This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Today's featured article requests 03 Feb 2025 – Claire Redfield (talk ·  · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Did you know 26 Dec 2024 – Scorsese Baby Daddy (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by PSA (t · c); see discussion 25 Dec 2024 – Loew's Jersey Theatre (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Epicgenius (t · c); see discussion 25 Dec 2024 – Burt (crocodile) (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by CFA (t · c); see discussion 21 Dec 2024 – Lonely Orchid (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 14 Dec 2024 – The Valiant Girl White Rose (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 14 Dec 2024 – Blossoms Under Somewhere (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 09 Dec 2024 – An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 09 Dec 2024 – Her Story (2024 film) (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Toadboy123 (t · c); see discussion 09 Dec 2024 – Papa (2024 film) (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 08 Dec 2024 – Zhang Xinsheng (film) (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion (4 more...) Featured article candidates 18 Dec 2024 – Chris Redfield (talk ·  · hist) was FA nominated by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion 28 Oct 2024 – Pulgasari (talk ·  · hist) was FA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 05 Dec 2024 – List of accolades received by Hidden Figures (talk ·  · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 29 Nov 2024 – List of Mingxing films (talk ·  · hist) was FL nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 21 Nov 2024 – List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (talk ·  · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 25 Dec 2024 – Top Gun: Maverick (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Lankyant (t · c); start 23 Dec 2024 – High and Low (1963 film) (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Plifal (t · c); start 18 Dec 2024 – 42 (film) (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Yovt (t · c); start 15 Dec 2024 – Miss Shampoo (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start 09 Dec 2024 – Hundreds of Beavers (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Jon698 (t · c); start 09 Dec 2024 – Pixels (2015 film) (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Yovt (t · c); start 07 Dec 2024 – Two Stars in the Milky Way (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); start 21 Nov 2024 – Cyborgs (film) (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Reidgreg (t · c); start 19 Nov 2024 – The Super Mario Bros. Movie (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Yovt (t · c); see discussion 18 Nov 2024 – The Fabelmans (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by HM2021 (t · c); start (20 more...) Featured article reviews 07 Dec 2024 – Gertie the Dinosaur (talk ·  · hist) was put up for FA review by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion 16 Nov 2024 – Boogeyman 2 (talk ·  · hist) was put up for FA review by Caleb Stanford (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 19 Dec 2024 – Temper (film) (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by AirshipJungleman29 (t · c); see discussion 18 Dec 2024 – Fantastic Four in film (talk ·  · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 11 Dec 2024 – Wicked (2024 film) (talk ·  · hist) has an RfC by Happily888 (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 19 Nov 2024 – Kill Bill (SZA song) (talk ·  · hist) has been put up for PR by PSA (t · c); see discussion 18 Oct 2024 – How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies (talk ·  · hist) has been put up for PR by M48SKY (t · c); see discussion 09 Oct 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk ·  · hist) has been put up for PR by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk ·  · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

WikiProject Film
General information () 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 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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Hi, just searched for films in 1981 in film. The list has been removed in favour of the country lists. Then I click List of American films of 1981 and it has a bloated release list with excessive cast which makes it difficult to browse and find films, and even has some films which aren't American or from that year. I restored the American lists from around 1970 to 2000 back to the clean A-Z you see in List of American films of 1956 a few months back but the IP has reverted back to the bloated tables on all. All I want is a simple A-Z list for easy browsing, consistently by year and country, it's why I created the lists in the first place! It is time consuming going back and finding the original text and restoring and even if I do that it seems like nobody is watching these lists and would help revert the ip if he did it again. There also seems to be a tendency on recent years for the big bloated release tables, I argue that even those should be converted to simple A-Z lists. Is there any agreement here that A-Z format is much easier for browsing and more desirable than by release date? Release date seems appropriate for the current or next year to see what is being released, but a simple A-Z is much easier for general browsing of past years. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion on this. The tables are sortable, so if you want an A-Z list, it's one-click away (but see my note further on), even if it's not as concise. That said, the 'cleaner' format does have a separate column for Director, which I think is good, but also one for Genre, which I think is problematic (unless sourced). Both lists have breaks in them that prevent a one-click sort of all the films on the list, which might be frustrating for readers. In the end I think which format is 'better' could depend on what kinds of information one is looking for. Was there any discussion about the changes to the format? DonIago (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion at all that I'm aware of. I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate list of films by release date but I think these lists should be simple A-Z, concise lists for quick browsing. The release lists are separated by months though, so A-Z isn't useful. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the alphabetical list (as demonstrated in List of American films of 1956) is much harder to read than the date-based list in List of American films of 1981. It's because of the whitespace in the Title column. The 1956 list is more cluttered, in that regard. Whichever way it's sorted, it'd be nice to retain good spacing. Useight (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't focus too much on spacing or formatting wikipedia to fit that. In the era of of people now able to adjust text size and other content on the site easily with a click of a toggle, it's never going to look the same for everyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the cast inclusion is excessive though Useight? You must be using a wider screen PC/laptop as it looks really bloated and cluttered on an iPad! I concede that the date format doesn't look as bad when viewed on a widescreen PC as it does on a small device. On a widescreen PC you could have a director, genre and even notes column if you cut the cast to the top billed stars. The problem is that the date format is harder to edit though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it's excessive. The cast should just be the actor/actress of the main character or two, if you ask me. But, yes, I always use my desktop computer. Useight (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up somewhat similarly at Talk:List of American films of 2024. Generally, more for the side bar being that the sidebar causes some accessibility issues (i.e: not sure screen readers will pick up January being written up and down for example). I do feel like an excessive crew listing is going a bit overboard and it not condusive to sorting. Do we need to know who the crew to this extent, or at all? Most screenwriters aren't known by name. Directors are slightly more so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Andrzej. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could have two sets of lists for the US, by release date and by A-Z. I'm not opposed to by release date if we can have a full A-Z (as default). But I think the cast needs to be drastically cut for all lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume when you are saying two sets, you are talking about two columns? This would be my proposal. I'd use the notes section to indicate if a film is the production of more than one country "I.e: US-Canadian co-production" or if there are two films with the same title with one year, we can disambiguate it as a disambiguation factor that most people would catch. (i.e: the lead star, the director, etc.). Brevity is the soul of wit, and we probably should keep these tidy and easy to add too over becoming a database of credits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A24 films released in the 2010s

Release date[a]	Title	Studio	Notes	Ref.
January 5	The Painter	Republic Pictures		[1]
January 12	Mean Girls	Paramount Pictures, Broadway Video, Little Stranger		[2]

Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list should be initially sorted with a first column of release date. I support the above table example. However, I don't think a note column is needed. This is an overview so any additional information is in the article. If a specific note is needed, one can be added with {{efn}}. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for chiming in Gonnym. Happy to remove the "note" section for most lists like List of American films of 2024, like, its not likely needed for the List of American films article. I'm more thinking about it for articles like List of French films of 1963. Very few continental Europe productions are from one singular country, and often produce within the context of a co-production, often with Italy, Spain, West Germany, etc. I feel this is a bit critical to understanding why something like a major Italian feature of the era like 8½ would be included on a list of French film productions. That said, maybe the studios or production companies involved would be enough in this case. Pinging @Dr. Blofeld: as well to weigh in on this if he could so we have more of a communal discussion/agreement/disagreement within the project. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with organizing film lists date-first instead of title-first is that they're organized by the date of commercial release, not the date of the initial premiere, which leaves films that premiere at film festivals but haven't gone into commercial release yet unable to be listed at all. For example, the Canadian lists are organized title first, which meant I could add any Canadian films that premiered at film festivals this year to List of Canadian films of 2024 right away, but for any country (US, France, etc.) whose lists are organized date-first, I had to leave stacks of films that premiered at Cannes or TIFF listed on the talk page for future editor attention if a future commercial-release date wasn't sourceable yet, even if the film had already premiered at a film festival.
But I shouldn't have had to do that: the moment a film's existence is known and sourceable at all, it should be able to be added to the relevant country list or lists right away, rather than having to wait weeks or months past its premiere at a film festival — especially since waiting to add a film to the list, instead of adding it right away, significantly increases the risk that the film will never get properly added to the list.
I additionally don't understand the argument above that "whitespace in the title column" makes the title-first list "harder" to read than the date-first version, as the date-first version still has "whitespace in the title column", and I fail to see that said whitespace hits differently if you put the release date before the title than it does if the release date is a later column. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too particular about the date first issue either way, but the manual of style for films states we should list films by their first release where they are publicly available, whether that's at a film festival, theatrical, streaming or home video release. Generally I would wait to have a date solidified as anything could happen, but beyond that, I'm seeing it only as a mild quibble for dates/titles to take the first slot and I doubt it would co fuse any readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bearcat on the date coming first. I do think we should have A-Z as default but we could also have List of American films of 1981 (by release date) etc in the bloated format if there is dispute. I created the lists purely with the goal of having a comprehensive A-Z list by country.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Bearcat:, @Gonnym:, i've made another draft here based on your comments. I don't really see the point of having a separate article (such as List of American films of 1981 (by release date)) for different sorting as we can easily have a "sort-table" function to let anyone sort the items the way they see fit. For consistency and to follow MOS:FILM. Per WP:FILMRELEASE, Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release

I'm proposing something like this then.

Opening	Title	Production company	Ref.
January 5	The Bricklayer	Vertical Entertainment, Millennium Media
January 4	DarkGame	Gravitas Ventures	[1]
January 5	Fugitive Dreams	Freestyle Releasing	[2]
January 5	He Went That Way	Vertical Entertainment, Mister Smith Entertainment	[3]
January 2	The Mummy Murders	Gravitas Ventures	[4]
January 5	Night Swim	Universal Pictures, Blumhouse Productions , Atomic Monster	[5]
January 5	The Painter	Republic Pictures	[6]
January 3	Self Reliance	Neon, Hulu , MRC , Paramount Global Content Distribution	[7]
January 5	Some Other Woman	Radiant Films International, Balcony 9 Productions	[8]
March 1	Dune: Part Two	Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures	[9]
March 1	Spaceman	Netflix, Tango Entertainment, Free Association	[10]

I still stand by the idea of some sort of "extra" info, for some articles lie List of French films of 1963, just to clarify why there will be several predominantly Italian productions in there along with more predominantly French titles. On changing the list on the 2024 american films list, it has already been reverted by editors and as we are coming closer to some sort of consensus here, I'll pass on reverting those edits until we can come forward here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that WP:FILMRELEASE is a section of the template documentation for {{Infobox film}}, not a broad policy statement that binds anything else besides what date goes in the infobox. If the consensus is to stick with date-first lists over title-first lists, then we probably should establish a wider policy that extends FILMRELEASE beyond just what date goes in the infobox, but as of right now it only applies to the infobox.

And I still prefer title-first format, at any rate; in addition to my previously noted concerns, date-first format also makes the lists significantly harder to edit at all, since in addition to just adding a row for any new film you also have to find and adjust multiple rowspan numbers in order to not break the entire table. Even for me as an experienced editor who knows that, it's still enough of an added burden to make me deeply reluctant to even touch a date-first list at all — and amateur/inexperienced editors are highly likely to not even know about that and make edits that outright break the lists, thus creating extra work for other people to fix.

Tables should always be organized on the simplest possible format that includes all of the important information, rather than formats that complicate the editing process and increase the likelihood of errors. In this case, date-first deeply complicates the process of editing a list, because it requires supplementary adjustment of one or more rowspan numbers in addition to simply adding a row to the list for a film that's being added to it, while title-first eliminates that problem.

There are additionally some films which would remain unable to be added to a date-first list at all, because we can't properly source any exact release date. I created an article literally just yesterday about Wild Flowers, a Canadian short film with a notability-making award nomination and sufficient other coverage to clear GNG — and while I was able to establish where the film premiered, I was not able to find what exact day it screened at that festival (that information already isn't available even from the festival's own website anymore). Since List of Canadian films of 2024 is organized title-first rather than date-first, this isn't a problem — but if it had been organized date-first instead, I would not be able to add the film to that list at all due to the unconfirmability of a specific day. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:, that will be an issue for several films and the release dates of older films, shorts, etc. are just not really known at the moment. While I think adding them is important, if you do not have a release date, it can still be added alphabetically with just an N/A tag or an Unknown tag. This prevents issues like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List it alphabetically where, if the lack of a confirmable release date means there's no date under which to list it? I'm not saying a release date column shouldn't be present, and have no issue with one being a later column, but the date shouldn't be the list's principal organizing criterion if we don't always even know what date a film can even go under in the first place. Title should be the first column, and release dates can be a later column, but the first column should be information that's always available for every film rather than information that's sometimes unlocatable. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I wasn't clear, but generally I agree that the title should come first. The average person is going to know a film by its title, not so much by the date it came out. My suggestion was only to have it sortable so if readers want to see a film by its release date, they have the option. I've done an example of this [[User:Andrzejbanas/ListSample here]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the date being first on those lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have it sorted by film title first. I apologize, I think I misunderstood your previous comment about it. Beyond that, are there any other issues. @Dr. Blofeld?

I'm happy to propose this otherwise.

Apologies for going back to re-edit this table. completely missed some clear points. I do think I agree with Blofeld that sorting by title is better. my points are the following.

• Not all films have known specific release dates, especially with older material. A title however, is something key and unmissable. It is much easier to sort by a title, add films to a list without having to re-arrange a table with more complicated code. This makes it easier for editors.

  With newer films, dates change, either with production changing, with older films, newer material can be found. It is easier to sort out films this way.

For now this is preferred list.

I couldn't get the table to display correctly on the talk page, so I've moved it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support sortable columns for release date and studio if we can fit them in. I just think the current release lists look horribly bloated on smaller devices and are much harder to browse than a simple A-Z. If we can get release date added I think we should go back to A-Z. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My list above might have got buried in my back and forth hustle. But I've created a list that I think described what you are stating with this style here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with any table that fixes the date issue, which to me is the most important MoS breaking part of those pages (but I'm against removing the date as titles and dates are must haves). So take my support for any table that has at least those two columns and the date is fixed correcly. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate everyone's comments, I think the only way we move forward is by agreeing to a proposal instead of declaring what we do or do not require. If we could get a solid support or not support for the table I suggested (link here for conevenience), we can probably move towards something we are all more comfortable with. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. Just add a row scope which is missing (and no double "||" on a new row; you only need those if you put columns data on the same row) Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! Thanks Gonnym. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no further suggestions/requests. I'll start applying the changes. @Dr. Blofeld:, any further comments? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean to remove director, actor and genre mentions? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see, that's what I wanted to confirm. WP:LISTCRITERIA, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." The genre and the director are not key information to determining whether something is an American production or not (or any country for that matter). We already have List of horror films of 2024 for example, so I don't think genre or director is key to understanding what makes something an American production. While I find it interesting, I'm just trying to make it a more simple list that captures the key details. Generally, I think this follows the rules above more than listing other details. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre and director to me are more important than release date. I think it should be Title. Director. Cast. Genre. Studio. Release date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it important to the topic in the list in question? Like, other than I kind of like it, I don't see how its essential knowledge. Honestly, the release date and the company involved are really the only two key criteria to make it fit the topic in question. and still follow WP:LISTCRITERIA by being objective. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: as I think we should try to move forward and as only you @Gonnym: have weighed in. Per the list criteria rule I do not see why it is important to know the director, genre, or the cast. Most directors and actors have their own filmography sections and we do not generally include whether their films are American/French/Japanese etc. As for genre, we already have List of horror films and other similar genre categories that have sortable lists to identify films by genre. As most genre films films from the past few years are various hybrids of genres (see the article Action film for more on this), trying to establish genres within the list will only add discrepancies between articles and lists that becomes unmanageable. For these reasons I think we should move forward with the list I've proposed and can make suggestions if further key information becomes clear. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an overview, knowing who the director and cast is is much more important than release date or studio. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your prompt response, may I ask why this is key information? It does not seem related to the topic as the director or cast or genre does not bare any key information to the topic of the list. I don't wnat to argue but you have said its important twice, but have not made it clear why its essential to a topic. Your suggestion would go against MOS:LONGSEQ "Keep lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail;" The director, cast, and genre have no relevance on a films year or nationality. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user has nominated Boogeyman 2 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SnowFire (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why this edit? Revirvlkodlaku, I find your rationale, that this "adds nothing of value to the reader, unless they are already familiar with Kill Dil and its characters", dumb. I think it induces curiosity in the reader to learn more about something they may not know of. As if Saul Goodman isn't allowed to mention that his speaking style was inspired by Robert Evans (I wasn't aware of him before), or the numerous characters that inspired Lalo Salamanca's characterisation. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792, I think this discussion more appropriately belongs on the film's talk page, where I'll be happy to discuss it with you in a civil manner. I'll let you know that if you use words like "dumb" to disparage me or my edits, then we won't get far, and I may even report you for abusive language. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't intend to launch a personal attack, it's only your rationale that looked odd to me. Once again I'll apologise if "odd" is a personal attack. I posted here only to seek consensus. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the addition of this detail. It's common to report what past performance or character inspired a said work's actor of focus in their effort. Not to mention that it is a good example of cross-linking, which Wikipedia encourages. Readers may get interested in this statement and check out Kill Dil for themselves. Links exist especially to increase readers' understanding of various topics. Furthermore, MOS:FILMCAST says, "Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast, or what preparations were necessary for filming." So this detail fits that real-world context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Erik! In the source, the actor says, "My role is similar to the one Govinda played in Kill Dhill [sic]". I wrote the same (no plagiarism) but Revirvlkodlaku removed it. I thought only the wording was unacceptable, so I readded with "inspired" instead of "similar" but he removed it again. May it be re-added with consensus? Is "inspired" not too different from "similar" in this case? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair to me; thanks for the input, Erik. Kailash29792, I see nothing wrong with calling my edit "odd", as it's not necessarily derogatory. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A move discussion is underway concerning the titles of several films which may be of interest to this project. Interested parties can join the discussion. SerialNumber54129 10:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many WP film plot descriptions use a convention of male characters being referred to by their surname while female characters are referred to by their given name.

1. Has there been previous discussion of this disparity, in which case was there a conclusion and should it be added to the MOS?

2. If not, can we discuss it now? Masato.harada (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're supposed to refer to them by their common name and be consistent so shouldn't be referring to men as their surname and women by their first name in the same plot summary. That said, at least socially, it seems weird to refer to a woman by her surname but seems to be common for a man. John McClane is often referred to as "McClane" but Holly is always "Holly" or "Ms Genarro" or "Mrs McClane" in Rickman's perfect delivery. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the credited name is used. The credited name will match the social conventions for names in the fictional world of the story. The fallback Wikipedia convention is MOS:SURNAME and applies to both sexes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion I started at Talk:Oscar_bait#Oscar_bait_list regarding WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and the inclusion of the bait list in an encyclopedic article. Input, especially those with interest in film awards, is welcome. Spectrallights (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cleaning up individuals' navboxes per WP:FILMNAV, and I came across Template:Point Grey Pictures. I think that the spirit of WP:FILMNAV applies to this too because films usually have more than one company involved. Any objection to my nominating this for deletion under that argument? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about Ben-Hur (1959 film) and its sub-article Production of Ben-Hur (1959 film) underway. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film) § Production standalone article. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I'm currently (slowly!) working through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_cinema_articles_needing_an_image fixing the Talk page for articles which do in fact already have images. Can someone please point me to a similar category page which lists British film articles which are currently stub class? Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope this is what you need: Category:Stub-Class British cinema articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks very much @Erik! Tobyhoward (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings people, can you please participate in improving Russians at War film article. There is a discussion at the talk page, yes. Welcome. Pinging the opponent @UrbanVillager . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest revising your notification to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVASSING. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Gertie the Dinosaur for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Filipino animation#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldo Perez could you please explain why linking to the highest-grossing film of the year, as done here would come under WP:OVERLINKING, when they are widely used in FA-class articles such as Frozen 2? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the phrase is obvious and doesn't need a definition link. The reference itself is the source and lists the other films so a pipe to another wiki article with the same info adds no value. It is also an WP:EGG pipe that doesn't actually define the phrase. We shouldn't be doing this in any article. Links to other articles that are related should be in the See also section, not hidden behind a pipe. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Highest-grossing films of 2024 is not an WP:EGG issue, not hidden behind a pipe, adds perfect value to the lead, and is currently mentioned in all top-grossing films of the year. So unless there is wider consensus to remove such a link from all these articles, one shouldn't edit-war on one single page like Moana 2. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference has the same info and is a reliable source so there is no added value to linking to another article. One issue in the general case of doing this is the linked wiki article is being used in lieu of a source, and when a source is actually there, the link is unnecessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a subjective choice and not a policy violation to edit-war over. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary links that add no value are the crux of overlinking. That is a guideline though, not a policy. I see a pointless link that adds no value and I explained why. You disagree based on the assertion that it is common practice to have this link and you see value in having it. I'm not planing on editing that part of the article again, my main original issue was the lack of a reference for the statement itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Serine Ben Brahim and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.

Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Wikipedia, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.

We want to invite community members who are:

• Part of an organized group, official or not
• A formally recognized affiliate or not
• An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
• An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.

Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)

Many thanks and warm regards,

Let’s Connect Working Group Member

Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I launched a discussion at Talk:Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects that I feel would benefit from having wider input. In regards to if currently still in development films count as "unrealized" or not. Rusted AutoParts 06:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very frustrating this has not seen any contribution to. Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm seeking assistance with the review process for the draft article "Draft:The Misguided". I initially submitted the draft for review on December 3rd. On December 12th, I followed up on my request and added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score to further demonstrate the film's notability. I believe the draft is well-sourced, comprehensive, and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), but the situation remains unresolved.

Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this draft reviewed and moved to mainspace? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the hurry here? (and here [1]?) Axad12 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guarantee that a draft will be reviewed or processed within a certain specific timeframe. You're not guaranteed a one-week or two-week response time at all — drafts get approved or rejected when an AFC reviewer gets around to them, and you're simply not entitled to demand that your draft receive more prompt attention than everybody else's drafts. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see the currently-blocked user's talk page. There has been a lot going on with their contributions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user was indef blocked following this ANI thread [2]. The user was an obvious promotional WP:SPA and I'd suggest that readers not be drawn in to forwarding their agenda. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a quick question...

If a film is a submission to the Academy Awards (or any other awards) does this imply any significance, or is submitting a film just something that any minor film-maker can do with any minor film? Clarification on this point would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which categorie(s)? Nardog (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short documentary. Axad12 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps at all, it would seem that 104 films were submitted in the year in question, so I'm assuming that this is not particularly exclusive company. Axad12 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, that is 104 films in that single category. Axad12 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty exclusive if you consider how many short documentaries there are in the world. A submission itself may not be significant, but the meeting of the criteria for it to be eligible may be, like winning an award at a festival. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the link correctly, a film would only need to complete a commercial showing of at least 7 days in either Los Angeles County, California or anywhere in New York City before being released to other non-theatrical venues such as DVD or TV. Winning an award does not appear to be necessary. So, being a submission doesn't seem to me to infer any particular significance.

The broader issue here is the rather promotional article about director Alexander Tuschinski, authored 90% by the accounts of the subject and his publicist (whose activities can be seen here [3]).

In trying to establish how much of the article needs to be culled it would be useful to have some input on the significance of the awards listed in this part of the article [4]. A good number of the awards have articles on Wikipedia, but note that in many cases that is because Tuschinski's publicist created the relevant articles. Axad12 (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was necessary. I just pointed out what made the submission possible, rather than the submission by itself, may be significant, depending on which criteria were fulfilled. Nardog (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the category. International Film, for example, is a category where each country has to have a committee select just one film from its entire cinematic output in that year to submit to the category — so that selection would indeed represent a distinction in and of itself even if the film doesn't ultimately land in the final five nominees. For most other categories, however, being submitted for Oscar consideration wouldn't be a notability claim in and of itself, although a film that gets submitted may very well have other reasonable notability claims — for example, some categories (I believe short documentary is one of these) essentially extend automatic consideration to films that win certain specific awards at certain specific qualifying film festivals, so the film festival award already constitutes a meaningful notability claim as it is.

Ultimately, however, the clincher is how well the film can or can't be reliably sourced. If the film can be shown to pass WP:GNG on its coverage, then it wouldn't matter whether we considered submission to be a notability claim or not because the film had already passed GNG as it is — and if it can't be shown to pass GNG on its coverage, then simple submission to a preliminary awards consideration pool probably wouldn't be enough in and of itself to exempt it from GNG. Remember that awards are one alternative among several notability paths, not a necessary condition that every film always has to have — films that have no award claims at all can still pass other criteria anyway, so the presence or absence of awards isn't the be-all and end-all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched RSN and the archives here but no real guidance, so I was wondering if Moviefone is reliable to use as an inline source? I'm leaning towards no given it looks like a database a la IMDb, but wanted to see if any other editors have come across this or its use on articles. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Moviefone, it may have had a reliable publisher in the past, but I'm not sure about now. It may also depend on what part of the website is being used. Are we talking about the "News" section, or the reviews it has, or something else? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be the "full cast and crew" tab/page for a film. The specific example I've come across it was trying to source new writer credits and an actor appearing for Captain America: Brave New World and its Moviefone page here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see at the bottom of the Moviefone page, "This product uses the TMDb API but is not endorsed or certified by TMDb." Maybe these details came from there? It looks like TMDb is "a user-editable database". (Wow, I tried to link to TMDb, but it's apparently blacklisted... that may indicate something...) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The poster here seems to confirm the writing credits? See the left and right of the bottom line of the billing block. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other active editors at that article are aware of the billing block (that's what's stemmed this issue at that page), but no third party reliable sources have reported on these adjustments, so we have been cautious proceeding adding the information in and not sourcing it in the body of the article. Another editor found the Moviefone page so that's how we ended up here checking its reliability. But per your first comment about its connections with TMDb, seems unreliable as a user database. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the billing block is in question? It's like referencing the official website for basic crediting information. We can use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, per WP:PRIMARY. I'm not sure if it's possible for the billing block to become outdated or wrong (other than the cases of where others are unofficially deserving of certain credits). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The billing block isn't being questioned, just the act of how to source it in the article's when no third-party source exists covering this information. We seem to have determined Moviefone is not reliable per my original comment. If we want to have further discussion on sourcing approaches, we can continue this discussion at Talk:Captain America: Brave New World#Poster billing block. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was trying to restore an article of a HK film, fixing link and adding source to HKMDB. This was rejected by User:JalenBarks, see talk page. Is any specialist able to help? Thanks in advance. --2A00:20:3004:F761:4CCF:894C:6F06:4CF6 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]