|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
Threads older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .
Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
British Screen Advisory Council rebranded to British Screen Forum
I am quite new to editing and so need advice on how to proceed. Earlier this year British Screen Advisory Council rebranded to become British Screen Forum. I have updated the content of the entry to reflect this but am unable to change the page heading - how would I go about doing this?
The Empty Classroom
Extra eyes could be used at The Empty Classroom. The film's website claims it has won a UNICEF award for best film on childhood, but I can't find any corroborating sources, makes me dubious about the other claims the film has made. BOVINEBOY2008 13:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I've had repeated discussions with users deleting (example) 1955 in film (or any other year in film) from the head section of film articles which I expanded or created. The other user's argument was that this year-in-film link was against WP:OVERLINK and/or WP:EGG. I don't see it this way, as a) this link leads to annual film overviews which might be useful to visitors and b) I couldn't find anything in these WP manual sites saying this shouldn't be done. Some of these users could see my point, others wouldn't. Is there any consensus on this? Thanks Robert Kerber (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be linking the year to 1955 in film per WP:EGG. I personally have been adding see also templates to the release section for readers to be able to go see more context around that year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Repeated discussions. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's been a while since I've seen this come up. The link does fail WP:EGG because a reader cannot tell from "1955" if it links to 1955 or 1955 in film. The same logic applies when saying something like "followed by a sequel" where the reader can't tell if the link is just sequel or a link to the sequel's article. I have no objection to having that link in a "See also" section because it is tangentially related. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Akira (planned film)
I have initiated a move discussion at Talk:Akira (planned film) in regards to moving this unmade production into draftspace. Please chime in if you wish. Rusted AutoParts 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Former featured topics
Hello. I was wondering if anyone was looking to repromote popflock.com Resource: Former featured topics for films. Pirates of the Caribbean films can be repromoted as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides just became a GA. Spider-Man films could potentially be repromoted as both Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse are GAs. I'm not 100% sure if Spider-Ham: Caught in a Ham counts as a Spider Man film as part of the Spider Verse films (it's not a GA at the moment). Otherwise: Halloween film series, X-Men films and Star Wars episodes need a lot of work to return to Featured topic. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfud (talk o contribs)
Dimple Kapadia FAC
Please consider posting comments on this FAC. Shahid o Talk2me 10:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Film maudit - a stub or redirect would be appropriate
Would anyone like to create a stub for Film maudit (the category of film)
(or define this term within an appropriate existing article and make a redirect?).
Refs - https://harvardfilmarchive.org/programs/le-film-maudit --- https://www.filmlinc.org/daily/heavens-gate-and-the-film-maudit/ --- https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2014/01/12/weekly-top-five-the-film-maudit
- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:9407:7C87:2F1:D0FE (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I have recently created popflock.com Resource: WikiProject Film/Paraguayan cinema task force and I need to modify the Template:WikiProject Film to include what kind of category the articles related to films from Paraguay belong to. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's going to be a tough one; when the Venezuelan cinema task force was set up I tried to add it to the template but since it was only discussed at the Venezuela WP and not here, the edit wasn't accepted. Since I can't see a Paraguayan task force discussion here, they won't let you, either. I don't know why there's bureaucracy on this, but there is, and it's hardly worth fighting if you can add the parameter to the WP Paraguay template and have it be more prominent anyway. Kingsif (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Link to the film in an article
Is the link to the whole film in the article Ask Grandma acceptable? I've never seen this before, so I'm not sure about fair-use, etc. Or the fact it's very intrusive! Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I can tell you the fair use question is not an issue; as a 1925 work it has now fallen into the public domain. Whether its appropriate to link in full like that, that's a separate issue. --Masem (t) 08:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- My concern is the formatting and the fact that there's basically no other article content, so it's effectively an article to host the film rather than give encyclopedic coverage. A GA article with the whole film inserted as media is Assignment: Venezuela, so having it there in itself shouldn't be an issue: there aren't many quality-assessed articles on films that are in the public domain, but when the whole film is available to have on the article it is good for depth of coverage and illustration. Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Including a link to the film is fine, but you don't need a massive thumbnail. Something along the lines of Debbie_Does_Dallas#External_links would be fine. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Er, we're not talking about an IMDb link here... Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- She's referring to the "Full film available at Wikimedia Commons" right-aligned template in that section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- If a film has entered the public domain I am strongly in favor of including some kind of link in our articles. The Big Parade has just entered the public domain, so I am going to have a look around for that. popflock.com resource has an important role to play in disseminating our historic media. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Betty, once again I'm in your debt. I've changed it to an external/commons link. Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, y'all don't want even a thumbnail of the full video in the article? This seems like the most fundamental information you could have in an encyclopedia article about a creative work, is a copy of the work itself (if copyright allows it). @Kingsif: you seem to be suggesting that there's some kind of WP:UNDUE issue with having the video without extra encyclopedic material around it? It seems to me the way to resolve that concern is to expand the article, not to remove the video. Toohool (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly what I meant. When we have articles about pieces of still art, we include an image of the artwork even if it's only fair use. A whole film is less likely to come under fair use, but when it's PD there is no reason not to include it in the article. However, if there is no encyclopedic coverage, the article itself should probably not exist, etc.
- I think treating a free video, especially for a short film, as an external link when we can do better is not a good idea and don't think Betty should have suggested that as the ideal alternative. Kingsif (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do not have strong feelings either way, but on a desktop view, the thumbnail seems out of place without much text surrounding it. I agree with the visual appeal of having the media more available. I guess the challenge is cleanly presenting it. While it could go in the "Plot" section, that thumbnail and the infobox on the side (in desktop view, anyway) makes it cluttered. Furthermore, I think the thumbnail should at least be smaller than what I saw. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The primary purpose of an article is to provide encyclopedic coverage, and I honestly don't think including the work in its entirety supports that aim. By embedding the whole film you are simply distributing it, it has no encyclopedic goal. That is essentially what the Commons is for. There are plenty of articles where the whole film is embedded: Night of the Living Dead is one example off the top of my head, but the article is offering something substantial beyond just distribution. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Given the above, with the desire not to "host" the movie in the article itself, you should feel free to take screencaps/stills from that film to use as images to help in the cast section, since those are free too. One or two, keeping the images at least relevant. --Masem (t) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- If the video is PD, we can and should provide it directly to our users. Whether or not Commons has a job hosting it is irrelevant. That we are an encyclopedia does not prohibit us from providing rich media to our readers (and rich media is in fact what they want, per SomeWMFReportFromAFewYearsAgo).
- I think this is the case even if the article is a stub. An article is a stub whether it has pictures or video or figures and whether it has those things won't affect whether someone needs to expand the article. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Are we going to have a similar set of films be in public domain at the beginning of every year, and more than ever before? Maybe it is time to come up with guidelines or at least recommendations on handling such media. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I imagine, since the PD is opening up (maybe we'll finally snag Mickey), that yes, the practice of inclusion will continue. Maybe it should even have an infobox parameter for film articles with an infobox. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, barring any new laws, each year, all works published in the US prior to (Year-95) enter the PD regardless of authorship, so expect a new copyright law in the next two years. But that said, using Night of the Living Dead as an example, its placement of the film link the plot summary makes full sense as long as the rest of the work is notable. For Ask Grandma here, the notability is still in question - just because its an Our Gang short doesn't make it notable on its own. Here, it may make more sense to have a list of Our Gang/Lil Rascals shorts which a column can include a link to the PD version of the film on commons , if available. (We clearly should be making sure that's available when the resource is there) This would eliminate the notability issue if there's no further way to expand this article. --Masem (t) 23:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Jeff Skoll Honours and awards
Hello! I've posted a new request to update film producer Jeff Skoll's article, specifically "Honours and awards". My request to update the section is at Talk:Jeffrey_Skoll#Request_for_Honours_and_awards. As I've mentioned before, I work with the Jeff Skoll Group. With my conflict of interest, I will be careful to work with popflock.com resource editors to build consensus on updates in place of directly editing the article. Thank you. JSG Lindsey (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Unusual use of italics in Godfather Part II plot summary
Discussion here. Popcornfud (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ninja Scroll character section
There's an ongoing discussion regarding the characters section in Ninja Scroll. It can be found at Talk:Ninja Scroll#Characters section. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyone good at writing critical reception sections?
Anyone good at reception sections that can take a look at Die Hard's? It's all there, but it's not my forte and it was an issue at fac. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well what were the specific comments at FAC? The things I see most issues with at GAN are paragraphs built of 'X said Y'. Without getting into SYNTH, a better reception section will identify the topics across reviews and summarize, i.e. 'X, Y, and Z commented on the A of the film; X said B, while Y and Z felt that C'. That kind of thing. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- They said the opening paragraph was largely he said, she said, but I had written it as an overvall commentary on the film, so comments relating to the action, violence, etc. So maybe it is my writing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Darkwarriorblake, I can have a look at this later - if I don't get to it in the next day or so ping me, it just means I've forgotten about it as I'm poorly organised and extremely dim. Popcornfud (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks pop, I have rewritten it, but I think it's the opening paragraph or so that is the biggest bugbear.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Popcornfud pinging as requested. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Darkwarriorblake, thanks. Do ping me again over the weekend if I haven't got to it by then. Popcornfud (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Infobox add Visual Effects by
I wondering if it's possible to consider to add the Visual Effects Company in the infobox.
There are around 10 major company in the world and so many small others.
There are millions of people working on the Visual post-production industry.
Some times, and most frequently in the latest years, the working people on the postproduction Visual effects doubling the production team (unfortunately, almost all the time, most of the people are cut out from the credits).
Every company have it's own speciality, they have also their own category in the academy awards.
I believe it would be good if we add that.
Star Wars Example:
Visual Effects by : Lucas Film -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Cily35 (talk o contribs) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Infoboxes typically just cover the poster billing blocks. Rusted AutoParts 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Rusted AutoParts: Has there been a discussion in including a film's executive producers? Horacio Varawanna talk? 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Probably, but off the top of my head, I know there's no consensus to include because many times, the credits can be fringe/ceremonial (see Stan Lee on all Marvel films) and they generally do not have much weight in terms of say in how the film turns out. If there are any notable ones for a particular film, it can be mentioned in prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The infobox cannot be everything to everyone because if it was, then we as a whole would be plugging details into parameters that don't readily apply. While it could apply for Star Wars, would it apply for a drama film where VFX was used for some background touching-up? No, but in my experience, when a field exists, the editorship as a whole strives to fill all possible fields. So I agree that such details should be mentioned in prose, where it can be combined with sources that indicate its relevance or importance. EDIT: The same argument applies to executive producers. Some could be worth naming, but there are so many more that aren't. Best to save it for prose. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Is They Shoot Pictures Don't They" Reliable?
The site finds tons of votes for best films ever or best films of the 21st century and aggregates them. They also have director's pages where it says some director's favorite films. Would saying "According to They Shoot Pictures Don't They, The Tree of Life is the fifth most critically acclaimed film of the 21st century." Or I am thinking of using their list of Miyazaki's favorite films and using that to create a favorite films section on his page similar to the one on Scorsese or Schrader's popflock.com resource page. They Shoot Pictures Don't They doesn't have a popflock.com resource page itself. The popflock.com resource page for Wreckmeister Harmonies (which hasn't been granted good or featured article status) says "According to They Shoot Pictures, Don't They, a website which statistically calculates the most well-received movies, it is the 21st most acclaimed movie since 2000." Pineapple4321 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- This sites name is ringing a bell. I think it was discussed years ago so those of you whose search skills are better than mine might take a look. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- There was a discussion in 2016 and a subsequent RFC that, if my understanding off a skim of both, determined not to use the website as a primary source for critical opinion. Though, peeking around the archives, it seems it's been used in the past as a water mark to generally gauge importance of a film, i.e. what went onto the core articles list. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you TenTonParasol. Much appreciated. Things can change in five years (don't we know it) so we should reassess the situation. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 23:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yea, it's been a long time. I agree that it may be worth revisiting the matter, especially if the site itself has changed a lot since then. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The key question is do other reliable sources (such as Variety) ever refer to the "They Shoot Pictures" rankings? It's a good site, well researched etc and I enjoy reading it, but does its opinion truly matter? In a sense it is like an aggregator: it may be based on solid, reliably sourced polls but it has created its own methodology for how to weight those polls and rankings. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Using IMDB template in cast lists
I was editing Faces of Children and the cast list had several red links:
so I replaced them with IMDB links using the IMDB template:
I would argue this provides the reader a chance to get handy additional information.
This was reverted to black links:
- Jean Forest as Jean Amsler
- Victor Vina as Pierre Amsler
- Pierrette Houyez as Pierrette Amsler
- Rachel Devirys as Jeanne Dutois
- Arlette Peyran as Arlette Dutois
- Jeanne Marie-Laurent as the neighbour
- Henri Duval as Canon Taillier, godfather of Jean
- Suzy Vernon as the mother of Jean and Pierrette
with the arguments:
- Wikipedia doesn't link to external sites in the body of the article.
- The veteran editor of film articles has never seen cast links like that before.
- The IMDB template is for external links only.
I would argue that though possibly innovative, it seems to me to provide the page reader easy access to information about cast members that probably will never have a wiki page and, in my opinion, using the IMDB template looks fine while signalling that it is an external site. And IMDB isn't any external site but a primary source for most film articles cast lists.
Is this technique against policy or film style guides? Should it? Or can it be used as an alternative to red/black links?
Thoughts? SmallRepair (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:External links at its first line:
the [external] links should not normally be placed in the body of an article. For more detail pertaining to this example in particular, perhaps WP:Links in lists will be of use. --El Millo (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) IMDb links should not be added to red linked cast members. First up is WP:RS/IMDB. Next is WP:ELLIST. Remember IMDb links are allowed in the external link section at the bottom of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- For info, the user raised this with me on my talkpage. I knew this way of linking was not allowed, but I couldn't find the precise page. Thanks to El Millo for the link. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Another cast list question
I seem to remember previous discussions where is was decided that WikiP's film article cast sections did not need to list every person who was in a film. I know I've seen edit summaries noting that as a reason to pare down a cast list. As I look at popflock.com Resource: Manual of Style/Film#Cast I don't see anything about that. It could be one of those discussions where the consensus did not get transferred to the MOS - or I could be wrong. In relation to the thread just above removing some (though not necessarily all) of the red linked or unlinked actors in a cast section might be a way to handle things. If anyone wants to work on the wording to add to MOSFILM that would be helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- MarnetteD, I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE was supposed to cover that. Like "obviously" we should not list banker #3 in the "Cast" section. So #1 in WP:FILMCAST encourages filtering, like for named roles only. Unnamed roles would need a pretty good reason to be included. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- But if an actor has an article and did play a minor role in a film, does that film article have then listed in cast to help with backlinks? Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gads I looked right at section one including "most relevant actors and roles" and it didn't register. Thanks for that Erik. That section covers my concerns. Kingsif I think there is some flexibility in this. If an actor has an article they could be listed but they don't "have" to be included. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Kingsif, #1 says "blue links (in some cases)". But we can't achieve 100% cross-navigation. While an actor's filmography may link to 100% of films, it is not the case that all films' cast sections should link back to that actor. It's only most likely for the top-starring ones. So it helps to see if sources have found the actor worth mentioning while writing about a film. (Haven't really thought about how to handle top-starring actors who had bit roles early on, though. We can discuss that separately.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Erik: Yes, what came to mind is Daniela Alvarado in Macu, The Policeman's Woman. It's a minor role that's not on the cast list - I don't know if she was originally credited, truly - but she later came to prominence as Juana in Juana, la virgen (you know, the original) and now a lot of sources mention her involvement in Macu. Or even a lot of the smaller roles in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - tertiary roles like that of Ben Lewis probably wouldn't usually be included, but since he's now quite famous and discusses the role, it's there: though Scott Pilgrim is in the remarkable situation where all of its secondary cast are now A-list and most of its tertiary cast are well-known, so it seems fair that almost all of its (relatively small) speaking cast are listed. Then we have animated movies full of cameos, which I imagine have a different set of rules. Kingsif (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Multiple genres for a film
A discussion is taking place at the talk page of Jeepers Creepers (2001 film), an article which I recently rewrote, on the film's main genres and which should be listed in the article's lead. I'm suggesting to keep the first sentence "Jeepers Creepers is a 2001 mystery-horror monster film..." while another editor wants to simply change it to "Jeepers Creepers is a 2001 horror film..." so my question is, which of these would be better to use? Horacio Varawanna talk? 21:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Talk:Jeepers Creepers (2001 film)#Mystery for those wishing to join the conversation. DonIago (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Info about Basil Pouldeuris score for RoboCop
Does anyone have any good sources for info about this or solid places to go to find it? It's an important score and yet I've not managed to find one single site on Google that discusses it or features any interviews about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm referring to the following drafts.
They were created a while ago and as a content fork. It seems he's working as a draft but I dunno if its worth keeping. Thanks. Just to note, they were all nominated for deletion by me and can be seen here.
Starzoner (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
How do I archive sources?
I am working on improving The Tree of Life film page and getting it to good article status. The review of the page for good article status said all the sources need to be archived. I asked on the talk page for The Tree of Life film how to archive sources, but nobody has responded. How do I archive sources? Pineapple4321 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- They don't need to be archived for GA status, that's absolutely not in the criteria. It's something preferable and ideal for any article, but a reviewer shouldn't be holding you to it. The review was done last year, and that was the least of the problems, though. A quick archive tool for common refs is the toolforge IABot, which you can search quickly. Kingsif (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I fixed most of the reviewer's problems with the page, so if I don't need to archive sources, should the page be renominated? Pineapple4321 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Archiving, however, does help maintain GA status. Dead sources may lead to de-listing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Archiving prevents WP:LINKROT. As Kingsif mentioned, you User:InternetArchiveBot may be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Automated statement quality predictions
Hi, we are working on an AI to automatically identify issues in statements along the lines of neutrality, clarifications and citations. The AI learns from statements in low quality articles that are problematic. We need some help evaluating the predictions to make them better and prepare for use in article review. I'm providing a few example predictions for neutrality and missing citations. The statements below were identified by the AI as having minor POV issues (weasel words and inflated/ambiguous language) or needing citations. Please let us know inline if the statements below indeed have these issues. We believe that the AI has potential to ease article quality review and appreciate the participation in its evaluation. See the discussion on FAR for more information. Sumit (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Although produced in Taiwan after Hu had left Hong Kong, the international accolades for this film brought the, new cinema of Hong Kong much greater visibility, while providing an art house alternative to the enormous international popularity of Bruce Lee (A_Touch_of_Zen#Review_and_criticism)
- The reasoning is immoral, but the characters claim special privileges above and beyond common morality. (Pickpocket_(film)#Critical_reception)
- Sumit.iitp, this instance is within a quote from a film critic. So maybe ignore statements that are within the quotation marks? The other instances (EDIT: other than Crash, per TenTonParasol) seem correctly assessed as problematic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The girl is at home with her surroundings, but after a mysterious sailing ship approaches offshore, all the rocks of the cove seem to come alive and sing to her in one voice. (Red_Desert_(film)#Plot)
- Cronenberg has made a movie that is pornographic in form, but not in result... (Crash_(1996_film)#Release)
- This one is also a direct quote, within <blockquote>. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- They chat until sunrise in a sequence that culminates in the iconic shot of the Queensboro Bridge.(Manhattan_(1979_film)#Plot)
- All About Eve received overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics upon its release on October 13, 1950, at a New York City premiere. (All_About_Eve#Critical_response)
List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes
How many reviews should it take to be on the list? Your input is welcome.
Discussion is at Talk:List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes#How many reviews? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The template Template:Hiroshi Shimizu consists of 4 (four) existing pages/film entries, the rest are red links to non existing pages. Apart from the fact that one might question the sense of a template with four films: shouldn't the red links be deleted for clarity only? Robert Kerber (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I know this has been discussed a lot in the past, but I'm not sure what the consensus is. I feel like if the colors were the other way around, it would be okay to keep the red links to maintain consistency. But if this template has this many red links, there's very little point to having one. Unless editors think that these are very likely articles if one can access Japanese-language sources. Thoughts from others? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- A short addition: said template does not even contain a complete filmography (the main article does), so it's pretty arbitrary. Robert Kerber (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutral notice about a discussion of the production country/nationality of Aliens is here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Scent in film
Please can a subject expert check whether the references to R. Porcar's Olorama added by Rporcar olorama are helpful? Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)