Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

Big picture problem with this guideline

I don't know the history of how this guideline developed (though I've looked through the talk page discussion) and I don't know exactly where it's at now in terms of how happy folks are with the guideline and how often it is invoked. I was brought back over here when I was participating in an AfD on A Life in the Death of Joe Meek (which I had never heard of until I saw it on AfD). In looking up the guideline again I remember I had always had a problem with its restrictiveness in terms of notability. I would like to explain why I feel this way and hopefully open a discussion that might lead to some changes in the policy. My apologies as this is a little bit long but I'm trying to be thoughtful and for me that sometimes requires a bit of verbosity.

I'm all for keeping stuff which is completely non-notable (be it a film or anything else) out of the encyclopedia and regularly !vote to delete at AfD or put articles up for speedy deletion. However I also have a strong inclusionist streak, particularly when it comes to interesting pieces of culture which may be briefly notable and then fade from memory. I think the current guidelines for films (and for books too, but one thing at a time!) can lead to the deletion of things that really belong on Wikipedia.

This film A Life in the Death of Joe Meek is a case in point. It's a new documentary, which has screened at a few films festivals, received a couple of brief reviews, and is about a significant figure in the history of pop music - Joe Meek (though I'd never heard of him). By our guidelines here the article should, as of now, probably be deleted and quite possibly it will be. But even if the film is never distributed I can't help but feel that films like it (with a respectable run at film festivals, about an interesting historical figure, but only seen by a few thousand people at best) deserve a place here in Wikipedia.

I also thought about this issue awhile ago when an anonymous user, retaliating for an AfD I had listed, placed a notability tag on Columbia Revolt, an article I started (and which exactly 17 people have read). This film has been discussed in some secondary sources and could/should survive an AfD (though I've never gotten around to expanding it properly such that notability was proven), but it's an example of a film that could easily slip through the notability cracks if someone didn't do their homework or if it had been mentioned in a few less sources (or if some works discussing it were not on Google books).

Both of these films are documentaries and that's a category I'm particularly concerned with, but I'm also concerned with films with artistic (or other) merit but very little audience/mainstream coverage. The films I'm concerned with would generally not have attributes 1, 3, 4, and 5 under the guideline. Their only notability would come from some notion of being "historically notable," and here the guideline is particularly restrictive I think. The "at least five years" component of the historically notable attribute is on the one hand rather arbitrary and on the other hand contrary to the spirit of the general Wikipedia guideline - particularly the notion that notability is not temporary. I think a film which is screened at several film festivals, gets a few small but decent reviews in fairly minor media, fails to get distribution, and then drops of the face of the earth will often deserve an article. The current guidelines would seem to prohibit that.

Part of what we need to think about here, I think, is how movie distribution works (or book distribution, but again one thing at a time). By our criteria films that are profitable and/or widely distributed are, as a general rule, more notable than films which are not. Sometimes that's appropriate, and I'm not arguing for inclusion of every lame-ass indy film ever made (far from it). However I do think by putting the notability bar so high (wide distribution, lengthy reviews in notable - i.e. commercial - press, winning of awards, etc.) we are to an extent following the film industry's own criteria for what matters and what does not. That criteria is based largely on profit/box office success and should not be what Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is about.

Right, this is too long. So what's my point? I would suggest loosening the guidelines in number two for historical notability or possibly adding some catchall "other" component to the list which is not too general. Suggestions for possible ways to expand the "historically notable" component include:

• 1) Documentaries which were screened at film festivals (or even a series of local screenings mentioned in secondary sources) and reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release might warrant articles if the subject matter is of some historical importance.
• 2) Films which were screened at film festivals (or even a series of local screenings mentioned in secondary sources) and reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release might warrant articles if reviews of the time commented on the artistic merit of the film.
• 3) Films of any type which were screened in multiple places and which received little or no coverage in reliable sources but received significant attention from certain communities (in the general sense of the word), or from bloggers, alternative media, etc. might warrant articles.

One and two I am particularly adamant about, three is a bit vague and I could not even give a specific example for that, but something along those lines seems like it might be appropriate.

So if anyone ever actually reads this (again apologies for the length) I would love to discuss this stuff further.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Screened at film festivals is too amorphous of a criterion. There are thousands held every year, many with hundreds of films screening. Even allowing for overlap, we're talking about easily more than 10k potential new entries a year. Many of those festivals also accept to all films which pay an entry fee, meet some general requirements, etc. In short, not all festivals are equal. As for the documentary question, the easiest response I can come up with is that while sometimes individual films may not be notable, their subjects may be; if that is the case, then a mention of the documentary title(s) in the subject's article would be appropriate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the (very prompt) reply Girolamo (I just saw your user name for the first time a few days ago, and must say I'm a fan of it). Yes, of course, a mention of a non-notable documentary in the article of the subject of the documentary is warranted - I think that goes without saying and is not really related to my point. As to the other component of your response, please note the criterion I was suggesting (as a starting point for discussion) was "Screened at film festivals" AND "reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release." I'm not trying to let in the barbarian hordes here (for lack of a less crude term), I'm just trying to open the door a bit. I guess I'd be interested in a response to the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of my comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was responding to both, but so be it. It also is worth noting that Columbia Revolt is more notable for its historical context than its aesthetical context, and furthermore would not pass your criteria regardless, so I can't help thinking that it's not germane to this particular discussion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, as regards notability and time, the purpose (as I understand it) of the five years clauses is to demonstrate that the film has had some longevity either by being re-released, profiled, or chosen in a poll in isolation from any distribution marketing mechanisms. It isn't to say notability is temporary - in fact, it's about the opposite - if the film is notable, it should still be notable enough to have one of those things happen no less than five years later. Another thing worth mentioning is that while notability shouldn't disappear, it also does not necessarily occur upon release - Manos Hands of Fate would be an example of a film which did not achieve notability until decades later, when it became infamous through an MST3K episode. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec with last comment, but am pasting this in cause I took a little while to write it, will respond to above shortly) I'm attempting, perhaps feebly, to open a discussion here and it seems like we're getting off on the wrong foot so I'll try to remedy that somewhat with this reply. First of all in re-reading my last comment I can see how my mention of your username might have come off as sarcastic, but I assure you it was not and hope you didn't read it that way (I'm a student of history, and am glad that Savonarola's name popped up on whatever I was reading a few days ago). I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "I thought I was responding to both." Do you mean responding to "Screened at film festivals" AND "reviewed in some reliable sources at the time of release" (as opposed to just the former)? If so then I better understand your first reply, though I think that still narrows the range of potential new film articles to less than "more than 10k" (many films are in festivals, but never receive any sort of review or mention). Anyhow that's just the type of issue I would like to discuss.

I only mentioned Columbia Revolt as being illustrative of my general point and also something with which I have personal experience since I wrote that small article. The film was reviewed in the New York Times when it came out and has been discussed in a couple of books on film history (ones available on Google books) so I'm not worried about its notability based on my criteria or even the existing one - i.e., I don't have an axe to grind on that or any other article, it was just an example of the issue I am concerned with which came to mind.

With all respect I think you were perhaps reading my comment as an attack on the current guideline that was rooted in some particular grievance over certain articles. I can understand reading my comment that way, but I only cited particular articles as examples of my general point - loosening the notability guidelines for films somewhat might be a good idea. This is all I really want to discuss. Maybe my previous comments were not the best way to begin the conversation, but I do want to talk about this and hope that you and other editors are open to that possibility.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And in reply to your last comment Girolamo, I fully agree that notability can come later as in the example you give. Your point about the five year issue I do not agree with though. When you say that the point is that "the film has had some longevity either by being re-released, profiled, or chosen in a poll in isolation from any distribution marketing mechanisms" you are looking past the fact that is precisely those films which have distribution marketing mechanisms that are most likely to be "re-released, profiled, or chosen in a poll." This goes to the heart of my point about notability - if it was demonstrated once it does not need to be demonstrated again later, and we should open our notability guidelines to some films which achieve some (often brief) notability in non-commercial circles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Complaint. Too many shortcuts. Circular referencing

Having been pointed to WP:FILM regarding the AfD of a future film, I find that it doesn't point directly to anything useful. I find instead a mess of circular referencing, involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films.

I suggest cleaning up the excessive shortcuts, and moving/copying all of the externally referenced rules/guidelines/criteria/recommendations to a single place, probably Wikipedia:Notability (films). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLAG-MOVIE

Hello, fellow editors ... I was wondering if there is enough interest in the Flag templates to create a WP:FLAG-MOVIE to go along with WP:FLAG-PROF, WP:FLAG-FICT and WP:FLAG-SCL ... it would be trivial for me to update the {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} templates to recognize either Films or Movies as another (Guideline)... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)}

Some clarification

I just wanted to clarify on something: what the policy say specifically about films that have not yet begun filming, but have been confirmed by reliable sources to begin filming soon. The film in question is The Last Airbender (film) (currently redirects to Avatar: The Last Airbender). The film has a confirmed release date, but no information on filming, etc. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFF still applies. There have been many examples of well-funded and notably-cast films which have still had the plug pulled at the last moment, after a considerable amount of pre-production work has been done. Since the film is based on prior source material which we have an article on, the text should remain at the source material's article until the film itself can be confirmed to have already begun production, and thus passes NFF (assuming it is otherwise notable). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is no information on filming then it should remain at that parent article until release. Even films that have been produced have still managed to be shelved at the last minute. In such a case, there may be nothing to say about the film except that it was made but never released and you don't need an entire page for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Incoming

I predict that there will be fresh discussion about the guideline in the near future; see user page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rally your troops if you wish, but you will be disappointed about a fresh discussion. travb (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Old v. Contempory films

I boldly removed this section from the guideline because it is redundant to the above discussion of inclusion criteria and falsely implies that only films which make a lasting impression are notable for wikipedia purposes. Instead, even tempory "buzz" if it is covered in independent, reliable sources justifies an article. The key criteria is recognition by sources or groups not affilicated with the films production, which can take time but can also come more or less instantly for a widely released film. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect that removal will be controversial, but I for one am in favor of it, and it goes part of the way to address the problems I brought up in the section at the top of this talk page, where discussion quickly ground to a halt. In my view the section removed violated the spirit if not the letter of WP:NTEMP. If a small documentary film makes a splash on the film festival circuit, gets reviewed in a few major newspapers, and then isn't much discussed after that, I think it warrants a Wikipedia article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal. The section did not strike me as helpful; I am not sure what the original author(s) had in mind. There are similar points to what is in the "Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films" section, and the points in the latter section are clearer. (For example, that section says that production of a film has to be notable to warrant an article, which "Contemporary films vs. older films" says in more muddy terms.) The content does not match the section heading... does anyone think we could possibly revise the section to focus more on how to write about older films? For example, I know that there are some famous filmmakers who still have red links for some of their earlier works; some editors may create articles for these works based on that filmmaker's fame. Is that a topic worth exploring? (Pardon the tangential discussion!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with (mis)interpretation of "general principles"

The section in question seems to deal with looking for suitable sources toward notability:

I quote....

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
3. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
4. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3]
5. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
6. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
7. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]
8. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[5]
9. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

I read this section to be an instruction within the guideline that then describes when one might reasonably expect to find sources that act toward notability. However, I have seen this section repeatedly quoted at AfD's as if it itself is the definition of what comprises notability... and not simply as a barometer as to whether or not such sources might be presumed to exist. Am I wrong? Should it be rewritten to state that it is itself an indicator of notability? Or should it be clarified that it is simply an instruction as to when one might expect sources to exist?

If toward the sources themselves, I suggest it be ammended to read:

The following are a few attributes of a subject that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources toward notability are likely to exist. These attributes are only of the search for sources toward notability, and not of the notability itself:

Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue arises because similar lists in other guidelines like WP:MUSIC explicitly state that an article subject is notable if it verifiably meets one of the prongs. I don't like that approach because it focuses on subjective "importance" rather than the existence (and quality) of sources. Also, I am reluctant to say that all x are notable, even in a notability guideline, because of the many exceptions that may exist. All to often, people treat the notability guidelines as clear rules to be followed rather than as descriptions of past practice and recommendations for the future. I prefer the current wording as best reflecting the proper relationship between the GNG and a subject specific guideline and striking the right balance in favor of sources rather than arbitrary criteria (though they remain necessary and even useful as quick guides and reality checks). I would rather take the harder path of patiently emphasizing the guideline's wording at AfD and encouraging other guidelines to adopt WP:NOTFILM's style. But it would be easier to follow the more widely used format, if that is what consensus suggests. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the repsonse, and fully understand what you say. But how can one then address the repeated misinterpretations? In WP:NF, this quoted section deals with the search for sources, and then lists attributes which might then further indicate the existance of such sources. How about the elination of my suggested final and clarifying sentence... and go with something like this:

The following are a few attributes of a subject that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources toward notability are likely to exist:

It is not as explicit as I might have hoped, but it does gently underscore that this section is about a search for sources and not about the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The larger issue needs wider consensus but as for wording I might suggest

The following are some attributes of a subject that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources demonstrating notability are likely to exist. While these attributes provide a useful tool for assessing the likelihood of sources demonstrating notability, they do not define notability itself:

Noteability of TV Episodes

Forgive me, I'm sure this has been brought up before, but what is the reasoning behind every episode in a TV series having a Wikipedia article? I understand the show may be noteable, even the season, but each episode having its own article makes about as much sense as every charachter in a show or episode having their own article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this page is for films, so I don't know if editors who watchlist the page have the answer. I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Television episodes and its talk page to find it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well most shows that have articles about every episode (rather than bundling them into season articles) also have articles on every main character. The main discussion of this issue has been over at WP:FICT which attempted to set a standard for both episode and character articles, as well as characters from books etc. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the right place for the question, but as a member of the Television project, here be my answre: The short answer is: because fans made them and they often go overlooked. Every episode of a series is rarely notable, nor every character, but going through and cleaning them up is a long, tiring, and thankless bit of work. There are many that have been done. There are others, which are still in progress, and there are some guarded by the "rabid fans" of legend that generally will prevent any consensus for merging or deletion from occurring (or the extreme inclusionist editors who feel that every thing that exists should have an article). This is, unfortunately, compounded by a general lack of participation/help from the project itself. In some other media topics, such as Anime and manga, and often here at Films, the project members will help out in explaining why they are not appropriate, why they shoudl be merged, and participate in the discussions to ensure there are experienced editors speaking up and not just a few only interested in that topic and not Wikipedia guidelines. (is slightly bitter regarding some of that, hope it doesn't show too bad :-P) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Box office ranking

I am curious why box office ranking is not mention in notability? High box office ranking should be one of the signs of movie's notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that high box office ranking is pretty much a staple. I doubt that any of the highest-ranking films at the box office don't have an article already. People are pretty good about creating articles about these films. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a single statistic. All notability (i.e. all of the various specialized notability guidelines) are based on the same principle of "significant coverage". A single statement of box office ranking doesn't do that, but box office ranking can be a sign that there is significant coverage out there. The same with winning notable awards. By themselves they aren't significant coverage, but typically provide the belief that the coverage exists (or should) given the film's apparent popularity with people or critics. Also, given that just about every film release not has a good portion of reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes, and daily chronicling of box office performance at BoxOfficeMojo.com, there's typically always information to report and it's never a problem with the newer films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the question is specifically stemming to our disagreeing over Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name‎ having a standalone article instead of remaining as a merged paragraph in Bleach. It is now at AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There seem to be a wide community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name that high box office rankings translate into film notability. I think we should adjust the guideline to reflect that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Box office ratings should certainly be added to the list of "atributes to consider" in determing notability. Doubtless there are films that had poor box office but received wide coverage, just as this one had great box office but poor Western media coverage. That list is simply an indicator and not itself the inclusion/exclusion parameters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if a film is ranked in the top ten releases in whichever country it's released in, then that should be one of the indicators of notability. WIth that and any other acceptable coverage, a film should be considered notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe the implication is that films that are highly ranked in the box office should definitely be able to garner two reviews, thereby passing the notability requirements. While this is certainly true in the U.S., this may not be true in non-English countries and probably is especially true for anime. I can't verify this, of course, but seeing Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name‎'s success, I would expect several reviews where there are none. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem that we run into repeatedly with Japanese reviews is the lack of online versions (or online versions which stick around long enough to be found). Many Japanese newspapers do not keep long archives, or only archive some articles, removing (or never uploading) others. This is the case for most of the large newspapers in Japan. This makes it infinitely more difficult to locate the articles if you don't have access to the print versions. For Japanese magazines, almost nothing is ever archived online (not even a listing of what's in the magazine). So stating that you can't find any reviews online doesn't really amount to much. Japan is woefully behind in this area when it comes to taking advantage of the internet and posting content online. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's exactly what I'm saying (albeit poorly worded). Too bad we don't have contacts who live in Japan, eh? Maybe someone on the Japanese Wikiproject would be able to help? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the seeming consensus here and at the AfD noted, I have boldly adjusted the guideline to say "The film was within the top 10 in terms of box office sales" is also a standalone notability criteria. Feel free to tweak the wording for better grammar/cohesion.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

The real question. I think. isn't whether box office rankings are an indicator of notability, but if box office rankings indicate the existence of significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. The endgame is that we have third-party sources from which to write an article instead of having an article based almost entirely on first-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

BOR is not a "stand alone criteria". It's an indicator that there might be something more, with the key word being "might". The article still has to show that it is notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole - there is no rush to push this through, moreover, so I am - for the moment - reverting, so as to facilitate discussion. I'm not opposed to the idea on the whole, but I believe that it does require further discussion on its own (the AfD notwithstanding - that's not the proper forum to discuss guideline changes) and more clarification (for instance, suppose I decided to take my otherwise non-notable amateur film to Nauru solely for the purpose of getting a national top-10 and hence notability? A bit absurd, I admit, but consider the unobvious ramifications...). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Bignole. Box office stats don't have to be mentioned as a criteria for notability, but they are a good indication that a film will have enough coverage in reliable sources (i.e. news stories or reviews) to meet notability criteria anyway. When there's difficulty finding those reliable sources (such as in the example noted above, when the film had coverage in another language and it was hard to determine what those sources were and what they said), we simply need to try harder to find people in another WikiProject that can help us translate those sources. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a certain level of contradiction here. If we're agreed that box office stats are a good indicator that reliable sources exist, then why not add it to the guideline alongside other such indicators? PC78 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(RFC'd) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea. I'm not so sure about a "top 10" requirement, but certainly when a film has topped the box office then I think that's a decent indicator of notability. PC78 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another concern of mine is - is this superfluous? Most of the other requirements are things that basically allow the article to pass the RS/V test. Top 10 films generally have no shortage of these, and therefore...what does this change, exactly? As I mentioned above, the only films I can imagine passing this criterion but not the others would be from markets with extremely low visibility to begin with. Otherwise, the question (to me) becomes one of simply doing your homework. Yes, I understand that the above example of Bleach had some difficulties, but none of them were insurmountable - there was coverage in Japanese at the very least, and while it might have required a bit more time to find a translator, it could have been done. If the point of this is to circumvent RS/V, then it will fail no matter what we decide, since those principles override any local guidelines. On the other hand, if anyone could point to a handful of examples where this would help, I'd be grateful to be made aware. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Japanese sources is not translating them. The WP:JAPAN and WP:ANIME have enough editors capable and willing to translate. The problem is finding the sources. (Nihonjoe explained the reasons for this above.) It is virtually impossible for the average editor, who does not sit next to a pile of Japanese magazines or who has access to a Japanese library, to judge the notability of practically anything released only in Japan with criteria based solely on finding sources. (I certainly don't want to take the next flight to Japan everytime a Japanese movie goes to AfD.) So, "is this superfluous?" My answer is definately "no". That Bleach movie was only one example. Category:Anime films is filled with similar cases. And that category (of course) excludes articles on films that have been deleted, merged (commonly done with anime films), or have not yet been written/started. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that a high box office ranking is a good indicator for the existence of reliable sources. The only thing left to do now is finding a wording that a) excludes markets which are too small (like the above mentioned Nauru) and b) gradually requires higher rankings for smaller markets. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Might it be better to an absolute figure (say 10, or maybe 1, million then year US dollars) rather than a top 10 showing. I would agree that all top 10 movies in Japan are presumptively notable, but the same is not necessarily the case in, say, Namibia. Of course, numerical guidelines have their own pitfalls. I am reminded of the 100 film criterion of WP:PORNBIO. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference is to restrict the guideline to #1 box office films only. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to this edit: PC78, I gather that you disagree with the wording but your edit summary doesn't explain why. Could you elaborate? Goodraise 19:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought my revert was fairly self-explanatory; yes, we do seem to be in agreement that the guideline should make reference to box office data, but you acknowledge yourself in your own preceeding edit summary that we don't have an agreed wording. I remain opposed to this guideline extending the presumption of notability to top 10 films, simply because there is nothing remotely notable about a film being ranked #10 at the box office. Consider last weekend at the UK box office: the #1 film had a weekend gross of £5,950,203, while the #10 film grossed £193,666 -- that's a pretty wide gap. As I've said before in this discussion, I personally would prefer to restrict the guideline to #1 films only, but I recognise that this may be considered too restrictive (the film that sparked this discussion was only ranked #2, IIRC). Even a top #5 ranking would be too weak a claim to notability IMHO, but I think top #3 is more realistic. PC78 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your revert summary was self-explanatory, it just wasn't helpful towards building consensus. My 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC) attempt at restarting this discussion didn't do much so I made a bold edit in the hopes of stirring up some disagreements to resolve. - "the #1 film had a weekend gross of £5,950,203, while the #10 film grossed £193,666" that's a pretty solid argument. After this, I doubt many will insist on top 10. (Don't count me into either camp, I'm only trying to squeeze a(ny) result out of this discussion.) Personal preferences on the other hand are pretty much irrelevant. - The question of the RfC was "Is box office ranking alone a sufficient criterion for film notability?" Unless I'm completely misreading this thread, the answer to that question is a clear "yes". Lets take the consequence of that and add a conservative top two criterion to the guideline and start a new thread to haggle about how far down the BO ranking the criterion should go. Goodraise 02:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask the question which films would require this in order to establish notability or RS/V concerns? What exactly does this change? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just another indicator that significant coverage in reliable sources is likely to exist. As per the AfD which started this discussion, I think it would help in establishing notability for non-English language films where English-language sources may be hard to come by. PC78 (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an inclusionist ploy to subvert policy. We want to sneak in thousands of non-notable films through the back door with no need for any sources whatsoever. - No, seriously. A box office based criterion is simple and the raw numbers are easy to come by through online sources for practially all countries. For English-language films this would change nothing at all, but for all other-language films, this would come a long way in reducing Wikipedia's systematic bias. Goodraise 02:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Ranking Wording

Ok then, I'll propose a specific wording for discussion. The film was within the top 5 in terms of annual box office receipts in at least one national market. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you go with annual box office? The discussion above and the AfD which spawned it all dealt with weekend box office results. And the film the AfD was about probably won't even make a top 20 in the Japanese yearly box office. Goodraise 11:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion so far has been with regard to weekly box office, but I guess annual box office is worth considering as well. The film at AfD was ranked #76 at the Japanese box office last year (according to Box Office Mojo); I think we can be a bit more generous than top 5 for annual stats, but not to that extent. :) Off the top of my head I would say perhaps films ranked #1 (weekly) or top 10 (annually), or if we want to be less restrictive, top 3 (weekly) or top 20 (annually).PC78 (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I went with annual because I feel that it is important to be specific about such things and didn't see any qualifiers in the previous discussion. If people prefer weekend as the bench-mark that's fine. But we should be clear whether we are referring to weekend (three day) results or those for the full week. I'm just not sure that one week in the top ten in a small market should be an automatic pass. The original discussion was about a Japanese movie but whatever ends up in the guideline should have as broad an implication as possible. I think that the staying power indicated by annual results is better in such cases. I don't feel strongly about this criterion. Clearly it is a factor at the Bleach AfD but I don't have a good feel for where consensus is given only one data point. I just thought that discussing specific wording is a better way forward than debating abstract principles. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think talking about an annual box office criterion is a matter that should be discussed in a different thread. It only complicates matters here. Lets focus on getting somewhere with the weekend criterion. How about: The film was within the top 3 in terms of weekend box office receipts in at least one national market.? Goodraise 19:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think we're "debating abstract principles" here. As per my previous comments, I absolutely agree that a week in the top ten is woefully insufficient as an indicator of notabilty. Whatever numbers we decide to put in the guideline, let's try to remember that it is only a guideline. These aren't magic numbers that bestow notability on a film, they are merely ball park figures that indicate a film is probably noteworthy enough to have received some significant coverage in reliable sources. Looking at the guideline again, I'm just wondering if this is something that should go under "General principles" or "Other evidence of notability". Hmmm. Anyway, to help move things along I'll offer my own wording:

The film has demonstrably performed well in terms of box office sales or admissions in at least one national market, such as being ranked number one at the weekend or weekly box office, or in the yearly box office top ten.

Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Bleach movie was in the top 10 for 5 weeks, that played a role as well. So, how about:

The film has demonstrably performed well in terms of box office sales or admissions in at least one national market, such as being ranked number one at the weekend or weekly box office, or in the yearly box office top ten, or holding a high rank for several weeks.

Goodraise 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes future films notable

Hmm. {{Future film}} is curious: what makes future films notable? Nothing on this page seems to apply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a section about future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. The threshold is for a film to begin filming to have its own article, but it should be able to meet general notability guidelines, having significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. If there is notable subject matter or a notable director, then a future film is likely to have more coverage before its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Documentary, program, or retrospective

The criterion:

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

seems too wide. Perhaps:

The film was featured as part of a notable documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

would be a better proxy for notability of the film itself. Support/oppose change to guideline? Bongomatic 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance...

A user keeps recreating A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), even after I have informed them that it currently fails WP:NFF. Per the future films guideline, the film must be in production and the production itself must be notable. At this time, all of the reliably sourced information about this film is at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Future, and none of that is production info, but casting and the announcement of a future film site. The user is throwing things out like "IMDB talks about it" to justify the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and gave him a 3RR warning since that was #3. Has this been deleted via AfD before under another name? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've basically stopped doing deletions because people continually create pages with title variations to get around. It always seems easier to just redirect, because then the redlink doesn't exist for them to create the page. This seems to be more of the user not understanding NFF, or our general acceptance for reliable sources (IMDB not being one of them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was AfDed under another name, though, would be a good case for doing a RPP if this guy doesn't get it (or it keeps being a problem). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there has never been an AFD for any variation of the titles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Speedy Deleations of "The Money Masters" documentary

As far as I can see Wikipedia is neithere capable nor here to judge _the value, accuracy, artistic merit or content_ of any body of work. It's here to be an encyclopedia. The Money Masters have been watched all over the net, and is found everywhere. By the same rationale Why dont you delete all references to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ? Is this George Orwells 1984 history department??? Where are the serious adults who can behave and reason as adults?Nunamiut (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)