Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Did you know 03 May 2025 – 2024 Seattle International Film Festival (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Peaceray (t · c); see discussion 03 May 2025 – The First Girl I Loved (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 02 May 2025 – Smashing Frank (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 01 May 2025 – Montages of a Modern Motherhood (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 30 Apr 2025 – Crazy About One Direction (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jolielover (t · c); see discussion 27 Apr 2025 – High and Low (1963 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Plifal (t · c); see discussion 21 Apr 2025 – Steve's Lava Chicken (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Launchballer (t · c); see discussion 20 Apr 2025 – Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Namelessposter (t · c); see discussion 20 Apr 2025 – Jason Kwan (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 11 Apr 2025 – A New Old Play (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion (1 more...) Featured article candidates 03 May 2025 – Hundreds of Beavers (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 20 Apr 2025 – SB19 videography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Relayed (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 02 May 2025 – Regina George (Mean Girls) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Jolielover (t · c); see discussion 22 Apr 2025 – Papa (2024 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion 22 Apr 2025 – A New Old Play (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion 17 Apr 2025 – Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Trailblazer101 (t · c); start discussion 17 Apr 2025 – The Flash (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Trailblazer101 (t · c); start discussion 01 Apr 2025 – Fast X (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by M48SKY (t · c); see discussion 09 Mar 2025 – Carlos Ruiz Chapellín (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Kingsif (t · c); start discussion 07 Mar 2025 – A Flood in Baath Country (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zanahary (t · c); start discussion 05 Mar 2025 – Life After Beth (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Kingsif (t · c); start discussion 17 Feb 2025 – The Little Hours (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Kingsif (t · c); start discussion (20 more...) Good article reassessments 25 Apr 2025 – The Nightmare Before Christmas (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 01 May 2025 – Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Robert McClenon (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 27 Apr 2025 – High and Low (1963 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Plifal (t · c); see discussion 15 Apr 2025 – Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Thefallguy2025 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Rotten Tomatoes prose

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to discourage use of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{Metacritic film prose}}. Editors overwhelmingly consider these templates to be unnecessarily restrictive in their style. There are also concerns that the templates conflict with the template guideline about storing text within a template, and that the specific wording used by the templates introduces original research and puffery. Editors generally preferred removing the templates entirely rather than substituting them, but strongly preferred either over retaining them as-is.

By-and-large, this consensus is going to be a reccomendation, not a formal decision by the community. As several editors have noted, this RfC is not a deletion discussion. Furthermore, consensus formed by members of a WikiProject may be considered a local consensus and cannot be used to dictate content or style of any article outside of an advisory role.

Previous discussions have not found consensus to act on these proposals, so those opposing their current use will need to demonstrate that consensus has changed within the community. For this to be actionable, a discussion at templates for discussion is likely the next step. Until then, the decision to use, not use, or substitute the template is made for each article individually. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

---

I am continuing to see {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{Metacritic film prose}} continue to be proliferated, especially for new releases, even though there is no requirement to use them. In particular, it goes against WP:TMPG. The former template was kept in 2021 but had no consensus in 2022, and a RfC in January 2024 had "weak consensus against making the template subst-only". MOS:FILM says, "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required." Yet I am seeing these templates be inserted in place of article text "just because". Surely I can revert them on the same ground, "just because"? I feel like the proliferation of a weakly-supported template is done as if it were policy, perpetuating only one way to write scores reported by commercial websites. (I find the templates' wording to be limiting and prefer the flexibility to explain the values in a more appropriate and encyclopedic framing.) Is it time for another TfD? Something else? Erik (talk | contrib) 15:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I was asked to use these in a GA review recently, I declined because the article had specific summary wording that had been agreed upon at the talk page. I also don't necessarily think the templates have the best wording or should be used by default for all new releases. I will have to remember that we put something in the MOS about this to refer to next time. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Not least because the Metacritic template forces the use of prose that is almost always superfluous, representing simply Metacritic’s robotic descriptions of its numerical scores and often palpably both false and WP:PUFF by describing a score of just 85% good reviews and 15% neutral or negative reviews as, somehow, “universal” acclaim. That the template - and a fair few editors - repeatedly put this erroneous assertion into WP’s editorial voice simply compounds the nonsense. Who agreed this template in the first place? MapReader (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that they can be reverted on sight; I've especially weeded them out in old articles from when RT wasn't a thing, since leaving aside the issues with the templates in general it's definitely not appropriate to treat contemporary aggregation as acceptable to describe an old film's reception. A special bugbear is the elevation of an un-bylined critic consensus to the level of Word of God. It's a bad template for bad articles, and by all means should be removed if someone disagrees with its use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Kill the RT and MC prose templates with fire. They're pointless. Film articles don't need to have a house style. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Except that all film article lead sections have to say “On release the film was met with widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike”. That seems to be compulsory? ;) MapReader (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing like that is part of the templates wording so don't see relevance, the templates could even help avoid people adding audience scores, can't avoid people adding incorrect wording as summary to the lead but not relevant to the prose templates. Indagate (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It was only relevant as a humorous comment. The fundamental points are that the templates force wording that is unhelpful and misleading, there is clearly no consensus about their use (and indeed suggestions of their being WP-wide consensus to non-use per TPMG), and they tend towards every article using identical wording and structure, in a way that isn’t the case for other articles from subsets, such as geographical places. MapReader (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No consensus to not use them either. TPMG argued in TfD and RfC. Disagree on your opinion of them being unhelpful, e.g. useful for avoiding bad language like reported and audience scores. Don't see how they're misleading? Templates in general contribute to consistent wording, disagree with you on that being a problem for these. Indagate (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but you’re the editor who can’t see the nonsense of describing 85% positive reviews and 15% negative reviews as - somehow - “universal acclaim”. Which illustrates one aspect of the precise problem the OP is highlighting, arising from editors mindlessly using a template which doesn’t appear to have secured any decent level of consensus. MapReader (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Even when prose templates aren't used, the text like that is still quoted as standard practice. Indagate (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There's been long discussions about keeping / deleting them, and they still exist. Would be more productive to discuss things like changes to the wording. Adding the templates to articles without text already is a fine choice, reverting that would itself be a MOS:VAR issue. Indagate (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I vaguely recall there was a long argument and then a technical consensus that these templates should be substitution templates only, ie the template should be used to help generate prose on new articles and then automatically removed, replaced with normal text. If that past consensus was valid can we then request a technical person actually implement it? (I for one liked it better when both aggregators had very similar wording (On Rotten Tomatoes ... On Metacritic) this was as close to a defacto consensus as the film articles ever got, and I used to just copy commonly shown example I could see was used in most articles. I especially hate it when people use the word "reported" to describe the very subjective interpretation that Rotten Tomatoes does, and dislike the needlessly pretentious use of "assigned" for the Metacritic score. But anyway, we could argue for years and reach no conclusion on this.) -- 109.78.196.175 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about making it subst-only is here, Template_talk:Rotten_Tomatoes_prose/Archive_1#RfC:_Should_this_and_similar_templates_be_substonly?, "weak consensus against making the template subst-only". Repeating same discussions of deleting is not productive, but can be useful to discuss wording changes on template talk pages if anybody wants and can get consensus. Indagate (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, that discussion was more about not using the templates at all rather than using them without making them subst-only. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah some arguments deviated from subst-only, but that was original question and closure addressed that, assume that was the discussion IP was thinking of regarding consensus for subst-only. Indagate (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that the previous RfC was a bit over a year ago, is it time for a new one, perhaps with the options amounting to: No Change, Make Substitution Only, or Deprecate/Delete? DonIago (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I submit an early vote for deprecate/delete. MapReader (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Indagate, that was the thrust of it, but perhaps I'm a remembering a slightly different older iteration of the discussion, because I thought there was a strong technical argument that trumped the "but I like it" weak consensus against actually doing anything. So thanks for digging up that discussion, I stand corrected, deleting making the templates subst-only would seem to be a dead end. -- 109.79.167.239 (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not productive to repeat RfC or TfD just because it's been over a year, unless anything has changed, likely the same arguments would get repeated by the same people. The people who disagreed with the wording etc haven't proposed new wording, customisation options, anything since the TfD and RfC, that would be more productive and collaborative than just focusing on deletion. Indagate (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, as you appear to be advocating for "no change" throughout this thread, I'd like to hear the opinions of other editors as to whether they feel an RfC is merited. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I’d support an RfC. Indagate’s edit history demonstrates his persistence in protecting the status quo, yet the status quo is so clearly defective in providing high quality, objective articles on TV and film. MapReader (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the challenge is determining what outcome we are looking for. It seems to boil down to editor conduct -- just because they can, doesn't mean they should, in an indiscriminate way. I oppose the template for its hiding article text and for writing out the text a specific way. Separately, I oppose that wording and slight variations of that wording. I acknowledge that use of the template and/or of the various wordings happen out there. Wording by itself across individual articles can change more organically, though even before the template was created, there was still the same proliferative mentality to make that wording exactly the same. That takes a life of its own too, because if editors see primarily that wording, they think it's the "right" wording and reinforce it further. Any other wording gets challenged because it does not match. It's such a bulldozer effect. How to handle that, template or no template? Erik (talk | contrib) 19:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to admit, as someone who values logic and consistency, my instinct is that it would be great if there was a comprehensive template that could be populated and drop in text that had a general consensus. However, I'm also willing to concede that that may not be either an ideal or even generally desirable approach. We may not be able to prevent editors from seeing wording that's generally used and assuming that's the ideal form, but we can at least take steps to discourage it. Deprecating or deleting these templates, if that's what the consensus would be, would seem to be a step in that direction. DonIago (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support a new RfC with clear options for: keeping the templates as is; change them to subst-only so they can populate set wording but not prevent changes in the future; deprecate and eventually delete the templates. If everyone understands the options and the discussion stays on track we could get a solid consensus for moving forward with rather than the vague, unsatisfying ending we had last time which has left us still discussing the issue a year later. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I will support an RfC but as the creator of the last one, it frankly was a bit of a let down seeing so much support to keep them not being subst only. I would love to have them fully go away, but if an editor needs a starting point, might as well have an example they can look to. But I fully agree the wording should not be locked behind a template, and should then subst into the article. There's no need for such rigid conformity to all this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to take point on formulating a new RfC, but I'm happy to collaborate on one, if that helps? It seems as though it should be fairly straightforward, but I might be overconfident. DonIago (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, is anyone up for taking point in drafting a new RfC? I'm willing to do so in lieu of nothing at all, but if I'm left to my own devices, it may be of questionable quality; I'd be far more comfortable offering feedback but not being the primary writer. DonIago (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment

Per the above thread, regarding the {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{Metacritic film prose}} templates, what is the best way to handle them?

1. Leave as-is; no changes are needed.
2. Change them to subst-only so that the text inserted by the templates can be easily changed in the future.
3. The templates should be deprecated and/or deleted.

DonIago (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I have notified the talk pages of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{Metacritic film prose}} here and here, respectively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) From reading the above discussion 2 or 3 seem appropriate. No one appears to be making much of a case that we should keep these as-is, and several drawbacks have been identified. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• 2 at a minimum, ideally 3 - I am of the camp that these templates shouldn't exist, but at the very least, they need to be subst only. How we've gone through various past discussions and RfCs about these templates and not landed on them becoming subst only is beyond me. With them as subst only templates, editors who like the "cookie-cutter"/"premade" nature of them can still utilize them, but then the full prose will be inserted into each article in question for ease of editing if needed. As has been pointed out in the discussion above and previously, there is no agreed upon text that should present these aggregators' information, and as the templates are now, it feels as if editors are being "locked" into this text if they come upon the template's use in articles since all they see is the template call and not the actual prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the templates at least imply that there's a "preferred" form of the prose. Indeed, I just saw an IP replacing the prose on several film articles with the templates (not substing); I don't see how that makes anything better for anyone. DonIago (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

IP wasn't right to edit like that per MOS:VAR, but that's a separate issue to the templates, if people think it's preferred even if the doc and MOS says otherwise then we have limited control over that, and the prose fixes bigger issues. Taking the most recent example you reverted of Tangled (not trying to be selective if others are different etc), the non-prose version doesn't include text or wikilink for review aggregator, says "approval rating" which isn't as clear as "X% of X critics' reviews are positive", so would say the prose text is an improvement over the original so better for readers. Indagate (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - As mentioned in previous RfC, would suggest all participants of that previous RfC, 2021 TfD, and 2022 TfD please be notified. Indagate (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC).

  You're welcome to notify anyone you'd like of this RfC, including adding notices to the Talk pages for the templates. That it may not have been placed in the location where you'd most prefer it to occur doesn't weaken or invalidate it. Just be mindful of WP:CANVASS. DonIago (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1, strong oppose options 2 & 3 - Per reasons in various previous discussions that have resulted in the current usage. This is a repeat of the previous RfC but on a different talk page, as far as I can see there's no different reason presented for why the usage should change so this is wasting the communities time. The supporters of subst-only or deletion in the previous discussions have not discussed the templates on their talk pages for productive discussion on their usage at all, would be interested to hear anyones specific ideas for the wording instead of people just disagreeing with the current wording, or any idea for customisation options. This RfC should take place on one of the templates talk pages, like before, as effects other projects such as TV. The text doesn't have a reason to be different for different films, if anyone has a reason that would benefit readers they can amend the template or propose idea on the template talk page so it can be edited for more customisation options. Any improvements that don't get reverted can then be spread across articles, possibility which would be lost with subst'ing. Different text just to be different doesn't benefit readers. Standardisation makes the text easier for readers to use, identify the important different parts like the numbers. Usage of the templates avoid common issues such as fake words like "Tomatometer", "rotten" or "fresh" being used, phrasing like "reported" (RT MC subjectively interpret and quantify reviews so not objectively report) or unclear "approval rating", and audience score included unnecessarily. Uncontroversial updates to the text may be desired in the future, e.g. when Metacritic slightly updated website design or including wikilinks like 100% or 0% (talk section), this can only be done if template is not subst'ed. No one can predict what future updates may be needed but those examples show past precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs)

  The fact that at least two other editors favor options 2 or 3 suggests that this is not a waste of time. I see no reason why the RfC should have been listed at the Talk page for either template when the conversation that prompted it occurred here and it is easy enough to notify anyone monitoring the Talk pages for the templates; indeed, notifications were posted roughly an hour before you posted this comment. My only comment on your other remarks is that while I instinctively agree with you that it would be nice to have templates that automagically handled the posting of RT and MC scores, it's become clear that many editors consider that neither optimal nor desirable. DonIago (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• I really don't think you can delete a template based on an RFC. It would have to go through WP:TFD. I also have doubts that you can force people to stop using a template through an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  If the majority of editors here support deprecation or deletion, TFD could be the next step, with the force of this RfC behind it. DonIago (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3, with deletion the ideal. The templates are a solution without a problem. They insert plain text into an article, contrary to WP:TG. They insert standardised, formulaic text into every article, and force the use of Metacritic’s descriptors which at best add no value (if a film has a score of 50%, that’s the data - that Metacritic thinks this represents ‘mixed reviews’ is a trite edition) and at worst are plainly wrong, and misleading (how can 15% negative reviews be described as ‘universal acclaim’?). Worse, the format of the template puts these descriptors into editorial voice so that for an uninitiated reader it isn’t obvious that it’s only Metacritic that thinks this way. Deprecating or scrubbing the templates would free up editors to use whatever wording they feel appropriate for each article, the same as we do for all other plain text. Separately we should look at an RFC deprecating the phrase “universal acclaim”, which is contrary to WP:PUFF and impossible to cite since nothing is ever acclaimed by absolutely everyone. MapReader (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, I think most editors active here (and I realize many aren't) understand that 'universal acclaim' is an undesirable and inaccurate phrase. Perhaps that should be an amendment to the MOS? I'm not sure it necessitates an RfC, though if you want to go that route you have my support. DonIago (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Think what MapReader is referring to is quoting Metacritic's summary, including phrasing like "universal acclaim" in WP voice is wrong per MOS already, but standard practice to include the quoted text, e.g. Black Panther (film)#Critical response. This is commonly quoted regardless of prose template so not relevant. Indagate (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's relevant as an example of why using a template to insert plain text into an article is unhelpful and misleading. Metacritic has decided to describe any rating of 85% positive or better as representing "universal acclaim" - which is obviously incorrect in itself: they clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "universal". This is compounded by wording commonly used by editors - which the template entrenches - that contains the word "indicating" in editorial voice, when by any objective assessment the score doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Proper editorial voice should use wording such as "...which Metacritic claims represents 'universal acclaim'", to make clear that it isn't WP that says this is what the MC score is indicating. But it would be far better not to have these descriptors at all, since they add no value to the information that MC has assessed 85% of reviews as being positive. This is - for sure - a separate issue from the template, but it's a very good illustration of why using a template to insert descriptive text into an article is very unhelpful. MapReader (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Prefer Option 3 but am okay with Option 2 as well. There is no consensus for the specific wording of these templates and using them prevents changes to be made to the wording on an article-by-article basis. If we think they are still useful as a starting point then Option 2 allows that without locking down the wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per WP:TG. Nothing wrong with a shorthand template to save editors time, but it has no business staying in mainspace. Nardog (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. They're completely pointless. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: Seems like a fine compromise. Can be used when wanted, and removed just as easily. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3: I know I'm pretty late to the game on this, but I also support deprecation of both these templates. There is no need to have a template unilaterally force wording into every article when that should be left to the discretion of the editors. Nothing is gained from being lazy or carefree in substituting everything with a template. I have personally been opposed to the use of these prose templates and have abstained from using them in articles I edit because I have not found them to be an improvement. I feel like if option 2 was implemented, it would just be prolonging the issues and necessity for this template, and would ultimately negate it and likely lead back here down the road. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: Give editors a choice if they want to use it. But like the other 50 RFC's on this, this seems to be going nowhere too. Mike Allen 00:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Comment: Prior to your !vote and that of the editor above you I did submit a request for closure, in addition to the thread below, but obviously so far nobody's weighed in. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 preferred; Option 2 acceptable...for reasons stated in past discussions. Although this RfC is procedural only (nothing counts until the eventual third TfD), figured I'd weigh in anyway. This template has always been a solution in search of a problem. Proponents say that if some level of wording fluctuation is okay, then certainly some level of wording standardization is ok too. They have also argued that if you don't want to use the template, simply don't; it's there to help those that do. In practice, however, there's an ugly side. Though touted as optional, it is frequently used by bot-like warriors trying to be quick on the draw, not only in newer film articles, but also back in older ones overwriting perfectly fine text. We've even seen it happen in FAs. This violates the spirit of MOS:VAR in more ways than one. Because it also hides text, some level of Wikipedia expertise is required to know where to go to seek change. So while it seemingly makes one aspect of things easier for some, it can confuse and bewilder others. No doubt, this is the reason the topic of deletion continues to be revisited years later. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

An RfC can certainly agree to deprecate the use of a template, with appropriate words in the MoS. You are right that it can’t delete a template, without a TfD MapReader (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The TfD process mandates that unused templates be deleted, so there's no way to force deprecation without also forcing its deletion. Maybe that's the goal (wink, wink) or maybe it would be an unintended consequence, but just know that the guidelines in place already state that proper deletion venues must be used instead of an RfC. You know I'm on your side here, but any perceived loopholes (i.e. deprecating and thus deleting via an RfC and WikiProject's MoS) will be called out as such and essentially ignored. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That's fine with me, since the point of this RfC is to get a consensus as to what the participants would prefer be done with the templates, not to implement that consensus, It would be nice if this RfC could directly lead to implementation, but I, at least, know that's not how it works. And for all I knew at the time I created the RfC, the consensus would end up favoring no change at all, in which case I, at least, certainly wouldn't contemplate a TfD. DonIago (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Time to close?

As there's been no comments on this RfC for over a week, and I think it's fair to say that there's a general consensus, do editors feel there's a need to keep this open longer and/or is there an uninvolved editor willing to close this? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

With no further comments I agree we should head toward close. The issue with option three as written is that it covers both deprecation and deletion? MapReader (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate short-term, delete long-term (they'd have to pass a deletion discussion in any case)? I guess my question is, if the closer believes that option 3 is favored, in the end, what's the practical difference between deprecating and deleting, besides that the former allows for the future possibly of undeprecating? DonIago (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The first question is to confirm that option three is the consensus. Where an outcome isn’t contested, anyone can close an RfC; where there is disagreement an uninvolved editor should close. The latter is generally preferable, but if there isn’t any disagreement that option three represents the consensus view then we can close the formal process? MapReader (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, as the editor who opened the RfC, I think it looks pretty bad if I'm the editor who closes it, especially since I don't trust myself to offer an unbiased assessment. I don't know whether an uninvolved editor would conclude that stronger arguments are made for Option 2. DonIago (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m only seeing one very brief contribution above that prefers 2 to 3, so don’t see the basis for your observation? MapReader (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

(shrugs) I'm not going to be the closer, so it's immaterial. DonIago (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment – Clearly, the outcome is favoring some action toward subst-only or deletion. However, it has had very limited participation and regurgitates many of the same points that have been argued in the past. I would caution anyone contemplating a third TfD to first study the first two – the arguments from both sides – before moving forward. Also, consider the fact that without a large number of interested participants sharing the same concerns (particularly from WP:FILM that deal with it on a regular basis), it is likely to fizzle out in favor of "keep". As Indagate touched on above, consensus can change, but it's not wise to start a new TfD with the same arguments and expect different results. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

GoneIn60 has decided that this whole process is a waste of time. I'm not sure if that is accurate or not, but there is clear consensus for getting rid of this template. I think we need to at least change it to subst-only until such time as it is deleted. If we just leave it as is, which only one person supported, then we are stuck with all the issues that editors have raised above. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

adamstom97, I'm simply telling it like it is. An RfC is not the proper method to deprecate or delete a template, nor change it to subst-only. This is covered in WP:RFCNOT (and in the description of WP:TFD), and the reason you shouldn't waste the community's time with an RFC for this type of discussion is explained here. And in case you didn't notice, I actually agree with your viewpoint on the matter.

The point of my comment above is to help ensure that a future TfD is begun with the right mindset. The wrong approach will certainly lead to failure and may even lead to a speedy close in favor of keep. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there is a clear precedence of retaining these templates on certain grounds, and not everyone involved in using the templates was likely aware of this RfC, but would be aware of a TfD. If the community were to pursue yet another TfD any time soon, it would have to be taken in with the right approach and finesse. Yes, consensus can change, as has been established here, but it still needs to be tested and taken up with the rest of the community for an overall consensus. This RfC showed more of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among the film-related editors, now it is on to the next step or phase in the process, which I think is likely to take some time and ought not be rushed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RfC thoughts

Glad to have some closure on this. I'd hope editors who participated in the RfC will respect the consensus even if it is ultimately more of a recommendation than a rule at this time. For those who feel the next step is to initiate a TfD, or whatever the equivalent process would be for formal deprecation of the templates (I don't know whether there is one), I'm happy to support those editors based on the discussion that occurred here, but please don't look to me to initiate such discussions. My goal with initiating the RfC was to get a clear consensus regarding how editors felt about the use of the templates; I don't use and don't intend to use them myself, though my future editing where the templates come into play may be influenced by this discussion. Cheers, and thanks to all who participated! DonIago (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Think TfD would be the process for formal deprecation of a template, discussion there can have different results like deletion, subst-only, etc. Have noticed MapReader (talk · contribs) continue to remove the template and removing the quoted text which is standard practice regardless of template at articles like Eephus, leaving the article with worse reference than the one created by template also, forcing the change through with edit warring. Doesn't seem like that change is supported by the closure of this RfC? Indagate (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The Eephus edit removed the words ‘…indicating “universal acclaim” ‘, which is absurd PUFF for a film that scores only 7.9 on RT and has 17% negative reviews on MC. These scores already speak for themselves. When the template has been deployed, the only way to make an edit to that part of a page’s wording is to delete the template altogether, and that is a perfectly reasonable edit to make. This is just one of the reasons why using a template to force standardised text into an article by formula should be deprecated. MapReader (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

RT is irrelevant to that, Metacritic decides 83 is "universal acclaim", it's standard practice across Wikipedia to include that quoted text, we shouldn't pick and choose which scores we quote the text for, that shouldn't be our decision regardless of how absurd you think it is. The wording doesn't need to be changed so the template is fine for the page, was already in place as status quo so I didn't replace other wording. This has already been discussed and there isn't consensus for your edits, so it's not "a perfectly reasonable edit", but you continue to edit war to force your edits through. Your proposal at MOS talk for the text to only be quoted at 100% didn't get any support. Indagate (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you please link us to where a consensus was established in favor of using the quoted text? Extra points if it involves a consensus favoring the use of the phrase "universal acclaim". DonIago (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There isn't explicit consensus for it (as far as I'm aware) and I haven't claimed there to be, but there is standard practice across the Film, TV, and videogames projects where the quoted text is included where Metacritic is cited as far as I've seen, regardless of prose template, so should get consensus to deviate from that. Indagate (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You might see it as “standard practice” but it isn’t universal practice (unless you employ Metacritic’s bizarre mis-understanding of the term), and it is only seen as common practice because many film editors take a formulaic approach to articles and are pushed in that direction by the template itself - which you have seen from above, there is consensus to at least dislike. Nevertheless, without explicit consensus that the same wording must be used in every article (which you will obviously never get), editors are free to take different approaches in different articles. It stains the credibility of the project that we have so many articles where films with an 85%:15% ratio of positive to negative reviews, or similar, are so often described using a term like ‘universal acclaim’, which is both literally incorrect and obvious puff. MapReader (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not about using the same wording in every article so dislike for the prose templates doesn't mean dislike for the quoted text, it can be phrased differently, but all articles I've seen have quoted the text such as "indicating "generally favorable" reviews. If we quote the text for scores below 80 then we should quote it above 80 too for consistency, it's not our place to make a judgement on whether their use of "universal acclaim" is correct as we're not using it in WP voice but quoting. If we stop quoting the text then that should be done for all scores and across Film, TV, and videogame projects for consistency, so should get explicit consensus now that there's strong implicit consensus across so many articles, instead of just removing it from random articles with edit warring like you've been doing. They were discussed here at MOS Talk and didn't get consensus regarding stopping quoting the text, and ended with recommendation for RfC'ing specific questions around it, which you haven't done as far as I've seen? Indagate (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The now RfC-deprecated template puts the at-best superflous and at-worst misleading MC commentary on its statistics into WP’s editorial voice. Which is simply wrong. As a reputable encyclopaedia, we should just let the MC statistics speak for themselves, and drop the template and its enforced commentary. Meanwhile if you continue to HOUND my edits from my edit history, we will eventually go to ANI. MapReader (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The RfC did not deprecate the template as that's not within scope of a RfC, the closure from @Thebiguglyalien: says it's not actionable and a TfD would be the likely next step, please do not mischaracterise the RfC but open a TfD if you wish. The RfC was about prose templates, not the quoted text so does not make judgement on whether they're superflous or misleading in WP voice anyway. The quoted text is always included regardless of template so no need to focus on that, as per any film article that don't use the prose template, good article example Black Panther. The quoted text is included in quotation marks so is clear that it's not in WP voice in my opinion, but we could change the wording without removing the content, again that was discussed by me and others at MOS talk, would need RfC with specific question as mentioned there, but discussion would be needed not just changing to your preferred version of removing sourced content as you keep doing. Discussed HOUND etc nonsense on my talk page previously, I'm only interested in reverting bad edits where you've left content without a source or removed sourced content, so will revert if you do that, this is not the page for that, focus on content here please. Indagate (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

MapReader, although I have some issues with the prose templates for a multitude of reasons, I don't think we should conflate that issue with this one. The templates' existence does not predate the widespread quoting of Metacritic's classification in film and TV articles. That has been happening for as long as I can remember, and even long before I started editing in the film realm. Over the years, there have been quite a few discussions (albeit with limited participation) where this topic has come up to some degree. From what I recall, most are okay with it as long as proper in-text attribution is used and the MC classification is being quoted; in other words, as long as we're NOT paraphrasing in Wikipedia voice. Our essay WP:AGG even lists it as an example. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet the template clearly includes, incorrectly, words in WP voice MapReader (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain in more detail why you think the Metacritic statement shown here fails WP:INTEXT?

There is a difference between indicating "universal acclaim" and indicating universal acclaim if that's not obvious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't mind an RfC on that subject as well, but I'm not going to be the one to create it (though I'd help others create it). DonIago (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but first it would be helpful to fully understand any competing viewpoints. Right now, that's not entirely clear to me. Perhaps it would be better to dedicate a new thread to this topic. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, unlike the usual use of quotes, there is no descriptor such as ‘according to Metacritic’, or ‘Metacritic says..’. Secondly, the “indicating” is in editorial voice, outside the quotes, which means that it is the editor saying that it is indicated, not the quoted source. Whereas in reality the comments being “indicated” are either trite (how does being told that 50% means “mixed reviews” add anything?) or demonstrably false. MapReader (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The words are presented in quotes so coming from somewhere else, and the sentence is already about what Metacritic says about the film, so think it's clear that the text is coming from Metacritic. An alternative to changing the wording could be moving the critic count to last in the sentence. Indagate (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Indagate here. "Metacritic" opens the sentence, and it doesn't matter that the quote comes later at the end of the sentence. WP:INTEXT only requires that the attribution occurs "inside the sentence", which it does, and that the quote is followed by an inline citation. Readers can check the reference to verify the entire statement, and in doing so, they will see that "indicating" in WP voice is an appropriate use of that term.

While I don't think any modifications are needed to make it compliant with policies and guidelines, we could change it to something like classified as "universal acclaim" or indicating "universal acclaim" on the site's grading scale. Those were just quick suggestions. Obviously, better wording could be discussed further if desired, but I disagree that the current wording is in violation. Also, your decision to remove it altogether instead of improving seems to imply that attribution is not the root of the problem. Is there something deeper we should be discussing? Let's get right to the core if that's the case. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Your comment is indicating "misunderstanding". Not me doing the indicating, obviously, but hopefully you now see the issue. The underlying issue is that MC's entirey arbitary and often either trite or misleading commentary on its own statistics adds no value to the data itself. If the score is 50%, readers can already see that the reviews are mixed, and if the score is 85%, that they are overwhelmingly good. Adding MC's own formulaic commentary adds no value whatsover, and having a template that forces this text into articles simply compounds the problem. MapReader (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

"...misleading commentary on its own statistics adds no value to the data itself"

Actually this isn't really true and I'll explain. Depending on where you're from, the typical academic grading scale is 90-100 is an A, 80-89 is a B, and so on until you get to F which is 59 or below. Some schools/colleges use a much stricter scale. But on Metacritic, that is not the case (see MC's review conversion scale). F starts at 0, D- converts to 16, and a B+ is lower than one would typically expect at 83. You can also see a similar conversion for 4-star reviews.

Then there's the overall "Metascore", which is converted once more into categories as shown here. The category "generally favorable" begins at 61, while "generally unfavorable" stops at 39. For those who have no familiarity with this scale, it can be helpful to know what the Metascore translates to on their proprietary grading scale. Someone might assume that 50 out of 100 is a really bad score, for example. Even as an editor that frequently reads the Metascore, I often forget where the cutoff is between categories (I don't have it memorized), so it is helpful to see and remember that a 41 or a 60 still means "mixed".

So while I can understand your viewpoint that in some cases, or possibly even many cases, the score's category translation doesn't seem to add any value, I don't think we should assume that for everyone, nor do I think that applies for every score. If this was the overall feeling out there, then editors (including veteran editors of the FILM project) wouldn't bother adding the category translation. But they have and still do. Quite a few seem to find value in the categories. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, Metacritic uses a weighted average as the wording in articles usually mentions, which means the score isn't a percentage of positive reviews like Rotten Tomatoes main rating, for example Eephus has 100% positive reviews and a score of 83, Black Panther also has 100% positive reviews but a score of 88, neither have any reviews they consider mixed or negative. They give some publications more weight than others without publicly disclosing the details. If Metacritic classify them as "universal acclaim" then that's their decision based on their analysis. Indagate (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand how it works; there is no ‘decision’. It’s a mindless formula, and the same wording is used for every article that has the same score. MapReader (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I really do understand it, they have decided the banding's for their scores, how to configure and weight their formula, and their formula decides the score. Same wording is used for every article that has the same score because there's implicit consensus for it, useful for every article as GoneIn60 said. Indagate (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop removing the text like you have done here [1] today until you get consensus, they comply with policies and guidelines, and there is value to them as explained above. Indagate (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If the formula is truly "mindless", then why are we reporting the Metascore? Why bother citing Metacritic at all? Either we consider it a reliable source or we don't. There's no sense in reporting the score without its context. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Terminator § Slasher horror film+Serial killer film?

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on creating a Production of Megalopolis (film) article?

I am reviewing the GAN for Megalopolis, nominated by @Filmgoer:, and suggested before doing the prose review that some of the content could be split out to a "Production of" article (then summarised). It's got a storied and decades-long development history, and a lengthy and troubled active production, which already seems quite long for the main film article while also not being covered perhaps as completely as it could. The suggestion was met with assent but also agreement that it should probably be asked about here, first, so to get that ball rolling for the nominator (and I think thought-gathering is more suitable than an RfD): what do you guys think. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that the film's production is presently well covered in the article, but that a separate article dedicated to its production could merit more of an introspective coverage of the decades-long development. I think developing a production article would be ideal in the long run, sooner rather than later, if anyone involved is up to it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the section/article is big enough to require a split, but if there is interest in doing further work on it then a split would probably make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spirited Away § Post GAR discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spirited Away § Post GAR discussion, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Once in a Blue Moon (1935 film)

The article Once in a Blue Moon (1935 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:SIGCOV: IMDB and passing mentions in three books.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Are the "three books" the ones mentioned in the article? I found a couple more via Google Books Search here and here that lends some substance. A film this old, too, may have coverage in other books, plus periodicals, not readily available online. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The New York Times reviewed it here too. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a substantial paragraph about it too. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This is really stuff that should have been caught during WP:BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What to do with these franchise articles?

Franchise articles can be well-written but just noticed these don't have a lot more content than what is covered in related articles:

• Mary Poppins (franchise)
• The Hunchback of Notre Dame (franchise)
• Who Framed Roger Rabbit (franchise)

The last only having one film installment. Anyone want to try improving them? RanDom 404 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Ross (filmmaker) and Matthew Michael Ross

Can someone please verify that there are two filmmakers with the same name? IMDB, which is not a reliable source but is usually correct, has listings for two directors, one who directed Frank & Lola, and one of whom directed Fellowship of the Dice. Are there two filmmakers with the same name? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to think they're the same person.★Trekker (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Transformers (film) § Reception in the lead

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Transformers (film) § Reception in the lead, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for feedback – Beyond Limits (2025) documentary draft featuring neurodiverse editor

Hi everyone,

I’d like to invite WikiProject Film members to take a look at Draft:Beyond Limits 2025, a draft article covering the British documentary Beyond Limits. The film follows a group of ten amateur athletes training for and competing in Ironman 70.3 Swansea in 2024.

The production is notable for its editor, Sean Smith, who completed the film at 18 years old and is autistic. His involvement has been highlighted in media coverage, particularly around the film’s premiere and release on World Autism Awareness Day 2025. The documentary was also directed by one of the athlete participants, Raymond Mouzon.

The article includes coverage of the filmmaking process, critical reception, and sports documentation elements. Any feedback from WikiProject Film contributors on improving structure, sourcing, or meeting notability criteria would be greatly appreciated to help move the article toward mainspace.

Thanks so much! Steph walker (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Issues with editors who don't understand to describe film roles

See the discussion I initiated here for the talk page for the MOS section for Film.

We are having issues with editors who appear to be unaware of how a film's cast and crew are traditionally described in English. That caused me to notice that MOS:FILMCAST doesn't actually explain those conventions. So we have editors writing strange things like "appear in support" and "led the film" when the correct tradition is to refer to "leading roles" and "supporting roles".

It looks like these editors are unaware of the fundamental distinction between who is important within the fictional world of a film (so "leading roles" refer to the actors whose characters get most of the lines and screen time and "supporting roles" get less time) and who is important in the real world, in the actual organization that is temporarily assembled by a studio to make that film. In the latter, the leader on the set is the director and then all the cast and crew are assembled there by the producer to support the director's artistic vision to make the film as scripted by the screenwriter. Unfortunately, we cannot explain this fundamental distinction in the WP article on filmmaking, because this is the kind of deep-level philosophical analysis normally found in textbooks. And per WP:NOT, WP is not a textbook. Coolcaesar (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about Country in Infobox

This question is about the Country field in the film infobox. It may also apply to other fields in the infobox. If some reliable sources list two countries, such as the United States and Japan, as the countries of the film, and some other reliable sources list only one country, such as the United States, as the country of the film, what should be listed in the infobox? May both countries be listed? Should only one country be listed? Should the decision be made by local consensus at the article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Per Template:infobox film, Some call it the country(s) of production, while other simply call it the country(s) or nationality. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article. So I would make sure the one source is not just a offbeat outlier, but otherwise, list only the countries mentioned in all sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's my thought too. Once the general guideline is met and you're finding conflicting sources, it would be best to discuss on the film's talk page and leave it up to local consensus. The stronger the source mentioning Japan in this case, the more likely Japan should be listed. See this old example of such a case where a high-quality academic source gave the country in question a slam-dunk justification for inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet the current article doesn’t appear to reflect it? MapReader (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't check that far, but I can't say I'm surprised. Things get added/removed all the time without proper justification. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There isn't likely to be a local consensus (which is why I am trying to mediate a content dispute). Is an RFC a valid next step? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

For context, this topic is related to an as-yet ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film). I've iterated my position there more thoroughly, but I do not think the sources that list Japan are "offbeat outliers". Even the sources that only list the United States in the "production country" field list the Japanese-based production house Marza Animation Planet as one of the companies that produced the film, so I just don't buy the idea that there's any meaningful conflict here. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

DIspute on cast/credits on Sinners (2025 film)

Hello, there's an ongoing dispute (plus an edit war I'm trying to end) on Sinners (2025 film) regarding cast / credits, specifically regarding Li Jun Li. You can see the back and forth in the page history, and there's now a discussion just begun on the talk page. I don't know what the best precedent is here, and MOS:FILMCAST doesn't provide a clear answer. I'd appreciate experienced editors in this area weighing in on the talk page. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Always Be My Maybe (2019 film)#Requested move 21 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Always Be My Maybe (2019 film)#Requested move 21 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alley Cats Strike#Requested move 7 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alley Cats Strike#Requested move 7 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion not easternKicks on RSN

There is a discussion about the reliability of essternKicks on RSN, see WP:RSN#Is EasternKicks a reliable source?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of accolades received by Star Trek (film franchise)#Requested move 8 April 2025

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

Regarding the recent additions of Japanese songs to foreign-language films

An IP, 200.6.147.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been adding Japanese songs to non-Japanese language films such as the MCU Spider-Man films ([2], [3], [4]), The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, and so on according to their edit history.

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Talk:Babe (film)#Lead

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

Good article reassessment for The Nightmare Before Christmas

The Nightmare Before Christmas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sinners (2025 film) § Mid and post-credit scenes

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

Talk:Brazil_(1985_film)#Recent_edits_by_Milladrive and recent edits

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

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

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

Talk:List of horror films considered the best#This is pure WP:SYNTH

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

Additional VALNET concern

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

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) has an RfC

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

How to date films

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

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

Rotten Tomatoes average rating

Roughly a week ago, Rotten Tomatoes removed the average critics' rating from all film pages, previously found underneath the Tomatometer score. I started a discussion about this on Talk:Thunderbolts*, but since this potentially affects many articles, I thought it would be better to move the discussion here for visibility.

The issue here is that the average rating is technically still available on the page. It's formatted as JSON in an element only visible in the page source. You can test this by going to a Rotten Tomatoes page, opening the web inspector, and searching for "averageRating" (this is what you should get).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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