Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Comicbookmovie.com

With this edit, I saw that TriiipleThreat removed comicbookmovie.com as a source, citing it as non-WP:Reliable. And with this edit, I saw that Favre1fan93 removed the source as well, for the same reason. Looking at their latest contributions shows that they've been removing this source from a lot of articles. And as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 32#comicbookmovie.com and the use of citizen journalism as reliable sources, whether or not this source is WP:Reliable was discussed here in 2010. I don't see where it yet has been discussed at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, but I've also wondered about its reliability. Seeing it used in so many Wikipedia articles, though, I figured that WP:Film and WP:TV must be okay with its use. TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93 have clearly recently discussed this source, although I haven't yet looked to see where that discussion took place. Maybe this is the time to have an updated, wider discussion about this source? For example, as seen with this edit, Drovethrughosts disagrees with TriiipleThreat's removal of the source because it's an exclusive interview. I happen to agree with Drovethrughosts on that matter; there have been cases at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, where an exclusive interview from a source that is otherwise generally considered unreliable is deemed fine because the interview is exclusive from that website. For such an example, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). I'm going to WP:Ping Viriditas since he was the main opposer to removing the exclusive interview in that case and is a film editor. I'll alert WP:TV to this discussion. And for the record, I don't object to TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93's comicbookmovie.com removals where it's not an exclusive interview. But this type of edit (exclusive interview material) seems questionable. It has also been requested that the source is blacklisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'll also leave a note there about this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As I told Drovethrughosts, if the source is not credible, then we cannot assume that the content is credible. Even if they say it is. Who is to know that the exclusive interview is not fully or partially fabricated or misquoted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I again refer editors to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS), which is a discussion about a source (the Daily Mail) that has been deemed unreliable times over at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and the WP:BLP noticeboard, and yet is deemed okay for certain cases, such as exclusive interviews. And unlike the wide WP:Consensus against the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia, there is no wide WP:Consensus against using comicbookmovie.com as a source on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Its unfair to compare the Daily Mail to comicbookmovie.com (CBM) because unlike CBM, Daily Mail has editorial oversight, even if it is tabloid. It's funny looking back at that discussion you linked, I was originally on the other side of this argument. @Erik, RobertMfromLI, Tenebrae, and Cameron Scott:, who all participated in that discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering that its editorial oversight has been repeatedly considered unreliable and/or dubious by experienced Wikipedians, I think it's very fair to compare this matter to that one, including per what I stated in my "00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)" post below. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I have also alerted Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this would help, but per WP:USEBYOTHERS, we can evaluate how the website is referenced in books here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In order to give newcomers some understanding, CBM has long been considered unreliable by the Comic book films task force because it relies solely on user-generated content. This same principle has been applied to IMDb as a source and self-referencing Wikipedia. While there may or may not have been a community wide discussion (I seem to recall a few) about CBM specifically, it has certainly been discussed locally on numerous occasions on article talk pages and in edit summaries.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding if the article is apparently "exclusive" to Comic Book Movie, but as Triiiple pointed out, the site has not editorial oversight. Per their home page: "We are the #1 comic book movie fansite on the web, and completely user-generated by the FANS! Join our 6 million PLUS community and start contributing!" That right there makes it unreliable. So Flyer22, it is not quite the same as the situation with Daily Mail. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And additionally, I'd say about 98% of the time, CBM "reports" on material that can be sourced from reliable sources. It just happens that users tend to want to use the CBM url instead of the "horse's mouth" source as it were. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to see what other experienced WP:Film and WP:TV editors, and/or editors watching the WP:Reliable sources talk page, have to state about this. I can't agree that we should not use the source for exclusive interviews. This is per the site not having had any issues with its reliability noted in WP:Reliable sources, and per there being a lot of cases on Wikipedia, including the aforementioned one, where a source that is considered unreliable (or generally unreliable) by Wikipedia may used for an exclusive interview. I never stated that this is the same thing as the Daily Mail case, but it's similar. That source has been cited as fabricating whole stories; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Daily Mail. AndyTheGrump, who is currently retired, stated in that discussion, "Exactly - the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' clause is in WP:RS for a reason. No source is always accurate, and no source is never accurate - and accordingly, we have to make a judgement call when looking at a source being cited for something we can't verify elsewhere, based on how generally trustworthy they are. Which is to say a judgement call based on reputation." And yet, even with that source's horrible reputation, that source is still commonly accepted on Wikipedia. And as we can see with the Google Books link Erik pointed to above, comicbookmovie.com is seemingly considered reliable by some WP:Reliable sources. If there were actors and/or actresses stating that comicbookmovie.com fabricated their interviews, I would disregard the source for exclusive interviews. There is none of that for comicbookmovie.com, however; instead, WP:Reliable sources commonly report these comicbookmovie.com interviews as fact or seemingly as fact. Similar goes for other things reported at that site. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The books in Erik's link do not look scholarly or authoritative. And actors/actresses are less likely to go after a self-described fan site like CBM than a major publication like the Daily Mail. Also the sources that re-print information from CBM avoid liability by attributing it to them. Besides the argument against CBM is not based on accuracy but on authorship. Wikipedia has strict guidelines against user-generated content. IMDb can be accurate but we're still not allowed to use it a source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your issue regarding the fact that unreliable sources with exclusives can sometimes be used does not fit here. Yes, that is the case, but as I and Triiiple have pointed out, all articles on CBM, regardless of exclusivity or not, are user generated, which is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. This should be a non-issue questioning this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, there are various books in Erik's link that show WP:Reliable sources citing comicbookmovie.com and treating it as a WP:Reliable source; I checked the publishing company for some of them. So Erik was smart to link to those sources and cite WP:USEBYOTHERS as a basis for linking to them. Those sources do not have to look or be authoritative; they only need to be WP:Reliable as far as this case goes. Given some of those sources, I also gather that we define "scholarly" differently. Furthermore, as made very clear by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts, and by the aforementioned archived discussions, our sourcing guidelines (guidelines, not policies) are not as strict as you two are making them out to be. And since it's only you two so far stating that we can't use comicbookmovie.com for exclusive interviews, I will likely take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or start a WP:RfC on it for wider input. For now, as I've stated before, I await other opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm notifying the following users who work within the Comic book films task force and may wish to comment and/or be aware of this discussion: @Richiekim, Sock, and Adamstom.97: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

On that note, and given what TriiipleThreat stated above about that WikiProject, I definitely think that this discussion needs a wider audience. So after waiting for others to comment, I will be taking this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or starting a WP:RfC on it, making sure to word things neutrally; that is, if no one beats to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You already posted a notice at WT:IRS, please don't exhaust our efforts by WP:FORUMSHOPping.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't already "post a notice there" (good that you corrected your comment). I posted a notice at the WP:Reliable sources talk page, which is different, and clearly no one there is yet willing to weigh in on this dispute. In fact, the many editors watching this dispute via their WP:Watchlists are leaving it to three editors so far. I've been explicitly clear why this discussion needs a wider audience. Two or a few editors stating that we should not use a source for exclusive interviews because it's unreliable or user-generated, despite the fact that the source is treated as reliable by WP:Reliable sources and doesn't appear to have fabricated any of its interviews, does not cut it. If you consider me taking this matter to the WP:Reliable source noticeboard, where discussions like this should be had, a WP:FORUMSHOPing violation, you are more than free to report me on that. In addition to the WP:Reliable book sources that seemingly trust comicbookmovie.com, comicbookmovie.com interviews are cited by online sources that pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline for certain content, such as this and this slashfilm.com source, and this Mstars News source. These facts, and that celebrities, writers and directors seem to trust this source, and that this source does not have any sort of bad reputation, should factor into any decision regarding its use on Wikipedia. To throw away these interviews, which most certainly seem to be the real deal, is silly to me. So, in a few minutes, I will be taking this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. This particular matter has only been discussed in one place so far: This WikiProject. Now it will be discussed in the wider forum. Of course, discussing it there won't help if those weighing in are mainly a bunch of film editors who are against the source being used at all without truly considering the points I or others bring up on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't even been 24 hours, give it sometime. Re-arguing the same points is exhausting. You can easily turn this discussion into a RfC, or post a link at the noticeboard. I'm not against a wider audience but don't try to wear us down.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?. A WP:Permalink is here. And I'm not trying to wear you down. I'm a WP:Film editor as well, and commonly participate in discussions here and at MOS:FILM. Obviously, we aren't always on the same side, except for the fact that we all want to improve Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Only commenting here on technical terms - Blacklisting does not mean that a site cannot be used at all anymore - there is always the whitelist (MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist), where specific links that pass a bar can be whitelisted. We do that with examiner.com, for example - Most of the content of that site is unreliable, scraped, posted there to make money for the poster, etc. etc., and replaceable with better sources. However, there is unique content available, and edits sometimes do make a case for having a specific document on examiner.com whitelisted as there is no alternative. If there is consensus here that blacklisting is the best option (in principle the blacklist is not meant for unreliable sources, it is meant for abused links - this seems more a case of misused links. But a community consensus by knowledgeable editors, like here 'film people' about a 'film site', could override that), then blacklisting could be performed followed by selective whitelisting of the unique material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: would you be open to this? Whitelist specific links based on its individual merit since the exclusive interviews that you mention are only a fraction of the website's content and like the examiner.com the vast majority of the content can be replaced by more reputable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would be okay with that. And good on Beetstra (Dirk Beetstra) for pointing out that option. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Beetstra raises some important points here - specifically that this does not appear to be a case of abusive spamming of links; rather that it is misused links - consequently, I do not concur that this is an appropriate use of the spam blacklist. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: The area between misuse and abuse is grey .. a significant (good faith) misuse is an 'abuse' of Wikimedia servers. Moreover, significant misuse can cause disruption (significant work for other editors to check and verify whether something is worthy of inclusion, cleanup sloppy or untrue stuff, having unreliable and untrue information on Wikipedia), and these administrative measures would be a solution to that disruption. I would invoke WP:IAR here, if blacklisting to avoid the misuse is resulting in a better Wikipedia, then that would fall in the scope. However, I do think that blacklisting such a link should have community backup, and that does seem to be the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For any editors joining the conversation, I'd like to point out that the site was used close to 600 times on Wikipedia (including User, File, Talk and Wikipedia article spaces), and part of Triiiple's request to blacklist it, was to remove all uses in (at least) the mainspace. The number is around 200 now, and you can see all current uses here. So based on those original numbers, I'd definitely say it was 'abuse' of adding the site, which was (I believe) one of the reasons TriiipleThreat approached the blacklisting in the first place. And I also agree, that if blacklisted, we could whitelist certain URLs if deemed necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 and others, I just stated the following at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: "JzG, as you may have seen, this matter is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. So far, the discussion is leaning toward support for using this source for exclusive interviews. My concern is that if it's blacklisted, it will make it more difficult for this source to be used for exclusive interviews. A lot of Wikipedia editors, especially less experienced ones, don't even know about Wikipedia blacklisting and whitelisting. And once a source is blacklisted here, a good case has to be made for getting it whitelisted or an aspect of it whitelisted. An administrator here might feel that an exclusive interview is not enough. At the same time, I understand TriiipleThreat's concern about use of this source, and I don't think it should be used for anything other than exclusive interviews on Wikipedia. Maybe there is a way that you can blacklist the general URLs for this site, but not the type that would pertain to exclusive interviews?" Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm replying to you at the Blacklist talk for conversation consistency. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pan (2015 film)

Thoughts re: this edit? Seems like another loophole in the 'starring roles are determined by the poster billing block' guideline at Template:Infobox film. Levi Miller appears at the top of the theatrical poster. He plays Pan. Amanda Seyfried does not appear at the top of the poster, but she does get a credit in the billing block where Levi Miller does not. Should we exclude Levi Miller because he does not appear in the billing block? Or should we go by the top-of-poster billing, and then tack on Amanda Seyfried who is the only significant difference between the top of the poster and the bottom? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Common sense should prevail: the actor playing the title character should be included. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

JasonAQuest, grateful for your response, thank you. In a situation where billing blocks determine starring order, would you put Miller at the beginning or the end of the list? My instinct would be at the end, because although he is the title character, the studio had to negotiate for the billing block credits, and superseding that seems counter-intuitive, even if we're using common sense. Like, once we employ our own billing order, we're into WP:OR territory. For precedent, we have Template:Infobox television, which lists starring cast by original credit order (the billing block?) and then adds additional "starring" to the end of the list. Not a perfect system, but close to what might make sense: Billing block + the lead kid. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't find common sense to be counter-intuitive; that's why it's called "common sense". Frankly, slavishly following Hollywood's laughably idiosyncratic approach billing is worse than OR: it's letting the subject dictate the content of the article. For example, if someone's agent somehow gets him top billing for a cameo, are we going to list him as the star of the movie, even though everyone knows he isn't? I should hope not. If there's a precedent that says to do that, it's a bad precedent, and the sooner it's dismissed as a bad idea, the better. I haven't seen this movie, so I can't answer this, but: Who is the lead actor? List that person first. If it isn't intuitively obvious (it usually is) and a disagreement among editors breaks out, then look to independent reliable sources to settle it... not the producers of the film. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what precisely is being asked, but Hugh Jackman gets top billing [1], followed by Hedlund, Mara, and Miller. Since Seyfried does appear on the poster, she should be listed in the cast list and infobox. But Jackman should be the first listed in the infobox and cast list. Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please address my above concerns about the fundamental COI problem with this "rule" before making further edits to WP articles. Letting the production studios dictate the contents of articles is a really bad precedent. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Resident Evil"

FYI, there's a proposal to rename the category "Resident Evil films" to "Resident Evil (film series)", see WP:CFDS.

This category currently contains the Paul WS Anderson films, and the unrelated animated films. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been resolved as a split -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Grouping films in Albert Pyun's navbox

Recently I separated films in Template:Albert Pyun into groups by decade. User Robsinden reverted my edit, explaining on Template talk:Albert Pyun that grouping by decade was against consensus. But in this particular case, I think that grouping by decade greatly helps legibility, and there are unfortunately no better criteria by which to group Pyun's films (even his article groups his work by decades). Daß Wölf (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have commented at the template's talk page and encourage other editors to comment there as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet Movie Firearms Database?!

I've never heard of this site before, until this edit on an article on my watchlist (template IMFDb title added in ex. links). Then I looked at the actual link in the template. This is obviously another wiki project. Any thoughts/guidance on if this is an acceptable template to have on here? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Same as IMDB. There are also film locations databases around.

It's a highly valuable source for researching articles. However it has the problem of user generated content. If you read it and then either follow a good source there, or can separately confirm the claim, then it's great. On its own, it's a self-published source from Randy in Boise. Whether you'd add that depends on the claim, the lack of anything else, or the depth of coverage there. Sometimes there will be things where it explains in great detail that the anachronistic shortness of the rifle barrels in some epic are because the studio armourer bought a load of cheap carbines from the Khasi of Kalabar's defunct cavalry. That sort of thing, which is not an exceptional claim, can stay IMHO.

Mostly I'd say "Use judgement", but this is WP and bureaucracy is so much simpler for the mall cops to exercise. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over Cowboy Bebop: The Movie inclusion in Category:TriStar Pictures animated films

There is an ongoing dispute over whether Cowboy Bebop: The Movie should be included in Category:TriStar Pictures animated films. FilmandTVFan28 has stated that multiple reliable sources are wrong that Columbia TriStar acquired the English distribution rights for the film. The proof he offers is its absence from List of TriStar Pictures films, its IMDb database entry, and a film poster (which incidentally has the TriStar logo on it). The discussion is at Talk:Cowboy Bebop: The Movie#TriStar Pictures. —Farix (t | c) 14:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity articles with no image

I'm looking for celebrity articles with no image. The more famous the better. I am trying to find artists to create portraits of notable individuals where a photo has thus far been unavailable. If you know of such articles that get big page hits, please let me know.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts#Resident sketch artist

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Producer with few credits as occupation

Some here may want to comment at Talk:Cate Blanchett#Occupation, particularly those with an opinion of listing uncredited or executive producers in an infobox or lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, more input is needed for a consensus on this. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

AFD: Andria D'Souza

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andria D'Souza - Indian cinema actor. May have 2 lead roles in her filmography. Does that qualify for WP:NACTOR? Discuss! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleared the entire GA Review backlog for Films

1. Thank you all to all our editors who help to contribute to Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia related to WP:FILM.
2. I've helped to clear the entire GA Review backlog for Films, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
3. I'd like to make a suggestion, here, which is optional, for you to please consider:
4. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Biohazard film series

FYI, I have a draft article up for submission, see Draft:Biohazard (film series) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Set index article for Steve Jobs films

There is a discussion about Steve Jobs (film), a set index article listing films named after Steve Jobs. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Madiha Shah

• Madiha Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some recent edits broke the above article. I tried to investigate but I can't tell whether the sources I found are reliable or are merely copied from Wikipedia. A complication is that the the broken edit hid "Madiha Shah, was born as Rubina Butt" which first glance suggests would be a good idea ... but sources appear to support "Butt". Would someone familiar with the genre please fix. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, I'm not at all familiar with the subject or the genre, but I took a big stab at fixing the article. Still lots of problems for lack of sourcing. It's got a lot of CN tags, and needs a much TLC, but it's certainly better than the version that described her as "Iconic,persona, diva, legendary star and roll model". Many of the sources out there, as you noted, look like they were just mirroring Wikipedia. Yet another complication. Oh wells! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth (2015 film)

The article for this controversial film needs more editors watching, particularly for POV edits. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see dispute with Gothicfilm over possibly giving undue weight to one person's view in the CBS response section of article: discussion here. Lapadite (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography

I have nominated Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember I promised to delist you last? I lied. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet Horror Movie Database at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

spam articles created. Are these notable?

• Westfield Entertainment
• Lost on Mars
• Empire of Danger
• Pro-Active Entertainment Group

All created by single purpose accounts. Dream Focus 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I added Lost on Mars and Empire of Danger to List of films set on Mars due to this mentioning both, but looking at each topic individually, I am not finding significant coverage for either. We could propose deletion for these? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus and others reading, Empire of Danger was deleted in the past (AfD), so I speedied it. I had proposed it for deletion after finding that I could not establish notability, and the template notified me of the AfD that was not identified on the talk page. I am finding the same lack of notability for Lost on Mars, so I've proposed it for deletion (no prior AfD). I have not looked at the organizations' articles, being more familiar with films, but if no one else follows up, I can see what I can find. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I prodded Westfield Entertainment for being obvious spam, no reliable sources proving it was notable. Not sure what sources might be reliable in those listed at Pro-Active Entertainment Group though. Dream Focus 23:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Dream Focus, Scantunl removed the proposed deletion template as seen here, stating, "Object to the deletion. Ref jg-tc, several other articles are substantial. Feel this is a deletion request based on Erilk favoring the Martian movie article he contributed too. Noticed this page has been up for three years with no backlash." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominated the article for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on Mars. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Awards section at Serenity (film)

I've been doing a (very slow) clean-up of Serenity (film) and the single most frustrating thing is the awards section. Since the list isn't long, I've been thinking of converting it to prose, rather than a list or a table, but conversion isn't the problem. I'm not overly concerned about references; I did a quick sweep and finding references or archives for the dead links is simple. The problem is, I know that non-notable awards should be pruned out, but when I look at that list to do the pruning I kind of scream internally and click out of the article. Obviously, the Nebula Award for Best Script and Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation are notable, very much so. If I were to make a guess, I'd guess the Prometheus Award is notable, and the Film 2005 accolade merits inclusion. And I am vaguely thinking the SFX accolade is notable, but my feeling on it is mostly doubt. The Box Office Prophets and User Tomato are going out, I am 95% positive. The rest--FilmFocus, IGN, Spacey Awards, and SyFy Genre Awards--I'm unsure about; I have doubts, lots of them, but I feel I don't know enough to convince myself to make a decision I'm confident in. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, not WP:N, is the policy/guideline you should care about. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Easy solution = convert it to paragraph form instead of list, and it's small enough amount of info to do that. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood filmography

I have nominated Clint Eastwood filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Wyndham Paul Wise and film critic Wyndham Wise

Wyndham Paul Wise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These are the same person in my mind. I've dropped a couple of notes on their talkpage about writting summaries for films, etc, but he choses to ignore them. For example, this was added to an article. Clearly written by the film critic (not a problem as such), but full of crap like "This marvellously observed, slow-paced film" added straight into the article. Has anyone come across something similar to this before? Are there any specific noticeboards for this type of issue, apart from WP:ANI? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for offering the user some guidance. But please, please take it easy a bit. Describing someone's writing as "crap" is unnecessary, and getting their cooperation become less likely after seeing comments like that. You left a message yesterday - is it possible that the user has simply yet to reply, rather "choosing to ignore it"? The Interior (Talk) 17:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Check the diffs again. I posted on the 16th after reverting one of his edits. The follow up post on their talkpage was triggered by more rubbish being added to articles after my initial post. I'll leave it to you then to trawl through his edit history and cleanup all the mess. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go to ANI or COIN. He's clearly helping out; he just needs a bit of friendly guidance to adjust his writing to be more in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I think we could really use his expertise in Canadian films. Worst case is that we go through and copy-edit some of his prose to fit our standards better. It's not the end of the world. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Northpole

Main article: Northpole (film)

I deleted the reception section as the tone was horribly biased. Im not sure if it was a case of an actual bias by the editor, or if the intent was to cite verbatim a critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.168.94 (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it, it was in need of a brief re-write to state that these were critics' opinions and paraphrase them better, but the material itself was cited to a few good sources. In future I'd suggest using an orange tag like {{copy edit-section}} or {{cleanup-film}} with a note here or on the article's talk page; that raises the concern without "hiding" material that someone else may have fixed had they seen it. GRAPPLE ^X 08:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Film is not prominent enough for RT to list reviews, but here are a few I found: New York Daily News, Variety, and Los Angeles Times (last one was referenced in the article before removal but lacked a URL). Referencing all of these would probably be balance enough. No need to claim a group consensus; just present each review individually and convey the appropriate tone for each. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From The Doctor to my son Thomas - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.

The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl at FAC

Tank Girl (film), which is under the scope of this project, is at FAC. All comments on the nomination are welcome – see here. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Genre changes by Taeyebaar

After laying off for a while, Taeyebaar, the genre warrior of 2013 is back, relentlessly changing multiple film article leads. He often deprives readers of any link to the science fiction film article, which is in pretty good shape, and instead sends them to various subgenre articles that he prefers. He has also twice hit The Martian (film) in the last three days, returning after being reverted. He is now edit warring at Honey I Shrunk the Kids in an attempt to replace science fiction film and comedy film with comedy science fiction, which is basically just a list with a brief introduction. Nowhere near as useful as the science fiction film article. He has also removed the science fiction category from some articles. In the last several months before returning to film genre changing, Taeyebaar was the subject of discussions on his disruption at other articles, one of which was given the heading Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar. He'll have days, sometimes weeks, go by with no editing. But then he's back. I spent a lot of time reverting this guy two years ago, trying to protect the primary genre of the films involved. Note that Taeyebaar has admitted socking in the past, and has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him (myself included), and he has been warned about that in the past. I would appreciate some help, and ask others to keep an eye on his activity. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm is a POV pushing editor who frequently violates WP:OWN primarily on Planet of the Apes films and other articles on his personal liking (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and has just received a warning after being reported for edit warring after during an article discussion [2] and is suspected of using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. His (or her) accusations are without merit as I did NOT change the link to science fiction film, but shortened it to science fiction because it would repeat the word film in the lead twice. Gothicfilm also tries to dissuade other editors he does not agree with by baiting and harassing them.

The outdated ANI report GF is referring to is deliberately misleading because it was started by a suspected employee of a company which disagreed with my edits. The suspected editor also edit warred and was later banned. Among the accusations in that outdated ANI report accused me of "banning" editors I didn't agree with which was nothing but a lie and pointed out by several uninvolved editors--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There were multiple editors at that ANI who complained about Taeyebaar. It turned out one he warred with was a sock, but that did not excuse his behavior, especially since he admitted to socking himself. And once again Taeyebaar now jumps forward making accusations of socking against me, claiming suspected of using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Absolutely no one expressed such a suspicion except Taeyebaar, and the fact he tries to make it sound like there was anyone else involved shows how his account of things is not to be taken as truth. The IPs at Honey I Shrunk the Kids were not me. I have never used a sock. There was an edit against what I had done at Truth (2015 film) by an IP that had almost no editing history. I could have easily accused it of being a sock, as it was in line with another editor, but I withheld making any charges because I did not know. Here Taeyebaar went to the trouble to delete my posting from a Talk page discussion he wasn't even involved with. Apparently he thought better of it because he then reverted himself. He claims he doesn't remove the primary sci-fi link. This is just one of many, many edits where Taeyebaar removed the link to science fiction film and replaced it with one of his preferred subgenres. Here he changes The Matrix (franchise) to soft science fiction, which is more a category of scientific accuracy than a genre. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the above accusations I am currently working/studying so for me to be on and off Wikipedia as I soon will be normal. I don't see what policy I violate.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar, WP:FILMLEAD says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". This is to prevent mash-ups where it is too easy to add one genre after another in the opening sentence when it needs to be verifiable (and thus straightforward). We have the rest of the lead section to illustrate the film's premise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK but I have seen a number of articles use that. However whenever a film is more than one genre, I have seen people use for example science fiction, XXX. And yes I did that as per mashup to avoid repeating the word film twice.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are many more film articles than there are editors. :) We cannot curate all of these articles, but in my experience, the ones that become Good or Featured Articles have a simpler presentation of genres. I also find multiple genre-linking a little confusing per WP:EGG, where a "science fiction" link like yours could be linking to science fiction or science fiction film. If there is an article about a specific sub-genre, great, but otherwise I find mash-ups to be a poor practice. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Easy fix. Follow Erik and his advice for the WP:FILMLEAD sect. Then, create a well-sourced sect for the article, called Genre and/or Themes, with scholarly academic commentary from peer-reviewed sources, and you can use those sub-links in that sect. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant MOS guidelines would be WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE, both of which would seem to favor "comic science fiction film" over "science fiction comedy film". But I think we should generally avoid edit warring over genre. I don't think it's terribly important whether we describe something as a thriller film or heist film, as long as we avoid listing more than two main genres ("drama action thriller heist film" is genre salad). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like SPECIFICLINK is referring to hard facts, like geographical locations, etc. Not debatable subjects like subgenres. It was not intended to take readers to the substandard comic science fiction article-list over the science fiction film article. As the top of the MOS says, we should "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". The same applies to SEAOFBLUE, though I agree there should not be several genres in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Production designer removed from film article

Vmars22 removed the production designer and the cinematographer from the Production section of Truth (2015 film) with this edit, saying Removal of the cinematographer already listed in filmography box, production designer is irrelevant to production box. Perhaps we need to re-establish consensus that the opposite is true. Production designers are not in the infobox, but we encourage giving them credit in the article, along with other primary personnel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ohh! I didn't know, I apologize. I will re-add. Vmars22 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Independence Day sequels section

The sequels section to the page Independence Day (1996 film) is unwieldy, bloated and sloppy. Would somebody like to condense and clean it up? Otherwise, I fear the article will be at risk of losing its Good Article status. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Independence Day: Resurgence exists, there does not need to be a substantial "Sequel" section. What I usually do when I fork content is update the new article's lead section, then copy that lead section to the original article and tweak it somewhat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I was about to comment a similar thing. I just went through and cut out most of the news report-sounding updates of the sequel development as it's covered in the Resurgence article. Though as my edit summary indicated, a more elegant clean-up is needed. I made a conservative pruning as I'm not well versed in how sequel sections when a sequel actually exists should be handled exactly. But I do know it should be shorter than it was. Really, I see some other portions that are cause for concern in the article, and I'm concerned about the by the minute reporting in the sequel's article. It should be rewritten because the constant 'on this date, X' isn't appropriate, really. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As much as I adore Independence Day, there are certainly other elements of the article that put it at risk of losing its Good Article status. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Dark Fields

RM discussion is still ongoing; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

List of box office bombs

I was wondering if we could get some third-party input at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs#The_problem_with_original_research. Basically, the problem with the article is that it is shit. It has been deleted once, reincarnated and survived its second AfD, and pretty much everybody accepts it cannot be allowed to remain in its current form, but discussions about improving it always fall apart. Anyway I have put together a potential prototype at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs#Prototype but once again the discussion to move forward does not seem to be going anywhere. It doesn't have to be the solution I have proposed but we need a permanent solution in place. I am literally open to anything at this stage. I could AfD it again but I think it would be a waste of time because there is no escaping the fact it satisfies notability. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested

Resolved

 – Editor has been blocked; permanent link to ANI thread. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

at Talk:Greaser's Palace#"Cult film". BMK (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is more extensive than that one film, as the editor is removing "cult film" from every film article in which it appears. See this on AN/I. Help would be appreciated in reverting his reverts of my reverts of his removals. BMK (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Straight off the block and goes right back to removing the same content. Now blocked for 2 weeks... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Buddy Rogers (actor)#Requested move 21 October 2015

The above link is to a proposal for renaming the main title header Buddy Rogers (actor) so that it would show Charles "Buddy" Rogers. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

lawn Movie

My question is about this Wonderful Movie: Why is it not whoeing in every Theater in USA, I know a little bit, (why) is simple, becasue is part of FReligion's movie it is very very sad here in California the norhter part, that has became very empty place, when it comes to believing in something, I am not a fanatic in every matter of the life, but I lost my Country to a comunims do to we stop believing in GOD, and however, thye show movies in theaters, that don't have contents, I went to see gthis Movie Woodlawn, and I love it, as soon as it comes on DV's, I will buy it will show it to my grand kds, one this that I love on this movie, if the new generation in this Country, sees this movie, will bring out on them, the sentimental part in their soul, I am very upset, that this movie it is not showin every where.

I want to contratulate Mr. Sean Astin, I wish coult get in touch with him, to sent him some lines, I saw him in a movie Rudy and is I still remember jus like I saw it yesterday, I bought teh Video and I will the DV's of Woodlwan too, I also want to congfratulate Mr Nic Bishop, very good performing, also the young actor, excelent performing too, Caleb as Tony Nathan, I hope I will get some lines back for this comemet, and also hope I will excuse for my writting in English, I am from Cuba, unidos@aol.com

Thank you very much.

Jose Ricabal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C801:40F1:C869:94B3:3252:81EC (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jose! I assume you are referring to Woodlawn (film). Doing some research, this says Woodlawn was released in 1,533 theaters, which is a wide release. Blockbuster films used to be over 2,000 theaters in the United States and now go over 3,000. Not sure if you have had the chance, but you can access the film's official website here, and it appears to have a lot of good resources for fans of the movie. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You could also comment about the movie on its Facebook page here; it looks like some people are getting replies from those operating the Facebook page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight article about online movie ratings

FiveThirtyEight's article Be Suspicious Of Online Movie Ratings, Especially Fandango’s is a good read. While it focuses on Fandango, it mentions Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (especially in the footnotes). This is not directly applicable to film articles, but I think this illustrates the importance of explaining RT and MC's methodologies each and every time their scores are referenced per WP:BALANCE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like, from the article, that Rotten Tomatoes is the single most accurate. — Cirt (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should come up with some boilerplate text that could be generally applied when utilizing such scores in articles? DonIago (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There already was a boilerplate somewhere once, Template:Rotten Tomatoes score, but it now appears to be broken and not in use anymore. :( — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen WP:RTMC referenced in a long time, but it has (very outdated) language under "Critical response" that I originally intended to do just that. The most recent language I've personally used is at The Martian (film)#Critical response, but there has been some push-back about such language being too detailed. I think the detail is necessary, but I'm not sure if the consensus exists to accept that and standardize the language. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the language you used at The_Martian_(film)#Critical_response is perfect, actually. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Some credit to Betty Logan for that; she shaved off some redundancy to tighten up the language. Related discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the MOS could be bulked up with a "suggestion" for appropriate language. Revisiting the template to see whether it could be salvaged might also be worthwhile. I think asking general editors to read an essay regarding how to handle the language may be more than they'd be willing to commit to (actually, I suspect we'll regularly need to clean up the language in any case, but I'm trying to retain some optimism...). I'm happy to help with any concerns regarding the specific language incorporated into any such suggestion. DonIago (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think an example or two, or perhaps an exaplanation also of how RT and MC aggregate scores, would be a good addition to the MOS. I also do agree that the wording in The Martian is great. (I may go through the film articles I'm working on and implement something extremelt similar.) I'm wondering: does anyone know of similar aggregate sites for other media? I think RT does shows now? Is this something that would be relevant for other projects to consider? (Or is that meddlesome?) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we have a consensus to support specific wording for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, we could put it in MOS:FILM#Critical response. (I also think that we should retire the "Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics" subsection since I do not believe anyone makes this distinction anymore. Maybe it could just be something more summarized to go in the "Notes" section at the end.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the second infographic, Metacritic looks the most "honest" in what you expect from an unbiased statistical distribution. I bet most films don't get the bottom rating and most don't get the top, so on a five star rating system you would expect most films to get 2–4 stars. Metacritic is the only one which conforms to this distribution (the bulk of its reviews in the 1.5–4.0 range). All the user ratings seem to skew high as you would expect from a system that facilitates vote stacking, but the distribution for the RT critics score is anomalous: are we really to believe there are more 5-star films than 3-star films? The RT critics score is very flat, more or less evenly distributed across the whole range, which I think is due to its binary grading system. This highlights the inherent flaw in RT's system: in any fair rating system you would expect the weight of the distribution to be centered around the mean, but only the Metacritic critics score conforms to that expectation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should consider an RfC (I don't think a basic consensus here would necessarily be sufficient) on discouraging the inclusion of RT scores? It kind of sounds like that's what you're suggesting. Obviously there's no point in coming up with suggested text for the Critical Reception section until we're sure what aggregators we consider appropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt we could do without RT scores. It is a pretty common reference in Wikipedia articles, much like having IMDb as an external link. RT is constantly reported in periodicals, so it would be difficult to leave it out. I do think we have the opportunity to report it well (and better than most sources do). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is more to do with how the study interprets the RT score, and it is something we see time and time again on film articles. Whereas you can equate an MC score (which is a weighted averaged of critic scores) of 70 with 7/10, a 70% RT score does not equate that way i.e. it is not a representation of a film's quality. The RT score basically counts the percentage of "recommends", so there is no real reason why you would have more films that split critics (i.e. 50%) than films than unite critics (i.e. 0% or 100%). That is why the distribution is uniform. If you take Mad Max Fury Road for instance, a 97% RT score equates to 5/5 on a rounded 5-star scale; however, we can see that the average critics rating is only 8.7/10, or 4 stars on a rounded scale. Basically if most critics give a film 4 stars then that's why it gets an almost perfect RT score, because most critics have recommended it. The study would have been better plotting the alternative RT average rating since that is the metric that grades the film. I don't think we should drop the RT score but this study does help highlight our misuse of the score: the RT score is not indicative of quality, it is indicative of approval. We need to make sure that this is clear when we give the RT score, so that a 100% score is not necessarily interpreted as the majority of critics giving it top marks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no desire to strike a deceased equine, but I'm not sure whether I should take the lack of further comments here as a lack of desire to move forward on the matter or read it in another manner. I still think boilerplate text would be a good idea, but especially based on Betty's concerns I'm uncertain how to proceed and unlikely to do so solo. DonIago (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, again with the dead horse thing, but despite there not being any more moves on this, I did make the suggestion at the currently running Tank Girl FAC that an edit of this sort be considered for addition into the article (wow, that phrasing is awkward), linking to this discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Everyone, please check out Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library! This is a great resource where Wikipedia editors can request access to databases to use for building this encyclopedia. I received access to EBSCO a little while ago and just got access to Project MUSE today. I encourage others to get access too. Otherwise, feel free to ask me to look up certain topics or keywords in either database! Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Excellent, wonderful, amazing resource. Invaluable. — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. I struggled to find access to enough academic sources to complete my first GA. The Wikipedia Library made all that easy. The Wikipedia Library offers access to Cineaste through JSTOR, which is a hugely useful resource for anyone that wants to take a film-related article to GA or FA. You should also request access to Highbeam Research if you intend to work in AfD, as it has many archived film reviews. If you work in niche areas, you should look at what McFarland & Company can offer. When I joined their program, they graciously offered three e-books for free per year. I was able to improve coverage of countless films, and using their film criticism books allowed me to create many more articles. It is very rewarding to expand an article that had previously languished as a stub for years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A little help

1. I've helped to clear the backlogs at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
2. It previously looked something like this ----> and now looks something like this.
3. But there's still two (2) nominations there at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama -- that I cannot review myself. :)

Any help would be appreciated. :)

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nollywood

There is currently a discussion at the Nollywood talk page about whether the contents of Nollywood should be merged into Cinema of Nigeria on the basis that the term 'Nollywood' is registered as a trademark in the United States. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Another "genre in the lead" discussion

This has probably been beat to death over the years, but there's another discussion about the use of genres in the lead at Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. Originally, the discussion is debating whether or not to include Star Wars films in the epic genre, but it has evolved into the larger concern of whether or not we should be using vague terms or listing multiple genres in the lead. Personally, I feel that the primary genre associated with a film should be the lead's focus, and if any further discussion on its genre is warranted, then it should be tackled in a section or sub-section within the article's body. If you feel inclined to weigh in, please do, as additional feedback would be appreciated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Considering this and recent discussions, it may be worth expanding the wording of the guidelines for better clarification on best practices. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just kill genres in a fire and be done? GRAPPLE ^X 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be nice! LOL --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I think the ongoing problem with "verifiably classified" is that it is usually possible to find one, two, or a small handful of sources that have classified a film in a particular genre. However, when an overwhelming majority don't use that classification, it becomes a difficult scenario to either justify or oppose its inclusion in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to recall what "verifiably classified" was originally intended to mean. In a way, anything said by a secondary source is better than a mashup of genres that is done by one editor or is genre-creep by multiple editors over time. Of course, different sources will describe films in different ways. The guidelines, IMO, try to say to pick the most common genre or sub-genre among the sources. We could go further and also require that the genre/sub-genre be notable on Wikipedia. I created gothic romance film for Crimson Peak to basically try to overcome the genre issue for that film (and learned plenty in the process). Might be good incentive to evaluate film genre articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Principally agree with Erik here. Also, with so much discussion and debate, I'm surprised no single editor or editor(s) has attempted to write a well-sourced Genres subsection of the article, to present scholarly and academic discussion of such. I'm sure there's plenty of coverage of this particular topic in peer-reviewed academic journals. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Which article are you referring to? Crimson Peak or a more general topic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film, but great work you've done at Gothic romance film !!! — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a good point that a lot of material obviously exists out there, so it is somewhat surprising. However, I think the main point here is that unless such a section exists in the article's body, the lead should opt to use a high-level genre as opposed to a sub-genre to help avoid disagreements. In this situation, space opera may technically be OK, but it is a sub-genre nevertheless. Wouldn't it just be easier to decide which high-level genres are acceptable for the lead (making a list similar to the one here), and then recommending in the style guidelines to choose from this list when editors disagree on the use of a sub-genre? Having something to fall back on would certainly cut down on the constant rehashing of this topic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think choosing genre or sub-genre depends on the film. Sub-genres can be obvious branches of main genres, like black comedy or screwball comedy, or it can be a non-obvious sub-genre, like disaster film being under action film (per your filmsite.org link). As for your proposed list, why not have list of film genres (currently a redirect)? We only have list of genres and film genre (the latter which has a small list). A stand-alone list would be good for readers and editors alike. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Joy (film)

TheRedPenOfDoom still insists days later, possibly weeks, that the release date is requiring "Scheduled for [date]." Could please close this discussion already? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is clear - we do not present a future event as if it has actually happened. What can be verified is that there is a scheduled release date. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This approach is pedantic. We already use this language in prose, and I find that sufficient. Not to mention that it is a long-time practice. Please discuss if you want to see about a revised consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Tenebrae actually pretty much closed the deal when I initially opened the discussion here. Guess that was not enough. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikiproject film feels that many of the Wikipedia policies and practices dont apply to them, but that doesnt mean that the project gets to opt out. The inclusion of "scheduled" for events that have not happened is more accurate, more encyclopedic and more in line with policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe that about WikiProject Film? It would help to cite infobox precedent elsewhere. Do album articles do this? Do book articles? Etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Erik that adding 'scheduled' to the infobox is pedantic. 2020 Summer Olympics and Dystopia (Megadeth album), to pick two examples I could immediately think of, have in their infobox an unaccompanied date, and in the lead of the article itself say "are planned" and "due for release". In that way, the articles, and similarly the Joy article with its chosen "is scheduled for" fall in line with crystal. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It goes without saying that a date in the future is a scheduled date. That's why nobody says it. "Wikiproject film feels that many of the Wikipedia policies and practices dont apply to them, but that doesnt mean that the project gets to opt out" Maybe you would like to read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The prose takes care of that. The infobox on the other hand doesn't use "scheduled for". Most content in articles on unreleased things can change, including the talent involved dropping out; we don't state "set to direct" or "set to star" next to the director or an actor listed in the infobox because they could in the future drop out of the project. The infobox highlights key content, it's not meant to be pedantic. It's also common sense to readers that a scheduled release date can change, and editors will update the article if it happens. Lapadite (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with the consensus on this, and since I had inadvertently put my contribution to the discussion at the Joy talk page, I wanted to add it here since I thought it was important to support the basis for, though not the execution of, RedPen's point. Basically it's what Lapadite explains. Here's what I wrote:

I wanted to say I agree with Erk's edit and Callmemirela's stance, although I understand the essence of TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's point, and I think all these veteran editors of good faith are actually of one mind. Let me explain.

Yes, per WP:CRYSTAL, the announced release date of a movie could change for many reasons, with some films having been postponed even at the last minute due to a news event that might make the film's release problematic, like a school shooting occurring the same week a film about a similar topic was to be released. So saying "scheduled release date" in prose is exactly right.

But with infoboxes and filmography lists, it's redundant to say "scheduled" since we're giving a future date: Of course it's scheduled ... how could it be anything else, since it hasn't happened yet? In an infobox or a filmography list, a verifiably, officially announced future event is, by definition, scheduled. So saying "scheduled" isn't necessary. (And secondarily, verified and cited prose confirms "scheduled".)

From what I can see, both Call and RedPen are correct in the essence of WP:CRYSTAL. The only difference between them is grammatical. Yes, the infobox date is a scheduled one. But for the reasoning above, in this non-prose seeing, it's redundant to say "scheduled." My two cents. --Tenebrae (talk)

I don't see how there is anything "less predictive" or "more implied" about placing and discussing a future event in the infobox than placing and discussing a future event in the text. If anything, the infobox which is supposed to provide necessary information at a glance would be the place where we would want to be more careful about giving readers inaccurate and presumptive information without appropriate caveats.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless the person reading it doesn't understand that things in the future aren't definitive, then they should be able to tell that it is scheduled. Also, especially in the article in question, the lead (where scheduled is mentioned) is actually the first place that the release date is mentioned, with the release date in the infobox not actually becoming apparent until you get to the production part of the page. The lead is right there at the top of the page, and since it is almost always the first mention of the date, that is when people are likely to see it. Other than films rescheduled last minute because of news stories, who checks a release date far ahead of time before turning up to the cinema to watch the film? Most people will check it a few days before and are likely to check their local theater's website to find the date more than Wikipedia.

And to add to that, having scheduled in the infobox just looks untidy.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The film has not yet been distributed yet. Should we also adjust 20th Century Fox to 20th Century Fox (scheduled)? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No need for the snark... the consensus is clearly in favor of not using these terms in the infobox. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no one has pointed out this inconsistency yet, and I don't particularly view the Socratic method as snark. I only saw this discussion today but am satisfied if there's a consensus against such a broad reading of CRYSTAL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! "Socratic Method"... I like that. Anyway, I agree there is no need to add "scheduled for" in the infobox. It's needless and results in crowding. - ^theWOLFchild 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Should filmographies include works disowned by the filmmaker?

Moved from my talkpage. There was a discussion on whether we should include works disowned by the filmmaker e.g. credited as "Alan Smithee" or "Stephen Greene" in the filmography section of their bios. Wondered if others would like to pitch in? Pinging some WikiProject film regulars. Erik, Sock, Lugnuts, Betty Logan, Cyphoidbomb. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Hi Cowlibob, I noticed that you recently updated the David O. Russell filmogrpahy section to better reflect the guidelines of Wikipedia (thanks for that!), and when you did so reverted a change made by AndrewOne that suggested that the film Accidental Love could not be considered an O. Russell film and was removed. I actually agree with AndrewOne, but before making the change wanted to check and see what you thought on the matter! Morganglick (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am "AndrewOne," Morganglick. Thank you for tagging me; I would have wanted to participate in this discussion. In any event, my argument for Cowlibob is that I removed Accidental Love from Russell's filmography because its appearance among movies he was involved with all the way through is awkward. I fully understand the fact that most directors do not have final cut privilege - but to cut off one's own ties with a film as much as half a decade before its commercial release is far different from simply lacking final cut privilege.
I believe this would be a good time to mention the film Dune (1984). David Lynch certainly distanced himself from this movie, but mostly around the time it hit theaters. His artistic vision was restrained by the studios, as has happened many times, but all in all it was not actually a case of him quitting altogether years before completion. For this reason, I could understand Dune's being listed on Wikipedia as a David Lynch work. (Even though I do not personally like its listing as such, that is acceptable). Russell's situation was not the same. He left the whole project before even having filmed Silver Linings Playbook (2012) or American Hustle (2014). Direction for Accidental Love should instead be attributed to whomever directed the remainder. One might suggest to follow the example of Spartacus (1960): Anthony Mann was removed after a week of shooting, and Stanley Kubrick eventually took over. To whom is the direction of Spartacus ultimately attributed? Kubrick.

What if Russell were to do what he did about Accidental Love four more times over? Would WP policy mandate that they all be counted in his filmography, along with those he had directed fully? If so, WP:FILMOGRAPHY could be quite fallible, and in need of stronger specificity. AndrewOne (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)"

Yes, Wikipedia is about verifiability, and it is verifiable that the director directed Accidental Love. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so a director's filmography should be based on these sources. Wikipedia should not present a director's filmography like a resume. If needed, we can add a note indicating some background for that film, such as his pseudonym and his act of disowning. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What Erik said. Speaking of Kubrick, he'd pretty much disowned Fear and Desire, but it would be wrong to exclude it from his filmography. He still directed it, even if he wasn't happy with it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I like Erik's explanation, but I also like Lugnuts' pep, so I'm going with both. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an easy one; if there are reliable sources identifying a filmmaker and their film, then yes... we include it. - ^theWOLFchild 23:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Informal mini-RFC

1. Should Metacritic's and Rotten Tomatoes' aggregator data be included in a film article if the film is still out in theaters?
2. Should Rotten Tomatoes scores be included if there is no critical consensus, for instance here?

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes to both. For the first question, it is commonplace to include the data during a film's theatrical run. Wikipedia is dynamic enough to update the numbers (with some editors being very diligent in this). For the second question, I think considering that Metacritic has a small sample set that it would be okay to include Rotten Tomatoes even if the staff has not written a "critics' consensus" yet. Not to mention that we shouldn't just be putting the RT score right upfront on Wikipedia. As we discussed earlier this month, it would be appreciate to use the right wording to explain each website's methodology. If that is being done, then I do not think a brief lack of "critics' consensus" should prohibit mentioning numbers useful to readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Independent films, especially those that premiere at high profile film festivals, will frequently have a RT score (and maybe even critics' consensus) prior to their theatrical release. Something to consider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it depends. I don't think it/they should be used if it is overly damning, because all the critical assessment isn't in yet, and WP needs to avoid potentially negatively influencing potential viewers (also per WP:NOTNEWS). Likewise, if the RT result is stratospheric, it should be noted as "As of [exact date] ..." if the score is going to be included, because, again, all of the critical analysis may not be in yet. I think it's important not to stress RT scores too much. It's much better to use actual review quotes, preferably from major notable RS venues, and to summarize the aggregate as "mixed", "mixed to negative", "mixed to positive", "positive", "very positive", etc. (can also omit summarizing the aggregate or using the numbers entirely). I generally like to err on the side of positive or neutral-to-positive when quoting or summarizing reviews, and try to add in whatever positive I can if the reviews are pretty damning overall. In other words, it's important to remain neutral per NPOV. I think RT and MC numbers are kind of like AllMusic ratings -- to be used judiciously, when necessary or advisable. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I think that would be fair. A film with 2 reviews and a 100% score could easily hurtle downward to 18% after all is said and done. Not sure what to assume on the readers' part about sample size. On Metacritic, there are some films that only get like 5-10 reviews, and there is still a metascore provided. (However, in some of their lists of films, they exclude these items and provide a checkbox to put them back in. See this, which has a footnote that says, "Only movies with seven or more reviews are eligible.") Maybe we can think of some keywords to make clear that the low number of reviews is "limited" or "early" or something of the like? Interestingly, Cyphoidbomb's RT link shows no "critics' consensus" for a film that came out in 2010. In that particular case, with 20 reviews, I would just report it with the right wording but without the "critics' consensus" part of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything stated, above, by Erik, having read his most sensible and logical rationale. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. A small sample size is definitely problematic, but it's not the end of the world, especially if we avoid our own original analysis of the rating ("it received mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes"). First, RT doesn't even provide a score until enough "Tomatometer approved" critics have commented. I forget the number, and I'm too lazy to check; I think it's five. So, you won't even see a percentage listed unless five "Tomatometer approved" critics have are listed. This doesn't include reviews that are uncatalogued (linked reviews that have no analysis as to whether they're positive or negative yet). Many "Tomatometer approved" critics are just self-published bloggers; these include prolific users who post their reviews on Netflix and the IMDb. After it gets an official Tomatometer score, it needs a certain number of "top critics" to give a consensus. It doesn't always do this, especially for independent films. I'm not necessarily saying that RT is biased against independent films, but they sure aren't going out of their way to update their site's coverage of independent films. As far as films that are currently in theaters, I don't see why we should change any of our behavior. It's not our place to decide when the critical consensus is in or if it's too positive/negative. So, no, I think I rather vehemently disagree with some of the suggestions in this thread (pretty much everything that Softlavender wrote), and somewhat disagree with the rest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For #1, you seem in agreement with the rest of us about it being acceptable to use such data while the film is in theaters. But for #2, are you essentially saying that the data should be reported regardless of how limited it is? What I suggested to Softlavender was meant as a temporary fix. If the number of reviews is very small (maybe even just below five) for a short time, it may not be worth reporting if we do expect more. However, if we do not expect more reviews to come in, I am fine with reporting the data, however limited it may be. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If an aggregator decides there are enough reviews for an official score, and we consider them a reliable source, why not list the score? I wrote a few articles about films that have a 100% Tomatometer score based on five reviews. So what? It doesn't mean anything, and that's why I used the standardized language that I do ("100% of five surveyed critics gave it a positive review"). It's not a summary of the film's overall reception, it's just a snapshot of what RT has currently indexed. I'm strongly opposed to the interpretation the RT score. Stuff like, "The film received critical acclaim on RT and has a 90% score." I think this is a totally inappropriate use of RT, as each of those reviews could have been a 3/5 rating. I think this is related to what you've been talking about lately. I especially think we need to avoid unsourced lead-in statements. If Entertainment Weekly says the reviews were mixed, alright. But no unsourced personal analysis. Just state the aggregator scores when they're posted, let the aggregators themselves worry about when there are enough reviews to post a rating, and avoid any kind of unsourced analysis. That's what I'm saying. No special rules for theatrical releases, no special rules for low numbers of reviews, no special rules at all. Just enforce WP:V and WP:NOR ruthlessly. As far as WP:NPOV goes, I don't see how a high score on RT is non-neutral. It's a simple fact. To report it as "critical acclaim", however, is a violation of NPOV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is about emphasis in writing about the reception. To me, it would be the wrong emphasis to mention 100% first and then state that it was based on five reviews. I'd rather see the opposite, to outline the methodology and the reviews surveyed and lastly report the determined score. I do prefer this approach in general anyway, and like you said, with summaries from sources like Entertainment Weekly in front. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember where I picked up this wording from, but it struck me as one of the better ways to describe RT. I had been struggling with how to describe RT for a while, and the phrasing that many other people were using seemed too close to "it received critical acclaim on Rotten Tomatoes". I originally did like you said (methodology first and rating last), but then I rearranged the sentence to make it a little more natural-sounding. Either way seems fine, really. As long as the RT summary doesn't indicate that it is an authoritative or statistically rigorous examination of the film's reception, I'm pretty much OK with it. This is similar, I think, to how Box Office Mojo is sometimes used to say that a film was a "success" or "disappointment", neither of which BOM ever says. A certain subset of critics that RT polled may like/dislike a film, but we can't extrapolate from that anything else, such as "mixed reviews" or "critical acclaim". Cyphoidbomb and a few other regulars here are probably familiar with the situation at Mad Max: Fury Road. During the film's theatrical release, we got all kinds of independent reliable sources for over-the-top praise like "critical acclaim", "rave reviews", "best EVAR!", etc. Now that we've got some distance from the film's theatrical release and can hopefully judge it more dispassionately, I think we can start to let in some of that commentary. This is one aspect of the "during a theatrical run" that I agree with, though it's not really related to aggregators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

1: yes, 2: yes. per Erik. - ^theWOLFchild 23:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Regarding Steve Jobs (2015 film), there is an ongoing discussion about what genre to label the film in the opening sentence of the lead section. Editors are invited to comment here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Loreak

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Loreak, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tiggerjay (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Film cover fair use rationale appropriate for a Documentary ?

Is a Film cover fair use rationale appropriate for a Documentary ?

Specifically, one used by Gobonobo of {{Film cover fur}} ?

I happen to think so, as I happen to think that the redirect of documentary to documentary film is appropriate, and that all documentaries are indeed "films".

Please see discussion, at Talk:The_Truth_According_to_Wikipedia#Infobox_image.

A user is disputing whether a "documentary" which aired first at a film screening, and only the 2nd time on television, should be considered a "film".

Their repeated complaints seem quite particular and like splitting hairs at this point in time.

Further attention from WP:FILM experts, would be most appreciated.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. The upload wizard reads "This is the official cover art of a work. This is the title page of a book, the cover of a CD or video, the official release poster of a movie, or a comparable item. It will be included as that work's primary means of visual identification, at the top of the article about the book, movie, etc. in question." Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

EDITED TO ADD: However, since the article in question is only an episode of a TV series, this does not apply and the episode in question does not have a poster or cover or cover art. Softlavender (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity and Word-of-God in "The Lobster".

Should the synopsis for the film explicitly state that people who fail to find a partner are killed and reincarnated as animals? While we are certainly told this, by characters who seem to believe it, we never see the process ourselves. This might suggest that it is purposely left ambiguous. Is the audience supposed to know the truth? Should the synopsis be adjusted to match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.3 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll get my claws into this one a bit later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Genre changes by Taeyebaar

After laying off for a while, Taeyebaar, the genre warrior of 2013 is back, relentlessly changing multiple film article leads. He often deprives readers of any link to the science fiction film article, which is in pretty good shape, and instead sends them to various subgenre articles that he prefers. He has also twice hit The Martian (film) in the last three days, returning after being reverted. He is now edit warring at Honey I Shrunk the Kids in an attempt to replace science fiction film and comedy film with comedy science fiction, which is basically just a list with a brief introduction. Nowhere near as useful as the science fiction film article. He has also removed the science fiction category from some articles. In the last several months before returning to film genre changing, Taeyebaar was the subject of discussions on his disruption at other articles, one of which was given the heading Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar. He'll have days, sometimes weeks, go by with no editing. But then he's back. I spent a lot of time reverting this guy two years ago, trying to protect the primary genre of the films involved. Note that Taeyebaar has admitted socking in the past, and has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him (myself included), and he has been warned about that in the past. I would appreciate some help, and ask others to keep an eye on his activity. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm is a POV pushing editor who frequently violates WP:OWN primarily on Planet of the Apes films and other articles on his personal liking (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and has just received a warning after being reported for edit warring after during an article discussion [3] and is suspected of using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. His (or her) accusations are without merit as I did NOT change the link to science fiction film, but shortened it to science fiction because it would repeat the word film in the lead twice. Gothicfilm also tries to dissuade other editors he does not agree with by baiting and harassing them.

The outdated ANI report GF is referring to is deliberately misleading because it was started by a suspected employee of a company which disagreed with my edits. The suspected editor also edit warred and was later banned. Among the accusations in that outdated ANI report accused me of "banning" editors I didn't agree with which was nothing but a lie and pointed out by several uninvolved editors--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There were multiple editors at that ANI who complained about Taeyebaar. It turned out one he warred with was a sock, but that did not excuse his behavior, especially since he admitted to socking himself. And once again Taeyebaar now jumps forward making accusations of socking against me, claiming suspected of using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Absolutely no one expressed such a suspicion except Taeyebaar, and the fact he tries to make it sound like there was anyone else involved shows how his account of things is not to be taken as truth. The IPs at Honey I Shrunk the Kids were not me. I have never used a sock. There was an edit against what I had done at Truth (2015 film) by an IP that had almost no editing history. I could have easily accused it of being a sock, as it was in line with another editor, but I withheld making any charges because I did not know. Here Taeyebaar went to the trouble to delete my posting from a Talk page discussion he wasn't even involved with. Apparently he thought better of it because he then reverted himself. He claims he doesn't remove the primary sci-fi link. This is just one of many, many edits where Taeyebaar removed the link to science fiction film and replaced it with one of his preferred subgenres. Here he changes The Matrix (franchise) to soft science fiction, which is more a category of scientific accuracy than a genre. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the above accusations I am currently working/studying so for me to be on and off Wikipedia as I soon will be normal. I don't see what policy I violate.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar, WP:FILMLEAD says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". This is to prevent mash-ups where it is too easy to add one genre after another in the opening sentence when it needs to be verifiable (and thus straightforward). We have the rest of the lead section to illustrate the film's premise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK but I have seen a number of articles use that. However whenever a film is more than one genre, I have seen people use for example science fiction, XXX. And yes I did that as per mashup to avoid repeating the word film twice.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are many more film articles than there are editors. :) We cannot curate all of these articles, but in my experience, the ones that become Good or Featured Articles have a simpler presentation of genres. I also find multiple genre-linking a little confusing per WP:EGG, where a "science fiction" link like yours could be linking to science fiction or science fiction film. If there is an article about a specific sub-genre, great, but otherwise I find mash-ups to be a poor practice. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Easy fix. Follow Erik and his advice for the WP:FILMLEAD sect. Then, create a well-sourced sect for the article, called Genre and/or Themes, with scholarly academic commentary from peer-reviewed sources, and you can use those sub-links in that sect. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant MOS guidelines would be WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE, both of which would seem to favor "comic science fiction film" over "science fiction comedy film". But I think we should generally avoid edit warring over genre. I don't think it's terribly important whether we describe something as a thriller film or heist film, as long as we avoid listing more than two main genres ("drama action thriller heist film" is genre salad). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like SPECIFICLINK is referring to hard facts, like geographical locations, etc. Not debatable subjects like subgenres. It was not intended to take readers to the substandard comic science fiction article-list over the science fiction film article. As the top of the MOS says, we should "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". The same applies to SEAOFBLUE, though I agree there should not be several genres in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar returned today and posted this on my Talk page: Since you persist in stalking editors who don't go by your WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I've decided to return the favor from now on.--Taeyebaar, as seen in this dif. He reverted an edit I had done on a page he previously had nothing to do with, seen here which went against the consensus at Talk:Cate Blanchett#Occupation. Despite claiming above he doesn't remove the link to the science fiction film page, he proceeded to remove it again today at various articles, for example as seen here, repeated here, where he again replaced it with soft science fiction, which is more a category of scientific accuracy than a genre. Again, I would appreciate some help, and ask others to keep an eye on his activity. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit sounds suspiciously like original research. When describing the genre we should go with the most commonly used labels ascribed to the film per WP:WEIGHT. I can't find any sources describing it as "soft science fiction" so the label should be avoided. I will add it to my watchlist for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS:LARGENUM issues

Hi all, in these edits [4][5][6][7][8][9] at 2015 in film, 2014 in film, 2013 in film, 2012 in film, 2011 in film and 2010 in film, I converted the large, highly specific box office gross values to rounded figures per MOS:LARGENUM. My edits were silently reverted by an IP editor (tsk tsk, 50.30.160.199, that's not how we do things here...) Anyhow, thought I'd solicit the community's feedback. I think consensus already exists in the form of MOS:LARGENUM, and I don't think it makes much sense to seek local consensus on all these individual pages. The specificity is somewhat of an issue because Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers don't always see eye-to-eye, I believe. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I agree. I think you could even cut it to one or two decimal places, particularly because of the differing amounts in differing sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In looking at all the edits, however, LARGENUM says that you should be consistent in the # of decimal points, so we should pick one and stick to it. Hasn't there been a discussion of this on Film before? Didn't we agree to 1 decimal point?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Rounding to one decimal place makes sense. If we're measuring in millions, tens of thousands can easily be rounded off. I could be mistaken but isn't there a template (or a mathematical function) which would automatically spit out a rounded-off number if we keep the full figure in its code (which may also help with table sorting if necessary)? GRAPPLE ^X 17:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion on my talk page between AngusWOOF, Betty Logan and myself about rounding. I went with the three post-decimal numerals to discourage people from rounding to milestone figures, but in retrospect I'm not sure my decision makes a lot of sense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You could use sigfig as with {{significant figures|987654321|4}} to give 987,700,000, or use {{significant figures|987.654321|4}} to give 987.7 million. Most box office news figures have rounded to the hundred thousands digit, example with Deadline.com [10], Forbes.com [11]. If any of the figures even with the hundred thousands digit, turn out to have a milestone issue then it can be cited separately with a footnote. For example, 1000.0 million (efn|This movie technically grossed $999,960,000, short of the $1 billion) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When dealing with the unit of "millions" which is usually the case for Hollywood studio films I advocate the basic principle of rounding to one decimal place to keep rounding errors out of the significant part of the number. Obviously there are exceptions when extra precision is justified, so if someone has a valid reason why the extra precision is required then this needs to be respected. For tables, I found this a little bit messy and inconsistent (especially how the unit changes from "billion" to "million" halfway down the table resulting in a change of precision). A table should have a uniform look and uniform precision so I second Angus's suggestion of using {{significant figures}} for tables i.e. in this example you could have ${{formatnum:{{sigdig|1155768984|5}}}} to denote $1,155,768,984 and $842,500,000 to denoted $842,497,857 (notice how both figures have precision to 100,000). Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have brought shame to the community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We will unleash Lugnuts in one hour to give you a head start. Another thought occurred to me though, that using Angus's rounded full number format will keep the table sortable too. Using the half number/half word format makes $1.156 billion lower than $842.5 million because 1.156 is lower than 842.5. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 2015 in film article, the column can specify millions, as with all those YouTube video views tables, well not List of most viewed YouTube videos, but like K-pop#YouTube_views, but it can go either way. Seeing a column of figures in which all the numbers are rounded to 100,000 or 10,000 will give the same impression. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with something like K-pop#YouTube_views. That is very similar to the approach I took at List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom#Highest-grossing_films_by_box-office_revenue. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the formula that could be used for the millions table. Here you can just take your figure, remove the commas and not think too hard about dividing by a million:

{{significant figures| {{formatnum:{{#expr: 987654321 / 1e6 }}}} | 4 }}

This would give: 987.7

For billions, I would still have it divide by 1e6 but bump the significant figure from 4 to 5 so it preserves a millions-level figure for sorting. If someone has an easier formula, please propose it. It may be overkill when someone can just list the 987.7 and be done with it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In the case of those basic tables in the "XXXX in film" articles just typing out the rounded number may be simpler. I don't see the point of over-complicating it. However, there are other cases (such as totals/averages/inflation adjustment in film series articles) where you can't just type out the number so you would need the formula to do the rounding.

There are a few ways to tighten up your formula too: {{formatnum:{{#expr: 987654321 / 1e6 round 1}}}} (987.7), {{significant figures| {{#expr: 987654321 / 1e6 }} | 4 }} (987.7), {{#expr: 987654321 / 1e6 round 1}} (987.7) Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sub-issue: tables with totals

As a secondary matter, how should tables with totals be treated? If we condense the grosses for each film, our total and average grosses will likely be impacted. For instance at List of Pixar films#Box office performance we find the table below, which I am collapsing out of love.

Extended content

Film Release date Opening Budget Domestic Worldwide Toy Story November 22, 1995 $29,140,617 $30,000,000 $191,796,233 $370,638,993 A Bug's Life November 25, 1998 $33,258,052 $120,000,000 $162,798,565 $363,398,565 Toy Story 2 November 24, 1999 $57,388,839 $90,000,000 $245,852,179 $490,728,379 Monsters, Inc. November 2, 2001 $62,577,067 $115,000,000 $289,916,256 $562,816,256 Finding Nemo May 30, 2003 $70,251,710 $94,000,000 $380,843,261 $936,743,261 The Incredibles November 5, 2004 $70,467,623 $92,000,000 $261,441,092 $631,442,092 Cars June 9, 2006 $60,119,509 $120,000,000 $244,082,982 $461,983,149 Ratatouille June 29, 2007 $47,027,395 $150,000,000 $206,445,654 $623,722,818 WALL-E June 27, 2008 $63,087,526 $180,000,000 $223,808,164 $521,311,860 Up May 29, 2009 $68,108,790 $175,000,000 $293,004,164 $731,342,744 Toy Story 3 June 18, 2010 $110,307,189 $200,000,000 $415,004,880 $1,063,171,911 Cars 2 June 24, 2011 $66,135,507 $200,000,000 $191,452,396 $559,852,396 Brave June 22, 2012 $66,323,594 $185,000,000 $237,283,207 $538,983,207 Monsters University June 21, 2013 $82,429,469 $200,000,000 $268,492,764 $743,559,607 Inside Out June 19, 2015 $90,440,272 $175,000,000 $355,597,857 $842,497,857 Total grosses $991,137,102 $2,126,000,000 $3,998,522,100 $9,488,871,152 Average grosses $64,233,304 $141,733,333 $260,208,875 $627,201,322

(References have been removed for aesthetic purposes.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

One option is to compute the raw figures as with The Fast and the Furious. But if ALL the numbers are considered rounded off, then they don't have to technically add up at the bottom. The total at the bottom would then be cited directly by Box Office Mojo. You can add a note as they have with Demographics of the United States: "The U.S. population's distribution by race and ethnicity in 2010 was as follows; due to rounding, figures may not add up to the totals shown." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with SPAs

This is a somewhat minor issue, but it's really starting to annoy me. Somewhat recently, I created an article, The Boy (2015 film). It's been subject to promotional editing, such as blanking negative reviews, using cherry-picked quotations from reviews, etc. I'm getting a bit tired of this, and if someone could look at what I've said on the talk page, that would be helpful. One issue that I have is that I think the SPAs have been obsessively adding positive reviews to the article to the point at which the reception section may need to be pruned. However, if I do it, it will almost certainly be reverted, as they seem to think that I have it in for this film. Or maybe I'm just overreacting to all this. Any kind of input would be helpful, because I'm really, really tired of edit warring with SPAs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC) edit: fixed a diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar issues (relating to COI and MOS issues, rather than reviews) of people linked to film articles, which ultimately lead to blocks for the individuals concerned. I assume it's User:Andreonethousand in question. Play the system with regards to WP:BRD and WP:3RR. You've raised this on their talkpage several times and started a discussion on the article's talkpage. I see they have no edits to talkpages and make changes without discussion. Not discussing the issue is their downfall and will lead to a block for them sooner rather than later. I see Betty Logan is adding input on the talkpage, which is always a good thing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

List of films featuring time loops at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Studio Ghibli portal is live

Feel free to expand it, add it to your watch list, and so on. Portal:Studio Ghibli ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Tony Gardner SPA

There's an SPA, FilmFXMan (talk · contribs), bulk-adding links to Tony Gardner (designer) and Alterian, Inc. to articles. Not sure what to do. Could use some discussion as to whether these mentions are being shoehorned inappropriately. Left a message on the user's talk page, but he doesn't seem to be in a talkative mood. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how to reply using the talk page - I'm just tired of seeing Tony Gardner not receive credit for work done, especially after watching a documentary that devalued his work on a film, and I was trying to give credit where credit was due. If I'm going about it all wrong, I apologize. Best, FilmFXMan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmFXMan (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to shoehorn Tony Gardner into articles, like having a "Production" section at The Craft (film) that only mentions Gardner. Per WP:NPOV, there needs to be due weight especially in regard to the level of detail. I could be wrong, but I don't think Gardner's contribution to The Craft is so important to mention without covering any other aspect of production. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@FilmFXMan: thank you for responding, but it's still concerning. Doniago reverted two of the edits as unsourced, but I agree with Erik that the primary concern here is that we should be working toward due weight. There are several articles that prominently mention Gardner and no other crew members at all. I don't see how this is giving credit where credit is due, or else you'd have been adding other people's names, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes for film score composers?

Additional opinions welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Navboxes for film score composers? and related deletion discussion --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Silentera.com: a reliable source?

Does anyone know if the Silnet Era website is considered reliable? The copyright notice states "Copyright © 1999-2015 by Carl Bennett and the Silent Era Company", which suggests some background that may provide oversight. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Ever heard of it? - ^theWOLFchild 15:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's come up before. It uses a mix of sources to get its data, one of which being IMDB. Therefore some people want to burn it with fire, some (like myself) use it a fair bit. Each film article on its site has a list of sources at the foot of the page, so you can make a judgement about the "quality" of those sources. (example). They do use lots of other good places to get their info IMO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's great - thanks Lugnuts, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra

FYI, I've nominated The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra for GA, if anyone is interested in looking at it. — Hunter Kahn 06:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed over it. Looks pretty good. I'd give it another round of copy editing, though. You've got several possible violations of WP:CLAIM (WP:GACR criterion #1b). Unless the sources express doubt, you shouldn't. I personally would work on the grammar a little more, but that's just being picky. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Interested in helping?

Would anyone be willing to work on an article about hybrid films? By this I mean an article on the concept of films that are part animation and part live action. The idea for the article stems from Draft:Highest grossing hybrid films, which wanted to list the idea of high grossing hybrid films. However I think that it'd be best to have an article on the concept, especially since some of the films in the list aren't typically thought of as animation, since they're CGI. However at the same time, the title would be inclusive of this difference. I want to avoid making this original research, so that's why I want to get people in to help find sourcing to where the article would pass GNG and would make the title valid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• The draft article is at Draft:Hybrids Films. I'm going to try to do what I can, but my time online has been in short supply lately due to school taking precedent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79: We've got Films with live action and animation. That seems pretty similar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• I was wondering if it'd be worth making into its own article rather than just a list article, plus I'm concerned that the current article is more oriented towards the more common idea of animation. Still, if we can expand that it would likely be quicker/easier than creating a new one from scratch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The common idea of animation? You mean like Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Mary Poppins? I don't think "Film with..." is specifically limited to cartoons. It seems like there's an informal consensus that CGI sfx spectacles don't belong in that article, as Avatar and Transformers are missing. However, it does have The Gate and Better Off Dead. Neither of those had cartoon animation in them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Alien (franchise) logo

For the last several months, I've been updating the Alien (franchise) page, to accommodate the current continuity, which separates from AvP and includes 20th Century Fox's newly-announced prequel trilogy. Yesterday, I took the liberty of implementing a vector-based adaptation of the Alien logo that is most commonly utilized by the franchise, with the works being the 1979 film, the Alien Anthology box set and the video game Alien: Isolation. Most every other component of the Alien franchise utilizes its own individual logo, so my reasoning has been that the original and most common logo should be utilized.

However... Alien: Covenant was formally announced the other day and it utilizes a new logo that is somewhat reminiscent of the original logo, but is obviously updated. Could I receive some input on whether I should keep the original logotype, or implement the logo as used by Alien: Covenant and call it the current one? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest change it, due to extreme likeness of original logo. But obviously write underneath "From Alien: Covenant". Although I'm sure some will argue as the film hasn't even started filming yet, it might change. But I say, as we are a constantly updating wikipedia, trying to keep-up-to-date. Go for it. Charlr6 (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I thread

This thread has just gotten underway Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikiBriefed is on a crusade to establish boxofficeindia.com as the one and only reliable source for Bollywood movies. As it is related to this Wikiproject I thought I would post a link here so that - if any of you are so inclined - you can comment there. I know that this subject has become a bit of a editwarring morass over the last few months so it might be worth creating a WP:CONSENSUS regarding these and posting it to WP:MOSFILM to try and reduce (hopefully) the editwarring. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of films featuring whitewashed roles

Regarding List of films featuring whitewashed roles, there is an ongoing discussion about the entry of Noah (2014 film) and whether or not to mention actors' Jewish backgrounds as a counterpoint. There is also a related issue about having a {{POV}} template at the top of the article. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the ethnicity of the characters in the film Noah, and which ethnic group would be best suited to play them, if not Jews? Jennifer Connelly's mother was Jewish and Logan Lerman's parents are both Jewish. I'm not saying this absolves the film of all the whitewashing accusations, but these facts should at least be stated in the article (for example, in the way that I wrote it). No, the Noah characters are not, strictly speaking, Jewish, but the story stems from Jewish culture. It's just one sentence and it's definitely relevant. It's how we would mention that actors in a film about Vikings are of Norwegian or Swedish descent, even though the Vikings were not strictly speaking Norwegian or Swedish nationals. Obtrisgo (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Billion vs 1,000 million

On the talk page for Skyfall, there has been a lengthy, but largely unproductive discussion regarding the box office total in the infobox. It's currently listed as $1,109 million. The discussion follows multiple requests to change it to $1.109 billion. At issue here is the "short" billion (10⁹), currently used widely around the world and across Wikipedia, and the outdated "long" billion (10¹²), that was used in the UK until the 1970's. A small group of editors contend that using "billion" can lead to "confusion" and insist on using "1,000 million", claiming it's supported by the article being written in British English (the film is a joint American-British production). The current form was first added 17 months ago, and in that time has been changed literally dozens upon dozens of times (perhaps hundreds) from "million" to "billion". It would seem that if anything, the current form is causing "confusion". These changes are being made by numerous users, both registered and IP, in both English and non-English speaking countries from around the world, including from across the UK.

There are currently 23 film articles with box office totals exceeding a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and among them, only Skyfall uses this form. My understanding is that there has been no "confusion" reported on any of those other pages (including Harry Potter 7 pt. II, which is a British film). There have been no complaints of "confusion" (that I'm aware of) on the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Wikipedia articles that use the short billion (topics such as math, physics, astrology, cosmology, finance, etc., etc.). Thus far there has been no explanation as to how anyone might "confuse" Skyfall's box office as being a "Trillion Dollars" ($1,000,000,000,000). Wiki-policy states that the short form is to used on in the project, but claims has been made that it is not definitive enough. The number one "goal" of the film project is to "standardize the film articles in Wikipedia", so I fail see why we need this one glaring difference that has thus far proved to be quite problematic. Below, is a table of the 23 films mentioned above (including the aberration that is Skyfall), with their current box office totals as they are written in their respective infoboxes.

table of box office totals

# film box office notes 1 Avatar $2.788 billion 2 Titanic $2.187 billion 3 Jurassic World $1.666 billion 4 The Avengers $1.519 billion 5 Furious 7 $1.515 billion 6 Avengers: Age of Ultron $1.403 billion 7 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 $1.342 billion 8 Frozen $1.274 billion 9 Iron Man 3 $1.215 billion 10 Minions $1.156 billion 11 Transformers: Dark of the Moon $1.124 billion 12 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $1.120 billion 13 Skyfall $1,109 million 14 Transformers: Age of Extinction $1.104 billion 15 The Dark Knight Rises $1.085 billion 16 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $1.066 billion 17 Toy Story 3 $1.063 billion 18 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides $1.046 billion 19 Jurassic Park $1.029 billion 20 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace $1.027 billion 21 Alice in Wonderland $1.025 billion 22 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey $1.021 billion 23 The Dark Knight $1.005 billion

• WP:NUMERAL states: "billion" and "trillion" are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively
• WP:CENTURY also states that the short billion is to be used (when representing time).
• Long and short scales states: Most English-language countries and regions use the short scale.
• Oxford English Dictionary states: British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.
• 1,000,000,000 states: The alternative term "one thousand million" is rare and is used primarily to ease understanding among non-native speakers of English...
• Virtually all the sources we rely on for this project, including sources from the UK and the sources used for the Skyfall article, use the short billion.
• In the UK, the short billion has been officially in use now for over 40 years.

In summary, Skyfall's box office total should be listed as "billion" like everywhere else. This issue is not at all likely to go away as more and more people continue to edit the total to read "billion" for this film and the same handful of editors continue to revert. Also, there are certainly going to be more and more films added to the 'billion dollar club'. I would like input from the community on this issue. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 07:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This "discussion" has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:FORUMSHOPPING until you get your own way isn't constructive, given the length of the discussion on the Skyfall talk page. As you requested, "fresh eyes" did come to the discussion but didn't agree with your stance. WP:DEADHORSE is a good indicator of being time to move on from this and do something constructive instead. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC) You just posted this comment on the other page, and I replied. Why did you feel the need to re-post it here? It's hardly "forum shopping" (but thanks for yet another one of you childish accusations). The discussion on the Skyfall talk page has grown too long and is bloated with way to much off-topic nonsense for it to be of any use. Only a half dozen or so editors have contributed and I stated, repeatedly, my intention to post this issue here because of all that. Add the fact that this issue affects more articles than just Skyfall and that makes this page the more appropriate venue for this discussion. Now, I had asked on the other page that if you chose to respond here, could you stay on topic? You have failed with very first post. Do you think if you post any further, that perhaps you at least try to address the topic, and stop attacking me? (just once?) Try to think of everyone else here for a change. - theWOLFchild 09:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Could you please stop commenting on other people and keep your comments on the matter in hand? - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) That's hilarious. Really. (and another re-post) - theWOLFchild 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC) If you continue to keep commenting on me and other editors, rather than the point in hand, I will keep asking you to stop. I suggest you focus on that for now, and concentrate on fixing the formatting of the closure on the Skyfall talk page you seem intent on breaking. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC) I asked you to stay on topic. Are saying that every time I do that, you're going to post another one of your silly off-topic replies? And why are you complaining about "formatting" from another page here? What does that have to do with this topic? It's utterly ridiculous posts like this that completely derailed the discussion on the other page. Drop it already. - theWOLFchild 10:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest an RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If words are at the heart of the problem, use numerals. 1,109,000,000 is unmistakeable. For what it's worth, I grew up in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) well after the 1970s and was stil taught that a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 in school (and a trillion was a million times that, etc). So it's not quite as clear cut as calling it "outdated". GRAPPLE ^X 09:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm British and in my 40s, and I've only ever heard of "billion" to mean 1,000,000,000, from grade school right through to university. I don't have a problem with using full numerals (but others editors are against it). It would also solve the continuing debates about rounding off (and up and down). But "billion" is being used on twenty-two other films articles, and hundreds, if not thousands of other Wikipedia pages without a problem, so how is it that it's a problem for this one page? The current "$1000, million" is a proven problem as it's constantly edited to read a "billion" and then reverted back. So obviously "$1000, million" is causing confusion and something needs to be done. If not using "billion", then I'm open to other suggestions. - ^theWOLFchild 10:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My preferred solution to anything that's being constantly edited back and forth, be it formatting, genres, subjective terms, whatever, is just the excise the problem. Even if every editor currently involved agrees to word it one way or another, there will inevitably come along another new editor who would prefer it the "other" way and it'll happen again. So since the problem is with the word being used, don't use words. GRAPPLE ^X 10:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't have a problem with that as a alternative solution. But I think it would be an uphill battle for you to gain consensus on it. It would probably have to be applied to every film article. Right now, I'm just trying to fix one. But let me ask you, if Skyfall was changed to "billion", would you object? - ^theWOLFchild 10:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I would, but not because it's confusing; it's clearly a bone of contention that need not be there. And it certainly wouldn't have to be applied across the board, consistency is only of great importance within each article, not across them all. GRAPPLE ^X 11:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the number one stated goal of the Wiki Film Project is "To standardize the film articles in Wikipedia". But anyway, I will say this; it would be interesting if all the involved editors here agreed to use "billion" on Skyfall for say... 90 days. Then watch and see how many times it's changed to "million" by any non-involved editor or user, or see how many complaints the page gets from aged Britons about "confusion" over the amount. None of the anti-billion crew seems to want to address these points. - ^theWOLFchild 13:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping, ping, ping, ping, ping!!! All in a higher place now. Come join the party. Betty Logan, Cassianto, Buzzard, Martinevans123, SchroCat, SonOfThornhill, Stphnpn. Charlr6 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ooo, neat vid. lol Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Should totally just use $1,108,561,013 instead. If one party wants a 1000 million and the other a billion, surely they can all agree upon simply stating the full gross? There is no harm whatsoever in that. The world wouldn't end. Charlr6 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you really talking sense here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I was taught a billion to be a thousand million, and as practically the entire world in media uses 'billion' to refer to box office, just you know Wolf Child, then we should reflect that.

Or, I'm open for what GrappleX posted about about just using numerals. Nothing wrong with that, and the readers can then read it how they like. Charlr6 (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Short billion (10 ⁹) is the one everybody uses nowadays - it's all over the WP:POLICY pages - and I speak as a Brit who is old enough to have used the long billion way back when. There really should be no content issue here. If Wikipedians are constantly digging up my grave, that's a behaviour issue not a content issue any more, I'm still dead. I don't accept that long strings of zeroes are a good idea, for many of not most folks, they don't digest easily. HTH. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NUMERAL states, "'Billion' and 'trillion' are understood to represent their short-scale values of 10⁹ (1,000,000,000) and 10¹² (1,000,000,000,000), respectively." Was there a counter-argument to this? Also, are there any reliable sources that report Skyfall's box office gross as a long-scale value? I was surprised to see that the BBC reported Skyfall's gross as a short-scale value. This case is reminding me of Star Trek Into Darkness where lowercase "into" was argued for based on principle despite sources overwhelmingly writing "Into". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  To add on, if WP:NUMERAL says that "billion" used in article text is understood to represent the short-scale value, then to treat Skyfall's use of "billion" as problematic contravenes this understanding. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The counter-argument is on the article talk page where all article discussions should be. After a 200KB discussion I very much doubt editors want to restart the discussion over from somehwere else. A summary of the arguments are as follows though:

• The primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary states "1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions."
• The British government did indeed adopt the short scale definition in 1974. Nobody disputes this, but even a parliamentary publication concedes that the word still sometimes causes confusion.
• MOSNUMERAL compels us to use the short-scale, it doesn't compel us to actually use the word "billion": 1,000 million means the same thing on both the short and long scales.
• The argument that "standardization" is the "primary goal" of Wikipedia articles is again founded on false logic: if that were the case then all articls would use one variety of English. As it stands, out of the film articles listed above only Skyfall and the Harry Potter articles are written in British English.
• Grapple's point cuts to the heart of the debate: language is inherently outdated. Some words have been around hundreds of years and their meanings have changed over those years. Since British education did not start adopting the short scale until the mid-70s then there are plenty of people alive who have been educated before this time. The word has had two distinct meanings in the last half century. The argument that the article is pandering to the "minority" is fallacious: anyone who knows what a billion is on either scale will not be confused by "1,000 million", and it is unambiguous.
• To quote 1,000,000,000: "Previously in British English (but not in American English), the word "billion" referred to a million millions (1,000,000,000,000). However, this is no longer common, and the word has been used to mean one thousand million (1,000,000,000) for some time.[2][3] The alternative term "one thousand million" is rare and is used primarily to ease understanding among non-native speakers of English, as many other languages use words similar to "billion" (e.g. Spanish billón, or Finnish Biljoona) to mean one trillion (1,000,000,000,000 or a million millions)." Less than 50% of the viewings of the English Wikipedia originate from native English-speaking countries (US/UK/Ireland/Australia/New Zealand) with majority of viewings originating in non-English speaking countries, some of which "billion" translates to "1,000,000 million" in their language. Not exactly in the spirit of WP:WORLDVIEW is it, if we write something in a way that can be easily misinterpreted.

Those are the main reasons for dropping a "billion" from the article. If editors want to further comment on this issue it would be better if they did so at the main discussion. It is unreasonable to expect everyone that participated in a 200KB debate to re-start the discussion here. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about restarting? Only come and join. It would be better for it to happen here, in a more higher place than one films talk page. Going from local council to country government. Can't hide there forever. This page can help decide how to do it for possibly entire future.

Thewolfchild I remember you coming up on the original post loads of good 'summaries' which practically no one on the opposite side really delved into an actual response, as much as what you researched into it. Charlr6 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Betty Logan. Yes, unfortunately the discussion on the other page was quite long, but it was also completely derailed by large amounts of off-topic silliness. This is the more appropriate venue anyway, as this issue affects multiple film related articles. That said, there are still some outstanding questions that need to be addressed, despite the "200KB discussion";

• How do you account for the lack of "confusion" and so-called "ambiguity" on the twenty-two other film articles that use "billion" in the infobox for box office? Or the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Wikipedia articles that use "billion"?
• Why is it that this one particular article must! be different?
• Also, how do account for the almost daily edits to Skyfall changing "million" to "billion" by users from all over the world, including the UK?
• Do you recognize that in point of fact, the current "$1,000 million" is clearly causing confusion for many, many people?

Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am reasonably sure that if the editors that Charl6 canvassed had been in favor of using the "billion" you would not regard the main discussion as "silliness". If you want "fresh eyes" by all means notify wikiprojects of the existing discussion but WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

First off, I didn't "canvass" anyone. If you have a problem with 'Charl6', please take it up with him. Don't lower yourself to the level of others here with off-topic comments and accusations. Now, that said, I again have asked you to address a few simple and straight forward points, and again you refuse. Why? I am asking as plainly and respectfully as I can. Why do you refuse to address any of the points brought forward, (on either page). Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of canvassing anyone. To quote WP:FORUMSHOPPING: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. I think that policy makes it very clear that starting a new discussion when another one on the exact same issue is already in the advanced stages is generally unhelpful. Also, your discussion opener is in no way a neutral description of the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan - Here is the very problem. You have posted yet another lengthy comment, quoting an entire section of policy no less (wouldn't a link suffice?), adding more and more "KBs" to the page, (when you yourself seem to ignore policy when it suits you) and yet nowhere in your post did you address the actual on-topic questions I have repeatedly put to you. This is exactly what happened on the Skyfall talk page. You and Scrho et al., bloating up the page with constant off-topic and/or non-responsive posts. Of course no one is going to join in there... no one wants to wade through paragraph after paragraph of endless nonsense. Now, I will ask again, will you kindly respond to the questions I addressed to you on this issue? Please? - ^theWOLFchild 09:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have already said, there is an existing discussion in the advanced stages at the actual article itself which is where all article decisions should be made so I am not prepared to restart the same discussion here. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Betty Logan the problem is that you weren't "prepared" to discuss the issue there either. I put forth over a dozen different points, repeatedly, and you continually refused to address them. That discussion has now been closed, with a note directing people here, where this is now being discussed. The use of "$1,000 million" is too problematic and confusing and needs to be changed. There are a dozen reasons why. If you care to address any of them, I'm sure we would all value your input. - ^theWOLFchild 16:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors agree the discussion needs to stay on topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could you stop attacking others? If you could focus entirely on the points in hand, rather than badgering others. The effect of your posts is to "add ... more and more "KBs" to the page", a point you seem to bemoan constantly, but ensure the argument keeps getting driven off the point in the process. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Seriously? Show me exactly how this is an "attack". Then show me where you have made even one post here that is on topic. In other words, shit or get off the pot. All you're doing is wasting space. - theWOLFchild 15:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Nice. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC) To answer your question, like Betty I have made my point where it should be made: on the Skyfall talk page. There is no need for me to repeat it here (just as there is no need to validate FORUMSHOPPING by spinning out the discussion further. – SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC) In all of your replies, only one addressed the actual topic. The one where you claim "billion" is too confusing for Britons aged over 50. That has been proven to not be an issue here. But we went further, and have listed a dozen other reasons why "$1,000 million" is problematic and needs to be changed. You and Betty refused to address any of these points, despite being asked repeatedly... and that was during the original discussion on the Skyfall page. You and/or Betty will need to come up with more substantive and compelling answers or the item will have to be changed. The Skyfall discussion is closed. This one is open. No one else has a problem discussing it here except you two. This is your opportunity to contribute to this discussion and have a say in the outcome. If you choose not to, that's on you. But if you choose to comment, then... for once... say something on topic. - theWOLFchild 08:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Oh stop it. If that was an attack then you are attacking him now, and now I am attacking you. He wouldn't have to add more KBs and WOULD stay on track if OTHERS like Betty did too. She and you have never fully addressed the points he made and always find some way to avoid them. Sorry, but it is clearly true. You could have contributed to it, but no you went and accused him of attack. I could have also contributed right now, but stop worrying about KBs for Christ's sake. The world isn't going to end. Wikipedia isn't going to explode so shut up about them. If you reply to this, or ANY other comment, then do so by contributing properly. Comment on what people say about this TOPIC. If you want other people to be have professionally or whatever, then do so yourself. Ignore stupid comments like you will probably call this one, and probably now claim I don't know you so how can you call this a stupid comment. But whatever. Ignore whatever you view as bad comments, and just be helpful and contribute because otherwise it is going to go round in circle over and over again between all of us. Everybody, stay on target and focus. Do NOT get side-tracked. Do not accuse other people of doing something, do not get overly offended or reply with some subtle or obvious insult or whatever you would call it. Everybody here is as bad as each other. If there is any comments back to this, that isn't at all being helpful at contributing, then well done for doing everything I've just said not to, and proving me right. Think of it like this, it is a new minute, relax, stay focused and comment slowly and with a smile. The past is irrelevant. If anybody wants to see what was on that talk page they can do, no point copy and pasting and reminding everybody here. We can all do better, so make a start yourself, whoever you are now reading. Charlr6 (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Charlr6, I was not attacking him: I was asking him not to comment negatively on others. He has bemoaned such comments continually, but has added more of these comments thaneveryone else combined. Perhaps both he and you should stop attacking and bludgeoning others and simply discuss the point, which has already reached consensus on the talk page, despite your canvassing of others. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• $1.X billion is obviously the correct choice, not 1,000 million.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, is anyone refuting the complete lack of ambiguity in pure numerals? Much of what's been said still repeats points, often purely subjective, on words with regionally-different meanings, and it doesn't seem that one side or another will convince the other. GRAPPLE ^X 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Exact numerals have the benefit of preciseness, but then you run into MOS:LARGENUM. We could just bin that guideline on Brit English articles, but I think it would need a strong consensus here to withstand the MOS fanatics. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused about whether replying to this debate here is helping, but put me down in favour of using "billion". I think the cost of writing it out in long form, which looks weird and is hard to read, is higher than the cost of a vanishingly small number of people being confused, which frankly I think is unlikely anyway. (Speaking as a professional copy editor and style guide fetishist, I'm in favour of Wikipedia's style leaning more towards popular contemporary language generally than increasingly archaic, stuffy language, but that's another debate.) Popcornduff (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Billion vs 1,000 million (cont'd)

Trying to be as objective as possible, here are my observations:

• The Oxford Dictionaries Online (UK English) states this for the primary definition of billion: "The number equivalent to the product of a thousand and a million; 1,000,000,000 or 10⁹". Unlike the OED which lists the earliest recorded meaning first, Oxford Dictionaries lists the meanings in the order in which they predominantly appear in written and verbal language today. It would seem that even from a British-English perspective, the short scale form is the most common based on this information. Here's an article that analyzes this in more detail.
• Per MOS:TIES, we should use the common form of English from the nation the article has strong ties to. Reliable sources, such as this BBC article, use billion in the short scale form. Other sources cited in the Skyfall article also use that form. That's in addition to the previous point above. Some arguments have attempted to point out that worldwide usage has not conformed to the short scale, but according to this guideline, that's irrelevant here.

Honestly to me, what should matter the most at this point is how the sources are reporting the box office figure. Clearly they favor the short scale. So far, none of the arguments have been able to present any substantial evidence showing that the short scale's "billion" is an ambiguous term in the UK today. Without that evidence, we should bank on what the sources are saying to settle the dispute. My 2 cents. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have moved your post above the discussion on how to write the short billion in an article, as logically your conclusion comes first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A well-thought-out argument. I'm on board with this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I stated same about sources on original page, but editors claimed BBC and other websites aren't better and more reliable than Oxford. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing short billions

Policy says use short billions, the problem is how to write that in an article. Can I suggest that we write say "2 billion (short billions)" the first time the word is used in an article, and just "5 billion" for repeats? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Or we could link "billion" in the infobox to short billion. I'm open to suggestions. - ^theWOLFchild 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just say "billion" without qualification throughout: it's obvious from context and common usage. No film ever has grossed a long billion, or is ever likely to do so in the foreseeable future. See also WP:NUMERAL for our standard convention. -- The Anome (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes... thank you. That point has been raised repeatedly. Just who is going to become so "confused" that they'll actually think this film made a Trillion Dollars? Or any film for that matter? The anti-"billion" crew here refuse to address that point. (and all others). - ^theWOLFchild 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the short-billion lobby would have to accept this as a compromise to pacify the long-billion-disambig lobby. At the same time the long-billion-disambig lobby would similarly have to accept it as a compromise to pacify the short-billion lobby. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We could avoid "billions" entirely and just start using the Indian system of lakh and crore for our numbering. "The film grossed US$100 crore and was declared all-time blockbuster status!" That's your new billion. "Jem and the Holograms grossed $22.6 lakh and was given failure verdict." That's your new 2.26 million. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done Cyphoidbomb—you have managed to completely miss the point. This is all about what our average reader understands from accessing the article. An admin too; really!
And you don't practice what you preach here. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a joke, man. C'mon, "all-time blockbuster status"? You don't make it to admin by writing crap like that. That lakh and crore stuff makes my head spin. And my indentation was appropriate as I was responding to the OP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - All joking aside, do you have an opinion on this, on way or the other? - ^theWOLFchild 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha! Thank you for restoring my faith in you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If anything, wouldn't the pre-existence of Indian films using the lakh and crore numbering be evidence that localised differences to the "norm" are perfectly fine? GRAPPLE ^X 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? Who (and how) is this taken up? The public at large could never tolerate it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as it seems the public at large have no tolerance for "$1,000 million", considering the way it is constantly being changed to "billion" by sooo many people, on an almost daily basis. Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

disappointing...

It is clear the use of "$1,000 million" in the infobox instead of "billion" is problematic and causing a great deal of confusion. Since it was added over a year ago, there have been numerous edits made, changing it to "billion", only to be quickly reverted by a small group of editors. I have repeatedly brought this point to the attention of a pair of these editors only to have them continually refuse to even acknowledge it. Now I learn that one of them has alleged that these changes are the result of "socking", and have gone so far as to request page protection, further alleging that these edits are "vandalism", and are a result of this very discussion. This tactic is tantamount to "sweeping the problem under the rug" and is at best, misleading. People from all over the world, both registered editors and IP users alike, have been constantly changing this item to "billion" is what can only be described as a well-intentioned attempt to address a perceived problem, to 'fix a typo', as people are obviously quite used to seeing "billion" used in the short sense, through-out the project on numerous articles. Except on this one, of course. - ^theWOLFchild 15:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I for one would never use sock puppetry (and I'm not saying anyone has or would accuse me). But it is clearly all over the world. I am quite surprised it was only about a month ago I discovered that it said 1,000 million. Surely for sock puppetry there would have to be some proof advanced editors could research their IPs with actual editors? Otherwise, it is just a misleading distraction saying so, from the obvious. I wonder if Spectre receives a billion if these 'editors' will be quick to change it to a 1,000 million on there? But of course, that is irrelevant at this point. Charlr6 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you please point out where I alleged that the edits were "vandalism"? There indisputably has been a surge in unregistered editors changing the wording from "million" to "billion" and it was another editor at the Skyfall talk page who suggested that it could be a case of sockpuppetry so I don't think my request misrepresents that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You specifically stated "socking" in your edit summary. You are the that requested the protection, and lo and behold, the page is now protected due to "vandalism". These edits are not vandalism. They are people trying to fix an obvious problem with the article. You claim that this is only a "recent upsurge", but a simple search shows that this has been taking place since the "1,000 million" term was added almost a year and a half ago.

I also find it odd, if not troubling, that you are willing to go to all the trouble of posting requests and related comments on other talk pages. yet you refuse to simply respond to any of the multiple points put forth on this issue, either on this page or the Skyfall talk page. I have on numerous times stated that I both recognize and respect the work you put into film related pages here. But I can't for the life of me figure out why you are being to obstinate and uncooperative about this very minor issue. Will you please respond the questions addressed to you about this issue? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I will say that regardless if the sock accusation was a good one to make or not, protecting the page was a good decision. IP editors with no clue that a discussion is taking place will randomly visit the page and continue to edit war in the meantime, which is a distraction we'd rather not have right now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Socking is not vandalism so quit trying to twist my words. Also, I was not the editor that brought up the socking accusations. I raised them at the protection page ONLY after they were raised on the Skyfall talk page by someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think protecting the page was a good idea too. Charlr6 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're clear that when I present the argument that all these edits are evidence that "1,000 million" is both confusing and problematic, no one shrugs and says "what edits?". This problem has not been solved by the protection, just hidden. - ^theWOLFchild 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to drag this on any longer, but the protection isn't meant to solve the problem. Its purpose here was to stop edit warring dead in its tracks. All editors involved (IPs as well) need to discuss the dispute and establish a consensus before the protection is lifted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But not everyone who comes to Wikipedia, especially new and first time users are aware of these steps. Wouldn't the simpler and more obvious solution be to remove the problem, instead of protecting it? If we change it to "billion", it would put an end to the "edit warring" and there would be no further need to protect the page. - ^theWOLFchild 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem isn't protected from the outcome of this discussion, which is where the focus needs to be. Leaving the page unprotected is a distraction, because editors, especially IP editors, who aren't aware of the discussion will continue to edit war. The protection directs the focus to this discussion, and in that respect, I think it's helpful for now. Keep in mind that there is now a "discuss" notice in that infobox that links here, so even newer users will be aware of what's going on, even if they choose not to participate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. However, there has been a note for quite some time now about not changing it and to see the discussion, that has been largely ignored. Again, many people just don't know any better (and others just don't care). But that said, hopefully this gets resolved soon, through discussion. - ^theWOLFchild 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no hurry. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and our visitors know that. Let's have a nice cup of tea and a sit down while this blows itself out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

I think that a straw poll on say three options for the wording would help to focus this debate and draw out some durable consensus. Given that some editors are using the present location of this discussion against it, I don't want to start it here only to have it ignored by one camp because it's on the "wrong" talk page, this is about resolution not wikilawyering. Would Talk:Skyfall be a better venue for it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't an active discussion on the article's talk page, so here makes more sense. If someone really wants it to be on the article's talk page at some point, we can simply move it over. By the way, if you decide to present more than 2 options, it will be more difficult to determine whether or not you have a clear consensus. I would stick with two if possible (the third was pretty much shot down above anyway). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Skyfall talk page is the appropriate place for it. That is where the bulk of the debate has ocurred. Also, specific article decisions should be taken actually at the article and not at a Wikiporject per Wikipedia:WikiProject. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I was looking at this as a general question of whether or not we should use the term billion in articles that have strong ties to the UK. That discussion can really take place anywhere. If we would like to move everything over to Skyfall, there's certainly no harm in that, but I'm not sure I'd treat that as a requirement. This kind of issue is likely to come up again at some point for a different film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue has not been discussed in general terms though so we shouldn't draw general conclusions. What is appropriate in American English is not necessarily right for a Brit English article. What is appropriate for a Western numbering system is maybe not appropriate for an Indian/Chinese film article. The debate has centered mostly on Skyfall so we should limit the poll to that particular film, or at most Brit English articles where the arguments are genrally the same. Either way, a poll is supposed to take stock of all the arguments put forward and most of them are at the Skyfall talk page so I have taken the liberty of starting a poll at Talk:Skyfall#Straw_poll:_billion_vs_millions, and presented all three options that have been put forward in the discussions. If I have missed an option feel welcome to add it to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. FYI I have just taken a survey of all contributors to these discussions and posted it there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't care where this is resolved... as long as it gets resolved. The only "argument" put forth by the 'anti-billion camp' is that "billion" is "ambiguous" and "confusing to Britons over age 50". These arguments have been addressed ad nauseum and arguably disproved. Meanwhile, there are a dozen or so counter-arguments and facts, (not to mention wiki-policy) that have also been put forth that have been completely ignored. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion anywhere when one party refuses to engage in that discussion. - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements regarding consensus for WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation errors at list of cult films and AWB help wanted

Can someone with access to AWB look at list of cult films and maybe solve the massive citation errors there? Also, there's 600+ citations there now. I hesitate to imagine how many actual films that is – probably close 800. I'll support any proposal that makes it more manageable. I suspect we're going to have to split it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty seems to have fixed all the citation errors by hand. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw^(talk) 01:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Production companies

There is currently a discussion about whether or not the production companies of The Terminator should be sourced in the infobox. I am of the opinion that the production companies have no need to be sourced because these production companies already listed in the film credits, the primary source. Similarly, the cast and crew don't need to be listed with sources in the infobox as they are already in the film credits. On the other hand, another editor is of the opinion that the film credits are unreliable/original research. Discussion is here. -- Wrath X (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Titanic (1943 film)

This article, about the flop propaganda "blockbuster" commissioned by Nazi Germany's Josef Goebbels, has just been through a pretty nasty patch of edit warring, which included personal attacks and the use of sock IPs. The editor responsible has been blocked fo 2 weeks, but it might be a good idea if folks were to add it to their watchlists to make sure things don't start up again when the block is over. BMK (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's good to be back to this WikiProject.

It's been over seven years, I haven't been a member of this WikiProject since 2007 or 2008, can't remember which, but it's good to be back.

Also, back then I didn't care much for movies outside recent ones. Now on the other hand I watch movies on a regular basis, both new and old, my favorite decade in movies is the 1930s. So yeah I think I'm gonna be more help in this WikiProject now that I was back seven years ago.

If there is anything I can help with, I will do my best to help out. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@BlazeTheMovieFan: If you haven't been active for a while, then you might want to read WP:CCPOL. Many policies have been updated or changed, and, overall, they tend to be enforced more strictly. Also, notability is significantly harder to establish compared to 2007, and GAs/FAs are harder to pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

One fairly new feature is Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, where you can request access to different sources to find information to include that would not be readily available in search engine search results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment on List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film

I nominated the article for deletion here. This relates to the project on film, so I'd love your opinions on the matter. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! --Monochrome_Monitor 09:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

People Like Us page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)