Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Narrator in infobox[edit]

Recently, JDDJS added Richard Dreyfus as the narrator in the infobox for Stand by Me. I reverted him, saying this is an in-character voice-over, hence a violation of infobox film. He made a similar edit to The Sandlot, adding the film's writer-director as the narrator. He has argued that A Christmas Story is an example of a film article with a narrator in the infobox, and this justifies his edits. I would argue that all three are violations. Richard Dreyfus in Stand by Me is more obvious because he is in the film, and he is clearly speaking as his character. But, in the other two cases, the narration comes from people we don't see in the film. I would still argue that these are in-character voice-overs, spoken in the first person singular, and thus not a true narration. I'd like some opinions on this. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Narrator to me should be reversed for documentary films, where the person narrating is not a "character" but the actor themselves (ala Morgan Freeman in March of the Penguins). --Masem (t) 14:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that parameter is simply for documentaries. We could improve the documentation at Template:Infobox film. Not sure why we haven't already. Maybe because it's rarely come up? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, before posting here, I checked the talk archive, and the subject of narrator has been discussed very little. I suppose there are some examples of non-documentary films that have narration (Robert Mitchum's narration at the beginning of Tombstone could be one instance), but it is rarely an issue. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oof this makes me feel old. I remember when this field was added. Then even a hint of narration was listed in the infobox. Years later things were changed and removing the "first person" items became the standard but that still left room for some listings. I don't remember seeing a discussion limiting it to documentaries but that doesn't mean that one hasn't happen. TheOldJacobite did you check the archives at Template talk:Infobox film? I'm pretty sure that is where most or all of the discussions about the field took place. Let me add that I am in favor of limiting use of the field to documentaries. One question is (if a previous thread has not happened) should we have a discussion at the template talk page to formalize this or is this thread enough to move forward? Whatever everyone decides about this the documentation definitely needs to be updated. I have lost count of the times members of the project come to a consensus about something and then the proper spot of WP:MOSFILM does not get updated. Please note I am not complaining since I am part of this problem. I just want us to make sure we cover all of the bases in this situation. Masem I think you mean reserved rather than reversed. That is exactly the kind of booboo that I make. Regards to all who have, and those who will, post here. MarnetteD|Talk 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I checked the talk archive first, before posting here, and found very little discussion of the subject. And, yes, I think this needs to be formalized so that we can avoid the kind of arguments JDDJS are having. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you check Template talk:Infobox film, though? I found this discussion from 2013 echoing the documentary-focused sentiment: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 26#Narrated by. (Ignore the last two-thirds of the thread as irrelevant; the first third has a few editors including myself agreeing that the parameter is for documentaries.) I agree with MarnetteD that this is an example of needing to go ahead and update the MOS (and the infobox guideline) to reflect this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the miscommunication. No, I did not check the template talk archive, only the talk archive here at the FilmProject. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel that when you have an actor who never physically appears in the film, explaining things, that is narration. Since as you both say, the MOS is currently not clear on this, we should have a RFC to get a wide consensus on what the community believes the MOS should be before we change it. JDDJS (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's too loose, the narrator should be someone that is 100% disconnected from any events of the film, which is nearly impossible for anything other than documentaries. Alternatively, if you take the case that a narrator is there narrating thngs, then we should list Matthew Broderick as narrator for "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", which makes no sense. Keep it to documentaries, and that eliminates most problematic uses. --Masem (t) 19:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I specifically said actors who don't physically appear, which would rule out Ferris Bueller. This is a common type of story telling and is significant to the films that use it. I don't see why we wouldn't use it in these cases. I'm going to start a RFC so we can get a wide consensus on the matter. JDDJS (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I fully disagree that it is "significant". It is important enough to describe in the plot (and casting if necessary). Let me give another example, that being Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It's narrated by "an" Oompa-Loompa (voiced by one person, but played by another) the specific one which only appears at the end of the film, so that's effectively not in the story at all. But the movie otherwise treats the Oompa-Loompa equivalently, so the character appears. The fiction is narrated, but the movie does not have a narrator proper, so it should not be used here. --Masem (t) 01:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


Should the narrator section in the infobox for films be reserved solely for documentaries or should it also be used for films like A Christmas Story in which an actor who doesn't physically appear in the film narrates sections of the film? The MOS currently does not address this issue, so whatever the consensus is here, MOS should be changed to reflect that. JDDJS (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Limit to documentaries per previous discussion on the subject. MarnetteD|Talk 23:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries to avoid any possible creep. --Masem (t) 01:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries. I've never seen the parameter as a way to elevate someone in a fictional film doing a voice-over above the other starring in said film. It simply exists to recognize a narrator in a documentary because "Starring" just isn't appropriate for that recognition. Keep it simple. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries per the comments above. This RFC was also completely unnecessary. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries, per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries. I agree it's best to keep things simple and limit this parameter to documentaries. It will limit the amount of arguing over a trivial detail in the infobox and reduce infobox bloat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries, obvious reasons above. Sock (tock talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries as it can go in cast section. Atlantic306 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Limit to documentaries or films like Milo and Otis. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


  • Comment I am in favor of omitting "in character" voiceovers, but just so we are all clear about this, how would someone such as John Hurt be handled at the Dogville article? Hurt narrates the story but isn't a character in the film; the poster includes his name with all the others in the billing block so would we follow suit? Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If he's included in the billing block, just put him in the billing block and describe him as the narrator in the cast section. If they chose to credit him as a cast member, then that's that in my mind. Think Bob Balaban in the Moonrise Kingdom article; while he physically appears in the film, he is not a "character" and only serves as narrator. Sock (tock talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    I am inclined to agree with you, but if our intention is to list the narrator along with the other stars then let's have the MOS be explicit about this. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Say Anything...[edit]

There's something wrong with the Say Anything... page. I opened the article history and instantly noticed that the history is very short, with only 13 edits going back to October 2007. Following the redirects (of which there are too many), I found this edit history, which is clearly the history from before one of the redirects. This needs to be sorted out, and I am certainly not the one to do it. Why are there so many redirects? Is the ellipsis really that confusing? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hah, that's crazy. See WP:HISTMERGE to request an admin to fix this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sheila1988 did the cut-and-paste; cut then paste. Sheila, please don't do this. For a given page, we need to make sure that the page history is centralized. This can be done with proper moves. Cutting and pasting will inappropriately split the page history. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)
Thanks, Erik. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
An eerie coincidence that I heard the news of John Mahoney's passing a few moments after reading this thread. RIP JM. MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you think we should move it back to Say Anything... (i.e. with three periods)? If you look at the link counts, the page with three periods has twice as many incoming links as the page with the ellipsis. Editors are more likely to link through something they can type. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at it there haven't been many edits since the cut and paste job: [1]. I honestly think it would be easier to just restore the article at its old page and restore the redirect on the ellipsis page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
MOS:ELLIPSIS recommends "a set of three unspaced dots" over the pre-composed ellipsis character. A history merge is going to resolve the problem at the wrong page name so I am going ahead with the revert. If anybody feels that the article should use the pre-composed ellipsis character then it would be easier to just carry out a rename after the revert in the standard fashion. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I'll withdraw the history merge request. There's not much to merge, anyway. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Your fix has now been reverted. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I would just go ahead with the histmerge request. I know it's "only" 13 edits, but still, it's a matter of correct procedure. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Erm... should the ellipsis be included in the article title in the first place? Looks like a non-standard stylisation to me, ala "ALIEN³". See Nights into Dreams, stylised as NiGHTS into Dreams..., for an example. Popcornduff (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point... can you go ahead and cut-and-paste the page contents to Say Anything (film)? Face-tongue.svg No, let's get the histmerge done and then perhaps put in a request to move. I could see precedent -- About Last Night... is at About Last Night (1986 film). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There is also With a Friend Like Harry... and if... (yes, lowercase) and Waiting... (film) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There's also When Harry Met Sally.... Seems we're inconsistent about it. Quelle surprise. Popcornduff (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be two different debates going on here. The first is whether the title should include the ellipsis or not, and if so how the ellipsis should be written i.e. Say Anything (film) (without the ellipsis), as Say Anything… (with the special ellipsis character) and Say Anything... (where the ellipsis is simply written as three dots). They look identical put if you try highlighting them with your mouse you will see that you can highlight each dot individually in the three dot version. The article originally existed at Say Anything... (three dots) but was cut and pasted to Say Anything… (ellipsis character). MOS:ELLIPSIS favors three dots over the special character so I though a revert would be the better solution because a history merge would have left the article at the wrong page. However, there is nothing to prevent a history merge at the proper page; I don't think it is necessary because there wasn't any substantial development at the cut and paste version, but if the Film project wants to cover its back then there is no harm in carrying it out. As for whether the article should be moved to Say Anything (film) I am not sure if this would count as a stylisation or a WP:COMMONNAME issue; personally it looks like a can of worms to me so I think we should settle the ellipsis issue first. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is getting exasperating now. We have had one editor PRehse restore the cut and paste job and then RHaworth moved the article from Say Anything... (where the ellipsis is simply written as three dots) to Say Anything… (with the special ellipsis character). At the moment no consensus exists for such a move, and such a rename goes against MOS:ELLIPSIS. The original move was a unilateral cut and paste job, and the article should remain at Say Anything... (three dots) where it was for many years before the cut and paste. If editors wish to move the article to Say Anything… (with the special ellipsis character) in contravention of the MOS then there really needs to be a move discussion first. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    For the record, I endorse the three-dot approach per MOS:ELLIPSIS, as Betty highlighted. RHaworth, why the move against the MOS? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    I would also go for three periods and not the ellipsis. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative endings?[edit]

Hello. On the Men in Black II page, a disruptive IP hopper from Houston inserted an alternative ending, which I think is not necessary, so I had to remove it. The IP has also been causing issues on the Spider-Man film articles for a long time ([2], [3]). For the alternative endings, is it relevant to list those if they have sources or should they be removed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to discuss deleted scenes and alternate cuts in the production section, with relevant sources, particularly if we know why they were not chosen / deleted, etc. Always focus on the real world aspect. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Adam that it depends on the sources writing about them. Alternate endings probably get the most focus of deleted scenes since they can change the meaning of the film. I think most instances, though, can be relegated to the production section. (Or even a home media section if applicable.) The more prominent instances, especially theatrical releases (and perhaps Director's Cuts), may warrant subsections under the plot summary. Not seeing any real discussion among sources about Men in Black III, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The alternate ending in I Am Legend is also unsourced. That IP hopper has just re-added the alternate ending to Cooties (film), which is still unsourced, so I had to revert it and gave the IP a final warning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for Dirty Dancing[edit]

I have nominated Dirty Dancing for a good article reassessment here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the good article criteria. Thank you. Slightlymad 10:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


There is a discussion about its status as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Allowing_iMDB_as_a_reliable_source_for_filmographies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Variety Insight[edit]

This database is currently being widely used to source information in articles such as the production companies in infoboxes. It is being claimed as reliable due to being the database of Variety (magazine), which is definitely a reliable source. However, the information that it is being used to source is often information that we do not already have from other reliable sources. My issue with this is that I feel that any reliable information that Variety has on a film should realistically appear in one of their articles, rather than just be added to their database. My question is, can we use the database as a reliable source for all the content it holds, or should another source such as an actual article be required to confirm that the information is accurate? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of Variety Insight, but it does seem reputable. And unless I'm missing something, the content can only be access behind a pay wall. While this is allowed, it does make it more difficult to check its accuracy in sourcing. I do agree with your assessment that if Variety has this in their database (especially for future films), it at one point or another should appear in one of their articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a professionally-maintained, fact-checked database. See Variety Insight. So, yes, it's obviously a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not the question I asked. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. If you require another source to substantiate the authenticity of the information then you are de facto declaring it not a reliable source. That would basically put it into the same bracket as IMDB. If there are reasons why it should not be considered a reliable source then let's discuss them and make a decision. If you have another source that contradicts Variety Insight then that is a content dispute and needs to be resolved through discussion on the basis of the evidence available. But ultimately, we don't require an extra source to corroborate information from something like the AFI Catalog, so why would we do that in this case if we regard it as reliable? Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The question is, do we trust that this database is accurate simply because it comes from Variety, or do we use it as a guide to look for articles, such as those published by Variety, with the information it contains. If we are willing to accept that the database has accurate information in it that Variety has not released elsewhere then that is fine and we can carry on how users have been using it. But if we think it odd that there is information in the database that is not stated elsewhere, then I don't think we should be using this as a reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we don't trust that it's accurate "simply because it comes from Variety". We trust that it's accurate because it's a fact-checked, professionally maintained database. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I could agree with NinjaRobotPirate more. adamstom.97, I'm a little lost on your point here. Variety gets exclusives and consistently reports information we have all long-considered to be reliable. It's not like they're some random local newspaper, studios and producers regularly tell things to Variety that maybe aren't expressed elsewhere because they know the clout Variety carries, much like Hollywood Reporter and, lately, Deadline. If you're accepting Variety as a fact-checked and reliable source, I don't understand how a sub-site of theirs maintained by the same people with their own fact-checked information, exempt from user-submitted information, and coming from the same sources as the exclusives we regularly reiterate here, could not be considered reliable without saying the same of Variety. Sock (tock talk) 21:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I just found it suspect that they would quietly add information to a database but not publish an article about it, is all. I'm not questioning Variety or the general quality of their information, I just wondered if it bothered anyone else that they may deal with their database separately from their articles and therefore not necessarily have the same quality controls. I can see that I am alone with that concern. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

List of films in country X[edit]

I am looking for some kind of guideline regarding the use of both English title and native title for lists of films of a country where English isn't the first language. I noticed at List of Argentine films of 2006 that the films are listed with their Spanish title although some of them link to pages where the name is titled in English. Another example, List of Portuguese films of 2006, lists with their Portuguese title if there is no article, but in English where a title exists. A third, List of Israeli films of 2006, includes original titles, but not in a separate column, so they cannot be sorted.

Wouldn't it be better to have the native title and the English-language title listed in separate columns in such a list, to aid navigation? Or am I missing something here? Thanks, C679 08:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding presentation and sortability, I wouldn't try to apply one rule for all country cinemas. The Israeli lists for example are presented chronologically by premiere date, with vertical month names. Sorting such lists by title would have a terrible result. Hoverfish Talk 10:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow how it would be terrible to allow sorting by title. Vertical month names do not add extra information to such a table. Just a personal preference? Anyway my concern isn't the Israeli list; if we are looking for an Argentinian film on the list searching by the Argentinian name, it cannot be found there. Would it not be preferable to have the native title in the table? Anybody? C679 11:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The Portuguese list has the best layout of those three, purely for sortability. The other two are terribly done. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cloudz679, no personal preference. I just tested placing class="wikitable sortable", and in the preview all the vertically written months repeated in each row and then I tried sorting by title and it didn't work well at all. This is the "terrible result" I mentioned. Now if there is a concensus here to apply a uniform presentation across all country film lists (per Portuguese list, as mentioned above), I have no problem with it. I do think we should ping some key contibutors to these lists before a final go-ahead though. Hoverfish Talk 14:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Lugnuts. Keep it simple, keep it sortable. Also, while I don't mind including the native title, the English WP:COMMONNAME title should be definitely present as the one used on the English Wikipedia. If an article exists on the native Wikipedia but not on the English Wikipedia then {{Interlanguage link}} can be used. On another note, the admissions in the Portuguese table look like they violate MOS:DECIMAL to me (I presume Bad Blood had 29,239 admissions rather than 29 and a bit). Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, what I do on the Canadian film lists is English Title (French Title) whenever possible. There may still be some instances where somebody else has done French Title (English Title) instead, but I try to correct those when I see them, and there are certainly also some French-language films that are at just French Title because we haven't yet found or sourced any English-language title at all. I don't consider separate columns for the English and French titles to be a useful strategy in the Canadian lists, however, because Canada also makes English-language films, and so a French-title column would be 50 to 75 per cent blank in most cases — but obviously films from Argentina would virtually all have Spanish-language native titles, so it may be a better idea there. I agree that there can't really be a "one size fits all" solution that applies the same way to all lists of films — every country is going to have different needs that might require different handling. If you want to try adding separate English and Spanish title columns to the Argentine lists, then by all means give it a shot — just don't make me do that to the Canadian lists too, because the differing circumstances would make it less useful here. (Another thing we don't include in the Canadian lists, even though some other countries do, is a "release date" column — in many (though not all) cases, an exact release date is much harder for us to properly source than it is elsewhere, and it would lead to constant editwarring over whether we should list a film at its film festival premiere or its commercial release date, which the way Canadian film works have been known to be as much as three full years apart sometimes.) Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Allocine name[edit]

Moin Moin together, I would like to change the Template:Allocine name into a template using Wikidata as well. Speak from your side anything against it? Ragards --Crazy1880 (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Release and marketing structuring[edit]

There is a discussion to amend WP:FILMMARKETING regarding how to have a "Marketing" sub-section under a "Release" section. Please see the discussion here: WT:MOSFILM#Marketing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Again the issue of splitting film award articles by decade[edit]

User:Michael 182 / User: is back as User: and is discussing in Talk:Golden Lion about splitting the article in decades, ignoring sortability. If anyone cares to comment, please do so. Hoverfish Talk 10:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Previous dicussion here: Hoverfish Talk 10:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I copy here the comment the said editor left in the archived discussion : Hoverfish Talk 02:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that multiple articles from important award categories, for example the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama have a division by decades within the article. This means that the table is in fact broken because of it. I thinl that these help people read through the article in a better way, as the information is presented in a more dinamic format. If this format is alreday being used in these articles, why can't they be used in the Golden Lion or the Golden Bear. (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The first list has only film title and network, so not worth talking about sortability. In my opinion, the second list should be merged in one sortable table. Hoverfish Talk 03:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the talk page from Golden Lion and I just have one question. Why isn't it possible to have a sortable table that is also divided by decades, like Academy Award for Best Director?. I don't know, but it sounds like a good idea to me. (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
In the past, I have attempted in various ways to trick the limitations of sortable tables and place headers that define separate sections in a sortable table. It simply doesn't work. Hoverfish Talk 13:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
How exactly do you know that what you've tried to do doesn't work? (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Your question is in bad faith, it taxes my time and borders on disruptive behaviour. Here is what you need to know about sortable tables: Help:Table#Sortable tables & WP:WHENTABLE. I suggest you start by learning yourself how things work. Hoverfish Talk 22:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion but why don't eliminate the sortability from the table altogether?. I've seen this in the Academy Award for Best Picture and no one seems to have any problem with that. (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The list you mention does not state director, so there is nothing very useful to sort by except from the film title itself. Hoverfish Talk 17:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Then take for example the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. It has a director's column and also has a table without sortability. And there hasn`t been any complaints with this article as well. (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The list you link includes the winner film (both highlighted and in bold so it can be distinguished from other entries) as well as nominatied ones for each year. I don't see how such a list would be sorted in any useful way. In the main award lists there are only the winner film, one or at times two or three in tie. We want these lists sortable because sortability makes sense there. Do you wish to find the directors that won this award? Sort by director and you have it, plus you can see what films by them won, even though one may have been in the 1980s and another in the 1990s. In any case, the main award lists are presented in one sortable table and trying to split them by decades will cause you another block. Hoverfish Talk 01:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Starring section revisited[edit]

User Beyond My Ken has re-opened the discussion on starring credits in infoboxes here. Please add your opinions so we can hopefully reach a solid resolution and avoid letting this conversation fizzle out as it has the last few times it was attempted. Sock (tock talk) 22:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hellraiser and Children of the Corn[edit]

Because the edit wars have already started, I'm bringing this here. There needs to be some opinions over at Talk:Hellraiser: Judgment regarding the inclusion of Children of the Corn information in the article. It appears that there is an insinuation from the editors that there is some link between the films beyond who owns them and that they were both delayed releases. Please see the talk page for details on it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please direct all your responses to that Talk Page, as to not split the discussion. DarkKnight2149 18:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Situation with Armageddon[edit]

There's a edit warring/dispute situation in Armageddon. Those involved besides me include Gareth Griffith-Jones, TheOldJacobite, Beyond My Ken, GreenMeansGo and Aledownload. There a serious clash of style and issues with the article's infobox on the cast table of it and the cast section of that movie. TheOldJacobite has been shrinking the cast section down to unnecessarily low levels, which that movie has a lot of notable actors on it and Gareth Griffith-Jones has removed most of the cast in the infoboxes which the names he removed are on the bulletin board of the theatrical poster. They haven't stopped doing that and the article is under full protection for a week as a result of this dispute. We need all the help we can get to solve this situation. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to discussion: Talk:Armageddon (1998 film)#Welcome to the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
As a note, I was the one who requested protection and started the talk page discussion, but I have no editorial opinion either way as to which content should be included in the article. GMGtalk 18:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)