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

Shortcut: WT:FILM

WikiProject Films announcements and open tasks [ view • talk • edit ]
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
The Tag & Assess drive has now started. With over 50,000 articles to review, there are many awards available for participating! The project is currently having a membership roll call. If you are active with the project, please readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. The November newsletter is now available.
Featured article candidates 12 Dec 2009 – The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie (talk) is nominated by ATC. Featured article reviews 21 Dec 2009 – V for Vendetta (film) (talk) is nominated by Collectonian; see discussion. 16 Nov 2009 – Sound film (talk) is nominated by GamerPro64. Featured list candidates 9 Dec 2009 – List of Saw media (talk) is nominated by GroundZ3R0 002. 5 Dec 2009 – Mary Pickford filmography (talk) is nominated by Jimknut. Good article nominations 28 Dec 2009 – Precious (film) (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Ashley92995. 16 Dec 2009 – Hey, Hey, It's Esther Blueburger (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by 97198. 9 Dec 2009 – Inglourious Basterds (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by JuneGloom07. 27 Nov 2009 – Rescued by Rover (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Miyagawa. 16 Nov 2009 – Inchon (film) (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Cirt. 16 Nov 2009 – Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Twilight Helryx. 15 Nov 2009 – Terminator Salvation (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Igordebraga. 9 Nov 2009 – The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Andrzejbanas. 8 Nov 2009 – War of the Worlds (2005 film) (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by World Cinema Writer. 6 Nov 2009 – Bionicle: Mask of Light (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Twilight Helryx. (3 more...)
View full version with task force lists

WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e ) Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guidelines 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 (this month)  → Requests 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 Films based on books talk Future films talk Missing films talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Filmmaking talk Genre Christian films talk War films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 14 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here.

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

Contents 1 Help with improving Hack Movies article 2 Sound film's FAR 3 List of public information films at AfD 4 Neutral eyes on Yesterday Was a Lie 5 Copy-editing guide 6 Question about flags 7 Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic 8 V for Vendetta (film) FAR 9 Story works not directly related to a film but presented as such 10 Need an administrator 11 Lion King character list round 3 or 4? 12 Yahoo! Movies Aggregate Scores? 13 Julie & Julia 14 New Member 15 Are there standards for describing aggregate review scores? 16 Proposed rename A Christmas Carol → Disney's A Christmas Carol (official name) 17 double bill 18 What currency to use on foreign films? 19 Several problems about Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film) and how infobox present a film's distributors 20 "Domestic" box office 21 Motion pictures ratings 22 Peer Review Request

[edit] Help with improving Hack Movies article

I took painstaking measures (over 3 hours of measures) to make sure all my information was very concise, notable, and relevant in making an article for offensive horror comedy production company Hack Movies. It was up on the site for over two months and was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven. Thanks to a helpful admin, the article was put back in the sandbox at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies and I need help garnering links as to what Wiki considers "notable." Any help you can provide is appreciated. —Erkman27 (talk - 19:03, 27 October 2009 (CTC)

[edit] Sound film's FAR

I have nominated Sound film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

[edit] List of public information films at AfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral eyes on Yesterday Was a Lie

Could someone please take a look at what's happening with the addition of the Variety review to the article on the recently-opened film Yesterday Was a Lie? An editor added the review here, with what was perhaps a slightly POV description ("otherwise positive" for what was, in fact, a mixed review). I expanded the section by adding more quotes from the review, provided the full text of the bolded lede paragraph of the review in a footnote for support, and moved it up in the "Response" section as the most important review the film has received. I also altered what I had added when I thought it was a bit unbalanced on the negative side by inverting the section so that the review's positive remarks came first. The other editor, after a brief talk page "conversation" with an IP editing from a mobile device (the 166.x range), removed some of the quotes and addding a positive qualifier, and then moved the review back down into the middle of the "Response" section, thus giving pride of place to periodicals such as Film Threat magazine over Variety, the newspaper of record for the film industry. Rather than "avoiding bias" these changes served to introduce bias by misrepresenting the Variety review and attempting to bury it in the article.

I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved could take a look and do whatever is necessary to present the judgment of the Variety article in a NPOV fashion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editing guide

Inspired by the fine example set by the MilHist folks, I've thrown together a brief guide on copy-editing and good prose in film articles. The guide can be found here; any comments and suggestions are of course welcome on its talk page. I realise that it might be a little presumptuous of me to include it right away as a subpage of the project's Manual of Style, but there isn't anything in the guide that conflicts with or adds to the MoS. Feel free to disagree. :-) All the best, Steve ^T • C 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about flags

Hello, I have a small question regarding the use of flags in film infoboxes. A while ago, I noticed a lot of film articles have flags in the infobox, but they almost always used the present flag, even on old films before that flag was used, something I found a bit confusing and annoying. I started editing several film articles to add the flag used when the film was made instead. After doing this on quite a few, however, I was told by User:Lugnuts that flags should not be used in infoboxes and referred me to this and this. Although after reading both of them, I haven´t found anything written there that says anything against the use of flags in the described way in particular. The Film Manual of Style says that flags should not be used instead of country names, nothing about using them together with the country name (which I did). The Icon Manual of Style is very unclear about the question too; also saying that they should not be used instead of country names (but nothing about using them together) and not be used to indicate a person’s place of birth.

Am I missing something here? I would really like to get a definite answer as this issue has made me a bit confused. Lugnuts seems to be a respected editor of Wikipedia and I trust his/her word, but the manual of style seems to have no definite answer on this and there are a lot of film articles at present that use flags, so it does not seem to be a prioritized issue. It may be a trivial matter, but I would really like to get this question resolved, and perhaps it can be put in the Manual of Style more clearly. I don´t want any other users to repeat my mistake, and I also would like to see it resolved so we can have consistent film articles instead of some having flags, some haven´t. Either way is fine by me. Hope to hear from you! Ding Chavez (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that guideline not very specific (well, a lot of guidelines aren't). But my understanding was it is currently discouraged to use those flags in the film infobox, period. So when I see them I promptly remove them. They are also very unappealing. Very. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film itself specifies "Do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale." I try to clear out flags whenever I see them. --Intractable (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem with flags is that is isn't always clean what is meant with the flag, (some flags are regional) and also the flag is thought to be too nationalistic. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies! Yes, the Film infobox template does specify they should not be used at all. Perhaps that can be put on the Film Manual of Style as well (right now, it only says they should not be used instead of country names)? Thank you again for clearing that up to me, I guess I should have understood it from the way the guidelines are written, but I just wanted to make sure. I didn´t really care whether they are used or not, but having no flags is definitely the best way to handle it for a lot of reasons.

While we are at it, I have another question: Should the country of origin be listed as the current definition of the country or as it was at the time the film was made? For example; let´s say there is a film made in 1955 in what is today Azerbaijan, should it be listed as a film from Azerbaijan or the Soviet Union? Ding Chavez (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should credit the original country, but link it to the appropriate article so readers can understand what that means. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of the debate we had about flag usage on the Snooker Project. We came to the conclusion that flags shouldn't be used unless you can demonstrate the real-life usage of the flag in that particular context. Most of the problems derived from the Ulster banner, and I'm sure there are many inflammatory flags - for instance, do you use the Nazi Swastika on films made by Germany under the Nazi regime? A real life context that would justify flag usage in this context would be if a production company regularly used its national flag on distribution literature about the film, because then you could demonstrate a real-life usage. As for the country of origin, I imagine this runs along similar lines to people's nationalities, and historic geography is always used. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with flags is that they are not so much helpful, as ornamental. Nearly anybody who can read English can read "New Zealand", "Philippines", or "Hong Kong". But the majority of readers will not recognize the flags for all three, or perhaps any of them. For the majority of readers, then, they are simply graphic noise, imparting no meaning to the topic of the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic

Additional input is requested at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic about if the word "mainstream" should be used in the passage about the consensus as report by Metacritic. Erik (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta (film) FAR

I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the article just be restored to the version that passed the original criteria? Lugnuts (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly likely not; it passed three-and-a-half years ago. Articles coming to WP:FAC today are—for the most part—held to a higher standard than they were back then. (That's not intended as a slight against anyone who crafted a now-old featured article, btw, just as an honest reflection of current practice.) Steve ^T • C 09:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. I looked at the old version and it really isn't much better, as it had even more non-free images, used spoiler tags, and still has some of the same issues with organization and what not. Also, as Steve notes, the FAC are must tougher than they were back when it passed, so the old version wouldn't pass today's standards either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Story works not directly related to a film but presented as such

I am not sure what to do regarding The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel matter at the Avatar (2009 film) article. The brothers' stories are not related to the film in any way, other than as similarities/comparisons, since James Cameron has not commented on using any of them as themes or inspirations for his film Avatar. Despite that, mention of them is currently in the Themes and inspirations section of this article...as if Cameron did use them as themes or inspirations. I ask should this stuff really be in that section? I say no, as did other editors in their removals of this information from that section, but additional opinions are needed about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also another issue at Avatar (2009 film) being discussed about if Avatar is an American film or an American-British film. Discussion is here. Erik (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet another Avatar issue over the creation of Characters and wildlife in Avatar‎, which has been redirected back to the main by multiple editors. The discussion at Talk:Characters and wildlife in Avatar#Need for this page? already clearly supports the redirect, but a certain ARS member has found it and is now likely to edit war over it if he follows his usual MO. So additional views would be useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article Characters and wildlife in Avatar is now at AFD. Discussion can be found here. Erik (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need an administrator

...to move Sideways (movie) back to Sideways after it was erroneously moved. See User_talk:Entertainer91#Problems with your page moves for a full rationale. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, I've restored the redirect to Sideways (movie) and put on a CSD which may get a faster result at this time of night. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But, it's only 8:44 PM...here! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, its almost 1 am here ;-) But looks like its all done -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was moved back to Sideways, but the talk page was never fixed; It's still over at Talk:Sideways (film). Could someone move it back to Talk:Sideways? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lion King character list round 3 or 4?

Yet again, a discussion has started at Talk:The Lion King#Merge proposal to discuss merging the character articles into a recreation of the already removed character list (removed by consensus from a not too old discussion about the same thing). Additional views would be useful -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! Movies Aggregate Scores?

Are Yahoo! Movies critics aggregate scores considered reliable and appropriate for inclusion, like RT's and MetaCritics? According to their site "Yahoo! Movies converts each critic's published rating into a letter grade. If the critic's review does not include a rating, Yahoo! Movies assigns a grade based on an assessment of the review." It then averages those grades into a Critics assessment. This generally seems to be from 10-15 critics that they link to. Some examples[1][2] Previously, consensus seemed to be that Yahoo! Movies should not be included. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think it appropriate for inclusion into an article, but I do see flaws. If the article Yahoo gets their rating from does not give a letter grade and the review is bad, the letter grade should be on par with this (meaning it should be a bad letter grade). But they could make it a good grade then. In which case, it should not be used. But what I've read on there so far, it seems to be acurate. I personally like seeing letter grades, rather then percentage grades. I know my sister who uses wikipedia, but does not edits it, likes the letter grades on here better than the percentage grades also. (Also, Collectonian thanks for handleing the situation in the right manner. And I'm sorry I misspelled your name ;P )ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

So if the initial review doesn't have a grade, Yahoo takes it on their own and assigns what they think the grade should be? Eeek. When doing film series/franchise article's reception tables, I have included the Yahoo! Movies scores (the critics), since it has been done on just about all articles and FA's. Would like to know if this is changed also. --Mike Allen 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Metacritic converts review ratings to a score in a similar way, assigning points. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As does Rotten Tomatoes. The Yahoo Movies external link template was deleted because the site is not as comprehensive as IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, hence it was redundant. But is there a consensus that Yahoo! Movies aggregate scores should not be used in articles? - kollision (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But MC and RT doesn't have a grading system like A, B , C , D etc? --Mike Allen 04:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Some film series articles use Yahoo! like at Batman in film#Critical reaction. For me, though, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are sufficient enough to reflect a film's reception. Adding the grade from Yahoo! feels like piling on, especially considering that its "grade" is not as common. Erik (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Then should we remove this from critical reception ables? including batman?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I wouldn't miss it that much. I may be guilty of including it in the first place in series' reception tables to try to make the table more detailed than just having RT and MC. In retrospect, I don't know if it's that common of a critical gauge and shouldn't be assumed to be one. Erik (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Julie & Julia

Could we receive some opinions here about some fishy reviews supporting a biased review? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Member

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 04:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sean! Welcome aboard. Feel free to check out the WikiProject's various pages. If you have any questions about the WikiProject, film articles, or editing in general, feel free to contact me on my talk page. There are other editors here at this WikiProject that you can probably contact as well. Again, welcome! :) Erik (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I echo what Erik said. All contributions to the film project are grately welcomed. Have a merry Christmas! Lugnuts (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are there standards for describing aggregate review scores?

Merry Christmas! And sorry if I'm treading the ground of old arguments, not being a member of the project. I noticed there's a argument over whether the critical reception for The Twilight Saga: New Moon should be called "mostly negative" or "mixed." The film's scored a 28% "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with a "weighted average score" of 4.7/10. The argument has been going on for about a week, with lots of reverting, but has happily been civil. So, are there some sort of practices or do members of the project just wing it? If it's the latter, could you please bring enough manpower on that article to bring the matter to a conclusion? Thanks, Kizor 19:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

From a glance, the mistake both sides seem to be making is attempting to interpret those 28% and 4.7/10 scores for themselves; this borders on original research. Why not simply find reliable sources that say "negative" or "mixed" or whatever, and include the Rotten Tomatoes score as a supplement to that? Here's a version based on how we've done it at Hancock, Changeling and a bunch of others, where we've used more than just one source to determine the consensus:

New Moon received mixed reviews from film critics.^[1] Rotten Tomatoes reported that 28% of critics gave the film a positive review, based on a sample of 199, with an average score of 4.7 out of 10.^[2] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 44 based on 32 reviews.^[1]

All of the above is cited; none is editor interpretation. Of course, the problem you might have is that seemingly equally reliable sources might label the reception everything from "negative" to "mixed" to "alright" :-) But at least that narrows the focus of the dispute down to what the sources say, rather than what we think they imply. All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just stop citing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic data and simply quote the reviews and allow the critics to speak for themselves? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We use RT as a means to provide a sample of critics that can be generalized back to all critics. It's called statistics. We cannot list every critic, and we cannot simply list 12 of them and interpret ourselves what the overall consensus is. That is why we use RT, because they take a much large sample than we can and provide the statistical data we need to be able to say that "in general", critics liked, disliked, or were ambivalent to a film. We also don't include things like "universal acclaim", "rotten", etc., because it's not neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so we use neutral terminology, even if RT or Metacritic do not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rename A Christmas Carol → Disney's A Christmas Carol (official name)

I brought it up on the film's talk page, but not sure it'll get many responses. But shouldn't the article be renamed to the official title (what most notable sources call it and it's on the film poster) to Disney's A Christmas Carol? I don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and this is the same thing that happened with The Twilight Saga: New Moon and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. How do we get this looked into? Thanks. --Mike Allen 06:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good thought! Check out WP:RM, where you can follow steps to set up an officially requested move that will be automatically listed on that page. Erik (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Though the first thing I'd do if I were you (Mike) is make sure that is the official title. While it's by no means considered 100% reliable, the IMDb, for example, lists it under the regular title. Steve ^T • C 19:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the title was revised. See the BBFC link here: [3]. The earlier trailers had it as "Disney's A Christmas Carol" and the later ones and ultimately the film as "A Christmas Carol". Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't all Disney films titled as "Disney's X" or "Walt Disney's X"? Seems more of a marketing gimmick than an actual true title. Lugnuts (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

According to IMDB it has two titles for its US release. For its normal release it was released as "Disney's A Christmas Carol" but for the IMAX version it was released as "A Christmas Carol". Amazon on the otherhand has its theatrical release down just as "A Christmas Carol" [4].ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1261940911&sr=1-1]. I'd say both titles are legitimate, but if one is taken why not go with the other? Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, this is a discussion about a specific article, so let's take our comments to the film article's talk page where Mike already started a thread. I'll be commenting there. Erik (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike has made an official request to move A Christmas Carol (2009 film) to Disney's A Christmas Carol. Discussion can be found here. Erik (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] double bill

Many of the B movies of the 1950s and early 1960s were produced and released as part of a double bill or double feature; shouldn't the double bill "partner" be part of the history of such films? E.g. "Attack of the Puppet People was released as part of a double bill with War of the Colossal Beast." Naaman Brown (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (Before I posted this I did a search of the archive for "double bill" and "double feature" but suspect this question may have been raised and answered already. Still, am curious.)

If its sourcable to reliable source, I think including it as part of the sentence noting its theatrical release date would be relevant, particularly if was par for the course back then. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What currency to use on foreign films?

See where this begin on this page, this page, and this page.

Since the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is not a US film (it's a UK film), should we add the GBP currency (with the appropriate USD after it) next to the budget/gross within the infobox and within the Box office section? That's the way I have it in the infobox now, but wondered if I should be consistent and use only GBP within the article or GBP along with USD? --Mike Allen 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, you could put the US amount with a source and then the converted amount, i.e.

€20.8 million ($30 million^[1])

And your reference would look like

^1 [url], converted to euros.

To list it without the US amount would need a separate source. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's on the actual film's article the home currency should take precedence, after all the currency of the UK is GBP. Listing it in dollars is as diabolical as listing the grosses of US films in GBP - it violates NPOV. There is one exception I can think of: if the worldwide gross is not available in pounds but it is available in dollars, then the dollar currency should take precedence. I am against DIY dollar/pound conversions because the exchange rate fluctuates on a day-to-day basis so the conversion will always be inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, don't convert dollars/pounds. The advantage to using the currency of the country where a movie was produced is that it's likely most of the audience is there. And hence, most of the readers. What *is* useful, however, is to provide historical currency conversions as here [5]; many readers will have a vague idea of the worth of money in many historical periods. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Several problems about Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film) and how infobox present a film's distributors

This film's wiki page has some errors. I fixed them, but then Collectonian would put those errors back in the page; I don't know why? Firstly, this film's UK release date is June 26 2009, but Collectonian keep stating that it is June 18, 2009 and put the date in this film's wiki page. Secondly, East Wing Holdings only produced this film, but didn't release it. But Collectonian keep stating this error info and put the error info in the infobox of this film's wiki page. On the other hand, Collectonian states that a infobox of a film's wiki page should only include the distributor in that film's original countries. It is ridiculous. United States is the most important film market in the world, especially for English-language films like Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film). It is the reason why its United States theatrical distributor should be included in the infobox of this film's wiki page. (Of course, Collectonian keeps delete it) In fact, many infoboxs of many non-US films' wiki pages have listed their United States theatrical distributors. For instance, based on what Collectonian said, maybe we should delete Sony Pictures Classics from the infobox of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus wiki page? Maybe we should also delete 20th Century Fox from the infobox of Taken wiki page? - Marychan41 (talk • contrib) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already attempted to explain my edits to Marychan and attempted discussion as she just kept making various changes without discussion despite pointing out that she was inappropriately adding systematic bias to the article. At the time Summit was added, it was mentioned in the sources listed. After rechecking them, the reference was removed so I have removed it from the article. The UK date in the lead has already been fixed as has the mention of East Wing Holdings (which again was from a source that has since removed the mentioned). I do know the difference between distributor and production company, thanks. The change to the infobox was fairly recent, which is why I encouraged Marychan to take a few minutes to actually read its documentation, rather than continuing to make incorrect edits, but instead she seems to prefer to think I was just making things up. The US is not the most important film market in the world, nor is this the American Wikipedia. Giving the US such extra attention is systematic bias hence the changes to the infobox. The English releases are properly noted in the article prose, they are just not overtly highlighted in the info box. Blood was filmed in English, but it is still a Japanese film. And yes, if those two films are not American films, then only their original distributors should be listed in the infobox, and the rest moved to the prose as is appropriate. And apologies to Marychan. Had I realized that English was not your first language I would have explained the reverts in greater detail on the first round, but I presumed it was your first language so didn't realize you just were not understanding my summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a bias, it is the fact. In fact, getting theatrical releases in the United States can helps the films to get sell to more international distributors. (For instance, many international distributors didn't buy The Lives of Others until Sony Pictures Classics paid $100,000 to buy it; but The Lives of Others is a German film, so we should delete Sony Pictures Classics from the infobox of The Lives of Others wiki page?) Getting theatrical releases in the United States can also help films to get much more money in worldwide non-theatrical market; it is the reason why many international companies chose to self-release their films in US theatrically when they couldn't get US theatrical distribution deals. (For instance, CJ Entertainment self-released Typhoon in the United States theatrically, with Paramount tapped to handle the logistics on the ground) They are some reason that can explains why United States is the most important film market in the world, and why many infoboxs of many non-US films' wiki pages have listed their United States theatrical distributors. So I think Samuel Goldwyn Films should be added on the infobox of Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film) page. (And yes, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and Taken are definitely not US films, but getting United States theatrical release are very important key to their success.) - Marychan41 (talk • contrib) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The release dates should be limited to its earliest theatrical showing, and the release dates in the countries that produced the film: WP:FilmRelease. You can get a list of the relevant dates here: [6]. Neither UK nor US release dates are eligible for inclusion in the infobox.

As for the distributor, there is no guidelines for which distributors should be included or not included, so there is no rule that the US distributor can't be listed. If the list of distributors is unfeasibly long though then some common sense should apply, and a consensus would probably result in the listing restricted to distributors in the production countries. At the moment though I see no reason why a US distributor cannot be listed according to the rules as they currently are.

The US is the single biggest market in the film industry, but by using that as criteria for selecting information to present would violate WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. The treatment of each film should be consistent i.e. Japanese films have domestic information presented in the same way US films have their domestic information presented. Treatment of international information for Korean films should be consistent with the the treatment of international information on articles about US films. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your explainations, Betty Logan. So I guess Samuel Goldwyn Films can be added on the infobox of Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film) page, but its US theatrical release date can't. (Many infoboxs of many non-US films' wiki pages have listed their United States theatrical dates, though, like the pages of The Lives of Others and Taken) - Marychan41 (talk • contrib) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also note the difference between making something successful (in the box office? critically? commercially?) and being notable. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that IMDB is NOT a reliable source. Further, no, the US distributor should not be included in the infobox. And other pages that have not been updated to the new guidelines does not mean you should continue to push forth deprecated editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't get those infos from IMDB; I gets its from other reliable sources. For instance, even the TV spot of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus states that the film is a UK-France co-production. - Marychan41 (talk • contrib) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just my interpretation of the guidelines here: Template:Infobox_Film. Restrictions are placed on the release dates you can list but there are no restrictions placed on the list of distributors. There clearly is no rule limiting the distributors section to distributors in the home countries, like there is with release dates. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Common sense would seem to say that if it applies for one, it applies for all. There is no explicit restriction against adding dub voice actors, but those also do not belong in the infobox, only the original voices. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were solely left to common sense then it wouldn't be listed for any. Typically the number of distributors is much smaller than release dates - a big Hollywood film for instance will usually have a domestic distributor and an international one, but there could be many release dates. In such a case it would be common sense to list both distributors. I don't know what the precise situation with this film is, but if there is only a handful of distributors I don't see a common sense reason for restricting the listing. Common sense would only need to prevail if the list became inordinately large. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would actually agree with Collectonian (its what I tend to do). Is it really notable who distributed Monsters, Inc. in Argentina or Tsotsi in China? I wouldn't think so. I think it would be good to say who distributed the film to the countries where it is notable, and leave the rest to prose, or imdb. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid point, but if you consider Titanic (1997 film), the article lists both its domestic and its international distributors. Is it any more notable who distributed Titanic outside of its country than who distributed Monsters Inc or Tsotsi? I don't care either way, but there should be some consistency between how its covered on film articles. If this particular film has a couple of international distributors, isn't it peculiar that they can't be listed but Titanic's are? Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Titanic isn't exactly the highest quality of articles and its well on its way to a GAR because of its many issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly address the point. If we apply the same rationale to the Titanic article then we should pull the international distributor. Would you agree with that? You can't decide with distributors are retained and which are not based on a whim. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I would agree any non-US distributors should be removed from that article, as its a US film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is based on your 'common sense', which is not an objective and measurable standard.(Based on some people 'common sense', maybe infobox shouldn't list any distributor at all.) But as Betty Logan said, there is no official wiki rule that the US distributors for foreign films can't be listed in the infoboxs; the official wiki rule is more objective and measureable than different people's 'common sense'.

On the other hand, Titanic (1997 film) grossed most of its box office gross from international countries, and 20th Century Fox paid 60% of the film's budget to get the film's international rights. For me, it would be little ridiculous to not list 20th Century Fox in the infobox. (Again, there is no official wiki rule that the major international distributor for an US film can't be listed in the infobox) - Marychan41 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Domestic" box office

Can I humbly suggest members of this WikiProject have a trawl through articles about films and fix usage of the term "domestic" box office to reflect which countries are actually meant by this? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about Avatar (2009 film), we should avoid using the word "domestic" as much as possible. The meaning changes depending on the location of the reader. "Domestic", for Avatar, means the United States and Canada. It's best practice to write "grossed $x in the United States and Canada and $y in other territories". Erik (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about in all film articles. The thought was prompted by Avatar, as you say, but I've seen the term used widely in various entertainment articles in my years at WP and I'd anticipate it's fairly widely used in film articles. It's pretty much always inappropriate to use it. --Dweller (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is inappropriate to use, and it should be corrected as found. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This ham-fisted search hit 388 uses on en:, but not all of them are film-related. --Dweller (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding "English-language films" (very common film article category) helps narrow it down, particularly because "domestic" is regularly found in American films due to systemic bias in favor of the US. Erik (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Have noted this, thanks. --Mike Allen 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries! :) American publications frequently say "domestic" (especially Variety), so we have to take a moment and realize that the English-language Wikipedia has a global audience. Erik (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

These are all good points! I'm glad some one brought it up. I have used it before as the box office article defines Domestic box office as the United States/Canada gross, but I can see where the problem is. This should be written into the MOS some where, perhaps here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help! I was amused to see that in the first few Ghits, was a couple of usages of the term relating to the Dutch domestic box office, lol. --Dweller (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Toruk Makto!!! Cirt (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Motion pictures ratings

Additional discussion on Sherlock Holmes talk page on whether to include the Motion picture ratings into the article or not, would be appreciated. Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We kind of have guidelines on this already: MOS:FILM#Ratings. :) I've reiterated this link there. Erik (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review Request

Hello to the films project! Im Mark, and a member of the WP:Musical Theatre/Theatre. Was wondering if anyone on this project would mine giving a look over Legally Blonde (musical) because im really at a loss who to ask and I really want to get working on the article. Its based on the movie Legally Blonde so thought this might be a good place to ask :). Hope you can help :) Mark E (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mark. The article has quite a lot of meat. The "C-Class" rating is probably a little harsh, at this point. Are you shooting to improve the rating, or ...? I'll leave a few comments on the article discussion page, but the article doesn't really need vast correction from many editors. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)