Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

By /

On the discussion at Talk:Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom#Ratings table, Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) suggested we should discuss the addition of a rating table to film articles on this project’s talk page, so I’m opening one here. That said, is it relevant to include the rating tables? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 03:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using a table like that to present aggregate scores is fine, if unnecessary, in my opinion. Using it to highlight select reviews is more questionable, as it is often a random selection of reviews that get presented with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. – adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using a table for ratings is a bad idea. There are significant WP:DUEWEIGHT issues with it. For individual reviews, it immediately raises the question of “why these particular ones?”. For aggregates, it elevates them to a higher position than is warranted. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the ratings table is used across a wide variety of video game articles and some television articles. There are {{TV ratings}}, {{Film and game ratings}}, {{Video game reviews}}, and {{Music ratings}}, so there clearly are editors who believe there is some use for these. Just because they have not been as common across film articles does not mean they are inherently not useful. I understand weight concerns but I believe using the tables to provide an overview of select reception is not necessarily a problem if it provides consistency with the rest of the article’s reception. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 19:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
High-profile films typically have a triple-digit number of reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes, and that’s still only a selection of all the reviews (particularly when films have been reviewed in multiple languages). Selecting a handful of reviews to present in a table requires very strong justification for the specific selection in terms of WP:DUEWEIGHT. The table removes all the context that can be presented in prose (a problem that is also encountered with infoboxes in some situations). The problems with review aggregators are different, but also significant. What we want is WP:Secondary sources on the critical reception. TompaDompa (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to for not using them as well. Films receive wide reception and even smaller ones often get around 20 reviews that are easily accessible online. Hand picking a few to represent films, especially one as large as a Marvel film that hundreds of reviews, lack neutrality. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree on its use. Films are completely different compared to video games or music, and it is hard to summarize just a handful of sites, especially due to WP:DUEWEIGHT guidelines. Video games can follow the template as they are more straightforward, as they have way more sites dedicated to cover gaming reviews that include a numerical score. Any game article (at least that I know of) has usually the same sites such as IGN, GameSpot, GameInformer, NintendoLife, etc., etc., not to mention Metacritic. My point being that there are already enough sites that give an actual numerical score that kind of gives readers a more general and visual idea of the reception of the game.
Films are harder. What sites are there that are widely known to give films numerical scores? Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and…IGN? There are some issues in the tables of the only “six” films that have the ratings table, that can fall into personal taste. Remember that the percentage seen on Rotten Tomatoes is NOT an “out of 100” score. As in, a 90% RT film is an “excellent” film. The percentage is ONLY the percentage of reviewers that gave the film a positive review, so should the percentage be included or the actual average rating? Films are conceptually much more subjective than video games. Games can be much more objective as reviews usually consider the gameplay, if there are technical issues, the abundance or lack of content at launch, the performance, and overall value, with secondary things being what make films…films, like characters and story, and thus, easier to give a numerical score based on every outlet’s criteria. Notice how a lot of film reviews do not give an actual score?
Say, if you were to add a table to The Fantastic Four: First Steps, how would it look? Here are the reviews included in the Reception section:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Notice how only three give a STAR score? Not even a numerical one? Sure there are objective aspects that can be judged in films, but overall, there is a reason most reviews do not give an actual score.
And the inclusion of Cinemascore is iffy. Cinemascore is not a review site. And a low Cinemascore does not mean the film is bad. Obviously it works in a film like The Flash because it was not liked by both critics and audiences, but a generally well-received by critics film like mother!?
Moreover, I got questions in some film articles that have the ratings table:
For The Wrecking Crew (2000 film) and Prince Jack, the ratings table should not outright replace a Reception section in prose. For the former, it is obvious the sites were extracted from Rotten Tomatoes (as seen here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wrecking_crew_1999/reviews) a move that can be flagged as original research. And…not sure if I find it funny or not, but Prince Jack’s table mentions “No score” at one point. What was the point then?
It is just too convoluted and not as straight forward as video games. Joy040207 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to continue with my points:
I noticed that in the cases of Rebel Country and Living in the Age of Airplanes, the arguments are the same, and analysing their ratings table, they fall apart.
Rebel Country once again is just regurgitating what is already included in Rotten Tomatoes, including the ratings from random sites that gave the documentary a rating, because obviously RT is the one of the only sites where you can actually find numeric ratings to add in a table. That is not how it should work. What’s worse, at one point it adds the link to the Cinemacy rating and in the linked review there is no score in sight. Misleading? Or a poor effort to justify the inclusion of the table?
And in the case of Living in the Age of Airplanes…Blu-ray.com? Seriously? Joy040207 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What necromancy is this? Kill it with fire. There was an old consensus against using these Ratings tables in film articles. They do not make a better encyclopedia, they actively discourage it. The old consensus was never overturned, these tables had almost entirely died out in film articles except for a handful of pages where a lone editor insisted on using them (case in point Living in the Age of Airplanes). There was the [above mentioned] problem of selection bias and also the problem of editors adding reviews to the box but failing to add them to the article body. Other editors seem to have forgotten or never known that these tables are counter productive. (Project video games has guidelines about how to avoid using these tables improperly but that advice is widely ignored. Inexperienced editors create these tables in game articles but rarely bother to actually write needed text for a proper Reception section.) These tables are counter to WP:PROSE. Tables are supposed to be a supplement to the article not a replacement, editor will forget or fail to learn this, the past will repeat itself. Please don’t start trying to flog this dead horse all over again, ProjectFilm is lucky that it discouraged them early and didn’t get overrun with them like Project VG. This is not a harmless choice, this is an invasive species, a weed that will choke articles if you let it, stop now while you still can. — 109.76.196.151 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should remove them and any attempts at restoring, redirect the editors to this Talk. As you can see, I agree on that they should not be used in film articles. Joy040207 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found one of the old discussions, go down the rabbit hole if you like: Template_talk:Film_and_game_ratings#RfC_about_existence_of_Film_and_game_ratings_template. Some editors really like lists and tables, but that doesn’t make them the best idea if you want to make a better encyclopedia. Some tried to bring back these Ratings tables but they have been advised against it repeatedly. This template was essentially deleted before, but because versions of it still exist for other projects people will occasionally try to use it for Project Film articles.
Again even in the best case scenario these tables are only supposed to supplement not replace the article text but (as the experience of Project TV and Project VG shows) if editors are allowed to use them they will frequently add only the tables instead of tackling the more difficult task of writing a proper Reception section. — 109.76.196.151 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, just like in Prince Jack or The Wrecking Crew (2000 film). Joy040207 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{Table to prose}} I cleaned up both Prince Jack and The Wrecking Crew (2000 film), changing what little information was actually available in those Ratings Tables into sparse prose, a very basic start to a Reception section. I also cleaned up Street Fighter Alpha: The Animation which was erroneously using the Ratings table to misrepresent the Rotten Tomatoes audience score like as if it was the Rotten Tomatoes critic score (audience scores are not allowed per WP:UGC). They serve as pertinent examples to the unintended consequences of encouraging the use of such tables in film articles. Also to reiterate one more time those tables undermine the principle of WP:PROSE.
User Joy040207 seems to have cleaned up some of the other more advanced articles. The problems even in those best case scenarios still being the above previously mentioned selection bias and redundancy. There are a few lingering articles using the Ratings table but I hope that helps settle things, at least for the time being. — 109.76.199.82 (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just started a discussion at Talk:Impact events in fiction and it would be useful for editors with thoughts on inclusion criteria for articles like “X in fiction” to contribute to that discussion. If you have thoughts, please come bring them — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can someone please take a look and provide a suggestion/solution in this discussion? Thanks in advance, —Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (2005 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Wrong Paris#Starring cast. Editors are need to weigh in on this discussion. Is it appropriate to add a cast member to the starring cast if the cast member is not even listed on the billing block poster nor even credited alongside the starring cast? — YoungForever(talk) 13:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#RFC: Naming conventions for franchise character lists has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — I’m crossposting this from the AI Cleanup WikiProject.

I just went through and tagged hundreds of edits by Thefallguy2025 as AI generated, primarily regarding movies. This is based on several tells that built up throughout aforementioned hundreds of edits — most obviously, some of the edits contain ChatGPT parameters left in, but there are also text rewrites that have LLM indicators, as well as some AI-esque edit summaries. These appear to be done with the newcomer tasks feature; it’s unclear how much review was done but they were really being pumped out.

There are hundreds of these and I don’t really have deep familiarity with the subject area, so I wanted to flag it here for those who do. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#List of individual recipients of film awards. The discussion concerns Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding flag icons in lists of award recipients, such as “Silver Bear for Best Director“. You are invited to join. Gabbe (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the reliability of World of Reel on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you’re interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § World of Reel. Οἶδα (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:

  • A: List of Cars characters
  • B: List of Cars (franchise) characters
  • C: List of characters in the Cars franchise

Should any of these be adopted as a standard naming convention rather than the other two? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For TV, we have an established guideline at WP:NCTV##List articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So B or A depending on the need to disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at that link and it seems to like A as accepted, discourages B, and makes no mention of C (nor the context which requires it). Am I missing something? Tduk (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It does not discourage “B”. “B” should be used if the title needs to be disambiguated. See the 4th example. And not mentioning C means that it isn’t supported. The guideline shows what to use, not a list of what not to use. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants some examples here they are:
The formats seem to be used interchangeably. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B for consistency.★Trekker (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C Seems the most organic and descriptive. Option A is imprecise, while Option B looks like malformed disambiguation. Whichever one is chosen, the title e.g. Cars needs to be italicised. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t know that this necessarily needs to be consistent across articles, but option C feels the most natural to me. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should depend on the topic, especially because these terms are not likely to be real-world search terms. For Cars specifically, List of Cars characters suffices because there is no other list of characters in some other topic called Cars possible. So that would be both as natural and as concise as possible (especially with “Cars” being in italics). Thinking on it more, I think Option A may be better more generally unless there are two distinct branches of the same core topic.
Like let’s say we have Foo book that is loosely adapted into a TV show to mean different enough characterizations, and that each of them have their own articles with their own “Characters” sections. If one of the sections is big enough to get split off, do we really need to specify in the list article title if it is from the book or TV show, if it’s the only standalone list and not one actively searched out for (as lists of characters are not typically directly searched for)? The list article could have a hatnote linking to the other scope’s section. If both sections have enough substance to have their own list of characters, then some form of Option C (“in the Foo book” vs. “in the Foo TV series”) would be appropriate to disambiguate them from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a couple of possible alternative interpretations for “List of Cars characters”; it could just refer to the first film, or it could be taken to refer to any anthropomorphic cars. You can always redirect List of Cars characters to List of characters in the Cars franchise, but at least with the latter you have a fully descriptive title. Either way, I think it would useful to have some uniformity in the titles for these types of articles where we can. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point about just the first film vs. the franchise in general. Still, I think these terms are not typically directly searched for, so if there are not competing lists of characters from scopes of the same name, I don’t think we have to get so granular. Whichever scope a list is split off from, readers are far more likely to get to it through the main article. Looking at MOS:LIST § List naming, it says, “Additionally, an overly precise list title can be less useful and can make the list difficult to find; the precise inclusion criteria for the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title.” To me, that means we don’t need to get so detailed with the list article title. So I think Option C is better only for competing lists. (As a side note, I don’t favor Option B, as it looks clunky, when Option C is cleaner.)
Not sure if this reframing helps us think this through, but if we had just one standalone “Analysis” sub-article coming from either the novel or the film The Shining, would we want “Analysis of The Shining” or “Analysis of the novel/film The Shining”? Or same with “Production of” for an older film or its remake, what would we want? I suppose my general feeling is that we don’t really have to carry over the disambiguation to the split if we don’t have to. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Erik’s thoughts, this should be determined on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration whether additional disambiguation is necessary. – adamstom97 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Seems the most sensible and logical.Halbared (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Option A, B if needed. As it was already stated there is a system for naming list articles for Television that already follows this format, keeping it similar would follow WP:CONSISTENT. Also using option A will follow WP:PRECISION best. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 22:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Cars, I would go with option A, as the article’s scope encompasses all topics called Cars that could conceivably have characters (namely the film and the broader franchise). If further disambiguation were required, I think I would lean towards option C as more natural. Graham11 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B or C (include “franchise”) – To avoid ambiguity, titles should explicitly indicate that it’s a franchise. For example, a list for the Alien franchise titled “List of Alien characters” could be misread as “a list of alien (extraterrestrial) characters,” not “characters from Alien.” Per WP:PRECISION and WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, including “franchise” makes the topic clear without extra context. Between the two, I slightly prefer B (“List of X (franchise) characters”) for concision and consistency with parenthetical disambiguation, but C (“List of characters in the X franchise”) is also fine. spintheer (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A unless there is an unrelated major work of the same title with characters that would not be on the list of characters page. For example, every character in the film The Lion King should be in List of The Lion King (franchise) characters, so that article should just be called List of The Lion King characters. Anybody that wants to see characters in the movie will want the franchise character list, and the franchise characters page is inherently also a film characters page, so there is no benefit for disambiguation. The only instance in which I could see any benefit to a disambiguator is if there is an unrelated major media of the same name in which someone could expect a character list, in which case I would probably prefer option C. However, I cannot think of a single example in which that would be the case. Ladtrack (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Listing the uncredited roles in various film articles’ cast section have sprung back and forth on some articles, such as on Who Framed Roger Rabbit (a GA), where a relevant discussion took place back in 2018. Back to the Future (an FA) has Huey Lewis listed in the cast section, but in the production section, it said “Lewis agreed to appear as long as he was uncredited and could wear a disguise”.

Since we don’t need to have an exhaustive list of every actor (which is a violation of WP:NOTINFO), uncredited or otherwise, should we consider listing these roles in the cast section or in the production section, as long as they are sourced and notable? Of course, we can also discuss it on WT:MOSFILM as needed. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 11:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any issue with mentioning them alongside other cast members, provided it is clear they are uncredited and we don’t imply an artificial billing order. Such an approach works well at The Godfather#Cast. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure this is an issue where broad guidance is a good idea versus per-article consensus. If it’s a single role, I’d say put it in the Cast section as long as it’s properly sourced and noted. If it’s five different roles verified by a single source, a line of prose at the end of the Cast section seems reasonable to me. In any case, I don’t really know why they’d go in the Production section; a Casting section would make more sense to me unless it, again, is just a single sentence or such. DonIago (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cameo roles like Lewis, whos character would not be brought up in the concise plot summary, probably shouldn’t be in the cast list as a bullet point but can be included in the usual prose discussing additional cast. The VA for Jessica Rabbit should be in the list since that’s a named character in the plot.
Taking this approach would help eliminate super long bullet Ed cast lists when only a half dozen or so actors actually had relevance to the plot. Masem (t) 16:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts, exactly. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 05:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title for the article Disaster trilogy is under discussion and seems to be a rather unique matter. See the discussion here: Talk:Disaster trilogy § Move suggestion: title change. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 16:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started a discussion on how we should organize the cast section for Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The discussion can be found at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#Organizing the cast section. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 01:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Requesting some draft article expansion and c/e help in the draft User:Bookku/My Choice (2015 film) article if you find above topic interested in. Bookku (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a movie it falls under relevance of this project for any interested parties. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on what to do with the animation credits in films such as The Lion King. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation#Animator Credits. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 07:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suprisingly, this high-level category was missing (it exists on many other wikis). I created it and populated with few daughter trees, but its missing for most countries and years. Have fun helping, folks 🙂 PS. Yes, I messed up the name due to copypaste the en title from wikidata; it will likely be renamed to Category:Films by country and year shortly.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putin (film) debuted at a festival in 2024, and hit the cinemas in 2025. Pl wiki classifies it as a 2024 film, but en wiki right now lists it under 2025 category. Which is correct? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I’ve seen en Wikipedia can be pretty inconsistent on this topic, but I think 2024 is what is supposed to be used.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FILMLEAD says At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title, the year of its earliest public screening (either general release or at a film festival) so if the screening at the festival a public one, 2024 would be correct. Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I’ll recategorize it to 2024 per source cited (about festival screening in 20024). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently involved in an edit dispute with an IP user over two credits in Sharon Stone‘s filmography; one for which the IP user keeps piping Love in Vegas so that it displays as Любовь в большом городе 3, and one where he repeatedly lists a film in which Sharon Stone did not actually appear on camera, but a VHS cassette box with her picture on the cover was shown. I posted an explanation of the problems to Talk:Sharon Stone filmography in hopes that the user would see it, and after another revert by them I just posted a message to their talk page. But since this is an IP user, I don’t know how to get their attention. Or am I out of line in not wanting those edits? — Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crossworlds#Requested move 22 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like discussing film genres in the first sentence is a common occurrence, and MOS:FILMGENRE‘s sole sentence, “Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources,” does a lot of lifting that may not have full enough context. I feel like we should have either a distinct guideline subsection or perhaps just an essay guide that can quote that guideline and add some guidance. Making points like:

  • Databases list a film’s genres indiscriminately with no indication of which is the most prominent
  • One source saying it’s a horror film and another saying it’s a science fiction film does not make it a science fiction horror film
  • Parts of WP:LEAD can be cited for the first sentence
  • Recommended research (like most common genre across reviews), which I know some editors have done in past discussions to help determine due weight
  • Examples of when a film’s not-primary genres is covered later in the lead section or article body

Thoughts on putting together something like that? Unfortunately for such a small component of an article, there’s fairly repeated discussion about this kind of thing. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m willing to assist with the creation of such a thing, though I’d rather see it as a guideline subsection, since essays are especially non-binding (i.e. anyone can write an essay here). In my experience the vast majority of genre edits are done by presumably well-meaning IP editors who don’t provide supporting sources, which makes them easy enough to revert if they’re perceived as non-improvements. Point two of your own comment above clearly falls afoul of WP:SYNTH. The real difficulty, which in my personal experience is fairly rare, arises when different good sources provide different genre classifications; those scenarios usually end up on the Talk page and can occasionally become a bit heated (e.g. if a source calls a film a “new” noir, is that equivalent to calling it a neo-noir)? DonIago (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair about it being a guideline subsection. Maybe it can go under “Guidelines for related topics” as a kind of expansion of MOS:FILMGENRE.
And yep, I was thinking WP:SYNTH for point two, and it’s not something we cover in our one sentence. Yet I think we highlight that a lot in discussions, hence my wanting to cover it more centrally.
As for legitimate issues, we could probably outline possible resolutions. Like with the part about nationality, to spread out the different genre classifications if possible. And of course, to use dispute resolution (3O, notifying WT:FILM) to expedite the matter.
For what it’s worth, the essay WP:GENREWARRIOR (music-related) exists for some inspiration (though I find the essay title a bit combative). Erik (talk | contrib) 19:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I threw this together with some ChatGPT help: User:Erik/MOS:FILMGENRE. Feel free to edit at will. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the past discussions and a layman’s interpretation of WP:WEIGHT I’d simply say: “try to stick to the primary genre”. Make the guideline succinctly explain the desired result, then point back to older discussions (or an essay if you really want to do the extra work) to help the few editors who feel the need to know more and better understand the how and whys, the underlying intentions of the guideline. — 109.76.199.82 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I’m not sure if you’re responding after seeing my link above? I think “primary genre” is a little vague because there can be subgenres or hybrid genres that will have more WP:WEIGHT. Like a romantic comedy or a black comedy may be more common categories for a film under discussion than just comedy. Let me know if you’ve seen my draft yet. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read your draft before I commented. I’ve seen this before, you are over explaining. You have said many times you object “cookie cutter” standard wording, but simple answers are usually the right answer, even if there are exceptions. Most editors just need to get on with editing the 99%+ of ordinary cases. The unusual edge cases will be decided by WP:DISCUSS and WP:WEIGHT in any case, it wont hurt to be a bit less vague and equivocal in the main guidelines. Set clean clear defaults, Yes/No or Black/White then later leave room for “Other” or shades of “Gray” but the “romantic comedy or a black comedy” in that case the first answer that most editors need is “comedy” then other editors who care more need to take it to the talk page and let everyone else get on with it. I try to follow the guidelines as best I can but frankly most people don’t even read the guidelines, let alone follow them. The kind of editors active enough to read these guidelines have an unusual perspective. I remind you again of MOS:LEADSENTENCE “Do not overload the first sentence” which is the essence of this problem. — 109.79.165.208 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I’m not following, because I feel like we are on the same page in general. I agree that for most films, it will typically be an obvious consensus. I also don’t want to overload the first sentence.
The goal of having a more detailed guideline is something to point to when the edge cases emerge. Like for example, some editors think they can take a film database entry’s genre parameter of three values and roll them up into prose to call it a action/comedy/thriller film. That’s why I involve WP:SYNTH because it’s not currently in the MOS:FILMGENRE guideline, but it’s a valid policy point to apply here. Can you clarify where you think we disagree? Erik (talk | contrib) 12:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t actually disagree, we only differ in emphasis. I think this should be really clear and simple, Less is more, do not overload the first sentence, one singular primary genre whenever possible.
You are trying to address edge cases like “romantic comedy or a black comedy” but I’m saying the exceptions edge cases should be vanishingly rare and guideline should be very clear and as definitive as possible that editors should if in any doubt just say the primary genre ie just comedy (and get on with actually improving the main article). We shouldn’t need to have genre discussions every other week, the guidelines should set out the normal base case default for 99.99% of cases in the strongest possible terms so that discussion are only needed for rare edge cases. Don’t let your good faith efforts to address the edge cases seem like encouragement for genre warriors to make everything into an edge case that needs discussion. The guidelines should not (intentionally or inadvertently) give any encouragement to the genre warriors who are happy to have any excuse to bloviate about minutiae on the article talk. We’re talking about the very first sentence of an article, it does not need to be this complicated. — 109.79.69.113 (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If AFI or BBFC have already classified a film into a simple primary genre that should really be more than enough for the first sentence. Other subgenres could be discussed elsewhere (Production/Writing, or Critical response) just not in the first sentence, and preferably not in the lead section. — 109.79.69.113 (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree that detailing this guideline means that there will be more discussions than necessary about what the genre should be. Most articles will continue to be the same. Like you said, most people don’t even read the guidelines. The edge cases that do pop up are typically between two editors. Maybe neither know the guideline, maybe one does but the other doesn’t care. Inevitably when third or fourth editors get involved, and the guideline cited, there is additional context to point to, beyond the one sentence we have. Maybe it convinces the dissenting editor, maybe it doesn’t. I don’t see the additional context meaning that genre warriors will try to game the system through tendentious editing. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need stricter and clearer guidance on this. I am constantly seeing lead sentences describing films as epic black comedy action thrillers based on either 1) some random editor’s analysis or 2) six different sources describing it as sixteen different genres.
We have WP:FILMLEAD, which says At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title, the year of its earliest public screening (either general release or at a film festival), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. but doesn’t suggest any cap on the number of “primary genre or sub-genres” we should list.
I would strongly support finding a solution that guides editors towards finding one main genre and sticking to that. Popcornfud (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from the video games project where the same issue exists, I would strongly agree that the lede sentence should be exactly one genre (which may include a hybrid one like romantic comedy) but any other genre aspects should be discussed later in the lede, statements like “incorporating elements of..” other genres. Masem (t) 21:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My subversive side still likes the idea of including zero genres in the first sentence of the lead and encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions based on the rest of the article, especially since we all know that on a practical level almost all films include elements from multiple genres. I question whether we’re really doing our readers a service by trying to pigeonhole films in this manner.
As I doubt a consensus would emerge in favor of that though, I could be persuaded to agree to one genre only (or a hybrid as noted above), but I also agree with Popcorn that it would be nice if we could provide more clear guidance on what sources are preferred for this to deter arguments where source A describes a film as a Mystery and source B describes it as a Thriller, or such. On some occasions I’ve cited AllMovie (which I’ll acknowledge isn’t currently considered ideal) or AFI or BFI, which seems to have helped in some cases, but short of hashing through it on the Talk page (and maybe that is the optimal solution), I don’t feel as though there’s a clear path forward if someone wants to use a NYT review or such to change the genre classification. DonIago (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
…I killed the chat? :p DonIago (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah! Sometimes such discussions peter out. I’m curious, why do you say, “I could be persuaded to agree to one genre only (or a hybrid as noted above)”? Do you not think MOS:FILMGENRE indicates that already? To me, it’s very unlikely for anything more convoluted to even repeat across reliable sources. As for sourcing, to me, a set of reviews makes more sense than anything else. We know these are directly assessing the film, where it’s possible that database entries may have been done in advance and be based on marketing. Overall, though, I don’t think genre disputes happen that often. Just that it would be nice to tackle these occasional disputes with gusto. Not sure if you had any thoughts on my sandbox draft at User:Erik/MOS:FILMGENRE? Can add source-collection steps to that. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad; based on practical experience a single genre in the lead often seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I should pay more attention to that when I’m working on film articles.
I’m open to encouraging a set of reviews, perhaps with AFI/BFI recommended as a starting point but not the ideal?
I see genres being updated all the time, though I’ll agree that it’s in a minority of cases that it escalates to a good-faith Talk page discussion.
Ah, sorry again, I must have missed that link earlier! I’ll take a look soon! DonIago (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect example: The Cable Guy is a 1996 American satirical black comedy psychological thriller film. Popcornfud (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Erik (talk | contrib) 21:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am closely connected to the film LA Jesus (2024) and therefore cannot create the article directly.
I am requesting help from volunteer editors to create either Draft:LA Jesus or an article in mainspace.
The film has coverage in reliable sources, festival awards, and published reviews.

Here is a working draft written in encyclopedic style:

References for LA Jesus (film)

[edit]

Thank you for your help. 184.146.35.91 (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article American Film Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and for Notability for 6 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references to this article to prevent its scheduled deletion. Will be working on the article to improve it, encourage others to do so, too. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this in the project archives for older opinions.

The category list: Category:English-language_films_by_decade lists all English-language films by decade, and this also includes films from as early as the 1890s, the silent film era.

Is it valid to consider these films as ‘English-language’ given their silent nature?

The outcome of this discussion will also affect the decision on regional film lists like List of Marathi films. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Traffic 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) 23:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a discussion regarding the box office figures in the lead section and the infobox on the Gladiator (2000 film) article over at Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)#Box office. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 23:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On certain articles such as Batman & Robin (film), the total box office gross in the lead and infobox is rounded off to the nearest million (in this case, it’s $238 million) while the decimals in the box office section list it as $238.3 million and the article didn’t list the decimals in the lead nor infobox. That said, is it necessary to use decimals for the box office figures in general? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 12:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably say you should use 3 significant figures (meaning, if its over $100, round to the millions, if its from $10M to $100M, round to the 100,000’s, etc.) unless the reporting source gives less than that. Masem (t) 12:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a reasonable level of precision to me too. I would add that box office figures should generally be rounded down/truncated, not rounded up. For instance: Top Gun: Maverick grossed $1,495,696,292, which would naïvely round to $1.50 billion. However, saying “Top Gun: Maverick grossed $1.50 billion” is inappropriate, because that’s a milestone the movie never crossed (in other words, the answer to “When did it reach $1.50 billion?” is by any reasonable interpretation “Never.”). TompaDompa (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kantara: Chapter 2#Requested move 7 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kantara: Chapter 1#Requested move 8 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that a user has now added additional years to the list of box office number ones in the US going back to 1934 (and they suggest that they are going to go back to 1923!). Despite adding links to the online versions of Variety for the time period they don’t seem to have shown where they are getting their data from. I looked at some of the data for List of 1947 box office number-one films in the United States to Variety‘s National boxoffice surveys and the two months I looked at were completely made up and suspect the data for the other articles are equally dubious. I fixed the data for the months I checked but do not have time to review 13 years worth of data so would appreciate if others could review and fix/delete the not clearly sourced data. Sudiani (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they have added them for old years for the UK too which look poorly sourced and likely made up too 🙁 Sudiani (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago a whole bunch of lists of number one films in the US were found to be fraudulent and removed en masse. I guess it’s just possible that the same editor has returned to recreate them? I don’t have access to the Variety data, but if we can demonstrate that at least a few of the lists contain errors, I think it would be reasonable to delete all of them again.
With regards to the UK lists, the main source appears to be a 1995 book. An Amazon review says: “It features a short descripiton of every single charttopper in the period (the years before the Box Office Charts existed are a ‘highly researched best guess’ at what may have been the biggest hits“.[8] I don’t know when the box office charts first appeared, but it certainly appears that the book is unreliable for every year covered. Barry Wom (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the book title used in the article is not the same as the Guinness book that Phil Swern published that is accessible via the Internet Archive, I assume that they are the same book. If it is, then the first charts that the book reports started in 1969. The Guinness version of the book only lists the most popular films prior to that, not weekly chart toppers and therefore any claim to weekly box office number one films prior to 1969 based on that book is likely dubious. For the US charts, there possibly is data that can be calculated from Variety‘s publication of grosses to show what were the highest grossing films in those earlier years but currently the articles don’t show any detailed citations. Sudiani (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shiva (1989 Telugu film)#Requested move 16 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aakreit is a film directed by Amol Palekar in 1981, infact it is his first directorial film. I want to request someone experienced to create an article on the same. Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tree of Category:Bangladeshi films by decade is almost empty. Would someone be willing to populate it? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a longtime member of this WikiProject I hereby notify you that a discussion is taking place on whether to give Diane Keaton a blurb on Wikipedia’s In the News section, appearing on our Front Page. Your opinions are welcome! Jusdafax (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: Thanks for the notice. I believe you mean at WP:In the news/Candidates, specifically Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD/Blurb:_Diane_Keaton. Will comment there. —David Tornheim (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version