Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 27 June 2017

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

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

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.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Entries on Film censorship in China

There is a dispute over whether The Lost City of Z and Dangal should be included in the list on Film censorship in China. The crux of the discussion is that, for both films, sources state that alterations were made to the films by their producers, rather than the State Administration body, to change the pacing of the film rather than to remove objectionable content, but after the release of both films in China, a notice from the Administration body made it illegal to distribute any uncut version of any film, including these two films. Please see the discussion at Talk:Film censorship in China#Lost City of Z & Dangal ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like one user's personal soapbox of fun all bundled into one, neat little page! Lugnuts 09:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ditto @Lugnuts.Hoverfish Talk 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The West must know about a "rumored" 30-second cut to The Revenant. Lugnuts 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of the arguments given on the talk page are very indicative of the encyclopedic spirit of the page, but since we do have a Category:Film censorship by country, and since most of these articles do much the same, I guess we proceed by consensus on such matters, n'est pas? We do have a Category:Film censorship in the United States after all. Hoverfish Talk 12:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why nobody thought of making an article about Film censorship in, say, Saudi Arabia yet...Hoverfish Talk 13:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The topic is valid, but the approach is wrongheaded. There needs to be greater emphasis on secondary sources. I am seeing runtime difference used as solely the reason to list a film, which is original research. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hoverfish, see Censorship in Saudi Arabia § Film and television. Movie theaters are banned, so there is no need for a list article in this regard. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

At first glance I'd say if the changes were made due to explicit demands by Chinese authorities then it is censorship. If they were made "voluntary" without request then I wouldn't call it censorship. The bigger problem of that list however seems its focus on "western" blockbusters with minor alterations rather than listing actually real banned movies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of hoping that particular problem will come to be eventually sorted out in time. It's a very new article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like to me that it will and frankly I can't understand how the original author could create such an article under the given title. In fact the lengthy dispute of over content that is at best marginally relevant to the article's topic and could be removed completely seems rather surreal to me. The article needs to be completely reworked or moved to another title/name (roughly something along the line of "list of hollywood & bollywood movies alterated for a Chinese release").--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a little drastic, I think. It's isn't an insurmountable task to get the article reworked into what you're suggesting. And it's still early to make judgement calls on how it'll look in six months. There's only two editors on it, the creator and myself, and I'm really only copyediting and trying to figure out scope. With hope, a couple more interested editors will corral it into including scholarship and etc. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can't be done, i'm just saying I'm rather skeptical. Moreover this is simply not how an article should be created in WP these days, i.e. creating something totally off and waiting whether anybody will fix it over the course of the next year is bit a of a no-go. It might be ok in case of the newbie editors still getting their bearings right, but the involved editors seem to be seasoned Wikipedians who should know better. It is perfectly fine to start an article small/incomplete and based on (reliable) non-scholarly sources, but at least it needs to get its topic right.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There have been several changes to the article. Editors are invited to review the situation. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contrib) 02:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems with recent additions/modification the article is moving in the right direction now and the content is starting to match the article's title/topic in sufficient manner.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for expansion of Mob film to include international genres

Hi, and thanks for all your contributions! This article, which is translated largely as is into various languages is limited to American cinema. It seems that the genre is international. In particular, I'm thinking of the films of Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, as well as Australia and the UK.

Could someone please expand this article, or perhaps create new articles as appropriate. I might could help out if someone took the lead. :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that is the right approach. The article seems to specifically cover American Mafia films, just in the same way Yakuza film covers the Yakuza. Perhaps what is needed is a more generalized Gangster film article to describe the genre in more general terms? Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I also notice that the article occupies 2 entries in the genres template: Crime/Mob (where Yakuza and Gokudo are also listed) and separately "Mob films". My view is that the article should be moved to Mafia films, placed under Category:Mafia films and under Crime/Mafia in the template, with Mafia comedy as a separate entry or in brackets. Hoverfish Talk 12:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I see some generalized "Gangster film" content in parts of the article. So maybe the best way would be to content split to Gangster films, while the Mafia related content would stay under the title "Mafia films". This way both articles could be further expanded without unnecessary cross over. Hoverfish Talk 19:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: I support unredirecting Gangster film and making it the overarching article about the topic in its many forms. With this either being moved to Gangster film (America) or it could stay the same with a hatnote. I would note that "mob film" is definitely not a phase that's in use in any real way. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a redirect there. This sounds like the correct way to go. I agree that "Mob films" should not be a title. "Mob" is an informal term for criminal organization, especially the Mafia operating in the United States (the Free Dictionary), with some more known uses of the term. Also, an OCLC note was placed in the talk page indicating that the most used gengre/term is "Gangster films". If the title becomes "Gangster film (America)" rather than "Mafia film", then the content should be adjusted accordingly. I am not a gang specialist, but there must be plenty more American gangster films other than Mafian that should be covered. A section could deal with Mafia and also take care of Mafia comedy, which doesn't have a single citation, by the way. Hoverfish Talk 00:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Therefore, if there is no objection I will be boldly moving Mob film to Gangster film (America) American Mafia film and leave the redirect as it is, till a more general article is placed there. Hoverfish Talk 19:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links in filmographies

There was a time external links in filmographies were not permitted. Lately I come upon several such instances, like this one. Is this practice acceptable nowadays? Hoverfish Talk 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In a word, no. It should either be 1) a plain no-wiki link or 2) blue link to a wiki article or 3) red link, with the article coming "soon". Lugnuts 12:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the relevant guideline: WP:LINK § Link titles, "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." Erik (talk | contrib) 12:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I am removing such links on sight then. If they are not IMDb ones that can be found via the given IMDb director external link, I either move them to that section instead or format them as a proper citation. Hoverfish Talk 14:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we be quoting the Tomato Meter when RT's math appears to be bad?

The thought had never occurred to me until just now, but Rotten Tomatoes appears to round down imperfect percentage figures to the lower option, regardless of how close it is to the higher. For season 2 of Game of Thrones, for example, it divided 32 by 33 and 0.96 even though it is actually 0.96969696..., which when rounded to the second decimal point would be 0.97, and in fact is extremely close to a perfect 97%.

Wouldn't it be better to give the data they analyzed and say they assessed 32 reviews of the 33 they looked at as being positive?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I'd stick with X out of Y reviews here and remove the incorrectly rounded percentage. Although, technically speaking, it's a score and not a percentage, and the science of getting to that score is pretty inexact -- I've seen quite a few reviews misclassified on Rotten Tomatoes because they were written tongue-in-cheek. Daß Wölf 01:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that rounding down from 97% to 96% is statistically significant enough to warrant exclusion. I don't think that the average reader is going to step back and go, "Wow, that was only a 96% approval rating? It's basically a critical flop.".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel like there was a thread at some point here about Rotten Tomatoes and math, but I can't find it and I can't remember the exact content of the thread to locate it. Does anyone remember anything about it? And I'm not necessarily sure rounding down, and the occasional misfiled review, is necessarily enough grounds to throw it out, especially when the number itself is used as a gauge by others. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we could always write something like "97% of reviews gathered by Rotten Tomatoes were positive." Daß Wölf 01:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That's actually, as I remember it, the current encouraged language. It's seen on articles like The Martian (film): "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, which categorizes reviews as positive or negative, surveyed 311 critics and determined that 91% of the reviews were positive with a rating average of 7.8/10, and the consensus..." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Daß Wölf: @TenTonParasol: @Bignole: Ugh. Sorry. I totally forgot to explain why I was thinking about this. Game of Thrones#Critical response gives a graph of the show's seasons' RT scores that comes across as comparing them, even though apart from a dip for season 5 the differences are statistically insignificant. (There's also the fact that a lot of critics were apparently confused after watching the premier of the very first episode of season 1, not the whole season -- virtually all the "rotten" reviews for the "season" were written by critics who had only seen the first episode.) Given that the graph is essentially 90-100, the 1% difference stands out more than it probably should. That said, it's really not clear how they divided 27 by 33 and got 89%. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if you drill down into each episode, you'll find a dozen or so reviews for each one. So it's reasonable to assume that the overall 89% score is factoring in the episodic reviews in addition to the overall season reviews. As for the rounding you mentioned earlier, I understand where you're coming from, but IMHO, it's not a good idea to deviate from what the website is publishing. Doing so only invites constant edit-warring from drive-by editors that see it as a discrepancy and fix it to match the website. It wouldn't be a battle worth winning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thing, you're talking about GoTs and rotten tomatoes, but this is the film project. For TV, I generally discourage the use of quoting RT, whether that's the "consensus" or the percentage. The reason why is that they rarely are providing reviews of entire seasons. As you saw, they are reviews of episodes. Since you're not guaranteed consistent reviews from the same reviewer for every episode, it makes it hard to track. Then, factor in that there are what...10 or 12 episodes a season? There are only on average 30+ reviews in RT for each season. If the same people wrote reviews for every episode, you're really only talking about "3" reviews for a season that are creating the percentage. Three reviews is not enough to say statistical significance and wouldn't generally be included in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Bignole. The other side of the coin that should be taken into account is definitely the number of reviews on the entire season, not just episodes. The RT percentage for most TV programs isn't an accurate assessment of the entire season in many cases and should be avoided when that's the case. I came across that as well when editing several Walking Dead articles.

List of Kill Bill characters at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts 07:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Music not included in the soundtrack

Recently, @Supermann: and I had a dispute involving the same section on two articles, Wonder Woman (soundtrack) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack). The crux of the issue is including a section detailing music that is featured (and credited) in the film but not included on the soundtrack. There has been some discussion on my talk page at You have sth against IMDb.com as a RS, too?

In this particular case, the sections (in their current version) are not sourced to secondary sources and seems to be putting together information by comparing film credits and the track listing, which feels to me to be OR. I don't think this is appropriate. Such a section should be sourced to a secondary, reliable source stating that this music used in the film but is absent from the soundtrack. If this sourcing doesn't exist, it seems to me this section cannot exist.

I also question the grounds on which this information is included. Like, if the omission of several songs in the film is commented on by secondary sources for whatever reason, like if it was widely expected to be included on the soundtrack, if critics felt the absence of multiple songs was an oversight, etc., then I could understand putting together a list. But without any information to properly ground and justify the list, I'm not sure it's appropriate. The article is about the soundtrack, rather than the film's score and usage of licensed music. Mentions of licensed music used in the film, which is verifiable and stating it was in the movie isn't OR, is probably best left to the film's main article music section.

At this point, I want to open up the discussion to a wider audience, seeing as myself and Supermann haven't gotten anywhere on my talk page. I also invite Supermann to summarize his rationale to inclusion and defense of the sourcing here. I have also included a neutral notice of this discussion at WikiProject Albums. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH can be added to WP:OR. IMO the info falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It isn't a defining feature of these - or any - films. MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond one last time: WP:Ignore all rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Supermann: Ignore all rules is not a carte blanche to do anything, and it's also not an explanation or justification or rationale for your edits. Why is your edit an improvement, which by definition should adhere to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. IAR doesn't circumvent VERIFY and OR. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IAR is not a license for editors to unilaterally do what they want. You need to be able to prove to the community that applying a particular guideline or policy is demonstrably getting in the way of improving Misplaced Pages. In all my years on Misplaced Pages I have only found myself once in a position where I advocated IAR. As for the issue at hand, a reliable source is needed for music in the film but not included on the soundtrack album and IMDB is not acceptable. WP:Citing IMDb is an essay—not a policy or guideline—that was mostly written a decade ago, and these days most editors defer to WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Could this be addressed by reframing the situation as "soundtrack releases" (based on information relating to the release) and "additional music" (based on the film credits)? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Betty and Ten. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That would require reframing what the primary topic of the article is, and I'm not sure if that idea would be necessarily a good one. Generally, soundtrack articles for films focus on the soundtrack release and leave additional music for the main article, or a "Music of " article (more common for video games, television, and film series rather than an individual film). I'm thinking more broadly. Would it be desirable to set a precedent that this is how spun off soundtrack articles for a single film should be handled? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess the current formatting of the article titles has the potential to create some ambiguity regarding whether it's an article about the music heard in the film, or whether it's an article about music released from the film. Granted this hopefully becomes clear once you view the article, and at that point I'd agree that a section discussing music in the film but not on the soundtrack is probably out of scope. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages is Misplaced Pages has no firm rules: "Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making exceptions." Soundtrack.net belongs to "a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus, except where otherwise noted." Please see WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Soundtracks and video games. I only updated its current owner. Supermann (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Aadhi Raat Ke Baad

The 1965 film Aadhi Raat Ke Baad is under discussion for deletion. Does anyone have access to the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema which may help provide evidence of notability for this film? --Bejnar (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not appear to have any pages mentioning this film. See search results. I also tried "Adhi" instead of "Aadhi" and still got nothing. As a test, I searched the book for the director's name, and results do show up for him. Just not for the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's the AfD. Lugnuts 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Parodies of..." categories, nominated for deletion

1. Category:Parodies of Sarah Palin nominated for deletion at: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_19#Parodies_of_Sarah_Palin
2. Category:Parodies of Donald Trump nominated for deletion at: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_20#Parodies_of_Donald_Trump

Sagecandor (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted scenes in plots

Maybe it's the good ol' British summer melting my mind right now, but adding details about a deleted scene into the plot of an article is a no-no? WP:FILMPLOT doesn't specifically mention it, but I assume it'll fail WP:V for one, and the fact it was deleted from the final cut means it's trivial at best? The article in question is the rather brilliant Martha Marcy May Marlene, which I highly recommend you see, if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Lugnuts 18:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It being deleted, technically, it isn't part of the plot at all. So, I'd say, yeah, it shouldn't be in the plot section. If the deleted scene is particularly important for whatever reason, like there's a lot of secondary sources talking about it for whatever reason, it probably could warrant another section. I don't know. I can't think of any off the top of my head. But, ya, shouldn't be in the plot section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your assessment. The value of deleted scenes would need to depend on secondary sources and probably be placed elsewhere, probably the "Production" section as part of editing. However, I am not sure if such a deleted scene exists for this film? A search engine test does not seem to show anyone talking about one, and this does not mention any deleted scenes on home media. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts 06:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in book article

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in a book article, pitched as a story to Hollywood.

Please see Request for Comment, at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#RfC_about_the_author_credits_of_first_edition_in_first_sentence. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_about_inclusion_of_films_in_Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Only two editors commenting, both parties to the original dispute, further participation would be helpful. Sagecandor (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither this article or the one above are under the jurisdiction of the Film project. Have you tried requesting input from the projects that actually oversee these articles? Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It does bring up a tangential question: where should films about a film-industry figure fall exactly? It seems like "bibliography" is used to list written works by and about the given figure. Should a filmography be used the same way, like a famous film-industry figure having documentaries about them listed there? Or some other arrangement? Erik (talk | contrib) 17:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

According to IMDB Trump's media presence is extensive. I think maybe a List of documentary films about President X and maybe a List of media appearances by President X might be a more general solution rather than trying to shoehorn a load of film stuff into book articles. If editors want to insert a load of film stuff into book articles then I'm not going to stand in the way of that but I think there is a danger that the articles will be overwhelmed. I am bit surprised such articles don't already exist because there will be no shortage of material for Kennedy onwards. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well this seems just seems a dispute over the appropriate title and whether it is better having one or two articles. If bibliography is understood to just contain text rather tan audiovisual material, then easiest solution might be to rename the current article in something like "bibliography and filmography of Donold Trump" or "media on donald trump" or similar.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A first step towards "Gangster film"

InformationvsInjustice has offered a user page to gather material from which we can create a general article for Gangster film (which currently redirects rather improperly to Mob film). The article should cover ganster films from all over. It should not cover in any detail the existing articles of Mob (Mafia) film or Yakuza film, beyond placing them in the general context. @Betty Logan: and anyone with some experience in this sub-genre of Crime films, please help in with films, knowledge and comments. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 17:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that comments go on the talk page. Maybe this draft can be an actual draft per WP:DRAFTS? I would also suggest taking a summary-style approach here. This means having a summary section for related topics that already have articles. For example, there can be a "Yakuza" section using {{main}} to link to Yakuza film and a solid paragraph explaining that particular topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: For the moment it's a Userspace draft and when we go beyond listing items and building some meaningfull prose, it should either move to Draft or into a stub. Point taken about linking to main articles. Hoverfish Talk 19:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a page has to be presentable to be a non-userspace draft. It seems to be up to the editor, really. By the way, this seems like a good summary of the genre to reference. It also lists additional (book) sources that can be referenced. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see a definition of "gangster films" that is distinct from "mob films". ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I am learning, Mob film was never a specific genre, as for definition, I copy from avove: "Mob" is an informal term for criminal organization, especially the Mafia operating in the United States (the Free Dictionary). Ganster film on the other hand belongs to the taxonomy of cinematic genre and contains any ganster film, not "especially the Mafia operating in the United States". Which is what this article is being created for. Can you call Quadrophenia a mob film? It is a gangster film though. Hoverfish Talk 00:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Great work thus far. I completely support this, and I've bookmarked it to read it in full later on this week. I'd love to contribute if ever necessary, but I'm glad this distinction is recognized by so many others. My film professor approves, too.--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 01:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Short Film's Notability

Hello. I created an article about the 2013 short film Sonic. (See Talk:Sonic_(2013_film))

The article has been replaced with a redirect page to a list page a couple of times, due to issues with the page (first it was a stub, then it was all plot). Both times, I fixed the issue with the page and brought it back.

But Sergecross73 keeps attaching a "Notability" tag to the article, despite the fact that I have found quite a number of "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention." Sergecross73 claims all the sources are too short and just repeat a few facts many times. ("It's a fan game ! It's 18 minutes long! Jaleel White does the voice again!")

Please consider taking a look at the page and its list of sources. I want the opinion of people outside of the Sonic fan community. If the WikiProject Film members also feel the page should be replaced with a redirect, I will accept the decision.

Thank you for your time. --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to point out that I've only added the notability tag once, while FrostedPenguin has now removed it twice, and while discussions were ongoing, and no one agreeing that it was time to remove the tags yet. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for any of my previous actions that were unreasonable. I incorrectly thought I had a firm grasp on the term "significant coverage." This led me to honestly believe that the other editors were just ganging up on me to delete a page about a film they didn't like. I now see that I was just being a n00b... :P My faith in Misplaced Pages's democratic process has been restored, I accept the decision to redirect the page, and I'll only bring it back if I find enough significant coverage. --FrostedPenguin87 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• WikiProject Film talk pages