Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Film
Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Film essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Film discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Film to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Film

List of Academy Award shortlists

Is List of Academy Award shortlists something encyclopedic. I am not in the industry, but it seems sort of like WP:NOT.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, struggling to see the value of such a list myself. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It seems like it would go against WP:NOT#NEWS in the sense that these listings are not enduring. Once the nominations are announced, are the shortlisted films that didn't make it even remembered in that way? I could be wrong and open to a counter-argument, but the references seem to indicate at-the-time announcements and nothing more. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The international films, which do go through a different and lengthier process, I see as notable. Others, not so much. Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I've seen it mentioned here and there, but it doesn't warrant its own article. El Millo (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: - seems to be a consensus not to have an article for this. Happy to log it at WP:AFD, unless you want to list it yourself. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: - done. The deletion discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DVD barcodes

I used cite dvd, and entered the dvd barcode number in the ISBN field, however it returns an error, was wondering if anyone else uses cite dvd and if they enter the barcode number in the cite. Govvy (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like per Template:Cite AV media, the "isbn" field won't allow anything that doesn't look like an ISBN. In my experience, I've never seen a DVD barcode used, here on popflock.com resource or in references in other sources. So you don't have to use it. Just include the other details. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Odd one, I thought the ISBN field was for that. Unless I was suppose to use another field. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail film reviews

There is a discussion about referencing Daily Mail film reviews on the talk page for RoboCop (2014 film). The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Y Tu Mamá También or Y tu mamá también

A discussion regarding this film's title form is currently active at Talk:Y Tu Mamá También#Requested move 3 May 2020. --Roman Spinner (talk o contribs) 22:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article, in particular some of the things being discussed at Talk:The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Screenplay categories at the Canadian Screen Awards

I've posted a request for comments at Talk:Canadian Screen Award for Best Original Screenplay, regarding whether a separate article is warranted or not. The explanation is fairly long because there was a lot of context to explain for why it was merged with another category instead of already having its own article, so I'm not going to repeat it all here, but the talk page offers more detail on why this is in question. Accordingly, I'd like to solicit some imput from other editors. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Community film

Hi! Not tagged as within project's scope, but I think it probably is. Would folks more familiar with film mind a look at Community film? It reads like it was written by an academic (it was), but I think based on Cinema Beyond the City there's an element of notability, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks! StarM 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

While it seemed okay at first glance, I am not sure if the topic actually exists as a tangible one outside Wikipedia. It seems to run afoul of WP:NOTESSAY in being "primary research on a topic" and not published elsewhere. The editor who wrote the bulk of this, Filmpartscom, did it entirely in 2011 and has not been active since that year. I would support putting it up for WP:AFD. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Erik, I've done so: popflock.com Resource: Articles_for_deletion/Community_film. StarM 01:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There has in fact been a recent collection of essays (avilable in hardback, paperback and ebook) devoted entirely to this important topic: "Community Filmmaking: Diversity, Practices and Places" SEE https://www.routledge.com/Community-Filmmaking-Diversity-Practices-and-Places-1st-Edition/Malik-Chapain-Comunian/p/book/9780367876494 It's edited by Sarita Malik, Caroline Chapain, Roberta Comunian (London and New York: Routledge, 2019).

There is *** no evidence *** that the wiki article borrows or draws on another book: Cinema Beyond the City

In fact, this book was published in 2016, long after the wiki page was established in 2011. If anything, the book draws on wiki, not the reverse! (maybe that also indicates the significance of the page and its relevance to contemporary discussion of film) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

StarM was using it to indicate an element of notability in general. Looking at it, I did not find the content to match the topic. It's simply happenstance combinations of "community" and "film". When I tried to research the topic, I found instances of "community film festivals" that simply meant film festivals that happened in the community, or locally. Regarding the Routledge book, I think that is basically what the contested article should be. However, the contested article is still driven by primary sources compiled to make an argument. Perhaps it was ahead of its time. The alternative here should be to have an article on community filmmaking (the term gets more results) with the Routledge book and this and this and this. Regardless, I don't find the contested article salvageable if it has never used secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Erik for clarifying. Yes, IP 77, I meant in no way that it plagiarized but rather p 198 of that book seemed to touch on the same elements as big v. small budget/local filmmaking. While AfD isn't for cleanup, an issue with this article as it stands as it's not one that someone unfamiliar with the genre can follow. My initial thought before AfD was stubbing it, but I cannot identify the core. StarM 13:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. This needs a lot of work but is definitely notable. I don't think I'd have time, though I'd be interested later. Kingsif (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Editors here are invited to review the topic and the related comments at its AFD: popflock.com Resource: Articles for deletion/Community film. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the AFD and moved the article to draft space at Draft:Community film. bibliomaniac15 03:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious notability

Would somebody be able to take a peek at Beta Test (film)? There's maybe one or two references that aren't citing someone's personal Facebook. DÅRTHBØTTØ (ToC) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I added some sources to the talk page. They are slim pickings... Not sure what else might be found. BOVINEBOY2008 22:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on Bovineboy2008's added sources, it seems notable. I would definitely minimize (or remove outright) the Facebook references, though. Primary sources should be used sparingly to complement secondary-source coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bovineboy2008 and Erik: I should clarify that I know some people who worked on the film, so I'm personally prohibited via WP:COI. Would either of you like to make the necessary adjustments? DÅRTHBØTTØ (ToC) 21:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I added the HWR review, I didn't add the Variety review as I didn't know what to condense or pull out since I couldn't make sense of his review.QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia

Since this nomination is not generating enough interest on FAC; it was suggested that I post here to invite interested editors to review the article and leave constructive comments. Thanks to those willing to take part. Shahid o Talk2me 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life RfC

An RfC is open regarding the length of the cast list on It's a Wonderful Life; the details can be found here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Memory check

I see that SibTower1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is busy adding awards to the accolades sections of various film articles - Goodfellas is one example. I thought that there was a consensus formed a few years ago that if the awards did not have a popflock.com resource article that they weren't to be included. If I am wrong in this then S can proceed although I would add that I'm not seeing any references to WP:VERIFY the awards at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 05:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe your recollection is correct, and I believe references should be provided as well. There's a discussion regarding an MOS update here, but the MOS as it currently stands isn't explicitly clear on this point. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah the old "the filmproject discusses it - reaches a sort of consensus but MOSFILM doesn't get updated" syndrome :-) Good work on finding the thread D. Five years ago eh - where does the tme go? MarnetteD|Talk 06:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Eh, I was bored. (laughs) Thanks though! Watch Predestination and then you can answer that question about where the time goes. :p DonIago (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Have no fear, it is in the MOS! Near the end of the first paragraph it states "Awards included in lists should have a popflock.com resource article to demonstrate notability", per the discussion linked above. And what do you mean I'm funny? Funny like a clown? I amuse you....? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that awards in tables should be blue-linked. As with many tables and lists on Wikipedia, the entries could be almost endless, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Although some of those that aren't blue-linked may have some notability, that needs to be established by creating an article demonstrating the notability. Although I think SibTower1987 is editing in good faith, there have been cases when an editor decides to promote his/her website by adding awards whose only notability is that they are on that personal website. In one case I had to spend considerable time removing those award entries, then deal with the inevitable pushback when the editor was offended. It's much simpler just to have a blue-link requirement. Sundayclose (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is great Lugnuts. Thanks for finding it. I'm glad my "syndrome" message was in error this time :-) Thanks to Doniago for the film mention. I hadn't seen that one before. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
....the dangers of my doing research while bored, I suppose... :p Thanks Lugnuts! DonIago (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Charlie's Angels (2019 film)

In case anyone is interested, there's an RfC going on at Talk:Charlie's Angels (2019 film) looking to establish what proposed phrasing to use in order to best reflect the film's unsatisfactory box office performance in the lead. For anyone looking to weigh in, please have a read of the (somewhat lengthy, apologies in advance!) 3rd content section of the page before voting for one of the proposed options in section 6 below. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to help out! Davefelmer (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Alice, Sweet Alice

I just completed some technical cleanup of this article. It was marked as a Start-class, I believe it to be B-class and marked it so. As this project had a banner on it I thought you might want to be aware. --¿philoserf? (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Another memory check

Okay, I am less sure about this one than the one above. Cwf97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been busy creating "feature films by year" categories - Category:2004 feature films as one example. I have a vague memory of this coming up before but i could be wrong. Is it a category that we need. We already have "films by year" so this seems a WP:OVERCAT. Aren't most films are considered feature films? Following up on that there is no criteria for what is and is not a feature film in any of the categories created. If my memory is off and if others consider these cats okay than fine - I just wanted to check before removing them got to be too big of a project. MarnetteD|Talk 20:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall a past discussion, but it seems so unnecessary. We operate under the default assumption that a film on popflock.com resource is a feature film unless specified otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks the editor has continued to add them to our articles in spite of my request that they wait here User talk:Cwf97#Just in case. My request that they add their input at this thread has been ignored. Considering the number of other CFD notices on their talk page I'm guessing we may have to go through that process with these. I may not be able to get to it right away so it anyone wants to get the ball rolling please feel free to do so. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
This editor probably deserves a timeout from editing popflock.com resource (WP:ANI), TBH, given that this issue of trivial categories has been longstanding (and not limited to film, as you might notice). --Izno (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:VG has CFD'd the 20XX sequel video game category tree. You may consider sending this new film overcat tree to CFD sooner rather than later. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Genre conflict at Scream

There is a conflict about the genre of the above film. AllMovie says it is a comedy. I imagine if you have watched the film you wouldn't classify it the same, but regardless of common sense, this movie about disemboweling, rape and murder is now identified among the likes of Scary Movie and Trading Places. Input would be appreciated. Pinging Doniago as another involved editor. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that per WP:RSP, AllMovie (which falls under RhythmOne) notes "There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available.". You should get a secondary source per RSP for the genre classification. QueerFilmNerdtalk 18:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The AFI Catalog records the following genres for Scream: Horror, Mystery, Comedy. I don't recall it being a laugh-a-minute but comedy is a broad genre. Scream satirizes the conventions of the horror genre and something can be satirized without being laugh-out-loud funny (Get Out for example) and that would probably qualify it as a comedy on those grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Satire is not exclusively comedy, the first definition on Google states "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices." It is a satire in only as much as it takes the genre conventions and goes against them or uses them in different ways such as using meta commentary to bring up those tropes in a film using those tropes. It's not a comedy, and even if were defined to have comedic elements as in people are not exclusively screaming throughout, it's top level genre would not be comedy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Dark, you've now been provided with two different sources that claim that comedy is a top-level genre classification for the film. Is it possible that you're letting your personal views take precedence over sources with regards to how best to categorize the film? Never having seen the film myself, I wouldn't have expected it to be considered a comedy either, and I may have even reverted such classification in the past and requested sourcing...in fact, it was my looking up the film at AllMovie (potential reliability issues notwithstanding) that led me to "comedy" in the first place. As I said at your Talk page, I would invite you to locate a reliable source for genre classification that offers other options. If it helps, there was a brief discussion of the appropriate genre(s) for the film previously.DonIago (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I literally linked you to five or 6 different sites that did not mention comedy on my page and you completely blanked them. Whereas QueerFilmNerd up there has says AllMovie has been questioned on accuracy. By your own admission you have not seen the film, because even a blind man could hear that it's not a comedy film. If we're going to take the film satirizing horror tropes as it being a top-level comedy film akin to Austin Goddamn Powers, then Terminator 2 should be one because there's that one scene where Arnie smiles because he picked up a minigun. There are "sources" and there is common sense, and I've already provided you with sources that do not list comedy at all. For the sake of the class, here they are again:
The problem with just googling "Scream 1996 comedy" as you have done, is that "scream" is a pretty generic term, 1996 is a pretty generic term, and comedy is a pretty generic term. Sourcing the Scream article in the first place was difficult for this reason. If it was called Billy and the Killersaurus, it would be easier to refine the search but you're going to get all kinds of results. The first and third results are us, and the fourth mentions comedy in reference to the film's parody Scary Movie. Comedy is not a top-level genre for this film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest moving this discussion thread to Talk:Scream (1996 film) since it is film-specific and to best keep the thread on that talk page for future reference if a consensus emerges (and challenged later on). My initial impression from the above comments and looking at sources is that "horror" is too simple but that "comedy" is not suitable. We have to be wary of databases that tend to do a grab-bag approach of genres. Is it worth putting "satire" or "satirical" in the opening sentence? There may not be an easy answer to it, but it seems worth indicating the film's self-awareness upfront since it is a key noteworthy element. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a slasher. That is the specific genre. And this sentence is in the lead " The film combines black comedy and "whodunit" mystery with the violence of the slasher genre to satirize the clichés of the horror movie genre popularized in films such as Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980) and Craven's own A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)." All of that is already there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I considered suggesting "satirical horror", though I find it unlikely that any sources we've previously discussed using for genre classification purposes use that. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Why not call it a slasher film per sources, and then discuss its comical elements further into the lead?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Keep the genre simple and explain other stuff later in the lead. Popcornfud (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
All good points above. Calling it a "comedy slasher" may give too much prominence to the comedic aspect of the film. It exists, but the prominent elements are suspense and horror, and those are clearly backed up by a significant number of reliable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Another point to consider... When there are multiple sequels involved, it's sometimes helpful to look at how the primary genres are all classified as a whole:
Horror needs to be the most prominent one mentioned based on that angle. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if there continues to be massive conflict over the inclusion of comedy as a genre, start an RfC. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Boxofficefilms.co.uk

Is anyone familiar with this site? It has an actual UK box office for Groundhog Day (film) but I can't seem to see much info about the site itself. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting IMDbPro for The popflock.com resource Library

Hello, if you have not checked out the popflock.com resource Library yet, I recommend you do so. There are some sources (like Newspapers.com) that can help us look up coverage related to this WikiProject. We can also suggest sources, and I have suggested IMDbPro as a possibility. While we do not treat IMDb as a reliable source in popflock.com resource articles, aspects of it such as getting news-related alerts can help us. You can find the IMDbPro suggestion here and upvote it. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible bias in infobox poster captions

I've noticed that, on articles for American-produced films, the caption beneath the film's poster in the infobox will generally read "Theatrical release poster" (or something very similar), in accordance with WP:FILMPOSTER. However, on articles for films produced by most other countries, this isn't always the case. Take a look at a number of articles for films produced by the Japanese company Studio Ghibli, and you'll find that the infobox captions often read "Japanese theatrical release poster". The article for the most recent Best Picture winner, Parasite, has an infobox caption reading "South Korean theatrical release poster". The Bicycle Thieves article notes its poster as "Italian". Amélies poster is designated as "French", Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as "Chinese", A Separation as "Iranian", Solaris as "Soviet", etc. Those are just a couple examples.

There are exceptions, like Wild Strawberries making no mention of the poster's Swedish nature, or the Thai-produced Uncle Boonmees "English-language release poster", but for the most part, it seems as though infobox captions treat the United States as the default country of origin, whereas posters for other countries need to be clarified. I don't think I've ever seen an infobox caption reading "American theatrical release poster". I feel that the solution to this would be to either (a) add a nationality to every poster caption across the board, including "American" for American-produced films, or (b) removing the nationality from captions altogether, unless the poster in question is not from the film's country of origin. --Matthew - (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I generally use the caption "Film poster" unless there is something notable about the poster. Like if the poster is using a different title than the article, I will mention the country or language of use, or if it is a promotional poster or otherwise. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Option B for me. Per the distribution and release field, there's no need to state that an American film was released by an American company in the US. Same sort of logic should apply to the poster, unless it's the exception you mention. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely against it if we state if a poster is the American (or Canadian, British, Australian, etc.) is included. for readers I feel if they come to an article and see an image that doesn't match the title in question, it could be confusing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Option B for me as well. It should be clarified whenever it isn't from its country of origin. El Millo (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bovineboy2008, Lugnuts, Andrzejbanas, and Facu-el Millo: After reading all of your responses, I've started a RfC/proposal about this topic over on Template talk:Infobox film. Feel free to give your thoughts there! --Matthew - (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Film studies

Should Film Comment be included in the list of magazines about Film Studies (see the first paragraph of the article) DonGuess (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Good question. I would say it may be better to group film studies journals as one set and "critical magazines" as another set. I base this on this page about film journals in the book Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Erik: Do you consider FilmComment a critical magazine? But film studies is not only about film history but about film theory too so it's not that simple. Also see List of film periodicals, for some reaseon FilmComment is not in the "Scholarly journals" section there. DonGuess (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not about what I consider. The link I provided shows a reasonable way to draw a distinction between the more academic journals and publications that are more of a magazine format. As for List of film periodicals, I actually overhauled that list in March 2010 (over a decade ago, geez), and it looks like I got the data from International Index to Film Periodicals. So I think Film Comment is best considered a magazine, and it can join similar magazines in a serial sentence at the end of the lead section for film studies. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Erik: But if FilmComment is a nonacademic magazine than it shouldn't be in the list, because at the moment all the journals in the list are supposed to be scholar, although as I know Sight & Sound is actually rather magazinish. Am I misunderstanding something? DonGuess (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
When you say "list", do you mean the sentence in film studies? Film Comment and similar periodicals could be moved to film criticism, since that seems to be a broader field. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I meant the " Academic journals publishing film studies work include...". DonGuess (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's make a chat of the project

On discord, for example DonGuess (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Check out WP:IRC. Not sure if a chat has value, though. My personal take is that most editors tend to work on niche topics and that most discussions do not warrant a sense of immediacy or going off-wiki. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
As a heavy user of the WP:DISCORD, I wouldn't be opposed to a discord. QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Eric, but I think that chats could be used to discuss something rather unimportant there (and users working on niche topics might still need help of others Wikipedians), so that we don't litter popflock.com resource forums. DonGuess (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

David Lynch interview

Is there any information about the «David Lynch talks Mulholland Drive» (it's on YouTube) interview on Wikipedia? I asked the same question on the Mulholland dr. talk page DonGuess (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Articles for Creation now has a sort tool; you can use it to review Draft film articles

Just thought some folks here would like to be able to see proposed drafts and weigh in: popflock.com Resource: AfC_sorting#Culture/Media/Films_(27). MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Film InfoBox Genres

Is there any reason why genres has not been included as a field in the infobox for films? I ask because genre information is readily available on the internet from various sources, but is usually part of a proprietary dataset (unlike popflock.com resource data). Including genre in the infobox for films would create an extra data point that is freely available for people to use if they were to use the popflock.com resource dataset as a source of film data. ImDB, TMDB, etc. all have genres for most films, and allowing those to be referenced as the source would remove too much controversy around which genre(s) a film belongs to. ?Thorentis? 04:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It's been raised many times before. Please take a look at those discussions for more rationales behind not including it. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
In a nutshell, genre classification is very subjective and can get indiscriminate. We have so, so many discussions about what genre(s) to have in the opening sentence of a lead section. If we combined all the reported genres in the infobox, it would often be a long list with no indication of which genre has the most weight. Almost every film has some kind of drama, for example, or a couple of action scenes could make a film be an action film. Databases don't care about weighing these things. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film
 



 



 
Music Scenes