Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

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


Today's featured articles

Did you know

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(16 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

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

Requested move at Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrealized projects discussion

[edit]

I launched a discussion at Talk:Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects that I feel would benefit from having wider input. In regards to if currently still in development films count as "unrealized" or not. Rusted AutoParts 06:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very frustrating this has not seen any contribution to. Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic instigating
No, it's not. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose does this remark serve except for antagonism? Rusted AutoParts 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Review for "The Misguided" Draft

[edit]

Hello,

I'm seeking assistance with the review process for the draft article "Draft:The Misguided". I initially submitted the draft for review on December 3rd. On December 12th, I followed up on my request and added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score to further demonstrate the film's notability. I believe the draft is well-sourced, comprehensive, and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), but the situation remains unresolved.

Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this draft reviewed and moved to mainspace? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the hurry here? (and here [1]?) Axad12 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee that a draft will be reviewed or processed within a certain specific timeframe. You're not guaranteed a one-week or two-week response time at all — drafts get approved or rejected when an AFC reviewer gets around to them, and you're simply not entitled to demand that your draft receive more prompt attention than everybody else's drafts. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, see the currently-blocked user's talk page. There has been a lot going on with their contributions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user was indef blocked following this ANI thread [2]. The user was an obvious promotional WP:SPA and I'd suggest that readers not be drawn in to forwarding their agenda. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Fantastic Four in film

[edit]

Fantastic Four in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission to the Academy Awards

[edit]

Hi, a quick question...

If a film is a submission to the Academy Awards (or any other awards) does this imply any significance, or is submitting a film just something that any minor film-maker can do with any minor film? Clarification on this point would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which categorie(s)? Nardog (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short documentary. Axad12 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps at all, it would seem that 104 films were submitted in the year in question, so I'm assuming that this is not particularly exclusive company. Axad12 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, that is 104 films in that single category. Axad12 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty exclusive if you consider how many short documentaries there are in the world. A submission itself may not be significant, but the meeting of the criteria for it to be eligible may be, like winning an award at a festival. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the link correctly, a film would only need to complete a commercial showing of at least 7 days in either Los Angeles County, California or anywhere in New York City before being released to other non-theatrical venues such as DVD or TV. Winning an award does not appear to be necessary. So, being a submission doesn't seem to me to infer any particular significance.
The broader issue here is the rather promotional article about director Alexander Tuschinski, authored 90% by the accounts of the subject and his publicist (whose activities can be seen here [3]).
In trying to establish how much of the article needs to be culled it would be useful to have some input on the significance of the awards listed in this part of the article [4]. A good number of the awards have articles on Wikipedia, but note that in many cases that is because Tuschinski's publicist created the relevant articles. Axad12 (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was necessary. I just pointed out what made the submission possible, rather than the submission by itself, may be significant, depending on which criteria were fulfilled. Nardog (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on the category. International Film, for example, is a category where each country has to have a committee select just one film from its entire cinematic output in that year to submit to the category — so that selection would indeed represent a distinction in and of itself even if the film doesn't ultimately land in the final five nominees. For most other categories, however, being submitted for Oscar consideration wouldn't be a notability claim in and of itself, although a film that gets submitted may very well have other reasonable notability claims — for example, some categories (I believe short documentary is one of these) essentially extend automatic consideration to films that win certain specific awards at certain specific qualifying film festivals, so the film festival award already constitutes a meaningful notability claim as it is.
Ultimately, however, the clincher is how well the film can or can't be reliably sourced. If the film can be shown to pass WP:GNG on its coverage, then it wouldn't matter whether we considered submission to be a notability claim or not because the film had already passed GNG as it is — and if it can't be shown to pass GNG on its coverage, then simple submission to a preliminary awards consideration pool probably wouldn't be enough in and of itself to exempt it from GNG. Remember that awards are one alternative among several notability paths, not a necessary condition that every film always has to have — films that have no award claims at all can still pass other criteria anyway, so the presence or absence of awards isn't the be-all and end-all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moviefone reliablitly

[edit]

I searched RSN and the archives here but no real guidance, so I was wondering if Moviefone is reliable to use as an inline source? I'm leaning towards no given it looks like a database a la IMDb, but wanted to see if any other editors have come across this or its use on articles. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Moviefone, it may have had a reliable publisher in the past, but I'm not sure about now. It may also depend on what part of the website is being used. Are we talking about the "News" section, or the reviews it has, or something else? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the "full cast and crew" tab/page for a film. The specific example I've come across it was trying to source new writer credits and an actor appearing for Captain America: Brave New World and its Moviefone page here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see at the bottom of the Moviefone page, "This product uses the TMDb API but is not endorsed or certified by TMDb." Maybe these details came from there? It looks like TMDb is "a user-editable database". (Wow, I tried to link to TMDb, but it's apparently blacklisted... that may indicate something...) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The poster here seems to confirm the writing credits? See the left and right of the bottom line of the billing block. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other active editors at that article are aware of the billing block (that's what's stemmed this issue at that page), but no third party reliable sources have reported on these adjustments, so we have been cautious proceeding adding the information in and not sourcing it in the body of the article. Another editor found the Moviefone page so that's how we ended up here checking its reliability. But per your first comment about its connections with TMDb, seems unreliable as a user database. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the billing block is in question? It's like referencing the official website for basic crediting information. We can use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, per WP:PRIMARY. I'm not sure if it's possible for the billing block to become outdated or wrong (other than the cases of where others are unofficially deserving of certain credits). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The billing block isn't being questioned, just the act of how to source it in the article's when no third-party source exists covering this information. We seem to have determined Moviefone is not reliable per my original comment. If we want to have further discussion on sourcing approaches, we can continue this discussion at Talk:Captain America: Brave New World#Poster billing block. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for Hong Kong film

[edit]

Hello, I was trying to restore an article of a HK film, fixing link and adding source to HKMDB. This was rejected by User:JalenBarks, see talk page. Is any specialist able to help? Thanks in advance. --2A00:20:3004:F761:4CCF:894C:6F06:4CF6 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sneider

[edit]

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

[edit]

Wings (1927 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Demon (1979 film)

[edit]

There's a problem at The Demon (1979 film) which needs some attention, as there's been past edit-warring over whether it's a 1979 film or a 1981 film. IMDB says 1981, but that's based on the film's American release, while there are claims that it premiered in South Africa (its home country) in 1979 — and because of the edit-warring, the page is now in the problematic state of being titled as a 1979 film, while being categorized and infoboxed as a 1981 film, which is a situation that can't stay as is: either the text needs to be revised to 1979, or the page needs to be moved to 1981, so that the title and the text aren't in conflict.

As I don't have access to archived South African media coverage from the 1970s and 1980s, however, I can't verify whether the claim of a 1979 release is accurate or not, but the article's title and text absolutely can't stay in conflict with each other. Can somebody with more knowledge about South African film take a look at this, and either revise the article's text or move the title to 1981 depending on what you're able to find? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been eight days since I posted this and no action of any sort has been taken to resolve the issue, but the article really can't just stay templated and categorized as a different year than its title. This really needs to be resolved one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Mystères du Château du Dé § Film title. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Utah Wikipedia Day at Sundance Film Festival

[edit]

 Please see the Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah/Wikipedia Day 2025 page.  Peaceray (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of economics films for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of economics films is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of economics films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of economics film as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starring parameter

[edit]

There is an edit and a discussion about the guideline for the film infobox's "Starring" parameter here: Template talk:Infobox film § Starring 2025. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needed articles: detective film, police film

[edit]

Not sure if we need both, but several wikis have separate article on them. We have neither. See Talk:Crime_fiction#Is_police_film_different_from_detective_film? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharksploitation

[edit]

There is a discussion about the appropriateness of a list section of sharksploitation films at sharksploitation. Editors are invited to comment: Talk:Sharksploitation § Removal of inappropriate content. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on scope of WikiProject

[edit]

I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Israeli cinema task force and we are looking for feedback on if foreign films produced by Israelis should be included or not. See this discussion. LDW5432 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary discussion on Pokémon Heroes

[edit]

There's a discussion about the length of the plot summary for Pokémon Heroes (which was recently made a GA) here: Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Plot summary length. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valnet, Collider, and MovieWeb

[edit]

I feel it has come time to (re?)discuss the reliability of sources such as MovieWeb and Collider. I bring them up together, as they create similar content and owned by Valnet with Collider being purchased in 2020 and MovieWeb (since 2021). As the topic has not been addressed before by in great detail by WP:FILM, I've looked at the other WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games (WP:VG) for example, as they went as far to apply their own WP:VALNET regulation to try and find alternative sources, use it as a source sparingly, or to not use the source at all.

As other WikiProjects such as discussed other ValNet owned sources such as Comic Book Resources, (here by here at WP:VG and WikiProject: Anime & Manga (WP:A&M), consensus was found to stop using the site entirely among its editors. Similarly, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources also has its own rule for Screen Rant in 2021 declaring it only "marginally reliable"(here) Similarly, WP:A&M lists it as "Screen Rant is generally reliable for attributed opinions and columns. However, it should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons or for news made based on leaks or references to unreliable sources." (archived discussion here)

On to the topic: Collider and MovieWeb

  • Collider editors share content from user-generated sources, such as Reddit, IMDb, and LetterBoxd. For easier navigation, I have hidden them under banners.
Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to IMDb, Reddit, and LetterBoxd.
  • Collider using Reddit for content: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
  • Collider using IMDb: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  • Collider using Letterboxd 1, 2.
  • MovieWeb on Reddit 1, 2, 3, 4, 3
  • MovieWeb reposting Twitter Reviews as reception 1, .

While I think any seasoned WP:FILM regular editor would apply WP:RS/IMDb than cite sources that are blatantly pulling content from these sources, the article on Seven (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's The 35 Best Thriller Movies of All Time, Ranked According to IMDb article. An article that touts "The highest-rated thriller movies on the site are almost always award-winning classics that represent the best that the genre has to offer." To clarify the complicated nature of this statement, IMDb's Keith Simanton managing editors states "Our Top 250, as voted by users, is just that, a list of the Top 250 films as voted on by our users. It's not a classic (ah, there’s a subjective term!) list by any measure, nor is it a critic's list. We leave that to the professionals." source Compare the article to something like Bright Lights Film journals analysis on the IMDb charts for a general comparison of depth of research on such topics.

  • While the mission statement on ValNet is to provide "authenticity and reliability of our content, achieved through meticulous research" The ValNet sites feature more than a few which showcase either self-contradiction, or apply very low-quality research. Along with the endless lists above citing user-driven sites, i've found the following.

As WP:VALNET has called their sites "Content Farms", the majority of Movie Web and Collider is simply regurgitating others sources, peppered with plot synopsis's and little if any critical commentary. Even just by looking at one recent film, in this case I've glanced at Nosferatu (2024), most articles either re-posted material from other sites, or worse, attributed quotes the real-life people stating the origin. While it does not showcase the sites being wrong, per WP:NEWSORG, it would be better to cite the actual source in question. Among the two original sources on Nosferatu from the site for news, they were interviews from collider: here and here.

Collider and MovieWeb articles attributed to other sources just on Nosferatu (2024)

Both sites either misattribute their research, contradict themselves within their own articles, or post misleading content.

Misattributed sources, poorly researched material, or applying fan-sources for film history
    • When not attributing sources, they well make share quotes from filmmakers and actors which would have the sites violate WP:BLP standards.
  • MovieWeb have an uncited quote about Robert Eggers, which I've soured to IndieWire
  • Quote attributed to Bill Skasgard from Collider with no attribution, taken from here taken from USA Today Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collider article states that Jack Nicholson's film The Shooting "was never given an official theatrical release" while in the same article says the film "receives occasional screenings in art-house and independent theaters".
  • Collider article on the golden age of hollywood they state "The exact timeline of the Golden Age is often disputed and varies in start and end dates. Some say the age was finished by the 1950s, while others say it remained until the late 1970s. This depends on what exactly you call the Golden Age. People label only the years of technological advancement as the real Golden Age, which is a shorter period, and others include the years of film that were directly impacted by those advancements, which would lead practically into the 1980s. Other sources say the end of the Golden Age came with the start of World War II in 1939. Therefore, in some cases, this iconic Hollywood age is said to have started in the 1910s and finished in the late 1970s." No statement on who these sources are, and I struggle to see how this conclusion is drawn from the previous statements.
  • Collider here presents a list of the "The 10 Best Horror Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert" There is no attribution to the numerical order or when Ebert (who died in 2013) had potentially made such a list. The site also claims Ebert had said Murnau's Nosferatu, that "as a modernized version makes its way to the screen, audiences are reminded of Ebert's opinion that the original Nosferatu holds the title of greatest vampire movie of all time." I've skimmed through RogerEbert.com and can not find any suggestion Ebert holds this opinion, with the closest being him calling it "the first great vampire movie" in 1994. While if someone could showcase that Ebert had published such a list, that would be great, but I find it unlikely. In his own article in 2012 about voting for Sight & Sound's poll, he commented that "Apart from my annual year’s best lists, this is the only list I vote in." and that in his opinion: "Lists are ridiculous, but if you’re going to vote, you have to play the game." Despite this, the site continues to farm Ebert's reviews for similar lists such as The 10 Worst Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert, and The 18 Worst Horror Movies of All Time, According to Roger Ebert. The author of said article is credited as a "senior author" on the site with an "Expertise" on Roger Ebert as credentials.

That said, reliable sources have cited both Collider and MovieWeb as a source on occasion.

Reliable sources using Collider as a source.
(Variety: here,here, and here, as has The Hollywood Reporter here and here. These sources have been made since the ValNet purchase, but their only consistency is that they cite interviews, not articles about historical overviews, reception, lists, or any other sort of article.

While there was no serious consensus from WP:FILM on the reliability of the sites, I have tagged prominent editors, and pinged them on their previous statements. The 6 Responses on WP:FILM That Took Me by Surprise From Editors You Should Really Know Right Now:

That's an essay, but I wanted to be thorough to get across the vastness of issues in one swoop. Generally speaking, most discussion on the site does appear to be from content that one could find written about better from more mainstream film news sources (film journalists and critics, general newspapers, etc.), countless books and authors discussing film, and particularly genre work, film academia, or even more fan-oriented publications like Empire, Fangoria or Total Film. As the material from these sites was previously more glacially paced, both sites content before the ValNet buy out is probably permittable (look at the amount and how the articles were written before these buyouts, you'll spot the difference immediately). I feel that with the suggestions from other editors above, and how more mainstream publications treat the sites, we should probably only use them for interviews where its very clear on how the interview is taken. I look forward to thoughts and apologize for my jokey last header ahead of time ;). Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collider, MovieWeb, Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, etc. are all in a similar boat: still good to use for direct interviews and I think there is merit in their reviews/opinion pieces/analysis articles if written well, but more and more they are just churning out crap that we need to wade through to get to the good stuff. I think the important thing is making sure editors are not just using any article from one of these websites, they need to be looking at what style of article it is, where the information is coming from (WP:FRUIT), whether there is a better source available to cover the same information, and so on. I just opened Collider's website and found 8 different articles on the front feed, all posted in the last few hours, that are just inane lists meant to fill space / get clicks (i.e. "10 Superhero Movie Flops Everyone Saw Coming", "14 of the Longest Movies of the Past Decade, Ranked by Runtime") but they also have genuine reviews of upcoming shows from long-time critics and they regularly have great direct interviews with cast and crew for different projects. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DWB Commment I think some context is required here re "Seven (1995), currently ranked as a good article, cites Collider's The 35 Best Thriller Movies of All Time, Ranked According to IMDb". It is not used to cite that Seven is one of the best thrillers, it's used to help cite "Pitt's line "What's in the box?" as he asks Somerset to confirm the contents of Doe's box, has become iconic, and is used in popular culture and internet memes" which is commentary by Collider itself.
DWB Comment Additionally, there needs to be clarity about timeframe. Sites like Collider, Screen Rant, and other Valnet sites WERE reliable (typically pre Valnet) and I would oppose any kind of retroactive discounting. That said, the modern versions of these sites, like most media sites, has become very clickbaity and the front page at the minute is filled with "10 best" or "10 worst" and it is getting harder to discern quality content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DWB Comment This is a similar situation with Forbes, which was reliable, particularly articles by the senior contributor whose name escapes me, but is now considered generally unreliable. Corporations have destroyed the media basically. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WDB comment It breaks my heart to ask this but are any media not victim to this these days? I swear I've seen so many garbage articles from People recently that I seriously wonder if they're AI written. This seems like a bigger issue that all of Wikipedia has to contend with eventually. Almost all of our old reliable sources are garbage now.★Trekker (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

[edit]

Metal Sonic and Amy Rose appear in the film's mid-credits scene, but are never named or credited since they are silent cameos. TheJoebro64 forcibly includes their names into the plot, rather than through footnotes as I believe should be the norm. Please see this edit, accusing me of "fanboyish hypercorrectness". In fact, in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, the popular comics character Clea appears unnamed in the narrative, but is named in the credits, yet the plot section names her in a footnote. That's the example I'm following here. Joe's claim that "All sources verify that it's Amy and Metal Sonic" is incorrect, since the only source "verifying" is this third-party source. It traces back to this link (not used), where the screenwriters don't mention her name, only that they have plans for her in Sonic 4. Metal Sonic isn't mentioned by them at all, only the article writer. Is Joe correct to name characters in the plot when they aren't named onscreen or in the credits? I believe not. Will he agree he is wrong? I believe not. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since they aren't named in the film, using their names in the plot summary requires reliable sources. There is no requirement when it comes to the formatting, though I personally prefer to use footnotes for these things as it makes it clear where the information is coming from. Using a footnote allows you to explain that the characters were not named in the film but were confirmed by X. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FILMPLOT covers this -- if the film is not defining them, knowledge about Metal Sonic and Amy Rose would be "specialized knowledge". Not all readers are Sonic fans. There definitely needs to be secondary sourcing in some form. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the version that Kailash29792 proposes doesn't help anything. It still identifies the characters, but makes that info harder to find by burying it in footnotes, and doesn't add any source — so it's the worst of all worlds.
If we're going to identify the characters, let's keep the prose simple and add a reliable secondary source (the DigitalSpy source looks fine to me). Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its certainly become complicated for us that popular blockbuster films that post-credit scenes introduce unnamed characters to what I presume, is to create discussion and hype about a series or franchise. WP:AUDIENCE does state "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." while WP:FILMPLOT, part our manual of style, says "The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, [etc.]" In this case, from my statement above, it is highly like an audience who might not be familiar with the series, see this, and would come to the article wanting to know who these unnamed characters are, as I have done with many a Marvel/DC film. and may come to Wikipedia to try and find out. The Digital Spy article does identify "Metal Sonic" and "Amy Rose". I haven't seen the film, do they have any speaking roles? I don't think they would be required to be listed in the credits for any legality reasons. As for Joe's comments about it being Easter Egg like, I respect this editor, but I will agree with you, Easteregg is about misleading links, like me saying two cows or "the farmer bought two cows." with links leading to unexpected articles based on the title. While I wouldn't go overboard on footnotes, I don't think it would confuse the average reader, as most well cited articles will have citations that use footnotes all the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that if we don't name the characters in the prose but still link to Wikipedia articles about them then we're still effectively naming them. It's a non-solution. Popcornfud (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view of this is pretty simple: naming a character in a plot summary should not matter if the character is not named in the film's dialogue as long as it can be verified in a reliable source. Reliable sources are in unanimous agreement that it's Amy and Metal Sonic. ([8][9][10].) Shoving the information into footnotes is counterintuitive; the reader has to open the note to learn who the character is—in essence creating the exact same problem as WP:EASTEREGG.
tl;dr, let's adhere to the KISS principle. JOEBRO64 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your input. I too prefer "keeping it simple, stupid", but the plot section must never contain info not explicitly revealed in the narrative; it must strictly stay in-universe. Adding footnotes helps clarify the ambiguity like an asterisk. That's why the plot of Captain America: The First Avenger doesn't state that Bucky cheated death. We don't even include obvious ones such as Doomsday in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice since he was just called "your doomsday". These ambiguities are easily clarified by footnotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true that it must strictly stay in-universe. MOS:PLOT explains about leveraging out-of-universe context. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=1268420755"