Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Film (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest![edit]

AfroCine - bare logo.png


The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*
We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Netflix films are Direct-to-video films?[edit]

Are Netflix films straight to video films, and should they be listed as such in the actors' filmography? User:IJBall and User:Amaury have been arguing that they are. However, I feel that they are completely different, as they often have much higher budgets then straight to video films and get much more media coverage. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are. "Digital releases" are included in the Direct-to-video article, and there is no meaningful distinction between "direct-to-video", "VOD", and "streaming". No matter what, they should not be listed as "Netflix film", "Disney+ film", etc. – we make no such distinction like this for either theatrical releases or TV series, so we should make no exception for streaming entries. P.S. @JDDJS: You likely posted this to the wrong place – it should have gone to WT:FILMBIO. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Not all of them. "El Camino" was released to limited screens (enough to make the Oscars' requirements) alongside its release to the service. I wouldn't call it a "theatrical film" just from that, but it would also wrong to flatly call it a VOD release only. --Masem (t) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but that's no different than any other film – if you open/premiere in theaters, even one, you're a "theatrical release". But if your film goes straight to a streamer to premiere, you are some variant of "direct-to-video"/"direct-to-digital"/"direct-to-streaming". --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Why not just call them "feature" films? Rather than theatrical versus DTV distinctions? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the method of classifying films by media of first release is increasingly archaic. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
So, you would be in favor of dropping "Direct-to-video" and "Direct-to-DVD" type designations as well? And we still designate "Television films" as such, and should continue to do so. Indeed, we have always specified distribution media up to this point. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not an easy question. Direct-to-X used to mean something, and I don't think it means the same thing now. For the '80s through 2010s, sure; direct-to-video was a notable categorization and it would be weird to erase that from history. It comes from a time when theatrical release was the goal of all films but only some made the cut, for whatever reason, usually attributed to quality. But going forward? It's obvious that a film like Roma had a theatrical release purely to satisfy certain award criteria and not for any other reason, so calling it out as a theatrical release has a different meaning than it did ten years ago. I don't have a clear answer here but this question is not going to go away. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair.... No matter what, though, I think the differentiation for "television films" (and television in general) will still need to be made. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
It used to be the case that the primary types of releases were "A" and "B" movies. The advent of video saw the "B" movie replaced by DTV movies. It was a fairly tautological transition. That clearly isn't the case with streaming, because we are also seeing premium content being released on VOD platforms. That equivalence between "B" movies and DTV movies (i.e. lower-grade content) doesn't really hold up for Netflix, which has aspirations of being a major film studio, albeit with just a different distribution model. I think Erik's proposal works best for VOD content; I have no objections to the "theatrical film" and "TV film" labels if the release patterns still follow a typical release structure. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. We have been using older terms for new things and so the terms no longer mean what they used to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

So, can we come to a consensus on this? – Do we all agree that so-called streaming films simply should not have an identifier at all in Filmography tables, in the same way that "theatrically released" films don't? And can we definitely agree that these should never be identified as "Netflix film", "Disney+ film", etc.? --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is consensus, we should also consider what categories to use for the films. Currently, we have Category:2020 direct-to-video films and other similar categories. I have noticed many that are streaming films (especially coming from the Indian film industry). Should they have a different categorization? BOVINEBOY2008 20:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps "streaming film" would be appropriate, the same way we recently changed several television series' lead sections from web television series to streaming television series after the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#web-television? (see Stranger Things as an example). El Millo (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, one of my original suggestions is that we label these "Direct-to-streaming" films in Filmographies. We could definitely make/rename the cats "streaming film" too. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel there's any need to include the term "direct" in it, as that still sounds like we're trying to equate it to direct to video releases, which we already established is different. We don't call television films "straight to TV films". Just "Streaming film" is fine. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 01:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Just "Streaming film" sounds weird to me – "Direct-to-streaming film" is, I feel, more accurate (i.e. "released directly via streaming" rather than "theatrically released"). But it is consistent with "Television film". --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Category:Netflix original films is currently a subcategory of Category:American television films, which I feel is especially inaccurate since it contains films that had a limited theatrical release, like Roma and The Irishman. I suggest that we create a container Category:Streaming films that will contain Category:Disney+ original films, Category:Netflix original films, etc, that will be a subcategory of Category:Films by type. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 01:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if a film is released/debuts via streaming, it is not really a "television film" – they really are in a different category than that. I would support the creation of cats like Category:Streaming films and Category:American streaming films. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I like JDDJS's suggestion. Also agree that streaming films should not be treated as television films. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Would seem that Category:Streaming films is a duplicate of Category:Internet films, unless I'm missing a distinction here? --Gonnym (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
That category seems to apply to web films, i.e. films that were released on platforms similar to YouTube. While not a duplicate, I could see Category:Internet films becoming a subcategory of Category:Streaming films. El Millo (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Calling films "streaming films" is as bad as "direct-to-video" in the modern era. Maybe for modern (last 5 years?) releases we should just call films films unless they were specifically made for broadcast television (I'm thinking Hallmark Christmas specials). As Betty said, really what was previously meant by "theatrical" vs. "direct-to-video/VOD" was an elided subjective notion of quality and that is an increasingly poor fit for current releases, a distinction which is being erased even more quickly because of our friend the virus. Because major films are now being released on streaming services or on streaming/VOD/PVOD as well as theatrically, it doesn't seem like a good distinction to try to maintain. The made-for-TV film is possibly still a reasonable distinction since the way such films are made, the expectations for them, and their budgets are still substantially different enough from other films to make the distinction useful. For now. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this proposal, and would fight it – the method of release/distribution matters. Maybe in 5 years time, if the movie theaters never recover, we can revisit whether there is a meaningful distinction between "theatrical releases" and "direct-to-streaming/VOD". But in the meantime, there definitely is still a difference, and any suggestion otherwise is basically just propaganda from Netflix and the others... On the specific issue, I think either "Direct-to-streaming film" and "Streaming film" are acceptable, and either should be accepted for use in Filmography tables. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What infobox?[edit]

Continung on from the above, we now have ourselves an inconsistency issue with regards to infoboxes and the various types of films. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: Kimmy vs the Reverend which was only released on Netflix uses {{Infobox film}}, while Kim Possible Movie: So the Drama use {{Infobox television}}. Other examples of TV films using Infobox film are Man-Thing (film) and Sometimes in April. Seeing as how the current distinction is lost on some editors, it would seem to make more sense for all films to use the same template and style, which has the added benefit of eliminating the need to decide each time which template to use. --Gonnym (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No – TV movies are supposed to use {{Infobox television}}. That's long been established. It might even be in MOS:TV. But I pretty certain that is how it's supposed to work. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

British Screen Advisory Council rebranded to British Screen Forum[edit]


I am quite new to editing and so need advice on how to proceed. Earlier this year British Screen Advisory Council rebranded to become British Screen Forum. I have updated the content of the entry to reflect this but am unable to change the page heading - how would I go about doing this?

Mulholland Dr[edit]

Hi. There's a bit of back-and-fourth relating to how great this film is. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page[edit]

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Aroused peer review[edit]

I've put the good article on the documentary film Aroused (film) for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aroused (film)/archive1. Feedback to help improve its quality further would be appreciated, thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

RT scores, awards, etc. listed in the articles on DVD distributors?[edit]

GKIDS seems like a highly problematic article, not least because a number of the claims made appear to relate to those films' receptions before the distribution rights passed to GKIDS from some other US distributor. Until I made this edit the article openly took credit for, for instance, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya's receiving a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature at the 87th Academy Awards over The Lego Movie, but in reality all but one film directed by either Hayao Miyazaki or Isao Takahata had been nominated for that award since the award's introduction -- the Academy just love Studio Ghibli, especially its founders.

I don't know how much further it should go, though: I'm a little uncomfortable with listing RottenTomatoes scores, given that the reviews are for the films themselves, none of which had anything to do with their American DVD distributor, and I'm not sure if there is a review aggregator that specializes in DVD reviews (many of the films also predate GKIDS's founding by years or even decades). But ... well, I actually thought I had checked List of Criterion Collection releases about a month ago and it listed RT scores, but it doesn't seem to now, nor did it a month ago, so I guess I was looking at a different page. (Masters of Cinema doesn't either.)

Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Distributors... distribute. Adding scores related to the production seems wrong to me! :) --Izno (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to include Rotten Tomatoes scores on distributors' lists of works because I don't think the distributor is a strong and direct link across the board (since it may produce some films or acquire them from elsewhere). The scores seem to make better sense within a particular film series, where the distributor is incidental, and it is more about comparing more intrinsically linked films. For a distributor's body of releases, even if a batch of films was recognized as having high scores, is that really reason enough to cover every other film's score? More directly related facts would be release dates, whether or not they produced it themselves, and involved companies. Not sure if I would even name individuals involved since it seems best to maintain a corporate scope.
As for awards, I'd probably argue against their list-based inclusion for the same reasons. I never liked filmography tables where some films out of a whole bunch have a fat "Notes" cell of awards and nominations, where other cells are empty. The awards could be covered in running prose, though, where it is suitable. (Not sure if anyone linked GKIDS to the Princess Kaguya win.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User adding Category:Film controversies to articles[edit]

Pricegeorge212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. The above user is adding tons of films and related articles to the Category:Film controversies. Quite a few have been reverted, as they fail WP:CATVER. Bringing it here so others can cast their eye over the inclusion of this category to specfic articles. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts. I saw a few of these user's edits pop up. Some looked legitimate as the film did have a Controversies section; in other cases the editor was adding the category to films that were already appropriately sub-categorized. DonIago (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted many where there is no mention of a controversy. It sometimes feels like this is just a search for any occurrence of the stem "controvers-" and then the category is automatically added without really looking at the article. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI: This recent edit summary reveals how many of these insertions are the editor's opinion and not based on a sourced claim that a controversy exists. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

New film article - Women of the White Buffalo[edit]

I created a new article about the documentary film, Women of the White Buffalo. Let me know if you want to help with further research, Right cite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Input request[edit]

Any thoughts and comments that anyone would like to add to this Talk:List of Criterion Collection releases#Including a "country" parameter? discussion will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 05:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of future films notability guidelines[edit]

There is a discussion about the future films notability guidelines and how to interpret them. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion at a GA nomination regarding Box Office Mojo[edit]

Chris troutman has requested a second opinion for the Good Article nomination of Avengers: Endgame in regards to if Box Office Mojo, which is used to cite the box office grosses and budget in the infobox and box office section, is a reliable source. If any one wishes to comment, you may do so at Talk:Avengers: Endgame/GA1#Discussion. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

TCM Movie Database semi-decade update?[edit]

Actually, looking through the great records you WikiProject Film folks keep, more like one update every three years?

The templates {{Tcmdb title}} and {{Tcmdb name}}, for linking to a page at the TCM Movie Database, are not working. Looks like they updated their system such that it has wandered away from the templates' connections. A warning: going directly into the TCM site, I notice that they might not be finished working out their own kinks yet, as their page for The Defiant Ones (1958) has multiple lines of code associated with some error (starts with "Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in Drupal\tcm_controller\Controller\TCMController->tcm_participant_page() (line 249 of modules/custom/tcm-controller/src/Controller/TCMController.php)"), but scrolling past that does bring up the normal info for that film. Might have to wait for them to get straight before the wiki templates are adjusted?

You're all smarter than me, so I know it'll get worked out - and I thank you for that. Jmg38 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The TCM database has been causing problems for a couple of years now. There have been multiple efforts to fix the URLs but they keep breaking! Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The page for The Defiant Ones seems to load fine for me at this time. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem is accessing it from Europe if I recall, something to do with GDPR. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, the title template was updated back in October. The problem with The Defiant Ones, at least as I saw just now, was it had the wrong ID number in the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Redundant categories[edit]

Hi. I completely baffled by the idea that WikiProject Film uses redundant categories such as XXXX films. The thing is, is that when a reader clicks on say XXXX drama films it will automatically lead to XXXX films, which makes me wonder why such redundancy exists in this sub project? Thanks.-- (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some more background relating to the IP's comment. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This practice is not unique to WikiProject Film; see WP:DUPCAT. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there is a reason behind it? Obviously redundancy of categories doesn't help anyone.-- (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure. See that page's talk-page archives here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Erik: Well I read a few in the link you gave me and found no explanation other then (and that's my opinion, I guess), is that the consensus was in favor of keeping the subcats not main cats in the articles. That's the impression I get from reading the discussions. Any clarification will be appreciated.-- (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't deal much in categories or care much for them in general to really articulate the why of that particular notion. However, because it supersedes WikiProject Film, if you'd like to challenge that section, it would need to be done at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Non-diffusing categories are useful for navigating primary sets of data. Personally I would like to see intersecting categories scrapped because they can be trivially navigated by "in category" searches (for example, 2016 Swedish films). However, if you want to search through all 2016 films you shouldn't have to search through all the sub-categories. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Blindness poster[edit]

There is a dispute at Blindness (2008 film) about the poster image. The thread can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek Generations at FAC[edit]

Just a heads-up that I've nominated Star Trek Generations at Featured article candidates. I know doing good reviews is time-consuming and a pain, but anyone who does a review gets one IOU good for a GAN, FAC, or peer review of your choice in the future, so if you want a helping hand down the line or just my eternal gratitude for making a film article better, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek Generations/archive1 is thataway. Thanks in advance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with revision of article on YouTube racial equity special[edit]

Hello. There is a discussion about revising the lead to the article Talk:Bear_Witness,_Take_Action#Request Edit November 19th, a series of livestreams being put on by YouTube as part of its $100 million initiative to support Black creative and to address racial inequity and civil unrest in America following the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others. Bear_Witness,_Take_Action This article has been rated start-class for the Film Project. Your participation in the discussion would be welcome. I have a disclosed COI on the page. Oceans87 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested moves of declined drafts[edit]

At least two drafts of future films that have begun filming were declined at WP:AFC: Draft:North of Albany and Draft:Cry Macho (film). (There may be other drafts declined.) There are requests to move these drafts into the mainspace as seen here: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. A related discussion about the draft-declining rationale can be seen here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Future Film Comments. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

YouTube Free movies[edit]

During this Covid crisis,YouTube has made many complete films available for free streaming, such as Man Up and Elf is this fact ok to add to the film article under release? Lexein (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent WP:EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I hauled off and did it, boldly. Lexein (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps introduce long term protection on the list articles[edit]

I think there should be long term protection on some of the list draft articles for films. Many times, they are problematic and introduce a lot of hoaxes. Especially, those pages such as Draft:List of American films of 2023 and the 2022 page, and their corresponding 2022 in film. etc. All fake instances are just ips adding fake films and such, and they are too spread out to consider blocks, it seems.

To reiterate, I think there could be some long term protection of these drafts. Starzoner (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Morshower[edit]

There's an issue with the article of Glenn Morshower. Somebody has added source from IMDb. I had to fixed the TV filmography because it didn't have the roles table, which also needs expansion. The issues on it should be solved. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice that Die Hard is a Featured Article Candidate[edit]

Neutral notice about the above, as it is of relevance to this project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ellen/Elliot Page[edit]

Please see this discussion about Page's past works. I know we had long discussions about a similar case with Wachowskis in the past. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works[edit]

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wheels of Fortune (film)[edit]

Wheels of Fortune (film) is in AfD for the 2nd time due to no consensus closing. Please weigh in here. BOVINEBOY2008 10:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Universal Classic Monsters[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Universal Classic Monsters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. I've given a lot of thoughts about this one, but please read my response to why I don't think it should be used before responding. Thank you all in advance! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Film genres[edit]

Early this year, the "genre" column was removed from a random partial selection (but not the vast majority) of lists of films, on the basis of a talk page discussion at Talk:List of American films of 2019#RfC: Genre columns. In the United States, for example, genre columns have been removed from the lists since 2016, but not from any list prior to 2016; in Canada, they were removed from 2019 and 2020, but not from 2018 or before; in France, they've been removed only since 2018, and not from any year before that. And on, and so forth: literally across the board, they've been removed from a few of the most recent lists of films, but not from older ones.

Well, I've just hit the ultimate speed bump: I have just had to add a new documentary film to List of Canadian films of 2020 that has the exact same English title (The Decline) as a thriller drama film that was released back in the spring, leaving me with literally no choice but to add their genres in the "notes" column (where that information does not belong) for clarity, precisely because the genre column, where that information does belong, has been removed.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that genre columns are inappropriate — if there's actually editwarring happening over film genre, the correct solution is to insist on sourcing the genre rather than removing the genre — but would obviously understand and obey if there were a properly constituted WPF consensus against them. But the talk page of one article isn't really the right venue for a discussion with such huge project-wide implications, six people aren't enough participation to deem it a project-wide consensus, and among those six people I fail to see any participation from even one person whose name I recognize as an active participant at WPF. So I'm not convinced that a proper, binding consensus against genre columns has actually been established — it looks to me much more like somebody's personal preferences got flown in under the radar.

And even if there is a project consensus established that genre columns aren't wanted, there's no legitimate argument that genre columns should be retained in older lists and only removed from recent ones: it has to be removed from all film lists if it's removed from any film lists.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask for some imput: is the genre column unwanted, in which case it needs to be removed from the film lists that still have it, or is it desired and thus needs to be restored to the handful of lists from which it was removed in March? Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would remove it just on the grounds that it's on a list with non-subjective material (release date, director, film, year of release) and is the only information included which is up for interpretation from viewers can be difficult to find proper citations for. For simplicity of the lists, i'd say its better to keep it information that is less up for interpretation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, then what am I supposed to do about the two The Declines? The only option available to me, piling their different genres into the Notes column, is inappropriate and invites people comprehensively misusing that column to add genre markers for all films — but with two identically titled films in the list, their different genres have to be specified for clarity. So if a genre column is deprecated across the board, then what the bleeding fudge am I supposed to do about that unresolvable dilemma? Genres aren't hard to source; they can quite easily and routinely be extracted right from the film reviews that a film has to show to even be deemed notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be covered in the notes section, and this can be used as the exception to the rule. Plus they have different directors too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)