View source for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

{| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="background: lavender; border: 1px solid silver; width: 100%;"
|-
| [[File:Gtk-go-down.svg|40px|link=#footer]]
| style="text-align: center;" | ''[[#toc|Skip to table of contents]] &bull; [[#footer|Skip to bottom]] &bull; [{{fullurl:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film|action=edit&section=new}} Start new discussion]''<inputbox>
bgcolor=
type=fulltext
prefix=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive
break=no
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
</inputbox>
| {{Shortcut|WT:FILM|WT:FILMS|WT:MOVIES}} 
|}{{WPFILM Announcements|collapsed=yes|simple=yes
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive index |mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 69
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}}
{{archives |index=./Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes |age=14 |units=days |bot=MiszaBot II}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-20/WikiProject report|writer= [[User:Garden|Garden]]|||day=20|month=April|year=2009}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/WikiProject report|writer=[[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]]||day=25|month=June|year=2014}}


== Old announcements for upcoming films ==

An IP editor recently {{diff2|838807054|added several upcoming projects}} to [[List of Columbia Pictures films]], but the sources date back to 2010 in some cases.  Is there a problem with using such old announcements to source upcoming projects?  It seems to me that you'd probably want up-to-date sources that confirm something is actually happening. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 14:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
:Honestly, I think these pages should follow [[WP:NFF]]. If a film hasn't started filming it is not "upcoming" IMO. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
:: That'd probably be the best way to avoid errant speculation. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 18:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

==Move discussion related to disambiguation of "TV specials"==
A multi-article move discussion which maybe of interest to partipants of this WikProject is being held at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Requested mass move of TV specials - 29 April 2018]]. Some of the items involved are animated shorts and are proposed to be disambiguated using (film). --[[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]]  16:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Í

== studio in infobox ==

I've looked at the film infobox template and searched the archive, but can't find an answer to the following question.  When the production credits say, for example "Touchstone Pictures presents," my recollection is that we do not list that company in the infobox as one of the production companies.  Am I misremembering this?  I seem to recall a discussion of this at some point, but can't find it, and don't completely trust my recollection.  Would anyone care to illuminate this?  Thanks. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> 16:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/ben-schott-movies-billing-blocks.html?_r=0 This link] can help you decode billing blocks.  But I think the best thing to do is go by what reliable sources say.  Let them do the analysis and determine who the production companies are.  Otherwise, you end up mired in talk page debates. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
::I take your point.  Thanks. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> 23:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

== HTML errors in film articles ==

I'm going through [[Special:LintErrors]], and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject.  The [[mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy|wikitext parser is going to change in June]], and any page with an error <em>may</em> display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers.  If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry.  If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.  

The first list is all "deletable table" errors.  If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see [[:mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag]].  Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the ==Soundtrack== section.  Looking at the preview, they don't look quite the same.  The old version shows the two infoboxes merged.  The new parser displays them as separate infoboxes.  If you're satisfied with having them display separately, then you're done and can check the next one.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Powers:_The_Spy_Who_Shagged_Me?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=90673553
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombstone_(film)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91472131
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_countries?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92450665
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Film_Award?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89134718
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Lose_Your_Head?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72980813
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Chainsaw_Massacre_(franchise)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86144296
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biographical_films?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92273623
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_box_office_records?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92747846
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anand_(2004_film)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81272212
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dushman_(1998_film)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=84361386
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_and_television_shows_shot_in_Pennsylvania?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89511290
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmat_(1996_film)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92671070
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films_of_the_1990s?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=69743435
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_(film_series)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92650993
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Ten_Money_Making_Stars_Poll?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91782388
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pakistani_films_before_1950?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=6651111
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Prophet?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89352244
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Film_Award_for_Best_Supporting_Actor?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91728359
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Film_Award_for_Best_Supporting_Actress?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92116073
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Steven_Spielberg?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91982559
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghatotkachudu?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80424612
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kannada_films_of_1961?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=8963864
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bangladeshi_films_of_2017?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89093834

This second list is "misnested tags".  See [[:mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting]] for more information.  The highlighting indicates that the problem is in the ==Sources== list.  However, they look about the same to me, so while there is probably a problem with some tags being applied in the wrong order (and it's probably in [[Template:Refbegin]]), there's no urgent need to change anything.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Sun_(film)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86297160
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rank_Organisation?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91427981
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_(franchise)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87337384
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_Mirth?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92262431
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_Philippines?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83999991
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_Philippines?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83999992
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_Philippines?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83999993
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_Philippines?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83999994
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineMagic_Co.?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79711070
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_cinema?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92271940
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krazy_Kat?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81342327
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tamil_films_of_1955?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80185260
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Talk_Productions?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80207853
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_Conan:_Quarter_of_Silence?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=71491158
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_Conan:_Dimensional_Sniper?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=85949883
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=47864611
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonifacio:_Ang_Unang_Pangulo?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87142948
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Art_of_the_Cinema?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=54079778
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=47939075
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balgar?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=51410645
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encore_Films?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=73882653

For more help, you can ask questions at [[Wikipedia talk:Linter]].  Good luck, [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 19:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
: Hmm.  [[Krazy Kat]] had some obvious markup errors that I fixed.  I can't tell if that's what was causing the above error, though.  I'd have to read more about how this stuff works.  I never paid much attention to it before. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
::[[User:Izno]], do you want to take a look at that article?  (The lintid's are unreliable after the first edit.)  [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]], I think there are a couple of user scripts that provide more information and can be used to check out individual pages, if you'd like to try one of those.  They're probably listed at [[WP:Linter]].  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 23:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Whatamidoing (WMF)|NinjaRobotPirate}} You can verify post-edit that the page no longer contains a lint error by checking out the [[Help:page information|page information]] (in one or another of the sidebars) and scrolling to the bottom. If one remains, then there will be a section called "Lint errors". (You can skip scrolling and append <kbd>#Lint_errors</kbd> to the page information URL and then hit <kbd>Enter</kbd>, or you can ctrl+f.) It looks like KK now only has a "missing end tag" error, which is not a high-priority error. [[User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint]] is the only way to verify that you've finished that off without digging through the sometimes-large [[Special:Linterrors]] categories, though I've just filed [[:phab:T193454]]. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

== Good Will Hunting plagiarism claim ==

A claim has been added to the lede of the ''Good Will Hunting'' article, saying that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck plagiarized the script from another writer.  The claim is sourced to an article on the Fox News website.  No other discussion of the story is included anywhere in the article.  It seems to me that such an extraordinary claim needs better sources, but an anon. disagrees, arguing that there is no source in the article saying that Affleck and Damon wrote the script.  Searching the web, I can find no other articles about the script being plagiarized. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> 12:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

:I'm inclined to say that more sources should be found to include it, otherwise it seems like undue weight being placed on one writer's assertion. That said, regardless it shouldn't just be in the lead. Even if it's included in the article, I wouldn't put something one person says in the lead. I would work it into the writing section. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:#800000;color:#FFD700"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]]  [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 15:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

:Reading that claim is actually laughable. He was so aware of the brilliance of his idea (granted he acknowledges that he only came up with the idea, not that he wrote anything) that he knew that Damon and Affleck would write a screenplay that would win an Oscar and that he just needed a thank you and financial backing for a film as payment? He was sure that two nobodies were going to write an Oscar worthy film? LOL. I doubt this will ever get traction and just comes across as a bored newsday at Fox. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:#800000;color:#FFD700"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]]  [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 15:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
::If there hasn't been a successful legal action or a settlement it should not be included IMO. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 17:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
* Shouldn't be included in my view unless at least two rs have sig cov of it, these sort of claims are often fabricated, thanks [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

==CFD notice==
[[:Category:Film actors]] and related articles have been nominated for upmerging based on the idea they create too much duplication.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 17:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
:See the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 28#Category:Actors by medium]]. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]&#124;[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 18:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

== Movie posters within scope? ==

[[The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)|''The Colossus of Rhodes'']], a 1954 painting by [[Salvador Dalí]], was commissioned as a poster for the 1956 film [[Seven Wonders of the World (film)|''Seven Wonders of the World'']]. Is the article on the painting within the scope of this wikiproject? Just asking, as I originally included it, but {{u|Fortdj33}} removed it. Not a big deal, but just curious and thought I would ask. --[[User:Usernameunique|Usernameunique]] ([[User talk:Usernameunique|talk]]) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

== Film actors ==

I made a proposal to end actors by medium categories you can get to it by going through the link at [[:Category:film actors]]. I also tried to post about it on the village pump. I have no clue how to link to that discussion. Wikipedia needs to make it easier to generate broad discussion.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 18:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

==RfC: should actors by split by medium?==
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=7AC8362}}
The underlying question is does it make sense to divide film actors, television actors, web series actors and stage actors? If not, we could either merge all screan actors, or upmerge to all actors[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 18:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

===Survey===
*'''Support''' splitting actors by medium as the distinctions help editors searching for specific categories of actors/actresses such as French television actresses where they are not interested in French actresses who only acted in films and there are many many similar examples of where these distinctive categories are helpful. Upmerging these categories would make searching more difficult and make a big timesink for many editors searching for specific types of actors/actresses so basically it is an unhelpful and retrograde move, thanks [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 10:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
:: Also as this includes tens of thousands of categories a sample of a hundred is too small,thanks [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 13:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

===Threaded discussion===
*'''Comment''' I went through the first about 100 articles in [[:Category:American television actresses]]. Over 95% of them overlapped into other categories of actresses by medium. This is a very high overlap. Beyond this, some cases, like Star Teck have seen the same actors play the same roles in TV and film. Another issue is with the rise of web-series, do we really want to differentiate roles in productions released all at once as a series of episodes on netflix. How exactly do serial films, made-for-TV movies and some other things fit into these categories?[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 18:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
*If someone could help post this to other places, including a link from the village pump, it would help a lot. We need to get lots of people commenting on this.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
*'''No'''  [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 19:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
* '''Procedural comment''', this discussion overlaps with the earlier started discussion by at [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_28#Category:Actors_by_medium]]. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' splitting actors by medium as the distinctions help editors searching for specific categories of actors/actresses such as French television actresses where they are not interested in French actresses who only acted in films and there are many many similar examples of where these distinctive categories are helpful. Upmerging these categories would make searching more difficult and make a big timesink for many editors searching for specific types of actors/actresses so basically it is an unhelpful and retrograde move, thanks [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 10:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
::: It seems that you are actually in favor of splitting actors by medium, not opposed to it. --[[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] ([[User talk:Deathawk|talk]]) 23:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
:: Thanks, have amended it [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The above does not give any guidance on what to call people acting in made-for-TV films. It also does not address the large level of overlap. Also, should we put everyone in works released first by netflix in [[:Category:Web-series actors]]?[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

== Superhero  ==

On the [[List of highest grossing superhero films]] can someone help peak the top 50 and help expend the second list? Fanoflionking 23:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

== Move request on [[Drama (film and television)]] ==

Inviting participants. I have made a move request [[Talk:Drama (film and television)#Requested move 8 May 2018|here]].--[[User:Let There Be Sunshine|--<font color="maroon"><i>Let There Be Sunshine</i></font>]] 07:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

== Opinions requested on category usage ==

I have started a discussion at [[:Category talk:Police misconduct in fiction#Minimum threshold for inclusion?]] regarding whether it's appropriate to apply the category if the misconduct is only discussed in the plot section of a film article, or whether mention outside the plot summary should be required for the category to be added. Additional opinions would be welcome! [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
:Just a quick FYI that the above-linked discussion now includes some conversation regarding film-related categories that allow for "casual mentions" (e.g. "Murder in Film"), and what our feelings are regarding such categories. I believe we're a very long way from making any suggestions or proposals with regards to such categories, but if editors have opinions on them, they may wish to review the discussion and consider participating. Thanks! [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 12:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

==In general should we be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined ==

This has been a debate between {{reply to|Erik}} {{reply to|Masem}} and me for a while now, centering on what I thought would be a fairly non controversial edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotel_Artemis&type=revision&diff=837763684&oldid=837186087 here] on the page for Hotel Artemis. We had establish previously through an RFC ([[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_16#RFC_for_changing_the_production_section_guidelines._2|link]]) that casting timetables and general announcements to the public were not appropriate for a Wikipedia article and I was removing material which corresponded to that. I got push back almost immediately from {{reply to|Rusted AutoParts}}, which Erik and Masem soon joined. The crux of the issue seems to be that the MOS doesn't explicitly forbid including the material (despite the fact that it highly advises against the inclusion in the first place)  and that the it may be useful at some point (although I am not really sure how) This reasoning seems problematic for me as it would mean that most work on cleaning film articles up could not commence, it also appears to be in stark contrast to the RFC's ruling in the first place.

I opened up a discussion on the Film: Manual of Style talk page ([[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Production_section_and_the_MOS|here]]) to try to get a consensus but it ,with a few exceptions, boiled down to the three of us debating among ourselves and got too big to truly invite many onlookers. 

The question I guess I'm trying to get answered is should frivious material such as contextless cast announcements dates and public announcement dates be removed from film articles --[[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] ([[User talk:Deathawk|talk]]) 05:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

:My stance has been and still is that as part of a collaborative project, that while a film has yet to be released, these types of additions are fair game from less experienced editors and should not be discouraged, but when it is possible, and certainly near, at , or after the film's release, the exact dates should be reduced or integrated with more concrete development information. In this case, the MOS should be used to judge the quality of the article and to argue for the removal of the casting dates/etc. but that's going to be after a film's release, and the MOS should not be strongly enforced prior to that. In general rough dates (month and year) are helpful for key milestones of a film: when the project was greenlit, when pre-production, filming, and other factors started, and in some cases, casting dates can be important to understand an actor's commitment. (For example, just today, we learned that Bill & Ted 3 is happening, and with this news was focus on how Keanu Reeves would be balancing his current work in John Wick 3 with this project). But if all we can say about how someone was casted was a date when that was announced, then in the long run it should be removed, but you aren't going to know that until the film's actually done and being released. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 06:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
:The MOS states a preference. An [[WP:IMPERFECT|imperfect]] article is not going to meet that preference. That's {{em|fine}}. Removing the information without replacing it with information of the quality standard you expect, {{em|is not}}. Stop. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 12:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
::That's not really an argument against removing information that isn't relevant in the first place, though. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 13:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
:In the long term, information about when things like casting is announced usually isn't notable or relevant, and worth removing after a bigger picture of the project emerges (usually after it's released). I think details of announcement are defensible when essentially all a project is is a set of announcements and there isn't much more to go on.
:This doesn't just apply to film articles, by the way. I don't like reading that, for example, a band announced a tour for 2015 when we can just say they went on tour in 2015. The thing itself is the subject, not the announcement. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 13:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
::A lot of that is related to [[WP:PROSELINE]] - it's a "problem" that its an easy way for unexperienced editors to add information (we want that) but doesn't have the necessary cohesion for a more proper article in the long run. I'd rather us accept rough work that should include sources to polish up rather than have no work to start from at all. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
:::I think we can all agree that proseline is a problem to address. But it is fully possible to have scenarios where every fact behind a proseline-type sentence is relevant. I find the opposite hard to believe, though, that a section of only proseline-type sentences has zero value to warrant wiping out the section completely. At the very minimum, it seems like the very beginning of the production is worth staking out. It is a valid starting point and helps create a space to summarize relevant facts about the production (obviously subject to discussion between editors). I think that's why the outright blanking at ''[[Hotel Artemis]]'' is anathema to me. If it was simply replacing the original draft with a super-condensed write-up, then that means at least the space continues to exist to put in and take out detail based on talk page discussion. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

: A common objection I hear is something like "Casting news is all we have early on" well then why, do we have a production section at all at that phase? If we all can agree, that when cast members were announced should at some point be removed, then what's the point in even having the information in the first place? That does not accomplish any goals that a production section should be addressing. A significant issue also is that these production sections are almost never cleaned up afterwards, and by including them in the first place we are just adding material that we know we are just adding to a mess that we have to clean up at some point without adding any net positives. I'd like to finish up by having people look at the  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Hood_(2018_film)&oldid=840299198 current revision] of the article for Robin Hood, an upcoming film whose trailer was just released and, who no doubt, many people are flocking to the Wikipedia page. That page is a mess and it's embarassing for us to be presenting a page like that to the world. For most film articles about upcoming films this is the norm. --[[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] ([[User talk:Deathawk|talk]]) 18:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
:: I would also like to state, that while Masem's worry about stifling new editors is admirable, the reality is that most new editors aren't the ones creating these style edits and that by and large it's a handful of experienced editors creating the problem. The ones done by new editors seem to mostly air on the conservative side --[[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] ([[User talk:Deathawk|talk]]) 18:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
:::I seem to only read film articles after the film's release and always wondered when and why certain actors and actress signed on or dropped out was important to even know.  The article was outdated for many lead stars change and production stops and starts in movie making world.  The history of how a movie progresses may be important to know but the article should not read outdated.  Editing by many may be the simple answer.[[User:Eschoryii|Eschoryii]] ([[User talk:Eschoryii|talk]]) 01:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
** '''Oppose''' blanket removal of this information from production sections unless better content is immediately inserted to replace it, just blanking is a retrograde option [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 10:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::: The information is that, depending on the movie, better information may never be available. If you look at films made in the 80s 90s and 2000s this is not a problem as there are only production sections for movies that warrant it. However in the last few years I'd say 90% of all film articles have a production section attached to it, which often consists solely of information that we identify in the MOS as inappropriate. Removing this information is not a retrograde approach, it makes articles look cleaner and causes people to look at substansial information when it appears. Going with our current ways of doing things, I worry that even when there is substantial information about a film, a lot of readers just won't bother looking at it, because of the glut of bad production section. --[[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] ([[User talk:Deathawk|talk]]) 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::::There is insufficient consensus for removal of these sections unless something better replaces it and we can't guess what the reader requires as for example I would rather read a by the numbers production section than the plot sections which I always skip unless am copyediting as they are full of spoilers and if ive seen the film I know the plot, the readers would obviously have diverse viewpoints which can't be guessed, [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 10:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess to get a clearer picture I'll ping those who were involved with the initial RFC. Pinging {{reply to| SMcCandlish |MapReader |NinjaRobotPirate|BattleshipMan| Alsee| Argento Surfer|Betty Logan|Pbsouthwood|Hijiri88| Huggums537|Tenebrae}}. Erik and Masem have already commented so that represents everybody who voted. What do you all think we should do? --[[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] ([[User talk:Deathawk|talk]]) 04:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

* Would prefer this be determined on a case-by-case basis, without editors insisting that this content be included even when the only sources that can be found are bullshit pre-release sources that get pretty much every detail we ''don't'' cite them for wrong. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:In other words, I guess I would say I oppose blanket removal but also oppose mandated inclusion. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:FTR, the specific instance I had on my mind while writing the above was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_Vol._2&diff=816403243&oldid=816285819 this], where a pre-release source was the only one that could be located, and it was being cited for information we knew was inaccurate. When pre-release promotional materials universally mislead regarding what certain characters' roles in the story are, we can't use the same sources to write that a certain actor was offered the part of "a character" with "a certain role". Saying that a certain actor was offered an unspecified role but turned it down, which is really the only thing we can say with certainty based on the bad sources we have, basically violates [[WP:TRIVIA]], and encouraging editors to include this information regardless is definitely a problem. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

::I think we should only make sub-suctions on production sections to make things less of an issue with production sections. Casting sections should be used when essential actors join that particular movie. For sequels, there should be who is returning and which essential actors joined that movie. The question is how to make it more encyclopedic. Most older films tend not to reveal production information back then. Many newer films tend to have production sections, which is necessary in many ways, if not all. That's an issue we need to figure out.

::Another words, I oppose blanket removal of production sections, but we should think on certain issues with production sections to avoid issues, including who joined the movie, where the filming took place, sourcing and such. [[User:BattleshipMan|BattleshipMan]] ([[User talk:BattleshipMan|talk]]) 04:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The debate above has spun off in some unhelpful directions.  The question here is whether casting dates are notable encyclopaedic information, and the consensus is that generally they are not, but sometimes they are (and if they are, month and year are sufficient).  Really that's the end of the matter.  The MoS remains guidelines, not mandation.  No-one is suggesting deleting all production sections.  The suggestion above that we should include inaccurate or irrelevant information if nothing better is available is obviously contrary to WP-wide policies. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:::{{re|MapReader}} FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting we should do more to ''prevent'' that. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:Responding to ping by {{U|Deathawk}}: I concur with {{U|MapReader}}'s summary of 04:57, 13 May 2018 above, so my answer to the question in the section header would be "No, ''in general'' we should not be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined, and ''frivolous material'' such as contextless cast announcement dates and public announcement dates ''should be removed'' from film articles". Since the general case would be to not include, and to remove when included, such material, the onus would be on the persons wishing to include it to show that it is sufficiently notable and relevant to be included, and that the sources are reliable and accurate. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 05:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
: I think we should try to avoid routine announcements from glorified press releases, but I'm most concerned with egregious proseline – the stuff that reads, "On X date, Y magazine reported that Z actor joined the cast". [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 08:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:: I oppose any blanket removals from articles that are being done based on the grounds that the content is "''not notable''" enough. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, which clearly (and prominently) states, "'''Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article'''". [Emphasis added] [[WP:NOTEWORTHY]]. If you want to remove content from ''articles'', then find a better reason like unsourced or some other reason besides "''not notable''". Notability is a judgement reserved for deciding whether a topic should have it's own article or not. It's not a judgement to decide if a topic should have it's own sentence, paragraph or section... [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 09:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
::: I feel like your using the term "notable" in a different context than we are Huggums. The actor being in the film is obviously notable which is why they're listed under the cast listings along with other places, however the question we're asking is "Does this casting announcement help us understand how the film came together?" which is what we mean when we say "notable". There are million such business maneuvers done during production of a film and not all of them are worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] ([[User talk:Deathawk|talk]]) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
::::{{re|Huggums537}} When people talk about "notability" in this context they almost always mean [[WP:TRIVIA|avoiding trivial content within articles]], and this is borne out by the fact that a lot of the "non-noteworthy" content under present discussion has in fact been covered in "multiple third-party reliable sources". It is not helpful to wikilawyer over the fact that [[WP:NOTABLE]] and [[WP:NOTEWORTHY]] do not necessarily mean the same thing. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::I think we actually are all talking about the same kind of notability here. Especially when we are suggesting that the "onus" is on the one introducing the content to "prove" that the content is "notable" in an article. You say, "The actor being in the film is obviously notable which is why they're listed under the cast listings along with other places", but that should not even be a question since we are talking about content ''within an article''. It should not matter if it is "obviously notable" or not since we are talking about content within an article and notability DOES NOT APPLY according to [[WP:NOTEWORTHY]]. You have missed the point entirely. As far as wikilawyering about [[WP:NOTABLE]] and [[WP:NOTEWORTHY]] not meaning the same thing, well they are talking about exactly the same thing as both links go to exactly the same page, so yes we are talking about the same thing. It's all about notability on that page. I also think it IS helpful to educate fellow editors about [[WP:NOTEWORTHY]] so they will know for themselves that they do not have to prove to anyone that their content within articles is notable (only that it is reliably sourced) unless they are creating an article. Thank you. [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 11:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::Also, think about this; if anyone is talking about any form of "notability" outside of what is outlined in the notability guidelines that I just pointed out to everyone then their viewpoint is not founded on guideline such as mine is and amounts to little more than wanting to remove the content simply because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. It's funny how [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] likes to do his own wikilawyering by piping in links to guidelines while trying to accuse me of doing the same thing simply because I also choose to back up my position with actual specific guidelines. I bet you didn't think I would notice that did you
? [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 12:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

== Overlong plot ==

The plot summary in the ''[[Hereditary (film)|Hereditary]]'' article badly needs pruning. Will someone do the honors? Tks, '''[[User:Slightlymad|<span style="color: black;">Slightlymad</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Slightlymad|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Slightlymad|contribs]]) 11:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
: It looks like it may be a copyright violation, according to [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Hereditary+%28film%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 this tool]. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 08:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)