Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Up There page[edit]

There is a 2019 Up There film which is charting on iTunes. May warrant a disambiguation (or new) page between the 2019 film and the current 2012 film page.[1] [2] [3]


  1. ^ Up There, retrieved 2019-12-03
  2. ^ "'Up There,' movie shot in Upper Peninsula, has Michigan premiere". Detroit News. Retrieved 2019-12-03.
  3. ^ "UP THERE". UP THERE. Retrieved 2019-12-03.

Oscars question[edit]

Does anyone know if Oscars nominations and Oscars shortlists are different? I saw this Pitchfork article, which says Motherless Brooklyn is shortlisted for the academy award for best song, and assumed this meant it had been nominated. So I added that to the Motherless Brooklyn (film) article. Now I'm wondering if they're not the same thing, but I can't find a clear explanation even after googling. Can anyone advise? Popcornduff (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are different. I think the shortlist can be seen as a semi-final round. This says, for example, that 159 documentary feature films were submitted, 15 were shortlisted, and there will be 5 nominees from that shortlist. Not sure what the process is to go from the submitted list to the shortlist. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Erik, thanks for your comprehensive answer. Very helpful. Popcornduff (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The Prestige[edit]

For whatever reason, several users are edit warring over the genre for The Prestige. While semi-protection might help a bit, it would also be helpful for an expert or two from this project to help settle the issue. In the historical past, the genre was left out of this article to prevent edit wars. I suspect there’s a solid rationale for a genre, and I’m hoping that someone can solve it and implement it, followed up by article protection to keep it stable. If there are any admins reading this, please note the troublesome SPAs in the page history. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure "magician thriller film" is a real genre. I think including the primary genre in the lead would be a good thing to do as per WP:FILMLEAD and I doubt it needs to be omitted to prevent genre warring - seemingly it didn't help this time - but the current pileup needs to go. Popcornduff (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree. "Thriller" is sufficient. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

External links[edit]

There are comments at Talk:Blackrock (film)#External links that may be of interest to some members. Otr500 (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles for creation backlog[edit]

Please consider reviewing some of the drafts awaiting review in your project scope, our backlog is over 3,700 articles right now. JTP (talkcontribs) 16:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This list should be notable, but I can't find sufficient sourcing.[edit]

Film teamings/couples/duos?:

Help. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Movie Plot Summaries and Original Research Tags[edit]

I happened to browse a few movie pages and many of them have the Original Research tag at the top of the plot summary section. Since this is almost always written by someone who saw the film and not copied from another website, does this tag make any sense? In one case it was added by an ip. Advice is needed. -2001:4898:80E8:0:CA2A:7147:BFE2:B3C6 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The plot summary is primary sourced to the film so it should have no references and any original research tags should be removed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Unless the plot summary has interpretive content, like describing what various themes mean or deciphering symbolism, or things of that nature. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Plot summaries should contain no interpretation or stuff that isn't definitely in the plot. For example, Jane dies in the supermarket is OK. Jane dies in the supermarket, tying in with the themes of anti-capitalism. Isn't. Jane dies in the supermarket, and it is implied that Harry shot her, but this is not made clear. Isn't. See WP:FILMPLOT for more info. Popcornduff (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Use this as an example. I don't believe the tag should stay. -2001:4898:80E8:0:CA2A:7147:BFE2:B3C6 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If you have full confidence that there is no OR going on on the plot summary, please remove it. Be aware, you should have seen the film so you know that the summary is accurate and non-intepretive before doing so; the tag may possibly be correct. In the case of that film, an IP editor (who did all of 3 similar edits) added that in October, and so looks like a user unaware of when such tags should be added, but I've not seen the film so I can't comment. --Masem (t) 00:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Crediting Films Produced and Distributed by 20th Century Fox[edit]

I've noticed that for a lot of films that are both produced and distributed by 20th Century Fox, only the smaller director/crew companies are listed as Production Companies while Fox only gets the distributor credit in the infoboxes. Examples are Fox X-Men film series including Deadpool and Logan. Using "presents" doesn't mean you're just a distributor and can't be a producer. For example, Disney often uses "Walt Disney Pictures presents" even though Walt Disney Pictures is the producer and not the distributor - distribution is done by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. Since "20th Century Fox" is both the distributor and producer, they're obviously not going to say "20th Century Fox presents a 20th Century Fox..." Instead they use "in association with" the other production studios. This might not be an issue for future films once they start using "distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" at the the end, but I think past films need to be corrected.

So, is there any reason why 20th Century Fox shouldn't get production credit when it distributes its own film? Starforce13 22:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A credit like "20th Century Fox presents..." is ambiguous. You are correct in noting the credit is not confined to distributors, but it does not necessarily confer production status on the company either. This is why Wikipedia seeks secondary sources; primary sources are sometimes acceptable where there is complete clarity (such as "A Lucasfilm production") but secondary sources should be sought where ambiguity exists. If sources consider Fox to be a production company on these films, it should be included regardless of whether it is listed as a distributor—the two fields are not mutually exclusive. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. So, in other words, if we cite reliable sources confirming 20th Century Fox as a producer, there's no established consensus to leave out the production credit simply because it used "presents". Starforce13 22:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Category discussion editors may be interested in[edit]

Editors (particularly those that work in the box office area of the project) may be interested in the discussion in regards to the newly created cat Category:Number-one films in the United States. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisting discussion about genre columns over on Talk:List of American films of 2019.[edit]

In November 2019, a discussion was started on Talk:List of American films of 2019 regarding the implementation of genre columns in articles for lists of films by country and year. Around that time, I posted a message to this WikiProject requesting for other users to weigh in, but no consensus has been reached yet. Please head on over, read through the existing discussion, and give your thoughts and opinions on the matter if you feel inclined to do so. Thank you! —Matthew - (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Genre of High Life[edit]

I would appreciate any opinions about the genre of the film High Life at Talk:High Life (2018 film)#Genre revisited. (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion (Police Story 4: First Strike)[edit]

I cordially invite everyone in the project to participate in an ongoing move discussion in the Talk:Police Story 4: First Strike. You've gone incognito (talkcontribs) 02:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion (Producers Guild of America Award)[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Producers Guild of America Awards 2019#Requested move 14 January 2020, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Wikipedical (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of plot-summary editing at The Terminator[edit]

Regarding The Terminator, there is a discussion about edits being made to the plot summary. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Terminator#Plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jurassic Park / Jurassic World[edit]

Please, have a look at Talk:Jurassic Park ("Wrong statement" section). Kintaro (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Inflation-adjusted box office take, or number of tickets sold[edit]

I raised this issue some months ago, and I'm going to raise it again in case people might change their minds. I think we should add inflation-adjusted box office takes to the infobox for all movies. Why not? I know it's not conventionally-done in the industry, but so what? We're not the movie industry. We can tell readers this if we like. Why would inserting inflation-adjusted takes be bad? Or perhaps numbers of tickets sold, if data for that is available. It would be informative. I am curious about these things, so I imagine other readers might be too. Kurzon (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's a practical reason why we shouldn't list ticket sales or inflation-adjusted revenue, I can accept that because I don't want to mislead readers. But concealing knowledge simply because the industry doesn't do it conventionally is not a good reason. Kurzon (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason we should not do it is because it is not factual, it is analytical. The value would depend entirely on which inflation measure to use, which in turn depends on the context of what you are trying to show. In the case of older films that had multiple reissues (such as Disney films) it would be next to impossible to adjust such a gross with any serious degree of accuracy. It would be even more difficult to document admissions because they are not tracked in many countries. We should stick to facts in the infobox; if there is anything important to say about a film's inflation adjusted gross it can be discussed in the prose. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I also don't think it should be included in the infobox - if for nothing but consistency with the fact it only lists original release. If there's something otherwise notable to say, the article body is there, but the standard is that the infobox is for the original stats, there's no reason to complicate that. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I see. If not in a general fashion, would it be OK to add inflation-adjusted information on a case-by-case basis? For instance, if I found a book or article that says that Gone With The Wind surpassed the take of Avengers: Endgame after adjusting for inflation, would it be OK to mention that in the Endgame article? If I can't add exact figures, would it at least be OK for me to mention that Endgame is not really the biggest movie of all time because of the inflation issue? Kurzon (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan: I want more editors to weigh in on this. Kurzon (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
In theory anything that can be reliably sourced can be included in an article, but that is ultimately for the editors of the article to decide. It depends on many things, such as what you want to say, how much you want to say, where you want to say it in the article etc. The appropriate place for that discussion is the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In this case, it would do fine in the box office section, but I feel is an extra level of detail for the lead. "Highest-grossing" by default refers to the unadjusted figures in almost all sources, so "unadjusted for inflation" would be redundant. Also, such an arrangement may not work in other film articles. As detailed in the article prose of List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation, while its almost universally accepted that Gone with the Wind is the highest-grossing film after adjusting for inflation, it immediately isn't clear whether the runner-up is Avatar or Titanic (Guinness favours Avatar, so our article lists it second, but the discrepancy is explained in a footnote). When we go further down the inflated list, such inconsistencies are only bound to increase, so even if a source states A earned more than B when adjusted for inflation, it would be helpful to look for additional sources too before considering its inclusion. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan: Well, can I do it just for the Endgame article? Because a lot of people think that Endgame is the biggest money-making movie of all time, and do not think of the inflation aspect. Even if it's hard to obtain exact figures, all sources agree that Gone With The Wind took in more than Endgame. And I don't think this is too much detail. I could trim something else from the lede, if that might please you. Kurzon (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to something along the lines of "...including becoming the highest-grossing film of all time and the fifth-highest grossing film of all time when adjusted for inflation" in the lead, but mentioning Gone with the Wind is an extra level of detail we don't need. In either case, you need to take this to Talk:Avengers: Endgame given that there was a previous consensus regarding this. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox character and WAF[edit]

I am reaching out to your project because your project may have an interest in this discussion: Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. Izno (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

More eyes on a CfD[edit]

Hey folks. Posted about this a bit ago, but a CfD on Category:Number-one_films_in_the_United_States could use some more input. You can find it relisted here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion (Writers Guild of America Award)[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Writers Guild of America Awards 2019#Requested move 23 January 2020, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Wikipedical (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)