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 02 Feb 2026 – The Missing (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by RFNirmala (t · c); see discussion 01 Feb 2026 – Melania (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion 31 Jan 2026 – Jimmy Crystal (28 Days Later) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by AdobongPogi (t · c); see discussion 26 Jan 2026 – Telangana Gaddar Film Awards (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Ab207 (t · c); see discussion 21 Jan 2026 – The Mosquito Bowl (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jolielover (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 24 Jan 2026 – Here Will I Nest (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion 11 Jan 2026 – Erik Campbell (Final Destination) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 24 Dec 2025 – Kim Seon-ho filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Preferwiki (t · c); see discussion Featured topic candidates 25 Jan 2026 – List of awards and nominations received by Kristen Bell (talk · edit · hist) was FT nominated by Olliefant (t · c); see discussion 25 Jan 2026 – List of Kristen Bell performances (talk · edit · hist) was FT nominated by Olliefant (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 02 Feb 2026 – Chashme Buddoor (1981 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by MSAOM (t · c); start discussion 30 Jan 2026 – Wookiee (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); start discussion 29 Jan 2026 – Seven Samurai (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Plifal (t · c); start discussion 23 Jan 2026 – A Gnome Named Gnorm (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Geethree (t · c); start discussion 19 Jan 2026 – No Smoking (2007 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by MSAOM (t · c); see discussion 14 Jan 2026 – Santosh (2024 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by RFNirmala (t · c); start discussion 12 Jan 2026 – Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by ZooBlazer (t · c); see discussion 05 Jan 2026 – Batman in film (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion 02 Jan 2026 – Psycho shower scene (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Watagwaan (t · c); see discussion 25 Dec 2025 – Fuuto PI: The Portrait of Kamen Rider Skull (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Tintor2 (t · c); see discussion (11 more...) Featured article reviews 18 Jan 2026 – Casino Royale (2006 film) (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 01 Feb 2026 – You Go to My Head (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Zzz plant (t · c); see discussion 30 Jan 2026 – Scar (The Lion King) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by An anonymous username, not my real name (t · c); see discussion 15 Jan 2026 – Sivaji: The Boss (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Kailash29792 (t · c); see discussion 13 Jan 2026 – Shiva (1989 Telugu film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Kailash29792 (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 03 Feb 2026 – Melania (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Jon698 (t · c); see discussion 01 Feb 2026 – Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Richardgrayson3451 (t · c); see discussion 14 Jan 2026 – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Steel1943 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

List redirects - limits?

Hey, question: I know that in general the rule of thumb is that non-notable films can still be covered in Wikipedia on list pages. Does this also apply to more general lists such as List of Telugu films of 2022 or List of American films of 2025? I've seen more films listed there without articles, but I'm also aware that previously this was limited to just those films with articles.

If this is OK, then it will help in a deletion discussion currently at AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I have another film up at AfD that could benefit from this, if this were allowed to redirect to lists like "List of American films of 2025". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing prohibiting or allowing adding non-notable films to lists and it depends on the scope of the article and the consensus of the editors of that article to decide what the criteria is. Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the big thing here though - if it was one of the pages where the scope was more limited, like "X war in film" or "computers in film" then it wouldn't really be an issue since the scope of those pages are very specific and as such, fewer films meet the criteria for list inclusion.

With pages like "list of American films of 2025", the scope is far more wide. There have been some attempts to discuss this on the talk pages of some of these articles, but the participation has been extremely lacking. A look at the talk page of any given "list of American films" page can show that there are often (valid) discussions and participation is almost always non-existent. There are some exceptions, but by large the discussion attempts tend to have 0-1 participants (not including the nonsense discussions). I can't remember where I saw one attempt to discuss inclusion, but the given discussion had been started a months or a year back, with zero participation.

That's why I wanted to open up a discussion here, where there is a far higher chance of people seeing the discussion and participating. Besides, agreeing to either include or exclude non-notable films on articles of this nature really should be part of a larger discussion because it could have an impact on other "list of (country) films" lists. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

If no one comments there then be WP:BOLD. Looking at List of American films of 2025 it seems from the text The highest-grossing American films released in 2025 that this list is for theatrical films only. So that already limits the scope. Personally, if the list is too large, then I would support limiting entries in such lists only to notable films (those with articles). Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I've participated in one of them. I just feel like something of this nature should actually be discussed, as opposed to going and discussing on pages where discussion tends to go to die.

As for the line about grossing films, that is specifically for the box office section. There's nothing that suggests that the rest of the list is limited to theatrical only releases. I've added notable non-theatrical films to other years without it being challenged.

I'm not asking for any super hard and fast rule, just a general consensus that this is OK because it's absolutely the type of thing that could get challenged at AfD, which is where I want to use this as an ATD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Going over this, I think notability would be a good cutoff. This does not mean we need blue links, since WP:CSC #1 says red-linked entries are appropriate. Maybe the inline citation(s) for these could be reliably-sourced reviews (especially as opposed to routine news coverage). Erik (talk | contrib) 13:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect country categories copied from language categories

It has come to my attention that many articles are incorrectly categorized into country categories after having been copied from language categories, regardless of whether the film originates from the given country at all. For example, many Singaporean productions were copied into Chinese films categories simply because they are in the Mandarin language. Or Malaysian films categorized as Indian films simply because they are in the Tamil language. Not sure how widespread this issue is but I thought it was at least worth documenting here. Οἶδα (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

For Malaysian aka Malaysian Tamil cinema films, I doubt the problem is as widespread. Last I checked, there were barely any articles therein. Though the production output is itself minimal. Gotitbro (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am finding plenty of examples of articles that were indiscriminately copied from language categories into country categories. That is not appropriate. I know for a fact that this was done to all articles categorized into Mandarin-language films, Thai-language films, Tamil-language films, Hindi-language films, and Telugu-language films. Οἶδα (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this can either be tracked with a {{Database report}} (though I don't know how to write one) or by adding code to {{Infobox film}} that compares the |country= values to some kind of category pattern. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Indian film and languages categories

For analagous reasons as what I posted in the section above, I have been wondering if Indian film categories should really have a diffusing parent-child relationship with language categories, such as those for Bengali, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu at Category:Indian drama films. Or those for Assamese, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Konkani, Malayalam, Marathi, Meitei, Odia, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu at Category:2020s Indian films. I understand the overlap given that these are languages that originate from India, but it should go without saying that country and language are not synonymous. And yes, some overlap more than others. But not every Tamil-language film is a production of India. And not every Bengali-language film is a production of India. And so on and so on. They are not automatically Indian any more than German-language films are automatically German or Italian-language films are automatically Italian. For that reason, I feel these categories should not have the relationship they currently have. Οἶδα (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m pinging @Gotitbro:, who has been working on the categories for quite some time, to get their perspective. Sid95Q (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

If the proposal is to remove national cats, from the film lang cats, I will have to disagree. The main thing to understand here is the nature of cinema in South Asia, largely Indian cinema, where the principal factor in subcategorizing it is not region (a la Film industry in Georgia (U.S. state)) or genre (a la Hong Kong action cinema) but languages (which are tied to location). These language-based film industries are then nonetheless an integral part of this national cinema. The parent-child relationship here is not mitigable. Yes, some spillout extends (Tamil, Bengali, Urdu) but these too then still exist majorly under relevant national parent cats.

I am not sure if I can comment on German or Italian cinema but these are countries where the majority of film productions are in a single language and as such establishing dual national-language cats (or the relationship therein) may not be entirely necessary but it is clearly so here. Gotitbro (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand the nature you are describing and I understand that it is the impetus behind the parent-child categorization being used. But the point remains that this categorization is simply not accurate. This would be very different if these categories were named, for example, Category:Hindi drama films and Category:2020s Hindi films, or even Category:Bollywood drama films and Category:2020s Bollywood films. But they are not. The existing categorization consists of films by language, which, while largely tied to a specific industry in many cases, is not technically limited to a specific industry. A film made anywhere can be in any language. A film made in Hollywood is going to be in English nearly 100% of the time. But, by the very nature of language itself, not every film made in English is a Hollywood film, and thus are not automatically American or downstream of American films. And while the comparison of that to Indian industries may be less true in practice (i.e. most Kannada-language films being Kannada cinema), it is still logically true, which is the entire basis for the parent-child category (WP:SUBCAT) relationship.

Currently the categories appear to be secretively functioning as industry categories when they are actually categories for languages. This is inappropriate because these industries are actually subsets of these language categories. For example, Bollywood is really a subset of Hindi-language films, not the other way around. We even have Bengali-language film categories currently being the subcats of Indian *and* Bangladeshi film categories, meaning the category includes films from both countries (which it should) but is also the child of Indian and Bangladeshi categories, when "Bengali-language" does not imply logical membership of both unless they are somehow all Indian-Bangladeshi coproductions, but they are not. This of course ignores the fact that "Bengali-language" does not automatically imply logical membership of either of them. I am told you have been working on these categories and I thank you for your work here. And I realise what I am describing may not be ideal from your standpoint of wanting to navigate from decade/genre country categories to decade/genre industry subcategories, but this categorization is not for industries and therefore must be remedied. There are plenty of other language categories for which you could say most of the films contained therein originate from the country where that language originates. But we do not have such a parent-child relationship on those categories either. Because, again, not every Tamil-language film originates from India. And not every Persian-language film originates from Iran. Only if that were somehow true would this current categorization be warranted. Currently, every single film contained in Category:2020s Finnish-language films originates from Finland. But Category:2020s Finnish films is not the parent category, because language and country are two entirely different constructs and forms of classification, regardless of overlap. One does not logically imply the other. Οἶδα (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I cannot speak of other industries but the comparision with Hollywood and English-language films (the latter of course with a global spread) and Bollywood/Hindi cinema and Hindi-language films (unseparable and limited to the degree of exclusion) is not very apt.

To elaborate Cinema of India was the first case at enwiki where regional/lingual sub film industries had to be tackled for categories and sub-articles (Telugu cinema, Marathi cinema and so on). It was from this that the recent expansion to categorizing films by language for other national industries followed. This has lead to cases of categories where they may not be entirely necessary (as the Finnish cats you mention). But as opposed to any other cases that maybe mentioned, the application (and essentiality) of these to Indian national cinema is very hard to do away with. The entire crux being that the industries/films themselves are tied to specific languages ergo "functioning as industry categories" is not a handicap but the entire logic of their categorial relationship.

I remember having a similar conversation with other veteran editors, where the application of the parent-child relationship was again convincingly shown.

PS: As for dual national cats (Bengali et. al.), this isn't a unique enwiki exception. They are common for a myriad other topics without any implication of dual nationality (a look at transborder ethno cats being a case in point). Gotitbro (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. But with all due respect, I feel we're not really tackling the fundamental problem I've raised here. You can say the comparison is to Hollywood "is not very apt", which I myself acknowledged to an extent, but I believe my point still stands: language and country are two entirely different constructs and forms of classification, regardless of overlap. One does not logically imply the other. An industry being more insular (read: less global) does not automatically make it the exclusive user of a language in all of film. By the very definition of language, that is not true. And the case for it being nearly 100% true in some instances is becoming less and less true by the day as languages spread and film productions become more international. I admit I am not very familiar with the entire background of how these categories and their main articles came to be at their current names, which you alluded to when you say "Cinema of India was the first case at enwiki where regional/lingual sub film industries had to be tackled for categories and sub-articles". I'm guessing there were maybe article move discussions and there had to be CfD discussions about these categories, right? Though, it should be stated for anyone who doesn't know that article titles and category names are separate systems that are governed by different processes. And I will again remind you that these categories are specifically named for films by language, not for "regional/lingual sub film industries". I quickly noticed that the main articles are named as such--Hindi cinema, Kannada cinema, Telugu cinema, Tamil cinema and so on--not Hindi-language cinema, Kannada-language cinema, Telugu-language cinema, Tamil-language cinema. And each of these articles leads with the description of these being segments of Indian cinema rather than referring to all films in the given language. The issue here is the category system does not support categorization of films by industry, it supports films by country and films by language, which, yes, both oftentimes occupy largely the same space of a specific industry. With Indian cinema being an extreme exception of having multiple, very active sub industries divided down by regional languages. But it is not always the case that a film in a language is produced by the industry and region that the language originates from. I am repeating myself at this point, sorry for that.

If the issue from the start was how to subdivide Indian film categories by their industries, then they should have been subdivided by their industries, not by language. Not sure why anyone would consider it appropriate to have categories covertly functioning as subtopics of their stated names. If the categories were reflective of their main articles then they would be named Category:2020s Hindi films, not Category:2020s Hindi-language films. And if these categories were truly designed from the start to be covertly functioning as industry categories under the guise of a parent topic (language), then we should be deleting all language categories that are coterminous with country categories for countries that do not have sub industries in multiple languages. But all these suggestions seem spurious to me. I don't believe any of this is standard. Because I cannot for the life of me find any relevant CfD discussions where any of this was properly deliberated and decided. I looked through the history of the categories for both the Indian cinema categories (i.e. Category:Tamil cinema) and the Indian language categories (i.e. Category:Tamil-language films) and there's no indication these categories were ever moved. Some of these categories have existed there for 20 years now. All I'm seeing is lonstanding neglect, not community consensus. You claim "It was from this that the recent expansion to categorizing films by language for other national industries followed." And you say "I remember having a similar conversation with other veteran editors, where the application of the parent-child relationship was again convincingly shown." Do you have any links to the documentation of that? Because, respectfully, anyone can flippantly claim things like this, but without proof of actual past CfD consensus it's just hot air. As for "They are common for a myriad other topics without any implication of dual nationality (a look at transborder ethno cats being a case in point)", that sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF. Those categories can have the same problem too. Their mere existence does not suggest we continue to apply that problem elsewhere in the category system.

And if not Category:2020s Tamil films, what do we do name these categories? Category:2020s Tamil-language Indian films That level of intersection is a headache. But we do already have categories such as Category:Tamil-language Indian films, Category:Bengali-language Indian films etc. And I see there was a Cfd for that at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_6#Category:Tamil-language_Indian_films. Οἶδα (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The [Indian] film sub-industries are language based, that is what their leads state and what we have always followed at enwiki, I don't think that is a thing that would require a CSD. As for film lang cat expansions that is easily viewable through how many a recent of these cats were created.

I would try and find the previous discussion if I can, but will let other editors comment here anew for their input.

As for OTHERSTUFF, if a broad application of dual nat cats is applied everywhere else we need not be selective; a broader discussion should be had than limiting our ambit to film cats. Gotitbro (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes of course I know they are language based, but they are not the exclusive user of those languages in all of film. Again, if the issue from the start was how to subdivide Indian film categories by their industries, then they should have been subdivided by their industries, not by language. Not sure why anyone would consider it appropriate to have categories covertly functioning as subtopics of their stated names. But again, I don't believe the categorization was ever decided to be that. You say "that is what their leads state and what we have always followed at enwiki". What do their leads state? They state that Hindi cinema is India's Hindi-language film industry. That Tamil cinema is India's Tamil-language film industry. That Telugu cinema is India's Telugu-language film industry. They do not state that Hindi-language films are exclusively those produced by India's Hindi-language film industry. That Tamil-language films are exclusively those produced by India's Tamil-language film industry. That Telugu-language films are exclusively those produced by India's Telugu-language film industry. And again, those are Wikipedia articles, not Wikipedia categories, which are governed separately. Any category can be renamed, merged, split, and deleted at CfD regardless of whatever someone says enwiki has "always followed". There is no proof that these categories have been covertly functioning as industry-only catgories and that there is some sort of implicit consensus behind that decision. The longstanding description at Category:Hindi-language films has simply stated that it contains "Films in which the Hindi language is wholly or partially spoken." And at Category:Tamil-language films: "Films in which the Tamil language is wholly or partially spoken." And at Category:Telugu-language films: "Films in which the Telugu language is wholly or partially spoken." I too would really appreciate if we could let other editors comment here for more diverse participation. Because I feel as if you are just avoiding my central point here and citing CfD consensuses that doesn't actually exist. You can view the CfDs from 20 years ago that established this category tree.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_16#Films_by_language

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_11#Category:Films_by_language

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_8#Films_by_language

They are about the division of films by language, not about films by industry or country. And again, India is not actually unique in this regard. There are a great deal of other "films by language" categories for which you could say most of the films contained therein originate from the country where that language originates. But we do not have those language categories as children of their country categories there either, and wherever we still do we shouldn't. Because, again, one does not logically imply the other. The reason Category:Punjabi language is a subcat of Category:Languages of India and Category:Languages of Pakistan is because it is both of those things at the same time. The reason Category:Bengali-language drama films should not be a subcat of Category:Indian drama films or Category:Bangladeshi drama films is because it is not both of those things at the same time. And, more importantly, it is neither of those things because a film being in a given language does not logically imply the film originates from the country that the given language originates from. If it did logically imply that then Letters from Iwo Jima would be a Japanese film by default. But it isn't. Οἶδα (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft:Island Styles (film composer)

Hello. I’ve put together a draft for Draft:Island Styles and I've disclosed my COI on my user page. The article covers my work as a composer, notably for the film "The Singers" which was recently named to the 98th Academy Awards Shortlist in the Live Action Short Film category. I'm hoping someone here can give it a quick look to ensure the filmography and sourcing meet the project's standards. I also want to make sure the tone is neutral given my personal connection to the subject. If any film project members have a moment to verify the notability and tone, I’d appreciate the help! Thanks in advance! ~2026-29264-7 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I accidentally posted the above while not logged into my main account. I am confirming that I am the same individual (Island Styles) mentioned above, and this is my official account for disclosure. Islandguitar (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm providing a quick update for the project: the film I scored, "The Singers" was officially announced as an Academy Award nominee this morning (January 22nd).

I have updated the draft with the offical announcement and sourcing. Given this significant change, I’d appreciate it if an editor here could take a fresh look at the draft. Thank you! Islandguitar (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Film Threat reliability discussion

Hey, I opened up a discussion about the reliability of Film Threat at RS/N here. The long and short of the discussion is that Film Threat is pretty widely known for offering expensive paid review/promotional packages nowadays and there have been multiple discussions about whether or not it should continue to be seen as a reliable source for establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

For those curious, I'm arguing that their reviews should be unusable post 2018, which is when their current marketing format started up and they dropped the "no guaranteed positive reviews" language from their sales page. I'm also asking for the award to be confirmed as unusable for establishing notability (even partially). I'm undecided about their articles and interviews, but the various marketing packages makes me leery of those. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• The consensus is on the smaller side but is fairly unanimous that Film Threat is no longer a reliable source for reviews. Anything published in 2010 or earlier is usable for establishing notability, as 2011 is the first year they started charging for reviews. At that point in time the only way you could get a review was to pay for one. They did start offering free reviews in 2018, however at that point the emphasis was more heavily on marketing and promotion. Films that are reviewed as part of the marketing package are not clearly marked. There was no consensus about whether or not specific reviewers within Film Threat would be usable so that would need to be argued if anyone wanted to use anything from say, the site's founder.

Film Threat's Award This! award was also discussed. It was launched after 2018 and the two main issues with the award are that only people who buy a marketing package can receive a nomination and that there's practically zero coverage of the award in independent, secondary reliable sources. As such, the award is also not usable for establishing notability. If it had received a ton of coverage then there may be some question about it being usable as it doesn't appear to be one of those "everyone receives an award" type of deals, but it didn't.

I wanted to update everyone here, since in the past Film Threat was one of those sources that editors like myself would use to help give a film that final push into a tenuous NFILM pass. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Featured article review for Casino Royale (2006 film)

I have nominated Casino Royale (2006 film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:F3: Fun and Frustration#Requested move 12 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:F3: Fun and Frustration#Requested move 12 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Removal of "stop motion" from lead sentence in stop motion animated films

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

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

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

So stop motion films can have sentences like these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandora International Film Critics

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandora International Film Critics. Arlandria Ff (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards § Notability of award ceremonies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards § Notability of award ceremonies, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC) RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Tangentially related to this, I'd appreciate some input on a discussion regarding redirects of film awards here: Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Redirects_to_List_of_film_awards. Barry Wom (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Nationality for the Super Mario Galaxy Movie

A while back, there was a disagreement on whether The Super Mario Galaxy Movie should be a U.S.-Japanese co-production or a U.S. production on Talk:The Super Mario Galaxy Movie#nationality issue, since Nintendo and Illumination are involved in the film. Recently, reliable sources have already confirmed that it was a U.S. production (similar discussions about this happened at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie quite a few years ago) since Nintendo only provide the financial incentives for the film. Since the discussion there has stalled, I figured I would start a discussion here to get feedback on what to do here.

Given the above, I have a question: can we consider listing it as an American film or an American-Japanese co-production? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I've seen these kind of conversations again and again (and this isn't a fault of yours sjones23). Most of the time, when nationality between countries is brought up, we can find a handful of sources that simply state "A US-UK co-production" or something similar. Most of the time, sources do not go beyond that so there is usually not a lot of depth in descriptions to apply wp:weight. (I felt very happy when I was working on the article for Blood and Black Lace that one sources could go into detail, even a little, by saying "Emmepi set up the film as a co-production with France and West Germany, with the respective investment quotas being 50% (Italy), 20% (France), and 30% (West Germany)." I'm sure as all of you have worked on film articles will know, finding something that goes into this amount of depth is very rare.

Most of the time, this information isn't readily available and when it is, its rarely elaborated on like the above. We get that classic one line: "Country: ____." Sometimes the same publication will also contradict itself.

• BFI here says its an American production.
• While in the BFI database here it says both Japan and US.

Similarly, Screen Daily says "US". here.

• I believe at the time for one of the two Super Mario Bros films you mentioned in question, I found Japanese sources that just said US. I could be wrong though.

This usually leads to complicated back-and-forths. "but ____ worked on this and they are from [this country]!" and other ideas that are WP:OR or "that's not what a production country means!" and I've been equally guilty on being caught up in these discussions.

I've had similar issues with a more obscure film, for Superstition (1982). Where I managed to find how Canada qualified what could be deemed a Canadian co-production (for tax credit purposes). Let me summarize, that its complicated. More complicated than I had initially imagined!

As in-depth details are rare about the nationality of films are rare, I think I would suggest the following:

1. First, try to find sources that go into more detail about how co-production worked out, like the one for Blood and Black Lace above. This will give anyone a basic understanding without us applying original research. I wish anyone luck on any source that delves into something, as I've found this very rare in all the years I've done trying read up on more niche European and Asian films.
2. Second, and most likely, sources ranging from BFI, AFI, Variety Screen Daily, Hollywood Reporter, Sight & Sound etc. will give a variety of "Country: _____, _____, and ______" When sources differ, I think its probably best to apply only the ones that are consistent among our regular sources and had a footnote saying "Sources vary on the production country of [film name here]. [source1, 2, 3] described it as [Nationality here] while [just as good source 4, 5, etc.] described it as [nationality-here]."

At least, I think that would be the safest approach and follows an essay WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES. I'm not sure what would be a better approach. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Commenting here to co-sign the approach you've presented here. That is the same practice I've adopted after years of editing these articles because, as you allude to, the same back-and-forths always play out. Either side can be more correct if you personally believe one to be. Because, after all, it is not as simple and easy as "country origin of production companies = country origin of film". The infobox template's description for the country parameter provides the same approach to editors (Template:Infobox_film#Parameters), likely because it is in alignment with the core Wiki policy of WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. And I couldn't agree more with: "I'm sure as all of you have worked on film articles will know, finding something that goes into this amount of depth is very rare." Only once in a blue moon do I add production/country info and find it described in any deeper sort of way that can be presented to readers.

Ultimately, whether we like it or not, Wikipedia is simply a reflection of what reliable sources tell us. A compiler of information that is presented in proportion to the coverage found in reliable sources, and not a publisher of original thought. As such, the prevailing country origin in reliable, high-quality mainstream publications should be reflected on Wikipedia. If there is no prevailing country origin because sources are split, that too should be reflected on Wikipedia. Οἶδα (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Researching film coverage

It seems to me that it is harder now than ever before to research film coverage. Historically, we have had Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources, but I don't think it's been given a proper overhaul. Some issues I've experienced:

1. More paywalling, especially of the trade publications, and other news outlets
2. Google Books becoming worse to use, at least for me; this gives me five results for 2025-2026 compared to this on Scholar, so I'm not sure why the difference
3. Similarly, even if I find a book, it's hard to Google preview the page I want to look at. Like I have to tweak the URL to be more specific to what's on the page and open it in incognito mode. Amazon doesn't seem to show page previews like it used to. I haven't really tried Internet Archive's book search.
4. Searching online in general for coverage is harder because there's even more unhelpful content to sift through. I try to do specific queries like including the word "interview" or adding specific keywords that would likely pluck out an informative piece, but Google sometimes ignores these, requiring quotation marks to force results including them
5. I try to use WP:LIBRARY, but I'm constantly frustrated by trying to figure out what news outlet is available in a database and then if full access to it is available

I'm curious if others have thoughts about any of the above or any tips they want to share about how they research film coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

A common "go to" for me is Newspapers.com, particularly if the film was released in the 2000s or earlier. I will also still use a good old fashioned Google search. I usually get better results if I put qualifiers in and include the name of either the director or main star. So if I'm searching for Star Wars, I'd use "Star Wars" Lucas to help narrow down results.

It's a lot easier when it comes to genre stuff, because some of them do have lists up of resources. Or at least we do for WP:HORROR. There are genre specific ones for sci-fi and fantasy, but they're focused more specifically on literature written about sci-fi and don't really go into websites as far as I can see. I should probably add some of the more obviously usable sources to the horror sourcing page, as there's a lot of overlap and stuff like Locus Online is going to be obviously usable.

Other than that, I do tend to also look at the video game resources page. Not all of those sites do film reviews, but some do, like The AV Club and Bleeding Cool. WP:VG can be pretty strict about their sources so if they say a source is usable for games I'm inclined to see it as most likely usable for films as well. Same for if they say a source is unreliable - if it's unreliable for them, it's likely not usable anywhere else either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I do think the page could probably use a review. A lot of sites are offering marketing packages that include paid reviews and sponsored articles that didn't in the past - or at least didn't offer them as so obviously pay to play. I lost HorrorNews.net and Film Threat to such paid models, because their marketing was so over the top that it made it unusable for Wikipedia's purposes. Times are tough for us all, I guess. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone else unable to use Google Books at all? I literally just searched for giant monster movie and got "nothing". See this. It would really suck if this was not a search feature anymore. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be working for me. I'm getting dozens of pages in search results using the same search phrase (not in quotes). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

seven samurai gan

seven samurai (1954) (start) is up for ga nomination if anyone had an interest in looking at it. best wishes all.--Plifal (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Ensemble cast length in lead

 There's a discussion at Talk:Avengers: Doomsday#too many names you may be interested in. The number of cast names listed in the lead section, what's considered acceptable vs. excessive, and how this relates to the billing is being discussed. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Update: A temporary solution with several options is now being discussed. You are invited to add your comments to Talk:Avengers: Doomsday#Discussion break - presenting options. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:RDA (Avatar)#Requested move 23 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RDA (Avatar)#Requested move 23 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie#Requested move 14 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie#Requested move 14 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Use of non‑official English titles for Italian films

Several Italian film articles currently use English titles that are not official and appear to come from literal translations found in Brunetta’s The History of Italian Cinema. These translations are not used in international distribution, film archives, or major databases, and in many cases they are misleading or incorrect.

This issue affects not only Totò’s filmography but Italian films in general. Examples include:

• Totò al giro d'Italia-> Toto Tours Italy (misinterprets "Giro d'Italia", the cycling race; the movie is about Totò taking part to the race, not touring the country);
• Fifa e arena -> Fear and Sand (in this context "arena" means "arena", not "sand");
• Cadavere per signora -> Corpse for the Lady (overly literal and not an attested English title).

These English titles are not verifiable as official and do not reflect actual usage in English‑language markets or reference sources.

Proposal:

In accordance with Wikipedia’s naming conventions, when a film has no established English title, the article should use the original Italian title, with a literal translation and explanation provided in the lead. This approach avoids introducing non‑existent titles and maintains accuracy and verifiability.

I therefore propose moving the affected articles to their Italian titles unless a verifiable, officially used English title can be identified. ~2026-72249-9 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I would agree. Sometimes WP:COMMONNAME is applied for Italian, Japanese, French, etc. titles for films/television/music/games and other Non-English media. But I agree. I've expanded on some of the early Lucio Fulci film articles recently. (Colpo gobbo all'italiana) and moved some others from films which seemingly have never had an English-friendly release in theaters or home video (i.e: moving Those Two in the Legion to I due della legione), a title it was never released under and even in English-language reference books, seems to predominantly use the Italian title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NCFFLF:

"If the film has never been widely released in the English-speaking world, it is not assumed to have a commonly-recognized English name; in such cases, the native name is to be preferred over potentially variant translated titles used in English-language reliable sources."

There are countless articles currently on Wikipedia existing at titles that don't align with WP:NCFFLF and WP:COMMONNAME. They should be moved in accordance with those policies and conventions. This can be done boldly or through a requested move on the given article's talk page. I have boldly moved several articles as a result of this. La Soupe aux choux come to mind.

In general, when it comes to these stubby articles about lesser-known, older films I'm always skeptical of what I find at each article. Many of them have gone unattended to for years. And I can't ignore the fact that most of them--including all three Italian film articles you listed here--were created or edited by Lugnuts, once one of Wikipedia's biggest editors who created the most articles but who is now blocked indefinitely. These articles, called Lugstubs, were semi-automatically generated by Lugnuts using a program that was not even AI, but just turning database entries into prose. There were other users who (historically) used the same strategy such as Carlossuarez46, Dr Blofield and Ram-Man. These are still being cleaned up by admins to this day.

The wild part is that just before he bounced he left a message on his talk page admitting to deliberately adding factual errors and copyright violations across his entire 1.5 million edits on this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts/Archive_61#Outgoing

About a year after joining the project, I started creating articles. Some early creations from 2007 got tagged as [copyright violations]. A year later, they were still being tagged. I got added to some white-list at the time, and avoided adding OBVIOUS [copyright violations] and further scrutiny, but made no attempt to either stop or remove the ones I added. Guess what - that continued since then. Not just across the 93,000+ articles I created, but across the 1.5 million edits I made too. Tens of thousands (a low-end estimate) now have these issues. Have a look at any film article from before 1930, for example. And that's before I mention the countless deliberate errors on pages that have very few pages views. Was that person born on 21 June, or was it 12 June?

So that moral obligation? Ha. Good luck with that. "The mess" is now your mess and the burden falls with YOU to fix it. Enjoy.

Οἶδα (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yikes. I had no idea! I knew Lugnuts was, well maybe "prolific" isn't the correct word now, but wow. But yeah, there are so many countless stubby articles that just say "this is a [year] [country] film that exists." which if anyone was actually looking up a film, they would already know that. What a bother. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § Lugnuts banned, Lugnuts has been banned indefinitely. There should be no problem renaming any article that Lugnuts created that is a film article to its proper name as per WP:NCFFLF and WP:COMMONNAME. Peaceray (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Which is why some of us believed they should all just be completely deleted. It's obvious the cleanup isn't really working. Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there would be much loss in losing material that was either unsourced, films that have been stubs for decades. I know "Wikipedia isn't paper", but from my experience, I get more excited to make more fully fledged articles when they are non-existent than when they exist and sort of just sit there. (That said, I'm equally guilty of creating articles that started like this and now are like this.) In contrast, I do add the "requires clean-up" tags, but I don't think I was ever invested in cleaning-up an article because it had a clean-up tag, with very few exceptions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow I had no idea this all happened with Lugnuts.★Trekker (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Doomed to Die § Requested move 3 February 2026

An editor has requested that Doomed to Die be moved to Doomed to Die (film), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. adamstom97 (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie § Removal of Japan as production country

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie § Removal of Japan as production country, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Country alternative discussion in infobox

A discussion about a potential country alternative solution in the Infobox film template is taking place at Template talk:Infobox film#Country alternative solution proposal. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Box-office bomb#Requested move 7 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Box-office bomb#Requested move 7 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Better way to handle genres?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film Coordinators

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

Requested move at Talk:Materialists (film)#Requested move 1 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Materialists (film)#Requested move 1 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 14:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)