Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

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

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT: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 Coordinators talk 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 British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian 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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within has been nominated for featured status. See here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within/archive1. All comments on the nomination are welcome. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dispute over whether the plot summary of Blue Ruin should revert back to the old version (~670 words) or use a new, shorter version (~410 words). I've started a discussion at the talk page. Further input is needed to establish consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please look at Halloween (1978 film) (specifically, this diff) and validate if I'm right? My contention is that "screenplay" credit should only be used when there's a "story" credit. Wrath X (talk · contribs) is insisting on using the "screenplay" credit against what appear to the be instructions on in {{infobox film}} to only use it when there's a "story" credit. I realize this is a trivial dispute, but I would really appreciate it if someone would humor my request. If Wrath X is correct, then it seems as though quite a few of us have been using the infobox improperly, and the documentation will probably need to be changed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Screenplay by" is an official credit attribution, so I am in favor of deferring to it if it is used, which is the case with Halloween (see [1]). I see "written by" as a sort of catch-all for dealing with atypical situations or films that don't use the official credit. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes like Betty said they are official credits and are usually located in the film's billing block. See this article from the New York Times about billings blocks. Items 29 and 32 are story and screenplay credits, respectively. "The credit Written By is used when the same author has written both the story and screenplay; it is not interchangeable with the Screenplay By credit." This appears to be the case here as reflect by the credits on File:Halloween cover.jpg.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to defer to the credits in the film, then the infobox documentation needs to be changed to reflect that. It currently says that screenplay should be used when there's a story credit: "Use this field instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers." By the way, the poster says "written by", for what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says to use the poster billing block only for the "starring" field and nothing else. The film is the primary source and, as shown here [2], it uses a Screenplay by credit. The infobox also explicitly says to use the "writer" field "for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by""; to use the "writer" field when the writers are credited under "Screenplay by" would go against that. Moreover, if the "screenplay" field should be used only when there's a story credit, then where does that leave films based on novels? They almost always have a "Screenplay by" credit without a "Story by" credit. Also, what should be done about films with unconventional credits like Pulp Fiction? The safest option would be to use the credits the film officially uses. If the film uses a "Written by" credit then use the "writer" field, if it uses a "Screenplay by" credit then use the "screenplay" field, etc.. Wrath X (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should use the onscreen film credits. The poster's billing block is the best option when the film is not accessible. And yes, Screenplay is used when a novel is being adapted. Story is also used in the less common case of an additional Screen Story or Adaptation credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominees have been announced. It's an IP-editfest right now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be some dispute on what should be covered in the Controversies section (esp. over The Lego Movie). Please see here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bird is the word. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The country categories say for Category:French film remakes have only the one parent category Category:Film remakes. While remakes of French films are often not French films I suggest that the connection with France etc could be avknowledged by making linking it to the category Category:Cinema of France and similarly for remakes of films from other countries. Hugo999 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from Wikimedia today that 96.246.139.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting the password reset process on my Wikipedia account. Obviously the IP hasn't succeeded, but should my account go on a sudden vandalising spree or start making highly irregular edits don't hesitate to get me temporarily blocked. Hopefully it won't come to that but I'm just giving the folks here a heads up. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Betty Logan. I've had this done to me at least a dozen times over the years. Nothing has ever happened and my understanding is that you are the only one who gets the email so there is no way the troll can start editing using your account. On the other hand should you start changing runtimes by 15 minutes or more per film we will drop Mjölnir on you :-) Thanks for all that you do here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with MarnetteD. I've gotten just as many of these kinds of emails over the years, and it has never been an issue. I'm surprised that you haven't gotten one till now! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is new to me, and I've been here for five years. I had no idea it was so common. I hope you don't get hacked! Sock (tock talk) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea it was so common either! It makes me feel a bit more comfortable now. That said I am not really a "vandal hunter" so there probably hasn't been that much incentive to hack me. I beg Lugnuts has had a million. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 20th Century Fox article also covers the predecessor companies Fox Film and Twentieth Century Pictures (both those links are currently redirects). As Wikipedia's coverage of early film history slowly improves, it's increasingly tempting to undo the merge that resulted in this article. I think there's more than enough material to justify separate articles on Fox, Twentieth Century, and post-merger 20th Century Fox (not to mention that, for Fox at least, the current article isn't particularly accurate). As recently as 2012, however, efforts to unmerge the article have been rapidly reverted. I'd like to assess the WikiProject's opinions on the matter before engaging in wide-scale bold editing: more than a single article would be affected by an unmerge, with associated articles like List of 20th Century Fox films (1915–2000) (which is an incomplete dog of a list to boot) and the relevant categories also affected. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough information for a separate article, it's perfectly acceptable to create one. I recommend including a brief summary of the article information in the main 20th Century Fox article, with a link to the full article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I see movie posters in many WP entries, I can't find a way to load an image with the proper copyright/licensing info to Wikimedia Commons. Can someone point me to instructions or explain? For example I see posters at Walk East on Beacon and Repeat Performance. I have one for Lost Boundaries. Thx. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movie posters, unless they are in the public domain, can not be uploaded to Commons. They have to be uploaded here (see the "Upload file" link under Tools). Make sure you include correct fair use and licensing tags. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the correct fair use and licensing tags is exactly the problem I'm asking for help with. I don't see a way to generate the same tags as found in the other examples I offered above. I've given it a try, but I don't know if it will survive review. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Birdienest81 messaged me about a discussion that I think WikiProject Film should provide input on over in WikiProject Accessibility. It concerns whether we should change the table format of awards articles particularly the Academy Award articles as they may currently pose a difficulty to blind readers.

"There has been a dispute regarding the two column format for tables in awards articles. We would appreciate your input on how to resolve this issue. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Awards_arranged_in_two_columns_using_tables_for_layout for details. Thanks

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Cowlibob (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a lot of film articles on this website have completely unsourced info about WP:BLPs, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V.

We should do some cleanup to remove wholly unreferenced info from film articles, if it's not properly cited to appropriate sources, in the article itself.

For example, several articles have awards sects, with zero sources whatsoever.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Cirt is trying to say is he has removed vast amounts of linked information, because they are not inline sourcing, like Emmys, Oscars and the like from multiple articles basing the reasons on BLP violations. On going dicussion at BLP tp. Murry1975 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, of course awards sections and the like need sources, yet despite that I think some of your actions are inappropriate. If you see an article with an unsourced awards section, you shouldn't remove it, you should source it. For major awards like Academy Awards, it should be simple to find a good source. Removing the content rather than spending a minute or two to add a source is just ridiculous, and obviously isn't making Wikipedia better. Also, keep in mind that WP:BLP says to remove "contentious" material or material that might be challenged. Things like who won an award are generally not contentious, so there isn't a requirement to remove them immediately (though since they should be easy to source, the issue of whether it is alright to leave them unsourced should be moot - again just add a source). Calathan (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree strongly with this comment at BLPN, by admin Kww. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning that there's an admin on a power trip too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:BURDEN is explicitly clear I guess. That said, both BAFTA and AMPAS have award databases (BAFTAs & Oscars) so those two especially are straightforward to source. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Explicitly clear" is, as usual, in the eye of the beholder. Here's what it says with some emphasis added:

In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also on WP:PRESERVE:

Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tag it as necessary...Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

It may be disruptive and it's certainly unproductive to just go about blanking unreferenced but uncontentious and easily verifiable info; We're here to build an encyclopedia. As multiple guidelines and essays recommend, if you can source it do so; if it's not contentious or infringes copyright, tag it and/or find a source. If you tag something and it has not been addressed for some time then it should be removed. On another note, unless it's common knowledge, plot information and the like, 'linked information' does not really satisfy WP:V/WP:RS; potentially-challenged info should be sourced in every article regardless of how many articles, related or unrelated, might already cite it. --Lapadite (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. Due to this convoluted situation where awards are now considered contentious material likely to be challenged the articles for them are being redirected ala List of awards and nominations received by Nicolas Cage rather than giving editors a chance to source them. While this also violates WP:PRESERVE the more immediate problem is that the editors have been too lazy to remove the links to these article from the "Awards and nominations" from the main article (see Nicolas Cage for example) thus creating a WP:CIRCULAR link. So if anyone comes across them you may want to remove them - at least until sourcing has been added and the article restored. MarnetteD|Talk 04:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-01-25/BLP madness. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statement; awards are not considered, by WP policy, 'contentious material'. --Lapadite (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, others disagree, DIFF, this is far from a non-contentious issue. "Awards" can be wrong, non-factual info, or used for self-promotion. There are many many ways they can be contentious in nature. Best to have cited sources for each factual assertion, as opposed to none whatsoever for claims of awards. — Cirt (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, vandalism, disruptive editing, etc, occurs, thus anything can be 'contentious'. That an actor or a film has won an Oscar isn't contentious content per se; it's easily verifiable and should be sourced. And that is a noticeboard not a WP guideline; one or 5 editors' opinion does not make community policy, so I'm don't know why you cite them as if they're arbitrator. --Lapadite (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point I think this is more WP:ANI material than a simple project discussion. I've seen this sort of disruption multiple times, they almost regularly end in a block or a ban (last one was [3]). Using the letter of a rule to operate massive, rapidfire blanking of dozens of well-established and very long articles instead of tagging and giving the time to editors to fix the problems is disruptive and damages the encyclopedia. Too bad I see also some tag-team editing and abuse of power by an admin I used to appreciate. Cavarrone 08:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...rapidfire blanking...instead of tagging and giving the time to editors to fix the problems is disruptive and damages the encyclopedia." - precisely the issue; against guidelines, and yes an abuse of power. Lapadite (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone is being a massive WP:DICK. This place is fucked if every unref'd page is redirected. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per my response to advice given to me one day ago, I've already agreed to stop the removal of unsourced info from these pages for a while. So if others wish to clean up BLP pages by removing unsourced info or adding sources, that's fine. But for me, I'm going to sit this one out and just stick to commenting on talk pages and in discussions about this issue, and not take further actions editing the articles themselves for the time being. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the recent edit(s) on List of awards and nominations received by Natalie Portman by Kww is equates to disruptive vandalism. Imagine if a newbie or IP editor had done that shit. They would have a talkpage of warning templates telling them that they'd be blocked if it continues. Once again, it's one rule for the an admin on a powertrip and one rule for regular editors. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced material from an article related to a living person isn't vandalism, Lugnuts. I carefully removed it section by section so that anyone that finds supporting citations can easily restore information with a citation, and trimmed any section that was partially sourced instead of removing it completely. I do this periodically to some of our worst articles: never en-masse, and never so rapidly as to overwhelm editors that think the topic is interesting enough to justify the research necessary to find citations.—Kww(talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that the content that you removed was challenged or likely to be challenged? Awards and nominations are some of the easiest details to look up. WP:CHALLENGE says, "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, sadly, this WP:CHALLENGE as well as WP:PRESERVE been mentioned more than once and at several spots. It is being ignored and I am afraid that Lugnuts assessment may be correct. MarnetteD|Talk 18:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, spot checking several of these dodgy removals by Kww, you can easily see the cite for the award on the page to that award/ceremony. Very lazy editing at best, and at worse, vandalism. Kww - have a read of WP:ADMINACCT (Repeated or consistent poor judgment) before you go any further. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't call it vandalism, when I wrote above about the deep disappointment towards an admin I used to have great respect I was exactly referring to Kww. If s/he would had done such poor actions before filling her/his RfA, s/he would had exactly 0% chance of becoming an admin. --Cavarrone 18:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This first removal is a disgrace. Kww are you seriously telling me you couldn't find a source for an Academy Award nomintion? Is that in any way contentious? The correct answer to my second question is "NO", incase you didn't know. We're not dealing with BLP issues on the same scale as Portman's Israeli heritage, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is precisely how an article about a living person could consist of primarily uncited material. The problem is that the editors that create and maintain these articles do not source them properly. That problem is not repaired by other editors coming in and doing the unpleasant task of adding citations for them, it's repaired by these editors learning to provide citations themselves. And yes, historically, when I go through and check the veracity of these articles, I find them to be largely inaccurate. And yes, an inaccurate award credit is contentious: just ask the person that actually won it.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are times that I agree with Kww, but not in this case. That stated, he feels strongly about WP:BLP and acts accordingly, and that, from what I have usually seen, is done in an effort to improve Wikipedia. I think that Viriditas might have some words of wisdom for us on this matter. He also edits film articles, recently getting the Edge of Tomorrow (film) article to WP:Good article status, and is not shy about speaking out on what he considers unbecoming WP:Administrator conduct. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with admins like Kww and former admins like Cirt before, the best thing you can do is organize your response and argue your position using consensus reached in talk page discussions, project guidelines, RfCs, and other dispute resolution processes. Obsessive actions taken by Cirt and Kww can only be stopped by a strong community consensus. I would say the first thing to do is to get a community injunction on a noticeboard asking these editors to stop and use the talk page before continuing, as their editing can be viewed as a form of disruption. It's obvious that this project is open to the idea of making the sources more explicit. Another way this project can help is by either creating or updating a project list of sources that will allow editors to easily check the relevant sources. I had to do this recently and found that many of these awards sites are poorly designed and difficult to navigate so any attempt to make the verification process easier might help mitigate the current problem. In any case, this discussion alone is reason for Kww to stop what he is doing. We've seen admins do this kind of thing before, and the only thing that ever stops them is community consensus. You folks seem to have that here, but you'll need to condense your position and advertise it elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this topic was already taken to BLP/N, where similar removals were upheld by consensus. I object to describing this as editing "obsessively": we have thousands of improperly sourced articles like this one. Periodically, I choose one and strip it back down to only the correctly-sourced information. I do so in a series of little edits, one award at a time, precisely to make it easier for people that object to restore the information once they find a citation, rather than doing one massive removal of unsourced data. What I don't understand is exactly why people here think that having unsourced data isn't a problem, or, that if they believe the information is so easily found (it's not, especially when you get to obscure things like the Southeast Film Critics Award, which has an unsourced article that points to a dead link) they don't add it themselves. If someone thinks it's important to have a laundry-list of every time Natalie Portman has been noticed by some group of critics, then they should also think it would be important enough to provide a source for that information.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Is it okay to add back a completely unsourced awards sect about BLPs.3F, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Zero sources on .22awards.22 pages about BLPs are the threads at BLP and to claim that a consensus was reached is a vast overstatement. MarnetteD|Talk 19:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on BLP/N is only tenable when it involves a large sample of the community, hence my suggestion for a larger discussion. Otherwise, you end up with "obsessive" local denizens of extremity, with little recourse to centrism or moderation. That's why the boards should discourage locals and act instead as "feeders" from the project and article talk pages. Kww, looking at this discussion, you're dealing with a lot of experienced editors who only want the best for Wikipedia. It would help greatly if you would listen to what they are saying and find a way to work with them rather than against them. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did: I left the article history with edit summaries that precisely identify the awarding agency, in a form that any editor that believes that he has found a sufficient citation need only hit "undo", provide the citation, and hit "save". I don't do this to thousands of articles a day, or generally any more than a one a week. It does work: see, for example, the difference between List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift today and last April, for example. What doesn't work is putting some notice on the top. No one gets motivated to repair these things based on a tag on the top of the article. The issue here is whether what's "best" for Wikipedia is to have large piles of unsourced material about living people or not, and that issue is largely settled.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift is a huge list; why do all of those awards need to be mentioned? That list needs cutting as soon as possible. Anyway, I care about things being unsourced, especially in WP:BLPs, but, unless it's something like the Golden Raspberry Awards, I generally disagree that awards information is contentious information; see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37#Are the Golden Raspberry Awards a BLP issue? for more opinions on that. As others have stated, WP:BLP is mainly about contentious information, which is why, unless the information is contentious, unsourced things are commonly allowed to remain in WP:BLP articles even by very experienced Wikipedia editors; see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading, where different opinions on the matter were expressed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the list is an editorial decision: I agree it's too large, but I generally don't make edits to articles based on editorial concerns when I've taken administrative actions on the same article. Similarly, an article about a minor actress like Natalie Portman seemed massively oversized, but I didn't make any decisions about content based on editorial concerns when editing it for BLP concerns.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just advising everyone here of WP:NEWBLPBAN and its provisions for discretionary sanctions on problematic edits relating to articles which broadly fall under WP:BLP. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is now a WP:AE request about this issue. Feedback is welcome here.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Result of WP:AE request: "Cwobeel: Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists.". — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that seems OTT. Two or three editors on a witch-hunt get a good, if naive, editor blocked in the space of 24hrs. I bow to my new Insect Overlords. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Admins involved in the result of the AE decision included Kww, as well as Sandstein, EdJohnston, HJ Mitchell, and Guettarda. They are all capable of making their own decisions and coming to their own conclusions for themselves. Which they did. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Kww is completly univolved, of course! Quick to get rid of someone who disagrees with him. Sickening. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry folks, but sourcing isn't optional—even ignoring the BLP concerns, it's two thirds of core policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 221,416 articles to delete now. Tally-ho! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just the ones that have been tagged as unreferenced. I am willing to be that the number is three times that and probably even higher. MarnetteD|Talk 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy this weekend, so I have not had the chance to review all the discussions related to this matter. I apologize in advance if I am retreading any particular point. First, I am sure that all editors would love it if we could have all material sourced. Policy says if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it should be removed. WP:CHALLENGE does say, "Whether and how quickly this [removal] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." I think a lot of editors of film articles here agree that awards and nominations should not be subject to quick removal. It is appropriate to raise concerns about this material lacking sources, but it has only been two days since WikiProject Film was notified about this concern. There has been tendentious editing in quickly removing this material and not demonstrating good faith to come up with community-driven solutions such as notifications, edit-streamlining, collaboration, and timetables.

I know it is frustrating to many of us here that these quick removals are being carried out seemingly abruptly and without community input. We know that awards and nominations are easy to look up and source. WikiProject Film has a number of Featured Lists of awards and nominations where we ensure sourcing for each item. In the aggregate sense, though, it is a lot of work for an individual editor. It's especially frustrating to see editors disruptively blank unchallenged articles wholesale and be technically "in the right" to do so. I saw the Natalie Portman blanking before I headed out yesterday, and I wish I could have frozen time to restore that content with all the easily-discovered sources. At the same time, it is insulting that doing that would essentially be rewarding that tendentious editing that did not demonstrate any good faith. What has happened has been the easiest solution, that of engaging in quick removal without previously engaging the community and exhausting all interim options. However, this solution fails to be community-driven. It is also detrimental in putting out of sight the material that could be easily plugged with references. In the Natalie Portman blanking, the content was not even migrated to the talk page for easy reinsertion. How many editors will know how to recover the content? How many will not realize that the blanking took place and instead spend valuable time putting details back in, perhaps still without sourcing?

We need to come up with community-driven solutions. We need to make it easier to address unsourced content. We all know that the sources are easy to find. Let's take this a step further and make the sources easy to add. Let's create a WikiProject Film page that lists the referencing for each award where an editor can quickly copy and paste the appropriate reference. I don't think the references need to be granular, especially with some awards sources being database-driven; they should point to the appropriate sources that fully connect Wikipedia to the various years and categories to establish that relationship of verifiability. Let's come up with other community-driven solutions as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Awards sourcing and have listed a few references to start us off. What do others think? There is more to add, obviously, and we could also list some steps on that page about recommended actions to take, such as giving the WikiProject Film community a heads-up to address sourcing within a particular timeframe. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Please also create links to the relevant awards search indexes, so people can easily verify an award. I had to do this recently when I tracked down an Emmy Award for a Star Trek television article, and I was dismayed at how difficult it was. There are shortcuts to finding the awards on these types of sites that we can also inform editors about, while also providing links in the project tag drop-down box. This will give the film project the ability to put the WP:BEFORE burden on the editor challenging content. In other words, if an editor wants to remove uncontroversial awards material, they should first be able to easily visit the links we provide to confirm the award. Since this is best practice across the board for WP:V, I would suggest that some admins and arbs are out of step with the process. You can't simply remove uncontroversial award material because it's a BLP. That's a misuse of the policies and guidelines. There is little to no harm involving erroneous awards, and in the majority of cases, makes the BLP look better. So the appeal to BLP here is specious. That certain admins and arbs don't really understand how the editing process works is of no surprise. Former admins like Cirt and current admins like Kww don't really care how the community feels, they are just going to get a rubber stamp from the admin corps to keep disrupting Wikipedia. Again, the only thing that is going to stop them is running an RfC that combines elements of WP:V and WP:BLP in the request, since the BLP hardliners are the ones (once again) misinterpreting the policy in a heavy handed way. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "Link" column to go beside the "Reference" column. Is that what you had in mind? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop describing enforcement of basic policies as disruption, Viriditas. It's not. The appeal to WP:BLP is not specious, as spot-checking these unsourced awards articles nearly invariably finds false information, and the standard for BLP (or even non-BLP data) has never been "controversial". People here seem to forget that it is not the obligation of anyone but the person who wishes to see the information included to research a source. I step through these things slowly specifically so as not to cause disruption. I remove information that is unsourced specifically so that people will provide sources for it. If people want the awards list for their favourite singer or actress to be exhaustive and sprawling, they need to provide sources at the time they make additions. They can't rely on other editors to come along later and clean up their mess. They can rely on administrators to enforce BLP policy and remove unsourced assertions about living people.

There are certainly ways that this could be done disruptively. It would be possible, for example, to tag all of these with {{Prod blp}} at a rate that would overwhelm Wikiprojects. Unsourced material could be removed from awards articles at the rates of hundreds a day. Nobody is proposing doing those things, because those things would be disruptive. One or two a week? Not disruptive at all.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Natalie Portman's Academy Award and BAFTA Award details from the list because it was unsourced. Please demonstrate some good faith by contributing more positively. You're welcome to list a reference at the WikiProject page and to suggest a shortcut so we can link to it easily when approaching editors who are adding awards and nominations without sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I highly resent any description of my work as anything but positive. Defending the presence of piles of unsourced information would be what I consider to be a negative contribution. Second, give {{BaftaURL}} a whirl. {{BaftaURL|Natalie Portman}} expands to Template:BaftaURL, for example.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking about negative and positive as in removing and adding to Wikipedia. It helps to offset removing content by at least making an effort to add content or to work with others to do so. It is extremely easy to go around blanking material, but like you said, it is incredibly disruptive, and the scale of that is obviously debatable. I also do not appreciate that you threatened me with a block for accidentally restoring some unsourced Teen Choice Awards. You could have just stopped at asking me on my talk page, but you failed to assume good faith. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww is quick to threaten people with blocks to hide his bad-faith edits. That's the second time this weekend alone. Disgraceful behavior. Kww "resent(s) any description of (his) work as anything but positive", but these bad-faith bulk removals are anything but positive, as this discussion clearly shows. Is it desysopping season yet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the bully goes silent. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that your attacks are of sufficient importance that I should immediately respond to them all? As it is, I'm dealing with them at a higher priority than they deserve. All your behaviour is doing is illustrating exactly why being an admin is an unpleasant job: no matter how clear-cut policy is, someone will attack any administrator that makes an effort to enforce it.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way to deflect your incompetence. You volunteered for "an unpleasant job" so deal with the shit that you create. I look forward to you hounding me on a random ANI thread, just as you've done today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times movie database is a good "catch-all". It's a bit English-language centric but Natalie Portman's entry lists all her major awards and nominations. It would save a lot of time by just adding that link than adding lots of different links. Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for Category:Child characters in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) state "As with real children, the term refers to characters who are understood to be biologically and/or chronologically under age 21 during the course of a film in which they are depicted." The age of 20 is far beyond the age of childhood for science and numerous religions. The sourced info in our article child states "is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty" and the sourced info in the puberty article gives the ages of 10-11 for girls and 11-12 for boys. I propose that we change the wording in the instructions to give the age of 12 as the cutoff for this category. Now if we want to use 13 or even 14 to error on the side of caution that would be okay but IMO this cat should not be in articles where the young characters are older than 14. Any and all input on this will be appreciated. When a consensus is reached we should add the new instructions to the cat page and to WP:MOSFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Age 20 is clearly too old to categorize as a child (well, unless there are significant competence issues). While the age of majority (legal adulthood) varies, legal adulthood is usually categorized as age 18. It's rare that a person is not considered an adult until age 20 or 21. As the Child article states, there is the biological definition of what it means to be a child, and there is the legal definition of what it means to be a child. I'm not sure which definition the aforementioned category should follow. Maybe we should have a teenage category for teenage characters? Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that MJBurrage has addressed the matter at Category talk:Child characters in film. Also, above I change the title of the heading from "Category definition" to "Child category definition" to make it clearer as to what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]