Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

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 31 Oct 2026 – Zombie Nightmare (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 20 Oct 2026 – Leeds Animation Workshop (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Lajmmoore (t · c); see discussion 17 Oct 2026 – The Cat Concerto (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by RTSthestardust (t · c); see discussion 15 Oct 2026 – Lackadaisy (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by RTSthestardust (t · c); see discussion 12 Oct 2026 – Till the Bells Ring (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by DrThneed (t · c); see discussion 12 Oct 2026 – Golden Age of Argentine cinema (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion 07 Oct 2026 – Cinema '76 (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Chlod (t · c); see discussion 02 Oct 2026 – Ginga no Uo Ursa Minor Blue (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion 22 Sep 2026 – What Is a Woman? (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by 1timeuse75 (t · c); see discussion 16 Sep 2026 – Hong Du-sik (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Preferwiki (t · c); see discussion 16 Sep 2026 – Hollywood Walk of Fame (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gb321 (t · c); see discussion (1 more...) Featured article candidates 22 Oct 2026 – The Giant Spider Invasion (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by GamerPro64 (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2026 – Dead Island Reveal Trailer (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 21 Aug 2026 – Juhi Chawla filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by 25 Cents FC (t · c); see discussion Featured topic candidates 27 Sep 2026 – SB19 videography (talk · edit · hist) was FT nominated by Relayed (t · c); see discussion 09 Sep 2026 – Kim Seon-ho filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FT nominated by Preferwiki (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 21 Oct 2026 – Do It Like an Hombre (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Tbhotch (t · c); start discussion 20 Oct 2026 – The Night of the Hunter (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by RamónSalamander (t · c); see discussion 10 Oct 2026 – Niu Lai (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Jon698 (t · c); start discussion 10 Oct 2026 – Some Nights I Feel Like Walking (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by RFNirmala (t · c); start discussion 07 Oct 2026 – Martyrs (2008 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by AdobongPogi (t · c); start discussion 05 Oct 2026 – United International Pictures (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by RichardDevon3451 (t · c); start discussion 25 Sep 2026 – India: The Modi Question (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Vanamonde93 (t · c); start discussion 24 Sep 2026 – Bohurupi (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BengalMC (t · c); start discussion 20 Sep 2026 – WGA screenwriting credit system (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fengrímur (t · c); start discussion 19 Sep 2026 – Delta Force 2: The Colombian Connection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Owen Lift(formerly Devito) (t · c); start discussion (14 more...) Good topic candidates 19 Oct 2026 – A Star Is Born (2018 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Sricsi (t · c); see discussion The topic includes: List of accolades received by A Star Is Born (2018 film) Featured list removal candidates 03 Oct 2026 – List of Latvian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for FL removal by Bgsu98 (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 13 Sep 2026 – The Truman Show (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Bgsu98 (t · c); see discussion 06 Jul 2026 – Santosh Subramaniam (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Kailash29792 (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 15 Sep 2026 – Ömer the Tourist in Star Trek (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Wreaderick (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Article Peter Kuplowsky has been nominated for deletion.

TIFF/Midnight Madness programmer and film producer Peter Kuplowsky's article has been nominated for deletion, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. Alaney2k (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Indian film and languages categories redux

Re : Recent message on my talk page from @Gotibro:

Hi Οἶδα,

About your recent cat changes for Indian entertainment. I believe we've discussed this about the cinema of India a while back in some detail: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 89.

I agree with your changes for subcats at Category:Fictional portrayals of police departments in India and others. Had planned to subsequently wiggle it down to the specific type of fictional work (film, TV etc.) but did not get around to it.

Though your changes for subcats Category:Indian television shows by language are incorrect. This cat was indeed created to serve as a subcat of "television shows by language", mass changes such as yours recently would require prior consensus. If you think this is redundant, please go for a CfD but the cats function was exactly what it is being used for. Gotitbro (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I notice that you've gone ahead and implemented the decoupling of langs and cinema for Indian sub cinemas. This too is of course without consensus (cf. the Wikiproject Film discussion). I will be reverting these, when/if I get the time, but with a careful examination of further subcat creation. Gotitbro (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Also Indian Himalayas are indeed the Himalayas, just a section of it. The objections around it do not appear material. Gotitbro (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you agree with many of my edits, Gotitbro. Because, to be clear, your wide-ranging edits across all of these Indian categories 2 years are some of the most glaring and obviously wrong I have seen in a long time. I first came across all of this a little over a year ago with the Kashmiri categories, as you can see documented in my comment to Liz here Category talk:Books about the Kashmir conflict. At the time, I simply gave up even trying to remedy the damage you caused because it was too much of a clusterfuck. It required more than just a little "wiggling". I am still struggling to handle it right now. But it does sound like you have since learned from your mistakes and not edited categories in this way, i.e. establishing broad parent-child category relations all over the places to create giant circular, illogical trees divorced from the very principles guiding cateogrization on Wikipedia. So I would be glad to hear that we are on the same page in recognizing that. Because otherwise I wouldn't see much productivity (read: actually moving things forward) in dialoguing with you further.

As for the discussion we had here 8 months ago (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_89#Indian_film_and_languages_categories), I recall. I was not concinced by your argumentation then and am still not. You are arguing that membership of a language category logically implies membership of a location category. That doesn't become true the second India comes into the equation and become untrue the second India exits it. But alas, this is likely something we are not going to agree on here so the next step is WP:CFD. Because you again insist the "cat was indeed created" for the purposes you say they were. That renders these not language categories, but hybrid language and country categories. I very clearly expressed to you that you did not actually provide evidence to substantiate this claim of yours. You did not bother responding. As I wrote there:

They are not the exclusive user of those languages in all of film. Again, if the issue from the start was how to subdivide Indian film categories by their industries, then they should have been subdivided by their industries, not by language. Not sure why anyone would consider it appropriate to have categories covertly functioning as subtopics of their stated names. But again, I don't believe the categorization was ever decided to be that. You say "that is what their leads state and what we have always followed at enwiki". What do their leads state? They state that Hindi cinema is India's Hindi-language film industry. That Tamil cinema is India's Tamil-language film industry. That Telugu cinema is India's Telugu-language film industry. They do not state that Hindi-language films are exclusively those produced by India's Hindi-language film industry. That Tamil-language films are exclusively those produced by India's Tamil-language film industry. That Telugu-language films are exclusively those produced by India's Telugu-language film industry. And again, those are Wikipedia articles, not Wikipedia categories, which are governed separately. Any category can be renamed, merged, split, and deleted at CfD regardless of whatever someone says enwiki has "always followed". There is no proof that these categories have been covertly functioning as industry-only catgories and that there is some sort of implicit consensus behind that decision. The longstanding description at Category:Hindi-language films has simply stated that it contains "Films in which the Hindi language is wholly or partially spoken." And at Category:Tamil-language films: "Films in which the Tamil language is wholly or partially spoken." And at Category:Telugu-language films: "Films in which the Telugu language is wholly or partially spoken." I too would really appreciate if we could let other editors comment here for more diverse participation. Because I feel as if you are just avoiding my central point here and citing CfD consensuses that doesn't actually exist. You can view the CfDs from 20 years ago that established this category tree.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_16#Films_by_language Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_11#Category:Films_by_language Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_8#Films_by_language

They are about the division of films by language, not about films by industry or country. And again, India is not actually unique in this regard. There are a great deal of other "films by language" categories for which you could say most of the films contained therein originate from the country where that language originates. But we do not have those language categories as children of their country categories there either, and wherever we still do we shouldn't. Because, again, one does not logically imply the other. The reason Category:Punjabi language is a subcat of Category:Languages of India and Category:Languages of Pakistan is because it is both of those things at the same time. The reason Category:Bengali-language drama films should not be a subcat of Category:Indian drama films or Category:Bangladeshi drama films is because it is not both of those things at the same time. And, more importantly, it is neither of those things because a film being in a given language does not logically imply the film originates from the country that the given language originates from. If it did logically imply that then Letters from Iwo Jima would be a Japanese film by default. But it isn't. Οἶδα (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Either way, the reason I changed the select categories that you are taking issue with was simply because they are in container categories but are not at all appropriately diffused for a container category. As I explained in my summary, "Indian television shows by language" does not mean "Television shows by languages of India". "Indian television shows by language" means "Indian television shows" as diffused by language. That is only true of Category:English-language Indian television shows. The other subcategories do not diffuse Indian television shows. They diffuse Television shows by language. They do not belong in the Indian container category.

As for the Himalayas, that is very clearly defined as a mountain range. Indian Himalayan Region is not Himalayas. As I tried to indicate in my edit summary, it would be simply inaccurate to say that membership of, say, Category:Films shot in Tripura implies membership of Category:Films shot in the Himalayas. That category is not named Category:Films shot in the Indian Himalayan Region, in reference to the article Indian Himalayan Region.

But again, if we're ultimately going to repeat the previous argumentation here then we're just prolonging the inevitable: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion -- Οἶδα (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Cfd should be the way to go if you want to do away with the Indian TV language cat.

As for "damage", "clusterfuck" "obnoxious", let us be less abrasive here and AGF. I've had the discussion with others regarding these before and read others for related ones as an uninvolved participant. Many found them to be useful.

The parent-child relationship is firmrly held for many of the removals you instituted and which we discussed in our last discussion. Here for instance you remove Category:Cinema of West Bengal, which is as relevant as it gets.

I've discussed the shot/set in cats elsewhere before and it was understood that they are relevant as closely related ones but I can see the objection here (a broader set of opinions is still welcome).

I see that you've expanded your mass changes of decoupling lang and country everywhere else as well at "Television shows by language", I don't think any discussion for this was constituted either.

In any case I think we can resolve some of the "placeholder" objections by creating relevant parent cats ("Cinema of/Television in [Indian state]") etc. Gotitbro (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Tripura indeed falls in the Himalayas, so I am unsure what you mean above. The Indian Himalayan Region reads thus The Indian Himalayan Region (abbreviated to IHR) is the section of the Himalayas within the Republic of India.

Though we can indeed create cats related to the "Indian Himalayan Region" and subcat them to the relevant Himalaya cats. Gotitbro (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

You objectively damaged the category system. If you cannot admit then that is utterly disappointing, Gotitbro. I have made plenty of mistakes myself over the years. I'm sorry but I'm not taking most of this as an acknowledgement of what you did wrong. You say "Many found them to be useful." Who cares? That is just more hollow appeals with zero citations to proof. And I'm not sure what you're even referring to with that. A bunch of people told you they like categories that shirk the basic tents of WP:CATEGORIZATION? Cool... I am specifically talking about the additions to categories you performed in the first part of 2024. Not to the larger dispute mentioned above. You fundamentally mangled entire swaths of categories. You cannot dispute that. Category:Films set in West Bengal, Category:Films set in Kolkata, Category:Films shot in West Bengal, Category:Films shot in Kolkata, Category:Films set in Bengal did not belong as parent cats at Bengali-language Indian films. Location of setting and location of shooting do not automatically imply a film's language or its country of origin. You added this same kind of illogical category relations over and over and over throughout the system. It is downright daunting. Go through all of your category edits from that period and see for yourself. I'm tempted to revert all of your edits wholesale for the protection of the project.

In general, I'm having trouble AGF when I wrote all of that and your reply is the same as last time. Avoiding my central point and citing consensuses that don't actually exist. Substantiate your claims or this back-and-forth is unproductive. Οἶδα (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are basic enwiki tenets that apply regardless of whether you are "having trouble" with following these, whether think an editor has made a mistake, whether you think it is "daunting" or whether you want to "revert all [...] edits wholesale for the protection of the project". If you really think that there has been actual WP:DISRUPTION, rather than unassuming 'mistakes', take it to the apt forum but if you want to resolve disputes that abrasivessness will have to go. Civility is not a hard thing to come by.

I admit the shot/set cats do appear to conflate things and prior input should've been sought. But stating that those edits "fundamentally mangled entire swaths of categories' and added "illogical category relations over and over and over throughout the system" is overstating things to say the least. There is clearly a huge overlap in there. Though I'm not putting any stock in strongly arguing for these in any case, as my reply above would've let known, this work up is over a non-dispute.

The main dispute, "central point", is your mass changes related to lang and country. You claim there is no fundamental parent-child relationship between countries and lang works based solely on only on English-language cats/works (which you continue to populate). The majority of your removals in there have nothing to do with my edits. You can try to 'substantiate' your mass decoupling of these at CfD (India/[any other country] films/TV by lang), if you don't want 'unproductive' discussions here.

In any case I tried to provide resolutions to some of the other issues cited above. I'll try ans find the time to implement those. Gotitbro (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

"illogical category relations over and over and over throughout the system" is overstating things to say the least.

There is not going to be any agreement on that between you and I then. Your thousands of category edits in early 2024 are all observable. If we cannot even acknowledge the extent of your mistakes then we are not operating from the same understanding of the basic tenets of WP:CAT. Take a second and ask yourself why the kind of category relations you established across thousands of categories are not applied in other categories across the whole project. The answer is simple. Logical membership governs parent-child relationships. Not just adding every "closely related" category as possible. Category:Fictional portrayals of police departments in India is not a logical subcategory of Category:Films about law enforcement in India, Category:Indian police films, Category:Indian crime television series, Category:Indian crime novels or Category:Police procedural television series. Yet you added them. The list goes on and on and on. Being in Category:Films about Hindi cinema does not automatically imply Category:Films set in Mumbai, Category:Films about actors, Category:Films about cinematography, Category:Films about film directors and producers, Category:Films about screenwriters, Category:Films about stunt performers or Category:Films shot in Mumbai. But you added those as parent cats. As if every film "about Hindi cinema" could also logically fit in those cats. That is how parent-child categorization works.

You continue to avoid responding to my appeal and instead choose to focus on my abrasiveness. Because that is seemingly all you have. You have repeatedly made claims about what this categorization area is and that it was expressly agreed to function in a certain way. Respectfully, anyone can flippantly claim things like this, but without proof of that it's just hot air. Completely unevidenced. You have thus far avoided every request for links to discussions that substantiate your claims about past consensuses for these categories.

And, to be clear, any abrasiveness is deliberate. I am not firing off specific words because I am fuming in some stew. I am not angry. It is to characterise the significance of the dilemma you've created and to evoke a proportional consideration of the facts from your end. Unsurprisingly, that has failed because it has only given space for you pearl-clutch about my tone and avoid the only thing matters, which is providing proof of your central claim. So going forward in this discussion I will offer nothing but the most conciliatory tone imaginable. But if the very next reply is not a link attesting to what you claim then it would probably be best to save it. Because, yes, anything further would be unproductive. Either way, I am already opening a CfD about this. Οἶδα (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The police cats I've admitted were not optimal ("I agree with your changes"), wanted to split them off into subcats but that fell of the to-do. Bringing that up repeatedly is unfruitful WP:POINTyness. The Hindi/Mumbai/Bollywood cinema cats can be culled down if need be but to state that none of them apply for a Mumbai/Bombay-based cinema is stretching it.

And what you state here are content not conduct disputes, none of which give anyone a leeway to do away with civility vis a vis fellow editors acting in good faith. Wouldn't have brought this to your Talk page if I felt otherwise.

Because that is seemingly all you have. ... And, to be clear, any abrasiveness is deliberate. ... pearl-clutch about my tone and avoid the only thing matters

Good grief. Go to CfD or whatever forum you deem apt but do not expect editors to respond to attacking comments bordering on PA. Gotitbro (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

All I expect from you is evidence supporting your claims about prior consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

→ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 October 21#Relation between by-language and by-country categories. Οἶδα (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Skydance Media § Requested move 3 October 2026

An editor has requested that Skydance Media be moved to Skydance Media (2006-2025), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Requested move at Talk:Naari (film) § Requested move 30 September 2026

An editor has requested that Naari (film) be moved to Naari, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Requested move at Talk:Paramount Skydance § Requested move 4 October 2026

An editor has requested that Paramount Skydance be moved to Skydance, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Article formatting

Just wanted to mention that I've noticed a significant increase this year in the number of editors who seem interested solely in smashing every article about a film into a single standardized format with no variability for the film's individual circumstances.

For instance, if an article about a film doesn't already contain a comprehensive plot summary, then they'll edit the article just to add a Plot header with a {{No plot}} template under it — or they'll comprehensively force standardized section headers onto a very short stub even if the amount of information actually present in the article just doesn't require sections at all, or they'll force header-subhead structure onto a section that doesn't need it (e.g. putting casting information in a production section under a "casting" subhead, even if there's nothing else to segregate the casting information from because the casting information is the entire production section as currently written.) I've even seen people do the "plot: no plot" thing on documentaries, even though documentaries inherently don't have plots.

Of course, all of this is situational: it's perfectly fine in a long article that needs that kind of organization, but not at all necessary to impose it onto a very short article that hasn't been expanded yet. Obviously this spikes right around the major film festivals, when lots of new films are getting short initial stubs based on their recent or upcoming premieres but don't have nearly enough sourceability to write anything like an FA-quality article yet, but it happens at other times too. So obviously those sections can be added if and when the article becomes expandable enough to warrant them, but there's no rule that every article about a film has to be sectioned out exactly the same way regardless of whether there's any information to actually add under any given section.

So just a reminder to keep an eye out for this kind of silliness, because there seem to be a considerable number of casual editors who appear to be interested solely in pushing standardized sectioning onto every film article regardless of whether the topic needs it or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

While I won't go so far as to say there's a direct connection between the two, perhaps it should be noted that a handful of editors, at least, have expressed frustration with the recent determination that the RT and MC prose templates should be auto-substituted (there's been some noise about taking it to DRV at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace)...arguably another instance of trying to push for standardized text that not only makes any variability difficult if not nearly impossible (especially if/when editors are willing to revert any deviation from the template) but implicitly advances the notion that standardized text is preferred. DonIago (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

What type of editors are they? IPs? Users? Perhaps a WP:SOCK is at play here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've noticed it too often to hunt specific examples down in my edit history anymore — but it's been a variety of editors rather than just one username, and I think it's pretty unlikely that just one single editor has been repeatedly socking such a thing under multiple usernames. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Indian cinema box-office trackers

Opening this discussion to examine the reliability of couple of Indian BoxOffice trackers Bollywood Hungama and Sacnilk . I have explained the entire context and reality of current Indian Box office reporting in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

First discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Reassessment_of_Sacnilk.com.

Second discussion was then continued at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_525#Reliability_of_Indian_cinema_box-office_trackers, which is currently archieved.

I would recommend to have a look at the earlier discussions to get the complete context.

This is the third discussion currently, I have started the discussion here to seek opinion from wider audience. Currently Hollywood films use Box Office Mojo and The Numbers to report, similarly Indian Box Office needs to have some similar trackers which are reliable and accurate. I have been editing in Indian Box office for quite some time and I personally (and many from the previous discussions) feel both Bollywood Hungama and Sacnilk as widely used by reputed news sources and I are reliable - based on its historic reporting and accuracy.

Currently Bollywood Hungama is stated as reliable but no proper consensus discussion exist. Similarly Sacnilk was stated as unreliable back in 2022, but currently have published some transparent details (all the relevent links are mentioned in both the above discussions). I would again recommend to look at the entire picture and have a consistent review for both these sources (similar to how Box Office Mojo and The Numbers were reviewed). Thanks! Tonyy Starkk (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Mosquito Bowl § Requested move 14 September 2026

An editor has requested that The Mosquito Bowl be moved to The Mosquito Bowl (film), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

The Numbers franchise tables (again)

Per last discussion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_90#The_Numbers_franchise_tables.

Since March, the Numbers has dropped their franchise tables and they have not been back up since then. (lots of data was removed) I'm not sure what to do here. Many pages like List of highest-grossing media franchises (which I can't update because of the removal) and others use them. Timur9008 (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:404 applies here. By using a mixture of archived links and a liberal interpretation of WP:CALC we can probably navigate the issue, provided we don't over-state conclusions which cannot be directly verified. Betty Logan (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Requesting Review of Notability for Bryan Unkeless, film and television producer

Hello, I am disclosing that I work with Bryan Unkeless and would like to find an independent editor to review his notability and determine if a biographical article should be made for him. I won't submit an article myself due to the COI but would appreciate an unbiased assessment.

Bryan has had a long career producing many film and television shows, and there is a long track record of independent coverage of his work. Articles include: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/netflix-the-oscars-the-battle-for-the-future-of-film; https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/awards/story/2026-06-10/emmys-book-adaptations-remarkably-bright-creatures-people-we-meet-on-vacation-all-her-fault-imperfect-women; https://people.com/remarkably-bright-creatures-movie-everything-to-know-11937551; https://behindthelensonline.net/site/interviews/the-hunger-games-producer-nina-jacobson-and-the-cast-talk-the-written-word-aka-the-books/; https://monkeysfightingrobots.co/exclusive-interview-i-tonya-producers-bryan-unkeless-and-tom-ackerley/; https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/peter-craig-bryan-unkeless-night-owl-1236046715/; https://decrypt.co/101674/why-hunger-games-producer-bryan-unkeless-is-making-his-next-sci-fi-project-in-web3; https://theankler.com/warner-bros-insiders-quiet-panic/.

Bryan's credited film work includes... As Producer: I, TONYA; BRIGHT; FIRST MATCH; BIRDS OF PREY; PROJECT POWER; KATE; ALONG FOR THE RIDE; EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE GREAT; REMARKABLY BRIGHT CREATURES (for which Bryan won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Movie). As Co-Producer: THE HUNGER GAMES; THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE; THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 1; THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 2.

Bryan's credited television work includes... As Executive Producer: DOLLFACE; MIKE; THE WATCHER

Please let me know if there is a more appropriate place to file this request, this is my first time starting a topic on Wikipedia.

Thank you! LPMO (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for neutral review of Draft:Samantha_Storr

Hi — I'm the subject of Draft:Samantha_Storr (COI disclosed on the draft). The draft was declined in December for inadequate sourcing and broken links. I've since rewritten it with 15 working citations from independent sources (TechCrunch, AP, Adweek, BFI, Fast Company, etc.) covering the major notability claims: first UN VR film, Cannes Entertainment Grand Prix, TIME Best Inventions, Children's BAFTA. Would an uninvolved editor be willing to review the draft for neutrality and notability, and submit it if it meets the bar? Happy to answer any questions about sources. Thanks! Samanthastorr (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriate poster for Pixote

The poster for the 1980 Brazilian film Pixote shows a naked actor who was around 14 at the time of filming. I don't know what the law says, but there are other posters for Pixote that don't include nudity, and I see no reason to include the current poster. Can this photo be deleted? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

List of films directed by women

In the process of creating an article about the film Sacred Creatures earlier today, I discovered that it had already been listed (but unlinked) in List of films directed by women, a list I did not previously know the existence of. In looking a bit further at the list, it became evident that it's already more than long enough that splitouts into multiple sublists, either by decade or by year as needed, would be completely justifiable — and I've already been able to identify at least a few films directed by women, just in 2026 alone, that haven't been added to the list yet, and even that's just among films that I know about, with undoubtedly even more missing films directed by women that I haven't seen or heard of yet. So virtually every section in the list can easily be made even longer than it already is.

But when I added the {{split}} tag and went to Talk:List of films directed by women to formulate a proposal, I found that somebody else had in fact already proposed splitting it in August — but they didn't tag the article in order to get it added to the Category:Articles proposed for splitting queue, so nobody else commented in the discussion one way or the other because nobody else had seen it until now.

Just as we routinely do for other sets of film lists (by country, LGBTQ, etc.), the standard process is very much to start with one base list at the beginning and then spin off sublists by decade or year as it grows, and I think it's pretty clear that this list has grown to the point that spinoffs would be justified. So I just wanted to get some more project eyes on it, because I wouldn't want to unilaterally start such a thing all by myself without added input or participation. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking for input on Anne Hathaway

Hello!

I'm looking for input about a section on the Anne Hathaway page. My talk page post is here. Thanks in advance! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Updated film overview table

Hi all! As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 91#Template for franchise movie tables, I have made a standarized template for franchise movie tables, which can be seen at {{Film overview}}. Have a look over the documentation; if you've got any questions or conerns, please don't hesitate to ask. -- Alex _talk 06:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Alex!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hemavathi (film) § Requested move 10 October 2026

An editor has requested that Hemavathi (film) be moved to Hemavathi, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 12:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Requested move at Talk:Nuisance Bear (2026 film) § Requested move 19 October 2026

An editor has requested that Nuisance Bear (2026 film) be moved to Nuisance Bear, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Feedback request: Athimanoharam

Hello! I recently created the article Athimanoharam, an upcoming Malayalam film directed by Tharun Moorthy and starring Mohanlal and Meera Jasmine. Since the film is unreleased, I would appreciate feedback on whether the sourcing meets WP:NFF and whether the structure and tone are appropriate. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thank you! Wowinside.in (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Micom Film and TV Productions

The article Micom Film and TV Productions has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as unreferenced and for notability concerns for 7 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. We are not a directory of defunct TV producers.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)