Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 46

There is an issue about over which box-office sites that should be use as references and that is more reliable and accurate. Either with Box Office Mojo or Boxoffice.com. A user name KahnJohn27 wants to replace the BOM (Box Office Mojo) with Boxoffice.com, saying that it might be more accurate and reliable of the worldwide gross. There is conflicting reports in each of those sites of production numbers and box-office grosses on various movies, including Olympus Has Fallen and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. I would appreciate a third party to check on this matter. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before though I can't remember if we ever reached a resolution. Here is a recent conversation for reference Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 44#Conflicting Box office figures. MarnetteD | Talk 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's about time we take a closer look at BoxOffice.com. What exactly qualifies it as a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. For instance, BOM figues are regularly reported in trade journals such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, so does BoxOffice.com get that sort of recognition? And on what basis is the claim "more accurate and reliable of the worldwide gross" being made? For now, I'm inclined to stick with the BOM figures until we get adequate answers to those questions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Check it out. Get those answers about BOM and BoxOffice.com. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why dont you check this out? Just because some trade sources use BOM as a source doesn't mean that BOM is reliable. They're most of the times just copying and pasting. I'll give you a proof that is a clear proof about the blunders it makes and how much "reliable" it actually is. Read and understand this link carefully (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=reddawn10.htm). The toral foreign box office gross is given as n/a but the box office gross for many countries is given. And that is why worldwide box office gross is same as domestic gross. Under the basic dictionary defination of the world "reliable" BOM does not even qualify being reliable for the gross of this film atleast. You talk about trade sources well, TheNumbers.com backs up the gross of Boxoffice.com. Also it regularly updates it's foreign box office gross. About accuracy, well nothing is ever completely accurate and the difference between the worldwide gross is very less. About budget it's probably because they also include the marketing budget. I'm not gonna just sit and let two inexperienced users decide which source is reliable on the basis of some worthless reason like publication in trade sources. You don't know what a reliable source actually means. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You would be well advised to not treat this situation as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Lets get to your last assertion first. You have 462 edits and have been here since Sept 2012. Battleshipman has over 1500 edits and started a year before you in 2011 and Betty Logan has well over 27000 edits and started editing in November 2008. Thus, you are by far the most inexperienced editor here. Betty is also one of the most reliable editors I know and goes the extra mile in doing the required research for editing here. You make the incredible assertion that "And that is why worldwide box office gross is same as domestic gross" which is illogical as it gets. That combined with your spelling and grammar errors make me worry about WP:COMPETENCE. In the hopes of bettering that situation I would recommend that you read up on just what makes a reliable source and WP:CONSENSUS. We edit here as part of a community and there will be times that you may disagree with a decision that the community makes. In that case your best move is to drop the WP:STICK before proceeding further. MarnetteD | Talk 21:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to KahnJohn27: By Wikipedia's definition, one aspect of a source being considered reliable is whether other publications cite it. If Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, two of the largest and most venerable film trade magazines, are citing it, there's strong reason for Wikipedia to use figures that comport with two of the largest and most venerable film trade magazines.

You appear knowledgable, so you must know that overseas box-office figures are never more than calculated estimates, since various countries' box-office recording is imprecise. That sources may differ on that isn't surprising, and Wikipedia should go with the figures most accepted by the industry, whose accounting executives are experts in their field. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The attitude doesn't really help, and the consensus of this discussion will ultimately determine what sources are to be used. Pretty much everyone who contributes to this project page is an experienced editor who knows what they are talking about. Box Office Mojo is unequivocally a reliable source, determined by countless GA and FA reviews; however, that doesn't mean it is never wrong, but let's take the example of Red Dawn specifically. Currently in the main summary BOM doesn't list a foreign cume as yet, but if you click on the Foreign tab it does provide a list of figures, which roughly add up to over $5 million. Then you have the Boxoffice.com and The Numbers which provide roughly the same $3.3 million figure. So my observations here:

1. The case still hasn't been made that Boxoffice.com is reliable source. WP:Reliable source defines this as having editorial oversight, and being qualified to publish in the area it is being used as a source.
2. The Numbers which has been passed as a reliable source corroborates the figure from Box Office.com.
3. Then we have Box Office Mojo, which provides a slightly larger figure than the other two sites. It provides a much more thorough breakdown for the foreign territories than the other two sites, so is there any reason to believe that it's just a case that BOM is more up to date? I don't see any compelling evidence that BOM are incorrect here.

Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I knew it. I know reporting this matter is justified. I don't want this to become an edit war. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You know why I called them inexperienced? Because they are thinking they have solid proof and they really think that contacting both the websites will actually solve anything. If you say I'm insulting them by calling them inexperienced why did they never responded about the "n/a" problem of the foreign box office gross at BOM. Either they can't understand it or they're doing it deliberately. But I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not. Why does teacher sometimes insult his student. Not to actually insult him but to clearly show them their mistakes. That is what I call real "experience". As we all have noticed about the "n/a" problem, I'd like you all to notice that this problem mostly happens with films who earn less than 100 million $. Either they are doing this deliberately because these films were barely noticeable and they don't care about them or most likely it is a mistake on their part. Either way the website is contradicting itself. And I think we all know what reliable means. It simply means something that can be relied upon or in this case that all it's info is correct but BOM is contradicting itself. So it is displaying incorrect info. It's not reliable by Wiki standards or any standard whatsoever. Remember BOM is owned by IMdb and it has already been declared unreliable. So I really doubt BOM. If you want to contact them I suggest you ask about this problem I mentioned here and be totally honest. About the GA or FA status even articles which use Boxoffice.com as a source have also gotten GA status. That's because the articles were properly and completely sourced with reliable sources and not just because of BOM or Boxoffice.com. Also in many of them their gross is sbown in significant figures. For eg., in case of Dredd it's gross is shown as $36.4 million. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Also I suggest you read this from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources . One of the main rules for proving whether a source is reliable or not or identifying it is reliable is this Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. The website BOM is contradicting itself and is thus not reliable for the statement being made. I can give you hundred other exmples of this similar problem. Red Dawn, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call aren't the only examples. Also I've never seen Boxoffice.com contradicting itself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Last but not least I said it myself that no source can be actually accurate. Foreign gross are estimates. But why is BOM reporting the foreign box office gross n/a when it has listed the box office gross of several foreign countries. That's why I instead use Boxoffice.com because they never make blunders like these. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because it hasn't internally updated some of its foreign totals as yet does not make it "unreliable". There are many legitimate reasons for doing this, among them, the fact that not all the territories it is tracking may have reported the takings yet! But this besides the point, because you can still see the grosses for the countries that have reported box office takings, so you know full well the data is there for those that want to use it. The IMDB factor is a red herring in this discussion: we are perfectly familiar with who owns BOM, and IMDB is ruled not a reliable source on the grounds it is user edited, which is not the case with the independently published BOM, so the rationale does not apply. As yet you have not put forward a cogent argument why Boxoffice.com is a reliable source consistent with Wikipedia's criteria, and you have not put forward a convincing argument against Box Office Mojo other than the fact you are basically too lazy to add up the figures they do list for the foreign territories. Until you obtain a clear consensus that BoxOffice.com is a reliable source, please stop adding it to articles in the face of opposition from other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Really and how do you know that? Have you contacted them? Have you talked them and they replied about it to you? I'm not saying BOM is always unreliable only in some cases. I think you're saying this because you're accustomed to BOM and biased against other websites. I have already given you a clear proof. A reliable source should be reliable. However I have already told you that the website contradicting itself. Just because gross from some territories is "n/a" that does not mean that the available foreign gross shouldn't be added to the domestic gross. Also why is this problem only present in those movies which have grossed less than 100 million dollars? I have already proved that Boxoffice.com is reliable. It is also used in trade publications and it's info is correct meaning that it does not contradicts it's own info and regularly updates it's foreign box office gross. It's actually you who haven't proved that BOM is reliable at least in the case of films like red dawn or burt wonderstone. You haven't provided any concrete proof but I already have and can give hundreds more. The way I see it this discussion is far from over. Only 3 users including me, you and Battleshipman have participated in this discussion and you have provided no evidence at all why Boxoffice.com is unrealiable. Unless more users join this discussion it is not over because a consensus should include everyone. There should be more users participating in this discussion. This actually is not a matter of consensus. But of providing proof. Again I say bring a proof. The way I see it unless you prove that I'm wrong there is nothing stopping me from replacing box office mojo with boxoffice.com if BOM is not unreliable. You have no right to tell me what to do just like I don't have any right to tell you what to do. Also many users agree that Boxoffice.com is more reliable than BOM sometimes. If you really manually calculate the whole foreign gross if the total foreign gross is n/a why don't you really try doing that. Trust me it took half an hour to manually calculate the total foreign gross of Dredd 3d. Also the gross will get updated each week. And if somebody reverts your edit trust me you're done. I don't really think any of you have so much idle time. You wanna waste your time alright but bring a proof. I'm not insulting or trying to annoy you but trying to help you realize your mistake. I too was earlier against Boxoffice.com but I was proved wrong. I suggest instead of using just one source we use both the sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You have not proven anything of a sort! Just because Box Office Mojo hasn't added the foreign grosses into the overall total does not imply anything about the reliability of the source, especially when it lists the individual grosses for each country! It just means it hasn't added them into the total as yet. The data is still there to use if you wish to use it. And please don't tell me I am "conditioned" to using Box Office Mojo when you do not know what articles I edit and what approaches I adopt when using sources. You are just coming across as obnoxious. If BoxOffice.com had been vetted as a reliable source by the Film project then it would be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Box_office; that's not to say it isn't but so far you have failed to make any sort of coherent case for it and another editor has challenged your use of it. I strongly urge that you get it cleared at WP:RS/N before inserting it into more articles. I also suggest you adhere to WP:BRD, which states the onus is on you to obtain a consensus when your edits are being challenged. Any editor is entitled to revert changes to an article by another editor, and if that occurs you should gain support for your edits before reinserting the challenged content. If you continue being disruptive on the film articles then administrator intervention will be requested. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Only three users? No, there are others: MarnetteD and myself. He has said your behavior and attitude are improper and you show a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The consensus is against you, and your bullying tactics and demands for "proof" when several editors have demonstrated the given source's reliability by Wikipedia standards is the type of thing that can result in admin intervention. And an admin would look at this passage and certainly have a lot to say about language that threatens to edit-war and to disrupt Wikipedia: "if somebody reverts your edit trust me you're done. I don't really think any of you have so much idle time. You wanna waste your time alright but bring a proof. I'm not insulting or trying to annoy you but trying to help you realize your mistake." --Tenebrae (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This proves that KahnJohn27 absolutely has no idea what he is saying and hopefully he'll learn from his mistakes. But, after encountering some disruptive editors in the past, I doubt he'll learn his mistakes. I hope this disruptive matter will be handled soon. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What does even your sentence mean BattleshipMan? If I had no idea how am I replying to your comments. I suggest you quit making things up. You don't have any idea what I'm thinking and when ever did the matter get disruptive? Reverting edits twice or thrice because it was clear the source of the other editor is wrong is no edit war. And look Tenebrae I don't know from where you got this idea of me bullying anyone or doing disruptive edits. I have never done any disruptive edit. Calling someone "inexperienced" does not mean disruptive edit. If you think that was an insult I apologise for that right now. But I have never bullied anyone. As far as I remeber the most aggresive I was when a user kept adding the budget of film Snitch without any reliable source. This was because BOM did not provide the budget for it. Also let me remind you that even BOM has started providing incorrect budgets these days. It's budget figures are mostly $5 million less than the budget figures in news websites and these sites do original search. That's why BOM is not used by some users for the budget. Another proof of BOM's unreliability. Also when I said make you realize your mistake I said it because a proof for proving something as unreliable is required just like sourcing an edit with a reliable source. I'll give you an example. Some months I edited the lists of best-selling video games using a website Statisticsbrain.com. A user took this matter up saying that this website is unreliable. Yes, the decision went against me. But not because most people simply said it is unreliable but because they proved it to me. The website has used Wikipedia as a source sometimes. They were extremely cooperative with me and instead of just simply saying that it is unreliable they actually proved it. And after that I automattically withdrew my statement and accepted I might have been wrong. I request you to show the same level of cooperation and please answer these key questions :-

• I might know very less about Wiki policies but I know that in a consensus all points and countetpoints are taken and weighed and judged. I'm repeatedly asking for a proof because a consensus does not labelling something wrong as right just because most people think it's right. That is not consensus but anarchy. For classifying something as unrelianle proper proof is needed. Boxoffice.com mightp have not been classified as reliable but neither it has been classified as unreliable.
• For identifying a source as reliable there are a set of rules. #1 is trade sources and #2 is whether the info on website is reliable or correct. But the info atleast in case of red dawn, Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call is incorrect as the website is contradicting itself. Also why is this problem just with low grossing films and not with high ones? You still haven't answered that question. How is the domestic and worldwide gross when the film has been released in other countries. Data being not available does not justify this. If only domestic gross is available show only that why is the worldwide gross shown as equal to domestic gross. Also total worldwide box office gross for 1982 Conan The Barbarian is given to be $65 milion on BOM but $100 million on other sources. That is a huge difference for estimates.
• When you know that no source can actually be that accurate and are estimates how can you say BOM updates it's gross more regularly. Just because it has higher gross figures does not mean that it is more regularly updated.
• Why are we deciding which source is reliable or unreliable? This action should be in the hands of administrators since they can judge more better and impartially. I request you to take this matter to them.
• When I said that manually calculating the foreign gross is going to take too much time I seriously meant it. It is no bullying but based on my own experience with Dredd. I said it took me half hour to calculate it. What kind of bullying is there in it. I don't think there is any when I'm saying the truth because it is a really complicated process especially when there is a huge list of countries. "If a user reverts your edit then that's it." I was using layman's language. It just means that since the worldwide and domestic gross is given equal some user might replace your manually calculated gross that is the actual worldwide gross with the domestic gross. And you might have to do the whole procedure again. I'm just trying to warn you of the dangers that lie in manually calculating the whole gross. It is no bullying at all. You don't have any proof of me bullying except when I called them inexperienced. So please stop making false accussations.
• Administrator will only intrevene if there is indeed disruprltive editing. And I never reverted your edits when I came to know about this discussion started. I request you to show the same level of cooperation.
• Also why didn't you respond about me inquiring about using multiple sources. I don't think there is any problem with that. For eg., the gross for Burt Wonderstone can be given as $21-24 million instead of $21.8 or $23.5 million. That will be "real" accuracy.
• Tenebrae you called me more inexperienced because I have spent lesser time on Wikipedia . You didn't read my user page. I lve edited on Wikipedia before without any account for many years (near about 5 years but not including the time I've spent on my account or profile.) I decided to make one so as to be granted more editing permissions and access to semi-locked pages.
• I might have forgotten about MarnetteD but by far now you only have talked about my behavior. Sometimes you're making no sense and now please don't treat this as bullying again. When both the domestic gross and worldwide gross are shoen ad actually equal then what was wrong in my earlier statement? My fellow users just tell me this if you have the domestic(U.S.A) sales record of a video game or music album and not of other countries where the game was available would you show both the domestic sales and worldwide sales as equal to those demanding to know the sales. Of course you won't. Have ever you seen any other company do what BOM has done. They just show the sales records available of U.S.A. and other countries that they have collected. Something is suspicious about this website.

If you all think that my comments or replies have been way too long well I immediately apoligise for it. I'll try to be much more brief from now on. Also before going I'd like to say this matter is going to be taken to reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be great if you took your issue to the reliable source noticeboard and off here. I'd be sincerely interested in what editors there have to say. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Though I do have to say: "because a consensus does not labelling something wrong as right just because most people think it's right" is not a sentence in any recognizable idiom of English. As for "That is not consensus but anarchy": If most people think it's right, then that's the opposite of anarchy.

So if you're in high school now and you've been on Wikipedia for five years, I'm not sure exactly how seriously to take edits made at, what, age 11 or 12?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

K as you have not read previous policy pages linked to I suspect you will ignore this one but please see WP:AN3. No matter whether you are "right or wrong" you have been editwarring as can be seen here and yes you are still treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Oh and one more policy is WP:NPA which you have violated numerous times in this thread and others. MarnetteD | Talk 00:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits before this discussion. Even if it was edit warring it was not at all intentional. All my edits are in good faith. Apart from that I only reverted your edits twice during this discussion that was not edit warring but just to show you what will happen if you continue to induldge in an edit war. And how are you implying that I'm in high school. I'm in a college and my age has nothing to do with this so I suggest you focus on this matter at hand and stop making things up which you have been doing the entire discussion. A reliable or unreliable source demands proof and that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. Even if you use BOM why are you listing the incorrect worldwide gross in the infobox of the article? Atleast mention that this gross is only for North America. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you all read this WP: BOLD. I have been bold as well as civil at the same time. I do not mince words but that does not mean bullying. According to this policy, there is nothing wrong with being bold. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And I suggest that you read WP:BRD. As to your assertion that you reverted edits on thew Burt Wonderstone article before the discussion began be aware that this thread was started at 17:54 on 10 April 2013. Your first post to it was at 21:10 on 10 April 2013. Your last revert was at 17:30 on 11 April 2013 which is 20 hours "after" you joined this discussion. BTW accusing other editors of dishonesty is far from being civil. You continue to ignore other editors pointing out the fact that BOM does include international sales figures and that it is used to by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. The fact that it is part of numerous Wikipedia GA and FA articles means that there is an established consensus for its use. As yet nothing that you have presented is persuasive that we should overturn that consensus. MarnetteD | Talk 14:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have used Box Office Mojo in the past, but it appears that BoxOffice.com is also referenced in news coverage. I consider Box Office Mojo a reliable source, and it appears that BoxOffice.com is also reliable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the challenge here seems to be dealing with inconsistent figures, and this seems to be happening with films currently in theaters. The example I saw was Red Dawn not showing a total "foreign" (non-U.S.) gross despite grosses from numerous countries. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I do not think this means that Box Office Mojo is inherently unreliable. Even The New York Times has its share of mistakes and missteps. How do the figures compare for films that are no longer on their theatrical runs? Is there a systematic discrepancy or not? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IMHO, it's a dessert topping and a floor wax. First: where numbers differ by a small amount, express the number to a precision where the numbers still agree. If one sources says $28,282, and the other says $28,994, just say more than $28,000. Where numbers differ greatly, I suggest quoting the higher. In both cases, cite both sources in a single ref, separated by a break, with a note mentioning the discrepancy. Example:

Movie earned $28,000 in its first weekend in the U.S.^[1]

That's my opinion. My point is, if you know the numbers differ between sources, be fair to the reader and let them know, too. But it's footnote stuff, not to clutter the main text. --Lexein (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is another thing you should look into these sites. Olympus Has Fallen has conflicting production budget numbers in each of the sites. Box Office Mojo said it has $70,000,000 and BoxOffice.com listed as $100,000,000 on it. You should check that out. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I was right about you misinterpreting my statements. I have already said this in my previous comment that I had reverted your edits at The Call and Incredible Burt Wonderstone. That's why I was saying that you should have a good proof before accusing someone. I have already accepted myself in my previous comment that I did edit while this discussion was going on but so have other users. Consensus might have been against me but still a decision wasn't taken. I never would have reverted the edits if a decision had been taken. Also all the reasonable questions I have raised haven't still been answered and I have already listed them for all to view. This thing is not about someone's behavior but about cooperation and reaching a consensus together. So I suggest you drop accusations until this problem is solved. If you want to report my behavior to an admin I don't have a problem with that since I have been always civil but please note that this is not the place for discussing someone's behavior even if you think that it was disruptive. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not use both of them? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Over the past couple of years, I've noticed an increasing reliance on Roger Ebert citations in the "Reception" sections in various Wikipedia film articles. This is not an issue for articles that cite several critics. But I've noticed many film articles where Roger Ebert is the only critic being cited, or one out of two or three critics being cited. It's as if a 'Roger Ebert bot' is slowly making its way across Wikipedia. To remedy this, I think articles should either cite several critics (something like 6 or more?) or no critics at all. On a side note, I'm sorry to hear of his recent passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 09:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So if I can only find 5 non-Ebert reviews, what then? Are you going to remove them all? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that his being cited so often stems from two reasons. First, his mainstream prominence as a film critic. I don't even know who would be a runner-up for most people if they were asked to name a critic other than Ebert. Also, as a related factor, I think Ebert's website has been very accessible in terms of his reviews already being on the top of search results and the website itself being easy to navigate. If he is the only critic being cited in a "Reception" section, then we should build up that section, not empty it entirely. It is indeed undue weight to have just Ebert (especially if he is in the minority about a given film), but even in such contrarian instances, I think it's fair to say that readers wouldn't mind knowing what he had to say about the film. In any case, there is now a future of films that will unfortunately not be reviewed by Ebert; the mantle is now passed to everyone else. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a predilection for selecting "celebrity" critics, and American ones at that, and I agree that it presents a problem, but I've never subscribed to the view that the best solution to addressing neutrality is to remove content. If it matters so much the concerned editor should locate more reviews to add and balance it out. I suppose at the end of the day it's worth knowing what Roger Ebert thought rather than not knowing what anybody thought. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

An RfC regarding "non-core" film articles on the list of "vital" articles has been opened. Comments and opinions are welcomed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussions have been opened at Talk:John Waters (filmmaker)#Proposed page move to John Waters (writer/director) and at Talk:John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) regarding a proposal to better solve the DAB issue. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NCPDAB, these should be disambiguated with "(director born [year])". I've commented on each of the talk pages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the things I have noted in the Military History FAs is that the nominators often cite "excellent A-class reviews" as one of the main reasons why the articles get promoted to FA status. Contrarily, WP:FILM has a very light emphasis on A-class articles; in fact, a lot of Film editors are barely aware of this assessment level, and a vast majority take up FA nominations directly after GA promotions. I find this very disturbing.

For one, the standards of a typical GA are nowhere close to typical FA standards, being light on the reference formatting, much less strict on the prose and organization of content, and a relatively easy-going procedure as compared to the very rigorous and often lengthy FA candidacy. Secondly, the quality of the GAs has often been called to question; a number of GAs have subsequently been found to be unworthy of the tag. This stems either from poor maintenance, or from bad GA reviews (the latter is pretty frequent). I've seen GA reviews with one sentence: "This article looks great! I think it deserves to be a good article." And then voila! Its a GA. I agree that people do work upon GAs so as to improve the level, but according to me, its not enough.

All this shows that a GA tag is a bad place from which one goes to FAC. The difference in qualities can be vast, and failed FACs often demoralize enthusiastic editors who end up taking WikiBreaks and leaving the original article, sometimes for good. In light of the present situation, I think its very important to seriously take up an assessment revamp, bridging the GA and FA processes by a very necessary A-class promotion. An A-class article, by definition, is close to FA standards, with only some work left. Considering this, I think that an A-class review is a much better gauge of the quality of an article, with respect to FA standards. An A-class review and promotion will not only undertake a thorough scrutiny of the article, but will also expose areas needing improvement, not to mention bolstering the spirits of the contributors. In my view, an A-class promotion is the best springboard for an FAC, but its something that we have hardly embraced.

I propose a discussion on this subject; I suggest that the A-class review be made a mandatory intermediate process between the GA and FA procedures, to help understand the true quality of a number of articles (especially failed FACs), to bring to light potentially excellent articles that have been abandoned or witnessed little interest, and to also improve our chances of getting FA promotions. If I am wrong, please do not hesitate to correct me, and do put in your general thoughts as well. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Film used to have A-class assessments but eventually suspended them due to severe lack of attention. Here are some coordinator discussions: April 2009 and July 2009. The last real mention of A-class was January 2010. Have you seen weak GAs about films being posted for the FAC process? My impression from the ones that I've seen is that the peer review process is used as a stepping stone between GA and FA. Regardless, I hate to say it, but WikiProject Film lacks a review culture. We have tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in the past, but I think that the editors who make up that WikiProject are a different breed than here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I recently re-create the page for Harold Mirisch, a film producer who co-founded the Mirisch Company with his brothers Marvin Mirisch and Walter Mirisch. The information I found is that he first made a fortune in the Midwest with the Theater Candy Company, which sold candies to moviegoers. I wonder if this was the first instance of a company selling candies in cinema houses? If so, it would be a very significant development and a page should be created. There is little information I could find, however. I have found out that the company was run by yet another brother, Irving Mirisch...Does anyone know how selling candies and pop corns, etc., in movie houses, came along? I know it is a very American phenomenon--in Europe, this was not the case until the 1990s in many cinemas. It would be great if some of you wanted to work on this. I wasn't sure if I should add the WP Film tag to their talkpages, btw. Please reply on my talkpage so I don't forget to read what you say. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is {{Faust navbox}}. I have been encouraged to invite all the relevant projects to participate in the two discussions going on about this template. Please come participate at Template talk:Faust navbox#Requested move and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#The_most_complicated_template_yet_.28Faust.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We just need the intention behind WP:ELNO #12 elaborated on. I posted at the noticeboard using those words, the issue was addressed, and yet the editor who did not get the consensus he wanted continues on there and at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL. The EL we want to restore to the article at issue was cleared at WP:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/March#External link copyright issue. Betty Logan and MarnetteD have been there, but we are looking for additional comment at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Planet of the Apes (novel). - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it will make much difference. An admin closed the discussion as a consensus in favor of the link, but was duly reverted: I think the time has come to file an RFC. Ask a very clear question: Should the link be added or not? An RFC has to be closed at some point by an admin with or without a consensus. At the end of the RFC you are guaranteed a result: it might not be the one you want but at least then it will be done and dusted. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, should we not include customary marketing tactics or should we just not include their contents?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It means not to include. To just state that a trailer and a poster appeared is even blander. Will update the wording in the guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote "not identify and describe" but if you can come up with better wording, go for it. I also undid the addition of the first photo and the teaser poster coming out. I mean, come on. That doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Let me know if this change/revert is a problem for anyone. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do u guys think it would be appropriate to add "atheist-themed" to the first sentence of The Grey (film) ? Pass a Method talk 12:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In short, no. According to WP:FILMLEAD, the purpose of the first sentence is primarily to identify the film, so themes are not relevant in this regard beyond the genre of the film. Essentially, the lede should summarise the main aspects of the article, so themes should only be mentioned if there is prominent coverage of them in the body of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is mentioned a bit in the body. Maybe we could add "atheist-themed" to the second paragraph? Pass a Method talk 12:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the citations related to the theme, and three of the four sources are definitely not reliable. The remaining one from BreakPoint.org, I am not certain about. I would suggest trying to find better sources, and if that is not possible, we should not include that passage. This is an interview with the director that says there is ambivalence. This coverage about Neeson's role also does not make atheism clear-cut either. This is a reliable source of a review that does mention atheism, albeit in passing. This is a decent piece from the National Catholic Register that is also ambivalent, so from what I can tell so far, it would be inaccurate to label this an atheist-themed film. It is more the theme of questioning faith. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The article Common Bonds has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:Notability#Films

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have nominated the page Iron Man franchise for deletion, as I believe it is a WP:CONTENTFORK. I felt some of the project members might like to weigh in; if so, please comment at the AfD discussion here. Thanks. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The AfD was closed by J04n who determined the result to be "merge to Iron Man in other media". I disagree with this simplistic assessment and have listed the topic at DRV. The listing can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The DRV overturned the result the AfD. There is now a request to move the article at Talk:Iron Man (franchise)#Requested move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fuck (film)

As part of a quality improvement project on a topic related to freedom of speech, I've greatly expanded upon and improved the quality of the article at page, Fuck (film). Any further suggestions for additional secondary sources and referencing would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing quite a few silent film articles lately and I've noticed that some that are categorized as being lost are seemingly categorized that way because their status is unknown. The lost status is mainly supported by a citation to silentera.com that says the status is unknown. I know that silentera does actually say when they know a film is lost (like here) so I'm wondering if these films are being categorized incorrectly and if they should be changed to status unknown. I don't have issue with silentera because they are seemingly reliable (sources are cited) but should we assume a film is lost because there is no info on it existing or should we assume it exists? Pinkadelica^♣ 08:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an "unknown" category? I'm not familiar with the caregorization we have for silent films, but I know we shouldn't be categorizing films based on our own assumptions. If a film's "lost" status cannot be sourced the category should probably be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I don't believe we have an unknown status category for silent films. That would probably be a good idea for a new category if anyone wants to take a stab at it (I still have no idea how to create categories). In the meantime, I've gone through some of the silent film articles to correct this. It will be slow going because there are ton to go through. Pinkadelica^♣ 08:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we include foreign language titles in the first sentence of an article, if it differs from the native English title?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about foreign-language films, or English-language films? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah - you said "native", I therefore assume English-language films. No, we don't. There are many foreign languages, so obviously we cannot include translations to each language in the lead. This is the English language Wikipedia, so foreign titles should show English translations, but not vice-versa. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm talking about The Wolverine. It is an English language film with some Japanese and has a different Japanese title, but is not a Japanese film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I spotted that and have removed the Japanese title. The point is to be recognisable to English-speaking readers. Maybe it could be included in a "Marketing" section, but I don't really see that it is relevant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, but wanted to double check. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I support not having the Japanese title in the lead section for the reasons mentioned above, but due to the Japanese setting of the film, I would be okay with contextual coverage about the Anglicized title (in this case, Wolverine: Samurai) if there are reliable sources making that effort. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

All, I've made a request to restructure MOS:FILM's "Release" and "Reception" sections. The request can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This user's contributions make me worry he is a sockpuppet of Hoppybunny or Bambifan101. I can't file an investigation request at the moment but I thought some of you might want to check it out before he causes any damage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

see three threads above this one. Probably the same guy. Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor is insisting that "Cast and characters" is not a suitable heading for these types of tables, preferring instead "Characters and their portrayers"! Does anyone have anything to add at Talk:Superman in film#Characters table? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Production_Company_vs._Studio. It seems a reasonable suggestion to me, but so far there has only been a couple of responses. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Westerns has never been active.

So I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject_Westerns about whether it should be deleted (or merged/redirected/whatever).

Westerns are a subset of films, so I thought it would be appropriate to notify this project too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

When you look at how hard it can be for the top-level project to gather interest in some topics I do question the necessity of having sub groups where even less people seem to participate, seems like they should all just be merged here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Westerns, these CfDs are of interest to this project. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• May be better to just turn it into a Film project taskforce. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see the advantage of turning the project into a task force of {{WikiProject Film}}, with the parameter of |Westerns=yes. But please keep in mind that whoever set up {{WikiProject Westerns}} intended it to include "any media for which Westerns material has been produced, such as novels, comics and video games". Those articles would need to be removed from the Westerns task force, and added to the appropriate projects. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if somebody could tell me what the best online website is for watching films. LoveFilm has 75,000 available by post but only 3000 odd online and most of them are B movies.I want a site in which you can watch practically any film online. Can somebody suggest a good website in which you can watch the full range of titles online for a decent subscription fee? Veoh seems to be good but the streaming thing is dodgy and McAfee picks up "dangerous" when you try to download a full movie. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, but you'd probably get a better range of responses at WP:RDE. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at Blinkbox? I am in the UK regularly and used to use it quite a lot before Tesco bought it up. Since then the selection has been greatly reduced (it used to be amazing, classic films like Harold & Maude and obscure British classics and its world cinema was impressive), but it still looks ok for recent releases. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering how to proceed. In Star Trek Into Darkness, the film had a small release screening in Australia, and is not due for general release until mid-May. Someone posted the entire plot of the film in the article. Does this interfere with the right of the filmmaker's ability to profit off their work? I seem to recall that being a copyright violation. If they wanted everyone to know the plot, they would have released it entirely.
I am also concerned about the idea that plot summaries are the consensus views of what happened in the film. If the film is not in wide release, we are trusting a very small number of people to tell us what the plot was, and the rest of us have nothing to go on by which to gainsay what might be complete bs. For over two weeks. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the details cannot (presently) be verified by the public, a plot summary based only on a limited screening is inappropriate. It's not about profiting, however, that's not our concern, only WP:V. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What Masem said, it cannot be corroborated first, and second the net is full of people who will make up an entire plot and post it on here which is proven a lie only after the film is released. The filmmakers ability to generate profit however was more damaged by them holding a small release screening for living human beings well before its general release, that's their own problem not ours. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur with the above. Until the film goes on general release in at least one country the plot cannot be confirmed. The film is basically a primary source and at the moment it is not verifiable, so it should be removed. If I can fly out to Australia tomorrow and watch the film then it is verifiable, but if I can't it is not. Betty Logan (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion on this at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness#What is the source of the plot??. Please post your thoughts there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of what counts as "verifiable" here. Consider your average TV show. Typically, an episode airs on just a single day and then not again for many months when it might appear as a rerun or perhaps eventually on a DVD. But the day after the episode airs, you might find a detailed plot summary of the episode on a Wikipedia page. No one thinks that the fact that the episode is inaccessible for months after that one day of airing make the plot unverifiable or that no plot summary should be posted until after a DVD release makes it possible for anyone to review the accuracy of the plot at any time they wish.

With films, there often are time gaps between when a film stops being shown in theaters and it is released on DVD, yet during those periods plot summaries are not removed from Wikipedia pages on the grounds that the plot is at that time no longer "verifiable". The standard that is being suggested for what counts as "verifiable" is absurd.

At any given time for any given film, only the people who have seen it can accurately report the plot. People who have seen the film, however large or small that number is, can verify the plot of a film. How many people have to have seen a film before it counts as enough to verify a plot? A million? A hundred thousand? Why should there be any specific number required? So long as anyone has seen the film, they can report what the plot is. So long as not all copies of the film have been destroyed, the plot summary that is posted is verifiable. As it stands, a few hundred people in Australia and a few hundred more in Moscow have seen the film. They can accurately report on the plot.

If you have not had a chance to see the film yet, then that's too bad for you. You cannot participate in that discussion (yet). It's exactly the same story as if you missed the most recent episode of Once Upon a Time. It does not mean that others who did see it cannot post an accurate plot and the fact that no one could see that episode over the last six days and won't be able to see it again possibly for several months does not invalidate the summary that others have posted from seeing the episode. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(Betty, if you fly to Australia, can you take me with you? ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC))

I could quite easily claim to be someone from Australia or Moscow and claim to have seen the film; if I did so and posted the "plot summary", how would anyone else know it was correct? Comparisons with TV shows are off base, as TV shows are available for free and, though they are only available to people watching TV the moment the show is on, that is a larger number of people than a few hundred each in two cities. In the case of a TV show, others can verify the plot given the wider audience. We can't do that here, as the few hundred people who saw this are likely not all on WP editing. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You could also quite easily claim to have seen the most recent episode of Once Upon a Time and post a false plot summary. How is anyone to know that it is wrong? Well, the people who have see it know. Same as with the film. I guess the question comes down to this: How many people have to have seen something before a plot can be considered verifiable based on the primary source? You say that a few hundred is not enough. How many is enough? 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but not a few hundred. Typically millions see episodes of TV shows, at a minimum several hundred thousand. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it is a question worth worrying about. To give another example, a Broadway play typically is only playing in one theater at a time and even after a week of shows might have only played to just over a thousand people. Is that enough for a plot summary of a play to be verifiable? I'd say it is, but then again I'm ok with just a single showing of a film. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But the play continues on and while the audience size is limited, who can attend is not - there's also usually reviews and critics that write about the work. Here we're talking a one-time showing to a limited group of people. It's not verifible from that. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF are the relevant policies. If the film is playing in just one theater in the world on a regular basis then as per SOURCEACCESS it qualifies as verifiable (unlike festival screenings where the film plays for a limited time and then becomes unavailable). While we can suspect someone is giving a false account, AGF requires us to accept someone's claim that they have seen the film unless they have a history of adding inaccuracies to articles or another editor claims to have also seen the film and contests their account. It's true these policies lead to a lot of crap and even articles about false films on Wikipedia, and unfortunately our only response to that is to correct it when it happens. There's not much else we can do. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, thanks for those links and your comments. I think we are getting closer to understanding what Wikipedia's policy is, but I have a bit more to quibble about (sorry :-). WP:SOURCEACCESS gives a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost which has some interesting and relevant comments. On that page it is noted that "Verifiable sources may have time restrictions (only accessible between 10am and 4pm in a particular time zone)". Now I don't think it a stretch to add to that that a source could be only accessible between 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday, meaning from 4pm on a Friday until the following Monday at 10am it is unavailable to check. In the case of a lot of films with premiere events, the premiere is the day before general release, meaning that a plot summary based on that showing is no less verifiable than 10-4, M-F source is. And in the particular case of STID, there was a showing last Tuesday in Australia, then another two days later in Moscow, then there will be another four days from now in London, and so on until it is is wide release. In other words, it is as in principle accessible as the 10-4, M-F source is.

I also still worry about what we say about a film that was released to theaters, but is no longer showing and has yet to be made available in home media (as can happen to smaller films). Does that mean that the plot summary was valid while the film was in release but no longer is while the film is not in theaters and not on home media? It seems to me that the interpretation of "in principle" availability of a source has to be read to include such a case. As mentioned before with TV shows, after one airing the show might not be broadcast again or available to home media for many months. In fact, when it comes to reality shows (like any of the singing competition shows) they might only ever broadcast once and then never be available on home media, yet they are considered valid primary sources about what happened. I would say that so long as some copy of a film or TV show exists (even if only in the possession of the company that owns it) and it could be viewed by others (that is, if you ask the owner of the media source they might let you see it) then it is "in principle" available. That Wikipedia uses the term "in principle" suggests a contrast with the term "in practice" availability. And as long as a copy of the media source does exist, it is "in principle" available. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the idea is once the work has hit mass media - regardless of how limited a showing (eg common of art house films that vie for Oscars at the end of the year that open on like 20 screens to meet the deadline) - the plot can be assumed to be verifiable even if there's a period the work can't be technically seen, since we can assume that those that did see it are a large enough sample and can be assumed to be reliable in their discussion from it. When, on the other hand, have a one-shot, limited showing, that's not mass release, and the number that see it would be assumed to be too small a sample to appreciate. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem, I don't see where what you are saying is supported by Wikipedia policy. You also make quite an assumption about how many people might see a film in a very limited release. As Betty noted, if a film is showing in just ONE theater on a regular basis, then that counts as available/verifiable. That is true even after only the FIRST showing of such a film and even if the audience for that showing was just 20 people. Wikipedia's policy of source verifiability has nothing to do with how large a sample of people have actually accessed the source. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly spelled out in policy, its just understanding verifyability. If at this time there are only 100 ppl who are independent from the film's production that know the plot of the film, and the rest of the world cannot otherwise see the film, then that's simply a failure to be able to verify with reasonable ability to have editors to review and confirm. So I could say I attended a private screening and write a plot summary and it is unlikely anyone would be able to refute that until the mass market is out. However, in all other cases discussed, the chance of being told wrong is pretty high, so meets verifyability. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The first half of your answer is actually contrary to policy, It is possible that only 100 people might know the plot of a film because one theater had ten showings on ten consecutive nights (and it's still playing) each that drew 10 people. That counts under Wikipedia policy as available for verification. For the second half, see Betty Logan's comment above about AGF. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a case really covered in WP:V (maybe in WP:ACCESS but consider that "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." - that a screening is generally not the same as being published - wide release to theaters). I think it is common sense that when we are talking about a screening of limited access and/or numbers, the fewer people that have seen it, the less verifyable and the ability to assume AGF can be made. That said, if an editor of 10 years who never had an issue added that plot summary on the claim of seeing it, then yes, there's likely not going to be a problem. I would simply rather us use common sense and DEADLINE that if public screening is going to happen in a week, there's no need to rush a plot summary based only on a single or limited set of screenings. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see any basis for what you are saying. You claim that "a screening is generally not the same as being published", but that is exactly what it means for a film to be published. It just has to be shown to the public once. (See Betty Logan's comment in the section immediately below about date of release for agreement on this.) Similarly, if Stephen King's publisher decided to just print one copy of a new book by him and sell it, then the book is published. One screening makes the film public. Publication is not a matter of degree. Either something has been published or it has not. 99.192.48.245 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.5)

Obviously you have to avoid pedantic interpretations otherwise it would get ridiculous. But personally I would say that if a film is showing once a week in at least one publicly accessible cinema—a week being a release window for theatrical films—then most people would interpret that as being "available" by the standards of Wikipedia's policy. The key point I suppose is whether a premiere is publicly accessible or whether it is a "closed" screening. If I can buy a ticket for $1,000 then I can see the film, if I have to be personally invited by the studio then I can't, and in truth I don't know how premieres work; I somehow suspect you probably need to be "approved". In the case of short gaps between a film being pulled from theaters and being released on DVD then technically the source becomes unverifiable for a short while. To use an analogy, we have the {{dead link}} tag for when web pages die; the ruling is that we don't pull content just because the source has died, especially if it was added while the source was verifiable. There may be special circumstances where something becomes contested and it may be removed on that basis if the film is not currently available, or if someone adds further content while the film is not playing which is then removed because the new content is unverifiable, but generally we don't pull content that was added while the source was verifiable for the sake of it. I don't know the specifics of Star Trek, but personally I'd play safe and wait for general release in at least one country: for example, a synopsis for Iron Man 3 would be ok now, since even though it hasn't had a US release it has opened in some other countries. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, that's quite helpful. I agree that it makes a difference whether the premieres were open or closed screenings, but would argue that if they were open to paying customers who did not have to be picked to attend that it is now "in principle" available as the policy says it needs to be. I also like your comments about dead links. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. 99.192.64.5 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Imho there's a bit over thinking here. First of all a film (or a book) are primary sources that can be used for a plot description. The only potential issue here is public accessibility for verification and a film that has been shown in private screening only of course lacks that (unless there are public external reports of that screening). However I see little harm if "reliable" WP editor attends such a screening by a chance and compiles a first plot description as long as the movie will be released soon/in the near future anyhow at which ppint the verification will be possible anyhow. In this case the verification by other editors is not impossible just slightly delayed, which imho is not worth making a fuss about in the rare cases where such a scenario might happen. It is a different story however if there is no release of the movie to the public in the near future or if the editor is known be "unreliable" or a jokster.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why the rush? Why not sidestep the quite clear and obvious problem of dealing with a plot summary constructed by one editor and wait several weeks to learn if its accurate or not? Just wait; we are not in a hurry. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan forum, media outlet or some such site wherein speed is of the essence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, people seem to forget quite often that isn't your source for local news and weather, and let's be honest, whoever added that plot at this point in time, whether it is real or not, was not concerned about being encyclopedic, or being a fan of the film, they just wanted to post spoilers about it on the net, the same way people love to come and post film twists well before their wide release. Otherwise they could have written it out, kept it in their sandbox and added it nearer the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack and Dark, you guys are changing the subject. No one has argued that it is important to add a plot summary as quickly as possible. In fact, I have argued against the view that getting it up quickly matters. But agreeing that there is no rush is not an argument against allowing the plot summary to be posted now. So long as Wikipedia's policy of proper sourcing is met, there is no reason to oppose adding a plot summary. If anything, it is you guys who are arguing that you need to be able to verify the plot right now, or else it should not be posted at all. So I could ask you, why the rush? No one has claimed that the plot that was posted is actually false and, as Kmhkmh pointed out, verification by suspicious editors is merely delayed, just as the policy envisions it might be under the policy of access to sources. 99.192.48.245 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.5)

Because when we can't verify something we shouldn't publish it until we can. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be a matter of including everything we can and then cutting out what we can't verify, even if it seems like some articles were created or are being maintained under that philosophy. Given that you seem to be the only editor advocating for the inclusion of the summary, I feel I have to ask what your motivation is for including the summary now beyond that policy perhaps doesn't explicitly say that we can't. How is WP harmed by waiting until the film is generally released, when that's in under a month? Doniago (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Because when we can't verify something we shouldn't publish it until we can." I have addressed the issue of Wikipedia's verifiability policy above. In short, the plot to STID meets Wikipedia's standard for verifiability. "Given that you seem to be the only editor advocating for the inclusion of the summary..." I'm not. "I feel I have to ask what your motivation is..." (1) It is usually a bad idea to personalize a discussion. Wikipedia:Civility recommends against it. So Darkwarriorblake might want to question the motives of the person who posted the summary and you might want to speculate on mine, but it is not productive to do so. And (2) I have made clear in my previous comments what my concern is. You could just read it if you need to know. 99.192.95.163 (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.5)

1) It may be unproductive to ask, but I asked because more information regarding your reasoning might influence my opinion on this matter. For better or worse, your unwillingness to discuss your motivation further instead reinforces my existing feelings on the matter. Thus far, IMO you largely seem to largely be arguing "there's nothing in policy that doesn't allow this", which I don't consider sufficient reasoning to do something. 2) You may feel that way; it doesn't mean I do, and telling me to re-read what you've said before doesn't exactly help your case for me either. Rather it sounds a bit snippy. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine. If you refuse to read what is just a little further up this same discussion thread, I will repeat it for you. Apologies to people who have already read it and it seems redundant. My argument is not that "there's nothing in policy that doesn't allow this" (although that usually is sufficient to allow something), but that policy actually does support posting the plot now. The policy states that a source has to be "in principle" available and that being "in principle" available does not mean that access is easy. So if, for example (and this is the example used in the policy), a source is only available from 9-5, M-F, then it is available even though from 5pm Friday to 9am Monday (more than two-and-a-half days in a row) it is not accessable. Also, if the source is a book that only exists in one library, the fact that you have to be in the city where the library is located and only so many people can look at one book at a time does not make it "in principle" unverifiable. Those sources are "in principle" verifiable. As Betty Logan has mentioned, if a film is showing in only ONE theater in the world, then it is available. And once it has been shown to the public ONE time, it is "published". As I also mentioned above, for a new Broadway play it typically only is showing in one theater and often one show per day, so if you are not in New York and not lucky enough to be able to get tickets then you cannot verify the plot, but it is still "in principle" verifiable and all those who attend can verify the plot.

STID was shown last Tuesday in Sydney Australia. It was shown two days later in Moscow. It will be shown again in three days in London. There is a schedule of showings that has been announced up to and including when it goes in wide release. The film has been "published" by being shown to the public. It is not easy to access right now (like like that rare book or a Broadway play), but Wikipedia policy says that this is good enough to count as "in principle" available for verification. So it is not that the policy does not disallow using the film as a source. Policy actively says that it does count as a source right now. Unless you can point to a policy that says "yeah, but it's different for films than books, plays, or other sources" then the matter is pretty clear.

Finally, as I have mentioned several times already, I do not think that speed is important. In fact, in other discussions elsewhere (like when people go batty over trying to post the results of awards shows in real time) I have argued against the claim that speed matters. I also do not care in particular about this film or its plot. I do care about what it being put forward as "policy" claims about verifiability and how it might affect lots of other films, especially ones that don't ever get wide release or that might experience large gaps in time between when it is available in theaters and when it is available in home media. As lawyers say, hard cases make bad law. By trying to make general policy claims based solely on STID, the effect could be general and affect a lot of other films and their articles. Some people have argued that a film needs to be seen by millions of people and the plot summary needs many people to work on it for it to count as valid, but (as I posted in the discussion on Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness), I wrote a plot summary for the film Family Viewing with no input from anyone else (due to lack of interest) and the film probably has never been seen by a million people in all the 26 years it has been around. But it is absurd to claim that my plot summary is not valid as a result, thus the claim that STID needs millions of viewers or many people pitching in on writing the plot for it to be valid is also nonsense.

All of what I just wrote above is already in many of the comments I made earlier in this discussion. If you want to participate in a policy discussion, it probably is wise (and considerate) to actually read what people have already written so they don't need to waste time and space repeating themselves just so you don't have to scroll up on your browser a couple of times. Sorry if that sounds "snippy" to you, but it is a fair assessment of your insistence on not reading previous comments and your preference instead for baseless speculating on motives. 99.192.95.163 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.5)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to clarify your reasoning. Given your tone however, I am disinclined to discuss this aspect of the conversation further with you. If you find that bothersome, I might recommend that the next time you find yourself in such a situation you humor the request you find tedious without also indulging in talking down to the requestor. Regards. Doniago (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@all above: Of course there is no rush and of course the best options is to wait. However that doesn't mean this is only acceptable course of action but just the recommended one. In WP all work is voluntary, so if by chance we have a reliable editor wanting to do the work right now (or better has written a good plot summary already already), it makes no sense to me to throw that work away. So if an editor seeks advice on how to proceed, the advice would be to wait of course. However if he went ahead already, we should keep it and verify a short time down the road. As far as the spoiler issue is concerned, that is imho a bit off topic. Any reasonable plot summary contains spoilers to a degree, meaning somebody who wants to avoid spoilers has no business in reading a plot summary of a film or a book in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What we could do instead is move the summary to the Talk page pending public release of the film, then restore it with any appropriate modifications when the film has been released. Doniago (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats not even necessary, nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia. The edit is still preserved in the article's history.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

yes but in the history it is lost to most other readers/editors as they have no way of knowing what informationen is hidden in older versions. Moving it to the talk page until verification by other editors becomes possible is certainly a reasonable option.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That was essentially my line of reasoning. Moving it to Talk allows for more/easier flexibility than simply removing it from the article. It seems to me to be a good compromise option, and also makes it more clear that the content is considered to be of value than simply removing it implies. Doniago (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Two IP editors have begun editing a number of overlapping film articles. Both IPs originate from roughly the same spot near Denver Colorado so they may be the same person. The edits do not, in my opinion, comply with wikipedia policy. These two articles are fairly representative:

• Hammerhead (film): diff
• David Miller (director): diff

The Hammerhead article repeats in the lede that David Miller directed the film. The David Miller article adds unsourced claims, personal opinions, hyperbole, etc. I've only quickly glanced at his/her/their other edits which seem to contain these and other problems.

I'd rather leave this with - and defer to - those who specialise in film articles and, not so coincidentally, have sufficient time to spare. I'm already too busy sourcing author & book articles. Thank you. - Fantr (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a more detailed look tomorrow, but from a quick glance, they seem to mix useful changes with ones that stretch or break guidelines completely. drewmunn talk 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've looked at the edits in question and dealt with them (to an extent). Part of the Hammerhead edit was retained as a useful correction, but I've completely reverted the content added to David Miller. There is some useful information within the additions, but it is written in completely the wrong way, and the article is not incomplete without it. drewmunn talk 14:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. - Fantr (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The plot summary on Facing the Giants is currently about 150 words, admittedly short. One editor is insisting on an overly detailed version that is at 1,374 words. As his responses to me haven't been very productive , , perhaps an outside voice could be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've written a reply on his talk page, but as an IP editor, he may not receive it. I'm going to take a look over the additions he made, and see if any of them can be used to flesh out the existing summary. drewmunn talk 14:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is User:Lion1407 not the same editor? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be, I'll stick my reply on his talk as well. drewmunn talk 14:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the IP and Lion are the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well. I will only be back to work on certain articles. Till then, adios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a good break! :) Just remind yourself in those times that it is just a website. Good luck on the exams! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

At The Secret in Their Eyes, there has been edit warring over whether or not to highlight the film's non-linear narrative. There has been a discussion at Talk:The Secret in Their Eyes that is at a standstill. Other editors are invited to weigh in and break the stalemate. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

At Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States#Internet Archive, Green Cardamom (talk · contribs) has posted an open thread about using Internet Archive that may be of interest to editors. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be time to rethink this portion of the filmmakers infobox, or at least set specific standards. Right now it's little more than a dumping ground for fans' POV assumptions of who they believe influenced so-and-so, or who so-and-so influences. Yet virtually never do they give citations for these claims. And how could they? Mostly these claims come from own minds. At Tim Burton, people have added names with no basis other than the editors' own POV assumptions. Cites in the article body support only the two influences currently in the infobox — which has been cleaned out before, and will almost invariably get filled in again with fans' uncited presumptions.

Do we really need those two fields in the infobox? Additions there are almost never cited, and these fields seem to do nothing but encourage amateur film buffs from adding their own POV claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been a problem ever since the "actor infoboxes" (in which we had eliminated several of these subjective POV fields) were merged back into the "person infobox". At the very least these should be sourced. IMO it would be better to have their mention in the body of the article where some context could be given. It would also be nice to keep them to a minimum but I don't know if either of these are workable. Whatever we decide we should note it at our MoS at the actors and filmmakers project. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This may become less of a problem when the Infoboxes are migrated to Wikidata (due to start tomorrow), with the complexity to adjust them putting off those embarking on a simple POV insertion and more eyes (across multiple wikis) watching that subsequent changes. I agree entries should be sourced at minimum, ideally with a self-declaration for influences and a declaration from the 3rd party subject of the influenced field. for that field.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I favor their complete removal from the infoboxes, where they serve no purpose. The infobox should be exclusively for simple facts (date and place of birth and/or death, etc.). A discussion of influences should be in the body of the article, with sources. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal of field. In an article, influences can be discussed in prose with sources. The infobox should deal with hard facts, not subjective information like this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with The Old Jacobite and Rob Sinden, the infobox should be for simple uncontroversial facts.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. It looks like we may have a few hoax articles. Doublejwilliams357 (talk · contribs) a new username but obviously not a new editor has created.

• That's My Sister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• List of That's My Sister episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Tears of a Tiger (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I can find no info on the first two at all. The book by Sharon M. Draper (Don's fourth wife?) mentioned in the third one does exist but the film does not. I have a memory that the third one has been deleted as a hoax sometime in the last 16 months. If it wasn't that specific film then there was another one very like it. Now I don't know the ins and outs of "speedy delete" criteria and they may not qualify for it. Also it is way past my time to log off and head to dreamland so if any of you have time to check these out and do what is necessary it will be much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC) editor is, at the very least, persistaent.

Google searching "That's My Sister" and "J J Williams" brings back four , 2 of which are the Wiki articles. There's no way a television show that ran for 6 seasons with 150+ episodes between 2007 and 2013 would only match 4 results. If it was geninue, I'd expect the article to have already existed in 2007 on here too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Lugnuts. I got the AFDs done this morning and they were turned into speedys by other editors. At least one of them has been salted after recreation so this editor is, at the very least, persistent. If anyone has seen this pattern before and can remember who it was please let us know so we can proceed with an SPI. MarnetteD | Talk 18:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted revisions but serial hoax films creation strongly suggests a long-time troll known as Lyle123, Cool N Sexy Rickz, StealBoy, Alexcas11 and who knows how many more clusters of sockpuppets. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am coming to this conversation late, but I would like to know why this guy has not been indefinitely blocked. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we just add the year to all film titles or redirects? It can be nicer if it had. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

it would make very little sense, and make it much harder to find a film. In short, it'd be a hassle for us changing them, and a hassle for users finding them. drewmunn talk 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No - there would be no justification to disambiguate if it was not necessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It would violate WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME. Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In WP:PRECISION that Betty links above, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Can you explain what you mean by redirects, though? Do you mean something like Fight Club (1999 film) redirecting to Fight Club? I noticed that the redirect will show up in the drop-down menu of Wikipedia's search box when one types the title. I would be fine with such redirects if it helps in some way; redirects are "cheap", after all. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I coined the term "or", it's easier that way so that people can at least find the right article. Some people tend to misspell. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we follow a set of guidelines regarding actual article titles for films, but I think we can be flexible with redirects as long as they get readers to where they want to be. What is an example that you'd like addressed? Like creating Pacific Rim (2013 film) to redirect to Pacific Rim (film)? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I'm looking for. Knowing the years always move on and some films may get harder to find as time passes, I figured some nice redirects would help us cherish our old moments, like Tron (1982 film) to Tron. Thank you WikiProject Film for taking your time to discuss this. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I assume that is not a problem with the other editors? The only drawback I can think of is that if another film of the same title was made, then we'd have to move the first film to the more disambiguated title. I recall that historically, that kind of move was not easy to do, but I think it is now? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally have no issue with this, although would it not be easier to use the categories for "1992 films" or similar? I personally think films would be easier to find that way, and no redirects would be necessary. It'd get especially confusing for any newer editors creating new film articles at the numbered page, just for it to get moved, in my opinion. drewmunn talk 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So is it really being suggested that redirects including a year are created for every single film on Wikipedia? What purpose would this serve? I really don't see what we would gain by this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well for starters, people can make an easy search. There are people who are unsure themselves of the subject they are searching for. As I mentioned before, people can make misspellings --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding the year will not help the misspellings. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't take it literally, that's not what I meant. I mean that with films getting old and readapted into newer films, I thought that maybe the less noticable films may need some help getting around, all for the old folks. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In the case of older adaptions, newer films that share the same name will be disambiguated with the year. I still think using categories would be an easier way to search by year, as it were, because you don't need to put anything in a search other than the year. You could see the entire directory of 1983 films (712), for instance, alphabetically or by genre, and find what you're looking for that way. However, type "(1983 film)" into the search bar, and you get no results. drewmunn talk 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But still, 712 films is still quite a trouble to find a needle in a haystack. If you mean to use a category to group the films together by year, then may I suggest using a film by "year quarter" / "month" category for large number of films on that month only. Many countries these days are in the media. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. The average reader of this site will type the name of the film they are looking for into the search box and at worst be presented with a disambig page offering them a number of links to the possible search result they intended. Are you seriously saying that they would go to the trouble of adding (year film) after their search criteria? Do you have any examples of where you could search for a film title and it doesn't give you the search result you expected? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the category I quoted, and see how easy it is to navigate the films. You can knock down the list into genres, countries, or languages. It's quite simple to get it down to a more manageable size, and quarterly might cause some issues. Dating is already something of an issue, in that different territories get films on different dates, sometimes months or years apart. We go with the first release date, but say you're in the USA, and knew a film was released there in October 1983, but in the Netherlands it was released in August, it'd be listed in a different quarter. It's rare for them to be in different years, so the problem is minimised at that level. drewmunn talk 17:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal is trying to answer a problem that doesn't really exist. The disambiguation of film titles should follow WP:PRECISION. Creating redirects with the year in the disambiguation is relatively harmless, as long as those redirects point readers to the correct articles. But as far as dealing with people who are unsure about the year or spelling of a film title, that's what disambiguation pages are for. If there is some concern about making sure all film titles are separated by year, adding "[[Category:XXXX films]]" to each article should solve the problem. Breaking it down by quarter or month is overcategorization and completely unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a dispute at this article that I would like other Filmproject members to offer their opinion on. Bluerules and I are differing on the number of actors who should appear in the infobox, my opinion being that the three names above the title - Tom Berenger, Jeff Daniels, and Martin Sheen - are the stars and should be the only names in the infobox. In the talk page discussion, Lord Sjones23 agreed with me. Bluerules responded, using an advertisement for a television broadcast to justify adding Sam Elliot. I never saw this talk page comment, and so reverted this addition. In his reversion, he accused me of being uncivil, so, rather than revert again and make the situation worse, I am here asking that other project members offer their thoughts on this minor point. To my mind, the theatrical release poster trumps an advertisement for a television broadcast. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I brought up the issue of incivility because I wasn't trying to justify Elliott's inclusion- I was asking if it was acceptable to use Elliott on grounds of him appearing on a poster. Nobody answered my question and told why that would be acceptable or not. What I was trying to justify is the inclusion of all ten names that appear in the billing block. For most films, I agree this would be too much. But unlike most movies, Gettysburg is over four hours long and has a huge cast. That's why I believe ten actors is acceptable. However, I was willing to compromise and have the starring section contain four names due to Elliott's presence on the poster I linked. As Gettysburg was intended to be broadcast on television, I'd make the argument that the television advertisement is more in line with what its makers intended.

I should also add that this is not a new addition- until March 17, the infobox had contained either nine or ten actors. Bluerules (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

All, let's keep this specific discussion at the film article's talk page. However, it may be worth having at some point a larger discussion soon about listing, ordering, and cutting off actors in both the film infobox and the cast section. It would probably help to have a sense of what rules of thumb we could follow. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the guideline is fine for the general case, and we usually end up with problems when we try to tailor them to fitting exceptions. This is just one of those cases where it doesn't apply too well, but the billing block presents us with a clear solution in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I found the page Alf Seccombe whilst doing NPP, saw it as passing CSD criteria, but week on notability. I was unable to access the references (although they are accessable) I was told they were not much about him. After contacting MQS (as I usually do in such matters) he said others were available (find sources templates to be added to the talk page), so I tagged it as a poorly sourced BLP rather than AfDing it. Dropping a note here in case anyone wants to have a go at it. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the guideline on these? A user has added what I consider an excessive amount to several articles so they end up looking like Prometheus, but none of them seem particularly relevant to the individual film, especially the year and/or country portals and it just looks a mess. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I hate them with a passion. They're just not needed and are contained via the tags on the talkpage if someone wished to view them. How can it be OK to place a load of these on a film article, but not the cinema of x templates or link to cinema of the United States in the lead? Remove them now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Film portal is listed twice at Prometheus! For what it's worth though, I don't think portals belonging to other projects should be installed on articles that do not come within their scope. Prometheus belongs to the Film, Alien and Science Fiction projects, so at the most should only have portals belonging to those projects. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts is correct, and I would like to add that these links are also super ugly in addition to how useless they are. If anyone is interested in starting an RfC to abolish the portal namespace altogether, you'd have my support. jonkerz ♠talk 20:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not a big fan of portals, don't think I've ever personally used them, but the user is just abusing them, so I've removed a few but at least on my watchlist he has hot quite a lot of film articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I came back to the talk page on WikiProject Film, and encountered this discussion. If you have a concern with a Wikipedian's edit, please let the Wikipedian know on his or her talk page so he or she can discuss the issue. Thank you. Let's get down to business. This is the diff showing all of the portals.

• 1. About the belief that they are excessive: Articles are frequently tagged with many Wikiprojects (see discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Limit_to_.23_of_wikiprojects_per_article), so if an article belongs to multiple Wikiprojects, it should not be excessive to tag an article belonging to multiple Wikiprojects to multiple portals. Linking to too few portals misrepresents how many topics are involved in the said article. Here is a breakdown of the portals I added, and why I added them.
  • 2010s: Decades are inherently important for creative productions. People in this day and age group things by decade. Hear people talk about the 1970s? 1980s? And likewise an era or decade has a formative shape on a creative production.
  • Film in the United States: According to the page categories, it was a partly American production. So the topic "American film" is relevant. The country of origin is an important factor in the development of a film.
  • United Kingdom: But the categories say it was also a British production, so therefore the United Kingdom as a country is relevant. Again, the country of origin is an important factor in the development of a film.
  • Film: I did mistakenly add this portal twice, so my apologies there. But I included the general film portal to pair with the United Kingdom, because the "Film in the United States" is specifically about American film.
  • Science fiction: The film is a part of the science fiction genre.
• That would be a total of five portals: There are articles out there that would qualify for more portals than that. Betty Logan said there is an "Alien" portal so one could add that too, making a total of six.
• 2. On ugliness: I believe that Wikipedia should place a much stronger importance on functionality and linking to relevant information than on beauty. Portalbar, to my knowledge, is the best way to deal with many of these portals. If you can include these portals in another, prettier way, that is perfectly fine.
• 3. General "I hate portals" sentiment should be a non-factor in this discussion because portals have been adopted widely in use on Wikipedia, and so this article should not be an exception. A user above said "If anyone is interested in starting an RfC to abolish the portal namespace altogether, you'd have my support." - Then please start the discussion asking for removal of all portals, and only remove all portals if this abolition occurs.

I will be happy to bring these issues to the Wikipedia portal talk page or another venue. Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Portals are archaic, we have categories if people want to see films by decade or by genre or by country of production, having both is redundant and I'm sorry but a 2010 portal is unnecessary on a film purely because of release year, a user gains no further knowledge about the film by going to any of the portal links you added to Prometheus and so they serve no purpose. The country of origin is not important to a film, if you were not told that The Fifth Element was a french production would you not think it was an American one? What knowledge about The Fifth Element or general French film production do I gain by going to the Film in France portal? It's as tangential and superfluous as the See Also links tend to be, and I would think that since they weren't already present, and the quick cross section of users above don't support their general abuse either, that their mass addition might be something to discuss and I would be opposed to blanket statements like "portals have been widely adopted in use on Wikipedia, and so this article should not be an exception" without a citation, or an understanding that Prometheus was the example case, I'm talking in general about the portal additions you've made to dozens of articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1. If you want to argue in generalities about portals you are welcome to start a new Wikipedia discussion in general about portals. This discussion should be about specific portals and/or justifications of individual portals within articles.

2. "I'm sorry but a 2010 portal is unnecessary on a film purely because of release year" - Do John Hughes films help define the 1980s? Release year is how best to categorize them in that way.

3. "The country of origin is not important to a film, if you were not told that The Fifth Element was a french production would you not think it was an American one?" - And yet it is categorized as a French production, we have task forces on American film and some other country films, and human beings think in the way of film from X country.

4. "It's as tangential and superfluous as the See Also links tend to be" - Is there a "global" Wikipedia discussion in mind where users agreed to limit see also links?

5. "and the quick cross section of users above don't support their general abuse either" - Keep in mind that the posts above were before I explained why I chose the individual portals. Also attitudes may differ across projects and groups of users, so I can start an RFC and get a wider consensus.

6. "I would be opposed to blanket statements like "portals have been widely adopted in use on Wikipedia, and so this article should not be an exception" without a citation, or an understanding that Prometheus was the example case, I'm talking in general about the portal additions you've made to dozens of articles." - I made the blanket statement because of a principle in Wikipedia:Consensus that the consensus of a wider community overrules the consensus of a group. I argue that because the community as a whole has allowed portals, a small group within Wikipedia should not be able to say "We don't want portals in our articles." - The community can shape how portals are used in articles in its scope, but it should not completely reject all portals in all articles in its scope.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1. This isn't about portals in general, it is about portals in the film project.
2. No, John Hughes take place IN the 80s, they are a nice snapshot OF the 80s, they are not the definition of the 80s, if someone wants to know what the 1980s are like I would not recommend watching Weird Science, nor would I recommend they watch The Breakfast Club which sets a dangerous message that if you sexually harass the hot popular girl she will give in, in the end and love you. And again, that is what we have categories for. In fact that is the very definition of being a category, categorizing things.
3. And this relates to putting portals in the external links how? Going to Cinema in France will not enlighten you in any way about The Fifth Element, it will merely divert you from the information that would.
4. Who uses "See Also" anymore?
5. Again if I wanted the opinion about the film project from people outside of the film project I would not have posted the query here on the film project. This is specifically relevant to this project, if we make a decision here then you can RFC it on a larger whole if you wish because they don't belong in as abundant a nature as you were implementing, or at all in most cases.
6. Then why do we have MOS:Film? Or Guidelines that say we credit someone with the credit they had on the film, not how future events reshape or rename them? If the film project says that categories do the job of portals but better and less obtrusive then it is within the parameters of the Film Project to state and enforce that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarrior, I read your rationale and my impression is that it's attitudes about "portals in general" being applied to "portals in the film project" only affecting that project's articles - I have stated by belief that the idea that if one wants to wholesale exclude portals from a Wikiproject's articles, it should be a community-wide discussion affecting all of Wikipedia evenly. Otherwise a Wikiproject cannot wholesale refuse portals and so the idea that "all portals are inherently unnecessary" should not be brought up here. Plus articles are part of multiple Wikiprojects so if, say, a Wikiproject was allowed to say "we don't want portals in our articles" it means it would just open the door to conflict with other Wikiprojects which are pro-portal.

I think in creative media aspects are always exaggerated. Nonetheless human beings categorize creative media as a part of their decades. Titanic defined the 1990s, Avatar the 2000s, and so on. Instead of thinking "People shouldn't get wrong ideas about how people lived in the 1980s" it should be along the lines of "human being think in terms of X so we accommodate humans by doing y"

Wikiprojects are allowed to have some influence over articles in their scope, and/or the community agrees that MOS:Film is a good guideline for film, and trust the judgment of the editors. But a small group of editors in a Wikiproject cannot overrule a consensus made by the wider community. So, if the Wikipedia community as a whole disagrees with X element in the MOS, then it cannot be followed.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is always a matter of judgment which templates/links/portals you add to an article. Personally, I'm less averse to them than some of the other editors but I don't agree with all your points. For instance, the 1970s portal comes under the scope of Wikiproject History, and since something like Star wars doesn't, I don't believe we a need a history portal on the article. 1977 in film is possibly relevant, but we can just include a straight link to that article, and there is precious little else at Portal:1970s that would really interest someone reading about Star Wars. As for something like Portal:Film in the United States, it may or not may not be relevant; however, it is the spiritual cousin of {{Cinema of the United States}}, and as you can see at the instructions for that template, the consensus is to not transclude it to film articles, but rather only to articles about the American film industry. I can see how portals may be useful: something like the Star Wars articles which cover a huge range of media and are too expansive to represent with just a single template may benefit from a portal, but portals should only be used to connect articles to topics areas that they have a clear substantive link to. Betty Logan (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty,

1. Remember that "global" consensus trumps local consensus as explained in Wikipedia:Consensus. From my understanding the wider Wikipedia community has approved of portals, and so the decisions of an individual Wikiproject are overruled by decisions made by the global community. This is one of the reasons why I have stressed that individual objections to portals should not be a factor in this discussion, and so I am asking editors who object to portals full stop to start another discussion asking for portals to be scrapped.

2. It is fine to talk about how certain portals are used. The "decade" portals are imports from the French Wikipedia. I created the English versions. The French use them broadly, tagging events, cultural productions, etc. by decade, and I created them to be used for that purpose. By the way, understand that popular culture is a large part of decade nostalgia/understanding of a culture of a decade and so cultural works like film are absolutely a part of it. John Hughes's films are seen as part of the 1980s. Star Wars is seen as a product of the 1980s also.

3. The film in the United States portal is also an import from the French Wikipedia and I created the English version of the portal. Unlike the decade portals, this does correspond to a Wikiproject. I prefer to tag an article with a portal if it is a part of a Wikiproject. I.E. if Article A falls within WikiProject W, then it is tagged with Portal W. In other words, I peg the portals to Wikiprojects. However I was unaware of your instructions for template Template:Cinema of the United States. The usage of the template that I created could be debated in a new talk page section about that template.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All these portals are linked on the talkpage, so what's the point of spamming the main article space with these chocolate fireguards? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts, the practice on Wikipedia is to put them on the article page as well as the talk page so general users can access them (how many casual readers of Wikipedia go on talk pages?). If you object to the general practice, kindly start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

But why are they in the article space when they are also on the talkpage? Simple question. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I told you why in the post in 16:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC): So people who don't look at talk pages (casual Wikipedia readers) find them anyway as they are supposed to use the portals to browse around. If you feel that didn't satisfactorily answer your question, I'm going to post it on WikiProject Portals and let them find a better answer. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All points raised by WhisperToMe are valid and I think that the links should stay as long as there is a global consensus to include them. All the links except maybe the 2010s link are within WP guidelines and removing them again would probably constitute edit warring. This is not taking back my earlier comment about what I think about portals in general (apologies if my earlier comment about abolishing the portal namespace came off as too harsh), but this thread is about the links in the Prometheus article, not about portals in general or even about portals within the film project. A general discussion should be held somewhere else, not on the talk page of a single wikiproject. jonkerz ♠talk 21:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What might be helpful is to establish a discussion on WikiProject Portals on the usage of decade portals, so that way other Wikipedians can decide on whether they should be used in the same way the French do it, or in a more restricted manner (only in historical events) - So if Wikipedians are in favor of a more restricted definition, they wouldn't be used in, say Prometheus WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is their use on French Wikipedia being used as a good example or cited at all, how is the French wikipedia functioning better than here? Why do you continue to ignore the category function raised multiple times that renders the portals redundant? Why are portals so important and necessary that the Film in the United States one was only created 5 days ago? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarrior, I started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Questioning_the_need_of_portals_when_categories_exist so the general point of portals can be discussed over there. This discussion should be about which specific portals are appropriate for specific articles. My response to your post at 22:11, 20 April 2013 is located in that link. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So you moved the discussion about the usefulness of portals in this matter to a project whose singular purpose is to use, develop and promote the use of portals? Yeah, that sounds like it's going to be a productive discussion that is not at all in your favor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarrior, this talk page (a specific Wikiproject talk page on film) really, really isn't a good place to discuss portals in general. To my knowledge, the place to talk about portals in general, is at that Wikiproject page (Wikipedia talk:Portal redirects users who wish to discuss portals to the Wikiproject page) - If you can find a better place, I'd be happy to use it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there had been few replies I posted in a noticeboard asking for more input, and another user argued that portals are meant to complement categories and not replace them, and they serve as introductions to topics. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nihonjoe mentions a possibility (see diff): "Perhaps Darkwarriorblake doesn't like portals for some reason, and it certainly seems like Jonkerz also has something against them. However, portals have long been established on Wikipedia, and placing links to related portals in the EL section is also a long-established practice. Perhaps this should be a village pump discussion?" - Perhaps it can be a village pump discussion? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a discussion here, that wasn;t good enough so you made it a discussion at the portal project. Mayhaps it doesn't need to be a discussion, maybe portals just aren't that important. Of course we don't like portals, we aren't asking for them not to be included because we like them but just as friends. There's a difference between long-established practice, and just doing something for a long time, and before your edit at Prometheus, I'd never seen such abuse of this 'practice', which probably says a lot since it's long-established but people just weren't doing what you did or adding portals generally. Most older articles had them, I've seen them removed a lot and never restored, they're not an important or necessary component of the Wikipedia experience. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

For that matter this is what Nihonjoe has to say about the Prometheus portals (see diff): "Apparently at least one person thought that was excessive. I added the Alien portal to the Alien footer template on that page (which is where it belongs). I think the 2010s portal might have been a little excessive, but the others seemed fine. It isn't unusual for some articles to contain multiple portal links. Certainly, Film in the United States, Science fiction (which actually redirects to the science fiction section of the Speculative fiction portal), and (what should have been, if it actually existed) Film in the United Kingdom are not just tangentially related, as Darkwarriorblake implied with his removal of the portals. They were in the correct section (External links), as well. I think even a link to the Film portal in that section would not be out of place." - As you know, blake, a small local consensus is trumped by a community-wide consensus, so a discussion based on a small number of people is not "good enough" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond a film being a film, what does Film in the UNited States have to do with Prometheus? What does the reader gain from being led away from everything to do with the film beyond it's part nationality, none of which is relevant to the in-universe part or development of the film? It's a worthless portal in that article and completely redundant. You could MAYBE argue for science fiction except it's still completely unrelated to the topic at hand AND there is a navbox right next to where said portal would be that is exclusively dedicated to the expanded universe around Prometheus. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

At The Avengers (2012 film), "Marvel" is included as part of the two film titles mentioned in the lead sentence. There is a new discussion about whether or not to include this company name. The discussion can be found here. Note that at least one other film article, Pacific Rim (film), has had a dispute about corporate names in film titles, so it may help to set precedent if this becomes commonplace with future releases. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the title Marvel's The Avengers is both the trademarked and copyrighted official title. It's neither branding nor an honorific — if it were merely company branding, it's would be Walt Disney Presents Marvel's The Avengers. But the full title Marvel's the Avengers is how it appears in all press materials and most of the reviews and articles, as a first mention before the common name is used. Truncating the title out of some anti-corporate ideology to give a false, non-official title is not encyclopedic and it's intellectually dishonest. Are we changing National Lampoon's Vacation, which is both its formal title and its common title? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia's existing approach to Disney films whose titles are preempted with "Walt Disney's" in promotional materials? As for your claim that most reviews use Marvel's The Avengers, I reviewed Metacritic and determined that the majority of the reviews use just The Avengers. The minority that mentioned Marvel either wrote Marvel's The Avengers or "Marvel's The Avengers", the latter being a little different. This indicates that this is not really a so-called "full title" like someone's full name, and a truncated title would be a viable option to pursue. Since we already discuss all the Marvel-related elements in the lead section, I think it is worth doing. It is simply more straightforward in the context of an encyclopedic article and its lead section. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment – In the case of films with "Disney's" in official names, there are only ten films that are registered with "Disney's" in their official titles, such as A Christmas Carol. These don't include films such as Dumbo and Sleeping Beauty, which even though have "Walt Disney's" in their poster, aren't registered in the MPAA with the studio/creator. In the case of The Avengers, didn't the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences refer to it as Marvel's The Avengers during the 85th Academy Awards? Chihciboy (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess at the end of the day the official title is whatever Marvel want to call it. On their copyright registration, the application title was "Marvel's The Avengers" (see the copyright catlog and do a registration number search on PA0001782553 — I can't just link because it uses a time sensitive dynamic linking system). Obviously we have the COMMONNAME policy for article titles, but its jurisdiction doesn't really extend beyond article titling. I am thinking however that it may be a good idea for the the official copyrighted title to be included in the article at some point, in the spirit of being encyclopedic and all that. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, the applicable example in WP:COMMONNAME is Romeo and Juliet. It is a Featured Article, and its lead sentence does not even mention the supposed full title, The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. I think we need to consider two categories of full titles: one with full titles that are either long or have subtitles easily truncated, and one where the company adds its name to the title. For the latter, it is bound to get ugly. For Pacific Rim (film), the "official title" is Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim as evidenced by this. Would there seriously be a consensus to use that in the lead sentence? I think it is too pedantic of an approach. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

First, other stuff exists; that's an argument to avoid. (And if do use that argument, then I would suggest seeing the title and lead of First Folio.) Second, if something calling itself an encyclopedia does not have the full title of a Shakespeare play in that play's article, then something is seriously, seriously wrong with our "scholarship." If you can't go to an encyclopedia to get the full, accurate name of something, where can you go? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of record keeping and consensus tracking, it would be helpful if kept this discussion in one location.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! :) I just requested at The Avengers to shift the discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the discussion would be better here because it applies to lots of titles. Maybe we could set aside the self-promotion side of things for the time being and focus on the narrower core issue: if you have a common title that is different to the official title, should the official title be included at all? Dr. Strangelove for instance mentions its longer official title in the lede, but Romeo and Juliet doesn't. Is there any main MOS guidance on this issue? Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is. I've looked at WP:LEADSENTENCE, but from what I can tell, it does not have any applicable advice. As for titles in the lead sentence, I think it is appropriate to include the subtitle if it is not in the article title. Just not sure what rule of thumb would be good to use for prefixes like The Tragedy of or Marvel's. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not directly related, but WP:NCBOOKS#Subtitles deals with subtitles. A bit of a different situation with films though (Star Trek, etc), but thought I'd mention it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I've previously mentioned at the Pacific Rim page, it's separated from other examples because the corporations take no ownership in the name. It's Warner Brothers & Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim, Rather than Warner Brothers & Legendary Pictures' Pacific Rim. Overall, I'm not a fan of the inclusion of studios in naming, but I'm unsure in the case of The Avengers because it's not really the studio, more the creator. drewmunn talk 13:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case of The Avengers, the official title should be mentioned in the article, as there is lots of contextual coverage of the title as seen in the Release section. Whether or not it should be mentioned in the opening sentence is debatable. I prefer to say no just to keep things simple. While the current version is the consensus version and the most neutral, it has never been very popular and probably the most unstable part (besides the plot) of the article. There does not seem to be any clear precedent on the matter either. Tenebrae and Erik, two very well respected editors, have both provided good examples of the official titles being used and not being used in the lead section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there is a right or wrong answer on this one, which is going to lead to further discussions like this on a case by case basis. Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim is ridiculous and it's going to be called Pacific Rim by everyone, including the marketing people, actors and producers: it will only be known by the elongated title from time to time (actually, and rather boringly, the full trade mark for Pacific Rim is WARNER BROS. AND LEGENDARY PICTURES PACIFIC RIM: TALES FROM YEAR ZERO, which is another variant). It's a long list of films (and plays too) that use the shortened version both as the common name and article title. My personal opinion would not to be too over prescriptive in forcing the longer variant into the opening sentence or paragraph, but to try and let common sense decide which feels right. I'm not sure any of the Bond films show anywhere in the article Albert R. Broccoli's …, which are the poster titles for a number of films, because common sense just doesn't do it that way. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Although probably we should wait and see what the onscreen title of Pacific Rim is. What people call Superman: The Movie, after all, is actually just titled Superman. Marketing materials don't always express the official onscreen title. I hate to bring it up, but the onscreen title of the new Iron Man movie is actually Iron Man Three. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at WP:LEADSENTENCE again, I notice point 5: Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article. Remember that the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead. So if Tenebrae is adamant that Marvel's The Avengers is the official title then we do also need The Avengers there in bold face too? After all it is right at the top of the page. Betty Logan (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are to present the official title first, then you should also present the common name as not to confuse readers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat and Betty Logan about including the colloquial name in the first sentence, and I think we do do that: The formal name is given once, at the start, and the lead sentence already says it's also as known as "simply The Avengers." And everywhere else in the article it's just The Avengers, including in the infobox, I'm not sure we should be surprised that all the bases are covered — it took months to hammer out this consensus compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat that it may need to be a case-by-case basis. Regarding Betty's mention of redundancy, I think that tends to be applicable to more nebulous topics like relations between two countries. However, I'm wondering if perhaps it could be applied in these cases. The company prefixes in titles are more out-of-universe than in-universe (where the rest of the title is connected to the film directly or thematically). There are instances of "Marvel's The Avengers" that indicate this degree of separation. As a title floating around, it might make sense to convey the company name, e.g. "Real-World Company's Fictional Work". However, in the lead section, we are already identifying and even linking to that out-of-universe element early on. So perhaps the general argument of redundancy can apply here. It would be very easy for us to say "Marvel's The Avengers is a 2012 American superhero film produced by Marvel Studios." Same for "Walt Disney's" films where we could easily have "Walt Disney's Dumbo is a 1941 American animated film produced by Walt Disney." We just traditionally do not put that information upfront, but it is definitely contained in the first paragraph. We should not overlook how the existing Walt Disney films do not have lead sentences this pedantic. We are not losing anything in focusing on the "in-universe" title; we are being more direct. EDIT: In contrast, we tend to write the full subtitle upfront because that information is rarely repeated again in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I also think this is a common-sense issue. On a personal level, I'd prefer to see The Avengers rather than Marvel's The Avengers, but don't have too much of an issue with it. However, if we are asserting that it is part of the title, then is should all be italicised. In this particular case, it's more an assertation of ownership of an intellectual property rather than the studio behind it - more akin to Bram Stoker's Dracula than "Real-World Company's Fictional Work". By the same token though, we don't have Betty Smith's A Tree Grown in Brooklyn per its poster or even John Carpenter's The Fog per its on-screen title. However, common sense would suggest that the Pacific Rim is nothing more than advertising which companies made the film, and said common sense would dictate, to me anyway, that we do not include this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Damn, touché with Bram Stoker's Dracula. The others are good contradicting examples, though. Certainly not seeing any reason or rhyme now. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not convinced either way really. Personal preference is to drop it for the most part, but then I see Vacation which just looks wrong to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, common sense and case by base based on the general naming criteria should be sufficient. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hate it. Personal preference is that it looks stupid. We don't need to name the studios in the title because it's kind of obvious! Who else is it going to be? I mean there may be exceptions, but huge blockbuster hits are not. Common name should reign. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I hate corporate names, and we had a similar issue at Pacific Rim with someone adding (paraphrasing) "Legendary Pictures and other studio's Pacific Rim" to the opening sentence. But in the case of Avengers it is apparently the actual, very stupid, name.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is so, and don't even get our British brethren started on the British Board of Film Classification's version of the title. The fact remains that in this case, "Marvel's" is part of the official title, both onscreen, in official press materials and in your higher-quality journalistic outlets: The New York Times in its review, where it uses "The Avengers" in the headline and "Marvel's The Avengers" at first mention in the actual story, and in this follow-up article, where after a joking reference in the first paragraph, uses "Marvel's The Avengers" in its first formal mention. Surely, Wikipedia should not be less encyclopedic than a newspaper. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So surely the page title should be so....? -- MisterShiney ✉ 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a list of movies with "Marvel's" in their official name. http://www.filmratings.com/search.html?filmTitle=Marvel%27s&x=-1065&y=-37 MisterShiney asked "Who else is it going to be?" I would assume it was officialy titled that way to differentiate between Marvel's The Avengers and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_%281998_film%29 Xkcdreader (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)