Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Michael .26 Me

There's an ongoing debate as to whether or not The Terminator can also be said to qualify as a horror movie at the Talk:The Terminator § Slasher horror film+Serial killer film? and I would therefore like to extend an invitation for anyone who's interested in joining said discussion so that we may reach a consensus. Well, I say "ongoing", but no one has really responded thus far for over a week now (I'm also not even the one who started said discussion), but I was told by an admin that I should take the issue here to maybe get an actual discussion going. Also, some of the things I say in my post is in direct response to two comments made by two other editors which will make more sense if you briefly read through the recent edit history of the article page up until February 27. Memez24 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Memez24}}, you might want to share this on the talk page of WP:HORROR as well since its a more genre specific discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Interesting, I think I might do that. This doesn't fall under WP:CANVASSING then? Memez24 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Not to my knowledge. If you are just asking for opinions on the topic instead of saying "i hate/love that this is included/not included, can anyone help swing it one way or another?" (as the rule states "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way"). Asking for more eyes on a topic from potentially interested parties is just part of something that helps keep the wikiprojects alive as I see it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of accolades received by Star Trek (film franchise)#Requested move 8 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

An IP, {{IP|200.6.147.88}}, has been adding Japanese songs to non-Japanese language films such as the MCU Spider-Man films ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home_(soundtrack)&diff=prev&oldid=1286634701], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man:_Homecoming_(soundtrack)&diff=prev&oldid=1286634411], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man:_No_Way_Home_(soundtrack)&diff=prev&oldid=1286634857]), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mummy:_Tomb_of_the_Dragon_Emperor&diff=prev&oldid=1286626536 The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor], and so on according to their edit history.

Since they're not relevant to these particular films, I think we should consider removing them. What do you guys think? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the Japanese musical artist that performed the song is notable, or if their participation in the Japanese version's soundtrack has received enough coverage to be WP:DUE, then it can be included if there is a local consensus to do so. If, on the other hand, the artist is not notable or barely notable and/or if the only sourcing for the information is reposted press releases that are primarily intended to promote the artist and their involvement with the film, then it can be removed. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm, you have a point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if there is enough context for a song just to be listed that it was included. Per MOS:POPCULT ({{gt|Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth.}}) and WP:PROPORTION, ({{gt|an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}). In the case of this article, the songs are there, we've confirmed it, but per the above rules, it just gives us a big "okay, so what?". This would apply to both English and non-English songs as well. If there was something to it, i.e: did the songs appearance in the film lead to it charting again? did it become a standard in the artists repetoire? was it the theme song for the film? how did the artists/director feel about using this material? Then we might have something. Otherwise, its purely trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion if the sequel to the film is notable enough to mention in the lead. Mika1h (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The Nightmare Before Christmas 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) 20:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sinners (2025 film) § Mid and post-credit scenes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Please can I get more input on this? I don't care very much about the Oxford commas, but the contention that we should say that a 1985 film "is produced by Arnon Milchan's company Embassy International Pictures" seems utterly absurd.

If there is something buried deep in the MOS, let me know and I'll roll my eyes and leave it be (but it seems unlikely given this Wikiproject is full of the past tense in that kind of context). Pinkbeast (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've made a couple of changes to the tenses being used. Barry Wom (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There is discussion at Talk:List of horror films considered the best#This is pure WP:SYNTH. Further input from members of this WikiProject would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I know there was just a large discussion about the usage of VALNET sources in articles. Just wanted to add this note that Polygon sadly [https://kotaku.com/polygon-sold-vox-media-valnet-layoffs-digital-gaming-1851778655 has just gotten purchased] by Valnet, so it is likely any articles in the future (once their new editorial leadership is established) will need to be used cautiously. See this discussion at WT:VG for more as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for sharing this. Sorry for not replying sooner. I think we'll have to wait and see on how Polygon changes its content (or when / if it does.). Not confident, but I guess best as a "wait and see" thing? Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed there are films that gets an award at a festival, say, in September 2017, but box office premiere is in January 2018. What do we we use to categorize such films? I have seen both ways, so I am puzzled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:We use the date of the earliest public release per WP:FILMRELEASE. If that is a festival then that is the date used. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Roughly a week ago, Rotten Tomatoes [https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/4/24/rotten-tomatoes-removes-critics-average-rating removed the average critics' rating] from all film pages, previously found underneath the Tomatometer score. I started a discussion about this on Talk:Thunderbolts*, but since this potentially affects many articles, I thought it would be better to move the discussion here for visibility.

The issue here is that the average rating is technically still available on the page. It's formatted as JSON in an element only visible in the page source. You can test this by going to [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/citizen_kane a Rotten Tomatoes page], opening the web inspector, and searching for "averageRating" ([https://jsoneditoronline.org/#right=cloud.fa57041b2c074f5d9f56a74962917fc0&left=cloud.94c1d830594b4b76a8f845181330b479 this is what you should get]).

To be clear, this is all front end, client-side data, included in the payload when you open Rotten Tomatoes in your browser – there was some misuse of the terms "front end" vs. "back end" in the previous discussion. It is accessible to everyone who loads the page, and will remain accessible when the page is archived.

I think we should use the information that's available to us, but I get why you might argue against it (WP:OR?). Should we include these "missing" averages? Keep them on existing articles, but leave them out for new releases from now on? Remove them from all articles? Something else? (I know there was a recent RfC about {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}}, but I don't think this is a rehash because the average rating was not specifically a concern, and this is motivated by new events following the closure of the RfC.) Iiii I I I (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:The problem is that information should be verifiable, and that will no longer be the case for the typical reader. We can't expect readers to go digging through computer code. I would suggest a compromise: use Wayback for films where the average rating was available (and stable) and just omit it from later articles. The Metacritic score will still be available, which is often closer to the RT average rating than it is to the Tomatometer. Betty Logan (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with Betty about using archived links to reference the average rating where it had existed upfront. Still, what a loss... it's enshittification that affects us being able to mine encyclopedic value from otherwise commercial products. The main percent is just plain simplistic. I also endorse Metacritic and would go further to encourage reporting how it breaks down the reviews (x positive, y negative, z mixed) because that helps give a sense of distribution. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just one caveat... If using an archived URL in the citation, then the other numbers being cited (i.e. # of critics, % positive) need to match what is in the archived URL, unless you are going to place an archived footnote right next to the "average rating" number and cite the current URL for the rest of the statement. I can see this as becoming an issue with RT and MC warriors that go from article to article always updating with the latest numbers, even if they only slightly change months/years later. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can we trash the brain-dead templates, which wrongly import plain text into articles, at the same time? MapReader (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm pretty sure that would require a WP:TFD, but FWIW, if you start one I'll likely support it. We at least can point to a consensus here in favor of discouraging further use of them at this point. DonIago (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, that is one of the strongest arguments offered in past TfDs. The template makes it easy to update text across multiple articles. Average rating gone? Simply update the template text to reflect the change, and it will replicate out across film articles. They will use that point against you in a heartbeat. Again, it would be best to bring something new to the table in the next TfD to avoid the same result. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sinners (2025 film) § Plot summary edits, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It would also help if we could get additional input from project members on this relevant discussion and more eyes on the page to prevent any edit warring. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bypass Road (film)#Requested move 1 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, :File:Cinderella (Official 1950 Film Poster).png was recently deleted on the grounds of WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) because :File:1950 is the Cinderella year.jpg also exists in the public domain. As a result, the article Cinderella (1950 film) now uses a random "print advertisement" for the infobox rather than the standard theatrical release poster ([https://web.archive.org/web/20241213101324/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_(1950_film) this is what it used to look like]). Although we are bound by NFCC, I am fairly certain using the poster is the recommended practice for film articles per WP:FILMPOSTER because it is often the most recognizable and representative image. It seems odd to have this article stand apart from thousands of others because of a technicality, and this could potentially mislead readers into believing this is the film's poster. Thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think this falls into a little-explored grey area and would warrant further discussion as regards the misleading aspect and how that could affect non-free fair use. Part of the logic for the common practice of fair use movie posters is that usually the main poster and other visual marketing are either all Commons-eligible or all not-Commons eligible - and the poster is the best choice image, so either it's available to use without restriction, or nothing is and it's the best NFCC choice. Here we have a different piece of visual marketing with copyright that was not renewed, so it is now on Commons, while the original poster has not lapsed (yet); technically, there is a free alternative.

:As you say this is a technicality, and unfortunately IAR isn't really something we can throw at copyright law. However, it makes me think of the article for The Yacht Isabel Arrived This Afternoon - where we have a non-free poster in the infobox, and a Commons photo of marketing later in the article. While this isn't a print advertisement (but a photo of a physical object), the movie title and some imagery are visible so it could be comparable. In the case there, the content of the marketing photo is too meaningfully different from a poster to be used in the infobox when we know what the original poster was. Could something similar be argued here, that the print advertisement on Commons is not meaningfully a poster representing the film but a distinct form of media that can be used elsewhere in the article but should not replace proper representation (i.e. a movie poster) in the infobox? Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fully agree with this.★Trekker (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps {{ping|Explicit|p=,}} the administrator who deleted the file, could weigh in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::A similar issue happened two months ago with the film poster for Flow (2024 film), see User talk:Explicit/Archive 56#File:Flow (2024 film) poster.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 24#File:Flow movie poster.jpg. This isn't a common occurrence, I can think of no other discussions similar to these two examples. It might be worth having a centralized discussion about how to approach such situations, somewhere. ✗plicit 05:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{hidden ping|Explicit}}Would this not be an appropriate central venue for such a discussion? Per the comments above and the related discussions you linked, there seems to be rough consensus that there is no suitable substitute for a poster that adequately represents/identifies a film (perhaps this wording can be added to WP:FILMPOSTER). Can you undelete :File:Cinderella (Official 1950 Film Poster).png? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:NFCC deliberately is much stricter than fair use under US law, and always prioritizes reasonable substitutions that are freer; in that framework I don't really see the argument that the film poster's removal is hugely detrimental to the article that justifies its inclusion when there's freer marketing collateral to use, especially when a lot of the visual elements (typography, price, castle) are present in both. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I took a look at the print advertisement, and I concur that it is suitable as a free alternative. Film posters are "cover art" per WP:NFCI #1, and films can also vary significantly in having options for that cover art. (Though for that reason, WikiProject Film tries to stick with the original theatrical release poster, to reduce endless discussions about which poster variant looks best to represent the film.) Cinderella marketed today would not use the original poster, so I don't think there's anything misleading in using this alternative. We're showing an at-the-time piece of media, and it's captioned as such. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, I guess we're stuck with the only major motion picture on this site to not use an actual poster. For what it's worth, the fact that the print advertisement has the same dimensions as a poster will likely trip up some readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Looking at the image being used, it clearly identifies that this is Disney's Cinderella and it doesn't look unlike many other old-fashioned posters. I'm not sure which poster was being used before but having a quick look at the ones that come up on Google it seems unlikely that we were using a poster that was so identifiable to modern readers that the article is being hurt by no longer having it. I do think it would be helpful to have a clearer image of the main character and the film's art style somewhere in the article, but that doesn't need to be in the infobox. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

right

I found a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCx91_1Y_IU Q&A video on YouTube] where the hosts of a YouTube channel, [https://www.youtube.com/@sonicrevolt/ Sonic Revolution], had Jeff Fowler and Tyson Hesse as guests to talk about their work on the Sonic the Hedgehog films. I noticed that the video was released under CC-BY-SA, so I extracted the audio to Commons (leaving out the video itself since it was derivative of non-free imagery from the Sonic games).

My question is, although this YouTube channel would of course, being self-published, not generally constitute a reliable source, would quotes or audio snippets derived from it be considered usable in articles in any capacity, given the direct involvement of Fowler and Hesse, per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:INTERVIEW? Either as additions to the Sonic film articles, or to the biography articles of the subjects themselves as examples of their voices. Not sure what policy and precedent dictates here so I figured I should ask before doing anything with this. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:(It's also worth noting that fair amount of the stuff they said here concerning the production of the films is already mentioned in reliable sources and included in the articles on the films where relevant, so I'd figure any use of quotes from this in article text would likely be minimal if it was done at all.) silviaASH (inquire within) 02:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::It seems like ABOUTSELF would apply here. Questionable source, but information a primary source directly says with no reasonable doubt about its authenticity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::You can definitely use a YouTube video with a direct interview as a source, but if the same information is covered by more reliable print sources then that would usually be preferred. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Unless an interview has been edited and published in a reliable source, it is indeed a primary source and of limited use. Still very cool to have this on Commons! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Interviews should always be approached with a bit of caution, especially when they are conducted by self-published sources. The bits and pieces you can use would be limited to specific statements related to their participation in the development/production of the creative work. However, proper in-text attribution should be used in most cases, and the self-published source should not be named in Wikipedia prose. The more prominent the interviewees are, the more likely similar interviews with similar questions (that matter) have been published in reliable sources, which would be preferred over the self-published source. Be wary of assigning the correct WP:WEIGHT to anything that is covered in the interview that you wish to include in the article. Opinions and viewpoints of very little importance may not warrant inclusion at all. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That makes sense. I haven't listened to the interview thoroughly, but I think probably some of Hesse's commentary would be of more use than Fowler's, since Fowler has already been prominently interviewed in several sources and Hesse has been much less frequently included in media coverage about the films. I will scrutinize the interview more closely at some point and pick out what would probably be helpful. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Pleasure Garden (1925 film)#rticle title correction needed that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

In an effort to be concise with writing the lead of an article, is it better to be specific with genre details if they are covered by the plot summary in the lead?

I'll use these three articles as examples below:

• The Uninvited (1944 film) lead states "...The Uninvited is a 1944 American supernatural horror film [...] deals with a brother and sister who purchase a house in Cornwall, England, that is plagued by paranormal events."
• Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) lead states "...is a 2009 period mystery action film starring Robert Downey Jr. as the character of the same name created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle [...] The film, set in 1890, follows eccentric detective Holmes and his companion Watson investigating the crimes of Lord Blackwood..."
• Inception's lead states "... a 2010 science fiction action heist film written and directed by Christopher Nolan [...] The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a professional thief who steals information by infiltrating the subconscious of his targets."

The Uninvited states its a supernatural horror film, but the supernatural element is already explained in the plot summary in the lead. Sherlock Holmes states its a period mystery action film, but the plot summary will already make it clear it has a period setting (and that it's a mystery for that matter). Inception's lead describes it as a heist film, and the plot summary in the lead already clarifies that its about an professional thief.

So my question is, is it better writing to be more generic with a genre lead to clarify the tone of a film in a way that a plot doesn't? I think the most basic genre applied to WP:WEIGHT should be shared (i.e: The Searchers is a Western is a given, but should still probably be included as its something a reader would expect to see on a page), but I feel like the other details like a period setting or its status as a heist film that do not explain something that's hard to grasp from a plot description probably can be dropped to avoid a Too long, didn't read vibe or flowery genre descriptions, the latter I would associate with a vibe of "oh it's not just a science fiction film, its a psychological science fiction noir thriller" and to comply with WP:WEIGHT on how a film is generally perceived within writing about said work. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:The wording of MOS:FILMGENRE is specifically to discourage lists of genres in the opening sentence like "period mystery action film" or "science fiction action heist film". Only the primary genre or sub-genre should be included there. If a primary genre can't be determined, it should be left out of the opening sentence and explained properly later in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I recall my old college tutor once telling "You don't need to say the same thing twice" while critiquing an essay. I was offended at the time, but it turned out to be incredibly useful advice. So in that spirit:

:# Slightly redundant, but I can go either way on this. The sub-genre can be dropped without detriment, but the extra genre is not a huge problem in itself.

:# That is shocking. Would definitely benefit from dropping the "period", since the era is evident in the next sentence.

:# Probably violates the MOS, as I doubt the majority of secondary source summarize its genre as a "heist" film; I don't dispute that it is a "heist" movie, but rather that most sources don't get that cute with the genre. It is also getting into the mechanics of the plot which is better encapsulated by a succinct summary of the plot.

:These genre mashes in the opening sentence are a blight on our articles. It is a shame that the worst sentence in Wikipedia film articles is often the very first sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, I strongly support keeping it simple. I hate shopping lists of genres. Popcornfud (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqb|The genre mashes...are a blight... It is a shame that the worst sentence in Wikipedia film articles is often the very first sentence.}}

::Couldn't agree more. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:FILMLEAD says, "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified", so I feel like #2 and #3 warrant rewrites based on that alone, since there is no classification of "period mystery action film" or "science fiction action heist film". (Even if a source uses it, it's doubtful that numerous sources use that consistently.) Whereas "supernatural horror film" is indeed verifiably classified, and I'm okay with that as long as there isn't some other classification that is more common in sources.

:To try to answer your question more directly, I would avoid dropping anything that is commonly used by reliable sources, like in the case of films set in the past, I feel like the vast majority will say "historical" or "period" as part of outlining the nature of the film. This happens because the default assumption of the film happens "today", and that qualifier is needed. And yes, the specific period will be named later, but to me, not having that generalized framing in the introduction seems like an unnecessary omission. For something like Inception, I find "action" a bit redundant to "heist" which tends to have action anyway. So "science fiction heist" isn't really a sub-genre (or hybrid genre) as far as I know, and just based on my general impression, there would be more weight toward "science fiction", which is best for introducing that film (with heist elements mentioned after the first sentence). Sherlock Holmes is probably the hardest one since it's quite the amalgamation of genres, and I can imagine many sources saying many different things.

:I feel like passerby editors who add on think that the first sentence must represent everything, like a roll-up of a database entry's genre listings, when it's not feasible (or good) writing. All we can do is try to make the lead section's first paragraph a little better in covering everything in a more spread-out manner (including having the premise, which I think can often be missing), while considering how reliable sources do frame the film genre-wise. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So in an article's plot summary (such as the MCU GAs on Guardians of the Galaxy (film), etc.), we often list characters by first and last names when they are first introduced (in this case, Peter Quill is listed by his first and last name) while on other articles such as Thor (film), we list them as they are credited (in this case, Thor Odinson is credited as simply Thor). For example, in a recent edit for Sinners (2025 film), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinners_(2025_film)&curid=75895455&diff=1290325375&oldid=1290324336 the lead characters' full names were removed].

Since this will likely affect many film articles, I thought I would bring it up here. That said, I have a question about listing character names in plot summaries: can we include the full names or can we list them as credited? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn't worry about establishing a rule for this, so as to avert instruction creep. We should write the last names or not depending on what feels natural for the plot summary and what the local consensus at that particular article is. However, personally speaking, I would include the surname in the plot summary, generally when introducing the character, when one or more of the following is true:

:# surnames are of significance to the plot (two characters share the same last name, indicating a relationship, or share the same first name and are distinguished by their last names, such as in Heathers)

:# the character's surname may be considered a part of the common name of the character. If the character in question has an article about them, I would generally defer to whatever the article title names them as.

:# including the character's surname makes the plot summary read more naturally for readers, particularly if the character in question does not have a very unique or memorable first name.

:In the first example you cited of Guardians of the Galaxy, it makes sense to name Peter Quill as such in the opening sentence of the summary because that is the character's common name. Further, Peter is itself a very common name, so appending the surname to distinguish the character is warranted. Finally, the article about the character in question is called Peter Quill (Marvel Cinematic Universe), further strengthening the argument that his surname should be included.

:In the second example of Thor, his last name seems less pertinent to mention. Thor is what I would call a "unique and memorable" first name. It is not a particularly common name among real people, and it is the common name of the character as well as the mythological figure in Norse mythology on which he is based. His last name of "Odinson", while it is mentioned in his article in the lede, is not part of his common name and is more or less WP:TRIVIA.

:For Sinners in specific, I would say the status quo reflected in the current revision of the article seems to already follow these intuitive guidelines, and is perfectly fine. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, it all comes down to how characters are credited and commonly referred to in the film / sources. Star-Lord is commonly known as "Peter", "Quill", and "Peter Quill", so he is introduced with his full name and then his surname is used the rest of the time. Thor is almost never called "Odinson" or "Thor Odinson" and it is unclear whether that is his actual surname or just a reference to the fact that he is the son of Odin, so that is why he is always just referred to as "Thor". I don't think this is something that needs any special guideline changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to ask for some assistance in researching whether sufficient archival sourcing can be found to improve an article about a short film from 2011.

The situation is that somebody recently created Maryna Vroda and the Palme d'Or for Best Short Film. Now, obviously that's not how Wikipedia does things — the Short Film Palme d'Or could obviously be discussed in either Maryna Vroda itself or an article about the film that she won it for, but we never need an article that treats an individual filmmaker's win of an individual award as a standalone event in its own right. An editor has already initiated a merge discussion at Talk:Maryna Vroda about merging it into the BLP, but I tried to determine whether there was adequate sourcing available to convert it into an article about the film instead.

However, since the film is 14 years old Google isn't offering up a ton of usable sourcing, and all that was in the article was a bulletpointed list of entirely dead links to a mixture of primary sourcing that wouldn't support notability at all and purported coverage of the award presentation itself, none of which were actually being used to footnote any of the body content. I've taken a stab at it with the sources I have been able to find, so it's now an article about the film itself at the title Cross-Country — but I'm not entirely convinced that I've found enough, so I wanted to ask if somebody with access to databases of European film coverage that I don't have could take a gander to see whether there's any archival sourcing that could be added to it to bolster passage of WP:GNG. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:The initial revision of the page was written by WP:LLM, as can be seen from the Markdown-style headings and the fact that none of the linked sources actually exist. User:Matthewhayana has also AI-generated other pages (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Waheed). He appears to be spam-creating articles to build credibility so he can promote his own film, The Red Mechanic (Film). Iiii I I I (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I have updated the article on the German film producer Gian-Piero Ringel:

Gian-Piero Ringel

The article is based on verifiable sources and follows the style of comparable biographies in the "Film Producer" category. I would appreciate a review, feedback, or any suggestions for improvement. Many thanks!

Best regards Cinekultur (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

When I made a rewrite proposal at the ongoing discussion for Talk:Sinners (2025 film)#Edit War Dispute, an editor (Buh6173) said I {{tquote|really need to actually point out the changes [in the plot summary] and argue in favor of them}}. Do you guys think this is considered acceptable? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, without question. You should argue the merits of your preferences for specific content decisions if you want to convince others to support the consensus you want. In the case of word choice in a plot summary, it seems perfectly reasonable to break it down in the way that Buh6173 has done. They seem to have made fair arguments for their preferences so I would recommend engaging them in discussion and telling them on which points you agree and/or disagree. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I just wanted to make sure, that's all. I thought such word choices were compared via edit differences. Like I said, I'm still discussing these changes with the user(s) on the talk page, as myself and other editors have been doing for the past few days or so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://outlawvern.com/ Outlaw Vern] a reliable source? [https://outlawvern.com/about/ According to the author], he has written for Ain't It Cool News and CLiNT magazine, and written books published by Titan Books. Mika1h (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Independent and SF Weekly have written about him: [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/columnists/tim-walker/tim-walker-vern-gives-quality-nonsense-the-depth-of-analysis-it-deserves-1948095.html], [https://web.archive.org/web/20250517175352/https://www.sfweekly.com/archives/outlaw-vern-laments-the-sorry-state-of-badass-cinema/article_5a6a8d8d-ee28-5432-aad4-591c519bb514.html]. Also found that he has also written for Seattle Weekly: [https://www.seattleweekly.com/film/action-movies-dont-have-to-suck-by-vern/] --Mika1h (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would say given that the sources mention that he's got a particular schtick that he might be useful for critical commentary, but I would question whether there are better sources to generally use for this, and I don't think it would make sense to consider him reliable for anything else relating to the films. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know who remembers Marnette and the great work he did with Film and TV. He died on March 4, 2025. Thank you MD for your contributions to this project and your enthusiasm about films! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sad news. I didn't have a ton of interaction with Marnette, but I know he spent a lot of time helping to keep cats and list articles tidy, and weighed in on a lot of important issues over the years. RIP MD --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Aw, wow, this is sad news. Thank you for sharing. He contributed so much, and I remember him well from cordial discussions where even if we disagreed, we could both strive to come to a resolution. I respected him a lot for that tenor and think about that whenever I see his name in old discussions out there. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for informing of us his passing. I don't really feel as though I have friends here, but he was one of the people who I would have come closest to thinking of as such. I'll miss his involvement greatly, and my deepest sympathies to his friends and family. :| DonIago (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is very sad. He defended me a few times when I received harassment from an IP user. Despite disagreements we had, he was still one of the best. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Very sad. Thanks for making us aware. They will be missed.Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:A giant of the film project. I was sad when he retired, although I know he was having problems with his eyesight and was finding editing difficult. Sad news. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Grindhouse (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. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of Beavers has been nominated for feature article candidacy. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the assessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the FAC may be unsuccessful. Jon698 (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the reliability of blu-ray.com on RSN, any input would be helpful. See WP:RSN#Is blu-ray.com reliable for the reviews listed under “Blu-ray reviews” -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)