Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Film page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:FILM

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Film Project‑class

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

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

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

An editor has requested that Bruce Wayne (1989 film series character) be moved to Bruce Wayne (1989 film series), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

An editor has requested that List of Korean films of 1919–1948 be moved to List of films produced in Korea under Japanese rule, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. toobigtokale (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion still needs some input, please help out. toobigtokale (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and even newer to editing Film pages themselves, but stumbled upon the page for Dutchman (film) and, having seen the film, realized the notes on plot were a bit lacking. I'd like to assist with expanding this page, but wanted to ask for some clarification/guidelines for a new editor when it comes to editing a page like this. Are citations needed for a plot summary? Is there any introductory guidelines to writing something like that? Any information would be much appreciated. WW0CJ (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WW0CJ You can refer to MOS:FILMPLOT for the guideline regarding plots in film articles. Citations are usually not needed for plots as the film would be the primary source itself. (P.S. Welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you will enjoy editing here.) Jolly1253 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There's an ongoing discussion regarding the recent changes to the plot and lead sections of The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, which can be found at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride#Changes to the plot and lead. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a pattern at Godzilla Minus One in regards to multiple sources being cited, see here. As you can see, some footnotes claiming "attributed to multiple sources" cite 5 sources, one even cites 8 sources -- but isn't this a violation of WP:CITEKILL? Or is there an acceptable variation of this pattern that I'm missing? Armegon (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable to combine multiple references per WP:CITEMERGE, usually how I do it is put all of the cite templates inside a single set of ref tags, which would be cleaner than the solution used here. For example, many of the inline citations at Peacemaker (TV series)#Viewership combine multiple sources that cover viewership data for different weeks. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing explanatory footnotes and these kinds of bundled references under the same heading of "Notes", as is done at Godzilla Minus One#Notes, should however be avoided. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that shouldn't happen. I would recommend doing something similar to John Wick (film)#Footnotes. I should also note that an efn with a list of <ref>'s (while common) is not the only way to do this; some articles just use a regular <ref> tag followed by a bulleted list. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been brought up here before. The purpose of bundling citations is to avoid CITEKILL, so no, it does not violate CITEKILL. Bundling is done pretty widely on Wikipedia, not just on film articles (especially for EXCEPTIONAL claims where bundling citations is essentially required). InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you all for responding. Armegon (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion regarding this question is currently active at Talk:Murder, Inc. (1960 film)#Requested move 22 March 2024. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When creating a list of cast members for a film (both in the main article and in the infobox), should the credits of the film be the basis for how the list is ordered, or a "billing block" found on a poster or elsewhere? For this page, a billing block from the poster was used, but the credits of the film lay things out differently, re-ordering the cast members and calling some of the stars from the poster "supporting cast." Wafflewombat (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either can be used, but the default is typically to follow the billing block unless special local consensus has determined otherwise. If an article has done it a certain way for a very long time, it shouldn't be arbitrarily changed without a reason and without discussion, per MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also use what's available. There isn't always a billing block on the film's poster, so check the beginning and end credits of a film. If there are discrepancies, a local consensus should determine how to go about it. Before a film's theatrical release, reviews and articles from reputable publications that list a film's stars and main cast can be used as a guide. Lapadite (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with MOS:FILMCAST? The general idea is to try to follow a rule of thumb (as opposed to deciding for yourself what the order should be). Generally speaking, the billing block can suffice, but if there are different orders available, try to see which order is more prevalent, whether in databases or in books that write about the film (since they sometimes do a cast list as part of that coverage). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The billing for Jedi is as follows:

• Strangely Kenny Baker doesn't get mentioned at all in the prominent film credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to wikilink to Industrial film and Industrial films, I noticed that they went to two different articles. Are these the same topic?4meter4 (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how Industrial films redirects to Sponsored film which links to industrial video as a type of sponsored film, then I would say yes and fix the plural redirect. Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, I obtained an incredible source: It's called the ACE Second Decade Anniversary Book. It has many biographies and deaths of various film editors that have never been posted on the internet before, as well as a summary of the Eddie Awards from 1961–1971. The some of the death dates are not 100% accurate, but most of them are.

Here's some changes that I've made using that book as a source:

• Conrad A. Nervig - I used multiple sources to highlight his time in the military before he began work as film editor.
• American Cinema Editors Award for Best Edited Feature Film - They gave out TWO awards in 1969!
• George Boemler - I completed his birth and death date using a combination of Ancestry.com (which I didn't cite) and the ACE book (which I did cite).
• George Tomasini - Added more context to his death date using a partially available film journal and the ACE book in hand.

Furthermore, I created the first FOUR Eddie Awards pages, using additional sources from Newspapers.com:

• American Cinema Editors Awards 1962
• American Cinema Editors Awards 1963
• American Cinema Editors Awards 1964
• American Cinema Editors Awards 1965

The 1965 one is an INCREDIBLE article, considering that it was the FIRST ever award by the group that introduced the "Eddie" awards. It also had multiple categories and a surprising amount of coverage from the Newspapers.com sources, including ONE source that is more complete than the IMDb listing for the award. Thus, I want some people to help me create all of the articles from 1962–2006, as well as clean-up and expand 2007–2021. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)#Hidden comment in plot summary that may be of interest to this project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through these two categories,African films and African cinema, I feel the contents should both be put under one mother category...perhaps Category:African film and television? This would have all the African film and television content under one mother category for easy sorting and location of related articles. We're trying to integrate the https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/ to the WikiProject AfroCreatives, but it can only link to a single category. Linking it to either African films or African cinema would leave out a lot of articles that could worked on, hence my recommendation to have the put under a mother category. Ceslause (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to call a movie a "classic" in an encyclopedia as a factual statement? I have a problem with this, because to me it sounds like praise.

I've discussed this with a number of people and some make the claim, that you only need to be able to quote enough people who are saying that a movie is a classic, to call it a classic.

But wouldn't that be like saying a movie is "good", and providing "sources" for that claim? Since there is hardly anything that is liked by literally everyone, i think saying "this movie is a classic" should be avoided in favor of saying "this movie is (widely) considered a classic".

"It is considered a classic" is provable. "It is a classic" is not really provable.

In my view it is probably ok to use the world "classic" when referring to something that is not from the modern era. "Romeo and Juliet" for example.

Some people seem to be of the opinion, that the word "classic" just means that a movie is very influential. But then why not just say that instead? The movie "Chinatown" for example has 98% on Rotten Tomatoes which means there are critics who gave it a bad review. They would certainly agree that the movie has been influential, but i don't think they would call it a classic. They would agree that it is "widely considered a classic" though, because that is a fact.

Why? Because the word "classic" encompasses two things: First, the general status of a movie and second the perceived quality of a movie (by the one using the word). That's the way i see it. Some people don't seem to see it that way at all but i'm not sure why.

Would be happy to hear a few opinions on this. Thanks! Dornwald (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For many films the single word seems an apt descriptor per WP:BLUESKY. Films such as It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, and Wizard of Oz come to mind as universally accepted classic films. The age of the film plays a role in the terminology, as newer films have not yet earned such a descriptor, but the older films which have merit Blue Sky wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you. It has to be verifiable that a film is a classic. Not to mention that the films you mentioned are US-centric. Would you balk at seeing The Apu Trilogy being called a classic? The proper guideline to apply is WP:PEACOCK in which we would contextualize the application of such a label. The word "classic" is a qualifier like "famous" or "good" and needs to be verified. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't verify "good", that's part of my point. Dornwald (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can, in the example seen at WP:PEACOCK. It has to be given context. Like, "Critics called it a good film," if a reliable source said that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

right. "critics call it a classic" is also fine by me. "it is a classic" is not. Dornwald (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, a more basic description would be to call so-and-so film an early example of whatever genre. "Early" does not indicate quality. Maybe it was one of the first, but that does not mean it has notoriety. To say that something is a classic is that it is "serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value" (according to Merriam-Webster). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally expect to see "It is considered a classic" with supporting sources, rather than Wikipedia labelling it an objective "classic". - adamstom97 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting sources justify using the term without adding the "it is considered a" descriptor. Classic, in this use, has a definitive meaning that would apply with brevity. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still just the opinion of of those sources, it isn't a genre or similar label that is objective. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the viewpoint, and this is a good discussion of the use of the term on Wikipedia. I would think that the bare descriptor is also widely used for novels as well as films, and so further Wikiprojects should be alerted if a change is to be made, and maybe an RfC instead of a brief discussion here would clarify. As with all things on Wikipedia, some exceptions are both allowed and encouraged (which could apply to some works and not others). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn Where could an RfC discussion take place? Dornwald (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not needed, as it looks like I may be on a one-editor raft. It just seems an obvious word for some films, per WP:BLUESKY, but if it can't be applied to Wizard of Oz without being cited or couched in "some critics say"... Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an appropriate word to use in wikivoice anymore than describing a film as garbage tier, dope, legendary, or totally sick would be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't call a film a "classic". You can quote a reviewer who thinks it's a classic in the reception section with attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is a core policy and can't be overridden by local consensus. If people try to do so, let me know, and I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect to see phrases like "considered a classic". Similar to Tom Brady, which states "widely regarded as the greatest quarterback of all time", as opposed to outright making the claim (which, I would disagree with personally, as I consider Joe Montana to be the greatest). That being said, I wouldn't preemptively announce an intention to block someone for using particular verbiage - which could easily be seen as a good faith edit - after voicing an opinion on the topic, potentially rendering the admin to be involved. However, that is neither here nor there regarding the discussion at hand. Useight (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be made clear to people somehow. A lot of people think the word "classic" is different than say the word "good" and if you change it they don't understand that at all. There are examples all over wikipedia. I would say more than half of the people i talked to about this think "classic" is just an objective descriptor. Dornwald (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word 'classic' is very different than the word good. NinjaRobotPirate may ban me for linking this, but see Classic book which shows that the subject and wording is often a "thing". Randy Kryn (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A classic is a book accepted as being exemplary or particularly noteworthy."

Nothing is ever 100% "accepted" by literally everyone and even if it were you can't prove that (you'd have to talk to every single person or critic on the planet).

"What makes a book "classic" is a concern that has occurred to various authors"

All of this just proves my point that you can't state it as an objective fact. Dornwald (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words "classic" and "good" are not synonyms. A person can (though doesn't have to), exit a movie theater and say, "That was a good movie" without also believing that same movie to be a classic movie. However, they are both subjective adjectives, making it preferable to word it carefully. That doesn't mean we can't use the word classic (or other subjective terms). For example, Robert Wadlow says, "His great size". The word great is subjective and it's not couched in carefully crafted words or cited by a source. We don't want to devolve into pedantry. If you want to change the wording on articles referring to various films as classic and/or add sources that refer to said movie as a classic, I don't suspect anyone is going to stop you. Useight (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they stop me, that's why i started this discussion. "His great size" refers to an objective fact (him being taller than other people). Dornwald (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being the objectively taller doesn't not inherently and objectively make it great. Perhaps I only consider twelve feet tall to be great size. As far as being previously stopped, I assume you're referring to this edit, which got undone because you made the change during the discussion about it on Talk:It's a Wonderful Life. It's best to leave the article untouched until the discussion runs its course. Useight (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else told me to just change it in the discussion, instead of talking about it so... Dornwald (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think we need to focus on the specific issue at hand because it is awfully vague to talk about the label of "classic" in isolation. It was about It's a Wonderful Life and the use of "classic" there. It seems like it was this edit. "Classic" is used elsewhere in the article body, and I don't know if that is being contested too. But in the "Remakes" sentence, I don't think we need to use "classic" there; it could just be "original" or not even have an adjective at all since "film" obviously refers to the topic. It seems like the other uses of "classic" elsewhere in the article body have sufficient enough context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, this is not about It's a Wonderful Life, it's about the use of the word in general. Dornwald (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as simple as "the use of the word in general". We know we can use the word, but it completely depends on the context and the other words around it. Do you have a problem with the word "classic" being used elsewhere in that film article? It's used five other times. Do you have any issue with any of these five uses? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, i don't. I find "it became a classic" semi-ok (because it must refer to the way the perception of the movie changed, given that the movie itself didn't change. the problem of verifiability remains though. but it doesn't sound like praise to me). Dornwald (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with treating "classic" as a BLUESKY situation is that while the sky is blue is as objective a thing as you can determine, what a "classic film" even means is subjective, as this very conversation illustrates. (Some will take it to mean it's good, some will mean it's stood the test of time; others will call some of the examples above influential films but not necessarily classic.) It's also worth pointing out who is calling it classic; film critics are a major component of critical reception, but they're not the be-all and end-all, and there's demographic pitfalls (I'm sure there are some who don't consider Gone with the Wind a "classic" because of its message and racial politics.) If a film really is universally considered a classic... there shouldn't be any issue finding a plethora of quality sources that will say so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is ever "universally" considered anything. 8 billion people will never 100% agree on anything, and even if they did there's no way of proving it. Dornwald (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between denotation and connotation. The connotation of "universal" means "very widely", not "literally every". Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. David Fuchs is saying that if there is, indeed, a wide span of people who consider a movie to be a classic, then there would exist some reliable sources stating as such. And, in the event that such sources exist, then we can easily proceed noting that the movie is, in fact, considered to be a classic and provide said source. Please note that the text "considered to be a classic" and other similar phrases do not imply that it is considered to be a classic by everyone and the reader should not infer as such. Useight (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"considered to be a classic" is fine by me. Dornwald (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with a lot of articles of recent films having the exact same defined order of section and subsection headings, which is not community-endorsed. That particular defined order is due to certain editors persistently going around and applying such changes. This has led other editors to incorrectly assume that this is the standard and that we need to follow that very specific structure every time.

The order should depend on the content available for that topic, and I have noticed a lot of skinny "Release" sections that are separate from any box office content, and MOS:OVERSECTION says, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." For most films, this means that just the film's release date is covered in one section, and the box office figures are covered in another section. Where the coverage is minimal, it is completely possible and reasonable to have that coverage together in a fuller section. Claiming that the separation is "always" done elsewhere is not a reason in itself. I encourage editors to structure articles based on the topic's content and not on a fake standard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For film pages, I think it is WP:COAT to create a soundtrack section that includes both information boxes and track listings (just a section of prose that provides an overview and anything of note). I see this similar to why we don't put track listings on musician pages. MOS:FILMMUSIC is a little confusing for me as it says that track listings for prerecorded songs can be made but that film scores cannot. Yes, I understand the difference but still believe track listings and information boxes are COAT as they should be presented in a separate page if they are notable and do not contribute anything of benefit to the film page. I searched and found a few discussions about this but wondering if there is a discussion that found consensus for the "current" MOS or if anyone feels this should be re-visited. No issues either way but would like clarification for future editing. CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, if a soundtrack is not notable for its own article and is instead covered in the film article, you don't think there should be an infobox or a track listing as part of that coverage?

I feel like infobox details are consistent whether or not the soundtrack is notable enough to stand alone. As for soundtracks' track listings, I always thought that it was more appropriate than scores' track listings because the tracks could be links to existing songs or a variety of musicians (whereas a score usually has one composer). So for including that, I see it as about linkability. The soundtrack has to get enough reliably-sourced coverage about it for the soundtrack section (presumably including the infobox and track listing) to have its own article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I do NOT think an infobox or track listing should be included in film articles as it does not do anything beneficial for the film, only the soundtrack. What it does do is clutter up the film page (especially when an infobox winds up next to another section such a "reception" because the soundtrack section is so small). We have pages where there is one line saying that the soundtrack exists, then the infobox and track listing.

This is where I get confused on the MOS which states, for film scores, that "noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose." Even with prerecorded music not all of the tracks are noteworthy. So believe it would be better to cover in prose if there is anything. Otherwise it is nothing more than an indiscriminate list that does not add value to the page about the film, only value to the soundtrack (which again, should probably have its own page if notable - if not, the extra details I would consider COAT). Hope that helps to clarify where my brain is melting. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a soundtrack pretty much gets no coverage in reliable sources, there could be a case for not bothering with a "Soundtrack" section at all. We want to include content that is verifiable and not indiscriminate. Obviously if there is a lot of coverage, there can be a standalone article with all the elements there. The challenge lies in soundtracks that have gotten some light coverage. As for identifying tracks, prerecorded music tends to mean preexisting notable songs by notable musicians, which is why I mentioned "linkability". For a score, a composer is usually the only key person and can be named and linked in one sentence, and the names of the tracks for such a score are rarely linked, unlike prerecorded songs. Happy to see what other editors think of this. Do you have any examples of articles that shouldn't have "Soundtrack" sections and articles that should have them but without an infobox or track listing? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation says we are on the same page. I believe the COAT information be handled by WEIGHT as well. Here is a good example of one that was added and I removed. You can see it is one line, the track listing, and the infobox. I can putting a line saying it exists and naming any noteworthy tracks (with reliable sources of course), but you can at least see what I mean by clutter. For transparency, that link is one that an editor disputed on my talk page and I have notified them of this discussion. I will look for some that I think are good with prose and do not need infoboxes and add them here later. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I will say I don't really do much with "Soundtrack" sections. One time I recall adding it is at About Last Night (2014 film) § Soundtrack, where I put it at the end of the article body (as relatively unimportant) and has links to the songs and musicians. The placement makes it less intrusive and still provides that "linkability". I only included the infobox as a standard practice, though the paragraph covers these same details too. Not sure if other editors think that there is still value in that track listing with the blue links, as I've never been one to care about films' soundtracks, and open to discussing that as one of the examples. As for Yuva (2024 film), the infobox does look bloated on its own with that level of detail, but the track listing does not strike me as problematic, especially with just three. If the rest of the article was more fleshed out, the listing would to me seem to be just a small part of it all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That brings up another question. Should we cite Apple Music or other commercial websites for the track listings?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I know, that's fine for basic information. If there is a non-commercial database that is more suitable, that's probably even better. (I don't know what one would be, though.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooru Peru Bhairavakona is a good example of what I feel would be appropriate per WEIGHT. It gives a brief description of the soundtrack and even mentions a few of the tracks (I am assuming they were worthy of mention). Here is a version of that page with the infobox, track listing, and cover.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kranti (2023 film) is one I just came across that is an example of what it should NOT look like. Outside the fact nothing is sourced, the track listing and infobox takes up the majority of the page.--CNMall41 (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should only have tracklists and album infoboxes for film soundtracks that are truly notable enough to have their own pages — and then the tracklists and infoboxes should go in that article and nowhere else. If it isn't notable enough for its own page, we don't need these things weighing down the main film/TV/game/whatever pages. They're just cruft. Popcornfud (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have felt. Trying to add the information into a film page for a soundtrack that isn't (or may not be) notable is coatracking. Either it is notable for its own page which is what infoboxes were created for, or we give a brief overview in prose. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that basic soundtrack should be the part of the film article if separate article for music is not created. MNWiki845 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic info, yes. An infobox and tracklisting, no. Too many of these are unsourced and the infoboxes such as the examples above, carry over into other sections and clutter the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think soundtrack inbox already added in many film articles so don't disturb these articles. CNMall41 now have many problems with this issue then he can create separate pages for soundtracks. Also for separate soundtrack page needs to add appropriate sources. It was very different situation to add appropriate sources.CNMall41 at suddenly you can't say to create separate pages for soundtracks. In Wikipedia only you have this issue. So need to stop revert back our edits. Sush150 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to ping one time. I am not the only one with the issue as you see from above there are users who agree. And, this is what the discussion is about...to determine if this is something we deem appropriate or not. Once this discussion runs its course, I will likely open a RfC on the MOS:FILMMUSIC page. In the meantime, please discuss the policy here and any conduct you have an issue with at ANI.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aadujeevitham (film)#Requested move 29 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris (1972 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm hoping to get some peer review for one section of an article I'm working on. I'm posting here instead of going through the formal peer review process because I only need help with one section, not the entire article. The section in question is "Cultural impact."

I've been looking at WP essays and how-to pages about how to write a cultural impact section, but I've learned all I can from those pages at this point, and now I need an actual person to look at the section and give feedback.

I've been editing the entire page a lot, but have hardly touched that section because I'm not sure what it needs. Therefore, most of the content in the section was created before I started editing the page. I've done a little trimming, but that's it. I'm aware a few of the segments are unsourced. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section is, not to put too fine a point on it, atrocious. It starts out with misrepresenting the scope of the AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains list and it's all downhill from there. IGN is an okay source but should by no means be treated as an authoritative one and is given outsized WP:WEIGHT the way it is used here. What follows is a random assortment of references in media without any sourcing to back up that these are significant ones, let alone the most significant ones. A species is named after Vader—sure, species named after popular culture items are a dime a dozen. The same thing applies to astronomical objects, by the way. Architecture inspired by Darth Vader might be relevant here, but architecture that is just compared to Vader almost certainly isn't. Darth Vader being a kind of shorthand for "villain" is probably noteworthy... but merely listing examples isn't enough, that kind of overarching analysis needs to come from WP:Reliable sources making that exact point. The borderline personality disorder thing is in the wrong section—that's in-universe character analysis. And so on. In summary, it's all an arbitrary collection of trivia. The way to fix it is to start over from scratch using sources that actually cover the overarching topic—(the cultural impact of) Darth Vader. That's the only way to ensure that the section is compliant with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies. In particular, we need sources to tell us what's an important WP:ASPECT and what is not so we can treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply! Unfortunately I'm not the person to re-write the section at this point in time, because I'm still getting my head around everything you said, and I don't feel confident in my abilities to discern between important information and trivia when it comes to a section like this. At least not yet...I'm learning and growing as an editor every day. Should I just leave it as-is with the clean-up tag, or should I remove some of the most atrocious bits? Wafflewombat (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea of relying on sources on the overarching topic is that editors do not have to (and really, are not supposed to) discern between important information and trivia—the sources do that for us. This is admittedly oversimplifying things as there is a bit more to it than that, but merely identifying quality sources on the topic and covering the same things as they do in roughly the same WP:PROPORTION will get you most of the way there. If you have already located quality sources in the course of working on other parts of the article, I would encourage you to give it a shot by removing the entirety of the current section and starting over. It's not like it can get much worse than it currently is. TompaDompa (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll see what I can do. Do you mind if I copy this thread onto the talk page of the article, so other editors can see your feedback? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Just make sure to make it clear where it was originally posted and when it was copied (WP:Copying within Wikipedia), and perhaps add a link to the current version of the article to make it easier for people reading it in the future to follow. TompaDompa (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tompa, could you take a quick look at the cultural impact section of this page and tell me if you think the items there should be removed? My impression is that the Chewbacca defense is more about the cultural impact of South Park, rather than Chewbacca. As for the Chewbacca Mask Lady, that seems like a singular occurrence that happened to reference the character, but isn't really about Chewbacca in any meaningful way. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a quick look at it, I would say that those are reasonable "See also" items but not more than that. TompaDompa (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Where would the "see also" links go on the page? As is stands, if I remove those items from the cultural impact section, that section won't exist anymore. Wafflewombat (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a dedicated "See also" section, above the "Notes" section. See MOS:SECTIONORDER. TompaDompa (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section needs more meaningful content than what exists, and that may exist better in books and academic articles. Two things I recall seeing in the past come to mind: the notion of blackness (as covered here), and the notion of technophobia (e.g. "more machine than man", framed as bad). There may be a fatherhood angle as well, seeing an article like this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! If I have time, I will do some research along the lines of what you suggested. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me if ScreenCrush is a reliable source? The first button at the top of the website says "Win Cash" which is a red flag for me. I removed a sentence citing a ScreenCrush article on a page I'm editing, but someone else reverted my edit because that particular article was written by Matt Singer, who is apparently a credible film critic. Wafflewombat (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found them to be good enough for basic entertainment journalism like Screen Rant and that sort of site. I'm not sure how reliable they would be for a big scoop that the trades didn't pick up on. Matt Singer is a RT/MC listed critic so yes does appear to be credible. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even not having any previous familiarity with the site, I am confident that a place that (in addition to the major "Win Cash" red flag you rightly point out) has "The Dumbest Questions People Ask Google About Movies" and "The Worst Movies of the 20th Century, According to Letterboxd" on the front page (at time of writing) is not exactly the most serious outlet—even if both of those are written by Matt Singer (whom I am also not familiar with, but taking what a quick Google search reveals at face value seems to indicate is indeed a credible critic). It is obviously not a high-quality source (i.e. not suitable for WP:Featured articles per the relevant criteria), but it might be comparable to Screen Rant as suggested above—in which case it would be usable for straightforward statements of fact (e.g. release dates) within its area of competency, but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis, and not a source to rely on for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is about my reversion at Changes in Star Wars re-releases. My reversion is based on the fact that it is an editorial piece for a reception section written by a credible and established film writer and critic. My assessment is based on Singer as an individual, and on the context of how the piece if being used, because the general situation to me seems to be a situational one. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for elaborating. I understand where you're coming from. What do you think of Tompa's response, above? Do you think Singer's article on Jabba qualifies as analysis? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Back in December 2023, there was a brief discussion on Template talk:Infobox person § Education and alma mater parameters regarding the usage of the alma mater and education parameters in certain film-related articles such as actors, filmmakers and entertainers.

Given that, as well as the fact that we shouldn't use both parameters simultaneously as per Template:Infobox person, I have a general question for the other project members: which parameter(s) should we use for actors/filmmakers, if relevant? Also, should we include all colleges/universities they attended? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the difference is just about the amount of information, so it would depend on the individual. It may be that for some actors, we only know where they went to school and nothing more, and "alma mater" would be appropriate. If the actor is very famous, details of their academic background would probably be identified, and "education" can be used.

As for including them, I don't see the number being more than two most of the time. Is there a particular case where it's three or more? If it's usually one or two, I'd be fine with it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is, actually. On the Peter Weller article, three universities are listed: the University of North Texas, Syracuse University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate take is that since he has a PhD, it seems lacking to not mention what came before. I guess I am thinking of someone who may have changed colleges multiple times before graduating with a BA/BS. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Superman (1978 film) § Disputed – Discuss. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just calling attention to user:181.2.127.197's edits. User is currently editing many film articles. Removing sources and tweaking language. I am doing some anti-vandalism work, and it is a little difficult to discern if the edits are constructive to movie-based articles. Thought I could use an extra set of eyes on the user's contributions. Thanks in advance! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki, appears to be a mixture of helpful and unhelpful, with the bad outweighing the good. Not sure if they are trying to do just enough to stay under the radar, but edits like these are real head scratchers. Looks like a few editors watching some of those articles have already intervened, but the number of articles hit in a short period of time is concerning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60, Yes, it is/was hard for me to tell if there was some stealth vandalism going on with the seemingly good edits. Let me know if you think the user's edits should be reverted or sent to AIV. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki, from my perspective, I don't think I'm comfortable calling it stealth vandalism at this point. In this edit and others like it, they may be trying to replicate something they saw in another article (though generally inappropriate for the lead section), so we can probably chalk this up as an educational issue for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the A-Z list in List of American films of 1967 compared to what has been done to List of American films of 1970 onwards with the massive bloated cast lists which makes it difficult to find films. I'm going to restore them to the simple A-Z format rather than release date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At List of cult films, there is a discussion which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Editors are coming up with ideas about refining the selection criteria. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments to Talk:List of cult films § List criteria. Thank you.—Alalch E. 23:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion to move The Grudge (2020 film) to The Grudge (2019 film). The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Grudge (2020 film) § Requested move 27 March 2024. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to come in here to post this but I've seen you beat me to it. Thanks @Erik ! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Intellectual_blockbuster. This looks like a mix of low-quality sourcing and synthesis to me. I really don't care about the article enough to hash it out with someone determined to insert the material because it's not in great shape to begin with. If it really is a thing the sourcing needs to be much better IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to raise an issue for discussion, around Category:Independent film stubs and its associated template {{indie-film-stub}}.

Obviously, the main purpose of stub categories is to facilitate collaboration, by grouping articles on a status that represents a community of collaborators, so that the articles can be expanded to the point of not needing to be templated or categorized as stubs anymore — but I question whether "indie film" actually represents a useful basis for such collaboration. There isn't really any discernible community of editors who specialize broadly in "indie film" irrespective of national borders — many editors associated with this project know a thing or two about the indie film scenes of a couple of countries, but very few have any overarching worldwide expertise. Like, I'm obviously one of the go-to guys for Canadian and/or LGBTQ independent films, but my point of expertise has far less to do with "independent" and more to do with "Canadian and/or LGBTQ". So I question whether a single transnational "indie film stubs" category that groups independent films together regardless of their country of origin is actually serving any useful collaborative purpose — because people's areas of expertise, for the purposes of collaborability, are generally going to converge around countries and genres, rather than around "indie" status per se.

Furthermore, even after reviewing just 30 articles in that category with about 180 left to go, I've already found a lot of films that were stub-templated only for their indie status, and not at all for any combination whatsoever of decade, genre and/or nationality — and even worse, they were sometimes (though thankfully not always) also missing any mainspace categories for genre or nationality. But again, editors' ability to collaborate is going to cut on countries and/or genres, meaning that stub-tagging films for indieness while eliding stub tags for genre or nationality is isolating those films from the more useful groupings.

I do plan to go through the entire category to make sure each film in it also has appropriate nationality-based stub tags and categories added if necessary, but I wanted to ask if other editors here believe the "indie-stub" tag and category are actually useful in ways I'm not seeing, or should be taken to CFD. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:? (film)#Requested move 9 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has modified several articles to change Special Effects to Visual Effects. I don't think is necessarily apt in all cases but I was unaware special and visual are two different areas, with special relating to practical and visual to more image trickery and CGI. Is there a general term that can be used instead? Naming a section "Effects" seems wrong but maybe it's right? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they are both "visual effects", and awards that are given for VFX often include practical and digital effects such as the Oscar. In my experience, "special effects" and "visual effects" do get used to differentiate the two but I don't think that is the best approach for people who aren't in the know. I would go with "Effects" or "Visual effects" and then clarify what is practical versus digital. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MonsterVerse#Requested move 31 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just made aware of Category:Films about fictional presidents of the United States being used on a film in which I don't think the category is applicable. Given it's title and the heading used at the cat, should this category include any film which features fictional presidents, even if they aren't the major character focus of the film such as X2 (film), or should it only include films in which they are the sole/major focus of the film such as Air Force One (film)? If the former, then perhaps the cat should not use "about" in its title but rather "featuring". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a WP:DEFINING feature of the film. TompaDompa (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the practice of using "upcoming" in a film's lead intro only until the film has premiered? As opposed to leaving it in until films are theatrically released? I believe the former practice is misleading to readers. The general public and sources view films as upcoming until they're released in theaters to the general public. I think that if a lead intro reads "is a 2024 film", it implies that the film was released. There are always films that are scheduled to be theatrically released months from their premiere date. Lapadite (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the film was premiered it has been released in that year. The reason we use "upcoming" before that is to indicate that it has not been released, not that it is upcoming for every reader. Just because the reader hasn't had the chance to see it yet doesn't mean it is still upcoming for everyone. Most films get theatrically released in only a few countries at a time as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the common removal of "upcoming" once a film has premiered, instead of keeping it until its release date. If there hasn't been a project consensus on this, perhaps there should be so that it can be referenced when some editors remove "upcoming" once a film has premiered and others reinstate it because it hasn't been released. Lapadite (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the possibility of dropping "upcoming" once the release year is known, period? When we have "upcoming", we are guessing at what this indicates to readers. While an official premiere can mark that the film is effectively "published", it's still not available to general audiences. Yet, if we write "upcoming", even if it comes out in one territory but has yet to come out in other territories, that word will be true for some readers but not others. Especially on an encyclopedia intended for a global audience that only happens to be in the English language. I feel like it's too convoluted for the relative circumstances that can exist. Not to mention that these are encyclopedic articles about films, so being a going-out guide is completely incidental. If readers want to know release specifics, they can read the lead section's last paragraph (or the "Release" section itself). Food for thought. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean, for instance, in 2024 dropping "upcoming" once a film's release date is set to 2025 to call it a "2025 film", can't say I agree because release dates far off from when they're announced can change and that introduces more variables that a number of editors won't follow. We know that a film's scheduled release date is what journalists use to refer to an "upcoming film". When you Google "upcoming films" you get a list of films that are scheduled to be released in theaters, from Rotten Tomatoes, Fandango, IMDb, Box Office Mojo, and journalists (here's a Variety article). That's always been conventional wisdom, what the general public understands "upcoming" to mean: that it will be released in theaters, or, in this age, on streaming. On English WP, we use the release date of the country of production. I'm suggesting that, for the sake of simplicity and serving readers, we reflect that understanding by removing "upcoming" from the lead only when a film has been released in theaters or streaming. At least, establish a project consensus either way so editors follow one practice. Lapadite (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are still talking about a relatively small window of time, because eventually within a few days or weeks (occasionally months), the issue will be in the rear-view mirror. That's only a fraction of the timeline in the article's lifetime. Personally, I don't think it's worth trying to keep "upcoming" in the lead. Removing it altogether once the release year is known or after it has premiered shouldn't significantly change anything, especially if we believe visitors are reading past the first couple lines of the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest having all film articles read as "is a [year of release] film" without using "upcoming" at all? I'm not opposed to that if the project establishes it as standard practice for all film articles. It's still accurate. What I don't think is accurate is using "upcoming" for a film's premiere date, as opposed to its release date. Lapadite (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at The Fall Guy for example, "upcoming" could technically be removed, considering the film has already premiered. Although I wouldn't go out of my way to remove it, I don't think doing so would confuse readers, especially if they read past the opening paragraph. They're going to see "scheduled to be released" in the second paragraph, but more importantly, any possible confusion you could argue will only exist in a time span of several weeks. If an editor gives you trouble about "upcoming" at a particular article, then there should be a variety of alternative solutions you could come up with to remedy the situation. I don't think we necessarily need to hard code a solution we all agree with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dr. Strangelove § What is the problem with my edit? You can't explain the reason?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon MGM Studios Distribution division was said to be handling distribution for all of Amazon MGM's subsidiaries. However, the full name is almost never used anywhere (ex. credits, reviews, etc.); it's always simply Amazon MGM Studios. I always figured we'd add "Distribution" when referring to in relation of such (like the "distributed by" section of an infobox), and not include it for everything else. However, it seems to just be the latter regardless of context. Should we add "Disribution" when necessary, or just leave it as is? IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]