Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Starforce13 (talk | contribs) at 16:23, 14 October 2019 (→RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films: replaced Ad Astra source with a more specific one.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

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


Today's featured articles

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(23 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

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

RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films

Should the distributor of a film released—according to poster billings, press releases and official sites—by 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight Pictures after they were acquired by Disney (such as Dark Phoenix, Ad Astra, Terminator: Dark Fate, Ford v Ferrari, Tolkien, Ready or Not, Lucy in the Sky, Jojo Rabbit, A Hidden Life) be stated as "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" in the infobox and the body of the article (where preceded by "distributed by")? Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context: A group of IPs has been repeatedly inserting "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" in infoboxes and prose without an explanation or citation. I haven't checked all the articles, but on Lucy in the Sky alone, we've got [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Given the breadth of the affected articles, given they are IPs, and given the tepid response I got last time I brought this up (h/t MarnetteD), I want to ascertain the consensus of this project on this rather than potentially bring on a futile edit war. Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, credit "20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures". By that logic any subsidiary like Focus Features, New Line, Picturehouse, Columbia, Screen Gems, TriStar, DreamWorks, Miramax, Dimension, Paramount Vantage, Summit, etc. etc. cannot ever be stated as the distributor of a film released when it was part of a big studio. And we weren't (and aren't) even crediting Fox as the distributor of pre-merger Searchlight films. AFAIK no report has come out saying Fox's distribution arm has been fully merged with Disney's (see Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney and e.g. this THR article on Aug. 29, which says "the Disney and Fox film studios continue to consolidate their operations" [emphasis mine]), and what is credited as the distributor (presenter) in billing blocks and press releases and on official sites must take precedence. Crediting Disney as the distributor is not helpful to readers either, because the production and marketing of the films were developed under Fox months if not years before the merger, giving the false impression that Disney was solely responsible for releasing them. Mention Disney only when the context calls for it, e.g. each studio's first post-merger release. Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the field should be limited to the original distributor of the film at the time the film was released. Other fields in the infobox use that criteria. Studio changes/mergers/buyouts etc happen all the time and they aren't relevant to the making of release of the film to theaters. I'm not sure if that is a support or oppose to your RFC Nardog so my apologies for that. MarnetteD|Talk 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarnetteD: If reports and promotional material are any indication, 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight Pictures still exist (and the latter is likely to continue to exist[7][8]), and the billing blocks on the posters explicitly say "Twentieth Century Fox presents"[9] or "Fox Searchlight Pictures presents"[10]. Sure, they are now part of the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures group, just like Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm and Pixar are (which only produce films) and Touchstone and Miramax used to be (which both produced and distributed), but crediting the group as the distributor is no different from crediting Universal as the distributor of a Focus film or Sony of a Columbia film, or (for films from certain periods) Paramount of a DreamWorks film, Disney of a Miramax film, or Fox of a Searchlight film. Nardog (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for being thorough Nardog. This just confirms my belief that the filed should be limited to the distributor at the time of the films original release. The constant changes based on business mergers etc create a WP:INDISCRIMINATE situation. If the consensus is to limit the field to this the documentation at the infobox film will need updating. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So even films released after the merger, like Dark Phoenix and Ad Astra, should have 20th Century Fox as the distributor? El Millo (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MarnetteD, as Facu-el Millo has pointed out, the RfC is specifically about the films produced by (and credited as released by) 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight and released after the merger with Disney. We're not talking about Fox films that came out before that, and their distributor credits have not been retroactively modified to Disney. Nardog (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So I did miss the gist of the RFC. Again my apologies Nardog. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crediting Disney as the distributor is also dangerous in the long run because the rights to films often get moved around in batches. For instance, Disney no longer owns the rights to the Miramax titles. If we had stated Disney as the distributor of the Miramax films which were released during the period it was owned by Disney, that information would have been lost and readers wouldn't have been able to immediately tell which films still belonged to Disney and which ones didn't (especially the acquisition titles, for which Miramax's name wouldn't be on the production companies list). The same thing could happen to Fox or Searchlight (though one is much more likely than the other!). And, like Miramax, Searchlight doesn't produce all of its films. Nardog (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we just change it back to 20th Century Fox then? El Millo (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I've been arguing the entire time. Nardog (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the credited distributor A change in ownership does not constitute a change in publisher. If Fox's distribution arm is still operational then Fox is distributing its own films, not Disney. Also, this would also seem to violate WP:V if sources are crediting Fox as the distributor and we are writing Disney. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the credited distributor. Incidentally, having been involved in the recent, controversial CS1-style RfC, and one of the major points that reached consensus is that we are not required to include the field "website=" in "cite web." We can choose to use only the "publisher=" field. So we're not required to give Walt Disney Studios as parent of distributor 20th Century Fox ... we can just put 20th Century Fox in the publisher field.--Tenebrae (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Credit "20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures" - not Disney. Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do we know for sure that 20th Century Fox is still the distributor? El Millo (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to know "for sure", we just need to know what reliable primary and secondary sources say (see WP:TRUTH) and stick to it—to say Disney is the distributor despite it would be WP:CRYSTAL, if not flat-out WP:OR. FWIW I happen to know someone who works indirectly for an international arm of Fox, and it's still up and running. Note that Fox is a multinational corporation that traces its history to more than a hundred years ago. It is one thing to lay off workers in Hollywood; it is another to close down or merge all the branches across the globe. So it can take quite a while. Nardog (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Credits: We should look to poster billings and film credits to see who is officially releasing the film. If Disney adds their distributed-by credit to the end of these films like they do with Marvel then we should update the article to reflect that, but if not we should not be adding Disney's name simply because they own Fox now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In distribution, 20th Century Fox is a banner, not a company/unit. Their employees report to Disney distribution chiefs just like all the other Disney distribution employees. The Fox distribution chiefs (including global) were the first to go after the merger - including these. So, it's not like there's a unit for 20CF distribution under Disney. Release schedule and distribution deals and box office reports are now handled by Disney. For infobox, we can still follow the end-credits and keep it as 20th Century Fox until Disney starts adding "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" like they do with Marvel, Lucasfilm. Until then, on the article body, it is worth mentioning that the film was distributed/released by "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures under the 20th Century Fox banner." Starforce13 23:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the credited distributor – As others have argued above, we should go by verifiability in sources. Unless they are convincingly updating the distributor credit to Disney, we should not be updating/changing that on Wikipedia. The default action should be to retain, and any outliers that deserve special attention in this regard can hash it out on the article's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20CF in infobox, with extra note of WDSMP serving as an unseen distributor (across both theatrical and home media releases) - I say this as most people are going to think that Disney didn’t acquire them, when they did, so with this I have two proposals:
    1. 20CF listed in infobox, while WDSMP is noted elsewhere on the page with "This film officially came out after the Disney’s purchase, but due to the fact the film production and writing of the credits occurred before the purchase, 20CF (not full name, but example) is still listed as the distributor on this film".
    2. 20CF in infobox, with mention of Disney’s purchase of them (with “20CF (initialism) is now owned by Disney, but has credit on films produced before the purchase took place regardless of Disney’s purchase”)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
most people are going to think that Disney didn’t acquire them Really? Disney is a multinational conglomerate. So was Fox. I'm sure anybody who pays even a modicum of attention to news knows about the acquisition. And even if the readers didn't, is it really our job to to inform them about the purchase in articles about individual films? We don't normally note in an article about a film whose distributor is a subsidiary what its parent company is. So what makes this case so special?
due to the fact the film production and writing of the credits occurred before the purchase That's a kind of claim that needs to be backed up by a reliable source. Without a source we can't put such a statement in articles. You also seem to be implying that Disney as a whole, not what Fox remains as part of Disney, was responsible for the distribution of the Fox films that came out after the acquisition, but that's also a claim that we can't put in an article without citing a reliable source.
@Betty Logan, Tenebrae, Netherzone, Adamstom.97, Starforce13, and GoneIn60: What do you think of the IP's proposals? I remain unconvinced. Nardog (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's proposals constitute WP:Original research. Just because Disney bought out Fox does not mean Fox ceases to function as a company. Disney bought out Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar and they are still fully functioning companies, albeit as subsidiaries of Disney. According to the BBFC (which must deal with the distributor directly to obtain a print of the film) both Dark Phoenix and Ad Astra are distributed by Fox. They are both showing up under Fox entry at Box Office Mojo too. Put another way, are there any reliable secondary sources claiming that Disney distributed these films? Betty Logan (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office Mojo is not a reliable source when it comes to studios. They still say Fox is owned by "News Corporation" and they still refer to Disney as Buena Vista despite a name change years ago. BOM uses a software that doesn't allow them to rename studios or move them to the correct parent. When it comes to studios and media company structures, the best reliable sources are Deadline, Hollywood Reporter... and they usually say Disney/Fox, the same way they say "Disney/Marvel". So, I wouldn't use Box Office Mojo to make a studio structure argument. Also, Fox distribution employees are now reporting to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. They don't have their own distribution unit anymore. There's no question that Disney is in charge of the Fox distribution/releases. However, for the sake of WP:VERIFIABILITY, we should follow the credits. Starforce13 11:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starforce13: While I concur with your view on BOM, I don't think journalists' use of "Disney/Fox" says much—if anything, it implies that Fox is still a distinct operation much like Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. It would be fantastic if you could find reliable sources for your claims, that they are now reporting to WDSMP and no longer have their own distribution unit. Also, your reply doesn't really address the IP's proposals. Do you think adding such notes would be a good idea? Nardog (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog:, if you read my last sentence that's in bold, it says, "However, for the sake of WP:VERIFIABILITY, we should follow the credits." That means, I'm agreeing the credit should go Fox since Fox is the only one included in the end credits until Disney starts adding "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" like they do with Marvel. The rest was just me saying that Box Office Mojo isn't the reliable source for company structures. Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter are always reliable sources and are probably the most cited sources in Wikipedia with regards to media companies. That has never been questionable. Box Office Mojo is only used for Box Office numbers because there's no other sites that provides as much comprehensive information. And even for box office numbers, they're not always accurate; and sometimes their errors are so obvious like in the case of Frozen. Box Office Mojo still has 5 upcoming Fox/Marvel movies listed despite them all being cancelled and Fox-Marvel properties moving to Disney. They had "Inhumans" movie listed as upcoming up until a few weeks ago despite the movie being cancelled 4 years ago. As for whether Fox Distribution unit exists, the top chiefs were laid off after the merger. And it's Disney that announced new release dates for Fox films through 2027. And if you read articles like this detailing how The Art of Racing in the Rain was distributed/marketed, you'll see it's all Disney. And this says "Disney releases the 20th Century Fox and Fox 2000 film on Friday." Just to be clear, 20th Century Fox still exists as a movie studio/production company, just like Marvel and Lucasfilm. And also like Marvel and Lucasfilm, they no longer distribute their movies independently. "Disney/Fox" or "Disney/Marvel" doesn't erase the latter. It means it's a Fox or Marvel movie distributed by Disney. Starforce13 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starforce13: if you read my last sentence... I understand that, and that's really beyond dispute at this point. Everybody who has expressed their opinion so far has agreed Fox should be the one mentioned. The only thing up to debate now is whether to add a note next to it saying Disney has acquired Fox before the film's release, which the IP has proposed above, on which I don't think you have made your position clear yet. (BTW I'm curious why you're omitting Variety in the list of sources you consider reliable. You don't think it's as reliable as Deadline and THR?) Nardog (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog:, I'm glad we're on the same page on using credits (Fox) for infobox, my bad. With regards to the IP's comment, we don't need to go into deep details like the IP suggested explaining why Fox instead of Disney. But could/should do something like "was distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Picturesref under the 20th Century Fox banner" - where the ref would be an independent article from reliable sources mentioning Disney. And yes, the Variety is one of the top 3 reliable sources along with THR and Deadline.Starforce13 14:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
State what is in the reliable sources, otherwise it constitutes WP:OR. Just because Disney bought out Fox and others, it does not erase them, esp. since they are still operating. The encyclopedia does not need to function as a public relations arm for Disney. It is not our job to advertise the buy-out on individual film pages; that info could go in Disney & Fox's articles. Netherzone (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone:, while I understand that noting it into an important section of the page is not required, it’s only to be included in the notes section, therefore it’s out of the way of the more important information, while I know that you’ll disagree with this, I could come up with a secondary proposal where we could do (Notes: ((The acquisition page|Disney acquired them) this year, but is not listed as the distributor)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of notes, we try my proposal above where the infobox says "20th Century Fox" but the article body says "...distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Picturescitation under the 20th Century Fox banner"? The citation would be an article from a reliable source that calls it a Disney release; and the 20th Century Fox banner can be verified from the end credits. This way we can provide complete information, without WP:OR. Starforce13 15:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, on the condition that the reference must be one to a source that specifically states Disney is responsible for releasing the film each article is about (this one Starforce mentioned should be hailed as an ideal source as Disney releasing the Fox film is what the article is all about, not a passing mention). If we can't find such a source for a film released by Fox according to the credits, don't state Disney released it. Nardog (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Here are some quick sources that I think are good enough to cite when saying the film was released/distributed by Disney:

Hive4media.com

Timur9008 (talk · contribs) has been adding material sourced to hive4media.com, which no longer exists as a website, to "Home media" sections in film articles. I revered the editor here and here, stating that there is no indication that this passes as a WP:Reliable source and that hive4media.com no longer exists. This comes across as WP:SPAMMING to me.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a spamming attempt, if it's a dead site then there is no real use in spamming it. I think the user is acting in good faith. As for the source itself, we can examine if it passes as a reliable source, if it does then it doesn't really matter that only exists in archives.★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might not be a spamming matter. But I still see no indication that this source passes WP:Reliable source or should be used. So, Doniago, regarding this, why do you think we should use this obscure source? If there are no better sources for what this source is relaying, it's a WP:REDFLAG matter. And if there are better sources, why not use those instead? Erik and Betty Logan, can I get your thoughts on this?
I might take the matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, it seems like a valid source. We have Home Media Magazine which (with sources) says that it was Video Store Magazine then Home Media Retailing then Home Media. So I think hive4media.com should redirect to one of these; the Titanic example shows that the website is titled HomeMediaRetailing. By itself, "hive4media.com" sounds like a spam website. I know that there are some home media-related sources that never had an online presence, like DVD News and Video Business, likely because of how specialized it was (or still is). Essentially, the source seems fine, though I would encourage Timur9008 to diversify their edits. If it weren't for the archived status, it would look like WP:REFSPAM. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that until the consensus is that it isn't an RS (and right now there's no consensus that this was bad-faith editing and there's no strong indication that the source is a problem per se), there's minimal harm caused by retaining the information. If it's subsequently deemed an unreliable source, we can pull the information at that time. If it was a BLP or such, or the information being added was more controversial, I might feel otherwise. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your views, Erik and Doniago. I won't address the source at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard at this time. Not sure if I will in the future. If I do, I'll leave a note about it at this WikiProject and point to this discussion, which will be archived by then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Did Not Buy Out Chesterfield or Invincible.

Quoting from http://dukefilmography.com/republic_pictures_library.html

"Although part of the rumor mill in 1935, Invincible Pictures Corp. and Chesterfield Pictures Corp. were not involved in Republic’s creation in any way—both companies were financed by Pathé. This myth still persists today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.80 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 in film

I'm not happy with the format changes with Rfc ruling of the thing they did with 2019 in film that was done by DeluxeVegan. It doesn't solve WP:WORLDWIDE and the new format just makes things more complicated and there has to be better ways for this while keeping the previous format intact. I want a revert of this ruling and make a discussion of this in better argument terms. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, what we should do is to find a way to make compromises with some things that will maintain the same format with the films released that year while working a way that will meet with WP:WORLDWIDE. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What ruling is it that we're talking about here? I'm not aware of any recent changes.★Trekker (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the proposal was about. Talk:2019_in_film#Proposal. It's about the changes it was done from this to this. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was done by DeluxeVegan–Please stop turning this into a personal issue. Consensus was determined on the talk page by an RfC. I fail to see how the current revision does not address WP:WORLDWIDE, and your argument does not touch upon anything to convince me otherwise. A neutral invitation was put up during the Rfc here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the interested, this is the Rfc: Talk:2019_in_film#Request_for_comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change was an improvement, the title "2019 in film" obviously goes beyond American/English-language films. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an improvement. It only makes things more complicated & difficult for readers to browse through movies that should be on years in films, not on the list of certain country films and it didn't improve anything for WP:WORLDVIEW. We should find a way to bring back the original format of the years in film in 2019 in film while trying to find the way to have it met up WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have not made clear how the current revision is more complicated, and does not improve things for WP:WORLDVIEW, other than alluding to it. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You want to why is more complicated? Because all it had it's lists of certain country films which means nothing to readers and it's clearly annoying that you have to click of them. You could have just settled for having a new column "Country" of where it wad distributed from while maintaining the previous format on it, but you instead made that so-called new format as one of the choices, which it does not improve WP:WORLDVIEW by one bit and it's very inconsistent with the meaning year by film articles. It's better where it was before and if you want to make it more towards WP:WORLDVIEW, you could have settle for compromises with adding "Country" column on the film tables and add films from those countries instead of that so-called list of certain country films. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your compromise was already discussed as the second proposal in the Rfc and was primarily decided against owing to size concerns. Clicking on a link is supposed to be annoying? Your reasoning still doesn't address how the current revision fails to meet WP:WORLDVIEW. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is only "more complicated" if you are solely interested in US release dates, and even then they are now only one click away. I haven't checked for a while but the last time I did check the English-language was only a first language for 60% of the English Wikipedia's readership. Only 40% of the overall traffic comes from the United States itself, so I think it is fair to say that the new format will serve the interests of the majority of readers that visit this page. Even if that were not the case that still does not mean we should favor the readership in one part of the world. The article is called 2019 in film not 2019 in American film or 2019 in English-language film. The scope of the article is set by the title. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not particularly opposed to the change, the split was based on a false claim / misinterpretation that WP:YEARSINFILM mentioning "country" implies we should list ALL films from ALL countries. That's not the case. It simply implies that there can be films from different countries. There's the issue of WP:NOTABILITY and what's relevant to enwiki's English-speaking audience, which would narrow down the films included to just North America, Australia, UK and just a few other notable ones from the rest of the world. And therefore would fit in one article. Otherwise, you're going to have a bunch of articles with little traffic. Starforce13 18:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what WP:WORLDWIDE is all about. We should not be writing about just North America, Australia, UK etc. who are presumed to comprise the bulk of Wikipedia's readership, but the whole world. Notability is indeed a valid concern, but non English-language sources can also be used for demonstrating notability. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the consensus was based on a false claim. The consensus was primarily based on two things: a correct interpretation of WP:WORLDVIEW and a realistic presumption based on the WP:SIZERULE. In my comment at the RFC you will notice I actually kept open the option of having a "complete" list in the article itself provided it didn't discriminate, but other editors clearly did not think this was a biable option. It is simply not the case that there will only be a few non-English films on the list; for example, List of Bollywood films of 2019 already stands at 70kb, so the viability of such a list must be taken into consideration. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To DeluxeVegan - Well, that third idea you came up with is not helping either. Size concerns is irrelevant. What matters is the consistency and the meaning of the year in film articles that should have all the films in different countries, not with the list of certain country films. It's a hassle to have the list of certain country films which is annoying to readers and it's best to have the films with the column "Country" on the tables of it. I will not settle with the list of certain country films in year of films. It takes away the meaning of the year in film articles.
To Betty Logan, Well, having the list in certain country films isn't helping with the consistency and the meaning of the year in film articles. It's better we should add "Country" to the tables of the more notable films which would help with WP:WORLDVIEW. Having the list of certain country films take away that meaning. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the structure is "annoying" is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't really a valid argument. And yes, article size is a concern. So, if we're not just doing the English + notable ones, then the split is necessary. You don't want to have extremely large articles that strain the system when loading. Starforce13 04:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not looking to take a jab or anything but whether or not you personally can settle is irrelevant, the consensus was to do it the way it’s been done. It’s a concept I took forever to get but it’s true. The appropriate way to go about questioning this would’ve been opening an RFC a little ways down the road. You can’t uproot the status quo like that. Rusted AutoParts 05:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled with the set up of the new format and structure of it. It takes away the meaning of year in film article and what was meant to be. There has a better way to bring the old format back while finding a way to make it more towards WP:WORLDVIEW. This is not the answer. It's better to browse down to each three month section of the year to find that movie you want to look for, rather than clicking on a certain list of certain country films, which does fit the criteria of the meaning of the year in film articles. Size of of this does not matter. It's a matter of consistency and what year in film articles are meant for and having the list of certain country films takes away that meaning. The original format understands the meaning of year in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you all this. This format doesn't help improve anything and it takes away the meaning of what year of films articles are about. It was better with the previous format and it had that meaning. The new format just has list of certain country films which takes away that meaning. We should find the way to keep the previous format while adding country in table of it to make it fit WP:WORLDVIEW and size of it should not be relevant. I'm not gonna stop until the new format is reverted and make the previous format is met with the criteria of WP:WORLDVIEW. Think this over. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t just pressure people into reversing course on a consensus, you need to establish a new RFC. But it would be highly inappropriate to restart it so soon after the previous one. So please wait. Rusted AutoParts 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film

Hi. I've just spotted that the page for Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film has been recently re-recreated. It was previously deleted in March 2014. I don't know if anything has changed since then. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the same, but there are only so many ways you can say that it's a local Boston awards ceremony. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core list

Any thoughts on updating the project's core articles list? I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Core#Update 2019. PC78 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Worlds (2005)

Hi everybody, I turn to this talk for ask you to give an opinion. I'm from it.wiki and I wanted further information here, where you are more experienced. Spielberg's War of the Worlds is a remake of Haskin film? Thank you.--BincoBì (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is completely unconnected to the previous film. It is just another adaptation of Wells' novel. Some commentators may refer to it as a remake but this is factually inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grants:Project/National Film Registry

I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Rabbit

Hi, me and another user, DiscoSlasher, have been reverting each other's edits at the Jojo Rabbit page for two reasons:

1. Production company and distributor. DiscoSlasher thinks Fox Searchlight is a distributor of the film rather than a production company of the film. He also removed TSG as a production company of the film. Fox Searchlight is now the production company of such films and Disney distributes such titles, as far as I know. 2. Country of production - Because DiscoSlasher thinks neither Searchlight or TSG are production companies of the film, he thinks America isn't a country of production. He also added New Zealand and Czech Republic as countries of production but the sources he added imo don't state them clearly. I added four sources to prove that the US is a country of production but he removed the sources and the US nonetheless.

Another issue is that DiscoSlasher refuses to respond to the entry I made in the article's talk page regarding the issue. (at least for the latter) Would like to see your input regarding these two issues. Daerl (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over the edits and commented on both issues at Talk:Jojo_Rabbit#Country_of_production. I have also aligned the article with what the sources say but given how unstable it is I highly doubt my edits will stay in place. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joker content dispute

There is a content dispute regarding Joker (2019 film) and what we should list for its budget range. You are invited to join the discussion here. JOEBRO64 11:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=921220618"