Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:22, 19 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

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

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Israeli 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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

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

Help with Review for "The Misguided" Draft

Hello,

I'm seeking assistance with the review process for the draft article "Draft:The Misguided". I initially submitted the draft for review on December 3rd. On December 12th, I followed up on my request and added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score to further demonstrate the film's notability. I believe the draft is well-sourced, comprehensive, and meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion.

Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous), but the situation remains unresolved.

Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this draft reviewed and moved to mainspace? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the hurry here? (and here ?) Axad12 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that a draft will be reviewed or processed within a certain specific timeframe. You're not guaranteed a one-week or two-week response time at all — drafts get approved or rejected when an AFC reviewer gets around to them, and you're simply not entitled to demand that your draft receive more prompt attention than everybody else's drafts. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, see the currently-blocked user's talk page. There has been a lot going on with their contributions. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The user was indef blocked following this ANI thread . The user was an obvious promotional WP:SPA and I'd suggest that readers not be drawn in to forwarding their agenda. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Submission to the Academy Awards

Hi, a quick question...

If a film is a submission to the Academy Awards (or any other awards) does this imply any significance, or is submitting a film just something that any minor film-maker can do with any minor film? Clarification on this point would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Which categorie(s)? Nardog (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Short documentary. Axad12 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If it helps at all, it would seem that 104 films were submitted in the year in question, so I'm assuming that this is not particularly exclusive company. Axad12 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, that is 104 films in that single category. Axad12 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is pretty exclusive if you consider how many short documentaries there are in the world. A submission itself may not be significant, but the meeting of the criteria for it to be eligible may be, like winning an award at a festival. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading the link correctly, a film would only need to complete a commercial showing of at least 7 days in either Los Angeles County, California or anywhere in New York City before being released to other non-theatrical venues such as DVD or TV. Winning an award does not appear to be necessary. So, being a submission doesn't seem to me to infer any particular significance.

The broader issue here is the rather promotional article about director Alexander Tuschinski, authored 90% by the accounts of the subject and his publicist (whose activities can be seen here ).

In trying to establish how much of the article needs to be culled it would be useful to have some input on the significance of the awards listed in this part of the article . A good number of the awards have articles on Misplaced Pages, but note that in many cases that is because Tuschinski's publicist created the relevant articles. Axad12 (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was necessary. I just pointed out what made the submission possible, rather than the submission by itself, may be significant, depending on which criteria were fulfilled. Nardog (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would depend on the category. International Film, for example, is a category where each country has to have a committee select just one film from its entire cinematic output in that year to submit to the category — so that selection would indeed represent a distinction in and of itself even if the film doesn't ultimately land in the final five nominees. For most other categories, however, being submitted for Oscar consideration wouldn't be a notability claim in and of itself, although a film that gets submitted may very well have other reasonable notability claims — for example, some categories (I believe short documentary is one of these) essentially extend automatic consideration to films that win certain specific awards at certain specific qualifying film festivals, so the film festival award already constitutes a meaningful notability claim as it is.

Ultimately, however, the clincher is how well the film can or can't be reliably sourced. If the film can be shown to pass WP:GNG on its coverage, then it wouldn't matter whether we considered submission to be a notability claim or not because the film had already passed GNG as it is — and if it can't be shown to pass GNG on its coverage, then simple submission to a preliminary awards consideration pool probably wouldn't be enough in and of itself to exempt it from GNG. Remember that awards are one alternative among several notability paths, not a necessary condition that every film always has to have — films that have no award claims at all can still pass other criteria anyway, so the presence or absence of awards isn't the be-all and end-all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Moviefone reliablitly

I searched RSN and the archives here but no real guidance, so I was wondering if Moviefone is reliable to use as an inline source? I'm leaning towards no given it looks like a database a la IMDb, but wanted to see if any other editors have come across this or its use on articles. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Moviefone, it may have had a reliable publisher in the past, but I'm not sure about now. It may also depend on what part of the website is being used. Are we talking about the "News" section, or the reviews it has, or something else? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be the "full cast and crew" tab/page for a film. The specific example I've come across it was trying to source new writer credits and an actor appearing for Captain America: Brave New World and its Moviefone page here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I see at the bottom of the Moviefone page, "This product uses the TMDb API but is not endorsed or certified by TMDb." Maybe these details came from there? It looks like TMDb is "a user-editable database". (Wow, I tried to link to TMDb, but it's apparently blacklisted... that may indicate something...) Erik (talk | contrib) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The poster here seems to confirm the writing credits? See the left and right of the bottom line of the billing block. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, other active editors at that article are aware of the billing block (that's what's stemmed this issue at that page), but no third party reliable sources have reported on these adjustments, so we have been cautious proceeding adding the information in and not sourcing it in the body of the article. Another editor found the Moviefone page so that's how we ended up here checking its reliability. But per your first comment about its connections with TMDb, seems unreliable as a user database. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the billing block is in question? It's like referencing the official website for basic crediting information. We can use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, per WP:PRIMARY. I'm not sure if it's possible for the billing block to become outdated or wrong (other than the cases of where others are unofficially deserving of certain credits). Erik (talk | contrib) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The billing block isn't being questioned, just the act of how to source it in the article's when no third-party source exists covering this information. We seem to have determined Moviefone is not reliable per my original comment. If we want to have further discussion on sourcing approaches, we can continue this discussion at Talk:Captain America: Brave New World#Poster billing block. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Sneider

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

Wings (1927 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) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The Demon (1979 film)

There's a problem at The Demon (1979 film) which needs some attention, as there's been past edit-warring over whether it's a 1979 film or a 1981 film. IMDB says 1981, but that's based on the film's American release, while there are claims that it premiered in South Africa (its home country) in 1979 — and because of the edit-warring, the page is now in the problematic state of being titled as a 1979 film, while being categorized and infoboxed as a 1981 film, which is a situation that can't stay as is: either the text needs to be revised to 1979, or the page needs to be moved to 1981, so that the title and the text aren't in conflict.

As I don't have access to archived South African media coverage from the 1970s and 1980s, however, I can't verify whether the claim of a 1979 release is accurate or not, but the article's title and text absolutely can't stay in conflict with each other. Can somebody with more knowledge about South African film take a look at this, and either revise the article's text or move the title to 1981 depending on what you're able to find? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been eight days since I posted this and no action of any sort has been taken to resolve the issue, but the article really can't just stay templated and categorized as a different year than its title. This really needs to be resolved one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Utah Misplaced Pages Day at Sundance Film Festival

 Please see the Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Utah/Wikipedia Day 2025 page.  Peaceray (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of List of economics films for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of economics films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Erik (talk | contrib) 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of economics film as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been relisted to get more input. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Starring parameter

There is an edit and a discussion about the guideline for the film infobox's "Starring" parameter here: Template talk:Infobox film § Starring 2025. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Needed articles: detective film, police film

Not sure if we need both, but several wikis have separate article on them. We have neither. See Talk:Crime_fiction#Is_police_film_different_from_detective_film? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Sharksploitation

There is a discussion about the appropriateness of a list section of sharksploitation films at sharksploitation. Editors are invited to comment: Talk:Sharksploitation § Removal of inappropriate content. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 12:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion on scope of WikiProject

I'm part of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Israeli cinema task force and we are looking for feedback on if foreign films produced by Israelis should be included or not. See this discussion. LDW5432 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Plot summary discussion on Pokémon Heroes

There's a discussion about the length of the plot summary for Pokémon Heroes (which was recently made a GA) here: Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Plot summary length. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Valnet, Collider, and MovieWeb

I feel it has come time to (re?)discuss the reliability of sources such as MovieWeb and Collider. I bring them up together, as they create similar content and owned by Valnet with Collider being purchased in 2020 and MovieWeb (since 2021). As the topic has not been addressed before by in great detail by WP:FILM, I've looked at the other WikiProjects, such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games (WP:VG) for example, as they went as far to apply their own WP:VALNET regulation to try and find alternative sources, use it as a source sparingly, or to not use the source at all.

As other WikiProjects such as discussed other ValNet owned sources such as Comic Book Resources, (here by here at WP:VG and WikiProject: Anime & Manga (WP:A&M), consensus was found to stop using the site entirely among its editors. Similarly, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources also has its own rule for Screen Rant in 2021 declaring it only "marginally reliable"(here) Similarly, WP:A&M lists it as "Screen Rant is generally reliable for attributed opinions and columns. However, it should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons or for news made based on leaks or references to unreliable sources." (archived discussion here)

On to the topic: Collider and MovieWeb

• ValNet mission statement on their site is "prioritize the authenticity and reliability of our content, achieved through meticulous research and thorough revisions conducted by our diverse team of journalists, researchers, editors and specialists." and Collider themselves stating "Collider chooses its reviewers based on talent, experience, and expertise. Our core of critics represents the best editors and writers from the Collider team and several freelance reviewers chosen for their skill and expertise. We assign films or series to a reviewer with deep knowledge of and experience covering the relevant genre, director, or franchise whenever possible." I have found many articles citing highly questionable sources for their material, misleading statements, unattributed quotes, and reviews, or overviews with little insight, direct referencing, or commentary you couldn't find from any mainstream newspaper or film magazine Empire. see this Interstellar article, posted just 5 days ago, which makes bold declarative statements with little depth or meat on its bone to back it up.]. Valnet owned companies, as stated by at WP:VALNET, state their websites tend to write "churnalism, articles that are strictly character plot synopses, and regurgitation of statements from social media outlets such as Reddit". I've gathered material that shares these with both MovieWeb and Collider.

• Collider editors share content from user-generated sources, such as Reddit, IMDb, and LetterBoxd. For easier navigation, I have hidden them under banners.

While I think any seasoned WP:FILM regular editor would apply WP:RS/IMDb than cite sources that are blatantly pulling content from these sources, the article on Seven (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's The 35 Best Thriller Movies of All Time, Ranked According to IMDb article. An article that touts "The highest-rated thriller movies on the site are almost always award-winning classics that represent the best that the genre has to offer." To clarify the complicated nature of this statement, IMDb's Keith Simanton managing editors states "Our Top 250, as voted by users, is just that, a list of the Top 250 films as voted on by our users. It's not a classic (ah, there’s a subjective term!) list by any measure, nor is it a critic's list. We leave that to the professionals." source Compare the article to something like Bright Lights Film journals analysis on the IMDb charts for a general comparison of depth of research on such topics.

• While the mission statement on ValNet is to provide "authenticity and reliability of our content, achieved through meticulous research" The ValNet sites feature more than a few which showcase either self-contradiction, or apply very low-quality research. Along with the endless lists above citing user-driven sites, i've found the following.

• Collider: "here "John Carpenter's Halloween in 1978, director Sean S. Cunningham decided to blatantly rip it off with his own slasher movie... 1980's Friday the 13th.]" cited to a fan-made YouTube video.
• Collider "Coppola had a fondness for the book Dracula dating back to childhood." is also sourced to a fanmade youtube video.
• MovieWeb "How Mario Bava Paved the Way for Generations of Horror Auteurs cites a TriPod fanpage as part of the directors biography.

As WP:VALNET has called their sites "Content Farms", the majority of Movie Web and Collider is simply regurgitating others sources, peppered with plot synopsis's and little if any critical commentary. Even just by looking at one recent film, in this case I've glanced at Nosferatu (2024), most articles either re-posted material from other sites, or worse, attributed quotes the real-life people stating the origin. While it does not showcase the sites being wrong, per WP:NEWSORG, it would be better to cite the actual source in question. Among the two original sources on Nosferatu from the site for news, they were interviews from collider: here and here.

Both sites either misattribute their research, contradict themselves within their own articles, or post misleading content.

That said, reliable sources have cited both Collider and MovieWeb as a source on occasion.

While there was no serious consensus from WP:FILM on the reliability of the sites, I have tagged prominent editors, and pinged them on their previous statements. The 6 Responses on WP:FILM That Took Me by Surprise From Editors You Should Really Know Right Now:

• Original discussion here
• @MikeAllen: has previously said he would only use the site for interviews.
• @Darkwarriorblake: followed that the interviews on the site are most of the original content they have, a lot of the film news is linked to a source like The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline.
• @Erik: has brought up that The Guardian was had doubts on Collider reporting as a reliable source here where they say "If a report in Collider is to be believed..."
• @BarntToust: points out other content such as interviews and cover of popular films citing these articles: .
• @Gerald Waldo Luis: highlighted the extensive fact-check policy. ethics-policy and corrections-policy.
• @Betty Logan: has suggested that Collider appears to take user-submitted content, this was shown to be incorrect by Darkwarriorblake.}}

That's an essay, but I wanted to be thorough to get across the vastness of issues in one swoop. Generally speaking, most discussion on the site does appear to be from content that one could find written about better from more mainstream film news sources (film journalists and critics, general newspapers, etc.), countless books and authors discussing film, and particularly genre work, film academia, or even more fan-oriented publications like Empire, Fangoria or Total Film. As the material from these sites was previously more glacially paced, both sites content before the ValNet buy out is probably permittable (look at the amount and how the articles were written before these buyouts, you'll spot the difference immediately). I feel that with the suggestions from other editors above, and how more mainstream publications treat the sites, we should probably only use them for interviews where its very clear on how the interview is taken. I look forward to thoughts and apologize for my jokey last header ahead of time ;). Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Collider, MovieWeb, Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, etc. are all in a similar boat: still good to use for direct interviews and I think there is merit in their reviews/opinion pieces/analysis articles if written well, but more and more they are just churning out crap that we need to wade through to get to the good stuff. I think the important thing is making sure editors are not just using any article from one of these websites, they need to be looking at what style of article it is, where the information is coming from (WP:FRUIT), whether there is a better source available to cover the same information, and so on. I just opened Collider's website and found 8 different articles on the front feed, all posted in the last few hours, that are just inane lists meant to fill space / get clicks (i.e. "10 Superhero Movie Flops Everyone Saw Coming", "14 of the Longest Movies of the Past Decade, Ranked by Runtime") but they also have genuine reviews of upcoming shows from long-time critics and they regularly have great direct interviews with cast and crew for different projects. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

DWB Commment I think some context is required here re "Seven (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's The 35 Best Thriller Movies of All Time, Ranked According to IMDb". It is not used to cite that Seven is one of the best thrillers, it's used to help cite "Pitt's line "What's in the box?" as he asks Somerset to confirm the contents of Doe's box, has become iconic, and is used in popular culture and internet memes" which is commentary by Collider itself.

DWB Comment Additionally, there needs to be clarity about timeframe. Sites like Collider, Screen Rant, and other Valnet sites WERE reliable (typically pre Valnet) and I would oppose any kind of retroactive discounting. That said, the modern versions of these sites, like most media sites, has become very clickbaity and the front page at the minute is filled with "10 best" or "10 worst" and it is getting harder to discern quality content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

DWB Comment This is a similar situation with Forbes, which was reliable, particularly articles by the senior contributor whose name escapes me, but is now considered generally unreliable. Corporations have destroyed the media basically. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

WDB comment It breaks my heart to ask this but are any media not victim to this these days? I swear I've seen so many garbage articles from People recently that I seriously wonder if they're AI written. This seems like a bigger issue that all of Misplaced Pages has to contend with eventually. Almost all of our old reliable sources are garbage now.★Trekker (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've said before (many times) that Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Misplaced Pages 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. Comic Book Resources is similar, and the others appear to be so as well. Overall, it should only rarely be necessary to use these sources in the limited cases where they are usable since there should be higher-quality sources that can be used instead. TompaDompa (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who took time to comment. Looking through your comments, these are the main points I'm receiving from all of you.

• @Adamstom.97:: acceptable to use for direct interviews, has merit in their reviews/opinion pieces/analysis articles if written well.
• @Darkwarriorblake: Reliable prior to their ValNet purchase.
• @StarTrekker: No particular comment, but I believe you are suggesting more sites should be evaluated. While I do not disagree per se, the main discussion is this group its come up on this site and others before.
• @TompaDompa: should only rarely be necessary to use these sources in the limited cases, as higher sources can easily be found.

My general impression of this is basically a mixture of all of the above. Prior to the ValNet purchase, the site is probably acceptable, but still often just re-posted news from Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc. for news. Generally, both sites have become listicle content farms. As stated in my overview, the sites are still used as a source by reliable sources like Variety, etc., but this seems to only be in the cases when they have exclusive interviews with actors/directors, etc. So my position would honestly to only use their post-ValNet content for interviews. For most films they review have, there are countless sources we can find online that could fill in the gap between them. Banking on using ones that are "well written", potentially could be okay, but as this site regularly churns out lists, and other content, I can't clarify who is, or who is not decent on their site and trying to base it on if their content is half-well written, feels like a vague rule that is hard to apply and will differ among editors if an article on the site is well-written or not. For now, my proposal is to stop using it as a regular go-to site outside of interviews. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

Metal Sonic and Amy Rose appear in the film's mid-credits scene, but are never named or credited since they are silent cameos. TheJoebro64 forcibly includes their names into the plot, rather than through footnotes as I believe should be the norm. Please see this edit, accusing me of "fanboyish hypercorrectness". In fact, in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, the popular comics character Clea appears unnamed in the narrative, but is named in the credits, yet the plot section names her in a footnote. That's the example I'm following here. Joe's claim that "All sources verify that it's Amy and Metal Sonic" is incorrect, since the only source "verifying" is this third-party source. It traces back to this link (not used), where the screenwriters don't mention her name, only that they have plans for her in Sonic 4. Metal Sonic isn't mentioned by them at all, only the article writer. Is Joe correct to name characters in the plot when they aren't named onscreen or in the credits? I believe not. Will he agree he is wrong? I believe not. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Since they aren't named in the film, using their names in the plot summary requires reliable sources. There is no requirement when it comes to the formatting, though I personally prefer to use footnotes for these things as it makes it clear where the information is coming from. Using a footnote allows you to explain that the characters were not named in the film but were confirmed by X. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:FILMPLOT covers this -- if the film is not defining them, knowledge about Metal Sonic and Amy Rose would be "specialized knowledge". Not all readers are Sonic fans. There definitely needs to be secondary sourcing in some form. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO the version that Kailash29792 proposes doesn't help anything. It still identifies the characters, but makes that info harder to find by burying it in footnotes, and doesn't add any source — so it's the worst of all worlds.

If we're going to identify the characters, let's keep the prose simple and add a reliable secondary source (the DigitalSpy source looks fine to me). Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Its certainly become complicated for us that popular blockbuster films that post-credit scenes introduce unnamed characters to what I presume, is to create discussion and hype about a series or franchise. WP:AUDIENCE does state "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." while WP:FILMPLOT, part our manual of style, says "The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, " In this case, from my statement above, it is highly like an audience who might not be familiar with the series, see this, and would come to the article wanting to know who these unnamed characters are, as I have done with many a Marvel/DC film. and may come to Misplaced Pages to try and find out. The Digital Spy article does identify "Metal Sonic" and "Amy Rose". I haven't seen the film, do they have any speaking roles? I don't think they would be required to be listed in the credits for any legality reasons. As for Joe's comments about it being Easter Egg like, I respect this editor, but I will agree with you, Easteregg is about misleading links, like me saying two cows or "the farmer bought two cows." with links leading to unexpected articles based on the title. While I wouldn't go overboard on footnotes, I don't think it would confuse the average reader, as most well cited articles will have citations that use footnotes all the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that if we don't name the characters in the prose but still link to Misplaced Pages articles about them then we're still effectively naming them. It's a non-solution. Popcornfud (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

My view of this is pretty simple: naming a character in a plot summary should not matter if the character is not named in the film's dialogue as long as it can be verified in a reliable source. Reliable sources are in unanimous agreement that it's Amy and Metal Sonic. (.) Shoving the information into footnotes is counterintuitive; the reader has to open the note to learn who the character is—in essence creating the exact same problem as WP:EASTEREGG.

tl;dr, let's adhere to the KISS principle. JOEBRO 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I too prefer "keeping it simple, stupid", but the plot section must never contain info not explicitly revealed in the narrative; it must strictly stay in-universe. Adding footnotes helps clarify the ambiguity like an asterisk. That's why the plot of Captain America: The First Avenger doesn't state that Bucky cheated death. We don't even include obvious ones such as Doomsday in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice since he was just called "your doomsday". These ambiguities are easily clarified by footnotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not true that it must strictly stay in-universe. MOS:PLOT explains about leveraging out-of-universe context. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Would an acceptable compromise be adding the word "presumably" before Amy Rose, etc.? That would reflect that both A) RSes think it's Amy Rose, but B) The film doesn't name her and dumber stuff has happened before in weird retcons from film-to-film. The "presumably" can probably be dropped in a year or two after information on a sequel comes out and we find out if it was confirmed or not. SnowFire (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That injects our own guesswork/fuzzy interpretation into the plot, which would be inappropriate MOS:PLOT. Popcornfud (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The simplest thing would be to simply leave them unnamed in the plot but named in footnotes. Not to copy the MCU, but stick to guidelines and WP:CRYSTAL. Whether they end up calling them "Rosy the Rascal" or "Mecha Sonic", I'm least bothered. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

No it doesn't? This is the film being fuzzy, not Misplaced Pages editors, unless I'm missing something. Reflecting uncertainty in a work itself on Misplaced Pages is fine. SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't. If we're certain of something, then we should say it directly. If we're not certain of it, the we should avoid saying it at all rather than injecting our own interpretation using weaselly words like "presumably". Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". Popcornfud (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

As has been stated several times already, this isn't "our interpretation", this is based on the sources gathered above. Which you seem to agree with above? I do not understand your objection here - that we're not sufficiently credulous of the source? Putting aside film articles for a moment, it is exceptionally common for High Academia topics to have something like "According to Professor so-and-so, this is what happened" even when the source actually just says "This happened and it's totally confirmed and everyone who disagrees is in error." There's no need for in-text attribution here, but "presumably" hints that we're relying on a source's claim rather than 100% confirmation. That's just normal, good editing.

More generally, if it's just that you prefer to state things "simply", this won't be a great fit for, say, David Lynch films or the like where uncertainty about what is "really" going on is a core part of the film and not something Misplaced Pages editors invent. Even if we set aside this case for a moment, there absolutely needs to be a way to express "the film hints at this but doesn't confirm it" in a plot section, because, well, that's what some films do. (Think original Blade Runner's ending before the sequel came out and confirmed things.) SnowFire (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Imagine we're writing an article about a bank executive called John Smith. The source reports that John Smith has quit the bank, but doesn't say why. In our article, we wouldn't write something like: "Smith quit the bank in January 2024, presumably because he no longer enjoyed working there." We would only write: "Smith quit in the bank in January 2024."

The same is true for plot summaries. We report the unambiguous events of the plot, and leave the speculation out of it. Popcornfud (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I could have sworn I replied to this but don't see it, so must not have hit save. This conversation is reaching the point of diminishing returns, but apparently I misread you before because it sounded above like you were supporting using the reliable source. For the record, at risk of pointing out what I thought was obvious, but we absolutely would write "presumably because he no longer enjoyed working there" if the citation at the end of the sentence said this. Which we have in this case. It is, again, completely and utterly uncontroversial to sometimes in-line cite things like "According to , blah blah blah" for stuff we are not confident saying in wikivoice. Clearly some editors above are not entirely confident in saying in wikivoice the identity of these characters, so I was offering a suggested shorthand for "according to source" that wouldn't read ridiculously in a plot summary. SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this issue one way or another. If it's really such a huge deal, we can wait until further information is out and then edit the summary later once further information about the next film is released.

However, I would prefer going in favor of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE in this regard. Reliable sources say Amy Rose and Metal Sonic; so I see no reason why we too should not follow this precedent. If it turns out that these characters are somehow not Metal Sonic and Amy (highly unlikely, but whatever), then we can update the summary in the future to reflect this, and write somewhere that "journalists presumed these characters were Amy and Metal Sonic, but they turned out not to be," or something, if and when that happens.

In the meantime, I would say that we should reflect what reliable sources (and most audiences familiar with the source material!) have reasonably assumed, until further developments suggest otherwise. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@SnowFire Sorry, it looks like we misunderstood one another. If we have a reliable secondary source that says "presumably" (or similar wording) then I don't object to using similar wording on Misplaced Pages either. I thought you were arguing for using such wording based on an WP:OR interpretation of a primary source. Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Roger Ebert on YouTube

Recently on editing articles, I've seen a source cite this account here https://www.youtube.com/@TheOfficialRogerEbert . While it does say Official Roger Ebert all over it, I'm a bit in doubt of its legitimacy. There is no YouTube check next to the name to clarify its connected with the Ebert family or Rogerebert.com. There are links to purchase Ebert's books, and visit his website, but, does Roger Ebert even have the rights to the videos from Siskel & Ebert? At RogerEbert.com I can't find any connection with the YouTube channel, even if there is a YouTube link which seems to be currently just a place holder. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I just looked myself and can't find anything to confirm its legitimacy! It's a strange case for sure. I went ahead and contacted the RogerEbert.com website asking about it to see if they can shed light on it. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Film screenshots (in Italian Misplaced Pages)

In Italian Misplaced Pages, film articles are usually illustrated with film screenshots only uploaded there (example: it:Top Gun). Does Italy have a legislation enabling this for Misplaced Pages? And then, why only there? Are there any exceptions where it's possible in English Misplaced Pages? --KnightMove (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of points to discuss here. First, the Italian-language Misplaced Pages, like the English-language Misplaced Pages, are under Wikimedia Foundation, and their non-free content guideline says, "Non-free content can be used in articles only if... Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria." For what you linked specifically, WP:NFCI says this is acceptable: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I'm not sure why that Top Gun page is using a screenshot (which seems interchangeable with any freely-licensed air carrier takeoff image) instead of the Italian poster for the film?

Also, I'm not sure if you see screenshots used elsewhere, outside the film infobox? Across all Wikipedias, WP:NFCI says this is acceptable: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." In essence, cover art is most appropriate for film infoboxes, and screenshots are best used in the article body with critical commentary (e.g., for a famous shot in some film that cannot be shown with free images). Hope that helps. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. However it reinforces my suspicion that those screenshots are not properly used, although I won't meddle with the topic any more. --KnightMove (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The Red Virgin

There is a discussion about the writing of the lead section for the film The Red Virgin. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Red Virgin § Poorly written. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Short films

Are short films in an anthology film supposed to be italicised, in quotes or both? DareshMohan (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: For example in Pulp Fiction in the plot section, they are listed as " " but in any film in Category:Indian anthology films, they are listed in italics. DareshMohan (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't mix examples and come to a conclusion out of that. In Pulp Fiction they are not short films but "narrative sequences" as the article calls them. This is similar to chapters of a book so quotes are correct. If you have an Indian film example that you want to check, then link that. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Uncredited roles

Hi all, MOS:FILM states "For uncredited roles, a citation should be provided in accordance with Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. Do not use IMDb as a reference, as it is considered unreliable." Fair enough. But if an actor clearly appears in a film, because you can see them in it (!) yet they are not listed in the film's credits, and you can't find a reliable source that confirms they are in it, how best to deal with this in the Cast section of the film's article, and in the actor's article? Thanks for any thoughts! Tobyhoward (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we want to be able to verify cast and crew members in some informational capacity. We're almost always able to do that because it's written into the film a la credits, and many secondary sources will replicate the more important names too. Such sources usually cover uncredited roles too. Informational capacity like text or audio/video recording gets the identification across clearly. We can't run on the assumption of recognizing faces, especially years down the road, since it means looking across at least two sources (the film and something else that shows the actor), which is original research. What is the film? I can try to help research it. If there is nothing that can verify it, it may really not be that important for the article. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. I come across the uncredited issue quite a lot in my editing, which is mostly focussed on pre-1980 British films. The example I was just looking at, and which sparked my query, is the appearance of Vanda Hudson (full displosure: I created her article) in Sapphire (1959). The film is quite well-known and reviewed and cited; Hudson less so. Interestingly, she appeared in contemporary publicity stills for the film, yet is uncredited. But as you say, chasing down an uncredited role may not actually be that important! It's good to try and keep things in perspective. Thanks again. Tobyhoward (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Misplaced Pages articles rarely provide full cast listings; MOS:FILMCAST advises that "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so try to name the most relevant actors and roles". If there isn't reliable record of an actor appearing in a film then perhaps that is where you should draw the line. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've encountered some similar situations with Calico Cooper. She made an uncredited appearance in Hall Pass. But that one is supported in reliable sources. something related but not quite the same, she also was in a deleted scene from a Halloween remake. Normally that wouldn't be significant but this is what earned her her Screen Actors Guild membership. But we also know this because, again, it's mentioned in reliable sources.

The one I'm wondering about is this: she was in a music video that no longer exists online, but when it did exist, she was credited. There are stills from the director online that name the music video but don't name her, but in which you can clearly see that it's her. The only documentation of her credited appearance, though, is IMDB and Kinorium. I suppose this is where INDISCRIMINATE appplies.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If it hasn't been picked up by any reliable sources then it is hard to argue why it should be included in Misplaced Pages, even if that is a frustrating answer for someone who is certain it is true and just wants the Misplaced Pages article to have the right information in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 exactly --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 it's frustrating because had internet archive saved it years ago the proof would be there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Cultural impact of David Lynch

I have just created Draft:Cultural impact of David Lynch. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have suggested first improving the main article for David Lynch and then later if necessary WP:SPLITing it out into a separate article. Drafting first could probably work too, but it is less likely to get others editing collaboratively. -- 109.76.133.119 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree and think that specifically David Lynch § Reception could be expanded and perhaps renamed to "Legacy". That to me feels like the same thing as "Cultural impact" and also the more commonly-used term, judging from recent headlines. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I certainly think an article on this topic is very well earned, but I agree with the above that expanding the section first is a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review: Jay Wadley Draft

Hello everyone,

I have recently submitted a draft for Draft:Jay Wadley, a film and television composer known for scoring *I'm Thinking of Ending Things*, *Driveways*, *Swan Song*, and the *Franklin* miniseries. The draft includes references from Polygon, Deadline, Gold Derby, and other reliable sources.

Since the Articles for Creation (AfC) review backlog is currently about two months, I was wondering if any experienced editors from WikiProject Film could take a look and help assess its readiness for mainspace.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Really appreciate any help here.

Thanks kindly Heytinaaam (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft has been declined because it fails WP:NCOMPOSER, and by my account, WP:GNG too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the figure is notable. First, I think the Albuquerque Journal source is a very good one. I don't find WP:NCOMPOSER to apply, as that seems most applicable to "traditional" composers. WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE are what should apply, the latter especially if they are being interviewed for the music in I'm Thinking of Endings Things and other films. I also found these:

• Composer Jay Wadley Takes “Restrained Approach” To Communicating “Giant Feelings” With ‘Swan Song’ Score – Hear Two Exclusive Tracks
• ‘I’m Thinking of Ending Things’ Composer on the Score’s Influences and That Final Ballet — Watch
• How the ‘Swan Song’ Score Evokes Drama and Sci-Fi
• I’m thinking of composing things: Jay Wadley on the score for “I’m Thinking of Ending Things”
• Award-Winning Composer Jay Wadley On Making Music for Period Piece FRANKLIN (though reliability may need to be checked)
• Jay Wadley composes score for Sundance hit "Indignation" (probably more primary than secondary)
• The Music of Charlie Kaufman's, I'm Thinking of Ending Things
• ‘What Does the Memory of Music Sound Like?’: An Interview with the I’m Thinking of Ending Things Music Composer
• The 10 Best Film Scores of 2020 (short, but indicates WP:CREATIVE beyond I'm Thinking of Ending Things and Swan Song)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Erik,

Thank you so much for taking the time to provide additional sources and thoughtful feedback on the draft. Your insights on WP:CREATIVE and the independent sources were incredibly helpful in strengthening the article. I’ve integrated several of the sources you suggested and refined the draft to better align with Misplaced Pages's standards. Hope the latest version suffices. Thanks again. Heytinaaam (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Favre1fan93, @Erik, and everyone else who has provided feedback, thank you so much for taking the time to review the Jay Wadley draft and for your insights on WP:NCOMPOSER, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE.

Based on your comments and the additional sources Erik provided, I have revised and strengthened the draft. I would greatly appreciate any further feedback or suggestions on how to ensure that this meets Misplaced Pages's standards.

Thank you again for your help and happy new year! Heytinaaam (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Are Fan names acceptable?

This is in regards to several articles within the Godzilla (franchise); check diffs: , , .

Is it acceptable to include or even refer to Godzilla iterations via fan names (GyakushuGoji, MireGoji, or GareGoji to name a few)? I've been removing some of those fan names recently because neither Toho (the owners and creators of the franchise and character) or any other official parties or licensees use those names in any official capacity. But some secondary sources, like this one and the Japan's Favorite Mon-Star book by journalist and film historian Steve Ryfle, use those names.

I call them "fan names" because they technically originated from fans and not from the creators or licensees officially. And I initially opted to using neutral terms like the "2014 Godzilla" or the "2014 version", for example. So is it acceptable to use fan names? Armegon (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME might apply to fan names at a stretch but I doubt it. (Authorial intent has does have it's limits.) Would using only the official names cause more or less reader confusion? For consistency I want to say only official names should be used, but for simplicity and clarity there might be enough WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to justify using fan names. (Other opinions may vary.) -- 109.76.133.119 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

We should be using names that are supported by reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME, if that is the case for these "fan" terms then they should be fine to use though the official names should also be mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure if WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Very few reliable sources use the fan terms, save for fan-related sourced like WikiZilla and such -- so it may fall under WP:FAN and WP:INUNIVERSE. Like I said, the fan terms aren't even reflected in official products and merchandise.

I guess what I'm really asking for is general consensus on this matter. Armegon (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

In that case I would think that it probably isn't something we should include. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where the terms originate, just whether reliable sources use them. And wikis are not reliable sources. Nardog (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think fan names are noteworthy in themselves, but if the article uses sources for commentary that only uses the fan name to identify the work then I think in that scenario acknowledging the fan name is unavoidable. It all depends on the context, really. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  So the way that the Godzilla (Godzilla Minus One) article uses MinusGoji is acceptable? They only cite one source for the name. At one point the editor used the term RideGoji to refer to an early variation of that specific Godzilla, although no source was provided for the term RideGoji. Armegon (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Project-Class film pages
• WikiProject Film articles
• WikiProject Film talk pages