Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:26, 18 February 2012

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

Shortcut WT:FILM

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Opinion on this folding table?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone_(film)#Awards

As seen here, what are thoughts on it? I like it and think it would be useful on articles with lengthy award tables that aren't big enough to justify an individual article but long enough that they seem kind of awkward on the page, but I also thought we could use them on actor/actress articles to hide the sometimes massive filmography tables. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I think there is potential to adapt it and use it on actors and filmmakers bio pages as well. MarnetteD | Talk 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this hide/show technique. As I've said before regarding the page-bottom templates, the casual, infrequent reader won't be looking for them and may not even realize they're there. And I especially would be against using them for hiding filmography tables. That's one of the main elements I want easily accessible on a bio page, and I don't want to have to click show all the time to see it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you don't have to use it on everything, you'd use it where necessary. For instance I don't think Michael Caine really needs a separate article just for his filmography. With that table you could put it in the same article and its now more immediately accessible to a reader htan it was before. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that - Michael Caine could use such a table. It's probably worth doing, but either way you have to click a link, so would it really be that much more accessible? My main point is I wouldn't want to see filmography tables currently showing on pages made hidden. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Checked on my phone to make sure it's compatible with the Wapedia app, and it just shows the full table by default. I don't see any reason to not use it.--Remurmur (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think filmographies should be hidden because they are primary data, although collapsible tables could be utilised in compacting secondary data so it doesn't dominate an article. We seem to be getting more and more sub-articles for things like box-office records and soundtracks which can fragment the article over 2/3 pages, and maybe a collapsible table can be considered as an alternative to a sub-article in some cases. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well just to clarify I am not advocating these be used in general, only in cases where you have a table that is two-three times longer than the prose presented in the article, it might be that the list is pretty long and is a hindrance to getting to lower areas of the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just implemented this over at The Artist (film)--Remurmur (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, could use prose, but I don't see it as any different than the album table or any other hideable tables. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Film will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles (no pun intended!) in film, movies and related areas. We've created an event page on English Misplaced Pages (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

United 93

The cast and awards sections could use a touch up, if anyone would like to help. RAP (talk) 20:41 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of worthwhile content

Doniago has been deleting entire sections from older film articles on the grounds they're unsourced. He's not the only one, but I have to point to a specific example of something that's bothered me for some time. Now, I do wish whoever built these older articles up had listed their sources, but turning articles into stumps is not good policy, and I would like to see it modified. As said by another editor at his talkpage, deleting worthwhile content solely on the grounds it is uncited does not help WP.

Doniago's response was I am of the opinion that material that is not sourced is inherently not worthwhile. I would rather see a smaller Misplaced Pages with more reliable content than a large Misplaced Pages with large amounts of information that is not readily verifiable via citation. Then he said I also believe that my views (in fact, both of ours) are supported by current policy. Perhaps the issue then is that policy should be revised to more clearly address this matter. So let's take him up on that.

I restored the Production section to Black Sunday (1977 film) after he put it on the talk page, in a hidden template. I added a ref from IMDb, which is better than nothing, but he reverted me anyway, deleting it again. Having read a good deal on film history over the years, I can say the info on this page looks valid and accurate to me. I don't have time to go looking for better sources on this over 30-year-old film. Until someone does, the section should be restored and perhaps tagged as lacking all the refs one would wish it to have. But it shouldn't be eviscerated. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If information looks like it could be sourced with a bit of work, it's much better to just mark it out as needing citations with {{citation needed}} than to just erase it entirely. I'd find it much easier to fix up an article if I had essentially a checklist of information to look for than a whole blank slate to fill. GRAPPLE X 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith on the part of editors is assumed. Unless Doniago believes the material is incorrect, he's out of bounds deleting it. In fact, it is more often the case that new material is added first, then sourced later. This is not a question of the rules, it's a matter of the usual practices of Misplaced Pages, which are a little bit more significant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it. The film article in question was tagged for needing sources in June of 2011. No effort was made to furnish such references for over six months. At that point, removing the unsourced content is a legitimate challenge to it regardless of whether it is believed to be accurate...in fact, removing unsourced content is a legitimate form of challenging it regardless of the amount of time it was unsourced for, per WP:MINREF. Material published on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be verifiable, not simply accurate. And as noted, it was not deleted...it was moved to the Talk page so that invested editors would have easy access to the material and the opportunity to locate proper references...which IMDb is not, as explicitly stated at WP:RS/IMDb. Doniago (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

FWIW

If it's BLP related, Doniago's method is correct if the material is contentious. Otherwise the general guideline is to tag it, source it, or remove it with a link to a source showing the information is fictitious. If it is already tagged, and has been for a reasonable length of time - IMO 3-6+ months - a statement is fair game for removal.

- J Greb (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is not contentious. It is merely not sourced, beyond IMDb. This is a 35-year-old film. WP FILM editors are not going to put it high on their priority list of articles to go source-hunting for. So I see nothing wrong with letting good info remain in the article, tagged, for well over 6 months. That is much better than having a stump. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely not, but I was referring to things like "Actor X (still alive) did this demeaning thing or that bad thing during production." Even in an article on a film that's going counter BLP and would get removed point blank without a source.

Beyond that, the maintenance tags for unsourced statements, sections, and articles have a reason for being there. (And it would have been nice if it had been mentioned that the article had such a tag off the hop. That stops people from assuming that Doniago pruned the article instead of doing the tagging.) At some point an article's, section's, or statement's lack of sources must be addressed not just tagged. Somewhere between 3 and 6 months seems to be the norm for that depending on profile of the article and the editor(s) involved. Other wise that tag becomes blunt statement "This article is what it is and we don't care. Having verifiable information isn't as important as we make it out to be." And as far as "good info" goes... it has to be asked "Based on what?" An editor's imprison of the information? Sources deemed unreliable by Misplaced Pages? Reliable sources that the editor is looking at? Something else?

If it's based on an editor's impression or belief that the info is good, then why bother even thinking about finding sources? The article can stay in a poor shape based on guidelines simply on faith. There's no need to get it right.

If it's sources like IMDb, then why bother applying any standards to where the info comes from? Based on guidelines that can actually be seen as hurting the article since it implies that nothing reliable and verifiable can be found.

If it's based on a reliable source... well... add it. Take away the reason for the tag or at least one of them.

- J Greb (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WHOA!!!! As the "other editor" being quoted above, let me say two things here. 1 - Doniago and I agreed that we disagreed on this finer point of interpreting policy as regards deleting/tagging, and 2 - we agreed that in any case, the best solution was to set about finding references. The discussion being referred to that we had ended with an agreement that I would use his deletions as a guide for reinstating correctly sourced material.

Doniago and I also mutually recognised that we are both committed to building the encyclopedia. Hence rather than embark on this ridiculous flamewar, why not just find a reference and reinstate the deleted material? That is much easier than creating this sort of grief. Manning (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He did not agree that he was going to go looking for missing sources. And as I said, I did restore the material to Black Sunday, with a ref, and he deleted it again anyway on the grounds it wasn't good enough. He did this after his "agreement" with you. It seems to me he would rather the article be a stump if I don't have the time to track down better sources for a 1977 film, and he's going to keep on with the same behavior. So I took it here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The ref you used was IMDb, which is not considered reliable per WP:RS/IMDb. You're right that, after 6 months of the article being tagged, I would rather the unsourced material be moved out of the article proper and the tag removed, but it would be facetious to claim that I wish it weren't there at all...if that were the case I would not have relocated it to the Talk page. I note that you didn't come here asking for help with finding reliable sources for the article or asking that someone else do what you don't have the time to do, rather you came here to complain about my removing unsourced material, despite the fact that what I did is within the bounds of policy, if perhaps not "best practice"...but then, the latter seems to vary depending on what editor you're talking to at the time. You also, notably, came here without even waiting for me to respond to the note you left on my Talk page, which frankly makes it hard for me to assume good faith on your part, especially when you bring in selected excerpts of a discussion I had with another editor without presenting the full context and negelect to mention that the article had been tagged long-term. Doniago (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That was an oversight I did not intend. Had I realized people might assume I was referring to untagged articles I would have corrected it. I did provide the links. It's not like I was hiding anything. I didn't ask someone else to go source hunting because I thought no one would. (And watch - no one will now either.) No one else cares enough about that article to go on a research expedition to back up material unknown past contributors put in. And how was that supposed to happen with you literally hiding it in a template on the talk page? Who's going to see it there? My good faith is demonstrated by my months of trying to improve articles, especially on less travelled older films. These older articles often have interesting, unsourced info. Sometimes I'll tag it. Change or delete it if I know it to be wrong. I've added refs when I could. But I never would take something out unless it looked inaccurate. What do you do? It only takes a fraction of a minute to delete material from articles - it would take someone a hundred times longer to restore and back up what you removed. Much easier to destroy rather than create. Because of you, the Black Sunday article is now a stub - it wasn't that great yesterday, and now it's even less. You admit what you're doing is perhaps not "best practice", but you're clearly determined to keep doing it. I knew engaging you would be futile. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If nobody cares enough to dig up sources, the pertinent material will remain in violation of WP:V and most certainly is not appropriate for inclusion. Your accusation that I am "literally hiding it" is ludicrous. The section is clearly marked as "Unsourced Material" with the pertinent information collapsed to avoid filling the page...in fact I've been asked to collapse such things in the past. Any editor interested enough in the article to view the Talk page will see the information...bluntly, it's not as though that Talk page is a hot-bed of activity. If you really feel that I'm "hiding it" (how nefarious of me!), might I ask why you didn't simply re-post the information without the collapse? Additionally, if you have a problem with it being there, might I ask where you would suggest I put it instead, other than back into the article? That your practice is not to remove something unless it looks inaccurate is well and good, but other editors are not bound by your practices, and as other editors have already noted policy allows for how I approached the situation.

Since you asked - if I can identify the contributor of recent unsourced information, I remove it and point them to the relevant sourcing guidelines, as generally I believe the contributor themselves is best suited to locate the source, and knowing how to source information is a good thing...my doing "their work" for them won't help anything. If I can't identify the contributor I'll tag...and if the information has been tagged long-term, I have no compunctions against removing it. If you have a problem with this approach, I suggest you look into getting the relevant policies modified so that my approach is no longer in accordance with them.

As noted, the material was moved to the Talk page. Your claim that it would take someone "a hundred times longer to restore" it is without merit. It's called copy-and-paste.

The next time you essentially accuse me of vandalism, I will consider it a personal attack. I had every right based on policy to behave in the manner I did. You have every right to disagree with my perspective on how to handle unsourced material, but if you're not willing to do anything about the problem other than come here and complain about me, and ignore the editors who agree that I had the right to take the action I did, then I have to question what you're actually hoping to achieve.

As for the "I knew engaging you would be futile" - perhaps if you'd approached me in the spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation you would have seen more positive results. Good Day. Doniago (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I clearly said It only takes a fraction of a minute to delete material from articles - it would take someone a hundred times longer to restore and back up what you removed. Did you miss the part about restore and back up? You're not deleting material that's unsourced? You didn't revert me when I restored material, with an IMDb source? Any bad faith there?

And how would you have collaborated?

You say I have to question what you're actually hoping to achieve. I was trying to save the article from being gutted. Obviously.

You say If you have a problem with this approach, I suggest you look into getting the relevant policies modified so that my approach is no longer in accordance with them. That is obviously what I was trying to do when I posted here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have sympathies for Donagio's stance, but we have to be careful not to become out of step with the natural evolution of articles. There is a reason we have an article grading system. Unsourced material should be removed from FA and GA articles because they have to meet a standard. B-class articles are a judgement call, but generally unsourced material should be removed or the article should be demoted, because the guidelines do explicitly state that any material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. C-class articles are expected to have sourcing issues among other things, they represent a work in progress. The emphasis on C-class and Start class articles should be development rather than consistency with guidelines IMO, so having unsourced material in them is par for the course. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your viewpoint may have merit, but again, there's nothing in policy that recommends reviewing that aspect of an article, and I don't think it's realistic to try mandating that editors review that information before deciding whether or not it's okay to remove unsourced material from an article, especially material that's been tagged for it long-term with no evident attempts at improvement. Doniago (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging for references is much better than wholesale deletion. There is no deadline. There are articles on here unref'd for over 6 years, let alone 6 months. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging references is indeed a lot better than wholesale deletion, man. The wholesale deletion on articles is not one of the better solutions. BattleshipMan (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE is an opinion piece, not policy. You're all entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine. And as noted above, the removed information had already been tagged...it did no good. Say what you'd like, but at least my "deletion" ("relocation" would be a more accurate and less inflammatory term) of the information actually got it some notice. "The extreme always makes an impression", apparently. Doniago (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy, and lazy, to remove something than take the time to reference it. Just my opinion. Lugnuts (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly constructive. Just my opinion. Doniago (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst everything must be verifiable, the policy states that "in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information which has been challenged or which is likely to be challenged". In the specific case of Black Sunday (1977 film), if an editor wanted to remove content that he believed to be contentious, shouldn't his first action be to try to find a source for this? A quick Google search for "robert evans goodyear blimp" found me a TCM article (among other probably equally as useful results) which verifies most of the information removed in the production section of the article. Therefore if this kind of deletion is happening wholesale, it should be discouraged as we run the risk of removing verifiable (albeit unsourced) information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can google it, or you can ask the editor who made the addition if they know what they're talking about. Since good faith is assumed, I think it's fair to say that if there is no reason to believe that the article text is wrong, it's destructive to delete it. Clearly, not everything in an article will have a reference. If it's not false, our default is to keep it in, right? So it's going over the line to delete first and double check later, no matter how much time has elapsed. That's definitely not how we operate. Disrespect for other editors' contributions is a no-no. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If I knew who the contributing editor(s) was/were, I most certainly would have asked them whether they knew what they were talking about. As it was the information had been unsourced for months and I'll admit I'm not invested enough to go digging through an article's history to determine who may have originally added unsourced material, especially if there may be multiple parties involved. As already noted, nothing was deleted; the text was moved to the Talk page, which I would call a specific effort not to have it deleted. Also, as the information was unsourced, I was unable to determine whether or not it was false; kudos to editors who were or are able to confirm this. As noted, nothing I did was in violation of policy, so while you may not like how I operated, your claims that I was disrespectful and that "that's definitely not how we operate" appear to be matters of opinion rather than fact.

Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we're spending this amount of time putting me on trial for acting in accordance with policy, if perhaps not in a "nice" or "best practice" manner, rather than actually bothering to improve the article or change policy so that the concerns being expressed here become moot points going forward? Doniago (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea that entire articles are reduced to stubs because of an "opinion" that unsourced material should be excised is ludicrous. Tag the sections as needing work, and ask for help. Using WP:Bold as an excuse for making arbitrary and non-consensual actions, is at the root of this issue; not the canard of "helping" the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Mmm, yes, and the current state of the article, with IMDb used as a reference and no maintenance tags, is certainly an improvement, even if it violates WP:RS/IMDB. Doniago (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Doniago, your respect for policy is admirable, however I don't see your actions in line with our normal practice. Policy can be read tendentiously or it can be read with a comparison to usual means and methods that reflect it. I'm not completely clear on your motive. Are you taking out something you doubt on a subject about which you have some knowledge or are you deleting something no one ever formally sourced? The difference is critical, since there will be no references for 1+1=2. I don't see in your defense anything about your belief the material is false. That seems to indicate a lack of appreciation that the editors on a page are at least as likely to know the subject better than you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I should say that I appreciate your tone in the above note. A lot of what has been said here has struck me as less well-worded than it perhaps could have been. So, thank you for that.

I'm deleting something that no one ever formally sourced, after it was tagged long-term for needing sources and none were provided. I don't particularly have any reason to believe it's inaccurate, but as Big Bird noted below, whether or not I believe the material to be accurate isn't pertinent to its appropriateness for inclusion (granted I'd likely pounce faster on material I was 100% certain was inaccurate).

Lastly, if we allowed Misplaced Pages content to be guided by the apparent knowledge level of its contributors rather than reliable sourcing, then there would seem to be no reason to have verifiability policies in the first place, as "contributing editor knows what they're talking about" would then be grounds for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to carefully selected deletion of material that is unsourced and tagged as such for some time. I don't believe in the status quo that we should leave text in the article simply because it's already there. What differentiates us from blogs and "uncyclopedias" is that we verify, not assume, that what we write is correct. Truth is irrelevant, only verifiability matters. The burden of proof in verifiability lies upon the editor adding the text rather than the editor removing the text. But I also do believe in being careful in what is deleted and how it is deleted. If a section stands tagged as unreferenced for a year, I search for sources verifying the statements made. If I find them, I add them and remove the tag. If I'm unable to find any sources myself and I decide that the likelihood exists that the statement is incorrect, then yes, I do consider it appropriate to delete the material. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Big Bird. I'm glad someone else seems to understand where I'm coming from. Doniago (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As an editor that has come across this in the past, I have to say that I would probably side with Doniago here. If the material itself was tagged as requiring a source for over 6 months, and no one has even bothered to try and source any aspect of it, then clearly either no one cares to try or there are no sources for the information period. As such, if there are no reliable sources to the information then how can be be sure it is even true (or verifiable as is really the case). IMDb is user submitted so we cannot use them, because anyone can add something to their production and trivia sections who is registered to do so. We don't operate on the basis of "well, it looks legitimate to me", because we as editors are not authorities on "what looks legitimate" (only exceptions are when an editors is established as a legitimate authority - e.g., identity is known and said identity is authority in real life). In the end, 7 to 8 months of being tagged as needing a source is plenty of time. I would understand a complaint if Don was deleting stuff that was just recently tagged, but that is not the case here. The standard practice IS to eventually remove material that has been tagged for a significant amount of time and place it in a location so that it can be accessed and eventually sourced. Putting it on the talk page is sufficient.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with  BIGNOLE . The whole idea of an encyclopedia is to have information that is as concrete and verified as humanly possible — when researchers and others come to any encyclopedia, they quite reasonably expect it to contain unimpeachable facts. Six months is more than enough time to source something, and I believe Doniago is right to removed tagged, unverified material after that.

Is hunting for a cite better? I believe so. But this has to be balanced with the fact that, more and more, I see some magazines, newspaper and books citing Misplaced Pages — no major publications, but small-press publishers — and this should be of great concern to all of us, since Misplaced Pages (by nature of having an astronomical amount of articles all written mostly by non-professional volunteers) carries so much inaccurate material. The safest course may well be to prioritize keeping unverified material out of Misplaced Pages.

And I believe the title of this section is a misnomer: If information isn't verified, there is no way of knowing whether it's worthwhile. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we might be speaking a little bit at cross purposes. Doniago's personal beliefs about the material's veracity is germane. For example, I don't know about Beyonce, so I don't edit the page on Beyonce. Beyonce experts don't question that she sings, so there won't be a reference on that. There is a continuum from obvious to arcane and the way to negotiate that is to bring to bear personal knowledge. Again, unless you believe material is false, there's nothing heroic about deleting it. If anything, it undermines the encyclopedia and the work of the other editors. Assuming good faith, the absence of a reference is not evidence it is false. That is the wrong inference. Misplaced Pages has an excellent record, and editors who came before us are at least as diligent as we are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not even comparing the same things here. The details about the production of a film and the fact that a worldwide known singer is in fact a singer are not even relatable. If it's a matter of challenging stuff, then this statement from Black Sunday in the production section is one that I am challenging: "The final attack on the stadium was filmed later, using a mock-up of the forward section of the blimp and 10,000 extras supplied for free by The United Way charity, in exchange for Frankenheimer directing a promotional film for them, which Shaw would narrate." - There is no general knowledge surrounding this that would excuse it from requiring a source. It's a very specific claim on the production and requires a source. What is interesting is that the article now has several sources, only 2 of which are currently being cited to IMDb (which should be rectified) and only one statement at this moment (the one I just pointed out) that is completely unsourced. Why does it always take the removal of something to force people to actually follow through with a simple expectation of sourcing content? If it was this easy, why did we need these discussion in the first place? All I heard at the start was this was a 35 year old film and it was hard to find sources, yet Bzuk appears to have found some in a grand total of about 3 hours. It shows that the sourcing tag never should have needed 7 months before someone removed the content, because editors following that page should have saw the tag and done some simple research liek Bzuk did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the absence of a reference is no evidence that something is false and I think others in this discussion agree with that as well. A statement that is true should be verifiable. If an editor cannot verify on their own a statement that's been unsourced for an extended period of time, I don't think the encyclopedia loses anything by shedding this unverifiable material. Although I'm a bit more lenient in its application, I've always considered appropriate the principles laid out in this statement and as somewhat of a guiding principle for the way I edit. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, actually the encyclopedia would lose a lot. Many true statements are not sourced. Many, many, many. The word that is used here is 'verifiable', not 'verified'. So, something that you personally know is false can't ever be verified, so it's unverifiable and you should delete it. But unless an editor thinks some material is false (or, in rare cases, can't by definition be verified), it is counterproductive to remove it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You nailed it. That is the heart of the matter. I would like to see policy modified to express that. Good, verifiable information should not be removed. Especially on the less-traveled articles of older films, where it could be some time before a qualified editor discovers the tags and is able and willing to put in the time to find sources for someone else's earlier entries. (A time-consuming task, especially if you have to go into offline sources like books and older film publications...) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank Bzuk for heroically swinging into action, tracking down refs and restoring the article Black Sunday (1977 film). Like he said in his edit summary, it still needs work, but it's much better than the stub it was reduced to yesterday. Someone may want to take a crack at The Cassandra Crossing, where Doniago also reverted my attempts to restore production material he deleted. I added an IMDb ref, but of course, it wasn't good enough. Of particular interest, the bridge depicted in the film is actually the Garabit viaduct in southern France. Until recently, both articles referred and linked to each other. I'm taking a risk in mentioning that, as none of Garabit Viaduct in fiction is currently backed up by refs, and Doniago might go over and delete that entire section as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, but I will tag it for needing sources. Charming attitude by the way...it really fosters a desire to work with you and AGF. In any event, I also commend Bzuk for their work on Black Sunday. The article's looking pretty darn awesome. Glad someone was able and willing to work on digging up and utilizing references.

If the above thread didn't make it clear why IMDb is not considered sufficient as a reference, I'm at a loss to explain it any further. Doniago (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's all drop the subject since it is considered widely talked about. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and kudos again to Bzuk for swinging into action a second time, tracking down refs and restoring an article, this time The Cassandra Crossing. Again, it could still use more work, but it's much better than it was yesterday. I, along with all who care about these older film articles, really appreciate it. People like this make WP a better site. I placed two refs into the Garabit viaduct article as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrap-up - All of this started when I has a discussion with Doniago about deletion of worthwhile content. The two of us concluded by agreeing that we disagreed on the best approach. Although I still prefer the "tag, don't erase' option, I cannot help but note that Doniago's original (and admittedly provocative) actions have now led to at least two articles being correctly sourced. So in my best 'crusty old-timer' voice, let me just say that we're ALL good people and we're all committed to the project. Occasional disagreement on how best to go about things will always happen, but let's not start firebombing the good guys. I still don't endorse Doniago's approach, but hey, like seriously, whatever. Peace, out. Manning (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually this started when my efforts to restore those above articles were reverted. I went to the page of the one responsible, and found someone else already complaining about his practice. But I would have next taken it here once I found the responsible party was determined to keep doing the same behavior, regardless of what was or was not on his talk page. And this isn't much of a wrap-up, as he's going to keep on doing it, and the policy is not being addressed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material on first story proposals for Beneath the Planet of the Apes

On August 9, 2011‎ User:24.35.199.246 added a large amount of text to the Production section of this 1970 sequel's article, with no sources given. It appears to be an extensive interview with Beneath associate producer and co-story writer Mort Abrahams, who also worked on the original 1968 film. It looks to me like it's for real - nothing in it strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about the Planet of the Apes series history, and I have read a good deal on it over the years. But this had details I had not seen before, so I cannot personally vouch for it. It is, however, very interesting, as they had no concept of making a sequel to the first film until after its release, and it seemed impossible.

This contributor has made very few edits. Never communicated in an edit summary or on a talk page. His text was not tagged. It was not moved to the talk page. It was abruptly deleted within minutes, as if it were vandalism. He only managed one comment, in the wrong place - the text of the article. He wrote I was trying to give you all the backstory, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. This too was immediately deleted.

I only found this by looking back in the article's history. I have decided to take more moderate action here. I have tried to save it from the dustbin of the history archives by copying and pasting it into the film's talk page, with a few minor edits, using the collapsing template because it's so large. Perhaps someone can track down where it came from, source it, and then adapt it into the article. If nothing else, it makes for a good read if you're interested in a detailed account of how this film was developed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrap-up - Wrap up this discussion. It's been widely discussed and let's settle it down. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard

Have any of you have recent developments about a Good Day to Die Hard, the upcoming fifth Die Hard movie? They said they are start filming it in Hungary in January, which was last month as reported awhile ago. I haven't heard anything new about it this month and I'm sure you guys haven't heard any about it either. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen no news about it but I would think filming on this, even if it is a travesty of the Die Hard films, would be worth mentioning so I imagine filming has not yet begun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this article in a Serbian newspaper magazine from a couple of weeks ago, the film crew visited Belgrade to scope out the filming locations. It states that the principal photography will take place sometime in the next few months. That article seems to be the closest of any other one I found in identifying when the filming will begin. As of yet, it hasn't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, upon reading the article all the way through, it states that the filming had already begun earlier this month in Budapest. It may be worth trying to dig up some Hungarian sources to confirm this. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See if that source is realible. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an entertainment magazine, similar in format and reliability to something like Us Weekly. It has editorial oversight but I don't know about its fact checking record. That's why I suggested searching for other sources to confirm what these guys had to say. I'd be cautious to use Svet Plus as the only source for something, I'd prefer to see another source confirm the claims. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. See if you can another source to confirm the claims. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Line producer - undue?

This addition of a line producer seems like an WP:UNDUE weight issue - comments? F911 had 19 various producers; more generally, which types are significant enough to warrant mention? MOS:FILM appears to be silent on this. Rostz (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FILM is silent on this because no-one actually agrees on it. My personal view is that only the actual credited producers should automatically be listed, but no doubt someone will be along shortly with an opposing view. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rostz, I think that regardless, no one other than a "Producer" should be in the "Producer" field. That isn't a general category, it's specifically for people credited as "Producer". If they were credited as a "Line producer" or "Associate producer" or even an "Executive producer" then they do not belong strictly on the grounds that they are in the wrong category. We don't put "2nd unit director" in the "Directed by" field, because it isn't the same job, just like those are not the same job as "Producer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did actually start a discussion on the Film Infobox about this, that we once and for all make a decision about this. So far only betty, Gothicfilm and RingCinema have participated. I urge everyone to go here and have a say so that we no longer have to keep having this same discussion and can just say "See Infobox:Film" . Discussion is hereDarkwarriorblake (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion is still rumbling on over at Infobox:Film, and the dispute seems to be more over the producer/executive producer credit; there is no-one arguing for the inclusion of "line producer", so I think it is reasonable to assume there is a tacit consensus for not including the line producer in the infobox. If anyone disagrees with this assessment just strike out this comment. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD

An AfD is going on here. If anyone is interested, please comment. X.One 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible split of List of film and television directors

There was an AfD a couple of months ago which highlighted certain failings of this article. Anyone have anything to add to this discussion regarding a possible split? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability of the Golden Raspberry Awards

Tomballguy (talk · contribs) has expressed concern over the notability over the Golden Raspberry Awards at the article's talk page. The user in question believes that they are not notable, as they are "defamatory awards meant to insult other actors". However, several other editors, including myself, believe that the awards are notable, as it is significantly covered by reliable sources and meets the general notability guidelines. As such, I am opening up a centralized discussion here to see if other project members can voice their opinions on this matter here and help build a consensus to see if the Golden Raspberry Awards are really notable to be included or not. Any comments or objections? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Commented on the article's talk page. GRAPPLE X 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother engaging with someone that far off the mark; not only do a mountain of RS cover it people like Sandra Bullock and Halle Berry have even accepted their razzies. If he's serious let him afd it where it will be shot down in flames. Betty Logan (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cinema of templates

I hope this doesn't end up being a can of worms, as it looks like this topic has seen some spirited debate in the past. It appears that the Cinema of template runs counter to both Misplaced Pages's and WikiProject Film's guidance on categorization. As of today, the category holds 24,190 articles, not counting subcategories. Database reports lists American film as a polluted category. I made a {{editprotected}} request on the Film US template talk page, asking to remove the automatic entry of articles into the American film category. Given that removing this feature could actually remove pages from the category altogether, if they don't have additional subcategories, I don't think an admin will make the edit.

I would love to hear any solutions to this. Over 24,000 pages in a single category? Obviously this doesn't hurt anybody, but it does seem to be categorization without a real use. Nobody is going to wade through that list of movies. However, it does work for countries like Iceland, with 65 pages plus another 22 in subcategories, or Ethiopia and its six pages. Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Category:American films is part of the established scheme of Category:Films by country, just as Category:English-language films is part of Category:Films by language. Of course it's going to be big - this is the English WP, and as a result most English-language films are made in America. Lugnuts (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need the template adding films to national categories? Take The Birth of a Nation for example, which is already included in such categories as Category:American Civil War films, Category:American drama films, Category:American silent feature films; considering they are all subcategories of Category:American films do we need a template that further adds it to that category? I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing this, but is there a reason we need all the films in the subcats in the main country category as well? Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:American films and Category:English-language films are considered non-diffusive AFAIK. I've never really liked that, which is why I generally don't use {{Film US}} or other such templates which automatically add by-country categories to articles. Like Encycloshave says, what use to anyone is a category with 24k+ articles? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The template helps to idiot-proof the article, as some editors (incorrectly) manually remove the parent of American films. The three top-level film categories for ALL film articles should be Year, Country and Language. Deletion of the country templates would also suggest we delete the Film Year template too. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if the US category has grown too big, but the films by country categories are extremely useful for the industries I follow, I use the related changes function all the time. Would be annoying to have to check every genre individually. Smetanahue (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion lies in the categorization guideline: which is the parent category? In this case, I don't think it is Amerian films but Films by country. Likewise the category American films by genre is a parent category, hence that has no pages, only subcategories. When I came across a page that listed American films as a "polluted category," it didn't occur to me that it was more a case of the right hand not talking to the left hand. Contrary to my initial thought, there is nothing wrong with American films: the bulk of the world's films are made in the U.S., hence the category will be quite large. I guess the real question is then should anything be done about this page that declares the category as polluted? It was created by MZMcBride, who updates it with BernsteinBot. The polluted categories are not among the Misplaced Pages Backlog, so it may just be irrelevant. Somebody brought up a similar question on the Database Reports talk. There is a template--Template:Polluted category--that is used to exclude a page from the polluted category. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Caught in Flight (upcoming Naomi Watts film) and WP:NFF

I hate to be a deletion monkey, but does Caught in Flight come anyway close to meeting WP:NFF? The only ref states "production will begin in the UK later this year". Anything else to add to help? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on one of the provided sources, Naomi Watts to play Princess Diana in Oliver Hirschbiegel's Caught In Flight, production is scheduled to start later in 2012. It looks like it doesn't meet WP:NFF's threshhold, which is the start of filming. Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've prod'd it with a request that the notice should be taken down if a source can be found to confirm filming. A week should be long enough to track one down. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template: Marvel Comics films

Right now there is a discussion going on at Template talk:Marvel Comics films#Animated films regarding the current content and scope of the nabbox. Wider input would be helpful.

- J Greb (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of most expensive films

User:Charlr6 and I are having a disagreement over adding The Hobbit to the List of most expensive films as in this edit. The Hobbit is released later this year, and on that basis I have opposed the addition of the film to the list, on the grounds that films are only added once they are released. It would be unbalanced of me to just put my side of the argument across, but the discussion at Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films#The_Hobbit could probably benefit from some impartial wisdom if anyone can spare a few minutes. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You might find an impartial voice hard to find, everyone seems to be having a debate with Charlr6 about something we're doing wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment at Avatar

I noticed that the opening sentence of Avatar calls the film an "epic science fiction motion capture film". Now as far as I am aware there is no such thing as a motion capture film, motion capture is just a technique, an aid like a practical effect or CGI and we don't call Star Wars 3 an epic space opera CGI film. I might be wrong on this but it seems incorrect to use motion capture film as a descriptor because the technique is employed in teh film. An editor disagrees with me and the discussion is quite clearly going nowhere since the editor just keeps refuting anything I say so if anyone wants to comment for either viewpoint to actually move the topic toward a conclusion, the discussion is here.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded, with gratuitous B-movie name dropping. GRAPPLE X 01:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Grapple, I couldn't think of any other CGI movies beyond the Star Wars prequels. I'm pretty sure Hayden Christensen is all CGI. I don't know enough about Avatar to talk about the extent of its use of Motion Capture but I couldn't comprehend how it was being used as a genre and the discussion just wasn't going to progress with only two people involved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thin Ice (2011 film) Reception reverts

Marc42west (talk · contribs) has been deleting soured text from this film's Reception section without explanation. I told him Stop removing sourced text and marking it "minor" and ten minutes later he did it again. He's now on the verge of breaking 3 reverts. It deals with the film's critical response before and after it's Sundance screening - it was re-edited without the director and then got bad reviews in Oct. Now it's being given a limited release tomorrow. This user may be involved with the distributor - he has very few other edits. I haven't got involved in reporting people for vandalism or going to Requests for page protection - I thought it best to take it here and let someone more experienced deal with this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and bring it to 3RR if it comes down to it. GRAPPLE X 01:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Grapple. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Lowered rating for The Rocky Horror Picture Show

I lowered the rating to start, but this may be to low to some so, please feel free to adjust as the project sees fit. The article had a great deal of unsourced material, but some may still see this as a possible C class. Unsure, so I am making note on all the projects for input.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's borderline to be honest, you could make a case either way; personally I'd ask for a few adjustments if I were reviewing it for a C rating. I've restored some of the reception you removed, since there is a difference between being uncited and unreferenced. The box office source is provided elsewhere in the article, and the RT and MC links are provided in the External links section; they should be in the sources section, but that's a citation issue, not a verifiability issue so the material should remain. Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to look into it. A fresh pair of eyes always finds things others miss!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Inadequate source for film citation in Julie Dash article

For some time now, the Julie Dash article (Julie is a director) has listed, under her filmography, the title "Making Angels." However, this film has never been made. "Making Angels" was listed in the Julie Dash article for the fist time as long ago as 2007; six years later, the title is still in the article under "Filmography," but the film still has not been made.

Whenever a wiki editor questions whether the title of a film that has never been made belongs in the Julie Dash article, someone (a hopeful film producer or other backer of the film, I believe) claims that it belongs there because "Making Angels" is listed in the Internet Movie Database. However, as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Future films notes:

The IMDb should be regarded as an extremely unreliable source, most especially for future films. Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Misplaced Pages for referencing has been found unacceptable. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally not acceptable.

I object to people using Misplaced Pages as a launching pad for trying to produce movies or otherwise helping them get made. I use Misplaced Pages often in my work as a movie critic and journalist, and I do not like seeing the encyclopedia being polluted by self-promotions and other scurrilous activity. Can anyone help with this false reference in Julie Dash's filmography and see that "Making Angels" is removed? Thanks you in advance. 147.203.126.215 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• WikiProject Film talk pages