Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

message: I forgot about this article I created years ago. I saw it popup on my watchlist just now had a look and it in all that time hasn't ever passed GNG, is it possible? Or shall we just delete it? Govvy (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lengthy review by The Washington Post. There is a snipprt linked at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1996/07/27/space-marines-zero-gravity/425beb04-b0f6-4756-a1d3-ca04ead87f24/ which if searched at the Internet Archive gives the full review but for some reason I am unable to link directly to the archived fulll version, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Everything_Everywhere_All_at_Once#Evelyn_Quan_Wang_character_article, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.  Spinixster (trout me!) 02:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Everything Everywhere All at Once]] 

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

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

message: I have started a requested move discussion for this article, which was recently given unnecessary disambiguation following the announcement of an upcoming film that may potentially have a similar name. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film)]] 

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

message: Hi there, this article about an American film composer is waiting review since a couple of months back. It has been marked with GA status. Please advice if there is anything that needs improvement, or if I should just be patient and wait.
Draft:Camara Kambon AnamSoul (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Camara_Kambon|Camara Kambon]] draft - open for feedback 

message: Hello! I have two questions:
# What is the correct way to cite a film?
# What is the correct way to cite a featurette or documentary that appears on a Special Features DVD that is packaged with a film?
Wafflewombat (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you'd want to use :Template:Cite AV media. For an example of usage, "Space Pilot 3000" has a bunch of Cite video templates that actually redirect to the AV media one and are being used to reference commentary tracks, so that could serve as a good example. DonIago (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing films 

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

message: Does anyone have an opinion about the reliability of Mental Floss? I'm looking specifically at this article, which cites research by Michael Heilemann at kitbashed.com. Kitbashed appears to be an armchair research project and Heilemann doesn't appear to have any scholarly credentials, but nevertheless his website is cited by Mental Floss, and his research does look pretty good (and interesting). Wafflewombat (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes you can find past discussions at WP:RSN, such as this one: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Mental Floss. I would tend to agree with the feedback in that 2021 thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of Mental Floss 

message: Is it true that "any article on any particular film should point users to other adaptations of a single work"? KyleJoantalk 05:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly it seems redundant to me because there's already a navbox that covers the various film adaptations. Since the editor you're in dispute with has started a discusssion at the article's Talk page, perhaps you might bring that up to see whether it addresses their concerns? DonIago (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's worth noting in the article, it should. Navboxes do not appear for mobile readers. Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not looking to resolve that local dispute via this discussion. I was asking whether film articles must list every other adaptation with which it shares the same source material, as that user said, which you both partly answered, so thank you. KyleJoantalk 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Wow, I didn't realize that. (Sue me, I like using Wikipedia on my laptop.) That makes a big difference. Of the last 20 days, Little Women has 59,203 views overall, and 16,077 them are desktop view, meaning that the rest of them are mobile app and mobile web. Nearly 73% of visitors don't see the template. I'm a little surprised this inaccessibility hasn't been addressed yet. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned at WP:NAVBOX, though not emphasized, and it wasn't something I was consciously thinking about with regards to this question either. Rather than listing every single adaptation, it would seem preferable to me to have a single link to 'List of Little Women film adaptations' or such, but I'm not advocating for creating an article versus linking to an anchor within an existing article or finding a more optimal approach. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, an anchor link seems appropriate, like a "See also" section linking to . Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section for other adaptations 

message: Apparently, some editors are attempting to shoehorn all four parts of this film into one article, at least until each installment is released. The result is confusion regarding the article's scope, a clumsy infobox, and redundant subheadings. To my knowledge, no film split into multiple parts and/or filmed back-to-back has been covered in a single article. This unconventional approach effectively circumvents WP:NFF and doubles as a film series article. My stance is that if the second, third, or fourth part meets GNG and NFF, they should have separate articles; if they do not, they should be incubated in the draftspace per the standard practice. See the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very badfaithed description of my intentions. It's not shoehorning in all four parts, its containing all the available information we currently have. You're speaking as if these other three chapters have already been released. The only confusion one can find is the confusion they force themselves to feel. The lead paragraph is explicit in what the page presently houses. It's about a four-part film. What's so headhurty? Right now the bulk of the information that exists about Horizon as a whole pertains to Chapter 1. We have sparing details about Chapter 2, barely any about 3 and none for 4. Who's coming back for Chapter 3? Where's it filming? When? Are there more specific details out there to aid in building the page out aside from extremely bare essentials to satisfy NFF? This is why I am employing NORUSH. Because clapping your hands together going :"chop chop" doesn't lead to presently any helpful details to build the pages out. Rusted AutoParts 07:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not referring to you specifically, nor assuming bad faith, unless you were solely responsible for structuring the article this way. I see on the talk page that there were other editors earlier who supported this approach. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text: The confusion is evident in the presence of subheadings in some sections, but no subheadings in others. The lead says "four-part", which an editor recently attempted to change to "two-part" (this wouldn't make sense with the article's title), but the Sequels section makes it seem like the article is solely about the first film. The poster used in the infobox represents Chapter 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. Again, if there is not enough information for Chapter 2 to have an article, then it should be sent to the draftspace like we do with all other films. We can't bypass this process and effectively create a film series article (the infobox looks very similar to something you'd find on a series article). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: …it’s confusing to highlight we have more information about one chapter than we do the other three? I have stated what feels like countless times now the page is largely Chapter 1 centric because that’s the film that is nearest to its release and the one that has the most information about. It feels like it’s you making the page be more difficult than it really is. Why would you not take the initiate then to create Chapter 2’s page in draftspace so that when it’s strong enough to be in main it can be moved? Why does this page entirely need to be thrown into draftspace because it’s too confusing anpparently? And then we can move this current main page to Chapter 1. Someone’s already gone and made a franchise draft to work with as well. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say we should move this page to the draftspace. I said the information about Chapter 2 should be moved to its own article, either in the mainspace if GNG/NFF is satisfied, or in the draftspace if GNG/NFF is not satisfied. But it's clear your position is firm, so let's see if other editors have any thoughts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

text: , I think this could have been a neutral notification. My suggestion is to start a new discussion thread at the film article's talk page with explicit options on what to do (like an RfC but without the formal procedure), like making a film series article as part of it, and invite editors here to participate. If the March discussion was too recent, it could at least be done on June 28th with more activity. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was shooting more for informal discussion than a formal survey. It tends to resolve matters more speedily. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Waiting for June would’ve been appropriate because as stated then we would be working with a released product with a soon to be released second part. This present discussion feels like a strong-arming to have the split done right now. You’ve before acknowledged how there’s no rush to make changes for something, why is it so bad to be patient here too? Rusted AutoParts 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what the purpose of referencing a comment from an unrelated discussion was. I am certainly aware of the concept of NORUSH, as mentioned on the article's talk page. However, as stated, I think this is overkill and NORUSH shouldn't be used as a free pass to bypass the normal process described by NFF. It is generally preferable to resolve disputes speedily, for the benefit of readers, but if we are unable to reach a consensus here, I certainly won't throw a fit and will be happy to wait. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Horizon: An American Saga]]'' 

message: Regarding Dark Castle Entertainment, an editor who works for them has proposed a revision and is using the  template. The discussion can be found here: . Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Castle Entertainment 

message: I've come across a film that needs some Wikiproject attention. Lovers Lane (1999 film) was originally created at its current title, with all the body content stating that it was a 1999 film — but last fall a user moved the page to Lovers Lane (2000 film), and updated all the body text, on the grounds of a source indicating that it was released in 2000, but then a couple of weeks later they reverted themselves on the grounds that the new source had been inaccurate. But then after that, an anonymous IP went and changed all the text in the article back to 2000 again without moving the page, so that now it has 1999 in the title but 2000  in the infobox and body text and categories (or 2000s, rather than 1990s, where the category is by-decade instead of by-year).
Obviously we need to figure this out one way or the other, but I don't have access to the kind of sources that would solve the question of when an independent American horror film was released, so I wanted to ask if somebody with more expertise in the area could look into it. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this says it was released on December 31, 1999, so it's quite the edge case (if that source can be trusted). Judging from the Wikipedia article history, it was created as a 1999 film without a specific release date or source. Earliest IMDb version, from November 2004, does show 1999 here. EDIT: That page says, "I'm Still Waiting for You (1999) (UK) (DVD title)". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Released where? Spain? Why would an American movie be released there first? Looks to me like it just defaulted to the last day as a placeholder for defective data. Nardog (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text: The source for the 2000 festival screening says "Public performance premier". Nardog (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that works well to lock in 2000. Good find! I couldn't find anything about a DVD or UK release circa 1999, probably bad IMDb user-submitted data, so I'm good on making it 2000. , does that suffice? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the exact source that the self-reverting editor first read to support moving the page to 2000, and then disputed as misleading when they moved it back to 1999 — it was formerly cited in the article as support for a statement that the film premiered at Bainbridge, which the self-reverter walked back to "screened" just before moving the page back to 1999. That said, I do share the suspicion that "December 31, 1999" is just an "unknown data" placeholder rather than an actual premiere, since that seems like a really implausible date for a film premiere, especially without solid sourcing to support it. So if anybody else is comfortable moving the page to 2000 on the basis of the Bainbridge source, I won't stand in their way, but it's not a thing I would feel comfortable doing without some other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text: The quoted source itself states "1999" as the release year. The description "public performance premier" indicates that it had previously been released on home video but is merely being premiered publicly (in a cinema) for the first time. That's how I would interpret it. Otherwise it would be described as a "world premier" instead of a "public performance premier". The description itself indicates that it had already been released in some other format, and the quoted article itself states a release year of 1999. If we're going to use that source as the reference to "lock in" 2000, then why not use the actual information explicitly stated in the same source to "lock in" 1999? That's the only real source we have and it explicitly states "10:15 p.m. 'Lover's Lane.' 1999. 90 min. 35 mm.". I agree that December 31 is likely a placeholder date because the actual 1999 home video release date is unknown, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't released on home video at all in 1999. The quoted Bainbridge reference certainly indicates that there was a 1999 home video release. Nicholas0 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, missed the "1999" in that one. , what's your take, if we were going to do 2000 based on that very source? Keep to 1999? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Film years are determined in various ways. We go by first public release because that's what can be verified in sources for most films, but others go by completion, copyright, etc. The interpretation that the film was released on home video strains credulity when the article says it was released on home video in 2000 (as confirmed on WorldCat: ). A simpler explanation is that they didn't go by release, and absent a reliable source that it was indeed released in 1999, we should go with 2000. Nardog (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovers Lane 

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

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

message: I'm in the process of rewriting List of accolades received by Inception and I've gotten a bit stuck with the sourcing for the Kinema Junpo Awards. I know it came 10th in the Best Foreign Films category and 7th in the Readers' Choice Best Foreign Films.
I've managed to source the Best Foreign Films category with the magazine's official website. The link mentions (in Japanese) that the Reader's Choice award list was listed in the Special Late February issue of Kinema Junpo of 5 February 2011. This is Number 1575; for reference here's a listing with the cover. 
I can't find a copy of this anywhere. The only thing I could find that mentioned it beyond the Japanese wikipedia was this blog post, which is not exactly a beacon of reliability. Does anyone have access to or can anyone help me find an online copy I can cite? Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a primary source (Kinenote is run by the magazine). Nardog (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, although that unfortunately only lists the Best Foreign Films and not the Readers' Choice Best Foreign Films. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see. Is that something we should be including in a "list of accolades received by" a film? It's a crowdsourced thing and it came in seventh. Nardog (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kinema Junpo]] 

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

message: Hey, this article Possibly in Michigan is missing a review section.
Can I get some help?CycoMa1 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! Have you looked at Google Scholar results? There seems to be some potentially relevant results. You can cross-reference them with WP:LIBRARY to see which ones you can access. Link Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short film missing a review section 

message: At , I came across this note (which uses automatic date calculation to display the most recent week): 
I find this to go directly against WP:RECENTISM, and to introduce a maintenance/sourcing nightmare (it's unclear how much it's being updated, and could easily begin misinforming readers if abandoned for even a short while).
Dismayingly, this is not an isolated problem — a quick search shows that more than 50 articles use the same note.
Therefore, I'd like to ask two things:
#For purposes of having a consensus to reference, do others agree that such notes are inappropriate?
#Assuming that there is such consensus, is anyone from this project willing to remove them all?
Best, Sdkb talk 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are making an ordered list and some of those elements are in the process of potentially changing order then that is something noteworthy to be pointed out. The box office numbers for films that are still playing in theaters are going to change every day and will likely be updated at least once a week. I don't see how that has anything to do with WP:RECENTISM. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentist highlighting of films currently playing 

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

message: Like every other wiki project has a importance scale why doesn’t this one have one 31.121.245.19 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, man, that takes me back. I think we removed it back around 2007-2008. You can see the explanation as to why here: WP:FILMCORE (though I don't think anyone is paying attention to "core" topics nowadays either). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no importance scale 

message: So I'm not sure if this is brought up recently as I haven't seen in the archives, but AllMovie has changed. They've basically lost all their reviews and even pull their film summaries from Wikipedia. I suggest if we have any major articles or GAs/FAs using it as a source, we immediately pull from Archive.org versions and maybe reflect on its current status as a source for...well anything really. Sad to see most of the internet turn to crap in the past few years. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's probably a testament to how film coverage has evolved on Wikipedia in recent years, as opposed to turning to "crap". We are a victim of our own success in some ways, because sources we depend on have started to depend on us which complicates stuff. I recall an incident where I sourced the List of box-office bombs using Filmsite, with corrections from other sources. The bloke who runs it then ditched his figures and adopted ours! Gave me a massive headache at the time. Reading their explanation it appears they are in a transitional phase, so their use of Wikipedia may be just a stop-gap. Even if it is a permanent feature the Wikipedia stuff appears to be clearly highlighted so I don't think it's that much of a problem if editors reference other elements. In cases where the main description was cited, as you say we'll have to locate another source or retrieve it from Internet Archive. Betty Logan (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. More of a heads up to everyone to maybe go back an archive some old articles really. We'll see how it goes, but I can't imagine them bringing back reviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have essentially made it a habit to archive every URL I add as a source to Wikipedia. Occasionally I don't have the time, but as this shows, it's becoming more of a necessity these days. If time allows, I'll archive it at both Wayback and archive.today. Sometimes one does better than the other when it comes to capturing certain pages. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if there is a reason why Wikipedia doesn't have its own archive service? It seems a no-brainer, unless it's the cost. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a risk of hosting non-free content? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And cost I'm sure. These archiving sites are always asking for donations, of which I try to give to every couple years. Hopefully more archiving sites pop up in the future. Some of these are likely to die off eventually. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've honestly been using archive.org more than google to search for sources lately. While going through my film Good Articles over the years (!), it was really easy to see myself slowly moving in that direction when it came to citing sources. If we ever lose Archive.org, it'll be a major loss for the internet as a whole. Anyways, yeah, prepare for a lot of archiving for AllMovie if you haven't. Biographies are lost, Reviews are lost, genres are definitely just pulled, ratings have all changed, its barely the same site it was even a few months ago. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AllMovie has Changed 

message: Participants of WikiProject Film might be interested in adding these categories and their subcategories into their watchlist.
* 
* 
This is part of the recently created category tree under :Category:Template tracking by topic. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Film templates parameter issues]] and [[:Category:Film template tracking]] 

message: There's a discussion regarding the plot summary of the 1940 Pinocchio film, which can be found at Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)#Plot. Input from project mebmers would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot discussion on the Pinocchio page