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 asList of Telugu films of 2022 orList 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If no one comments there then beWP:BOLD. Looking atList of American films of 2025 it seems from the textThe 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Going over this, I think notability would be a good cutoff. This does not mean we need blue links, sinceWP: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)[reply]
Hey, I opened up a discussion about the reliability of Film Threat at RS/Nhere. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (thinkLaika 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" (fromToy 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 intoWP: OVERLINKING andWP: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:
Notice how they do not mention "stop motion animated" or claymation anywhere.
So whenever I remove the word "stop motion" from these types of films, and get reverted because "it needs to specify", who is OK here? We should open a discussion and redirect to this talk after any reverts.Joy040207 (talk)19:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FILMGENRE says to include genres. Now while Stop motion isn't a genre like "Comedy" is, but is a sub-type of animation, animation also isn't really a genre in the same way I'd argue that "Science fiction" is similarly not a genre. Both act as a canvas for the film (one at the visual level, the other at the literarily level). A film can be an animation comedy and also a science fiction comedy.
I also think that the distinction of a film as stop motion is pretty significant to the film. So the option is either to say "Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget is a 2023 British animated comedy film" in the first sentence and then repeat in the paragraph that it is a stop motion film, which feels clumsy, or just say it in the first sentence. I'd go for the first sentence. I'd argue that this is might* true for all types of animated films.Gonnym (talk)21:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. We tend to operate on predominant assumptions, like when we say film, we really mean "feature film" and would otherwise include "short". Animation has evolved, so what may have been called computer-animated before would just be animated now. Yet we don't quite go back to older films and call themtraditional 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 thinkMOS:OPEN applies to identify it in the first paragraph. Hard to say perMOS:FIRST if it should definitely always be in the first sentence, since wecan spread out notable elements. Open to what others think, just wanted to share my first impression here.Erik (talk | contrib)23:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking atAvatar: 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 firstAvatar was filmed in IMAX since I couldn't trust our articles.Gonnym (talk)11:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When a film is filmed in IMAX and in 3D it is a defining feature of the film. If it was just converted later and offered in those technologies it isn't. Avatar is the text-book case of 3D being a defining feature of the film.Gonnym (talk)11:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the majority of people who have seenAvatar watched it in neither IMAX nor 3D?
The film is an IMAX 3D film regardless how someone watched it. Statistically, there is a chance that most people in the world watched it with a Mandarin dub or subtitles, it doesn't make it a Mandarin film.Gonnym (talk)12:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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, andAvatar: Fire and Ash is missing that.Erik (talk | contrib)14:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TheAvatar 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 (likeAvatar, or Nolan'sOdyssey) not simply being a post-production conversation to a release format. -Favre1fan93 (talk)15:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should not be lead sentence or first paragraph material, though, of course, but a mention as a one of the PLFs it was released, would be appropriate.Joy040207 (talk)17:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, exactly.Fire and Ash isn't a Mandarin film, and it's also isn't an IMAX film just because it was screened in that format.
As for 3D, the only mention of it in the article is that it was released in "Dolby Cinema and IMAX 3D", probably reflecting the fact that 3D is no longer considered as important as it was when the first film was released. Mentioning it in the lede would involve updating the article body beforehand.Barry Wom (talk)13:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, being stop-motion is pretty defining, so I'd include it. That traditional cel animation has almost entirely fallen by the wayside in favor of digital methods (whether 3D rendered or digital ink-and-paint for 2D animation) means noting those is likely less needed, as they're routine. But stop-motion, with its physical sets and lighting akin to live-action films but in miniature, is very distinctive.oknazevad (talk)00:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the various media types, if you say "animated", I am going to think of a something that is more hand-drawn (maybe this is the same as "tradition animated"; "computer-animated" would be anything where computer rendering is heavily used (as most 3D works), and so "stop-motion animated" film is specifically talking the use of physical props like Aardman films to animate.Masem (t)04:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We no longer specify "CGI animated" because that is the type of animation which is now predominant—it is assumed that an animated film is computer-generated unless specified otherwise, since that's how the vast majority are now produced. Stop motion is a distinctive style of animation which is frequently mentioned in sources which discuss such films. There is no reason not to specify the type of animation upfront in non-CGI films. Despite your claim, neitherWP: OVERLINKING norWP:SEAOFBLUE apply here.Barry Wom (talk)11:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for not specifying, but it was not really "my claim". I have seen certain hidden notes in articles likeWish, 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 withWho Framed Roger Rabbit.Joy040207 (talk)17:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying since electric guitars have been around,guitar now automatically means an electric guitar. It might have ceased to mean an acoustic guitar by default, but it still means an acousticor electric guitar, just ambiguous.
That anyone finds CGI animation "predominant" is absolutely wild to me, as someone who encounters more ads for (though rarely watches) anime and anime-inspired/adjacent media than for 3D CG. And one doesn't even have to look that far to find other types of animated films. Of the five Oscar nominees, only three are 3D CG this year, two from last year, one from 2024, and three from 2023 (ceremony years). Of the 10 films in last year's Annecy competition, only one was.
I can see how "computer-animated" is probably now meaningless, as even 2D and stop-motion animations are made on or with computers, just as most live-action films now have some VFX and are shot on digital (or shot on film and then graded and distributed digitally). Butit is assumed that an animated film is computer-generated unless specified otherwise, since that's how the vast majority are now produced must be true only if one paid no attention to films not made by major Hollywood studios, which isa bias to be countered.Nardog (talk)14:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion in relation to Roger Rabbit, I can't recall if it was here or on the article, but the consensus was we don't call Avengers Endgame a "live action superhero film" and so such descriptors don't belong in the genre part of the opening, but belong elsewhere where it naturally fits within the lede.Darkwarriorblake (talk)16:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and honestly thought that reasoning was what the consensus was to remove "computer animated" from 3D animated films. Stop motion is the specific type of animation theanimated 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 likeMonster House mention "Monster House is a 2006 motion capture animated supernatural horror comedy film", orThe Polar Express orThe Adventures of Tintin.Joy040207 (talk)17:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Roger Rabbit solution is an elegant one. I see the lede was changed from:
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a [...] live-action/animated <genres> film
toWho 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 commentsuch 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 usingstop motion animation.
or, matching theRober Rabbit scenario:Coraline is an animated <genres> film. Produced usingstop motion animation, [...]
We would be introducing wordiness for no apparent gain. Describing the film in the first sentence as "stop motion animated" is the simplest solution.Barry Wom (talk)13:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A convention seems to have developed whereby we only state something if it deviates from the expectation. So, we don't state that a film is live-action, because most of them are; however, we do state whether a film is animated or not because it distinguishes it from most other films. Within the "animated" category itself, the assumption is that it is either cel animation or CGI (depending on its era), so we tend to state if a film is stop-motion because it deviates from the expectation. Personally, I think it would be detrimental if we removed the "stop-motion" description from something such asThe Nightmare Before Christmas, because it seems to be intrinsic to its identity.Betty Logan (talk)19:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be much support for removing "stop motion" from the first sentence of the lede. We done here, or do we need a formal vote?Barry Wom (talk)16:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A while back, there was a disagreement on whetherThe Super Mario Galaxy Movie should be a U.S.-Japanese co-production or a U.S. production onTalk: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 atTalk: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.
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 applywp:weight. (I felt very happy when I was working on the article forBlood 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.
I believe at the time for one of the twoSuper 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 areWP: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, forSuperstition (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:
First, try to find sources that go into more detail about how co-production worked out, like the one forBlood 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.
Second, and most likely, sources ranging fromBFI,AFI,VarietyScreen 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]."
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 ofWP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT as well asWP:RS andWP: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)[reply]
It seems to me that it is harder now than ever before to research film coverage. Historically, we have hadWikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources, but I don't think it's been given a proper overhaul. Some issues I've experienced:
More paywalling, especially of the trade publications, and other news outlets
Google Books becoming worse to use, at least for me;this gives me five results for 2025-2026 compared tothis on Scholar, so I'm not sure why the difference
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.
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
I try to useWP: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
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 forsci-fi andfantasy, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is anyone else unable to use Google Books at all? I literally just searched forgiant monster movie and got "nothing". Seethis. It would really suck if this was not a search feature anymore.Erik (talk | contrib)20:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 would agree. SometimesWP: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: movingThose Two in the Legion toI 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)[reply]
"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 withWP:NCFFLF andWP:COMMONNAME. They should be moved in accordance with those policies and conventions. This can bedone boldly or through arequested 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 byLugnuts, once one of Wikipedia's biggest editors who created the most articles but who is now blocked indefinitely. These articles, calledLugstubs, 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:
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.
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)[reply]
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 likethis and now are likethis.) 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)[reply]
Is there a better way to handle genres in the opening sentence than we currently do? I've noticedNikkimaria changing these forWP:SEAOFBLUE purposes (to avoid scenarios such as "actionhorror 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 forPrometheus (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 onFilm genre, which has a table featuring sub-genres (though science fiction horror is missing). I note there is an additional articleList of genres, which seems to duplicate content in the former article, but covers more ground. I'm not sure what the answer is but I think now would be the time to fix this and maybe consolidate some content. Though, at the very least, I think science fiction horror film should redirect to science fiction film or film genre. Thoughts?Darkwarriorblake (talk)13:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The recommendation atWP:FILMGENRE is to just list one primary genre, so this shouldn't really be an issue. If there is no clear primary genre and multiple need to be included then that shouldn't be handled in the opening sentence, it should be explained later in the lead and that would probably avoid any SEAOFBLUE problems. -adamstom97 (talk)17:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FILMGENRE also allows for a sub-genre too, which I feel is sometimes necessary. For example,Pretty Woman is quintessentially a romantic-comedy film, and either "romance" or "comedy" would not be a good fit for it on their own. Maybe the answer is to not link sub-genres unless they have their own article i.e.Romantic comedy film (one link) as opposed to "Romantic-comedy drama film" (two links)? Another option would be to red-link sub-genres without an article (such as "Science fiction horror") and encourage article creation for established sub-genres. That might have the added benefit of discouraging loading the lead with loads of genres too.Betty Logan (talk)00:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that "romantic comedy" is a subgenre but "romantic-comedy drama" is just a list of different genres and would not align to the guideline. Perhaps you are right about using the existence of a dedicated genre or subgenre article to determine, we could update the MOS to say something about that. -adamstom97 (talk)10:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 tohorror film as sci fi would be dominant here). This is obviously one example,science fiction action redirects toaction film, so maybe we need some clear universal guidance on how this should work? I don't mind doing redirects but we need a consistent rule system.Darkwarriorblake (talk)11:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on this in some recent discussion but I don't remember which. The problem with how we use genres (and this isn't limited to Wikipedia), is that we mix genres with settings. "science fiction" is not a genre but a setting, while "action" is. So in both examples above, the sub-section should be in the genre page (so Horror film#science fiction and Action film#science fiction).Gonnym (talk)11:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd argue that a science-fiction horror like Alien would fall more under the horror side and the science fiction is more dressing? I guess that is possible.Darkwarriorblake (talk)15:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a simpler solution toWP:SEAOFBLUE concerns be to stop linking every genre (or sub-genre)? It's arguably overlinking anyway. Everyone knows what "a drama film" or "a horror film" is.Barry Wom (talk)11:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the solution is, but I agree with everyone's thoughts above. Link the primary sub-genre when it exists and/or create a redirect when one is needed and the target is clear. Try to avoid linking common genres when possible, as there will generally be an abundance of links in the opening paragraph as it is. Less is more!FYI...SEAOFBLUE doesn't reallyprohibit putting multiple links side-by-side, but the more you have strung together, the stronger the recommendation is to avoid doing so. --GoneIn60 (talk)17:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best option is checking the redirects then, so that (again as an example)science fiction horror goes to science fiction or horror if no article exists, rather than a list of science fiction horror films. Maybe we could create a defined list for easy refernece in the MOS.Darkwarriorblake (talk)18:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with hybrid genres was something I dealt with previously when I expanded theaction film article. There is barely any writing about these kind ofhybrid genres, and it's especially complex when it comes tothriller film, where research suggests that nearly all thriller films are hybrids of sorts. When trying to write about things like science fiction horror, you generally don't get much info beyond "a combination of horror film and science fiction film" so it's most of the time putting you back to square one. I did have some luck inaction comedy film however.Andrzejbanas (talk)21:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe smaller stub, almost enhanced dismabiguation pages would help? Kinda like these articles on radio signals I see come through Page Reviewer now and again. "A science fiction horror film is a film (redundant I know) that combines elements of horror and science fiction. See: Science Fiction Film and Horror film"? Science fiction horror is just an example btw, I'm kinad surprised given entries like Alien. Horror and sci fi seem to be pretty common.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDarkwarriorblake (talk •contribs)21:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It L's definitely common, but this kind of definition is just like "cool. probably could have figured it out on my own." The other issue is when we say "elements of" it's not clear what specifically is being talked about. As the hybrid partninnaction films goes, when journalists or academics say this, it's not clear which genre is emphasized either.Andrzejbanas (talk)21:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is this even still a common thing across the site? Feels like it should be depreciated given we just have a list of the participants of the project already. Doesn't feel like we need a "coordinator" for the whole thing when editors can work in the areas of their choosing for the project for as much as they choose to. -Favre1fan93 (talk)18:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Favre1fan93, we might not indeed need a coordinator since it has been many years since a coordinator was elected and things around the project have changed over the past 13 years.
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia 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)[reply]
