Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

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

The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking sources[edit]

While I'm trying to expand upon the The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking article to include the production section (there isn't a section yet) and expand the reception section using sources from sources from newspapers, the AFI and the BFI, I may need some help finding some more additional sources (i.e. Variety and Hollywood Reporter archives, etc.). Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a forgotten flop so I don't fancy your chances. IMDB has links to news stories so that may be an avenue worth exploring. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand where your concerns are coming from, Betty. Unfortunately, when I used IMDb to look for news stories on the subject, it doesn't show anything regarding the film's production, hence that's why I'm looking for literary sources that are readily available at libraries or online databases (such as Google, JSTOR or EBSCOHost). Maybe these Hollywood Reporter sources could work ([1], [2])? I've already contacted Erik and Lugnuts regarding the matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked in my local library databases, and couldn't find anything useful. The links you have above seem like they could make for a good source (but it looks like you may have copied the same link twice?) --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the links. I've already rectified this and have just added a production section; it may need some expansion. I'll plan get it up to a C-Class or a B-Class article at the very least. Maybe we can also use Ken Annakin's So You Wanna Be a Director? as a source, since his autobiography definitely includes his work on that film; or dig up the LA Times archives for production information? Just some thoughts I want to throw out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
AFI says it was shot in Jacksonville. That's a good sign. Local media will generally cover film productions when they're shot outside LA and NYC. A Google search turns up this newspaper article. That article in turn references "a 2005 Times-Union story" that has even more details. It shouldn't be too hard to find that. Plus, now you know more details about where it was shot, and you can feed that into more Google searches. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Using Highbeam Research, I found two Chicago Sun-Times articles for the film (unfortunately, it's not the full text, which is only available to subscribers): [3], [4]. And I've just received word from Erik that there are sources listed on the Film Literature Index here. Another possibility is Film Index International. And like I said, the director's memoir here also apparently covers the film in part. Google Scholar and Google Books list some results here and here (with director's name added to filter for the film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A quick update. I've also found some Variety sources that weren't available online, but at my local library; I've just now requested an assessment for at least a C-Class. I will continue to expand on it until it's at least a B-Class; that's my ultimate goal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about name usage over at Interstellar (film)[edit]

What's the policy when two characters share the same name - and are referenced in a film. Usually a character is referred to by their surname, and I generally refer to them by christian name if there are multiple shared surnames, but a user over at Interstellar (film) claims this to be sexist, due to one character being female.

What's the established process here? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

User the names of the characters as credited. No ambiguity there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I perhaps should have been clearer, this isn't about "Murph" / "Murphy" which I agree is clear cut, but there are two characters called "Brand": John Brand, and Amelia Brand. Usually we would simply say "Brand did this, and Brand did that" - but in this case it could be confusing as to which Brand we are referring to. So how do we distinguish between each? Do we use a full name "Amelia Brand", do we resort to first names "Amelia", or do we just continue with "Brand" and hope it's clear to the reader which it is?
My thought would be that in the first instance to introduce the character we say "Amelia Brand", and then in all following instances we use the first name "Amelia" - but I'm asking for clarification, as that's simply my feeling on the subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
There are two characters, one is credited as Professor Brand and the other is credited as Brand. First names are not in the credits. Credits in the article don't seem to match the actual film credits as WP:FILMCAST recommends. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
In this instance I would be introducing them with their full names and then using their given names moving forward, otherwise it will just be too confusing and not make much sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe that both the plot and the cast list should be comprehensible and non-sexist. And I consider it sexist to call an adult scientist by her first name as if she still were a child, while her Professor (whose first name we do know) and here father (whose first name we do know) are called by their last name. --Vigilius (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not sexist if it is not being done because of their sex... - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Usually the senior gets preference over the junior and that is because of seniority, not sex. Generally when there is name ambiguity we use as much of the name as need to remove the ambiguity which would mean full names for both. However, a I stated above, the credits say the names are "Professor Brand" and "Brand" and that is also not ambiguous if used consistently. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Professor Brand" is the credited name and not ambiguous so that can be used as is; however, "Brand" on its own (the credited name of the Hathaway character") is ambiguous so the plot summary requires clarification. The AFI synopsis refers to the character as "Amelia", so I would just go with that. While I sympathize with Vigilius's point we shouldn't obfuscate plot details to correct the inherent sexist bias of the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've made changes based on discussion here. Thanks for clarification Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Mocked by Rifftrax[edit] and are adding unsourced "the film was mocked by Rifftrax" claims to articles (example diff). The first problem, of course, is that this is unsourced. If it's true, it's probably not that hard to verify through the official Rifftrax website. But is there some special reason we should be listing this? We don't list when any number of YouTube channels mock a film, some of which are probably notable. If there were third party coverage, OK, but this just looks like advertising to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a clear case of spamming (probably by somebody connected to the site). I think you would be in your rights as an admin to issue blocks here. There is no content dispute, just spamming. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC) just popped up on my watchlist. DaßWölf 00:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Does everyone agree this is spamming? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I will note that some of the live show Rifftrax stuff does does get noticed in RSes that could be used (eg for Krull), but I 100% agree that the routine VODs they release are not mentioned in sources, and thus not necessary to document. --Masem (t) 01:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. Rifftrax riffs should be mentioned in film articles only if they have some notability themselves. For other cases List of RiffTrax should suffice. DaßWölf 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Subreddit formatting in articles[edit]

Figured I'd ask this question here, since I know our project has many active editors. Does anyone know if there is a preferred style method when talking about a Reddit subreddit in article? For example (and why I'm posting here), I've just put a little info on Avengers: Infinity War about the mass ban that happened last month. When talking about the subreddit in question, is it okay to use "r/thanosdidnothingwrong"? I'm currently going about it by saying something along the lines of "... with the subreddit, Thanos Did Nothing Wrong... ". I've quickly looked around various MOS pages I thought might have the info but came up empty. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe their actual names are "r/___", which is why we have pages like r/science. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know that article existed. I've adjusted accordingly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Flintstones reception expansion[edit]

In The Flintstones, I discovered that there are very few critic opinions in the reception section, aside from Siskel and Ebert. I'm thinking about expanding it to include each critic's reviews (including the addition Ebert's own review), using Ben-Hur (1959 film) and Doctor Strange as a point of reference, such as including reviews from The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused what you're asking about exactly that is different from expanding any underdeveloped critical reception section. Are you asking about which reviews to pick, or balancing them based on the overall consensus, or what? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking about which reviews we should use to balance the negative and positive based on the overall consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
In some cases I look at Metacritic and how many reviews they mark as positive, mixed, or negative. It looks like there are five in each category. Considering that the "metascore" is 38 (meaning more weight toward the negative reviews than the other categories), maybe you could do three negative reviews and two of the others. You could also mention the number of reviews in each Metacritic category at the beginning, e.g., "Metacritic assessed 15 reviews and categorized five as negative, five as mixed, and five as positive." For me, it seems a reasonable rule of thumb to follow in striking a balance. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Review aggregators discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Overlink. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Conjuring (film series)#Requested move 26 August 2018[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Conjuring (film series)#Requested move 26 August 2018. Joeyconnick (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC) —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Subsection headings[edit]

Not sure if other editors have noticed, but it seems like more and more (mainstream) film articles are getting out of control with the number of subsection headings despite minimal content under any given heading. This seems to be a result of an extremely cookie-cutter approach by some editors (possibly stemming in the superhero films, whose articles are the most trafficked). While it may work for a superhero film article that is almost always fleshed-out, it is highly unnecessary to shoehorn subsection headings into articles that barely have any content and has no guarantee of actually growing to fit the structure. So I invite editors to remove such headings where there is insufficient content to warrant them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested in the tangential discussion WT:MOS#RfC on single subsections. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Following on from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/ and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_19#Template:TCMDb_title (regarding the TCM template being geoblocked in Europe) I have made a proposal to apply Lugnuts' fix. The discussion is at Template_talk:TCMDb_title. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Lupe VélezLupe Velez[edit]

The above nomination is at Talk:Lupe Vélez#Requested move 28 August 2018.    Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 15:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sabu DastagirSabu (actor)[edit]

Another name-related nomination is at Talk:Sabu Dastagir#Requested move 27 August 2018.    Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 15:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes update[edit]

Rotten Tomatoes announced here that they will be adding more critics. (There is also news coverage of this update, if you want to read some outside perspectives.) While I do not think this will impact us directly, I do think the continued emphasis on the binary approach of being only positive or negative means that we should continue to pair Metacritic results with this (not that we had a problem doing that anyway). We may also want to be more cognizant of updating RT scores and review counts if reviews will be added for past films. It does seem to mean that the likelihood of a film reaching and staying at 100% will become vanishingly small. The New York Times did say here that the RT "top critics" will be looked at next. As outlined at MOS:FILM#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics, we do not use this, but depending on the changes, we may want to revisit it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Albert RitzAl Ritz and Harold RitzHarry Ritz[edit]

One additional (dual) name-related nomination is at Talk:Albert Ritz#Requested move 23 August 2018.    Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 17:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether to update accessdate[edit]

User:Dan56 is asking User:IUpdateRottenTomatoes not to update the retrieved date of a citation to Rotten Tomatoes when updating an RT score. I've never heard of this idea nor have I witnessed it being recommended or practiced. As far as I'm concerned a retrieved date should indicate the date when the information was retrieved, not when the source was first added, especially when it comes to variable information like RT/Metacritic scores and box office revenues because otherwise there would be no way to know how old the information is. Is what Dan56 is advocating something recommended or put in practice? Is there an existing consensus or guideline? Nardog (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the opposite of what should be happening, the accessdate definitely should be updated if the data is. What @Dan56 gave as reasoning is that the accessdate indicates "the date that the URL was found to be working", but what the sentence in the template documentation actually says is "the date that the URL was found to be working and to support the text being cited" (emphasis mine). What that says to me is that the date needs to be when you retrieved the actual data that you are citing in the article, so if you update the RT score then the accessdate needs to reflect that RT has changed since the score was last updated. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The majority of the material--with the exception of the one numerical figure--had been retrieved earlier. Updating an accessdate does not prove how old the information is; it proves when the user revised material in an article to reflect said information. I was not asking them to do anything: My exact words to them were "You do not have to...", and I only made it a point because they had brought it up when I inadvertently reverted that portion of their changes in an edit to an article. I did not mean to start this; I just wanted to undo an inexplicable section-heading change. I have no further interest in this; let IUpdateRottenTomatoes change accessdates as they please. Dan56 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Dan56, I realize you're backing off, but there's another good reason for updating the access date in situations like this. If for some reason, the URL to the reference breaks, an editor can search online archives like Wayback and pull an archived copy from a date closest to the listed access date. Granted, that's less likely to ever be needed for a Rotten Tomatoes reference, but it's another reason to make sure that parameter is updated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the accessdate should be a date where all the content attributed to that source was present, not 95% of the content or whatever. We should also assume readers may use the accessdate to think "that was the state of affairs on that date". For example, listing the box office after a month with an old Box Office Mojo accessdate three days into the run would be factually wrong. Many readers know that Box Office Mojo updates daily. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


If interested, please share your opinion on the Rfc on Character Names in plot summaries. Jauerbackdude?/dude.

Plot summary of D-Tox[edit]

There's an issue about the film D-Tox in the plot summary which is a big summary. The user name Binksternet edit the plot summary of it way too short as it's beyond the 400 word limit as see in this diff and I reverted it back, but it is still very large summary. So we need it to at least shortened to while maintaining the plot summary of that movie without making way too short. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this has been attended to. DonIago (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, by NinjaRobotPirate. He shortened the summary down and I did a minor tune up to make it concise and somewhat cleaner. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sixteen Candles sequel[edit]

There is currently a discussion underway at the Sixteen Candles talk page as to whether information about a proposed sequel should be included in the article. I removed the relevant section, arguing that the sources are several years old, and a Google search found no recent news about it. SummerPhD restored it, arguing that it is still relevant. I'd like some other editor's opinions on this, please. Is there a policy at the Film Project about such things? Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there are any guidelines about this. Considering how many not-quite-upcoming films I've merged to broader articles, I think it is worth keeping details of what was attempted in the past. Sometimes development can take a while, and sometimes news of development seems to pop up occasionally until something finally gets made (or never does). Is it possible to have a sentence about the lack of progress? I know it is not a "sourced" sentence to have, but it feels commonsense enough to say, "There have been no updates on the film's development since" or something along these lines. I don't know how old development news should be to take more drastic measures. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Erik that the info should be kept, providing it's all sourced, of course. There must be dozens and dozens of similar situations of films with planned remakes, sequels, preqels, etc. Just be careful of something like this, which follows the age-old problem of a non-reliable source saying something, which then gets picked up by a reliable source, and before you know it, stays in a WP article for years! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I have to say, I've seen plenty of film articles in which information about projected sequels was removed when said film never materialized. It seems pretty clear that there's no consensus about how to handle such situations. How many sequels, remakes, reboots, etc., have been discussed in recent years and then never gained traction? In this case, the idea for the sequel came from Molly Ringwald herself, and was sourced the reliable sources, so that is not an issue. I truly do wonder how long we wait before such claims become stale. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It is stale. It just needs to be stated as such in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the coverage, it looks like it ranges from 2003 to 2008 at the latest (as far as I can tell). Maybe have a summary sentence at the beginning saying that a sequel was discussed from 2003 to 2008, and then get into details? Like 2003 with USA Network working on development, and 2008 with Ringwald still expressing desire for a sequel despite no traction. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
At the moment the statement doesn't really tells us much. Was there a script? Finance? A shooting date? Or was it just a case of a washed-up star wanting to revive her career with a sequel to her biggest hit? If there was some development then by all means document it, but I don't really see much purpose to the section as it currently stands. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there was development as seen here in 2003, but there has been no development-related update since that year. This in 2012 mentions the sequel talk. This and this in 2014 mentions it as well. We would probably remiss to not mention it at all. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Video games and soundtracks by director categories[edit]

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion and this one at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Unintentional redirect for It – Chapter Two[edit]

Please see here for a conversation regarding It: Chapter Two. When entering the title as displayed (It: Chapter Two), you're redirected to the Italian Wikipedia page for "Chapter Two", and myself and another user feel a note needs to be placed on the Italian page. Sock (tock talk) 19:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That's the weirdest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I think this is a WP:VPT issue quite honestly. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Betty. You should made a discussion at VPT, because I feel like the article should be living at It: Chapter Two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This behavior is a consequence of how interwiki linking works. See WP:NC-COLON. The only way to fix that here is the template {{correct title}}. I would not edit the it.wp page directly, though you can leave a talk page note there and maybe someone there will agree that it is a problem they should do something about. --Izno (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Robin Williams[edit]

There's a discussion regarding a potential GA/FA push for Robin Williams. The discussion can be found at Talk:Robin Williams#Possible GA/FA push?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Amazon Video films and documentaries at TfD[edit]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Starring/film poster[edit]

Hi. Please can someone take a second to look at this article with regards to the starring field parameter in the infobox? As far as I can tell, there are only two names on the poster, so these are the only two that should be listed here? Is that correct? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The billing block says this: A film by Laura Bispuri, with Albra Rohrwacher and Flonja Kodheli, Lars Eidinger, Luan Jaha, Bruno Shllaku, Ilire Celaj, Drenica Selimaj, Emily Ferratello, Produced by Marta Donzelli [...]. Hope this helps. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The extra-large version here shows the full set of names in the billing block. (Gonnym beat me to it) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I stand corrected. Thanks both. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
FYI to editors that confirmed the billing:
I added the names billed in the film poster to the article's infobox. User:Lugnuts kept deleting them.
His persistent deletions have been recorded in the article's talk page here. Even though I used the film poster to support my inclusion of the actor names, and User:Lugnuts consistently deleted them, he posted an edit warring warning on my talk page. Because of your confirmation of what the poster proves, he has now self-reverted his last deletion of the names (without providing a summary) and restored them to the infobox. However, he has not apologized for accusing me of edit warring when I had used the poster as the source — and he would not allow the names to be included. An editor that doesn't have my mettle is not going to subject her/himself to the intransigence of another editor and will stop trying to contribute to the improvement of this article, or any article in which another editor creates roadblocks. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox character[edit]

I recently reverted the addition of a character infobox to the Falling Down article. I have never seen a film article with a character infobox, and assume there is a policy or consensus against their use. In case this is restored, can someone point me to the guideline or policy on this? Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline against their use but I agree they are impractical on film articles. Furthermore, the FUR for the image is invalid because it neither illustrates the subject of the article (which is the film) and nor does it facilitate critical commentary. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that character infobox would be most appropriate if the section containing it was actually focused on the character to some extent, like what happens with album infoboxes. Right now it is just shoehorned into the "Production" section. Furthermore, I think album sections and their infoboxes are pretty self-contained, where I think it is hard to have a character section and infobox because many different details about the character are scattered throughout the article. Basically, it seems most appropriate to have the character infobox in a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. In the case of Falling Down, this is one editor who seems obsessed with what he perceives as the singular importance of this character. If there is adequate information and sources for the character's importance, though, that would support a stand-alone article, not a section in the film article. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Tried looking for any MoS guideline that deals with multiple infoboxes on a page, but couldn't fine one. My personal opinion is that 1 should be the max in most cases, with exception beings soundtrack albums. --Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Start date and age templates for film companies[edit]

I've noticed that in some articles for film companies like Paramount Pictures and Universal Pictures, the infoboxes include the {{start date and age}} template in the foundation dates. Is it necessary to list them if possible? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also IBM for example, seems appropriate if the company has been around for a long time as their age itself is somewhat notable and worth pointing out. For more recent companies seems trivial. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I would say not to worry about the precise date in most cases. Just the year would be useful to know roughly how long a company has been around. Even "recent" companies stop becoming recent as time goes by. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)