Epstein Files Full PDF

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:FILMWT:FILM

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90Auto-archiving period: 21 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts WT:FILMWT:FILM WT:FILMSWT:FILMS WT:MOVIESWT:MOVIES

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 21 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

Hello, not sure if this was already put into discussion, but certain users keep reverting my edits regarding the removal of the word "stop motion" from the lead sentence in stop motion animated films (think Laika LLC, Aardman Animations). Not sure what the consensus was, since a couple of years ago, animated films, regardless of medium, simply mention that they are "animated" in their lead sentence. For instance:

"Toy Story is a 1995 American animated adventure comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures" (from Toy Story)

Toy Story is a 3D animated/computer animated film, and in the past films like this used to have in the sentence "computer animated" right before genres. Given some hidden notes I have found when editing articles like these, it seems like the consensus seems to be that overly specifying the technique used may fall into WP: OVERLINKING and WP:SEAOFBLUE. What an animated film is, is common knowledge, and films often combine different mediums (i.e. Laika films using more and more CGI VFX with each new film), so to avoid any kind of confusion, I suppose it is why all animated films now just mention they are "animated".

So stop motion films can have sentences like these:

"Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget is a 2023 British animated comedy film"

"Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl is a 2024 British animated comedy film produced by Aardman Animations for the BBC and Netflix."

Notice how they do not mention "stop motion animated" or claymation anywhere.

So whenever I remove the word "stop motion" from these types of films, and get reverted because "it needs to specify", who is OK here? We should open a discussion and redirect to this talk after any reverts. Joy040207 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILMGENRE says to include genres. Now while Stop motion isn't a genre like "Comedy" is, but is a sub-type of animation, animation also isn't really a genre in the same way I'd argue that "Science fiction" is similarly not a genre. Both act as a canvas for the film (one at the visual level, the other at the literarily level). A film can be an animation comedy and also a science fiction comedy.

I also think that the distinction of a film as stop motion is pretty significant to the film. So the option is either to say "Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget is a 2023 British animated comedy film" in the first sentence and then repeat in the paragraph that it is a stop motion film, which feels clumsy, or just say it in the first sentence. I'd go for the first sentence. I'd argue that this is might* true for all types of animated films. Gonnym (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky. We tend to operate on predominant assumptions, like when we say film, we really mean "feature film" and would otherwise include "short". Animation has evolved, so what may have been called computer-animated before would just be animated now. Yet we don't quite go back to older films and call them traditional animation. I do agree that there can be unique animation styles (or at least, the appearance of it) within the predominant style, and reliable sources do routinely note that when they cover such films. So such characteristics seem warranted relatively upfront. I think MOS:OPEN applies to identify it in the first paragraph. Hard to say per MOS:FIRST if it should definitely always be in the first sentence, since we can spread out notable elements. Open to what others think, just wanted to share my first impression here. Erik (talk | contrib) 23:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Avatar: Fire and Ash it doesn't even mention that was an IMAX or 3D film anywhere other than one link at the Release section. We are really doing a disservice to our readers hiding defining features of a film. I had to go to Google AI right now to check whether the first Avatar was filmed in IMAX since I couldn't trust our articles. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMAX and 3D aren't defining features. They're just display technologies. Barry Wom (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When a film is filmed in IMAX and in 3D it is a defining feature of the film. If it was just converted later and offered in those technologies it isn't. Avatar is the text-book case of 3D being a defining feature of the film. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the majority of people who have seen Avatar watched it in neither IMAX nor 3D?

Back to the subject at hand, it seems we are at least in agreement that "stop motion" is indeed a defining feature. Barry Wom (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The film is an IMAX 3D film regardless how someone watched it. Statistically, there is a chance that most people in the world watched it with a Mandarin dub or subtitles, it doesn't make it a Mandarin film. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't filmed in IMAX, it was only screened in IMAX, along with many other non-IMAX films. But, whatever, this is off-topic. Barry Wom (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't totally off-topic, though! We have different kinds of categories to deal with. Here, mentioning IMAX and/or 3D is not first-sentence material since it's not universally seen that way. First paragraph, not sure if a mention is warranted there, but I feel like generally we would want to mention it in the lead section, and Avatar: Fire and Ash is missing that. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Avatar info shouldn't be first paragraph, but should be in its second where more of the "production" info is listed. And to be clear, I'm only in support of mentioning IMAX or 3D if it's part of the filming process (like Avatar, or Nolan's Odyssey) not simply being a post-production conversation to a release format. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should not be lead sentence or first paragraph material, though, of course, but a mention as a one of the PLFs it was released, would be appropriate. Joy040207 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. Fire and Ash isn't a Mandarin film, and it's also isn't an IMAX film just because it was screened in that format.

As for 3D, the only mention of it in the article is that it was released in "Dolby Cinema and IMAX 3D", probably reflecting the fact that 3D is no longer considered as important as it was when the first film was released. Mentioning it in the lede would involve updating the article body beforehand. Barry Wom (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, being stop-motion is pretty defining, so I'd include it. That traditional cel animation has almost entirely fallen by the wayside in favor of digital methods (whether 3D rendered or digital ink-and-paint for 2D animation) means noting those is likely less needed, as they're routine. But stop-motion, with its physical sets and lighting akin to live-action films but in miniature, is very distinctive. oknazevad (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the various media types, if you say "animated", I am going to think of a something that is more hand-drawn (maybe this is the same as "tradition animated"; "computer-animated" would be anything where computer rendering is heavily used (as most 3D works), and so "stop-motion animated" film is specifically talking the use of physical props like Aardman films to animate. Masem (t) 04:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We no longer specify "CGI animated" because that is the type of animation which is now predominant—it is assumed that an animated film is computer-generated unless specified otherwise, since that's how the vast majority are now produced. Stop motion is a distinctive style of animation which is frequently mentioned in sources which discuss such films. There is no reason not to specify the type of animation upfront in non-CGI films. Despite your claim, neither WP: OVERLINKING nor WP:SEAOFBLUE apply here. Barry Wom (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for not specifying, but it was not really "my claim". I have seen certain hidden notes in articles like Wish, which read "<-- Do NOT change to "computer-animated" per WP:OVERLINKING and WP:SEAOFBLUE; Because it is fully animated--> ", and I was curious to see what the consensus was, as I assume there was a talk before the removal of the word in nearly every animated film article.

I am advocating for consistency, and I do not feel like there should be a special mention with stop motion, as it is still an animated film at the end of the day. The specific medium could be covered later in lead section (as in some line of "produced using stop motion" or something among those lines). I feel you got a point in reputable sources using "stop motion-animated" or similar wording when talking about stop motion films, although definitely should not be linked. It is just a matter of consistency. Same with how "live action-animated" should be removed from lead sentence like with Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Joy040207 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying since electric guitars have been around, guitar now automatically means an electric guitar. It might have ceased to mean an acoustic guitar by default, but it still means an acoustic or electric guitar, just ambiguous.

That anyone finds CGI animation "predominant" is absolutely wild to me, as someone who encounters more ads for (though rarely watches) anime and anime-inspired/adjacent media than for 3D CG. And one doesn't even have to look that far to find other types of animated films. Of the five Oscar nominees, only three are 3D CG this year, two from last year, one from 2024, and three from 2023 (ceremony years). Of the 10 films in last year's Annecy competition, only one was.

I can see how "computer-animated" is probably now meaningless, as even 2D and stop-motion animations are made on or with computers, just as most live-action films now have some VFX and are shot on digital (or shot on film and then graded and distributed digitally). But it is assumed that an animated film is computer-generated unless specified otherwise, since that's how the vast majority are now produced must be true only if one paid no attention to films not made by major Hollywood studios, which is a bias to be countered. Nardog (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop-motion should get an early mention for sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion in relation to Roger Rabbit, I can't recall if it was here or on the article, but the consensus was we don't call Avengers Endgame a "live action superhero film" and so such descriptors don't belong in the genre part of the opening, but belong elsewhere where it naturally fits within the lede. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and honestly thought that reasoning was what the consensus was to remove "computer animated" from 3D animated films. Stop motion is the specific type of animation the animated film was produced. Traditional, stop motion, claymation, motion capture, computer animation, etc., are all animation, and making an exceptional distinction seems a bit like personal opinion. Motion capture is also a very distinct type of animation and definitely not the predominant medium of animation (as in, for fully animated features and not live action films with motion capture-animated Visual Effects), yet you do not see a film like Monster House mention "Monster House is a 2006 motion capture animated supernatural horror comedy film", or The Polar Express or The Adventures of Tintin. Joy040207 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motion capture is just a different flavour of computer animation. Barry Wom (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Roger Rabbit solution is an elegant one. I see the lede was changed from:

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a [...] live-action/animated <genres> film

to Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a [...] <genres> film [...]. Combining live-action and animation [...].

This gets rid of the ugly and confusing phrase "live-action/animated" and describes it at the start of the second sentence in prose instead. Much better.

That isn't going to work here, though, because "stop motion" can't be expanded to prose in the same way. We can't (and shouldn't) be trying to describe in a few words in the lede what stop motion is.

As for your comment such descriptors don't belong in the genre part of the opening, we're not talking about the genres, we're talking about descriptors of the type of filmmaking. "Animated" and "silent" aren't genres either.

There seems to be tentative agreement that "stop motion" is important enough to be mentioned early in the lede. So where do we put it instead? We'd have to have something like:

Coraline is an animated <genres> film. It was produced using stop motion animation.

or, matching the Rober Rabbit scenario: Coraline is an animated <genres> film. Produced using stop motion animation, [...]

We would be introducing wordiness for no apparent gain. Describing the film in the first sentence as "stop motion animated" is the simplest solution. Barry Wom (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A convention seems to have developed whereby we only state something if it deviates from the expectation. So, we don't state that a film is live-action, because most of them are; however, we do state whether a film is animated or not because it distinguishes it from most other films. Within the "animated" category itself, the assumption is that it is either cel animation or CGI (depending on its era), so we tend to state if a film is stop-motion because it deviates from the expectation. Personally, I think it would be detrimental if we removed the "stop-motion" description from something such as The Nightmare Before Christmas, because it seems to be intrinsic to its identity. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be much support for removing "stop motion" from the first sentence of the lede. We done here, or do we need a formal vote? Barry Wom (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see no other editor besides Joy040207 advocating to exclude it, so I think we have a consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way to handle genres in the opening sentence than we currently do? I've noticed Nikkimaria changing these for WP:SEAOFBLUE purposes (to avoid scenarios such as "action horror film"), and I don't disagree with what they're doing, but I'm not a fan either of adding "and" in between "science fiction" and "horror film". I'm looking at the genre pages and they're so disorganised. Science fiction horror film, which would be an option for Prometheus (2012 film), as an example, redirects to a generic list of science fiction horror films, which I think categories make redundant anyway. Surely, if there is no specific science fiction horror page, then it should redirect to science fiction film with a subsection on hybrid genres or specifically science fiction horror?

The other option, would be for them to link to an anchor on Film genre, which has a table featuring sub-genres (though science fiction horror is missing). I note there is an additional article List of genres, which seems to duplicate content in the former article, but covers more ground. I'm not sure what the answer is but I think now would be the time to fix this and maybe consolidate some content. Though, at the very least, I think science fiction horror film should redirect to science fiction film or film genre. Thoughts? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation at WP:FILMGENRE is to just list one primary genre, so this shouldn't really be an issue. If there is no clear primary genre and multiple need to be included then that shouldn't be handled in the opening sentence, it should be explained later in the lead and that would probably avoid any SEAOFBLUE problems. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FILMGENRE also allows for a sub-genre too, which I feel is sometimes necessary. For example, Pretty Woman is quintessentially a romantic-comedy film, and either "romance" or "comedy" would not be a good fit for it on their own. Maybe the answer is to not link sub-genres unless they have their own article i.e. Romantic comedy film (one link) as opposed to "Romantic-comedy drama film" (two links)? Another option would be to red-link sub-genres without an article (such as "Science fiction horror") and encourage article creation for established sub-genres. That might have the added benefit of discouraging loading the lead with loads of genres too. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that "romantic comedy" is a subgenre but "romantic-comedy drama" is just a list of different genres and would not align to the guideline. Perhaps you are right about using the existence of a dedicated genre or subgenre article to determine, we could update the MOS to say something about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should link to the sub-genre and not the two parents. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that scenario, romantic comedy has an article, it's an obvious huge aspect of many romance films, but as mentioned in my original post, science fiction horror redirects to a list of science fiction horror films instead. Perhaps we could establish the primary sub-genres and reach a consensus on whether they need an article or should at least redirect to a subsection. So sci-fi horror could easy redirect to a subsection of science fiction (I don't think to horror film as sci fi would be dominant here). This is obviously one example, science fiction action redirects to action film, so maybe we need some clear universal guidance on how this should work? I don't mind doing redirects but we need a consistent rule system. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this in some recent discussion but I don't remember which. The problem with how we use genres (and this isn't limited to Wikipedia), is that we mix genres with settings. "science fiction" is not a genre but a setting, while "action" is. So in both examples above, the sub-section should be in the genre page (so Horror film#science fiction and Action film#science fiction). Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd argue that a science-fiction horror like Alien would fall more under the horror side and the science fiction is more dressing? I guess that is possible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a simpler solution to WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns be to stop linking every genre (or sub-genre)? It's arguably overlinking anyway. Everyone knows what "a drama film" or "a horror film" is. Barry Wom (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would, though I don't know how often you'd end repeatedly de-linking editors who do link them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an example, Nikkimaria delinked Comedy Film on the 27th of Jan, and an IP has put it back today. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the solution is, but I agree with everyone's thoughts above. Link the primary sub-genre when it exists and/or create a redirect when one is needed and the target is clear. Try to avoid linking common genres when possible, as there will generally be an abundance of links in the opening paragraph as it is. Less is more!

FYI...SEAOFBLUE doesn't really prohibit putting multiple links side-by-side, but the more you have strung together, the stronger the recommendation is to avoid doing so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best option is checking the redirects then, so that (again as an example) science fiction horror goes to science fiction or horror if no article exists, rather than a list of science fiction horror films. Maybe we could create a defined list for easy refernece in the MOS. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm kind of shocked that Horror_film#Sub-genres_of_horror_film does not list science-fiction horror. If it did, science fiction horror could link to the specific sub-section. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirect science fiction horror to horror per Gonnym's suggestion. The page does mention science fiction, but I agree it's weird there isn't a section for it specifically. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to this late, but this kind of redirect may not work. I had tried to create survival thriller to redirect to survival film, but it got deleted per WP:XY. So for hybrid genres and sub-genres, this may be an additional challenge in terms of where to point it. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with hybrid genres was something I dealt with previously when I expanded the action film article. There is barely any writing about these kind of hybrid genres, and it's especially complex when it comes to thriller film, where research suggests that nearly all thriller films are hybrids of sorts. When trying to write about things like science fiction horror, you generally don't get much info beyond "a combination of horror film and science fiction film" so it's most of the time putting you back to square one. I did have some luck in action comedy film however. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe smaller stub, almost enhanced dismabiguation pages would help? Kinda like these articles on radio signals I see come through Page Reviewer now and again. "A science fiction horror film is a film (redundant I know) that combines elements of horror and science fiction. See: Science Fiction Film and Horror film"? Science fiction horror is just an example btw, I'm kinad surprised given entries like Alien. Horror and sci fi seem to be pretty common.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It L's definitely common, but this kind of definition is just like "cool. probably could have figured it out on my own." The other issue is when we say "elements of" it's not clear what specifically is being talked about. As the hybrid partninnaction films goes, when journalists or academics say this, it's not clear which genre is emphasized either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to this late, but unfortunately a lot of hybrid genres will probably be in WP:NEO territory, where reliable sources may use the term often, yet there is not in-depth coverage about it. I do think another challenge is that encyclopedic coverage about genres in general can be pretty contained to print sources. Most sources online may be relatively frivolous. That said, I sort of like the idea of a table. I don't know if it's possible to do something like having a blue link for the hybrid genre (if one arrives at the table directly), links for each genre, link for a list if it exists, link for a category if it exists? If there cannot be an article for the hybrid genre, at least the reader would have navigational options? EDIT: This is what I had in mind. EDIT 2: I threw this together: Draft:List of hybrid genres in film. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While there's only one WikiProject Film coordinator still active (Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs)) and MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) (another project coordinator) passed away not too long ago, what is to become of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators since no voting for a new coordinator has been made over the past 13 years or so? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even still a common thing across the site? Feels like it should be depreciated given we just have a list of the participants of the project already. Doesn't feel like we need a "coordinator" for the whole thing when editors can work in the areas of their choosing for the project for as much as they choose to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, we might not indeed need a coordinator since it has been many years since a coordinator was elected and things around the project have changed over the past 13 years.

Should we consider deprecating the Coordinators page or remove it altogether? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely deprecate the Coordinators page. I think this WikiProject is mainly focused on MOS:FILM and WT:FILM these days. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BOVINEBOY2008 18:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To close this out, I marked the page as historical and removed the link to it from the WikiProject navboxes. Perhaps there could be a future discussion to overhaul these pages and simplify the presentation of this WikiProject. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply, but we can make a future discussion to overhaul these pages. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

S/O Satyamurthy 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) 18:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently submitted Draft:Hold Onto Me (film) for review. The film premiered in the World Cinema Dramatic Competition at the 2026 Sundance Film Festival and won the Audience Award. It has significant independent coverage including Variety, Deadline, The Playlist, and others. I would greatly appreciate review from members of WikiProject Film when possible. Thank you. JennaRow (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)#Requested move 13 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Iron Giant § Edit War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have an edit request pending on the talk page for The Taj Story to add budget and box office figures to the infobox using a Firstpost source.

It’s been there for a couple of weeks without a response, so I was hoping someone from the film project could take a look when they have time.

Here’s the request: https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Talk:The_Taj_Story#Edit_request:_Add_budget_and_box_office_to_infobox_(Firstpost_source)

Thanks, Shubham Prasad (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Fourth#Requested move 12 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY links to archive.today should be replaced with other archive sites. If you maintain GA, FA, or FL articles, please make sure those links get replaced as soon as possible. See Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance for more information. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolute shame that they decided to sully and tamper with their website like this. In my experience, archive.today remained uniquely superior in providing quick and clean access to paywalled sources to Wikipedia readers and editors. For those reasons, it has long been my preferred archiving method here. That being said, I completely concur with the community decision here. It had to be done. I'll see what I can do. Οἶδα (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you, although in that RfC I voted for Option C not because of what is happening with archive.today but because, as I said there: "removing the links will make many archived sites inaccessible" and adding that "Wayback Machine is terrible at archiving Instagram and Twitter links. I understand the cons of using the site, bu[t]...it has usefulness here as the Internet Archive...has been taken down by DDOS attacks, and sometimes cannot be used. I strongly disagree with depreciating or banning any links to archive.is on here. I...worry that not using it will lead to a LOT of link rot...I always try to use archive.org when I can, but sometimes the Wayback Machine doesn't work...If the site does go belly up, we can discuss...what to [do then]...but until then, I say a blacklist would be big problem which will weaken many articles on here." Sadly, views such as mine, and others, were disregarded.

Anyway, with the decision being what it was, it is going to be an absolute pain. I continue to worry it may create a lot of dead links too, and you can't archive links from archive.today or archive.is (or any of the related archive links) on the Wayback Machine (nor on ghostarchive) either. I tried the latter today. Historyday01 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to their versions of paywalled articles was in violation of WP:ELNEVER anyway. Nardog (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about the setup for the articles Alien Autopsy (1995 film) and Alien Autopsy (2006 film). The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Alien Autopsy (1995 film) § 2026 revisit. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am running a discourse about whether to have a list of "high-quality" sources that meet 1c of the Featured article criteria. As it turns out, there is a separate standard of sources from the reliability of them that is higher than what is set at WP:RSP, so I'm planning to start a similar list for those. If you have any film publications that you'd think would meet it, not just reliable, but high-quality specifically, feel free to bring it up. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 20:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen this used in WP:FILM or WP:ACTOR articles, so I thought I'd share this table feature that I saw at List of Super Bowl champions. Template:Sticky header could be good for some tables, like what I just implemented at David Koepp § Credits. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 17:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog in film and television#Requested move 17 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 08:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at The Bride! about whether or not the full title of the source material Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus should be used in the article body, or just Frankenstein. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:The Bride! § Use of the full title of the novel. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF has been revised to explicitly number the criteria needed to have a standalone article, and a subsection serving as a guide for future-film coverage has been added. This was added after discussion here (since it is long, you can jump to the more pertinent section break here). Editors are invited to take a look and comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery#Requested move 27 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jay McCarroll § Create film article about documentary?. George Ho (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Angel on My Shoulder (film)#Requested move 22 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article List of Maldivian films of 2026 seems to me to be a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Even though the article uses approved verbiage ("scheduled to be released", not "will be") as required for legitimate topics about the future such as 2028 United States presidential election, at least the latter already has massive coverage in sources. I question whether this applies to film release schedules, which, as I understand, are routinely subject to alteration. Is this really a legitimate topic, and what has been the attitude in the past about film topics covering future releases? Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imho I think it is fine for lists like these to exist if it's a list of films which have articles and sources.★Trekker (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So applying that to this article, with three tables containing ten films, four of which have sources (one each) and none of which have an article yet, should we have a list for that? Or, maybe have a list, but remove unsourced rows? Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why MPA ratings aren't on the Wikipedia pages for movies. G, PG, PG-13, R, they're part of a film's information and identity. Shouldn't they be part of the ID box alongside the director, writer, budget, etc.? NinjaBluefyre (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that the rating systems vary from country to country. See MOS:MPAA for a longer explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik has been adding a new "Metacritic review breakdown" to articles about recent films. Testing for a possible template is at User:Erik/Metacritic review breakdown. If Erik or anyone else wants to talk about it I've opened this. RanDom 404 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Rakontur article. DrThneed (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 4 (film)#Requested move 4 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the year the film takes place in the plot section of Joker (2019 film), if project members are interested in it. It can be found at Talk:Joker (2019 film)#Year in the plot section. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]