its own WP article it cannot be added to a List article even if it is reliably sourced. Such consensus does not exist per the links given in the discussion, ] and ] (the latter a proposal to change the MOS, which was not accepted). It was also pointed out that editors of Wikiprojects do not make their own guidelines or reinterpret them as wished and demand others abide by it, per ], ]. Lady Lotus has cited ] as the reason for removing items without articles, thereby claiming it states items need their own article in order to be included in a list, if not the list is an indiscriminate one. It does not state that. On the contrary, when numerous awards, particularly those of very minor to no importance per lack of RS coverage (such as non-state awards), are left off List of awards articles, it is not an indiscriminate list. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also does not state a threshold. The primary point, is the guidelines linked in the RfC do not directly support the notion asserted here. Sourced awards are relevant to List of awards articles; WP:NOTESAL even states: ''"The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable"''. ] (]) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:The consensus being referred to is that editors in the discussion agreed ] is the primary guideline for keeping lists in general from becoming indiscriminate:
] 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)
:{{quote|Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Misplaced Pages. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Misplaced Pages reflect this type of editorial judgment.}}
:Indiscriminate lists help no one. Even ] notes, "ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages articles." --] (]) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)--] (]) 00:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


== The Demon (1979 film) ==
::A directly applicable and relevant "rule" here that bears serious consideration is, from common selection criteria for lists in the above-mentioned ]:
:::''2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)''
::This suggests a "'''List of secondary awards'''" or "'''List of minor awards'''" or some such, probably as a subsection within a List of awards article, and offers an unambiguous editorial marker for discussing more specific award list-limiting considerations (what is a major vs minor award) should that become an issue for a particular award. Such a well-supported format as "List of minor..." should not need additional editorial scrutiny, providing as it does a simple way for any reasonably relevant content an editor wants to include about a film - and what awards a film has won seems relevant to that film - while avoiding indiscriminate or junk content by clearly indicating what that content is. I don't think we're in the business here of editing content based on editors personal preferences (for example, deciding which of its awards are actually relevant to a film), we simply maintain verifiability and neutral POV, beyond that, any editor should be free to add content, and we collaborate on keeping that content easy to navigate and read. --] (]) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (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.
*'''Oppose''' a MOS-level guideline based on notability. When someone explains how I can prove a non-existent article is notable let me know. It's impossible and unfair. Using notability as the criteria for ''content'' inclusion isn't how things are done - it's confusing ] guideline, which is ''topic-level'' only, with ] and ] policy, which are ''content'' level. Even if it's a previously deleted article that's not a sign as articles get recreated all the time with better sourcing. -- ]] 22:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::Also, '''Oppose''' any guideline that says awards can't be added ''even with reliable secondary sourcing''. -- ]] 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::''"Using notability as the criteria for ''content'' inclusion isn't how things are done - it's confusing ] guideline, which is ''topic-level'' only, with ] and ] policy, which are ''content'' level."'' - precisely. It's not only confusing but '''violating ]'''. ] (]) 01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' having notability as a general criteria for award sections and lists with the caveat that a talk page consensus can override it. Just because something can be sourced does not mean it should necessarily be included per ]. Which awards to include comes up time and time again so it seems reasonable to have some criteria in regards to which awards should be included, and the notability of an award is a sensible criteria to adopt per ]. However, notability is not a de facto threshold criteria for inclusion so some care has to be taken not to apply it too stringently: there may extenuating circumstances where it is reasonable to include a non-notable award so such cases should be accommodated if a discussion on the relevant talk page arrives at a consensus that the award has a particular relevance to a particular article. ] (]) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - If an organization isn't notable, its awards aren't notable. Adding non-notable awards is the very essence of ]. --] (]) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If it's not notable enough for its own article then it shouldn't be included in an awards list, otherwise you'd be listing every Tom, Dick and Harry award claiming to be relevant their career. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Betty/Tenebrae's arguments. Also to note that our notability guidelines ''do'' allow discrimination in lists based on notability even those this is a content-level choice. This is done often for lists of persons to avoid flooding a list with non-notables. Same should be done for non-notable film awards. --] (]) 00:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
* '''Question''' What does this proposal mean? I find its wording too unclear to make a judgement upon. It is fundamental to lists that they allow items ''not'' having articles and ''not'' meeting WP:N individually to be included in that list, when appropriate. We should definitely not change that (at almost any scope). It is also always going to be the case that a list item, should sourcing be required, can be sourced inline in that article without requiring its own linked article. Accepting those two observations, what's left?
: If this proposal is merely "Bodies issuing film awards need to meet WP:N as an organisation before their awards belong in a list of awards" (a view that I could accept), then that's much narrower than the simple proposal statement has it. ] (]) 00:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::Hi, Andy. That's how I read it. --] (]) 01:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::: The risk with that is that it's then a gift to future editors, some of whom will not be entirely GF, to delete list entries bearing ''no'' relation to the intended scope here with the claimed justification "There was massive support for this as a policy change". ] (]) 01:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::Andy, this is '''not a proposal''', but a request for comment on whether the present guidelines state that lists items are required to have their own articles to be included in a list. Given that some editors at the Wikiproject assert that they do and if they don't they are deleted (which has become a systematic practice), I'm interested in other editors' comments on what the guidelines state with regards to this (which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite). The aim is to get a proper consensus for the WIkiproject ''based on the present guidelines''. I personally think the support/oppose structure here confuses things. If anyone wishes to propose a guideline change they are free to do so in a separate section. ] (]) 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - We've been running into similar issues in the ] for quite a few years now. The main issue there usually is:
:Should lists of awards & award nominations in adult performer BLPs be limited to just award ceremonies that have Misplaced Pages articles (blue links) or not? In more recent years, the ] inclusion standard has been tightened to not include ''any'' award nominations - only major award wins from award ceremonies that have their own Misplaced Pages articles are considered towards a person's notability under PORNBIO.
:I personally have never had a problem with listing both awards & award nominations for blue-linked award ceremonies in Misplaced Pages articles, but I think I've come around more recently to the idea that red-linked award ceremony awards & award nominations should likely be excluded from adult performer BLPs, since they are likely to never add any real notability to any of those Misplaced Pages articles. Can those kind of red-linked awards & award nominations be properly sourced in any Misplaced Pages article? Of course they can, but I guess one has to draw the line somewhere. ] (]) 04:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|Guy1890}}, this RfC is about items in List articles, specifically List of awards and nominations articles. Wouldn't want the discussion to veer off into commentary on awards in BLPs, or film articles for that matter. If anyone wants to discuss awards in BLPs or film articles please create a new section so this doesn't get muddled (as many RfCs here tend to become). ] (]) 05:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I understand that, and the Pornography Project has ], ] ] of ] of list articles as well. Those specific types of articles only seem to crop up when an individual performer's awards & award nominations become "too long" for inclusion in their own BLP, which is a very similar issue IMO. ] (]) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per Betty, LL, et al. Here's ]. All down the forum shop! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
**Bad form to make accusations that you don’t know what they mean… Taking the next step in ] after you refused to participate is ''not'' ]. That term implies there was some kind of outcome. —] (]) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As others have already pointed out. Adding non-notable awards adds nothing to an article. --] (]) 09:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': It would help if we knew the exact situation(s) you were talking about. Misplaced Pages has a pretty low threshold as to articles on a specific award, so except on a case-by-case basis I'd say if the award hasn't got an article yet, or isn't notable enough for an article, then it sure as heck doesn't need to be spamming up a famous person's/film's list of awards and nominations. If you think an award should be mentioned in an article, write the article about that award first. Per ]. Otherwise, I think it counts as spam/self-promotion, which is prohibited. ] (]) 10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Gonnym|Softlavender}} see ]. ] (]) 10:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:: They do for list articles and other lists and listed items such as names, or film/actor awards. And you have not yet told us what situations you are talking about. Therefore, all I can say is, no, don't spam an awards list article with non-noteworthy awards. ]. ] (]) 10:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Softlavender}} to my knowledge, ] that started this whole conversation after another editor tried to remove including Central Ohio Film Critics Association, and Georgia Film Critics Association. There was a discussion on the talk page and after another discussion here, I removed the awards including the previous two and Las Vegas Film Critics Society, Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, Phoenix Film Critics Society, SESC Film Festival and Sydney Theatre Critics Circle Newcomer Award. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 11:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::::{{u|Softlavender}}, as I said in ], and suggested in the Rfc, it particularly concerns all List of awards articles that are sourced; the deletion of items without articles is across the board, by, in particular, Lady Lotus. WP:NLISTITEM is clear; ''"The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content"''; not sure what you're claiming there. ] (]) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::As ] notes, "ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages articles." That's exactly what this RfC is about: Trying to reach a consensus for this. Which editors here seem largely in favor of. --] (]) 23:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::: ] states, "''Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... '''The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability''', only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable ... Lists that fulfill ] often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.''" ] states: "''The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. '''The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content'''''". ] (Selection criteria) states: "''Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), '''membership criteria should be based on reliable sources'''.''" All I see is "support" comments deliberately ignoring such statements in the guidelines, one even ]. ] (]) 08:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''No.''' I think respondents here would do better to !vote '''Yes''' or '''No''', rather than '''Support''' or '''Oppose'''. Anyway, my own opinion on this is that awards that mean anything substantial tend to be ] enough to meed Misplaced Pages’s standards. I wouldn’t say that an award must have its own article to merit inclusion in a list, but it '''should at least be ''notable enough for''''' its own article. There should be evidence that people have heard of it. —] (]) 19:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' partially per GreenCardanom futher up. But also due one of the basics of WP editing, that is in doubt our content has to follow what (reliable and reputable) external sources say and summarize that. So if such sources consider it worthwhile to mention a particular award, so can or even should the WP article. Sources cannot be overridden by the taste of WP editors.--] (]) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
** We want to be summarizing what ''secondary'' sources say for the most part and while primary sources are sometimes okay, we have to avoid the promitional side that can happen here. When publication X gives a film "X's Film of the Year" award, that's a primary source, and that's a large problem here, and without any type of means to discriminate , you can get a bunch of plain self-promotion. (Case in point in the area of video games, we constantly have problems with editors from small sites that want to promote their site putting their site's review or award in a game article, but we have to remove those these). Now, not every award a film gets is documented in secondary sources, but when the awards themselves are documented in this nature (eg meeting WP:N) then noting an award won that way is okay. --] (]) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Working consensus has been reached on this point in the past. The indiscriminate listing of insignificant awards from non-notable award givers violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is incompatible with the function of an encyclopedia. We don't document every statement by Barack Obama, every pass attempt by Peyton Manning, every guest on the '''Tonight Show''', the credits for every issue of '''Spider-Man''', or the gaffer for every live action movie ever vfilmed. All of these things can be reliably sourced. There's nothing inherently noteworthy about an "award"; even honorifics from notable awardgivers aren't necessarily worth noting. If McDonalds gave the Big Mac its own "America's Favorite Burger" award, we wouldn't mention it, nor do we waste space on Walmart's Employee of the Month. ] (]) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)}
*'''Comment: A topic not having a Misplaced Pages article does not mean that the topic is not WP:Notable'''; WP:Notable is even clear about that, addressing the fact that some WP:Notable topics are best covered in an existing article instead of having a standalone article. ] (]) 04:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''No, Absolutely not, Strongest possible oppose.''' There is no such requirement at present in any policy or guideline. Nor should there be one. By our notability guideline, notability does not limit the contents of articles. The common selection criteria are optional; using notability as a selection criteria is extremely undesirable as our notability guidelines are a mess and are too arbitrary, subjective, incoherent, and questionable, are not suitable as a criteria for informational lists (as opposed to pure navigation lists), have too many absurd omissions, and contain too much manifest nonsense, half-baked and silly ideas and other rubbish etc; and describing entries as "notable" would violate our policy against original research. INDISCRIMINATE is completely irrelevant, it only applies to lists of statistics and change logs. There is nothing that can support such a requirement. ] (]) 08:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Yes, Absolutely yes, Strongest possible support''' - I've already indicated my support above, but since obviously saying it your way gives it ''much'' more meaning and authority and blows away other editors' opinions because ''your'' opposition is the "strongest possible", well, clearly the other side needs its big-gun "strongest possible". In fact, mine is '''strongest possible times infinity'''! --] (]) 17:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' There is a clear consensus on this already, and I do not see strong enough arguments (yet) to sway my thoughts on this. If an organisation isn't notable, its awards are not notable, otherwise we end up with school and college film society "awards" that mean nothing to anyone except the five or six people who selected the award. INDISCRIMINATE is entirely relevant on this, as is NOTABLE. – ] (]) 09:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:{{u|SchroCat}}, WP:NOTABLE is precisely relevant, relevant to how that view is not supported. See my bolded comment above at 08:15, 17 April 2015. There is "clear consensus" for what and where is it stated in the guidelines? The community consensus ''is'' what the guidelines state. Editors that advocate this unsupported no article-no sourcing view may want to propose a change to relevant guidelines, such as ] and ]; refer to their respective talk pages or WP:PROPOSAL. Otherwise, claiming local consensus against guidelines that state otherwise just doesn't fly. See also ], ]. ] (]) 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:*Our notability guidelines allow discrimination in lists based on notability, even to a content-level choice. We have a consensus and the guidelines allow that consensus. We don't try and list everything in awards tables and, in my opinion, that's the right call to make. You are allowed your opinion, of course, but at the moment the consensus is against that stance. Good luck in trying to change it, but I don't think it will. - ] (]) 10:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:**Awards from school and college students' organisations will be excluded by WP:V because their publications are not reliable sources for the merits of a film, and their awards will not be mentioned in reliable sources. We don't need WP:N for that. ] (]) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:***I've seen student awards mentioned on sites we would consider reliable (university and school sites), s it's not their publications that would be an issue: we ''do'' need WP:N fo that. - ] (]) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:***An organization’s official publications would actually pass ] per ]. That’s all we’d need to verify that they gave the award. It’s a question of relevance and notability, not verifiability. —] (]) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:****I disagree, at least partly. An award is an expression of opinion about the ''merits'' of the film, and is included on ''that'' basis. If that opinion is not reliable, due to lack of expertise or otherwise, the award should not be mentioned, because it is an unreliable award. Any award granted by students is prima facie an unreliable award. The students' opinions about the film cannot be considered reliable. They are not reputable professional film critics and have no academic credentials etc that would make you think that they have any particular expertise in that field. We won't include an unreliable award merely because we can verify that it was given. It might be included if it was historically or otherwise significant on account of its fame or otherwise. I think the reason for the exclusion of insignificant unreliable awards would be something along the lines of NOTDIARY, rather than notability. ] (]) 20:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:*****{{replyto|James500}} From that perspective, it’s no different from quoting a critic’s review. The review is a primary source for the opinion, just like the organization’s announcement of the award. And just like we don’t list every review, we shouldn’t exhaustively list every award. But, again, that’s not a matter of verifiability (and you seem to agree with this point). —] (]) 21:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*:***'''Secondary sources coverage determines the relevance''', per guidelines, not editors' pov. It's not about citing primary sources for relevance or "notability", but deferring to secondary sources, which is the fundamental basis for encyclopedic coverage on WP. Secondary sources do not cover every award given under the sun, only the ones they deem notable to cover either on their own or as a group (and if they did, what there should be in response is an explicit ''exclusion'' guideline). Per multiple guidelines, that is what inclusion in a list and in any article should be based on. Of course there's "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", which is on a case by case basis, normally in reference to the content itself. There is also ], which states: '''''Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Misplaced Pages. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research.''''' To bring it back to relevant items of the topic, look at theatre awards. There are a number of prominent theatre awards, such as the Sydney Theatre Critics awards, that are reported on by multiple secondary sources. Tony Awards and Laurence Olivier Awards are not the only relevant theatre awards. '''It is not up to editors to dictate that a significant, relevant award in the real world - per secondary sources coverage - can not be included in a List of awards article received by an actor''' because, essentially, ]; that is the underlying basis for that view, because, as it's been pointed out multiple times, the notability policy and other guidelines don't actually support it, or forbid the contrary. ] (]) 00:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
:::NO, "I don't like it" is ''not'' the underlying basis for that view. The basis is: If an organization is non-notable, then how can it's awards be notable? As for secondary sources, one can always find some source or other with space to fill who will print the non-notable Mid-Central-Southwest-Virginia Critics Awards press-release of its awards. So what? That doesn't make those awards notable. Adding ] clutter of meaningless awards from organizations not notable enough to have their own articles is ].--02:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::]; ]; ]; ]; ] They couldn't be clearer if you ask me, therefore a case of "I just don't like it", especially considering the reiteration of "no article, not info for another article" ''despite'' WP policy explicitly stating otherwise. Posing an imaginary award or far-fetched situation doesn't help a point, which does not include baseless WP:INDISCRIMINATE citing. As I noted before, secondary sources coverage determines the relevance or noteworthiness, not "the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors" (e.g, "I don't like it"), per guidelines. ] (]) 09:32, 22 April 2015 (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)
*'''Yes''', ] is a good general rule for lists and comparisons. &ndash;] (]) 12:07, 17 April 2015 (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)
*<s>'''Support''' This seems like a reasonable basic criterion for the inclusion of an award. ] (]) 13:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)</s>
*'''Support''' per Betty Logan, Tenebrae, Lady Lotus, et al. ] (]) 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' In past discussions about listing awards, I have brought up ] #1 specifically, and I will quote that at length here: ''"Every entry meets the ] for its own non-] article in the English Misplaced Pages. ] are acceptable if the entry is ] a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Misplaced Pages from becoming an ], and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the ] reflect this type of editorial judgment."'' It should be noted that ] says, ''"The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content '''(with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)'''"'' (bold emphasis mine). WP:CSC #1 is one of several "common selection criteria", and it is up to us to determine a consensus to apply this particular criterion to this family of lists, that of film awards. I think this criterion is more appropriate than depending generally on secondary sources, which would be a spottier approach. For example, what if ''Variety'' listed a non-notable organization's award for a film? That could theoretically be used as a secondary source, but what if it does not report anything about that organization's awards the following year? Do we add that year's awards for these films or not, with no direct secondary sources? I see WP:CSC #1 as getting to the core of it, if this organization has notability, which means that all awards and nominations from it are thus worth reporting. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 14:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', this is, as far as I can recall, pretty much how it's always been. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
=====Arbitrary break=====
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== 2025 Utah Misplaced Pages Day at Sundance Film Festival ==
*'''Comment'''. LSC requires that list selection criteria be unambiguous, objective and supported by reliable sources. Unfortunately, GNG spectacularly fails all three requirements. To begin with, we have never even come close to reaching a consensus on what constitutes "significant coverage", so the criteria is utterly ambiguous and completely subjective. The other parts of GNG are not much clearer because they also deal with relative concepts. And you will never find a reliable source that says "this award/organisation satisfies the Misplaced Pages notability criteria" so it fails that requirement as well. Misplaced Pages "notability" is useless as a selection criteria for lists that are not navigational in purpose. Lists of awards won by a particular film are informational. Even if there is a need to remove less important awards, "notabilty" is not an adequate test of importance, never mind reliability, of awards. If we have a selection criteria, it would generally be preferable to have something recognised in the real world and not invented by Wikipedians. ] (]) 16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''No''', items don't need their own Misplaced Pages article to be included on lists, and on what serious basis can we attempt to ban the inclusion and mandate the removal of minor film awards? Is there a reliable reference source that lists "non-award awards" or awards/organizations "too insignificant to count for anything in the world of film"? Common selection criteria (]) offers clear and useful guidance under the main Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, for items that ''"fail notability criteria"'': we can simply include a "minor awards" subsection or separate "List of minor awards" article, and discuss the merits of individual awards/organizations as they come up. This doesn't need special guidelines, as it appears to be well-covered in the core guidance. --] (]) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There are numerous situations where non-notable awards from non-notable organizations are very appropriate to articles about notable individuals. The constant I deal with almost daily is a notable individual (though it could also be a local organization or even a local event), being named to their locality of origin's backwoods county or city Hall of Fame, or presented as a local media's item of note. The association to the localized entity is clear, the criteria and justification for the local hero being included is clear but the need to then build a case for notability for the naming organization should be beyond the bounds of the requirement for inclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


]&nbsp;Please see the ] page.&nbsp;] ] (]) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::A citation with contextual prose within an article seems, to me, separate from the RfC topic, which is solely about lists in an article. Most films don't have any particular local connection. (And I'm not sure if a star getting an award from her hometown's Chamber of Commerce or local film society is notable in any case.) --] (]) 21:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
:::But it seems to make little sense to allow the mentioning of an award in the contextual prose and ban it from a list of awards in the same article.--] (]) 21:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I guess you've never heard the phrase "context is everything." In many parts of life, something that normally would not be included sometimes ''can'' be included depending on the context. Even government bureaucrats have been known to make exceptions to rules in the context of extenuating circumstances. That doesn't mean the rules are invalid or make no sense.--] (]) 21:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::So meant to say what exactly in your posting above? As far as the "bureaucrats" in WP are concerned, in my experience they usually tend to argue without much regard for context or common sense.--] (]) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
:::The "contextual prose" for an award in a "List of awards" section or article for a particular film is that section/article, that film, the actual text being, the section/article title, and the lead, which would say, "A list of awards won by This Film." What clearer context is required? To make navigation and readability easier, subsections like "Major awards" and "Minor awards" can provide even more context. Editorial disagreement over inclusion of particular individual awards can be determined at the article level; minor awards/organizations can be cited to their own websites or other reliable source mentions (the common sense threshold for noteworthiness within an article is NOT ]). All of this falls squarely under ]. How can we editors determine the "worthiness" of content out of hand: "Hey, you may have given this film your insignificant award, but we at Misplaced Pages won't list it because you are too small to matter" doesn't sound like appropriate guidance. --] (]) 00:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Coverage by outside sources. If multiple independent sources covered the fact that this film won that award, it’s fair to say that it’s a significant fact. If multiple independent sources have covered ''multiple'' winnings of that award, it’s fair to say that it’s a significant award. In either case, it should be uncontroversial to include it. Otherwise: “We at Misplaced Pages won’t list it because we can’t find enough reliable secondary sources about you.” —] (]) 07:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::It seems that deciding which awards to include or exclude is really a matter of personal editorial opinion. Verifying that an award has been awarded I believe can be done as simply as by referring to the awarding organization's web site. Beyond that, I personally would look at it first from the encyclopedia user's point of view. Regardless of who I am exactly - film student, fan, movie industry insider, journalist, whatever - if I'm interested in reception and awards, I probably want to see as comprehensive an awards list as possible. I may or may not be interested in tinier awards, like from a US state critics group, or a local festival in a little-known country, or whatever, but I probably don't want to NOT have that there, info I don't want should just be easy to navigate past. On the other hand, maybe I find it interesting or useful to know, for example, that a particular film seems to have a won lots of minor awards, even if it has never even been nominated for a major one (I can think of several reasons wanting to know about minor awards, from various points of view). Reasonable uses can be made for inclusion. So why would Misplaced Pages want to limit that information, by creating an arbitrary cutoff for some awards?
:::::*Is it a space issue? We're not running out of digital space, and we can easily handle at least a few dozen per subject (we individually accommodate over 430,000 planets in ])
:::::*Is it a navigation and organization issue? "Minor awards" and daughter pages.
:::::*Is it a verifiability issue? For noteworthiness in this context, we really only want to be reasonably sure that the award and awarding organization really exist: an orderly, current web site, or a descriptive mention in local media, that level of sourcing should suffice (noteworthiness, not ]: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article").
:::::*Is it undue weight? That a film has won minor awards is certainly relevant to that film; weight can be balanced by "Minor awards" sectioning.
:::::It may be all a matter of opinion, but I don't think making arbitrary decisions to exclude content is in the Misplaced Pages spirit, if there are sound and reasonable basic arguments for inclusion. --] (]) 13:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
*'''Oppose''' Lists includes, by definition, non-notable items. Think about "List of songs recorded by...", discographies and so on. Will you delete a record from one of those lists just because it does not have its own article? To be specific about award lists - in my opinion, if the award is by an institution which has its own article, it is notable enough according to WP:N and may be included. For example, if Harvard University decides to award a scientist for their achievement, it is notable enough; if me and six of friends will award him, it is not notable enough. ] (]) 08:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
<div class="afd-notice">
**I wouldn't compare songs that someone has actually recorded that are directly relevant to their career to awards from a non notable organization that doesn't affect their career one way or the other. But the rest of your argument is what we are saying, if the organization has it's own article, then it goes in the list, if it doesn't then it's not added. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 15:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
<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 ].
***{{replyto|Lady Lotus}} What if the award (or its organization) is '''notable enough''' to have its own article, but it doesn’t have an article for non-] reasons? —] (]) 16:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
***:Could you provide an example, either of a specific award/organization, or of a reason why it wouldn't have an article? If the issue is simply that nobody's written an article yet, the solution seems straightforward enough... In any case, I think the bright line has to be that the award/organization is bluelinked, rather than opening up speculation as to whether it theoretically should be. ] (]) 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
***::{{replyto|Lady Lotus}} thank you for your answer. Are you sure about it? from my understanding, "Do items, such as awards... need to have their own WP article in order to be included in List articles" means that an '''award''' that does not have its own article should be removed, no matter whether the organization honoring it has its own article. Please clarify; I'll support if that was not the meaning. I think its clear that an award given by an organization that did not pass AfD (or will clearly not pass it) should not be be mentioned. Thank you very much, ] (]) 17:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
***:::You appear to have a ] that changes often and unpredictably. Please consider signing up and logging in with an account so it’s easier to know who we’re talking to and to get in contact with you. (Note: I have a ], so it’s less of an issue with me.) —] (]) 17:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
***:: {{u|Doniago}}, see ]. There is no policy that says something needs to be blue-linked in order to be sourced in an article. The guidelines clearly allow inclusion of sourced information without articles, including items in a list. Editors are not required to create an article for a topic/subject they are sourcing in another article; items do not need to be linked, blue or ], in order to be verifiable and sourced. {{u|213.57.109.191}}, it has been reiterated that, "'']''" ] (]) 18:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Your point being? My understanding is that the whole point of this conversation is to discuss what we consider appropriate ], and there's no reason why we should default to any minimum standard if the consensus is that the minimum is suboptimal. In this case, I'm leaning towards thinking it is suboptimal, though I'd note that I haven't formally expressed an opinion on the matter at this time. ] (]) 19:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I totally hear you. The problem I have with this conversation, and numerous others like it, is in making the distinction between article-level decisions, and attempts to prescribe acceptable content at the WikiProject level. Editors should not have to come up against other editors, brandishing MOSFILM guidelines, saying, "You simply can't include those awards in that film article, because those are deemed insignificant awards." That seems to me not at all within the mandate of WikiProjects, and downright unfriendly and not conducive to open contribution to Misplaced Pages. I am concerned with walled garden behavior around subject areas. IF a single article, or 10 articles, or even 50 articles actually do have insanely long awards lists full of spurious awards from scam organizations, well, deal with those articles one by one, all the tools are there, that's what we do. If that's the result of an organized effort to subvert the encyclopedia, deal with those editor agents. Why are we trying to write blanket rules arbitrarily prohibiting otherwise acceptable content, outside of core policy and guidelines? --] (]) 20:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Speaking from the perspective of a ], I like having blanket guidelines when possible for the same reason I like having warning templates available instead of needing to write up a new message each time I think it's necessary to give an editor an advisory. To me, "awards/organizations must be bluelinked for inclusion" seems reasonable (I'm still not saying it is), because it's a very easy guideline for editors to follow; there's no ambiguity. To put this matter on the article-level, OTOH, creates inconsistency and likely confusion among editors, and opens a huge battleground for ] arguments (which already come up more frequently than I'd prefer). ] (]) 20:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, I hear you. In a more perfect situation, guidelines would be just that, but they are not, they are quite regularly used as, essentially, hard and fast rules, to vigorously direct content against reasonable objection, and pound individual editors into submission (literally!). Adding more and more guidelines, which, along with increasingly aggressive interpretation, tweaking (in Project guides) and enforcement of existing guidelines, subverts the core policies and spirit of Misplaced Pages. Rule writing becomes a form of ownership and an end in itself. Often from what I've seen, guidelines (like this) are proposed for problems that don't even exist: has there been any demonstration at all of a widespread problem with runaway minor awards lists? And is this the best way of "hardwiring" what is a "worthy" award? For example, if a film has received major nominations and awards, the utility to the reader of minor awards is perhaps less, but for films that have not been recognized in the big award arena, ALL "minor awards" may be of much greater significance. Also, as I noted, using media coverage of minor awards to determine relevance is an imperfect measure, because the media is not looking for worth, just popular appeal: one tiny award may achieve tons of press simply because a big celebrity who has a nearby country compound regularly attends - is that reason to separate that award, on an encyclopedic film merit basis, from other similarly tiny awards - is noteworthiness and notability a media popularity contest? And so on. The more rules we write, the more ambiguities we create and disputes we encourage, it's a classic slippery slope. The core policies are quite excellent, and the ] view, if it suggests that steady, incremental rule-adding is good, should be reconsidered! :) --] (]) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::*''"To me, "awards/organizations must be bluelinked for inclusion" seems reasonable"''; ], the point being, in short, where is the policy that states that? Significant awards - deemed so by media coverage - are deleted per that POV, not supported by WP policy. You say you prefer direct, blanket guidelines. In actuality, (not what they could state, but what they do state) where is the guideline prohibiting inclusion of topics/subjects (e.g., awards, organizations, plays, schools, individuals, parents, musicians) without articles? My particular point is that the blanking of sourced awards without articles is a biased, arbitrary, presently baseless practice; it is also original research; ]: '''"Misplaced Pages's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors."''' (bolded as it's a relevant policy). Good points have been made here, but as this particular RfC isn't a guideline proposal, my primary concern is clarification. I'm all for discussing potential guideline or MOS change, in a discussion for that. ] (]) 12:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::I thought the whole point of this discussion was precisely to establish a "policy" (or, if you prefer, precedent/guideline/consensus) about such things. I applaud your classification of the ''removal'' of material as OR though; I don't think I've ever heard that particular argument before, and find it rather entertaining. Verifiability is not the solely defining attribute for inclusion, nor should it be (among other criteria, we like things to be true as well), and we place additional constraints on inclusion all the time, such as those listed at ] and ]. As I said, if editors feel that the current criteria for adding awards to articles are inappropriately broad, I'm perfectly willing to discuss imposing additional restrictions (whether or not they're reasonable is a separate matter). ] (]) 13:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, not the sole, one of three ]; WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR. ] (]) 13:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::And as I noted, additional constraints are imposed on article and/or larger-levels all the time. And given that I haven't even expressed support or opposition to this, I'm not sure why you're so focused on my particular concerns. What are you hoping for here? ] (]) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


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.
* '''Comment''' - Someone mentioned the "common sense threshold." That's a straw dog since what one person considers common sense, another considers nonsense. I would say common sense dictates that: '''If an awards organization is non-notable, then ipso facto, its awards are non-notable'''. --] (]) 17:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


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> ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::FYI, I wrote ''"the '''common sense threshold''' for noteworthiness within an article is NOT WP:NOTABILITY"'' using the phrase "common sense" in the exactly the way it is used, for example, in the ] policy: ''"Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and '''common sense''', and should be discussed on article talk pages."'' Our own definition explains it well: ''"] is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate."'' Common sense evaluation is of course is not being applied when individuals are determined to stick to a point, without considering and addressing reasonable counter-arguments.
::] is policy to avoid an insane proliferation of stubby articles about everything under the sun: encouraging "significant coverage" to ensure reasonable article length is a cornerstone. I see nothing in it about value judgement of the intrinsic worth of a particular topic or item. Any bona fide "award" given to a film has some measure of worth to that film. A "minor award" almost by definition is not going to have much outside coverage, but lack of media coverage by other media (media is the usual secondary source in this case) doesn't mean lack of worth. This seems to me to be exactly why a distinction is made in ] between article-level notability and content-level noteworthiness: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" (] and this is consistent with standalone-lists, which "minor awards" may or may not be, in ]).
::As an editor and reader/user, I would like to filter out scam, made-up awards, and list only genuine awards where an organized group critically judges and ranks films. Deciding on whether an individual minor award organization is real is a matter of "common sense" examination: is there an official web site, with an about page, a physical address, multiple years of awards, and so forth-is it likely that this is real or a complete made-up scame? Common sense in this case would dictate that the standard for noteworthiness in a list of minor awards for an individual film is not too high, we are not deciding on whether to create an article, or even to praise a film, based on any one minor award, we simply want to verify whether a single award exists and was awarded to the film, actor or whatever is in question. This to me is common sense. --] (]) 19:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of ] as seen ]. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - When ever the RfC's proposer states that removing awards given by non-notable groups with Misplaced Pages articles "has become a systematic practice," that means it's the status quo &mdash; i.e., an extant system in place practice. It's practically the definition. --] (]) 02:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::In relation to "the deletion of items without articles is across the board, by, in particular, Lady Lotus." It's not really across the board by the editor, it's arbitrary, I'd noticed. Are you really saying that when an editor persistently edits per their pov, against guidelines, it only reinforces that they're correct and their view is the WP status-quo? Actual WP policies/guidelines be damned. ] (]) 09:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Actually they're not editing "against guidelines". Quite the opposite. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::What guidelines was I going against when removing non-notable awards? In my years on Misplaced Pages, and after several discussions with other editors about the same thing, it was my understanding that per ] that awards that don't have their own page are removed. It just made sense to me and to others not have an endless list of awards that a user couldn't get further information on. You are the only editor that I can recall that's had a problem with this. And you can continue to blue link people whenever they say they support this RfC but it's their opinion, and most of the editors that have responded to this have knowledge of what it is they are talking about. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 11:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Considering there are 8 explicit no/oppose comments in ''this'' discussion alone (not counting past discussions), no I'm not the only one. And given that the guidelines explicitly support my point, in other words there has been wide consensus, numerous other editors, that are not in this discussion would agree. How is it against guidelines? You just complained about linking them, but it appears it's necessary again; here are three: ] (''Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article''), ] (''Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines ...The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.''), ] (''Misplaced Pages's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source.'') You may want to see ] as well. What I argue for is clearly per what the WP guidelines explicitly state; consequently, what you (and those who agree with that view) argue against is in opposition to what the guidelines state. Would you mind quoting something from WP:INDISCRIMINATE that states awards (or items in list articles) need to have their own WP article in order to be sourced in the list? Because unless it's stating that, "per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" does not hold water, especially when multiple other guidelines explicitly oppose that view. ] (]) 02:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::As I mentioned previously, nothing that you've said or linked to prohibits applying additional restrictions to lists included within articles if there is a consensus that doing so is appropriate. Indeed, ] explicitly states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That the guidelines support your broad interpretation for inclusion is irrelevant, as it's unlikely the editors who established those guidelines were considering this specific matter. It is far more likely that those guidelines are a ''starting point'', and that editors are intended to collaborate to establish more appropriate inclusion criteria when appropriate. What you're arguing for is not adhering to the guidelines per se, but rather not imposing additional criteria, something which I don't believe is restricted. ] (]) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::'''''nothing ... prohibits applying additional restrictions ... if there is a consensus that doing so is appropriate''''' Your methodical deliberation has neatly summed up the problem! Nothing may explicitly prohibit X or Y "rules," but usually nothing explicitly supports them either, except this idea of "consensus," and that's where the WikiProject-level process gets wrong-headed, by trying to impose hard restrictions on content that is '''not restricted in the core policies and guidelines (])'''.
:::::::'''We can't use WikiProject-level guidance to end-run core policy''', and '''consensus is not a vote''', yet these local, Project-based "consensus" efforts to impose specific interpretations of core guidance tend to get supported and written by very small groups. Here in FILM, I've noticed a pool of maybe 10-20 regular editors I'd say offhand, who argue loosely together, usually against one or two "non-regular" editors, which seems very local for category-level rule-making (if someone is into that, we could get some actual stats on the various "consensus" cited here in MOSFILM, and how and by whom they were established, presented in a neat table, perhaps).
:::::::In MOSFILM, I've followed debated topics back 3-4 years and in some cases more, and the same small handful of editors - many of whom are in this thread - show up again and again, arguing down lone editors (much as this thread has progressed). I'm not at all saying there is collusion - this group at times disagrees among themselves - it seems to be simple human nature: some editors spend a LOT of their time over a long period in one content area and develop, quite understandably, ownership behaviors, and, other things being equal, seem to support each other through familiarity unless they have a pretty strong contrary opinion.
:::::::Wikpedia seems to work because there is a lot of room for very specific editorial choices at the article-level: even just two editors can come to a big compromise that may stick for years. At a higher level, though, flexibility in guidance is critical, to ensure that all editors can participate, and checks and balances are always possible. This avoids creating single points of failure, where '''arbitrary content restriction can lead to quite effective forms of content censorship'''. This goes absolutely against our core policies by allowing some editors to tell other editors what to do.
::::::::CASE IN POINT: If I want to include a film award for a particular film, and that award is reasonably verifiable by citing, say, the award organization's web site that is orderly, displays years of awards, policies and such, has a street address and full contact info, etc - in short, gives every indication of being bona fide - inclusion of that content is 100% fully supported by core policies and guidelines. How can a handful of editors override that, to tell me I simply can't include that class of content that breaks no real-world laws or Misplaced Pages policies?
:::::::'''If you want to specifically restrict types of content permitted by the core rules, change those core policies and guideline that permit that content in the first place, don't try to subvert them.''' --] (]) 16:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Which core policy/guideline explicitly permits the inclusion of non-bluelinked awards/organizations? ] is a bar that must be passed for information to be included, but just because information can be verified doesn't mean it's automatically appropriate for inclusion (for instance, if the information was verifiable ''but wrong'', that would be an issue). You're advocating changing policies to resolve this issue, so I'd like to know which policy you're pointing to as specifically permitting the scenario we're currently discussing. ] (]) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Not entirely clear on what you're getting at here:
:::::::::*''Which core policy/guideline explicitly permits the inclusion of non-bluelinked awards/organizations?'' Don't see what this getting at, because we're talking about basis for blanket EXCLUSION. In any case, numerous bits of core guidance supporting inclusion have already been repeatedly cited in this thread, like: ''"] (Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines ...The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."'' and so on. And most of that applies to Notability, i.e. for standalone lists, the standard for inclusion of lists within articles is lower.
:::::::::*''] is a bar that must be passed for information to be included, but just because information can be verified doesn't mean it's automatically appropriate for inclusion ... which policy you're pointing to as specifically permitting the scenario we're currently discussing.'' A little unclear, but the argument I think you're making is that core POLICIES - verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research - don't on their own cover all cases. That's a little semantic, as I referred to "policies and guidelines," the body of core guidance, distinct from WikiProject layers that are intended to be purely for complementary clarification, NOT additional restriction. I've indicated in the previous bullet point the core policies and guidelines I'm talking about: for example, change ], or back up to ] so that they indicate that editors can formulate arbitrary rules determining editorial relevance, like, which awards matter and which don't matter to any one film, or the readers interested in that film.
:::::::::It's interesting that this discussion doesn't refermore to ], the procedural policy page for maintaining policies and guidelines. '''We should not be applying policies and guidelines aimed at article-level content, to forms of policy-making and the writing of new, additional rules."''' For instance, ] notes: ''"If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice."'' Banning non-bluelinked awards is apparently at odds with ], for example, so, IF CHALLENGED, an anti-non-bluelinked guideline would seem to be directly in conflict with core guidance, in that the core clearly says that non-bluelinked awards can be acceptable list content. There isn't only one way to do most things, and at the article level, barring edit warring and its possible consequences, sometimes one "side" has to back down and let things be, even if it isn't what they want. --] (]) 19:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::To take your case in point, being simply verifiable does not guarantee inclusion. In fact, ] (which is part of a core Misplaced Pages policy) does indeed state that consensus can exclude verifiable content. It's a moot point if that decision takes place at article level (where discussions typically have fewer participants) or at project level because the outcome will be invariably the same. ] (]) 17:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::With ], you are using guidance intended for content editing as support for formal rule-making, which are two entirely different things. For guidelines, ] should be applied.
:::::::::*''It's a moot point if that decision takes place at article level ... or at project level'' - That seems absolutely wrong: at article level, decisions affect single instances, with all of the editor participation, specific details, and nuances of discussion that that encompasses. At project level, a decision like "no non-bluelinked awards" becomes an arbitrary content decision that totally bypasses Misplaced Pages's collaborative policies, guidelines and spirit. It is also not practical, because each rule that is written out gives rise to the need for more rules. As has already been pointed out here, what if an award can be bluelinked, but hasn't been. In that case, the rule mandates that, in order to include a particular award, you have to first create an article for that award, with is clearly and explicitly NOT the standard for article creation per ], and in fact would seem to suggest going against the intent of ], by encouraging editors to create articles simply for a procedural reason.
:::::::::WikiProject rules seem best for largely non-controversial matters, like text formatting conventions, and what we do with "The" in film titles. When it comes to telling people, "As an across the board rule, we suggest you never include this source or this type of content, and even if it's only a guideline that you choose not to follow, and your alternative is also fully supported by core policies and guidelines, we the patrolling editors will revert your edits and argue with your relentlessly, citing this WikiProject guideline and a host of other policies and guidelines that apparently support it, until you go away," doesn't seem acceptable, in spirit and in ]. --] (]) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::By my read: There is '''no rule prohibiting''' non-notable awards from being included in any list. There is also '''no rule mandating''' that non-notable awards be included in any list. Editors of a given article or list may decide amongst themselves what content is and is not appropriate to include on that particular page. A couple guys at a wikiproject page may not. —] (]) 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::The guideline for not including non-notable awards, as has been noted over and over, is ].
:::::::::As well, guidelines state that objective criteria be used in deciding what to include in a list. An organization's notability, as gauged by whether it has a Misplaced Pages article, is a clear, objective parameter. Otherwise, deciding which non-notable award to include and which not is simply POV. --] (]) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::'''''"The guideline for not including non-notable awards"'' is certainly not ] (also shortcutted as ], ], ], ], and other similar)''', which is simply one bit of guidance that is, arguably, applicable to film awards. The section is titled: ''"Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information,"'' it's about data dumps and endless streams of indecipherable numbers and the like, and the only wording that may be of specific relevance to "awards given to films" is: ''"3. Excessive listings of numbers, data without context, or statistics."'' Even if you choose to characterize film awards as "data without context" (clearly, not the intent here, but anyhow), certainly you can't common sens argue that "Awards" or "List of awards" in a film article, listing awards given to that film, is not sufficient context to put them "in their proper context for a general reader."
::::::::::''"guidelines state that objective criteria be used in deciding what to include in a list."'' Using guidelines aimed at content editing as support for rule-writing is not particularly appropriate without also applying all of the guidelines specifically for guideline creation, per ]. Citing a rule that may be applicable to a single instance is not equivalent to making that citation an editorial guideline, it's two separate processes and procedures. --] (]) 20:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::What is this "rule-writing" stuff? All we have here is a standard RfC to determine a guideline procedure. It's done every day on Misplaced Pages. And I'm really not sure how text added to an article is not "article content." Also, please stop with the endless boldfacing: Shouting at fellow editors doesn't give your points any added validity and simply makes one seem intemperate. --] (]) 20:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::'''A)''' If you're going to reply to me, why don't you address the most relevant and important part, which is, how exactly does ] apply to film awards?
::::::::::::'''B)''' The ''"rule-writing" stuff'' is a straightfoward reference to the initial RfC set-up, where the originating editor said: ''"Three editors (Tenebrae, Lady Lotus, Lugnuts) in the above discussion say that the Wikiproject has a consensus that if an award/organization does not have its own WP article it cannot be added to a List article even if it is reliably sourced."'' Sure, the RfC description clearly states that this is not about changing guidelines per se, obviously, if editors are claiming local consensus on a Project-wide editing matter, and this discussion is to have any actual impact going forward, banning non-bluelinked awards would have to be included as a MOSFILM guideline advice: a rule would have to be written. Otherwise, what are we talking about here? I'm just getting to the point.
::::::::::::'''C)''' It's bad form to turn things personal, but fine. I tend to write longer replies than some, and my bolding is generally to make it easier to navigate them (and ot navigate the overall volume of this thread), particularly for editors who might be inclined to TL;DR behavior (a comment I have encountered). On the same point of excessive bolding, I might call you on the questionable use of bold in '''''Yes, Absolutely yes, Strongest possible support''''' (see above) that creates the impression of a new "vote," when you had already weighed in previously with a '''Support'''.
::::::::::::I'm still curious about your film awards interpretation ]? --] (]) 21:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


This discussion has been relisted to get more input. Editors are invited to comment. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Tenebrae, "An organization's notability, as gauged by whether it has a Misplaced Pages article, is a clear, objective parameter" has to be a running gag by now; ]: "''The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.''" ]: "''We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.''" ] multiple times isn't an argument. And, as Tsavage has also noted, the blanket WP:INDISCRIMNATE citing has not been clarified; where in it does it say that list items need to have their own articles? ] (]) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


== Starring parameter ==
*'''Support''' At this point I'm inclined to support only including bluelinked awards as an ]. To my mind it's a bright-line method that can be used to establish appropriateness for inclusion. Perhaps this might even foster article creation to some degree where an award/organization really ''should'' be included but the underlying a/o is simply lacking an article presently. ] (]) 14:43, 24 April 2015 (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. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''''"Perhaps this might even foster article creation to some degree"''''' Don't you see how this is one of the main wrong-headed outcomes of improperly conceived WikiProject-level content guidance: it goes against core POLICY, ], by encouraging stubby articles, where ] is specifically out to do the opposite, as in: ''"We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list."'' This helps to confuse perfectly good core guidance: the difference between notability, for standalone articles, and noteworthiness, a different, less rigorous standard, for inclusion within an article. --] (]) 20:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Again with the shouting. And all of this is remarkably irrelevant. List inclusion requires objective criteria. And as to your remark about "common sense," which apparently only you possess and not a single other editor here does, I would say common sense dictates that if an organization is not notable, its awards are not notable. --] (]) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::''List inclusion requires objective criteria'' - Beyond the fact that a film award exists (it's not made-up, a sham, a fake), and that it was awarded to a particular film, what are you so authoritatively shorthanding here, what other "objective criteria" are you talking about?
::::''"common sense," which apparently only you possess and not a single other editor here does'' - Whatever your opinion about me and the other editors here, to quote another editor from above: "Considering there are 8 explicit no/oppose comments in this discussion alone (not counting past discussions), no I'm not the only one." What is the point of '''again with the shouting''' and sarcastic references to common sense, are you trying to illustrate how I'm sub-intelligent, hysterical, misguided, rude, biased, or otherwise not worthy of listened to? --] (]) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::No, I clearly was responding to your long treatise about "common sense" in your post of 19:57, 20 April 2015.
:::::And as has been noted here more than once, ] specifies limiters to lists, and gives as its first criterion, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Misplaced Pages." If an organization isn't notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article, its awards certainly aren't notable.--] (]) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::] (]) lists three examples (with no indication of a preferability ranking in the order they are listed; they are all quite different from each other). One of them, also previously noted in this thread, is: ''"Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article."'' The third item is ''"Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group."'' which can include notable and non-notable items. Taken together, the three ] options offer a range of acceptable list options, as long as selection criteria are clear.
::::::In terms of excluding verifiable film awards only because they do not have standalone articles, these core guidelines say it can go either way in any one situation, based on local editor consensus, working with ] (and any other relevant guidance introduced in the discussion). However, if we write a WikiProject rule favoring one method for all cases (and for no reason other than the preference of some editors), it would be saying, "no, you can't apply ] here, we've already decided on that." Effectively, would that not be a WikiProject rule superseding core policies and guidelines, in this case, ]?--] (]) 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::] is a list of examples. We're not bound to adhere to them or prohibited from conflicting with them. ] (]) 21:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Tell that to Tenebrae. I'm not arguing that non-bluelinked awards can or cannot be included, but that '''(A)''' core policies and guidelines suggest making that a selection criterion or not are equally acceptable options, and '''(B)''' that we can't supersede core guidance with rules that apply only to MOSFILM articles, as doing so, encouraging a particular interpretation that is the preference of some editors, would conflict with the core guidance, in this case, ] and its parent, ] (which has been cited multiple times in this thread, including in the RfC description, so what is your point?!). Core guidance allows either approach in any one instance, and WikiProject guidelines should not conflict with the core by attempting to categorically remove that option.
::::::::This RfC is part of something bigger: look/ask around, '''there is a potentially significant WikiProjects problem brewing''', centered around whether specialized local rules for specific content types should be able to supersede Misplaced Pages-wide core policies and guidelines (which officially represent the widest community consensus)? At least one project (Medicine) seems to have gotten very close to that line already, both in rule writing and in enforcement, and MOSFILM is doing pretty well as well (for example, with accepting and rejecting various specific branded sources, and with initiatives like this "define insignificant awards" thing). Where this leads to is different content rules for different articles, and imagine the turf wars when two or more Projects want to slap their banners on the same article. Good times!!
::::::::Someday, there will probably have to be a referendum to either more clearly restrict the powers of WikiProjects, or let them run free, some perhaps breaking off into semi-independent content republics, with differing rules and a shared currency (or something like that :). I believe it's an important Misplaced Pages fundamental, not allowing special interests to take over, and the devil's in the details, like this kinda crazy...discussion. IMO, of course... Thank you for your time. --] (]) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::This RfC is not "brewing" anything, and it's a deliberately alarmist tactic to say so. We are talking about the requirement to use objective criteria when deciding what to include in lists &mdash; that's concrete, established guideline. The first one ] suggests as an objective guideline is whether the organization is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article. Otherwise, it's POV to say, "I like the Podunk Film Critics, so I'm including its Best Picture award" or "Terminator 12 is my favorite movie, so I'm including every single award and nomination, including the Podunk Film Critics, the Smallville Film Critics and the Central Ohio Film Critics."
:::::::::''That'' is exactly what objective criteria is in place to avoid. It's not encyclopedic to have fans of this or that spread non-notable awards throughout Misplaced Pages to honor their favorite movies or their hometown regions. --] (]) 21:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::] also suggests {{tq|“short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group”}} (albeit a complete list of verifiable film awards would not be short). And that section does not include ''un''common selection criteria, or demand that lists fit the listed criteria only, nor does it (being a style guideline) have any right to do so. A short, complete list of every film award that ''Terminator 12'' has won (I’m assuming it would be a notably short list) would be perfectly valid per ]. It’s just a question of editorial judgement in the case of each article. The common selection criteria are not the ''only'' acceptable selection criteria. —] (]) 23:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::I respectfully disagree. Listing ''every'' award a film has won, including those of the ] and other non-notable organizations removed by consensus, is incredibly ]. And please register if you're going to involve yourself in a debate, for obvious reasons. --] (]) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Those obvious reasons are somewhat mitigated by the fact that my IP address is static. And whether it’s indiscriminate would be something to be decided on a case by case basis; if reliable secondary sources backed the claim that the Chlotrudis Society was one of five organizations that gave ''Terminator 12'' an award, I’d argue on that Talk page that it (and all five, notable or not, bluelinked or unlinked) belonged in the list. And I maintain that this is not something to be addressed at the wikiproject level. —] (]) 00:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{reply|Tenebrae}} There it is again, ] - it appears you are using that link as the WORD "indiscriminate," because the guideline it points to has nothing to with what you're talking about. You've studiously ignored multiple requests for clarification, yet continue to cite it, and are now being asked again: what in the ] guideline do you see as applying to this case of film awards? At what point, when you continue to engage others (and in my case at least, negatively characterize their comments; your latest: "alarmist") but not address their questions to you, does your participation become meaningless and disruptive?
::::::::::::Even your example is poorly researched: a 90-second Google browse for "Chlotrudis Society" turned up two headline-mentioned articles from the '']'', including , a clean, well-organized, up-to-date , indicating healthy activity in, among others, film reviews, presenting films at festivals, sponsoring weekly film nights at two cinemas, and the member-voted annual awards with results conveniently archived for 20 years, 1995-2014. Why is ''that'' your example of an award that is so insignificant that it should not be included in an article about a film or person who received it? Because it is red-linked?
::::::::::::I'm not trying to be rude or insulting to: you are simply commenting over and over while saying nothing of substance, that that in itself becomes insulting to me. I am here to discuss, not to argue mindlessly and, if faced with points I can't or don't feel like replying to, either ignore them, or go silent, or use the go-to, "ok, let's agree to disagree." If you're discussing, let's discuss! --] (]) 01:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::'''PS: Ran into Chlotrudis again''', via in the ''Boston Globe'' (a third article), and it in fact sounds like quite a quirky, interesting, hardcore independent film organization and award, located in Boston. One of its members is Philip Seymour Hoffman's mother, a retired family court judge who joined and regularly attends and presents, after finding her son's 1999 Best Supporting Actor nomination online; she apparently pressured him to attend, which he did in 2004. It has complex rules on award eligibility, voting only on independent films, no festival-only or direct to DVD, and released on no more than 1,000 US screens in the first four weeks, and requires voting members to view a minimum of 25 eligible films in the voting year. And more. This is what makes Misplaced Pages interesting to me, learning about stuff, but why not just spend time arguing about control over content instead? The core rule and spirit to me is from the top of ]: "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing." --] (]) 07:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm afraid I'm not the one who's misinformed: If you'd done you research, you would have seen that the Chlotrudis film club was roundly removed from Misplaced Pages after a lengthy deletion consensus debate. All you're doing is showing your desire to stuff Misplaced Pages with useless trivia. And please read ] more closely: something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia," and the ''policy'' &mdash; not guideline, but policy &mdash; is not to include excessive listings of numbers, statistics and "data without context," such as awards from organizations that are non-notable, and without bluelinked articles that supply context.--] (]) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I disagree that wikilinks provide sufficient context. If a list of ''unlinked'' awards would be deemed to lack sufficient context to pass ], then I’d argue that the same wikilinked list is mere data without context. {{small|(Note: Please read ] if you are unfamiliar with that.)}} —] (]) 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{reply|Tenebrae}} Roundly removed? The , led by you, with a scant 5:1 Delete to Keep (including three I recognize from other discussions as from what I've observed like-minded film regulars), and the arguments are weak. You again cite ] and ], plus ], in the same challenged way you do here, but it really seems like you just don't like Chlotrudis, as an "insignificant fan-club award." This is your example, then, of an unworthy award organization:
::::::::::::::*In that AfD, the main argument is "no significant coverage," while the most detailed editor comment notes, with a "Weak delete": ''While this by The Boston Globe is significant coverage, I am not finding "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area".'' Whaaa? If a US Top 10-rated newspaper (''Boston Globe'') publishes a story online, it's not "local," it will rank in the first couple of pages of search engine results, and whether reporters paid attention to it from another newspaper/web site 3,000 miles away is not too relevant in terms of reach and audience ("local area" coverage, per ] for non-commercial orgs, seems to be about determining if something like a Boy Scout chapter or a homeless shelter, really serves just a very limited area, with no other relevance to people outside that scope; a film award delivers relevance through its recipients, its scope is international if it covers world film (as does Chlotrudis), so if the award/organization is recognized sufficiently in-depth - significant coverage for an article - by a solid reliable source, that should entirely satisfy notability). How far do we go to twist rules to get rid of things just because we don't like them?{{interrupted|Tsavage}}
::::::::::::::*:{{re|Tsavage}} If a large media outlet reports on something local to where it is based (e.g., if the ''New York Times'' reports on a small flash mob in Times Square), I would say that’s coverage ''inside'' the organization’s local area. It’s a Bostonian source reporting on a Bostonian organization. The article even uses the words “local organization.” I don’t know if I’d have agreed with deleting, but I agree with the quoted rationale. —] (]) 16:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@] When reasonably applied, I agree with your interpretation of ] as it stands (coincidentally, it's currently tagged as under dispute), and I probably shouldn't have included what you're referring to without more explanation (I was trying to not go off on an AfD tangent). Since you mention it, though, part of my full point with that, where they AfD-ed based on arguing against the ''type'' of significant coverage - yes, significant, but no, only "local," so, not significant enough per ] - was that mention only in local media that significantly reaches only local people, about a local entity - which is what ] seems to be getting at - is not the same as a mention (or multiple mentions) on the web site of a major newspaper in a major city (boston.com and bostonglobe.com are both in the 1800-2500 range global site rank per alexa.com), with a non-local online audience, and the page rank to push especially smaller items it covers to the top of search results, further increasing reach. The ] local test is somewhat pre-Internet, where local print news coverage really was likely limited to a local readership. If a tiny New York shop makes amazing local bagels for its neighborhood, and the only coverage of that is in-depth in the ''New York Times'', a well-regarded paper with a significant non-local online audience, to argue that that on its own is still "too local" for notability seems like a stretch, when the same bakery in a smaller town, covered by its town paper and the next smaller town over's paper from 100 miles away ("regional" coverage), would "qualify" as more notable. Also, ] is specific to non-commercial organizations, so an item that might meet notability otherwise, with a decent single source, could be ruled out because it is a non-profit, which doesn't make that much sense. I assume notability is to ensure that articles are about subjects readers from all over, not just from one or another tiny town of 2,000, may want to look up - common sense should apply per case. --] (]) 03:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::*'''Have you checked out '']'' lately?''' Being bluelinked clearly doesn't mean much as far as sourcing consistency - and there are at least two bluelinked awards that have no references at all, created in 2005 and 2007, one tagged as being unsourced since 2009 - it's a pretty arbitrary, uneven standard you're pushing. I don't find anything wrong with ] - like everything else, it's ongoing, work in progress - but I do have a problem with holding up the bluelinked awards collection it contains as a standard for content inclusion...that's bad advice and fairly absurd.
::::::::::::::*The section of ] you're citing reads in full: '''"3. Excessive listings of numbers, data without context, or statistics. Long and sprawling lists of numbers may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of Misplaced Pages articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put numbers within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, such as in presenting polling information from an election or numbers of lost lives in a war, consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, omit excess numbers altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely.'' Obviously, "data without context" in that context is about crazy amounts of STUFF for no apparent good reason, like the names of every one of the tens of thousands of participants in each annual Boston Marathon. A list of different awards presented to a particular film or person is not "data without context." How many times can this be repeated?
::::::::::::::*''awards from organizations that are non-notable'' You keep repeating this, but awards and their organizations don't have to meet ] criteria to be included as content, that applies only to article creation, as has been pointed out several times already: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" - ]
::::::::::::::You manage to keep commenting without substantially replying to anything asked of you, or saying anything new!? --] (]) 02:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I've answered; you just don't like what you're hearing. What I see is someone who wants to stuff film articles with reams of indiscriminate lists and is bending over backwards with pretzel logic to make a case for that. --] (]) 03:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You have answered nothing, except with empty words, misapplication of policies and guidelines, and personal (let's just say) attacks, like "pretzel logic" and "I see someone who wants to stuff film articles with reams of indiscriminate lists." Can you give me an example of one list of film awards or a film article awards section that is stuffed with even one ream of indiscriminate list, just to see what we're talking about (and if you have one, do you have 5, 10, 20, to illustrate a problem in need of a solution)? What sort of standard do bluelinked articles that don't have any sources at all represent? How can we have Featured lists, our highest Misplaced Pages-wide public standard of editorial quality that include non-bluelinked film awards - is Tenebrae proposing that those awards be deleted, or Featured status withdrawn? Are you looking for the last word? --] (]) 04:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Re “shouting”: You do realize only direct quotes were formatted? Seems more like highlighting than shouting to me. Might as well have used {{tl|tq}}, but that formatting calls even more attention to itself than bold/italics. That whole issue doesn’t really belong on this page, anyway. —] (]) 23:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The relevant guideline is ]. If the subject of the award is notable for an article and the award is reliably sourced, there is no reason to exclude it, as long as it does not violate ] or other relevant guidelines. ] (]) 17:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


== Needed articles: ], ] ==
=====Arbitrary break 2=====
*Recently came across two ] with unlinked, sourced awards: ] and ]. ] (]) 18:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::At a glance, it looks to me like most if not all of the awards/organizations are bluelinked on both of those... one might also argue ] given that those aren't film articles, and I don't believe anyone here has suggested that whatever standard we would apply to film articles should be applied to other types of articles. I'd also note the Madonna article became featured in 2011; it's possible that the article as it exists now would not be considered to be of the same caliber. Just my thoughts though. ] (]) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:::This is RfC is about List articles (not film articles), particularly List of awards and nominations received by an actor or film. ] (]) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:::So are we seeking to apply standards to film articles that ''should not'' be applied to other types of articles? By a ]? Because that seems un-Wikipedian. —] (]) 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:::''I don't believe anyone here has suggested that whatever standard we would apply to film articles should be applied to other types of articles'' Exactly the problem: we're not supposed to be overriding core policies and guidelines with additional standards selectively based on topic. And this case particularly makes no sense because awards apply to just about every subject area: sports, food, film, music, academics, and on, so a "worthiness" rule that makes sense for film should apply to all other subject areas with awards, i.e. via core policies and guidelines, not WikiProject guidance. --] (]) 03:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::As far as I can tell, you're the only one beating the drum claiming this RfC is about anything other than WikiProject Film. Not even the editor who proposed this RfC is saying it is about anything other than WikiProject Film. Your Fox News-like attempts at creating hysteria centers on something no more real than the purported "war on Christmas." Please stop. --] (]) 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::'''Comment.''' To be honest (and if you are pushing this issue), I don't think other list of award pages should be treated different than film awards in this matter. If a music award is not notable, its awards aren't notable and it shouldn't be on a list of music awards. If a math award isn't notable (generic high-school award) then it shouldn't be on a list of awards by some genius mathematician. --] (]) 09:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::While I wouldn't care to be the one pushing for such a larger revision of the guidelines, in principle I agree with this sentiment. ] (]) 13:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|Seriously?}} ] Can this discussion move ''forward''? ] (]) 13:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::As Tenebrae pointed out very early in this discussion, the guideline you keep linking has this line in it: " editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages articles". So the notability guideline does in fact determine content in articles (in that that it lets the editors determine if a non-notable entry should be listed or not). --] (]) 09:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::As has been noted several times, (apart from the {{tq|notability guideline stating more than once that it does not apply to content}}, and also stating: {{tq|''"If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list"''}}, and again, {{tq|''"Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages"''}}), that paragraph states: {{tq|''"Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."''}} Below that is, {{tq|''"Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."''}} The line "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists..." is linked to the MOS selection criteria (]), which states: {{tq|''"Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources."''}} The ''see also'' in ], links to ], which states: {{tq|''"When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, people reading or editing the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source. For information to be verifiable, it also means that Misplaced Pages does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation based on but beyond what the source actually says."''}} There's no "per WP:__" that validates blanket removal of sourced items in a list, and there are several guidelines (as well as the Featured list criteria) that clearly allow them. ] (]) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::This discussion should probably ''move''. It seems to have become a discussion about what ''should'' be policy about notability in lists, so perhaps it should move to ]? Betty? Tenebrae? —] (]) 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I'd be amenable to that.
:::::::For the record, I don't think it's reasonable to say that any non-bluelinked anything is non-notable; that's silly. However, ''as an inclusion criterion'' I appreciate how clear-cut it is and easy for editors to work with as a bright line indicator. There's room for local consensus to override any larger consensus on this matter, and I maintain that this could foster article creation, and if the articles being created are appropriate, then this would seem to be a win-win. ] (]) 18:12, 28 April 2015 (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;">]&#124;]</sub> 01:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' The words "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" in INDISCRIMINATE do not authorise the removal of any content other than that specified by the four criteria of INDISCRIMINATE (plot summaries, lyrics databases, excessive listings of statistics and exhaustive changelogs) to which the said words refer. That passage is quoted out of context above. Frankly, that passage should be removed from INDISCRIMINATE as mere surplusage or tautology, that adds nothing of substance to the policy. It just confusing poor writing, something that there is far too much of in the project namespace. ] (]) 06:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


== Sharksploitation ==
Notified WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:POV (three policies cited in this RfC) for potentially wider input. ] (]) 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC). Also notified WikiProjects Lists, Theatre, and Actors and Filmmakers. ] (]) 14:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:Pretty much the last throw of the dice for someone who is wrong and is going against consensus. Good luck! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::Your trolling here is humorous, Lugnuts. I snickered. ] (]) 18:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::You're the one trolling, mate. Quite pathetic. Like this little crusade. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::] Anyway, if personal attacks must be made, they should probably be made in usertalk or at ], not in a discussion about interpreting policy. —] (]) 23:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::My last off topic reply, but Lugnuts should know to tone it down after recents blocks for personal attacks. ] (]) 01:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ] and ] #1. WP:NOTESAL says, ''"Because the ''group or set'' is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages articles."'' The first part of the sentence needs to be considered because when it comes to film accolades, we are not splitting a list sub-article off from the original film article because the list suddenly became notable. We split it off strictly due to size.
:This passage from WP:NOTESAL is more applicable to something like ], which is based on reliable sources listing such films, complemented by reliable sources identifying a specific film as having surveillance. One of the individual items is ''World Without a Mask'', which is a red link (and perhaps can be a blue one if someone can find German-language sources) but is appropriate to include since it was discussed in the ''Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies''. That is how the guideline should be applied.
:So here we're not even basing such lists of film accolades on notability guidelines but rather ]. If we are doing that, we are dealing with large lists and have discretion about what to list. By splitting, we are recognizing that the list is too long to be in the main film article. So I find ] #1 applicable because we are dealing with a glut of organizations and want to provide readers a manageable list of film accolades based on the notability of these organizations. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:18, 29 April 2015 (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, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 12:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::On a per case level, yours is an opinion to be considered. In general, though, you're saying that lists of film awards are categorically "too long" and pose a navigation/usability ("manageability") problem for readers, and so, without individual consideration, should be limited by certain criteria. But what is "too long"? As I mentioned earlier, we accommodate a multi-article ] with over 400,000 of them - "size" is clearly relative to the task at hand. So how many is "too many awards to list" for any one film or actor?


== Opinion on scope of WikiProject ==
::Additionally, all content must be verifiable (]), and any verifiable award seems relevant to the recipient. How is it up to Misplaced Pages to decide which awards are not important or interesting or valuable or whatever to either the story of the recipient or to the reader, insofar as simply listing "their awards." So in your argument, it comes back to, "how many awards in a list is too many to be able to adequately format for reader usability, and why is this an insurmountable technical problem that requires content exclusion?" You can't just say, "oh, they're all just too big," and on that basis try limit all editors of all film awards lists. --] (]) 04:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm part of the ] and we are looking for feedback on if foreign films produced by Israelis should be included or not.
:::Hi, {{ul|Tsavage}}. Thanks for replying. I think finding a consensus to apply selection criteria depends on the subject matter. For a list of minor planets, it makes sense to list all of the discoveries made. It might be that if we have a general list of film awards organizations, we would list both notable and non-notable organizations. Notable organizations would likely have verifiable claims, if referenced articles about them had been written. Non-notable organizations could be listed based on a reliable source. For example, I would be fine with mentioning Chlotrudis in such a list. However, I would not have red links in the lists under ].
See ]. ] (]) 02:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Plot summary discussion on ''Pokémon Heroes'' ==
:::This whole discussion, to me, is more about being able to repeat an organization's recognitions across multiple film articles regardless of whether or not there are reliable secondary sources directly reporting an organization's recognitions for that year. By this I mean that some organizations' recognitions are reported one year but not other years. My concern is treating this as a license to mine the organization's website and plug their awards and nominations everywhere based on such a singular source. They would artificially get more attention on Misplaced Pages than anywhere else aside from the Internet Movie Database. That's not much of a threshold to cross. I find that applying WP:CSC #1 creates a tangible basis to proliferate items of recognition. If an organization has significant coverage, it has encyclopedic value worth sharing compared to an organization that does not.


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)
:::It is the same ballpark as the "list of actors" list articles; we list blue-linked actors and not red-linked ones to make such a list more discriminate and especially focused on items that likely have been neutrally covered. To think of it another way, if there existed an organization with recognitions that were technically verifiable on its website, but not reported by reliable secondary sources anywhere, would we proliferate that organization's recognitions? A single reliable secondary source shouldn't open these floodgates, in my opinion. There are other ways to talk about it, like a specific periodical reporting the organization's recognitions, or at least three separate sources reporting it, but to me, the cleanest criteria to apply is to establish the organization's notability directly to then warrant that proliferation. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


== Valnet, Collider, and MovieWeb ==
::::{{u|Erik II}}, "This whole discussion, to me, is more about being able to repeat an organization's recognitions across multiple film articles regardless of whether or not there are reliable secondary sources directly reporting an organization's recognitions for that year" - to clarify, this discussion is about citing items in a list, in this case, awards in List of awards and nominations articles, to reliable sources, which themselves determine the awards/organizations that are notable to cover. A Wikiproject decreeing to favor a MOS common selection criteria (which conflicts with another, and with several WP guidelines) is not in accordance with wide WP consensus. I'd given an example, in the discussion above, of an prominent (per reliable sources coverage) theatre award: the Sydney Theatre Critics. The awards are reported by multiple reliable sources, yet they are removed from List of awards received by an actor articles because they do not have a WP article. That is ''not'' in accordance with WP policy and guidelines. As has been pointed out by several editors now, not even WP:INDISCRIMINATE validates such removal. What editors should agree on is ''one'' exclusion criteria for items in lists that doesn't contradict another or the guidelines, if there is to be an indisputable, objective basis for deleting such sourced awards. Otherwise, an editor, or Wikiproject, can't simply force editors to abide by a preferred MOS criteria that is at odds with other and guidelines, per which another editor can easily refute. That's just not going to work. Blanking awards without articles, for instance, "per CSC #1" can simply be rebutted with other selection criteria along with multiple guidelines allowing the sourcing and inclusion of such items. Blanking them "per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" doesn't fly either, because WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as has been noted, does not remotely support removal of awards without articles. There needs to be an official change in the guidelines directly and exclusively (for MOS) supporting a removal of items or awards without articles. That's what would reflect consensus, not local preference for a MOS line (or reiterated notions that are presently refuted by guidelines). ] (]) 20:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


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.
:::::{{ul|Lapadite77}}, I don't understand why applying one of the common selection criteria is against Misplaced Pages's guidelines? Are you saying it should not be applied to a set of lists but rather on a case-by-case basis? The criteria itself references WP:INDISCRIMINATE, ''"This standard prevents Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."'' What is your alternative proposal for listing recognitions for a non-notable organization? Are you saying that because a particular number of secondary reliable sources report some recognitions, that means all the recognitions from that organization should thus be included? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 12:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


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." (])
::::{{reply|Erik II}} Thanks for the (I think, first) reasoned explanation of motivation: it may not be the only reason editors are supporting it, but preventing "unworthy" awards organizations from receiving undue promotion through inclusion of their awards in all recipient articles, I can see as something that gets the emotions going - self-promotion is anathema to the Misplaced Pages spirit. But as you have already indicated you are aware of, the problem then becomes one of deciding which awards are "worthy." We don't have an open standard to refer to, like: "only awards organizations that have appeared in peer-reviewed film journals." And it is questionable whether a WikiProject or WP in general can create its own metrics for evaluating awards organizations or anything else, we need reliable sources.


On to the topic: Collider and MovieWeb
::::So why not use ]: if there isn't enough reliable information and proof of relevance to a broad audience to warrant an article, then let that be the test of a "worthy" award? Problem is, ] is not a measure of the intrinsic worth or value of the subject, it doesn't determine if a subject is worth mentioning, only if it gets its own page. Furthermore, the impact of an award potentially varies with every recipient: a single award from an incredibly tiny awards group could be pivotal in the story of a particular film or actor. Seems that, in the same spirit as listing all minor planets - to provide a comprehensive reference - we can attempt to list "all (]) awards" given to an entity. Why not? A complete list could certainly come in handy to one reader/researcher or another, and we can easily technically accommodate it, with ToCs and nested sections, explanatory editorial copy, variable font sizes, advanced tables, multiple pages if necessary, the many tools to ensure manageability of lists of any size. How long would they usually be, anyhow?
*: ''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.
::::The LARGER (probably overriding) problem with all of that is we already have Misplaced Pages-wide policies and guidelines that cover this situation, and if we wish to change them, we should be doing that in the core guidance, not confusingly in a Project. If an awards organization clearly doesn't meet ] standards, fine, no article. IN CONTENT, ] does not apply, and it is a matter for editors to decide on a per case basis, referring to any other policies and guidelines they wish. It was mentioned in this thread that core guidance doesn't cover EVERY situation, but in fact it pretty much does; here, at the highest level, ] seems to handle it all quite handily: non-] items may be included in content, and editors can decide as the situation comes up. (And again, not for not asking, no-one has brought evidence of a significant problem in need of a Project-level solution.)
{{collapse|title=Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to IMDb, Reddit, and LetterBoxd.|
* Collider using Reddit for content: (, , , , , , ).
* Collider using ]: , , , , , ,
* Collider using ] , .
* MovieWeb on Reddit , , , ,
* MovieWeb reposting Twitter Reviews as reception , .}}


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.
::::All that seems left is that we are somehow opening up an avenue for awards promoters to spam (or just, "include") an award in all recipient articles, to make the award seem more important. Well, that's possible, but what can we do about it, and why would we want to do anything? Misplaced Pages encourages unhasty, collaborative, incremental editing, and many things are in flux, in imperfect states. If ALL verifiable awards were included, their would be no problem; if on the way to that, some awards get there first, so be it. In the end, what is the significant damage to readers and the encyclopedia if some minor awards seem more prominent in some specific situations? If there is a case of a scam award being spammed, that is different: the scam can be proven, and all instances of the scam award removed. --] (]) 20:47, 30 April 2015 (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 .
:::::{{ul|Tsavage}}, why can WP:CSC #1 not be seen to list "worthy" items? This criteria existed and can be adapted. When we talk about verifiability, we are talking about backing information from reliable sources. More specifically, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Secondary sources are going to be news organizations that report an organization's awards. Primary sources are going to be these organizations' own websites. This kind of content is going to be far outweighed by referencing primary sources instead of secondary sources. We do this because it is easy to reference the organization's website directly (usually). This means for all we know, a minor organization may not actually have any secondary sources writing about it or its recognitions. So even if a red-linked organization's recognitions may be actually reported in a given year, I may be on a page where its recognitions were never reported anywhere. All I will see is the primary source. How can I tell if this organization authentically belongs? If an article about the organization exists, with verifiable information from secondary sources about it, I can see why its recognitions belong on Misplaced Pages. That's why I see WP:CSC #1 as applicable. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 12:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:* 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 .
::::::{{ul|Erik II}} I'm not confident in my understanding of your argument. What I gather is that, although the existence of an awards organization may be verifiable (e.g. by primary source reference to its own site; ]), that a particular award (say, Best Picture 2011) was given to a particular entity has to be itself verified by reliable secondary sources, or the entire awards organization has to be verified by secondary sources, that it is not enough that the awards organization meets a minimum verifiability standard to warrant inclusion of all of its awards everywhere?


{{collapse|title=Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to other sources just on ''Nosferatu'' (2024)|
::::::I'm interested in your clarification. Meanwhile, in general, two key questions remain:
** MovieWeb re-sharing news from , , , ,
:::::::'''1)''' Can we impose selective interpretations of core guidance in Project-level guidelines, such that options provided by the core are no longer available for articles in a project (of course, in practice, guidelines are flexible at the article level, however, the realities of enforcement indicate that it is likely to be painful for an editor not to observe a project guideline)?
** Collider quoting , , . ,
:::::::'''2)''' On a purely content level specific to lists of film awards by recipient, what is the significant problem with including "minor awards" through a minimum verifiability standard of reasonable application of ], both for the existence of the organization, and for the various individual awards it has given out? As an editor, my reasoning is that, in service of being comprehensive, it is on balance more useful to include "all" awards than come up with criteria to exclude some (and the various attendant policy problems, extra work, enforcement headaches). At minimum verifiability, readers can vet an awards site for a particular award the way I as an editor do: does it look credible, organized, up-to-date, displays street address, etc - given the minor nature of the award, that seems sufficient transparency. As I mentioned above, list size and context can easily be managed with standard tools: some awards can be put in a "Minor awards" subsection, even a separate page if necessary, with appropriately explanatory lead, and so forth. None of this is "indiscriminate," it's only comprehensive. And how many items are we talking about, thousands of awards for one recipient? Hundreds? Inclusion rather than exclusion seems to be the better approach in this case. And if a particular award is a scam, with a faked site including faked archives of years of awards, an editor can surface and eliminate that one award, housekeeping of this source, collaborative incremental improvement, is part of what Misplaced Pages can be great at. And if, dozens of fake award sites spring up and appear on WP, then perhaps other action than simple partrolling may be considered (has that happened already?). --] (]) 16:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
* 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.
To summarize my own position on this question: No, there is no such project-wide requirement. However, editors of a list article may ''choose'' to impose such a requirement '''at that article'''; ] documents this as a common method. Again, this is neither mandated nor prohibited—'''''it’s merely an option.''''' —] (]) 23:46, 29 April 2015 (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.
:And to summarize my own and many others' supportive position, '''no, this is not an article-by-article thing that has to be argued over at every single film article.''' Inclusion in a list requires objective criteria &mdash; otherwise, any editor can add any non-notable organization's award simply because he or she feels like because they like the movie and want to stuff in every trivial award or nomination it's gotten. (Including non-notable awards' ''nominations'' strikes me as especially trivial.)
{{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.}}
:The primary method used as objective criteria is whether the award organization is notable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. To me, '''if an organization is not notable, then neither are its awards.''' Or its nominations. --] (]) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::Who says that’s “the primary method”? Just because it’s the first one listed? Yes, inclusion requires objective criteria. But no, those objective criteria do not necessarily need to include that every item pass ], let alone that each item have its own dedicated article. If I’m wrong about this, then ] contradicts consensus (by listing multiple options), and this page seems like the wrong place for that discussion. —] (]) 00:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


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.
::''no, this is not an article-by-article thing that has to be argued over at every single film article'' - we're not talking about whether to italicize film titles, we're talking about content. Which content is appropriate to be decided on at the article level, and which should be decided on for all articles tagged as part of the FILM project? According to you, criteria for inclusion of minor awards should be fixed project-wide. How about catering companies, can we name a catering company in the Production section of a movie article, or is that too trivial? Or only a bluelinked catering company? And so on? Why not just drop the wiki format for film articles, and create a submission form, so acceptable content can more easily be controlled? How can a small group of editors (how many would "consensus" here involve, 8-10-20 editors?) decide to strongly discourage ALL editors from including content in certain types of articles, based on their preference, content that would otherwise be 100% permitted by core policy? --] (]) 04:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
'''The 6 Responses on WP:FILM That Took Me by Surprise From Editors You Should Really Know Right Now''':
:::Personally I don't see why adding a catering company to a film article would be anything but trivial unless reliable sources had somehow discussed the catering company in a non-trivial manner in relation to the film's production. Perhaps if the cast suffered a bad case of food poisoning. And frankly the rest of your comments strike me as a bit hyperbolic, especially given that you surely must know even the number of editors who determined core policy was a small percentage of the editing population at large, and core policies were never intended to address every situation that might ensue, any more than the original US Constitution was intended to address matters that led to it being amended. ] (]) 04:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*
* {{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)
::::Hyperbolic? You're now citing the US Constitution. ''"I don't see why adding a catering company to a film article would be anything but trivial unless reliable sources had somehow discussed the catering company in a non-trivial manner"'' - exactly, seems like "common sense," so we don't need to try to write an across the board MOSFILM rule for that, just in case (or do we?). In the same way, we don't need across the board rules to determine when any one list is too long, or when any verifiable film award is irrelevant in any one list. Handling things on the article level is fundamental to how Misplaced Pages operates and strives to maintain a neutral POV. Superseding core guidance at the project level doesn't make sense, puts broad content guidance in the hands of a relative few, and is against policy: Projects are for clarifying interpretation for specific subject areas, not for writing new rules. And what happens when two or more Projects "claim" the same article, whose local rules apply then? --] (]) 05:17, 30 April 2015 (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)
:::::Your complaints about a minority of editors establishing rules for others, and especially your comments about creating a submission form, not only strike me as hyperbolic but bad faith, as I find myself doubting your sincerity.
:'''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.
:::::As I've already expressed my overall opinions on this matter and I have no desire to waste my time arguing with someone who will argue in bad faith, I would request that you either clarify that you really believe that we should discuss the benefits of a submission form, or acknowledge that you were speaking facetiously. Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:'''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)
::::::Accusing others of bad faith participation, especially without good cause, is practically the definition of bad faith behavior. You seem intent on turning things personal. Are you requesting that I (and perhaps editors in general) should somehow tag comments to indicate facetiousness? Is it bad faith, or perhaps bad form, to illustrate logical extensions of ideas through rhetorical questions?
:'''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)
::::::Considering this personal attack, I reviewed your participation in this thread. Is it good faith on your part for you to have claimed "'''Support'''" under this RfC TWICE (13:33, 17 April 2015 and 14:43, 24 April 2015) or are you of the opinion that we should all be able to indicate support multiple times if, for example, our reasons for support change, or do you really want to support this regardless of its basis in policy or common sense, or did you just forget? Please stay on topic. --] (]) 16:07, 30 April 2015 (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 did not accuse you of acting in bad faith, I said your comments ''struck me'' as being in bad faith and asked for clarification. I note that you have not in fact indicated whether you were in fact being facetious. I would consider being facetious in the manner you were, provided you were in fact being facetious, to be bad faith. Whether editors should tag comments to indicate they are being faceitous? I could think of worse notions, assuming they have a genuine interest in discussing a matter. Certainly the hyperbole I believe that you resorted to suggested to me a lack of such interest.
*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)
:::::::My indicating support twice was unintentional. Thank you for pointing it out to me; I have struck one of them. Good faith might be to ask whether I meant to do it ''before'' questioning my motives, but it seems we've already crossed that bridge. ] (]) 16:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Concur with ]. This discussion has one vociferous editor who, as I've also pointed out, appears to make hyperbolic and alarmist claims.--] (]) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::''struck me'' just means, "in your opinion." Posting ''"Your complaints about a minority of editors establishing rules for others, and especially your comments about creating a submission form, not only strike me as hyperbolic but bad faith"'' is an accusation by you of bad faith. "Struck me" isn't some magical immunity phrase, and you are making quite a serious and insulting charge. Do you suspect I have a hidden agenda? Or that I am trying to deliberately disrupt this discussion? Please speak freely.
::::::::Regarding your double support, I did ask "or did you just forget" - I take my time and that of others fairly seriously, and haven't so far just "forgotten" I'd "voted" in an RfC, so I was rather curious. --] (]) 18:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Tsavage|Doniago}} Apologies for butting in, but by my read, Doniago merely wanted little more than to be reassured that some comments that seemed (to him) to be in bad faith were in fact made in good faith and were being misinterpreted. In my opinion, becoming defensive over a misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not) helps nothing. —] (]) 18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Just so. But I feel it's somewhat of a moot point now. This doesn't seem to be pertinent to the RfC any longer, and I doubt this thread is going to change anyone's views (it's not going to change my views on the larger subject, in any case), so IMO any potential merit it might have here has dissipated. Apologies for distracting from the larger issues. ] (]) 19:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::*Thanks for the...intervention, ], but I don't think it is too helpful to...enable this sort of argument. To be blunt, there is a loose group of editors who seem to have some sort of ownership feeling around MOSFILM, and they regularly appear to wear down lone editors who challenge anything: the "tactics" are the same: questionable application of policies and guideline, avoiding and going silent on substantial direct challenges, going personal whenever someone doesn't give up. All of that is clearly evident in this thread. I have been involved in a couple of these discussions recently, and have also observed exactly the same behavior, including many of the same names, in Talk discussions going back at least 3-4 years. Moving forward after this RfC, I think the place to discuss this stuff, for me at least, is at the core policy and guideline level, including consideration of the role of WikiProjects. But I also don't want to be involved in a lot of procedural stuff. I like editing articles, I just also don't like random editors with no more standing than I do trying to not discuss but force me to edit their way, when my edits are not against core policy. Grrr. :) --] (]) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::**I’ve experienced this and been frustrated by it, too. It didn’t seem Wikipedian to me, but it seemed to go unchallenged by the larger community (which compounded my frustration). I’m not sure what the proper venue would be to call the general conduct of a WikiProject into question, but doing so on the WikiProject’s Talk page seems counterproductive… I don’t know. —] (]) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::*As I've been trying to express, core policy is the beginning of editing, not the end. Among other things, there's the ], explicitly a set of guidelines rather than policy. Arguments have come up and likely will continue to come up regarding whether or not an editor is required to abide by MOS given that it isn't policy and editors technically aren't required to follow it, and I think it's entirely likely that there are situations where MOS doesn't adequately cover the bases.
:::::::::::To say that you only wish to edit based on core policy is to disregard the fact that there are guidelines and other issues in play which may not be requirements but often do reflect ] (which is in itself a policy). To bring up my earlier analogy, it's somewhat similar to saying you want to abide by the US Constitution but don't feel you should have to abide by amendments to it because they're not part of the Constitution's core policy.
:::::::::::And, not to repeat myself again, it seems disingenuous to me to argue that "a small number of editors are trying to force their views on everyone" (or similarly) when even the core policies themselves were formulated by a relative minority of editors. If you feel that more attention to attempted policies/guidelines/etc. is needed, you can notify appropriate projects, you can start an RfC, you can even propose a Misplaced Pages-wide bulletin be posted at the top of every page (my apologies, but I'm not sure of the procedure for such). I have to ask though, beyond people dropping the issue entirely, what would satisfy your concern that the consensus is in fact being reached by a reasonable number of editors? If you think the issue needs wider attention, nobody and nothing is stopping you from calling attention to it at Talk pages for areas that you think this RfC would impact. ] (]) 20:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::"Disingenuous," I love that word, I try to find ways to use it, even though I generally don't like the situations that give me that pleasure....
::::::::::::*'''''"to edit based on core policy is to disregard the fact that there are guidelines"''''' - I've taken pains throughout to say "core policies and guidelines" and "core guidance" and ] to indicate exactly not what you're saying. If you go to ], I'm referring to as "core" that page and everything linked to in the sidebar infobox menu titled "Policies and guidelines," and on the page of the very last infobox link, ], everything there except the section, ] that says, "These usually originated as project guidelines, and typically cover all of terminology, layout, conventions and formatting related to the topic at hand," which is where I think any Project-level problems begin.
::::::::::::*Rising to the reasonable question: '''''"what would satisfy your concern that the consensus is in fact being reached by a reasonable number of editors"''''' Not so much the number of editors involved, but the quality of the discussion/argument/debate, and how that played out, with ALL points raised comprehensively addressed - if that actually happened, and even if no explicit compromise was reached, then it might be possible for a good closer to arrive at a reasonable finding, and nothing wrong with a fairly-applied, "No consensus." Most "consensus" now seems more like an overwhelming majority vote, often because a few like-minded people show up (RfC, AfD, noticeboard), with no or few dissenters. Even there, a lone editor with a solid, unanswered counter-position should be enough for "no consensus" (a consideration that is somewhere in core policy/guidelines, I believe). In this RfC, we're not anywhere near consensus on anything, there are at least 3-4 independent editors who have opposing arguments, and those arguments even coincide in large part, and have gone essentially unanswered, whereas the "Yes/Support" views that have been discussed in some detail offer at least a couple of different rationales, from mainly a size consideration, to mainly a "notability/quality/undue weight" issue, and have been replied to in detail. There seems to be enough flexibility in the available guidance to argue either way one a per-case level (though perhaps not to argue for MOSFILM rule-making). So, there are two clear sides and no common ground so far. That doesn't seem like consensus to me.
::::::::::::*'''''"even the core policies themselves were formulated by a relative minority of editors"''''' - yes, but from what I've gather so far from history diving is that the core policies and guidelines were developed after the fact of Misplaced Pages picking up some steam, based on practical problems and solutions, and on what was proven to work. The type of thing I take issue with, going on now in some WikiProjects, is quite different, not dealing with clear and apparent general encyclopedia issues, but zeroing in subject-specific areas, and in solutions to problems that haven't been shown to actually exist to the degree that special rules need to be written. "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles." (]) is fundamental. New editors and occasional contributors can't be jumped on by veteran editors with particular ideas and rules about how this or that SHOULD be done. Editing should be as intuitive and open to a brand new editor today as it was to a new editor a decade ago. Verifiability (attributable; attributed to reliable sources), no original research, and neutral point of view is really all anyone should need to know in order to edit - understanding just those words, or skimming the ] page, plus examples from the edit view, should be all most editors need to expand articles, without having to look up a single policy or guideline. Other editors may comment, refine, improve, as it should be, but not jump in and delete, citing rules. Down with ownership behavior and instruction creep! :) --] (]) 23:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


== '']'' ==
*'''Bad question, wrong venue, flawed RfC''' - So if I'm understanding correctly, there was a dispute here about notability and lists, so an RfC was launched as, effectively, a Request for Clarification? More appropriate would be opening a thread asking for clarification at, say, ] or even ]. RfCs are for more specific issues represented by specific questions or statements. They can help to establish consensus on an issue, but this RfC just asks for {{tq|"what the guidelines state with regards to this"}} (in opposition to effecting change to those guidelines). RfCs also need to be formulated in a neutral way. Instead the question of "what the guidelines state" is followed by {{tq|"which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite"}}. So in other words "The guidelines don't say this. So do the guidelines say this?" It's also a broad question about project-wide guidelines taking place at WikiProject Film, with seemingly no specificity for film-related articles other than the awards example, which makes me think it would be hard to get buy in for any outcome of this thread. Here's a suggestion for a better RfC question here: "For articles about films and people in the film industry, should lists of awards contain only awards for which Misplaced Pages has an article?" &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 23:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:*{{u|Rhododendrites}}, the RfC question is neutral and brief. The comment below was ]. This is evidently, for editors here, a multifarious issue, involving multiple guidelines and MOS (as cited by various editors on both sides of the issue). WP:N alone says "''The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.''" The RfC -which anyone can comment on- was started here, because it concerns the actions of a few editors of this Wikiproject; as you acknowledged, the RfC is a result of a related dispute here, to gain wider input, clarify and hopefully settle this issue, particularly for editors here. The relevant policies and guidelines' talk pages were notified. To the point - what is your response to the question asked (or the question you think should've been asked) with respect to the relevant guidelines linked? ] (]) 01:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::*It's standard strategy to meta-complain about an RfC. Never seen an RfC where someone ''didn't'' complain about the RfC. And yes, this is a meta-complaint about meta-complainers. Don't get sucked into it, ignore meta-complaints and focus on the issue. There is nothing wrong with the RfC. -- ]] 14:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:::And let us note once again that ] is far from the only relevant guideline, and that a requirement remains that there be objective criteria for list inclusion. --] (]) 02:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:::If this is not the correct place to have this discussion, can we please move it to the correct place? I think when moving both sides can be summarized, as currently we are just rehashing the same arguments. Also we need to emphasize, as seen from Bejnar's comment at the Survey section, that this is NOT a discussion about all kinds of list articles (list of rivers for, etc), but about lists of awards articles (whether this is ONLY film related, or site-wide wasn't decided yet)--] (]) 10:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the practical summary! As a reading-between-the-lines addition, this thread seems to ultimately be about how far and in what direction we can/should extend formal Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The RfC and preceding discussion are technically about a simple content-editing question, while a more far-reaching underlying issue has become evident on both sides, as in: "this is not an article-by-article thing that has to be argued over at every single film article" and "seems to have become a discussion about what ''should'' be policy about notability in lists." Until we all admit what exactly it is we are arguing about, this can't really go anywhere, as far as forming the right precise question or choosing the proper venue. Essentially, some editors want to semi-rigidly impose favored interpretations of site-wide policies and guidelines to broad categories of content within articles tagged by a particular WikiProject, while other editors, perhaps some to greater and lesser degrees, resist that and prefer site-wide guidance. It seems we are dancing around the elephant in the room. --] (]) 14:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::There is no elephant. As more than editors than I have been saying, you have been attempting an alarmist expansion of this RfC far beyond what the originator wrote. More than one editor has asked you to stop this blatant smokescreen tactic.
:::::This RfC is about objective criteria being used to limit award list-items in film articles, where trivial and self-serving, non-notable awards run rampant. Period. Ask the RfC originator. --] (]) 14:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::There is more than one editor on ''each'' side; more than one editor has also asked that guidelines stop being interpreted restrictively, for instance. Please do not use such a claim in an attempt to shut down an opposing side. {{pb}} To my knowledge, there is no passage in any project page concerning film-related list articles as distinct from list articles in general. Please do correct me if I’m wrong on this point, but if not, this RFC (as originally posed) is about guidance on selection criteria for ''all'' list articles (since there’s no topic-specific guidance on same). It is '''not''' about what the guidance ''should'' be (but perhaps we need an RFC on that matter), nor is it about any consensus or groupthink independent of stated guidance; it’s about interpreting ''what our guidance presently states''. So far, some say it states that CSC #1 is the sole preferred set of objective criteria, and that anything not matching those criteria at any time is to be removed. Others disagree that that’s even implied. —] (]) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


] 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)
==== Proposals ====


: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)
{{hidden archive top|Closing per the RFC originator’s wishes. I was hoping to settle on one or two of these and make a proper proposal for change at ] or something; maybe I should try this there instead. But please answer the original RFC question if you have not yet. —] (]) 14:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)}}
:] 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. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
], the originator of this RFC, invited editors to make their own proposals for changes. So I’m doing that here. Please indicate your support for one of the following regardless of what you think any project page currently says, so we can determine a consensus on what course of action to pursue:
: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. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <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)
:::::As has been stated several times already, this isn't "our interpretation", this is based on the sources gathered above. Which you seem to agree with above? I do not understand your objection here - that we're not sufficiently credulous of the source? Putting aside film articles for a moment, it is exceptionally common for High Academia topics to have something like "According to Professor so-and-so, this is what happened" even when the source actually just says "This happened and it's totally confirmed and everyone who disagrees is in error." There's no need for in-text attribution here, but "presumably" hints that we're relying on a source's claim rather than 100% confirmation. That's just normal, good editing.
:::::More generally, if it's just that you prefer to state things "simply", this won't be a great fit for, say, David Lynch films or the like where uncertainty about what is "really" going on is a core part of the film and not something Misplaced Pages editors invent. Even if we set aside this case for a moment, there absolutely needs to be a way to express "the film hints at this but doesn't confirm it" in a plot section, because, well, that's what some films do. (Think original Blade Runner's ending before the sequel came out and confirmed things.) ] (]) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Roger Ebert on YouTube ==
#All stand-alone list articles should require every item to pass ], meaning each item should be notable enough to have its own article.
#Film-related stand-alone list articles should require every item to pass ], regardless of whether all such articles should. Articles about film should have different guidelines from the rest of the encyclopedia.
#It should not be universally required, but any stand-alone list article should be permitted to require every item to pass ] if editors agree that this is best for that particular article and for the encyclopedia as a whole.
#Each WikiProject should decide for itself whether the list articles under its care should require every item to pass ].
#Other (please specify).


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)
—] (]) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (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. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{re|NinjaRobotPirate}} I’m not proposing any actual changes here. I’m polling to determine what kind of changes might ''need'' to be proposed, according to the participants here. Sorry for the confusion.


== Film screenshots (in Italian Misplaced Pages) ==
===== Survey =====
*'''3'''. Sometimes, it is appropriate for a list to be more comprehensive than including only what is strictly notable by article creation standards. That goes for film-related lists as well as any other kind. It should be an editorial decision based on the needs of the article. —] (]) 00:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*I'll support options 1 or 2 with the caveat that for an individual article the requirement may be waived if there is a consensus to do so. Put another way, I support the restriction being imposed on a broad level with specific exceptions allowed, as opposed to restrictions being imposed on specific articles but allowed on a more general level. ] (]) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''1 (preferred) or 2'''. I believe the film award list issue is no different than any other award list issue. Notability should be the guiding factor for inclusion in lists. However, if we feel this should only deal with film award lists, I'm ok with that. --] (]) 15:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''1''', which goes along with the guidelines requiring objective criteria for list inclusion. Otherwise, a) anyone can add any trivial award / nomination they want, or b) we'll be rearguing this article by article by article. --] (]) 17:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''No (option &#8709;)''' - Start over with a premise that's neutral, clearly stated, and limited in scope to the purview of this WikiProject. Otherwise I really can't imagine this exercise coming to a meaningful conclusion. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''3''' seems to be the existing guidance at ]. #1 is too broad, if you limit it to lists of film awards fine, but many other types of lists have different criteria such as lists of rivers. #2 is again over-broad. Also "Articles about film should have different guidelines from the rest of the encyclopedia." is just plain wrong. If you want narrower guidelines that still comply with the general ones, okay, but not ''different''. #4 is too restrictive, it should be by type of list at best, not by WikiProject. --] (]) 04:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - 174.141.182.82, I'd invited proposals for guideline change outside of the RfC. This isn't within the scope of the RfC, or, as Rhododendrites noted, within the purview of a Wikiproject (especially proposal #4, which is against policy); moreover, the presentation here is not neutral. Editors that haven't commented on ] are encouraged to voice their thoughts there, where this discussion is being held (note: discussion or consensus is not a vote count). ] (]) 04:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
{{hidden archive bottom}}


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)
== Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus ==


: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?
Discussion at ]. Comments welcome. --] (]) 08:23, 10 April 2015 (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. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've started an RfC at ‎]. --] (]) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

== Bucharest (International) Film Festival (redux) ==

] caught my eye triggering something in my memory about it. I then found ]. Further input appreciated. Pinging the relevant editors: {{ping|Daniel}}, {{ping|Ymblanter}}, {{ping|User:MichaelQSchmidt}}, {{ping|MarnetteD}} and the creator {{ping|CheckSpeare}}. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
:This ] was the hoax article created back in '09 and revealed to be a hoax in Mar '13. A brief glance at this new article seems to have sources that might be legit. At least the claim that the festival is only 9 years old means that it isn't part of the previous nonsense. ]&#124;] 14:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks MarnetteD. Looks like the issue has been resolved with deletion of the article in question for other reasons. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

== Italics for series titles ==

Please see '''{{section link|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Titles|Italics for series titles}}''' for a discussion on the use of italics for titles of film series. <small>—''']'''&nbsp;]</small> 05:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

== Pornography disputes with regard to referring to pornography stars as "actors" ==

I see that there is a dispute going on at ] (] ). And I know that some Misplaced Pages film editors are aware of these disputes. That stated, it seems that more help is needed resolving these matters. For example, there is a current debate going on at ]. And per what ] and ] stated at ], I have alerted WP:Film to this matter. I will also alert ]. ] (]) 08:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:] is this notification being placed at other film related pages or just here? ]] 08:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

::], what other "film related pages" are you referring to? I've alerted WP:Film and WP:Actor. What other film WikiProject should I alert? ] (]) 09:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::] fantastic, I had only got a ping from this page. You have done a better job than I have did in at least one issue in the past and I thought I'd check. ]] 09:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Please see the current discussions at ] and ]. ] (]) 13:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>WikiProject Film: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ] as non-notable. As members of this project, your input may be especially valuable.

The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, hopefully within the next seven days, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion should focus on high-quality evidence and on our policies and guidelines.

Anyone is encouraged to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thanks!<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*Aaaaaaand ''that's'' now over. Adios, Accolades. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 19:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

== Creator template RFC ==

Be advised that there is an ] at ] with the intent of creating a general rule to support deleting templates at ], ], ], ], and ].--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

== Proposal to merge Infobox film and Infobox television film ==

Discussion at ]. ] (]) 19:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

== (Over)categorically a problem? ==

], sure; ], no problem; ], okay. But do we really need
], ], ]? ] (]) 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Clarityfiend}} - I missed this post when I replied to the one below - my apologies. I've noticed this pattern of editing in the last several weeks as well. To my eye this looks like an editor who has found a niche that makes them happy. Some (more than?) of these are definite overcats. One possibility is to point then to ]. IMO something like the "produced by Ben Affleck" is not a defining feature of those films. OTOH I find that aspect of CATDEF gets ignored all too often. CFD may be the way to go but I know that can be a hassle. Maybe others will have better suggestion. ]&#124;] 05:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

::I don't get no respect! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

:::You do from some of us L - well occasionally anyway :-) Turns out that the cats you list weren't created recently :{{u|Clarityfiend}} so my mistake to compare them. OTOH they currently (down the road Ben might have enough films but not at this time) bump up against ]. ]&#124;] 07:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

:::These categories are so ugly even Uncyclopedia rejected them. (Marnette, Lugnuts was repeating Dangerfield's catchphrase.) ] (]) 02:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I knew that {{u|Clarityfiend}} and I was joking in return. Since we don't get to see each other smile when having fun things can get lost in the reading :-) ]&#124;] 02:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

== Filmography? ==

Dear film experts: I have seen a lot of filmographies that are lists of films that a specific person has been involved in. Recently I came across a page that was a long list of film adaptations of a specific story. Would this be referred to as a filmography? Or should it be a "List of" article? The second option would need a reference or an article for every item. Do discographies need the same? &mdash;] (]) 02:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

:The word definition says film figure or topic, while the one lists people or "any particular theme". ] (]) 02:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

::Since you haven't given a specific example I am not sure if what I am adding is of any use. The WikiP-article that I always think of in this situation is ]. I like this wording slightly better that "List of" but that is just me. As to discographies you might want to ask at the ]. There might be other projects that could help but I am not sure which ones. Other editors might have better suggestions. ]&#124;] 04:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:::], I am sorry, I am so used to working with music articles that I wrote "discography" instead of "filmography". I found some old content under a redirect and decided to extend it. There wasn't any article to point to at the time, but I have since moved it to ]. It doesn't have much information yet, but I added some sources. It likely should have at least a sentence or two about each film. This story certainly has attracted a lot of attention from filmmakers. I like your "in film" suggestion better, though; maybe it should be moved.&mdash;] (]) 06:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I know what you are talking about {{u|Anne Delong}} my fingers get so used to typing certain words or phrases that I have to grind the gears (do cars even do that anymore?) when typing about something slightly different. If it were me I would definitely move the HG article that you are working on. I would either use "HG in film" or another option is "HG on screen" - per this ]. Again others might have more suggestions for you. ]&#124;] 06:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

== CfD nomination of ] ==
]
''']''' has been nominated for {{#ifeq:|yes|deletion|{{#ifeq:|yes|merging|{{#ifeq:|yes|renaming|deletion, merging, or renaming}}}}}}. You are encouraged to join the ''']''' on the ] page.<!--Template:Cfdnotice2--> <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

== ]==
I have created a section that cover's the film's plot in this article. If you have seen the 2005 film starring ], I encourage that you please peer review my contributions and edits in case I made any mistakes.] (]) 22:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

==Southeastern Film Critics Association==
The discussion at ] has been extended in order to solicit more editors' opinions. --] (]) 17:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
==Move discussion==
] → ] ] (]) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

== Plot bloat at ] article ==

Help is needed with plot bloat at {{Article|Ex Machina (film)}}. {{IP|147.26.87.13}} has been reverted multiple times on adding plot information to that article. I haven't seen the film yet, and I'm doing what I can to not be spoiled on it (that obviously includes not reading the Plot section). ] (]) 08:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that this is a film you will not want to be spoiled on. ] (]) 08:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

'''Update''': Thanks to ] for helping, but the IP simply and went at it again (well, if that's the same person and not one of my stalkers screwing with me). I'll wait until I see this film before I take further action to trim that plot section and do better to keep it that away. That is, if someone doesn't beat me to that first. ] (]) 22:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==
Tenebrae is a very old (2006) FA; there has been an attempt (see article talk) to bring it to current FA standards without the need for a ]. Could knowledgeable film folk have a look? Regards, ] (]) 13:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:15, 11 January 2025

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

Did you know

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(14 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
WikiProject Film
General information ()
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
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
Archiving icon
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

  • 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.

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)

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.

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:

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. JOEBRO 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)
As has been stated several times already, this isn't "our interpretation", this is based on the sources gathered above. Which you seem to agree with above? I do not understand your objection here - that we're not sufficiently credulous of the source? Putting aside film articles for a moment, it is exceptionally common for High Academia topics to have something like "According to Professor so-and-so, this is what happened" even when the source actually just says "This happened and it's totally confirmed and everyone who disagrees is in error." There's no need for in-text attribution here, but "presumably" hints that we're relying on a source's claim rather than 100% confirmation. That's just normal, good editing.
More generally, if it's just that you prefer to state things "simply", this won't be a great fit for, say, David Lynch films or the like where uncertainty about what is "really" going on is a core part of the film and not something Misplaced Pages editors invent. Even if we set aside this case for a moment, there absolutely needs to be a way to express "the film hints at this but doesn't confirm it" in a plot section, because, well, that's what some films do. (Think original Blade Runner's ending before the sequel came out and confirmed things.) SnowFire (talk) 17:14, 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: