Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Today's featured article requests

Did you know

(1 more...)

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(12 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

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

Variety archives

[edit]

I thought project members might be interested to know that Variety seem to have opened up their archives (including Daily Variety) for free (at least for now), which is a good resource for many film and film-related articles.

https://read-archive.variety.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiani (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, thanks Sudiani. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sudiani. Alas it now appears to have changed to subscription only. Tobyhoward (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to note that you can access Variety (scanned content) at ProQuest via The Wikipedia Library. Tobyhoward (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sudiani do you have any tips on efficient searching the archives? I want info on the International Lethal Weapon box office but can only really pull up video sales so I think I'm doing something wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwarriorblake For that era, it is difficult to find international grosses. The international release during that era is often later than the US release so better searching outside of the year of release. Sometimes, they might have mentioned it when referring to sequels so useful to look at the reporting for those films. For some studios, they have published good charts of worldwide grosses in later years, often for a studio anniversary, but I have not seen one for Warner Bros. They used to publish annually (and sometimes more regularly) the international performance for the studios based on data published by the studios which would tie in with the studio's reporting rather than being for all the studios at once, and this will often flag the biggest performers. I have found such an article dated January 20, 1988 on page 3 where WB Intl had billed $148 million in rentals up to Nov. 30. Lethal Weapon is listed as the second highest performer with $49.5 million. I had thought this might be the rental given the total billings are rentals but it seems that these are the grosses as the figures add up to more than $148 million and the first figure for Police Academy 4 is listed as a gross. Sudiani (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I found the same source after my last post and was confused if it was returns, but given The Numbers has the gross at $55 million, it seems unlikely it'd just be returns so I agree with your analysis of the figures. That is the only one I've found so far but I will do as you suggest and look at articles around LW2 to see if there is more clarity as I'd also like to find out where it ranked in worldwide grosses overall if possible. The Numbers estimate is exactly $55 million so I'm not 100% on that being accurate, and BOM has barely any international figures at all for that year so it's impossible to tell, at the moment, what were the highest grossing films of the year worldwide. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you'll find a worldwide chart for that era in Variety (or any other contemporary source); only the best performers by studio. Sudiani (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Ark

[edit]

The poster currently being used is from a 1982 re-release. But shouldn't the infobox traditionally include the original release poster? Here it is, but Darkwarriorblake insists the 1982 poster is more common, even being used on VHS. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with DWB? I skimmed the Talk page for the article but didn't see a dispute. I think discussing it there might be a good first step? DonIago (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did discuss, and his words were, "The infobox image is intended for ease of identification, and teh [sic] 1982 poster is used on most home media, it was even on the VHS". Now I'm seeking consensus. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that WP:FILMPOSTER says that, ideally, the film's original theatrical release poster should be used. @Darkwarriorblake: Could you please provide your reasoning as to why we should ignore that guidance in this instance? DonIago (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my explanation to Kailash, the image is meant to be for ease of and quick identification, and the second poster is the most common image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be at odds with what WP:FILMPOSTER says? The way I read it, the original theatrical release poster is emphasized. DonIago (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the beauty of words is that it says "ideally" not "must". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following. If the original theatrical poster is the ideal, and we can provide it, why would we not strive to attain the ideal? DonIago (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first theatrical poster for Raiders, it can be found here. Also, for reference, The Empire Strikes Back (an FA) uses the original theatrical poster. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the main purpose is identification and the current image is how Raiders has been presented to the public since 1982 so it is the easiest form of identification. The guideline includes links to Amazon to help search and if you do, you get this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular opinion on the choice of image for this film, but I do think that WP:FILMPOSTER is a bit out of sync with MOS:LEADIMAGE. DWB is correct that the primary purpose of the image (and what should drive selection) is to identify the article topic for the reader, not simply being the original. In the vast majority of cases the original poster serves this purpose fine so there's nothing wrong with using it as a default choice, but there may be some strange cases (see this recent discussion for a recent example in the book area). I'm going to drop a note on the template talk page to discuss further. Scribolt (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, the consensus at the discussion initiated by Scribolt is that for Raiders the original film poster is the best choice. As such, barring further input, the image used in the infobox for that film article should be updated. There's some ongoing discussion regarding whether the wording at WP:FILMPOSTER should nevertheless be updated for other cases, primarily involving non-American films. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Idiocracy be categorized as a time travel film?

[edit]

Idiocracy is not a traditional time travel movie in that it doesn't feature any actual time travel (beyond suspended animation). However, a large part of the movie's plot focuses on the protagonists searching for a time machine (which turns out to just be a dark ride called The Time Masheen). Given that this is a main driver of the plot of the film, and that Category:Films about time travel is described as listing "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel," Idiocracy should be included.

Other people also consider Idiocracy to be a time travel movie, as evidenced by its #2 spot in The Guardian's 2023 top 20 list of time travel movies, #9 spot in Screen Rant's 2023 top 15 time travel movies list, and #9 spot in an IMDB poll of top time travel movies. FriendlyPedant (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a film about a person from the present that ends up several centuries in the future. I don't think the in-universe mechanism really matters. I would note that the "Time Travel" entry of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction includes mentions of both dreams and suspended animation as mechanisms. I wouldn't use the sources you list to bolster this argument, though. The Guardian, while WP:Generally reliable, is writing outside of its generally accepted area of expertise here; Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited, being reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis (it is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight); and IMDb polls are WP:User-generated content. A quick search on Google Books would seem to suggest that counting Idiocracy (and similar stories using suspended animation for this purpose, such as "Rip Van Winkle") as time travel fiction is at least not an outrageous proposition, see e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=6JtGEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA65 and https://books.google.com/books?id=42O2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT43. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources classify it as a time travel movie, then yes. But if we're just making a categorization decision within Wikipedia, I would argue that it is not a time travel movie. The film doesn't have in-universe mechanisms (such as time machines) for permit time travel. In-universe, time only progresses linearly. Yes, the movie spans quite a bit of linear time, but the quantity of linear time doesn't make it time travel. For example, a school year goes back in each (well, most) of the Harry Potter films, but they are not time travel movies (in before someone mentions the Time Turner exception in one of them). The linear passage of time within a film does not render it a time travel movie. Useight (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the suspended animation may not be enough to categorize it as a time travel film. I tried to be clear about that. Rather, it's the focus of the protagonists on going back in time via a promised "time machine" driving the plot of the film that both makes it a time travel film in my opinion and satisfies the Wikipedia category's description as listing "the titles of films that include the theme of time travel." FriendlyPedant (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you make a good point. Much of the movie focuses on a desire to perform time travel and the protagonist is led to believe that such time travel exists (and is available for use). Does the film include the theme of time travel? I would agree that it does. Is the film about time travel? I would argue that it isn't. I could see this going either way. Poking around a bit, I noticed that 13 Going on 30 is categorized as time travel, but 17 Again isn't. In the former, many years suddenly passed seemingly overnight. In the latter, time itself was unaffected but the protagonist changed. Idiocracy is similar to 13 Going on 30, in that the protagonist experienced the passage of time in an instant. But the thing is, with Idiocracy, it is known that everyone else experienced time at the normal, linear pace. This makes it more like Demolition Man. Someone in suspended animation that is awakened at some point in the future. And Demolition Man is not categorized as time travel. Thus, I feel confident that none of the time-related trickery in Idiocracy qualify it for the category. What remains is the question of whether or not a desire (or attempt) to time travel qualifies. I wonder if there are movies in which someone spends time trying to build a time machine but fails, or something along those lines. Useight (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misremembering the plot, there's nothing to say that actual time travel occurs in Safety Not Guaranteed. That one's currently categorized as a film about time travel, but to me the lynchpin is the about. The whole plot in that film is driven by the idea that someone claims to have a time machine and the ending leaves it ambiguous as to whether the device functions. I believe that's a stronger element than in Idiocracy, but I haven't seen the latter film in a long time either and might be misremembering how strong an element of the plot the desire to time travel really is relative to the other goings-on. I guess the question is whether the category is intended for scenarios where actual time travel is a major component of the film, or whether it's sufficient for themes of time travel to be a major component of the film. I'd argue that incidental time travel to serve a story purpose (suspended animation that isn't ultimately relevant to the greater plot) or a one-off discussion of it or such would be insufficient; I'm not claiming Idiocracy only has one or both of those. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don’t think it’s time travel Methastophles (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

best way to cite commentary?

[edit]

I have been improving She (1935 film) and I cited some commentary from the film. I included some citations to commentary and bonus features on the DVD release. I wasn't sure how to indicate that on the cite AV template. Instead, I ended up naming a plaintext ref and including time stamps as superscripts. Is there a better and more orthodox way to cite DVD features? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easiest through formats I've done on articles like Audition (1999 film). Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your example! It was just what I needed. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have helped! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite AV media can be used for this, just cite the features you are citing. If it's an audio track, maybe use |type=audio track commentary Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus needed for film list style

[edit]

Hi, just searched for films in 1981 in film. The list has been removed in favour of the country lists. Then I click List of American films of 1981 and it has a bloated release list with excessive cast which makes it difficult to browse and find films, and even has some films which aren't American or from that year. I restored the American lists from around 1970 to 2000 back to the clean A-Z you see in List of American films of 1956 a few months back but the IP has reverted back to the bloated tables on all. All I want is a simple A-Z list for easy browsing, consistently by year and country, it's why I created the lists in the first place! It is time consuming going back and finding the original text and restoring and even if I do that it seems like nobody is watching these lists and would help revert the ip if he did it again. There also seems to be a tendency on recent years for the big bloated release tables, I argue that even those should be converted to simple A-Z lists. Is there any agreement here that A-Z format is much easier for browsing and more desirable than by release date? Release date seems appropriate for the current or next year to see what is being released, but a simple A-Z is much easier for general browsing of past years. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion on this. The tables are sortable, so if you want an A-Z list, it's one-click away (but see my note further on), even if it's not as concise. That said, the 'cleaner' format does have a separate column for Director, which I think is good, but also one for Genre, which I think is problematic (unless sourced). Both lists have breaks in them that prevent a one-click sort of all the films on the list, which might be frustrating for readers. In the end I think which format is 'better' could depend on what kinds of information one is looking for. Was there any discussion about the changes to the format? DonIago (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion at all that I'm aware of. I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate list of films by release date but I think these lists should be simple A-Z, concise lists for quick browsing. The release lists are separated by months though, so A-Z isn't useful. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the alphabetical list (as demonstrated in List of American films of 1956) is much harder to read than the date-based list in List of American films of 1981. It's because of the whitespace in the Title column. The 1956 list is more cluttered, in that regard. Whichever way it's sorted, it'd be nice to retain good spacing. Useight (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't focus too much on spacing or formatting wikipedia to fit that. In the era of of people now able to adjust text size and other content on the site easily with a click of a toggle, it's never going to look the same for everyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the cast inclusion is excessive though Useight? You must be using a wider screen PC/laptop as it looks really bloated and cluttered on an iPad! I concede that the date format doesn't look as bad when viewed on a widescreen PC as it does on a small device. On a widescreen PC you could have a director, genre and even notes column if you cut the cast to the top billed stars. The problem is that the date format is harder to edit though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it's excessive. The cast should just be the actor/actress of the main character or two, if you ask me. But, yes, I always use my desktop computer. Useight (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was brought up somewhat similarly at Talk:List of American films of 2024. Generally, more for the side bar being that the sidebar causes some accessibility issues (i.e: not sure screen readers will pick up January being written up and down for example). I do feel like an excessive crew listing is going a bit overboard and it not condusive to sorting. Do we need to know who the crew to this extent, or at all? Most screenwriters aren't known by name. Directors are slightly more so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Andrzej. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could have two sets of lists for the US, by release date and by A-Z. I'm not opposed to by release date if we can have a full A-Z (as default). But I think the cast needs to be drastically cut for all lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume when you are saying two sets, you are talking about two columns? This would be my proposal. I'd use the notes section to indicate if a film is the production of more than one country "I.e: US-Canadian co-production" or if there are two films with the same title with one year, we can disambiguate it as a disambiguation factor that most people would catch. (i.e: the lead star, the director, etc.). Brevity is the soul of wit, and we probably should keep these tidy and easy to add too over becoming a database of credits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A24 films released in the 2010s
Release date[a] Title Studio Notes Ref.
January 5 The Painter Republic Pictures [1]
January 12 Mean Girls Paramount Pictures, Broadway Video, Little Stranger [2]

Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list should be initially sorted with a first column of release date. I support the above table example. However, I don't think a note column is needed. This is an overview so any additional information is in the article. If a specific note is needed, one can be added with {{efn}}. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for chiming in Gonnym. Happy to remove the "note" section for most lists like List of American films of 2024, like, its not likely needed for the List of American films article. I'm more thinking about it for articles like List of French films of 1963. Very few continental Europe productions are from one singular country, and often produce within the context of a co-production, often with Italy, Spain, West Germany, etc. I feel this is a bit critical to understanding why something like a major Italian feature of the era like 8½ would be included on a list of French film productions. That said, maybe the studios or production companies involved would be enough in this case. Pinging @Dr. Blofeld: as well to weigh in on this if he could so we have more of a communal discussion/agreement/disagreement within the project. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The listed date refers to the film's public premiere, regardless if it opened in the United States.

References

  1. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (November 30, 2023). "Republic Pictures Picks Up The Painter For Paramount Global; Jon Voight Pic Plans Theatrical Release". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved December 1, 2023.
  2. ^ Couch, Aaron (September 22, 2023). "'Smile 2,' 'Mean Girls' Musical Set 2024 Release Dates". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved September 22, 2023.

The problem with organizing film lists date-first instead of title-first is that they're organized by the date of commercial release, not the date of the initial premiere, which leaves films that premiere at film festivals but haven't gone into commercial release yet unable to be listed at all. For example, the Canadian lists are organized title first, which meant I could add any Canadian films that premiered at film festivals this year to List of Canadian films of 2024 right away, but for any country (US, France, etc.) whose lists are organized date-first, I had to leave stacks of films that premiered at Cannes or TIFF listed on the talk page for future editor attention if a future commercial-release date wasn't sourceable yet, even if the film had already premiered at a film festival.
But I shouldn't have had to do that: the moment a film's existence is known and sourceable at all, it should be able to be added to the relevant country list or lists right away, rather than having to wait weeks or months past its premiere at a film festival — especially since waiting to add a film to the list, instead of adding it right away, significantly increases the risk that the film will never get properly added to the list.
I additionally don't understand the argument above that "whitespace in the title column" makes the title-first list "harder" to read than the date-first version, as the date-first version still has "whitespace in the title column", and I fail to see that said whitespace hits differently if you put the release date before the title than it does if the release date is a later column. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too particular about the date first issue either way, but the manual of style for films states we should list films by their first release where they are publicly available, whether that's at a film festival, theatrical, streaming or home video release. Generally I would wait to have a date solidified as anything could happen, but beyond that, I'm seeing it only as a mild quibble for dates/titles to take the first slot and I doubt it would co fuse any readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bearcat on the date coming first. I do think we should have A-Z as default but we could also have List of American films of 1981 (by release date) etc in the bloated format if there is dispute. I created the lists purely with the goal of having a comprehensive A-Z list by country.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Bearcat:, @Gonnym:, i've made another draft here based on your comments. I don't really see the point of having a separate article (such as List of American films of 1981 (by release date)) for different sorting as we can easily have a "sort-table" function to let anyone sort the items the way they see fit. For consistency and to follow MOS:FILM. Per WP:FILMRELEASE, Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release

I'm proposing something like this then.

Opening Title Production company Ref.
January 5 The Bricklayer Vertical Entertainment, Millennium Media
January 4 DarkGame Gravitas Ventures [1]
January 5 Fugitive Dreams Freestyle Releasing [2]
January 5 He Went That Way Vertical Entertainment, Mister Smith Entertainment [3]
January 2 The Mummy Murders Gravitas Ventures [4]
January 5 Night Swim Universal Pictures, Blumhouse Productions , Atomic Monster [5]
January 5 The Painter Republic Pictures [6]
January 3 Self Reliance Neon, Hulu , MRC , Paramount Global Content Distribution [7]
January 5 Some Other Woman Radiant Films International, Balcony 9 Productions [8]
March 1 Dune: Part Two Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures [9]
March 1 Spaceman Netflix, Tango Entertainment, Free Association [10]

I still stand by the idea of some sort of "extra" info, for some articles lie List of French films of 1963, just to clarify why there will be several predominantly Italian productions in there along with more predominantly French titles. On changing the list on the 2024 american films list, it has already been reverted by editors and as we are coming closer to some sort of consensus here, I'll pass on reverting those edits until we can come forward here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that WP:FILMRELEASE is a section of the template documentation for {{Infobox film}}, not a broad policy statement that binds anything else besides what date goes in the infobox. If the consensus is to stick with date-first lists over title-first lists, then we probably should establish a wider policy that extends FILMRELEASE beyond just what date goes in the infobox, but as of right now it only applies to the infobox.
And I still prefer title-first format, at any rate; in addition to my previously noted concerns, date-first format also makes the lists significantly harder to edit at all, since in addition to just adding a row for any new film you also have to find and adjust multiple rowspan numbers in order to not break the entire table. Even for me as an experienced editor who knows that, it's still enough of an added burden to make me deeply reluctant to even touch a date-first list at all — and amateur/inexperienced editors are highly likely to not even know about that and make edits that outright break the lists, thus creating extra work for other people to fix.
Tables should always be organized on the simplest possible format that includes all of the important information, rather than formats that complicate the editing process and increase the likelihood of errors. In this case, date-first deeply complicates the process of editing a list, because it requires supplementary adjustment of one or more rowspan numbers in addition to simply adding a row to the list for a film that's being added to it, while title-first eliminates that problem.
There are additionally some films which would remain unable to be added to a date-first list at all, because we can't properly source any exact release date. I created an article literally just yesterday about Wild Flowers, a Canadian short film with a notability-making award nomination and sufficient other coverage to clear GNG — and while I was able to establish where the film premiered, I was not able to find what exact day it screened at that festival (that information already isn't available even from the festival's own website anymore). Since List of Canadian films of 2024 is organized title-first rather than date-first, this isn't a problem — but if it had been organized date-first instead, I would not be able to add the film to that list at all due to the unconfirmability of a specific day. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:, that will be an issue for several films and the release dates of older films, shorts, etc. are just not really known at the moment. While I think adding them is important, if you do not have a release date, it can still be added alphabetically with just an N/A tag or an Unknown tag. This prevents issues like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List it alphabetically where, if the lack of a confirmable release date means there's no date under which to list it? I'm not saying a release date column shouldn't be present, and have no issue with one being a later column, but the date shouldn't be the list's principal organizing criterion if we don't always even know what date a film can even go under in the first place. Title should be the first column, and release dates can be a later column, but the first column should be information that's always available for every film rather than information that's sometimes unlocatable. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I wasn't clear, but generally I agree that the title should come first. The average person is going to know a film by its title, not so much by the date it came out. My suggestion was only to have it sortable so if readers want to see a film by its release date, they have the option. I've done an example of this [[User:Andrzejbanas/ListSample here]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the date being first on those lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have it sorted by film title first. I apologize, I think I misunderstood your previous comment about it. Beyond that, are there any other issues. @Dr. Blofeld?
I'm happy to propose this otherwise.
Apologies for going back to re-edit this table. completely missed some clear points. I do think I agree with Blofeld that sorting by title is better. my points are the following.
  • Not all films have known specific release dates, especially with older material. A title however, is something key and unmissable. It is much easier to sort by a title, add films to a list without having to re-arrange a table with more complicated code. This makes it easier for editors.
    With newer films, dates change, either with production changing, with older films, newer material can be found. It is easier to sort out films this way.

For now this is preferred list.

I couldn't get the table to display correctly on the talk page, so I've moved it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support sortable columns for release date and studio if we can fit them in. I just think the current release lists look horribly bloated on smaller devices and are much harder to browse than a simple A-Z. If we can get release date added I think we should go back to A-Z. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My list above might have got buried in my back and forth hustle. But I've created a list that I think described what you are stating with this style here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with any table that fixes the date issue, which to me is the most important MoS breaking part of those pages (but I'm against removing the date as titles and dates are must haves). So take my support for any table that has at least those two columns and the date is fixed correcly. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "First look, world sales deal unveiled for Ed Westwick thriller 'Darkgame' (exclusive)". Screen Daily. September 9, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
  2. ^ "Fugitive Dreams - The Numbers". The Numbers. January 16, 2024. Retrieved January 16, 2024.
  3. ^ McArdle, Tommy (December 14, 2023). "Jacob Elordi Plays a Killer Hitchhiker Picked Up by Zachary Quinto in He Went That Way Trailer (Exclusive)". People. Retrieved December 14, 2023.
  4. ^ "Serial Killer Horror 'The Mummy Murders' Releases January". Culture Elixir. December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
  5. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (April 7, 2023). "Night Swim From Universal, Atomic Monster & Blumhouse To Take Earlier Dip In 2024". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved April 7, 2023.
  6. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (November 30, 2023). "Republic Pictures Picks Up The Painter For Paramount Global; Jon Voight Pic Plans Theatrical Release". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved December 1, 2023.
  7. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (20 December 2023). "Neon To Release Jake Johnson's 'Self Reliance' In Theaters For One Night Only Before Hulu Run". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  8. ^ Devore, Britta (December 15, 2023). "Ashley Greene Stalks Tom Felton in First 'Some Other Woman' Trailer [Exclusive]". Collider. Archived from the original on January 2, 2024.
  9. ^ Sharf, Zack (November 17, 2023). "'Dune: Part Two' Release Date Moves Up Two Weeks to Kick Off March 2024". Variety.com. Retrieved November 17, 2023.
  10. ^ Thompson, Jaden (December 19, 2023). "Adam Sandler Is an Astronaut in Peril in 'Spaceman' First Look, Netflix Sets March 2024 Release Date". Variety. Retrieved December 19, 2023.

Authority control-style template for films

[edit]

I was looking at How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (film) (for example) and it struck me that, instead of:

which involves an awful lot of repetition, we could have a template, like {{Authority control}}, for film links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{FilmLinks}}? I don't know why the doc says that it should be substed; I didn't investigate. See also this MOS:Film section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice on plot summary changes?

[edit]

I don't know whether this could or should be done (the former may be more of an obstacle than the latter), but would it be possible to display an WP:EDITNOTICE when an editor is working on the plot summary of an article? This might reduce the number of instances where an editor inadvertently expands a plot summary beyond the applicable guidelines (not necessarily for a film article, but I thought I'd start here) and is consequently immediately reverted for having broached said guideline. If it's not possible it's not possible, but I thought it might be something that merits exploration. Since we have universal user warning messages for occasions where an editor expands a plot beyond the recommended guideline, I imagine we could come up with universal wording for such an editnotice as well, presuming it is possible. Thanks for entertaining my thought experiment! DonIago (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that can't be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alas! I've just started to feel badly when a well-intentioned editor adds 500 words to a summary that really didn't need to be any larger, because I think all of us have fallen afoul of P&G that we didn't know existed when we made our edits. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know there's an edit notice that shows up every single time you edit a biography of a living person? You've been here for years, so you've probably seen it thousands of times. Can you recite it without looking at the template at {{BLP editnotice}}? If so, I guess you don't have banner blindness. I think edit notices can work, but you have to fight against problems like that. Also, I think the best you could do is a universal edit notice when editing a film article, which probably wouldn't go over so well with the rest of the site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think new editors are probably more likely to pay attention to editnotices than us old fogeys, though perhaps I'm wrong about that? Anyway, as I said, I wasn't even sure this kind of thing would be technically possible; I just thought that if it reduced the instance of plot summary guideline violations by 25% without incurring significant costs, it seemed like something that might be worth pursuing. It sounds like it isn't technically possible though, in which case it's a moot point. DonIago (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal for Talent agent

[edit]

I have proposed splitting Talent agent into a new article Talent agency. Members of this WikiProject are welcome to contribute at Talk:Talent agent#Proposed split. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Pixels (2015 film)#Requested move 22 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pixels (2015 film)#Requested move 22 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film Music Reporter

[edit]

I have started a discussion about the reliability of this website, which is widely used in articles that fall within the scope of this WikiProject, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Music Reporter. All thoughts are welcome. My hope is to come to a definitive consensus on the matter which can be recorded at WP:RS/PS. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Manual of Style discussion that may interest the editors here.

[edit]

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Noteworthy exceptions to SOB, thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

feedback request on Might Joe Young production section

[edit]

Hello WikiProject Film, I work at the BYU Library. My student @Heidi Pusey BYU and I have been working on film pages that Marian C. Cooper was involved with (we have his papers in our archive). Heidi recently finished writing the production section for Mighty Joe Young (1949 film). We're used to researching films where there isn't a lot of information on the production, so we usually include whatever information we can find. For this film, there was a lot more information about its production. Would someone be willing to read the section and tell us if it's too detailed? Thank you, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks very good. While there is a lot of detail, for a film of this type and the era it was made in, I don't think it is necessarily overly detailed. I think the distinction between development and animation isn't clear with animation content seemingly in the development section. It looks like updates have been made to the release section too. It notes a release in New England/New York but not clear when that happened so would be useful to clarify that. Sudiani (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Sudiani! Heidi made some changes to the organization based on your and others' feedback. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Reel Affirmations

[edit]

Reel Affirmations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pierre de Wet

[edit]

I submitted a draft for this filmmaker but it was rejected. I think he clearly meets the relevant notability criteria and would be happy to have some help bringing the subject to mainspace. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The Congress of Mother-in-Laws#Requested move 22 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Congress of Mother-in-Laws#Requested move 22 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Cottage (1924)

[edit]

Some help is requested here by PrinceArchelaus and Merry medievalist:

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I think we have resolved the plot summary by now. I've contacted Merry medievalist on their talk page and have made the needed corrections. I'm ready to move on to other articles now. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Requested move 1 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The King of Comedy (film)#Requested move 2 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The King of Comedy (film)#Requested move 2 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dantus21 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

production credits in-text?

[edit]

Hi, my student and I are still working on film pages. We've noticed that sometimes we will have information that someone had a specific role in production (like that they were the art director or cinematographer), but not anything else. Is it better to put that information in the infobox (with a citation) than to mention it in the text of the production section?

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is just the name, then I would just put in the infobox. If there is interesting information about their work, then I would also mention it in the article. Sudiani (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sudiani. With that in mind I'm going to make some changes to an article I've been working on. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, as recommended at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox shouldn't be including any information that isn't discussed somewhere within the article. In practice for things like credits that may not occur in practice...but perhaps it should. DonIago (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the general point for infoboxes, it seems to defeat the whole purpose of the data that has been decided to be included in the infobox. For example, do we expect all running times to be included in the main article and the infobox? It seems kinda pointless to duplicate the data unless there is anything additional to mention. Sudiani (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the original impetus for the wording was, and it's a guideline in any case, not a policy. I was merely pointing it out, since the answer to Rachel's question seems to be, "Ideally, both." DonIago (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rachel. The infobox has a limited set of parameters, so an editor could not add art director there anyway. The preference has been to keep the infobox credits high-level, so there are some that are not included. Even if we added new parameters as optional, I think the organic tendency of editors is to flesh out every parameter regardless of a crew member's importance to the film.
That said, like DonIago said, ideally the infobox should be a summary of what is in the article body. I think in a well-developed article, everything but runtime would be covered in the body. For crew members, my thinking has been that the "Starring" parameter in the infobox is a high-level summary of the article body's cast list. In the same vein, I generally support having a crew list in the article body, and the infobox's crew-related parameters can be seen as a high-level summary of that. Like with cast lists, to avoid being WP:INDISCRIMINATE, crew lists should be based on some kind of rule of thumb like a reliable source listing a specific set of crew credits. I did that at Panic Room § Production. One benefit of identifying crew members more explicitly (beyond what is in the infobox) is to encourage cross-linking. Like if we have an very famous costume designer, it seems remiss to me that they would not be at least named in articles of films they contributed to.
Also, it's possible that one could prefer to only weave in crew members in a "Production" section, but I think it helps to highlight the crew in a list and to discuss their contributions to the film afterward. If not a list, perhaps at least a list sentence to name crew members at the end of a "Production" section, after writing about crew members that have detailed coverage about their contributions. Some editors may oppose a crew list or mere naming of crew members not in the infobox, but there are no Wikiproject Film guidelines against that. Just because it hasn't been done much doesn't mean it can't be done more, as long as it fits policies and guidelines (like WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the responses, it's very helpful! It sounds like there isn't consensus, but that listing information in the infobox is practiced (even if it is against the guideline). It also sounds like having a list of production staff in the production section is acceptable. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nobody lists art directors in the infobox because there's no field for them. Listing cinematographers is not only "practiced", but I'd say de facto de rigueur (the same goes for all roles the infobox has fields for). Nardog (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant listing production credits in the infobox without mention in the body of the page. I've seen it many times. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Terrifier (film series)#Requested move 3 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Terrifier (film series)#Requested move 3 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The "Human" Factor (1975 film)#Requested move 31 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The "Human" Factor (1975 film)#Requested move 31 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Crime 101 (2025 film)#Requested move 6 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crime 101 (2025 film)#Requested move 6 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altered Titles

[edit]

I'm after second opinions on this sinec I proposed and supported the restoration of The Empire Strikes Back to its original and common title rather than the wordy Star Wars Episode V Chapter 6 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 word 6: The Empire Strikes Back, but I feel like Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, which has since dropped the "Part One" is being pedantic, especially as a footnote has been added to Mission: Impossible – Fallout to explain the name change. I feel like this is a case where it should just be Mission Impossible - Dead Reckoning with a footnote (on that page only) in the lede to explain the name change. Or should we be strict and go with what it was? I'm not sure I count "Part X" as part of a title but others may. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of struggled with alternative titles again. I usually find just saying "this film has a dozen alternative titles". I try to include them when there is at least a bit of context and gives users the ability to place their own level of weight on the title. Did it get re-released under a new name like Barbarella as Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy? Was this title a new edit, new marketing? The more info we have on the name change, the more prominence we can probably give. Otherwise, I find it hard to say which title is really more prominent that isn't WP:OR, but try to stick with titles that most people would have seen or what title the film is used most of the time when discussed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in plot

[edit]

Another one I'd like input on. I and others have fought against including dates in films that do not mention them, even if they may be established retrospectively elsewhere, as is the case with Aliens (film), which i think takes place in 2146. On the flip side I've worked on Starship Troopers (film) which already had a reference in for it taking place in the 23rd century and so I rolled with it since it's so far into the future I think establishing it helps. An IP editor has removed "23rd century" as identified by Verhoeven on the DVD commentary and replaced it with future. I think future is too vague and could mean next week or 10 years, but as with the altered titles section above I'm not sure if I'm being too rigid or just using what is appropriate for the respective articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably apply WP:WEIGHT, specifically "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." In a film like Groundhog Day where the day keeps repeating, or a period film, the era is pretty intrinsic to the plot or if the film takes place in a certain year so it can be "20 years after a war/apocalypse/etc.", maybe that is relevant. If you can explain the plot and its in a generic future that has no real relevance of time and place, I do not think we need to harp on specific details that do not really change anyone's understanding of the narrative. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Rhythm and Hues Studios#Requested move 13 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rhythm and Hues Studios#Requested move 13 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman returns

[edit]

Hi I’m looking for other opinions on Batman returns modern reception claims. As shown here

In the years since its release, Batman Returns has been positively reappraised. It is now regarded as among the best superhero films ever made, the best sequels, and the best Batman films made. Screen Rant called it the best Batman film of the 20th century and, in 2018, GamesRadar+ named it the best Batman film. Batman Returns was number 401 on Empire's 2008 list of the 500 greatest movies of all time. Some publications have identified Batman Returns as part of Burton's unofficial Christmas trilogy, bookended by Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas, and it has become an alternative-holiday film along with films such as Die Hard (1988). Some publications have also listed it as one of the best Christmas films.

None of these sources are authoritative or critical consensus for the claims of best Batman films, sequels and superhero films ever. Most of them are listicles. But I would like to see what others think. Thank you Hi-ci335 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I would try to find more retrospective reviews of the film over lists. None of them suggest any new critical consensus and are kind of just sandwiching it into somewhat niche genres without addressing any other specific highs or lows about the film. Two retrospective reviews do not really suggest that there is any new consensus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the claims that it’s one of the best should stay ? Hi-ci335 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, I'm not certain they should stay or not, but some more in-depth general review over a ranking on a list is superior content for a reception section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not sugarcoat it: the sourcing is bad. Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. I'm not as familiar with GamesRadar+, but I do not believe it is much better—and I daresay it is in no way an adequate source to use for this purpose. Either their assessment is an outlier, in which case it is WP:UNDUE, or it is typical, in which case a much higher-quality source should be used. Comic Book Resources (cited for the first sentence) is similar to Screen Rant in terms of quality—i.e. wholly inadequate for the purpose. I haven't taken a close look at the "best of" sources, but "among the best" is rarely a meaningful statement in cases like this and appearances on list articles is weak evidence. The paragraph as a whole represents a pretty clear case of superlative-chasing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tompa. Screen Rant is a low quality source, GamesRadar is better but it's primarily a games publication and isn't a good enough source for supporting the claims in the topic sentence. Likewise, a best of list that's hundreds of films holds a lot less weight than something more curated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Comment removed, see below.]
Yep. We've faced these issues with video game topics in the past few years, where listicle and rating content gets stuffed together to make things seem bigger than they are, and it's just generally not that noteworthy (I can find a ton of very similar Screen Rant articles where you list X video game as "top X first-person shooters with a space marine" or "top Y time travel episodes in Star Trek" and they don't really add up to much versus a single, more authoritative source.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Comment removed, see below.]
Barry Wom, this is clearly another Sock of the guy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly. Comments removed. Barry Wom (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would you the the claims should be removed? User:David Fuchs And User:TompaDompa Jasper killain (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
F's sake Jasper, get a life. Barry Wom Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s incredibly insulting I’m reporting you to a higher up Jasper killain (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claims should be removed Jasper killain (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple other users have said Jasper killain (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed. Note to other editors, please DFTT. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Regardless of the validity of the argument, the OP has been blocked as a sock of Jaszen [1], an editor whose entire raison d'être is arguing over the level of praise in film articles, particularly Batman ones. Barry Wom (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I knew I recognized the way they write. And to be clear to anyone checking my contributions history, I'm working in Batman Returns for FA so things like the moans above are being worked on based on standards defined at my last few FAs. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Films about intersex#Requested move 14 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Films about intersex#Requested move 14 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The Mexican#Requested move 1 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Mexican#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1257664592"