Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion |
| WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [] | |
|---|---|
|
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews | |
|
| |
|
Did you know
Featured article candidates
Featured list candidates
Good article nominees
Featured list removal candidates
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
| |
| View full version with task force lists |
Categories for films by editor and cinematographer
[edit]Thoughts? I could find very little discussion about this pretty much ever happening, which is surprising. There was a 2019 discussion that deleted five "films by editor" categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_15#Films_by_editor. It was argued by 3 of the 5 participants there that editing is not WP:DEFINING, meaning the editor of the film is not commonly and consistently mentioned in reliable sources discussing the film. I can understand that. Someone like Thelma Schoonmaker is well known and likely mentioned more often when discussing a film she edited than most other film editors. It was also suggested in that CfD that those "films by editor" categories were a slippery slope to categorizing by other production staff like key grips. Though I would note that the WP Film community deemed both editor and cinematographer worthy of inclusion in {{Infobox film}} whilst routinely upholding the exclusion of other credits like executive producer, co-producer, production designer, costume designer, VFX, choreographer etc. I of course realise that infoboxes and categories operate under different governance, but presumably that says something. And I'm not trying to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Category:Films scored by composer has existed for several years now and I'm having trouble imagining how, at the very least, cinematographer would not be as defining as a film's scoring composer. In my experience they are just as commonly and consistently mentioned in reliable sources discussing a film. I considered nominating Category:Films scored by composer for deletion myself but I'm not so sure if it is non-defining, which begs the question if cinematographer is or isn't either. Οἶδα (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- This may or may not be germane to the topic, but is it a worthwhile point of consideration that it's hard to say when an editor has made substantial contributions to the film, relative to the director or even the composer (whose contributions are readily accessible)? Perhaps not, since there are Oscars for best film editing and best cinematography. I do worry, though, that well-meaning editors would take the inception of such categories as carte blanche to categorize every film in such a manner. I suppose we could put, somewhere, something like only editors/cinematographers who've won (specific awards here) should be given categories, but the problem is that categories are easy to create and frankly kind of a nuisance to delete.
- I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but I have reservations. I'd certainly like to hear from other editors. DonIago (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Even with directors and producers, people already take the fact that some directors and producers have such categories as license to automatically create a category for every director or producer across the board. At first, there was a cutoff that the director/producer had to have a biographical article before they qualified to have a dedicated category for their films — but so many categories got created for directors who didn't have biographical articles that editors have largely stopped even trying to uphold that at all anymore, and attempts to apply cutoffs for "only directors who have at least n>1 films with articles to file in the category" have also foundered on the creation of far, far more single-film categories than anybody can be bothered to deal with culling either.
That, of course, is not sustainable, and many such categories have been deleted on the grounds that the person didn't have a significant enough career to warrant one, but again there's just no motivated effort to deal with keeping those trees manageable by actually monitoring them in any sustained way. I don't see any way in which editor or cinematographer categories could possibly avoid exactly the same issue — we definitely don't want a category for every single film editor or cinematographer who's ever had just one credit, but I really just don't see any viable way in which we could possibly apply or maintain any sort of "only editors or cinematographers who meet certain specific notability criteria, and not just everyone across the board" cutoff. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)- Honestly, I kind of wish "category creator" was a permission that needed to be granted, rather than something that any editor could do. DonIago (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, for many other reasons besides just this I 100 per cent agree with you on that... Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Over on Wikimedia Commons, you don't even need an account to create categories. I've been trying to appeal for a change to that here, but that seems to be going nowhere. So I guess it could be worse. Οἶδα (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, for many other reasons besides just this I 100 per cent agree with you on that... Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that categories for works by people for whom there are not yet Wikipedia articles shouldn't be allowed. I had the vague impression of that once being standard practice but perhaps I'm remembering wrong because in searching CfD logs I'm finding results like Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 24#Category:Albums produced by John Cornfield and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 20. I'm not sure there has ever been a wider consensus about this. Similar to how we still can't agree on whether Works by creator subcategories still follow the exception that existed at WP:SMALLCAT. Both would require a formal discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization or somewhere else. Οἶδα (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, I kind of wish "category creator" was a permission that needed to be granted, rather than something that any editor could do. DonIago (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I should also add that while I'm not fully convinced that we really need Category:Films scored by composer either, what makes that different from editor or cinematographer categories is that composition of scores is a half-and-half thing that falls under both WPFILM and WPMUSIC. I doubt it would exist at all if it fell under the purview of WPFILM alone — it's because there are WPMUSIC implications as well that it has to be measured by different standards than editing or cinematography. That is, it is indeed difficult to understand why composers would get categories while editors and cinematographers wouldn't, if you're operating strictly from a WPFILM perspective — but from a WPMUSIC perspective, it's equally difficult to justify why composers wouldn't be eligible for films-scored categories if they do get categories for their non-film work.
So the question that has to be asked isn't "why do composers get categories for the films they worked on if cinematographers and editors don't", so much as "does WPFILM have the resources or the people-power to justify taking on the amount of new maintenance overhead that creating a whole new scheme to categorize films for their individual cinematographers and editors would entail" — and given that we've already lost control of the longstanding director and producer trees as it is, we just don't. At least the overhead in the composers tree is shared — but the overhead in new cinematographer or editor trees would be entirely on us, and we just aren't equipped to handle it. The justifiability of a category doesn't only hinge on "is it defining" — it hinges on "is it centrally defining enough to justify the amount of work that scaling the tree out to its logical endpoint would involve", and the logical endpoint of cinematographer or editor trees is "hundreds of thousands of categories for every single cinematographer or editor who ever worked on any film whatsoever". But that just isn't desirable at all, and we 100 per cent do not have the resources or the people-power necessary to impose or maintain any kind of "only cinematographers or editors who meet certain specific criteria over and above simply existing as a person with a cinematography or editing credit listed in IMDb" cutoff.
Readers are simply not looking for films on the basis of who shot or edited them — they're looking on the basis of who directed them and/or who appears in them (but note WP:PERFCAT, which precludes "films by cast member" categories), not on the basis of who was behind the camera or cloistered in the editing suite — so regardless of whether you think it's defining or not, it simply isn't defining enough to legitimize the amount of work it would entail, because readers simply aren't looking for films on that basis anywhere near enough to warrant putting in that work. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)- All very valid concerns, but nevertheless ones that I would predict wouldn't ultimately hold up at CfD if Category:Films scored by composer ultimately does. That's what instigated my inquiry here: Given the current standards, some categories seem like an inevitability, and if they are, I'd rather begin to deal with them already. And yes, the task of setting up some categorizations requires a great deal of time and effort and will likely always be a work-in-progress, which the whole category system honestly is. I could be wrong, but I believe a very significant portion of the Films scored by composer categories only exploded in number more recently and were the result of one editor's work. Surely that whole category tree is not justified simply because someone finally bothered to take on the work required to make it more complete. It would be justified because CfD says it is a defining characteristic for films. Or they might not say it's defining. Who knows. It's existed for 10 years, though it was titled Film scores by composer until 2024. And I get that there's overlap with WPMUSIC, but I'm not sure their purview is really so great when all of the articles are for films, not film scores, which was precisely the reason the category was renamed. But then again, we have Music videos by director categories which include probably close to 100% song articles, and not the rare music video article such as Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video). Οἶδα (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- CfD absolutely does take into account questions around whether a comprehensive new category scheme that would entail the creation of many thousands of new categories is sustainable and maintainable or not.
- Short of Thriller itself, I can think of few to no other examples where a song and its music video would ever have two separate articles, instead of the video simply being addressed as a subsection of the song. So in nearly all cases, a music video category would have to be on the songs in order to exist at all, because the videos won't have their own separate articles. And the same goes for film scores: there are precious few examples in history where a film score would ever have its own standalone article as a separate topic from the film it's scoring. So I just don't think that's a relevant issue for us to consider at all — the score is an aspect of the film and the music video is an aspect of the song, and there are precious few cases where that individual aspect would ever warrant its own standalone article as a separate topic from the film or the song. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- All very valid concerns, but nevertheless ones that I would predict wouldn't ultimately hold up at CfD if Category:Films scored by composer ultimately does. That's what instigated my inquiry here: Given the current standards, some categories seem like an inevitability, and if they are, I'd rather begin to deal with them already. And yes, the task of setting up some categorizations requires a great deal of time and effort and will likely always be a work-in-progress, which the whole category system honestly is. I could be wrong, but I believe a very significant portion of the Films scored by composer categories only exploded in number more recently and were the result of one editor's work. Surely that whole category tree is not justified simply because someone finally bothered to take on the work required to make it more complete. It would be justified because CfD says it is a defining characteristic for films. Or they might not say it's defining. Who knows. It's existed for 10 years, though it was titled Film scores by composer until 2024. And I get that there's overlap with WPMUSIC, but I'm not sure their purview is really so great when all of the articles are for films, not film scores, which was precisely the reason the category was renamed. But then again, we have Music videos by director categories which include probably close to 100% song articles, and not the rare music video article such as Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video). Οἶδα (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Even with directors and producers, people already take the fact that some directors and producers have such categories as license to automatically create a category for every director or producer across the board. At first, there was a cutoff that the director/producer had to have a biographical article before they qualified to have a dedicated category for their films — but so many categories got created for directors who didn't have biographical articles that editors have largely stopped even trying to uphold that at all anymore, and attempts to apply cutoffs for "only directors who have at least n>1 films with articles to file in the category" have also foundered on the creation of far, far more single-film categories than anybody can be bothered to deal with culling either.
Template for franchise movie tables
[edit]I'm considering making a template for franchise movie tables (e.g. List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Phase One or Final Destination#Films), so that we use uniform formatting, same as how we have {{Series overview}} at WP:TV. Would there be a consensus on having this? If so, thoughts on what columns should be compulsory? Labels? Just looking for opinions at the moment. 
-- Alex talk 01:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've thought of trying to create this myself, and I like the idea. Columns/parameters, in my eyes should be:
|title#=,|release#=(with an added|country=to specify the country of release in the column heading),|director#=,|screenwriter#=,|producer#=, and|status#=. Spanning categories should be: directors who are also writers (so colspans), but also allowing directors and/or writers to span multiple films (so rowspans), and producers and status rowspanning. I personally do not think "Story by" credit needs to be included, and I believe some other FILM members also agree, because those writers aren't doing anything that ends up on the screen. Yes their work contributed to the overall film, but the screenwriters ultimately made what you see in the final film. Very weak support to allow modular "infoA/B/C" etc. columns for other info, because I don't think anything else should be included in these (ie composers is one I see a lot, that's not something we need in these tables). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)- I would mostly agree with that, especially the story by column not being included. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- To be honest, given that it's still so widely used, I would still include the "Story by" column, with its default setting to be hidden, and only included if the relevant parameters are set. It could then be excluded and/or deprecated if there was a wide community consensus on it. Spanning parameters would also be very easy to implement, similar to how
|network2span=(and similar options) are available in the television series overview. -- Alex talk 22:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- To be honest, given that it's still so widely used, I would still include the "Story by" column, with its default setting to be hidden, and only included if the relevant parameters are set. It could then be excluded and/or deprecated if there was a wide community consensus on it. Spanning parameters would also be very easy to implement, similar to how
- I would mostly agree with that, especially the story by column not being included. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Infobox album § Film soundtrack chronologies
[edit]
I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox album § Film soundtrack chronologies which is relevant to this WikiProject, and am hoping to get some more eyes on it. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Spider-Man: Brand New Day#Opening weekend in India
[edit]There is discussion at Talk:Spider-Man: Brand New Day#Opening weekend in India where input from additional people might be helpful. TompaDompa (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
RFC on WP:NCREATIVE
[edit]As NCREATIVE is the notability guideline for filmmakers, members of this Wikiproject are invited to comment at this RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on WP:CREATIVE PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Colorized images
[edit]The articles for Frankenstein (1931 film) and Dracula (1931 English-language film) include images which have been colorized from their original b&w, which personally I loathe. Is there a policy or guideline on this? Masato.harada (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Pending COI edit request at Talk:A Super Progressive Movie (Plot section)
[edit]I have a conflict of interest here — I'm connected to the production company behind A Super Progressive Movie — so I don't edit the article, and I'm raising this with the project rather than acting on it myself.
On 2 July I posted a disclosed {{edit COI}} request at Talk:A Super Progressive Movie#Edit request from a connected contributor (add Plot section). The article has no Plot section at present; the only plot description is a single sentence in the lead. The request proposes one (~420 words, written to MOS:FILMPLOT). It has been sitting unanswered for about eight weeks, which I take to be the length of the COI queue rather than any judgement on the request.
I'm not asking anyone to accept the draft as written, and I'd rather not argue for it. I'd just appreciate an uninvolved editor who works on film articles taking a look and doing whatever they think is right — trimming it, rewriting it from scratch, or declining it outright. Any of those is a fine outcome from where I sit. Thelateernestblack (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:The Narrator (Fight Club)#Requested move 7 August 2026
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Narrator (Fight Club)#Requested move 7 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Pericle (film)#Requested move 27 August 2026
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pericle (film)#Requested move 27 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-46801-53 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Bad Blood (2004 film)#Requested move: Bad Blood (2004 film) → Mala leche (2004 film)
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bad Blood (2004 film)#Requested move: Bad Blood (2004 film) → Mala leche (2004 film) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 18:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Recently, a user made massive changes to this article about an Indian film award. Can anyone here verify if the changes are accurate? I just checked several of the sources and they do not support the claims made in the article; I'm skeptical of the article's accuracy. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Independent?
[edit]I've seen a few instances of editors adding "independent" to the first sentence of the lead for a film article (e.g. "Foo is a 1955 independent film..."). This feels a bit WP:UNDUE to me, particularly for the first sentence of the article, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts on the question? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Bringing Remember Me? alive
[edit]Hi everyone. I saw the 1997 British film Remember Me? today while scrolling on Wikipedia. I think this article can be expanded more, but I do need help bringing more new citations to the film.
So far, I got a reception section done, removed a dead link, and began a plot section. I also added a few book sources as well as a Variety source that I found. I hope you guys find this interesting! But that's all I have for now. Wikiman (Talk) 01:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
RfC: Standardizing the MGM Banner footnotes for Amazon MGM Studios released
[edit]I am opening a site-wide discussion to standardize how we document the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer release banner for all Amazon MGM Studios films, covering both streaming-exclusive titles and theatrical releases.
Currently, individual page patrollers are systematically stripping any mention of the MGM banner from film infoboxes. For streaming titles, they argue the field must strictly list the digital platform (Amazon Prime Video). For theatrical releases, they prioritize the parent company text or external distributors. This rigid method completely erases the historical record of the actual on-screen presentation and corporate distribution pipeline.
We already have a clear, established sitewide precedent for this exact scenario with Disney. On major Disney film pages, the infobox lists the corporate entity "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" but uses an explanatory footnote ([a]) stating: "released under the Walt Disney Pictures banner."
I propose we formally adopt this exact same standard for all Amazon MGM Studios titles that have the MGM Studios logo. The distributor or production fields should be permitted to use an efn footnote stating: "Released under the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer banner." This maintains visual and historical accuracy for the viewer while fully respecting Wikipedia's structural database formatting guidelines. I look forward to the community's feedback. ~~~~ Low-gee7212014 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
<ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).