Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on February 27 2007. The result of the discussion was keep—the nomination was withdrawn.
Archive
Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Historical

It seems that this project has died. Should it be marked with the historical tag?

I think another way to look it is no one has objected, so it should be moved from proposal to guideline. Are there any objections to this, and if so what? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Rick's suggestion is quite reasonable. Of course the text can always be tweaked later if need be. >Radiant< 09:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems like reverse logic to me that lack of interest demonstrates acceptance. I oppose this. --Kevin Murray 12:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we know you've been objecting to this mostly on bureaucratic grounds from the very start. Do you have any arguments as to the content of the page? >Radiant< 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the longest specific guidelines written. It is verbose, overly complex, poorly organized, potentially confusing, and does more to add subjectivity than to cure it. The simple advice from WP:N should be sufficient to determine whether a film is notable: has it been recognized by a significant number of other sources upon which we can rely for an indication of notability and for verifiable information? Short of these we risk our editors writing personal reviews and/or just summarizing plots from the work (original research and POV). This is a project seeking a need. --Kevin Murray 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That would appear to be your standard objection to every notability guideline. >Radiant< 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got an objection - apparently this would mark most modern films seen by millions of people, for example Spider-Man 3, as non-notable, because they're not 5 years old yet. Frankly, most big-budget films are inherently notable due to the sheer number of their expected audiences. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you are perhaps misreading the guideline; surely such films would have received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Visviva 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Current practice is certainly not to delete articles about such movies, so the guideline should make this clear. I'll take a stab at a clarification. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As someone not involved in the process heretofore, I agree that this should become a guideline... it could use a bit of an edit (as the misunderstanding above makes clear), but basically reflects community norms and practices in a nuanced way. -- Visviva 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah for the record the section "guideline" should have a different section header, and the page could stand some snipping. >Radiant< 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I would rather see fewer than more guidelines. Merge this with the guideline for books. Have a paragraph or two with the basic notability criteria which have been hammered out here in the "film" section of a WP:BOOKS&FILM or some such guide. As is there is a rambling introduction in each which repeats info from other policies and guidelines, which themselves change constantly. My usual problem with proliferating guidelines is that people who LIKE the subject of the guidelines want to write in inherent notability for cruft which lacks multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, whether it be roads, nobility, videogame characters, or whatever. This guide seems perhaps a little more balanced with the (for Wikipedia) harsh 5 year provision. Edison 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That would also be very workable. I believe I've suggested the same about a month ago. >Radiant< 14:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I also support this approach, if the additional rules make sense. --Kevin Murray 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object to demoting this guideline in any fashion. This guideline is in wide use. Please stop reviving this pet idea for the umpteenth time.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plug the loopholes

This proposal has some merit, to make more straightforward of the keeping of notable films and the deletion of non-notable films in AFDs. I think including a paragraph in a more general guideline, and merging with a guideline for books would be better than a standalone guideline, because we have to keep changing the boilerplate in this as people edit WP:N and WP:A. That said, I see loopholes which would allow one or a few people to "game the system" and claim notability for films they like or which make some fringe political or scientific point, whether it is about 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing, or whatever. My objection is that it turns over notability determination to any individual or small group one who organizes a "festival" without specifying the festival itself is somehow notable, neutral and well juried, or any one person who teaches a film course:

  • "1)The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."

The "Moon is made of green cheese" society could hold a little-noted mooncheese festival and screen some absolute nutjob films which present evidence that supports their lunatic fringe beliefs (substitute any fringe theory). There is no specification in this guideline to distinguish a nutjob fringe festival from the Cannes Film Festival. This could then be cited to justify the film having an article.

  • "4)The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." The word "notable" helps here, because otherwise any instructor at a country's least known college could "teach" the aforementioned green cheese film and that could be cited as a basis for inclusion. This still leaves it up to the single most fringe teacher at any of the schools with "notable" film programs (a subjective determination) to decide on his own what film he will make entitled to a Wikipedia article.
  • My suggestion is to add some suitable qualifier to prevent the action of an individual who chooses the films for a festival, or an individual who teaches a film course, from having as much power to determine notability as this gives them. Newspapers and books are not "reliable sources" unless they have editorial oversight; that is why self published books, IMDB, and personal blogs are not reliable sources, since the one editor can say anything. The present wording of these gives one or a few festival organizers, or one film teacher too much power.Edison 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support a concise actionable guideline which combined with books. --Kevin Murray 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New approach

Looking at this proposed guideline closely and from reading some of the comments above, it seems to be an attempt to change current practice at AFD rather than reflect established practice. While I sympathize with this intent, I strongly suspect it is completely unworkable. There can never be enough participants in a discussion about a guideline before it's approved to warrant instituting a new guideline that does not reflect current practice. The reason to codify a guideline is not to change existing practice, but to make it obvious to all concerned what is the current practice. Per the comment just above, I've added a criteria that applies to essentially any contemporary "major" release. Attempting to exclude the bulk of contemporary films simply because they won't have enduring notability is (IMO) not appropriate. Wikipedia is full of articles on all topics that will turn out to have been of contemporary interest, but lack enduring notability. Perhaps a way to address this is to have different criteria for films more than five years old supporting the deletion of articles about the majority of films which do not have enuring notability. In any event, I think trying to exclude contemporary films is wholely impractical. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the clarification, although I think that was already covered to some degree through the reference to the Primary Notability Criterion. -- Visviva 15:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit for style and brevity

Could someone go through this to get rid of the "note this" and "note that" in the opening paragraphs and cut out the redundancy and verbosity? This needs to be about 50% shorter and less subjective. Whatever I do to edit it will be suspect, but this is really a pretty embarassing example of poor word crafting. Then I really coudn't care less whether this becomes a guideline, policy or stone tablets. --Kevin Murray 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the whole intro is a word for word copy from Wikipedia:Notability (books) which seems at best redundant. I agree it's overly wordy. I'll try to edit it down to size. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's significantly less wordy now (comments?). I think various other sections could stand to be edited as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, great trim job on the intro! Do we need so much instruction on the special cases such as "future films", "reflection of existing standards", and contemporaray versus older? How could we achieve the same purpose with less narative (or none)? Maybe we could give a similar pruning to Books. --Kevin Murray 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accept as Guideline

Since this has been substanially reworked, I propose that this be accepted as a guideline; however, I strongly suggest that we continue to consider how we can merge books and films for brevity and continuity. --Kevin Murray 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with Kevin. It is time for this to go live. But that doesn't mean it should become static. Further improvements to wording (or changes to reflect evolving consensus) are always welcome. Eluchil404 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Indeed, improvements are welcome, and I have no objection to the merge suggested earlier. >Radiant< 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revise "Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films" criteria

Because of a number of problems and concerns raised by the creation of pages for films which were announced or under development and subsequently have not gone into production, I'd like to add a criterion regarding future films, namely:

Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have already begun shooting should not have their own articles. Discussion of such films should be limited to the relevant articles on the source material and/or filmmakers until commencement of shooting is confirmed. (Note that this means that if a film is announced that it should begin shooting in April 2008, and May 2008 rolls around without any news confirming that shooting has begun, the article should not be created. Sources should confirm the start after the fact.)

Comments? Girolamo Savonarola 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't agree. The section now only suggests inclusion for when the production itself is notable, and a notable production which failed to produce a film would probably be an even more interesting story. To try to micro manage as suggewsted could be problematic. Do we have an actual problem which this is trying to remedy? --Kevin Murray 19:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
See User:Bignole/Future_films_and_reference_guidelines - I happen to concur with this analysis. Put it another way - should we have a page for every failed novel under development? If these films go on into production, then they're gonna be articles anyway. If not, they should remain under mention at another page (such as their source material). Most of the time they contain very little substantive information other than cast/crew and a very cursory plot glance. Girolamo Savonarola 19:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
See also: Relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb#Release years, two future film articles - A Christmas Carol (2009 film) (discussion) and Silent Hill 2 (film) (discussion), and one speculated film at The Thetan, which actually avoided deletion. Another item is my list of redirected projects here of film articles that have been created by others and have needed to be merged/redirected elsewhere due to inactivity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Is than a support vote? :) Girolamo Savonarola 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in spite of my complaints about the creation of articles about future films, I generally tend to wait for a three-point criteria to create a film article -- establishment of a director, establishment of a cast, and establishment of a production start date that is in the near future, generally 2-3 months. I've created a number of film articles, such as Valkyrie following this criteria, and it's worked because it's pretty much set in stone. Very few films I've encountered, if any, fail to take off when the above-mentioned criteria is met. I guess I'd prefer some kind of middle ground between the very liberal "When a possible film project is announced" and the stringent-seeming "Only after filming has begun". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just skeptical about the need for a film article when the cameras haven't even begun rolling - how much information could there possibly be at that point which would be both notable and difficult to retrieve later? Girolamo Savonarola 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A good example is The Dark Knight a well-maintained article that started filming in mid-April. This is the revision of the article before cameras started rolling. In addition, if a film is slated to be produced very soon, project history can be pretty extensive to cover. I collect headlines for the eventual creation of film articles, so an example of an article with long development history to cover would be this: User:Erik/Future articles#Shazam! (based on Captain Marvel). Just providing an idea of the information available. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • When in doubt apply WP:N, if it has substantial independent references and enough verifiable information to write an article start typing. --Kevin Murray 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine and well except for the fact that this is the notability policy for these topics. That's why we're discussing this. Girolamo Savonarola 02:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As a pre-existing example of a how this can be done properly would be at X-Men film series - there are two proposed spinoff films with a fair amount of well-referenced information, but both are currently contained there for the moment. This is ideal, as it prevents potential perma-stubs from existing - especially if the films aren't ever shot - and also enhances the quality of the film series article. Of course, should the cameras start to roll, it is very easy to then split these sections off. Girolamo Savonarola 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Before X-Men film series#Future existed, the spinoff sections had their own articles at Magneto (film) and Wolverine (film), then the content was merged to Magneto (comics) and Wolverine (comics), respectively. The film series article was created recently, so it served as a better umbrella. Similar future film discussion has been placed similarly, too, such as Spider-Man 4 with Spider-Man film series#Future, Jurassic Park IV with Jurassic Park franchise#Future, and Untitled Underworld prequel with Underworld (series)#Future. Just some further examples to point out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware of that. However, I think that's the case in point, no? :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Just providing examples of how the technique has worked before. Not contrasting you in the slightest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to add, reversion, more discussion

I'm being bold and adding this, but feel free to continue the discussion... Girolamo Savonarola 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no consensus for the change. Adding complicated rule sets when there is no isssue just creates confusing rules. --Kevin Murray 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What's complicated about don't add an article until the cameras roll? Frankly, the older lack of rules was more ambiguous and vague - "don't add productions unless the production (production or production stage, really?) is notable". And referring back to the generalities of WP:N and CRYSTAL is not a response - the whole reason why notability subsections exist is to be more precise with particular classes of articles where WP:N could not possibly be. There is a clear problem with this, and we need transparent guidelines. This is what Bignole and Erik have been drawing attention to in the recent months. Girolamo Savonarola 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for these four paragraphs of rules that you just added without support: Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have already begun shooting should not have their own articles. If the film's source material already has an article, then the film may be written about in that article until commencement of shooting is confirmed. A good example of this is the X-Men film series article (as of July 2007), which includes well-referenced sub-sections for the announced-but-yet-unshot Wolverine and Magneto spinoffs. Should these films go into production, the sections may be split into their own film articles.

This guideline exists because, as has been documented in the past, articles have been created on "sure thing" productions, only to see the films stall or fall through prior to production for any number of reasons. The nature of the film industry means that far more films will stall at development - and sometimes even between the greenlight and production - than will ever be shot. The start of production is therefore considered a reliable indicator of a film that will be completed, because it automatically unleashes a number of costs in both equipment and contractual obligations which make the likelihood of abandonment past that point extremely financially unsound.

It should also be noted if, for example, a film is announced to begin shooting in April 2008, and May 2008 rolls around without any news confirming that shooting has begun, the article should not be created. Sources need to confirm the start after it has begun.

These guidelines can be considered the film articles' corollary to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Additionally, articles on films that have gone into production, but have not yet been publicly released (either theatrically or direct-to-video) are generally not appropriate unless the film in itself is already notable in some way that meets current notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed, or not distributed, are generally not appropriate unless special circumstances render their failure notable. --Kevin Murray 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between the length of the rule and the length of text to explain or elaborate on it. Many of our policies have very simple "nutshell" cores with copiously more detailed sections to explain how it should be implemented and why. I don't think that's unreasonable. Girolamo Savonarola 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I feel that the state of our rules at WP is abhorrent and mired in ego driven over verbosity. The existence of garbage does not justify more of the same. I think this is much ado about nothing, but if you have to say that: "There are will be no articles allowed about films which have not yet been released", just say that and I'll shut-up. But don't belabor the issue with four unneeded paragraphs. Please. --Kevin Murray 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I wish it were as simple as that too. Unfortunately, what is obvious to some is not to all. Guidelines need to be explained either through reference to other guidelines or within their own page. And I can assure you - as I'm certain you may suspect already - that this is not a minor guideline, and there will be much unneeded discussion about the where's and why's if we don't clarify. All I have done is explain the reason for the guideline and what someone who is dying to write about a film that is reference-able but yet unshot can do. It helps to have some clear examples, too.
If you have an objection about my prose, it certainly isn't perfect and I encourage you to copy-edit it. If you have an objection to the guideline in and of itself, then let's discuss here. But you seem to be arguing neither, instead telling me that I have written "too many notes!" ;) Let's not delete or revert a decent guideline over that. Your personal wiki-philosophy aside. Girolamo Savonarola 02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the paragraphs are there to illustrate a point. Many times editors don't understand things and they need to be explained. If it was as simple as "if it isn't released then it cannot have an article", then I think Aquaman (TV program) would have had a hard time getting FA status since it's a television pilot that was never released. Also, look at the new J.J. Abrams film, the untitled monster film. That like just entered production but has had so much buzz that it would easily pass notability criteria. It isn't that a film article shouldn't be created till it is released, because I think The Dark Knight (film) might have trouble fitting on the Batman page, but when the article should be created. Do you create it when the film is announced? Do you create it when they release the film? Do you create it when they have entered production? What about a few weeks before production? What if we have a lot of information, nothing repeated, no speculation, all reliable sources but the production hasn't started yet? Not quite as simple as the "don't create till it's released" idea. Films are garnering more and more publicity in the early stages of development then they ever did before, and that is the reason we are having an over abundance of newly created articles that either get speedied, prodded, merged or AfD's. Sometimes it isn't as simple as "oh it has a bunch of reliable sources". Well, what are those sources saying? Can the article be summarized better so that you don't have to repeated yourself, and thus the info can be merged to a larger topic? The question is really, do simple announcements of "will do", "has joined", "started writing" constitute a reason to create an article? What are we actually trying to say. CRYSTAL only says that it should only be created if there is absolute verification that it will be released. There are instances where a film not released could warrant its own page, but I would assume that is more in line with films that entered production and then just stopped for one reason or another. So if WP:CRYSTAL is only wanting some kind of reliable evidence that says the film will be released, what evidence could be considered concrete enough to warrant a separate article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't indicate it before, I would like to assert my support for clearer wording of when it is most appropriate to establish a stand-alone article about a film. While I think that Girolamo's proposal may have been too wordy, I think the language can be more succinct. There needs to be clarity established about when the article should be created among the stages of film production. It seems late to create a film article when filming begins, with plenty of coverage of the project before the matter. The Lovely Bones (film) is a good example of this. The director is established, the main cast is established, and the production start date is established in the near future. This kind of criteria ensures production of the film for a significant percentage of the time. The criteria is more significant than just having a director attached to the project, because the person who has the helm can change frequently before a film begins. Kevin, if we are not pursuing an amendment to the notability guideline in the correct manner, please inform us of the appropriate steps. I'm sure we don't mind a larger discussion about this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • If there really is a bona fide problem with articles about unmade films, I'll support an amendment to the guideline. The procedure has been correctly followed so far in proposing, being bold and going back to discussion. I generally oppose unneeded rule creep, but will support succinct and clear rules when needed. I do object to crowding unclear thoughts with examples etc. I believe in short direct and actionable guidelines or rules. Can we do it in half the text? Let's see where this goes. --Kevin Murray 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the logs for Superman Returns sequel, Untitled Superman Returns sequel, Superman: The Man of Steel, Superman: The Man of Steel (2009 film). Some of these were deleted, some have redirects. But looking at the logs for a film that has no director (as Singer has not been officiall resigned), no script, no official production start date, it shows there is a problem with people creating pages at the whiff that a studio claims they will make another film. Now this is only one film, but the various alterations of the title (there are more, I just couldn't remember every different variation off the top of my head) just to create an article should be a hint as to what some will go through because they think if a studio says "We're going to make another film" that it's the word of God. Superman Returns took almost 20 years itself to get made, so it isn't as simple as a studio saying they will make a film, and I think the guideline should clearer on when an article should be created. Although, I think WP:CRYSTAL could probably be amended to be just a tad bit more clear, or at least have a link to a place where it gives a better description (like WP:CRYSTAL linking to a section on this page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm approaching 3RR, I would rather not revert my edits (at least not today). What I'd like to propose is that one of you reverts my paragraphs back and and then we can all start revising as need be towards an acceptable compromise.
And as for when to allow the article, I think that the Superman (and Spiderman) histories are perfectly good reasons to keep film articles rolled into their source material prior to filming. Heck, even The Lovely Bones article seems to show that there were a lot of setbacks that could've potentially killed the project. There's no reason why an article relatively short like that can't still remain within the source article, especially if the guideline already recommends it.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that there are still plenty of released films that need articles, and no one seems to be crying much over these "lost" articles. Why, then, is it "too late to begin a film article when the filming begins"? While I agree that there are some interesting points involving preproduction and development which would ideally be in a film FA, oftentimes these unreleased film articles end up becoming excellently referenced litanies of "near-misses" in casting, crew, and production. As stated before, these can be retained within other articles if there is interest, and split as productions commence.
Anyway, those are my ramblings... :) Girolamo Savonarola 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the revert, Kevin. I appreciate the compromise! :) Girolamo Savonarola 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've read over the guidelines as written, and I agree that it's too wordy. I also think that "when shooting starts" is too arbitrary, since as Erik has stated above a film is well in place long before cameras are rolling. My personal thought is that as long as there's coverage in multiple reliable sources, all verifiable and sourceable, then there's enough for an individual article on an upcoming film. If all we have is rumors and speculation from fan sites, then we should hold off. As written, the guidelines for film are much more restrictive than the over-arching guidelines at WP:NOTE and WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't agree with that. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean you support the inclusion of speculation? Speculation can be reliably sourced, even speculation that is completely far-fetched.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean, think. If Wikipedia had been around 20 years ago, look at some of the articles that would have sat around and done nothing. Spider-Man spent almost 2 decades in development hell before that finally came out. Warner Brothers kept promising a new Superman film till they finally settled on two television series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Most speculation is not appropriate, sourced or not, but I imagine there can be exceptions depending on the context, the source, etc. It's not a black and white issue. Is it not conceivable that a reader may want information on a film in pre-production? It seems a bit silly to draw an arbitrary line at "it's shooting", even if a lot is already known about the film. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so as long as an article conforms with core guidelines and policies, it should be included. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I brought up merging into source material because generally these articles tend to be about films which are adaptations of other material. No one is arguing for deletion of well-sourced content, only the articles. And until the cameras are rolling, it is just a lot of names being thrown around. Girolamo Savonarola 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see the advantage of having the content under the source material versus having a separate article. As noted before, we're not a paper encyclopedia so it's not as if we're saving trees. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Not paper only means we include things that we wouldn't normally include in a paper encyclopedia, doesn't have anything to do with "where" it is included. Also, Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. So, just because it conforms to core guidelines and policies doesn't mean it wouldn't be better served in a larger topic area if one exists. I feel if it's shooting, then you can probably go head an make the article, unless it's some obscure direct-to-dvd movie that might be better suited somewhere else. The question is really "how much information is needed to justify a film article if the film is not currently in production?" That's non-repetative information. Someone saying "it will be out in 2009" for the next 3 months doesn't need to be mentioned and referenced every time they say it. But I've seen articles bloated with that type of repetition. Speculation on a cast member, which is then followed by "cast member says they don't know anything". The early film articles get riddled with scooper type dialogue and reports, as if it's a current events article and we have to report any tiny mention of the film that is released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything you've said regarding upcoming film articles. It's a big problem since every rumor and hearsay shows up, usually unsourced and presented as "fact". But I'm not sure what is solved by offloading this onto the source articles. I feel like we're throwing the problem "over the wall" to let the book and comic editors deal with it. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That depends on if you stop following the page. The first problem comes "does it need its own article"? If it doesn't, then moving it to a larger topic shouldn't be avoided simply because there is a fear that the comics and books, or some other project of editors are going to either not know what to do with it or have to battle the same thing the film project editors battle. It depends on the editors. This is the problem, where does it go and how to you keep control over the irrelevant information? You create a film article, the film never gets made, you end up merging into those very articles you were once afraid to put it for feeling as though you were "throwing it over the wall". Someone comes in, adds a whole lot of speculation that occurred while the film was in development. It's a chance. The info is going to be battled no matter where it is, and you cannot assume that film project editors are better at curbing that speculation that comic project, or novel project editors. There are just as many film project editors who think that as soon as it's announced it should be created and all information, no matter how speculatory, should be added to the article...as there is for any other project. I'm sure there are plenty of comic project editors who have dealt with enough film articles to understand the guidelines. WP:NOTE, WP:RS, and WP:V are the same no matter what project you are with. We personally have Notability (films), but it's based on the basic principle behind WP:NOTE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A more compact guideline

Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun.

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per notability guidelines. --Kevin Murray 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is more than adequate. Girolamo Savonarola 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You're more than welcome. Good to work with you. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as a much stronger stance against future films than is currently enforced at AFD. Under this criteria, I'd expect virtually all members of Category:Upcoming films (and its subcats) should be deleted. Is this really the intent? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus in AfDs typical go with "the information shouldn't be deleted", but if you view a proposed merger discussion that might take place after an AfD, you'll find a lot of the people that voted to keep an article also vote to have it merged with a larger topic. AfDs are usually the wrong way to go about anything, but it says you think the information itself should be deleted, when we arent' advocating that. We are advocating that the page shouldn't be created that soon, because nothing says the film will definitely be released and there usually isn't that much information on a future film unless it's getting close to production time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying I favor articles about upcoming films, but for this guideline to patently be at odds with current practice seems odd. Does anyone from the films wikiproject keep tabs on articles about future films and actually get the content merged (into, say, the article about the director or studio or actor or whoever's fan it is that created the article in the first place)? Perhaps this guideline could say what to do in these cases (generally, merge the content into ..., and replace the article with a redirect). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Magneto (film), Spider-Man 4, Superman: The Man of Steel (film), Jurassic Park IV are some examples of articles that were merged to a larger topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I keep huge tabs on future film articles. See User:Erik/Future articles for headlines of projects that I watch until it nears production. Also, see User:Erik/Link repository#Redirected projects for film articles that have been created too soon and have been redirected to a broader article. Some have information, having done more than just announce it, but others have simply been announced and not advanced upon. I don't believe there's an issue with creating redirects to a proper location in the broader article, like Bignole showed with his examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And I agree that the guideline should state what should be done, as Rick suggested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Star Trek (film) seems to be a huge exception to this guideline. It was a well-refernced encyclopedia-quality article nearly a year ago, and they've only begun to announce cast selections, let alone start filming. I think something needs to be added that if significant details about an upcoming production are covered in multiple reliable sources, then an article can be created before filming begins. In such a case, if the film is not eventually produced this fact alone would likely be a notable event. Also, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) would fail this criteria even though it was recently kept at AfD, and a failure to produce this film would be a significantly notable event. DHowell 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Star Trek (film) actually needs to be trimmed down massively; it has reported far too much indiscriminate information. Due to the fan base of this franchise, I'm not surprised that there is so much extraneous detail (in the encyclopedic sense). It's akin to this example of Resident Evil fans. I do not know how the article would look after being shaped to be more encyclopedic (think long-term), but it may after all warrant a merge somewhere else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that HP6 or 7 not being made into a film would be extremely unlikely, it is irrelevant as well - how are we supposed to make an even vaguely objective decision as to the viability of a film in development making to production? Girolamo Savonarola 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, by all rights, that film article should have been merged elsewhere based on WP:NF, because production of that film is still years away. The article is going to sit in that stubby form, with minor casting updates, while the focus is on the sixth film's production. Someone should've brought up WP:NF in that AfD. Maybe a merge should be suggested -- AfDs make people freak out and think their article will be gone forever. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is that some films are notable even if they don't make production, e.g. Star Wars sequel trilogy. A film is notable if enough reliable sources have talked about it enough that an article can be written... i.e., we don't need any criteria beyond the WP:N primary criterion, in my opinion. JulesH 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The Star Wars article is really more about a topic. If someone started making pages for the individual sequels, I'd be concerned. Many of the source materials for heavily-tracked upcoming films have been adapted into a wide variety of media many times, so the material may even have a page called "Adaptations of [x]". To recapitulate what has been said: no one has suggested deleting sourced content - just moving it to a subsection of its source material. Girolamo Savonarola 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I like the new wording much more precise and to the point. Whispering 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add "highly-viewed" and "nominated for a major award" as criteria

  1. I recommend adding "highly-viewed" as a criteria. "Highly-viewed" means an unusually high success at the box-office or though other means. In the United States, the top-10 grossing feature films each year would qualify.
  2. I recommend adding "nominated for a major award" such as the Academy Award for Best Feature Film should automatically qualify. A "major award" should be an award where even a nomination is truly an honor, not an award with thousands of nominees.

In almost all cases, films that qualify for either of these will qualify under other criteria. These criteria can be thought of as short-cuts to establishing notability when notability is obvious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emphasize that this is a guideline not a rule

This guideline needs to emphasize that just because a film meets one of the listed criteria doesn't necessarily mean it's notable. Common sense should prevail. A film that gets 2 national reviews the fizzles at the box office after less than a week never to be seen or heard from again isn't notable and will likely be successfully AfD'd a few months after the film's release. Likewise, it needs to put more emphasis on the occasional exception clause - a film that doesn't verifiably meet any of the criteria may be unquestionably notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be clearer to me if you could illustrate some examples. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with GS that the issue seems vague without some examples illustrating a problem with the current guideline. --Kevin Murray 04:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we have no idea what is meant by this in a real world application unless someone can mention some specific films or articles. His proposal is far too vague. And all guidelines are not rules in the strict sense of unviolable policy (of which there are very few, and some were project imperatives from above), but rather adhered-to practices, agreed to by community consensus, which should have good justification for any exceptions from the norm. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice requested

Could someone involved in writing this guideline take a look at Rosalie Goes Shopping (of which I am the main contributor) and tell me if it meets the criteria listed here? I've listed three reviews there, and two of them (Roger Ebert and the Washington Post) probably qualify as nationally known, but I'm not sure their reviews qualify as full-length. I have not found any evidence of any notice being taken of the film more than five years after it was released, and the fact that it was first shown at Cannes doesn't seem to be a sufficient criterion, since that was before its general release, not five years after it. I'm not aware of it winning any awards, being preserved in a national archive, or being taught. —Angr 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It has notable cast and crew, and as stated received reviews from notable publications or critics. It would be hard to argue against notability. The image should be removed in favor of a poster (if one exists) or a screencap from the film - the image currently used only would be appropriate for the article on the actress. (I gather that the picture was also taken years after the film, too.) Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
According to IMDb, it was nomated for "Cannes Film Festival - 1989 Golden Palm". The nomination is still something, so you could mention that, but I would try and find a reliable source to verify it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The current image is free, and a poster or screencap from the film would be nonfree, so the current image should stay. I looked at the Cannes website and could only find confirmation that it was shown there, not that it was nominated for the Palme d'Or. —Angr 04:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Style guidelines for film articles dictate that the poster is to be used for the template, and there is currently consensus that it is an acceptable fair use image for these purposes. If a poster image or screencap cannot be found, then the infobox should not have a picture at all. In no cases, however, should a tangential picture be included, regardless of the licensing issues. Girolamo Savonarola 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think where style guidelines for film articles come into conflict with the Third Pillar, the latter should take precedence. If someone else uploads a poster and adds it to the article, I won't revert, but I certainly won't upload a nonfree image to Wikipedia myself just to make an article prettier. —Angr 05:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the "Great Image Deletion Wars" on WP:FU - but that is another topic entirely which seems to leave almost no one happy whatever happens.... Girolamo Savonarola 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm an old veteran of those wars. But by refraining from uploading the nonfree image in the first place, we don't have to worry about it being deleted later. —Angr 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major awards

The article previously stated, "Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that a Best Picture Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included." I removed the reference to "Best Picture" because this language seemed far too cautious in terms of what films warrant having Wikipedia articles. This made it seem to me as though articles such as Little Miss Sunshine or The Queen (film) would be at risk of deletion because those films were only nominated for Best Picture, but didn't win; the only Oscars they won were in other categories. That isn't the standard we apply, and I don't think an attempt to delete those articles for lack of notability would be taken seriously. Therefore, the guidelines should reflect a broader understanding of notability. I am aware that the Oscars also include categories such as documentary and short subject categories where the films are more obscure, but the winners in those categories should be considered major award winners which are worthy of articles too. --Metropolitan90 02:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. IMHO, any film that is even nominated for any of those particular awards is notable by the very fact of said nomination. Girolamo Savonarola 02:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raiders of the Lost Ark

Editor2008 (talk · contribs) has constantly removed information of the amateur remake, citing that many fan films don't get as much attention as this remake of Raiders did? I'm too tired to sort him out. Alientraveller (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big picture problem with this guideline

I don't know the history of how this guideline developed (though I've looked through the talk page discussion) and I don't know exactly where it's at now in terms of how happy folks are with the guideline and how often it is invoked. I was brought back over here when I was participating in an AfD on A Life in the Death of Joe Meek (which I had never heard of until I saw it on AfD). In looking up the guideline again I remember I had always had a problem with its restrictiveness in terms of notability. I would like to explain why I feel this way and hopefully open a discussion that might lead to some changes in the policy. My apologies as this is a little bit long but I'm trying to be thoughtful and for me that sometimes requires a bit of verbosity.

I'm all for keeping stuff which is completely non-notable (be it a film or anything else) out of the encyclopedia and regularly !vote to delete at AfD or put articles up for speedy deletion. However I also have a strong inclusionist streak, particularly when it comes to interesting pieces of culture which may be briefly notable and then fade from memory. I think the current guidelines for films (and for books too, but one thing at a time!) can lead to the deletion of things that really belong on Wikipedia.

This film A Life in the Death of Joe Meek is a case in point. It's a new documentary, which has screened at a few films festivals, received a couple of brief reviews, and is about a significant figure in the history of pop music - Joe Meek (though I'd never heard of him). By our guidelines here the article should, as of now, probably be deleted and quite possibly it will be. But even if the film is never distributed I can't help but feel that films like it (with a respectable run at film festivals, about an interesting historical figure, but only seen by a few thousand people at best) deserve a place here in Wikipedia.

I also thought about this issue awhile ago when an anonymous user, retaliating for an AfD I had listed, placed a notability tag on Columbia Revolt, an article I started (and which exactly 17 people have read). This film has been discussed in some secondary sources and could/should survive an AfD (though I've never gotten around to expanding it properly such that notability was proven), but it's an example of a film that could easily slip through the notability cracks if someone didn't do their homework or if it had been mentioned in a few less sources (or if some works discussing it were not on Google books).

Both of these films are documentaries and that's a category I'm particularly concerned with, but I'm also concerned with films with artistic (or other) merit but very little audience/mainstream coverage. The films I'm concerned with would generally not have attributes 1, 3, 4, and 5 under the guideline. Their only notability would come from some notion of being "historically notable," and here the guideline is particularly restrictive I think. The "at least five years" component of the historically notable attribute is on the one hand rather arbitrary and on the other hand contrary to the spirit of the general Wikipedia guideline - particularly the notion that notability is not temporary. I think a film which is screened at several film festivals, gets a few small but decent reviews in fairly minor media, fails to get distribution, and then drops of the face of the earth will often deserve an article. The current guidelines would seem to prohibit that.

Part of what we need to think about here, I think, is how movie distribution works (or book distribution, but again one thing at a time). By our criteria films that are profitable and/or widely distributed are, as a general rule, more notable than films which are not. Sometimes that's appropriate, and I'm not arguing for inclusion of every lame-ass indy film ever made (far from it). However I do think by putting the notability bar so high (wide distribution, lengthy reviews in notable - i.e. commercial - press, winning of awards, etc.) we are to an extent following the film industry's own criteria for what matters and what does not. That criteria is based largely on profit/box office success and should not be what Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is about.

Right, this is too long. So what's my point? I would suggest loosening the guidelines in number two for historical notability or possibly adding some catchall "other" component to the list which is not too general. Suggestions for possible ways to expand the "historically notable" component include:

  • 1) Documentaries which were screened at film festivals (or even a series of local screenings mentioned in secondary sources) and reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release might warrant articles if the subject matter is of some historical importance.
  • 2) Films which were screened at film festivals (or even a series of local screenings mentioned in secondary sources) and reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release might warrant articles if reviews of the time commented on the artistic merit of the film.
  • 3) Films of any type which were screened in multiple places and which received little or no coverage in reliable sources but received significant attention from certain communities (in the general sense of the word), or from bloggers, alternative media, etc. might warrant articles.

One and two I am particularly adamant about, three is a bit vague and I could not even give a specific example for that, but something along those lines seems like it might be appropriate.

So if anyone ever actually reads this (again apologies for the length) I would love to discuss this stuff further.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Screened at film festivals is too amorphous of a criterion. There are thousands held every year, many with hundreds of films screening. Even allowing for overlap, we're talking about easily more than 10k potential new entries a year. Many of those festivals also accept to all films which pay an entry fee, meet some general requirements, etc. In short, not all festivals are equal. As for the documentary question, the easiest response I can come up with is that while sometimes individual films may not be notable, their subjects may be; if that is the case, then a mention of the documentary title(s) in the subject's article would be appropriate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the (very prompt) reply Girolamo (I just saw your user name for the first time a few days ago, and must say I'm a fan of it). Yes, of course, a mention of a non-notable documentary in the article of the subject of the documentary is warranted - I think that goes without saying and is not really related to my point. As to the other component of your response, please note the criterion I was suggesting (as a starting point for discussion) was "Screened at film festivals" AND "reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release." I'm not trying to let in the barbarian hordes here (for lack of a less crude term), I'm just trying to open the door a bit. I guess I'd be interested in a response to the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of my comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was responding to both, but so be it. It also is worth noting that Columbia Revolt is more notable for its historical context than its aesthetical context, and furthermore would not pass your criteria regardless, so I can't help thinking that it's not germane to this particular discussion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, as regards notability and time, the purpose (as I understand it) of the five years clauses is to demonstrate that the film has had some longevity either by being re-released, profiled, or chosen in a poll in isolation from any distribution marketing mechanisms. It isn't to say notability is temporary - in fact, it's about the opposite - if the film is notable, it should still be notable enough to have one of those things happen no less than five years later. Another thing worth mentioning is that while notability shouldn't disappear, it also does not necessarily occur upon release - Manos Hands of Fate would be an example of a film which did not achieve notability until decades later, when it became infamous through an MST3K episode. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec with last comment, but am pasting this in cause I took a little while to write it, will respond to above shortly) I'm attempting, perhaps feebly, to open a discussion here and it seems like we're getting off on the wrong foot so I'll try to remedy that somewhat with this reply. First of all in re-reading my last comment I can see how my mention of your username might have come off as sarcastic, but I assure you it was not and hope you didn't read it that way (I'm a student of history, and am glad that Savonarola's name popped up on whatever I was reading a few days ago). I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "I thought I was responding to both." Do you mean responding to "Screened at film festivals" AND "reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release" (as opposed to just the former)? If so then I better understand your first reply, though I think that still narrows the range of potential new film articles to less than "more than 10k" (many films are in festivals, but never receive any sort of review or mention). Anyhow that's just the type of issue I would like to discuss.
I only mentioned Columbia Revolt as being illustrative of my general point and also something with which I have personal experience since I wrote that small article. The film was reviewed in the New York Times when it came out and has been discussed in a couple of books on film history (ones available on Google books) so I'm not worried about its notability based on my criteria or even the existing one - i.e., I don't have an axe to grind on that or any other article, it was just an example of the issue I am concerned with which came to mind.
With all respect I think you were perhaps reading my comment as an attack on the current guideline that was rooted in some particular grievance over certain articles. I can understand reading my comment that way, but I only cited particular articles as examples of my general point - loosening the notability guidelines for films somewhat might be a good idea. This is all I really want to discuss. Maybe my previous comments were not the best way to begin the conversation, but I do want to talk about this and hope that you and other editors are open to that possibility.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And in reply to your last comment Girolamo, I fully agree that notability can come later as in the example you give. Your point about the five year issue I do not agree with though. When you say that the point is that "the film has had some longevity either by being re-released, profiled, or chosen in a poll in isolation from any distribution marketing mechanisms" you are looking past the fact that is precisely those films which have distribution marketing mechanisms that are most likely to be "re-released, profiled, or chosen in a poll." This goes to the heart of my point about notability - if it was demonstrated once it does not need to be demonstrated again later, and we should open our notability guidelines to some films which achieve some (often brief) notability in non-commercial circles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint. Too many shortcuts. Circular referencing

Having been pointed to WP:FILM regarding the AfD of a future film, I find that it doesn't point directly to anything useful. I find instead a mess of circular referencing, involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films.

I suggest cleaning up the excessive shortcuts, and moving/copying all of the externally referenced rules/guidelines/criteria/recommendations to a single place, probably Wikipedia:Notability (films). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FLAG-MOVIE

Hello, fellow editors ... I was wondering if there is enough interest in the Flag templates to create a WP:FLAG-MOVIE to go along with WP:FLAG-PROF, WP:FLAG-FICT and WP:FLAG-SCL ... it would be trivial for me to update the {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} templates to recognize either Films or Movies as another (Guideline)... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)