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.

Rating table[edit]

So Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) recently removed the rating template in the reception section of Living in the Age of Airplanes, stating it is against consensus to put it. And in his talk page, he stated it was a long-ago discussion, and that it could be revisited, considering tempus fugit. And so here. What do you think regarding the film rating templates (review scores, not MPAA)? GeraldWL 02:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In essence, is it best to include something like {{Video game reviews}} in a reception section for film? BOVINEBOY2008 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Additional context: Such a template once existed at {{Film reviews}} but was deleted. BOVINEBOY2008 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
One problem, as I see it is that you can't quantify most film reviews. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: BTW, the template doc says it should have refs for every entry. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The template is {{Film and game ratings}} more specifically {{Film ratings}}. From the [usage report] you can see that only a handful of film articles use this template. (Several of which were recently added by Gerald Waldo Luis.) IIRC the issue was WP:PROSE. (I think some people may have also complained that they were "reductive" but that's Rotten Tomatoes for you.) The template does strenuously warn that they are supposed to be only in addition to the text, but it was too easy and {{Video game reviews}} was added to just about every Video game article indiscriminately, often without any Reception section. I got the impression that Project Games accepted the de facto reality of these tables not that they actively encouraged them either. (The Project Games style guidelines for Reception sections warns against As far as I can see Gerald Waldo Luis has been careful and only added the template to articles that had proper reception sections, but I doubt others will be as careful. I'd love to believe tables like these could offer some consistency but I think they are a step in the wrong direction from creating an encyclopaedia, away from summarizing meaningful prose from notable sources. -- (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The template has a "noprose" parameter, which would allow editors to tag that the reception section only has the table and no prose. And either way, people will misuse certain things; [citation needed] exists and people will just spam it everywhere, for example. I have trouble understanding your last stance; the ratings are from notable sources, and the rating compilation gives a compact, unique look at what critics think of it. Video games aren't films, okay, but they have few differences, and if video game articles can have ratings, how are film ratings detrimental to Wikipedia? GeraldWL 02:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In theory this template could give a consistent summary of the reception section in tidy little box, I understand that. In practice I don't think it will work out that way. I don't think people will use it carefully. I believe it will be misused, and abused, so much so that it would be better to not use it at all.
Alaney2k above pointed out the difficulty of quantizing a review. That problem is already visible. Gerald used the template in the article Living in the Age of Airplanes [1] and in the table included the Variety review as: "40/100 (Metacritic interpretation)". I do not think it is appropriate to substitute the Metacritic number, when a publication has not provided a numerical grade.
If editors actually do want to change and start using {{Film ratings}} more, I hope the guidelines and documentation will be made a lot clearer about what is recommended and what is not. -- (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Still, the fact that anything can be abused is not a justification to disallow a template for good. I can remove the Metacritic scores if you insist, but the others are officially from the critics itself, and to disregard them can be detrimental. Also, what would you like the /doc to be more clear of, if I may ask? GeraldWL 06:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Update: I've removed the MC scores. Also pinging Bovineboy2008, Alaney2k, and Betty Logan for additional input, maybe. GeraldWL 06:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The Film project has been consistently opposed to a Film ratings aggregator box down the years. The reason being is that there will always be disagreement over which reviews warrant inclusion and whether the selection is representative of the critical consensus. Consensus can change over time, but that is a good reason for starting a discussion about whether the consensus still stands; I don't think it is a reasonable justification for simply ignoring a long-standing consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Did I make the rating table? I think I made the TV-by-season one and users requested film, but knowing the objections I tried to make a merge with video games? Either way, I don't have a fish in the game as far as that's concerned.
Now, if we're going to, as Betty suggests, discuss if there is value, I'll compare to video games again. On the one hand, video game reviews don't have something like Rotten Tomatoes to aggregate reviews. But, on the other, there is a sizable and growing objection to using Rotten Tomatoes %age ratings as-is because they don't necessarily reflect the critical ratings (WP generally only mentions the %age positive-negative) - Metacritic solves that by using weighted average, but is also contentious. A table could solve those issues by using critics from reliable sources (per our own source guidelines, not e.g. top critics or Metacritic choice) and displaying the native score. Kingsif (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, hmmm... but Metacritic does aggregate video games. For example, see FS2020#Reception. GeraldWL 11:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
But like I said, Metacritic doesn't use native scores and is even contentious here for games... but the point was that the video game articles may be better suited to having tables because they don't have RT like films do - so are you wanting to say video games do have that option but the tables are still fine despite it? I do think using native scores rather than aggregates without explanation of their limits is better, but it can keep Metacritic if you want. Kingsif (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, ah I see, i thought "whaa why are we talking bout MC?" But as you can see above, there's a discussion about the problem with quantifying reviews; I agreed with that (MC often does errors too) so I removed the MC interpretation scores. GeraldWL 13:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know that we should be in a place of deciding what reviews warrant inclusion in the table. It forces us out of a neutral perspective because then we are placing weighted value to certain reviewers. If you don't do that, then you have a fight over a never-ending table of reviews as everyone wants to include "their" favorite reviewer, or debates over the value of another reviewer's placement. Then, you also force people into more tabular, non-prose sections which goes against our principles for writing articles. We already recommend that people not simply quote reviews, but provide a summary of the overall information. A table seems to move us away from that by providing out of context star/number ratings that don't necessarily reflect what the review says (hence the same criticism of RT now). As such, I lean toward not including them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is not entirely clear to me. Editors have commented generally but not said that they are opposed to including film ratings tables but also they have not proposed how things should be done properly if such tables were allowed. Would editors please make it clear if the recommendation is to remove the tables that Gerald Waldo Luis (or others) have added, or are editors are going to actively encourage their use by providing clearer guidelines on how best to include these ratings tables in film articles? -- (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As the discussion stands I don't think there is clear enough consensus to allow me to delete these kinds of tables. Gerald Waldo Luis seems to still think the matter is open because he restored his recent addition of such a table to a {{Featured article}}, specifically Hellraiser: Judgment. Featured articles are a defacto example of best practice, if they aren't removed then they are effectively approved. -- (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

#Tabulated data below discusses a similar issue with cast, earnings, etc. rather than ratings. Certes (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that below discussion is particularly similar, it is much more clearly wrong WP:CASTLIST. A Table shouldn't be used when a list would do, and list shouldn't be used when WP:PROSE is possible. -- (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Films and Filming magazine[edit]

I'm no expert in film, but I read about this magazine and believe it warranted an article (it was already a redirect). If anyone here has any more information on the magazine I would appreciate their help. Thank you! --Bangalamania (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this person's edits?[edit]

Hello all, stumbled on ZIGMUND_JHAEY's edits while doing recent change patrol and honestly I lack the background with film/movies to evaluated/research these effectively. They mostly seem to be making edits around release dates and changing the names/captions of movie posters, etc. If all of these edits are good, great! I just thought that a set or two of eyes that are familiar with the material would be helpful. zchrykng (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021[edit]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force has been created[edit]

The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert Taylor (American actor), Robert Taylor (actor) or Robert Taylor (the primary topic of the Robert Taylor disambiguation page)?[edit]

A discussion regarding the most intuitive form for the main title header of Taylor's entry is currently active at Talk:Robert Taylor (actor)#Requested move 7 June 2021. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Fake film credits[edit]

I initially posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but nobody seemed to want to dive in and help.

I stumbled on an editor or editors who put the same wall of fake credits into numerous articles. So far I have found:

Examples of the edits:

I thought it would be a good idea to notify the project to keep an eye out for these edits. The vandal appears to enjoy adding Jessica Lundy and Alex Mckenna to acting credits. Those come up a lot. Also adding William Brent Bell and Rick Friedberg to production credits as fake writers and/or directors.

There may be more. I am slowly working my way through by using one of the names in their list and seeing what articles it is linked in. It is a very slow process but if anyone wants to help I would appreciate it. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, ANI sometimes moves at a rather "deliberate" pace, especially when not dealing with immediately pressing problems. I don't think it's fair to them to say nobody wants to help when this is still a fairly new issue. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tabulated data[edit]

Does the project have an opinion on a new style of film data introduced by Bhushan m bhandari, for example here and here? I've raised the issue at User talk:Bhushan m bhandari# Film tables but it's possible that they can't hear me. Certes (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd revert it immediately for lacking sources, personally. I also think the appearance is suboptimal. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. To be fair, it's mainly a reformatting of text which already lacked sources. I'm still inclined to revert, as we generally prefer prose to an infobox-like table of item-value pairs. However, I'm not a film buff, and wanted to check that there's no local consensus that we should (or can) do things this way. Certes (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
To put it diplomatically: Not that I'm aware of. :)
If the info was there before but unsourced, I'd probably tag it instead of doing an outright delete...though I suspect nobody will provide sources and you or another editor will eventually end up deleting it in any case. Still, sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised and sources surface. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Edits duly reverted, and mostly re-added. Rather than edit war, I'll leave it for an expert to take any further action. Certes (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Their edits are actually getting worse. They insist on readding a WP:TRIVIA section to Yudh (film) entitled "15 Unknown facts about this movie" that is completely unreferenced. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Now blanking articles and talk pages. My AIV report was removed after an hour as stale. Bhushan mohan bhandari also exists. Certes (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Climb (2019 film) timeline[edit]

The article says that the film proceeds linearly, with the third segment following the first two. However, I think that the first two segments are current, with everything else taking place in the past. For example, the character Kyle talks about how in a previous relationship, Marissa (who we later find out is his ex-wife) made him get a "Rob Thomas haircut." HiImDannyGanz (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Date format of 1988 film Action Jackson[edit]

The date format of Action Jackson (1988 film) is on DMY format. It should be MDY format since it's an American film. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. I checked the edit history and couldn't see any back-and-fourth reverts to the format, so I assume it was just an oversight. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Personally I think we should just adopt the ISO date format across the board on what is essentially an international encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Classical Hollywood cinema[edit]

Hello, all. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Classical Hollywood cinema#Proposed deletion of excessive listings. As project members, please feel free to take part. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject[edit]

c 65 Army of Thieves 322,737 10,410 Stub Unknown

  • 129 Dark Side of the Ring 228,155 7,359 Stub Unknown
  • 405 Madam Chief Minister 125,341 4,043 Stub Unknown
  • 488 One (2021 film) 116,797 3,767 Stub Unknown
  • 530 Justice Society: World War II 113,115 3,648 Stub Unknown
  • 575 I Am All Girls 108,711 3,506 Stub Unknown
  • 628 Spirit Untamed 104,171 3,360 Stub Unknown
  • 742 The Last Letter from Your Lover 94,778 3,057 Stub Unknown
  • 845 Greater (film) 88,762 2,863 Stub Unknown
  • 2 Radhe (2021 film) 2,038,627 65,762 Start Unknown

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk)