Talk:2019 in film

Let's talk about changes on this list

Some questions first:

1. Why this page is not named Deaths(of aliens, dogs total count? of what?).
2. Is English language so important, that everyone on this planet knows it on a native level? I consider English very localised and this list should reflect only localised version of list of the movies for English speaking world, as this is not international page, but in EN. Without sounding as some English speaking bastard(English is not my native tongue) - those lists of non-English movies are insignificant. If I wanted to see list of Bollywood, Japanese, Chinese, etc. movies, I would search for that as a specific interest and not here.
3. These changes regarding lists of movies sorted by countries seems to be made by some incompetent morons, who don't understand, that there are international collaborations and that movie might belong to 2 or 3 or even more countries. Is there going to be list for all of those permutations? That's a long list and i don't care.

Previous criteria seems to be more along the lines, that movies in this list were the ones, that were shown in cinemas worldwide. Not all of them were in English, but hey - this page was not about ALL movies. Not all of them are so important, that everyone should know about them.195.147.206.144 (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to remove genre and country tags?

Does that have to do with modern fluidity of genders, so it somehow affects genres? Was that the logic to do so? Movies are filmed in different countries, but that tag was never about location, where movie was filmed but COUNTRY/COUNTRIES OF PRODUCING COMPANIES. And it is sometimes hard to distinguish genres, as they mix up, but wikipedia should be the place to know the difference and classify those accordingly. It was the only source that gave such categorization, like a proper encyclopedia. So, why those things were removed? How its this even making life easier to search for genres of movies - so, any plans of making Movie list, that would show by year all the genres and countries... basically duplicating the same page, but WITH GENRES AND COUNTRIES OF PRODUCTION? By removing those tags Wikipedia has no value to search those films and understand if they were animations, for kids, sci-fi, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.144 (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

To whom added tags: A Great Thank You!195.147.206.144 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Silver & Black "indefinitely delayed"

Sony has reportedly pulled the production date. I have no idea how to delete things in this format and don't want to screw it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it's completely cancelled now and is turning into two separate solo films. Mystic Moore 17:57, 19 August 2018

bad boys 4/inhumans

Whoever added bad boys iv accidentally messed up in humans inhumans is coming July 12 I'd do it myself but it always comes up weird when I do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.165.106 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to columns

Removed Medium column and added Country to list of films.

I suggest the Year in film pages that are more than a year in the future get locked down. Have a link for regular editors to submit suggested updates for approval instead of messing with all the fanboyz adding their wishlists for stuff like Harry Potter and the Zombie Dumbledore Part LIV, or the Untitled cartoon from Disney Animation in December. I really can not believe those guys are going to make a cartoon, need citation.

If we start putting in every film that someone is THINKING about making the world will come to an end, especially once they see what I am thinking. Same thing with the sections for Highest-grossing films, Events and Notable deaths. We would probably get a bunch of weirdos checking every day to see when they are going to snuff it. Kid Bugs (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars IX

What about Star Wars IX since we know it is to be released in that year:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:257F:8200:7817:756D:49A6:26AD (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD squad

How did this get past the door-nazis? All it is is speculation, and anyway, when 2019 rolls around, the whole article will have to be basically blanked under WP:TNT. Would be uite fine to see this article get flushed. L3X1 Complaints Desk 17:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2017

The Lego Movie Sequel is the official title of the film, please change the title to this, thank you.

Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/LEGO-Movie-2-Going-Really-Obvious-With-Its-Official-Title-70983.html Lmthrowaway222 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018

2601:881:8000:C8E0:34A2:B010:B5FB:2A89 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Mark Ruffalo Saying No to "Avengers 4"!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Please add Replicas movie in the list which is going to release on 11 January 2019. AwaisAhsan666 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source and all the information needed to fill in the table. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2018

Change Avengers 4 title to Avengers: Endgame and move release date to April 26, 2019. BatmanArkhamFan1 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sandrobost (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

Some of the dates need to be changed.

The Aftermath has been moved to 15 March. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Aftermath_(2019_film)

The Intruder has been pushed to May 3. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Intruder_(2019_film)

Breakthrough has been moved to 17 April. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Breakthrough_(2019_film)

The Translation of Wounds should be renamed to Wounds. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wounds_(film)

The Art of Racing in the Rain should be added to 27 September. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Art_of_Racing_in_the_Rain_(film)

JFL42 (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Some of the dates need to be changed.

The Aftermath has been moved to 15 March. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Aftermath_(2019_film)

The Intruder has been pushed to May 3. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Intruder_(2019_film)

Breakthrough has been moved to 17 April. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Breakthrough_(2019_film)

The Translation of Wounds should be renamed to Wounds. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wounds_(film)

The Art of Racing in the Rain should be added to 27 September. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Art_of_Racing_in_the_Rain_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFL42 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018

Some of the dates need to be changed.

The Aftermath has been moved to 15 March. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Aftermath_(2019_film)

The Intruder has been pushed to May 3. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Intruder_(2019_film)

Breakthrough has been moved to 17 April. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Breakthrough_(2019_film)

The Translation of Wounds should be renamed to Wounds. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wounds_(film)

The Art of Racing in the Rain should be added to 27 September. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Art_of_Racing_in_the_Rain_(film)

The Informer should be moved to March 22. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Informer_(2019_film) JFL42 (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –User456541 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Doing... –User456541 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • It's hard to do, cancelling. –User456541 17:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Flooded with them hundreds 10:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2019

Do the PK films count? If not then they should be removed. JFL43 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. An edit request is intended to implement a specific request rather than start a discussion. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

The Pakistan movies should be removed as they are not big deal movies. JFL43 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not for personal opinions. Sorry. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

The movie wounds in March is shifted to the left by one box. Please shift that row to the right so that it aligns with the rest of the columns. Cactuszombies (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Where? It looks fine to me.--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done by someone else, at some time or other. Looking at this revision, it was in fact messed up at the time this was posted; now it seems to have been fixed. Thanks for reporting, Cactuszombies!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Genre

Are The secret Life Of Pets 2 not adventure ?? Aldiagung (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

please correct the gross of the wandering earth to $650 millions 139.167.134.26 (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: current figure is correct as per source. NiciVampireHeart 00:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Minecraft

I want to ask , why there is not minecraft In may 24?? . It should be added Aldiagung (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The film does not have a release date. [1] — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you :) Aldiagung (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Fox Searchlight's Ready or Not should be added to August 23. Guaslinger123 (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 10:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2019

Harriet should be added to November 1. Guaslinger123 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 21:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Monthly release tables

I'd like to get opinions on my recent move to update the colors for highlighting months and dates within the release tables. Upon researching the history of the tables' use in past years in film pages, the colors seem to have been implemented for distinction for long tables. The first instance of this was in January–March 2006, and the colors used match those used in the Picture of the Day. My changes would concern April–December. Infinite mission (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The original colors have been in place for over thirteen years now, and consistently used across all the "...in film" articles. They were in place for a reason, and I see no reason to change or alter them now. --Bold Clone 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the same three colors were repeated because January–March 2006 in film was at one time its own page, and later folded back into the main article. Other editors seemed to be unaware of the original intent for remainder of the calendar. Infinite mission (talk)

I was mistaken on the year. It was April 2007 when the color coding began. January–March 2007 was once its own page. Infinite mission (talk)

Ah. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. (That's not sarcasm, I really do appreciate the honesty.) It seems pretty clear to me that the current color pattern was originally a mistake. When the other editors set up the page, they unintentionally messed up the pattern, and the pattern simply stuck.

However, it's been twelve years since then. Twelve whole years. Simply saying "it was a mistake, we need to fix the mistake" isn't good enough. Regardless of why and how the pattern was originally set up, the current practice is now the standard procedure, and I still see no reason to alter it. --Bold Clone 18:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see how 24 different colors can be too much. I'm in favor of reverting back to repeating over quarters. I have adjusted the colors a bit though to increase the contrast:

Old:         

New:         

Sounds good to me. I like the shaded colors idea. --Bold Clone 20:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

My Spy has a release date of 8/23/2019

And here's a source:

73.61.14.152 (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2019

Where'd You Go, Bernadette needs to be moved to August 16. Guaslinger123 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Editor who opened the edit request implemented the edit themselves. Closing. NiciVampireHeart 19:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Parasite

Parasite has an official US release date and enough info to add to the table (see ref here ). I tried adding it myself recently but it was removed for unknown reasons. It won the Palme d'Or and is therefore not a small movie unworthy of the list. (For reference, previous Palme d'Or winner Shoplifters appears on the 2018 list.) I am making the edit again and ask whoever removes it again to explain why here.

References

47 Meters Down: Uncaged

The release date for 47 Meters Down: Uncaged has changed from June 28 to August 16 - RVDDP2501 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wide/Limited release identification?

Pardon my asking but I was wondering if films listed in each year of release (Films of 2019/Films of 2020/etc) should have an additional bit of information, identifying if they were/are a wide release or a limited release? Please let me know as I think that might be a relevant bit of information to include - RVDDP2501 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Events section

Would a short explanation and link to the main article of Disney's completed acquisition of 20th Century Fox be appropriate to include in the events section? Infinite mission (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Dōbutsu no Mori Movie Reboot?

The Film Is By Lionsgate and Scheduled For July 23th, 2019!

Spider man far from home

Shouldn't this movie be number 3 and Aladdin number 4? B.Valley (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019

Both Spider-Man far from home and Aladdin have reached a billion dollars in the box office. And Spider-Man far from home made more money than Aladdin. 2601:CA:C201:D037:5D82:F868:ECF7:D66D (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Box office numbers have been updated. BOVINEBOY2008 13:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Disney Record

Disney 2019 has passed Disney’s 2016 worldwide record of $7.61 billion with $7.67 billion worldwide. Impressive!

Proposal

How about we split the list of films given in this article under the header "2019 films" to something like List of American films of 2019? The article is about 2019 in film worldwide, not just the United States. All other sections, including major events and deaths, deal with a worldwide perspective, but all the films under "2019 films" are American, as far as I can tell. Ideally, we should be pointing to all the articles listed at Template:2019 films, which contain the complete list. DeluxeVegan (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with the change per WP:BOLD. In case of any disagreements, you are free to revert and discuss. DeluxeVegan (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zedonathin2020: You stated that "doing it like that makes it more complicated". How so? Currently, listing only American films on an article on 2019 in film is bordering on WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. The other format is much simpler and provides a worldwide view. It is appropriate considering Wikipedia writes for a worldwide readership.

Also, your new edit which reintroduced the content broke the code. I have reverted the edit. If you wish to restore correctly, please go ahead.

DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

DO the release dates of each countries films still elate to the release in the US market or each market nationally? FInd it a little confusing to say the least what the change achieves if they still relate to American releasesRob (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Why, each country's national release, of course. I doubt whether some of the films (like Argentine) are even released in the United States. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Zedonathin2020: You haven't responded to the ping above, but gone ahead and restored the page. It would be helpful if you clarify your view on the change. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging article contributors @Editmaster4, SlashFox14, Draco9904, Rusted AutoParts, TheMysteriousEditor: Your input is appreciated here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can any of the article contributors take a look here? DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• This has been discussed in the past. The "XXXX in film" articles should not be adopting an American perspective. They should list all films from all countries by the earliest global release date. This is already mandated in the MOS at WP:YEARSINFILM. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is an English language Wikipedia, not an "American Wikipedia". It's written in English but should give a global view of topics.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize this was previously discussed. I wouldn't object to listing all the films released in the year, but considering that the sheer volume may overcrowd the page, would something like this revision work? DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like an elegant solution. I recall proposing something similar when these directives were being added to the MOS. The important points here are to be comprehensive, neutral and ensure the article adopts a WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• As a user of this page I just want to say I hate this new format. It make harder to make sure I see all of the movies released. I never found an issue with the length of the page or it being confusing. If possible please revert this back to the previous look and feel. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There was never an issue with length as this page only presented an American viewpoint. Imagine the size of the article if one were to include Chinese and Indian films (countries that have a higher annual output of films than the United States), in addition to films from a number of other countries. Not including all other released films is not an option as that would amount to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. The other solution is to present all film lists for 2019, countrywise. (The combined size of all the articles would satisfy WP:SIZERULE). The films that were previously on this article are just a click away at List of American films of 2019. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Throwing in another voice. Really not a fan of the new format (especially with how film countries are decided). Might be better to break it up into articles by release month or something along those lines.198.52.130.137 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverts by Zedonathin2020

@Zedonathin2020: You showed complete disregard for consensus and went on to restore the older revision with a summary: "If one wanted to look up their countries movies, they could just search for them, we don’t need an entire page dedicated for that". I am sorry, but Wikipedia does not work like that. You were pinged twice during discussion above after you reverted once. Further changes that go against consensus will be reverted. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Betty Logan: The above user has continued to revert and any attempt to engage in conversation is proving futile. What should be done in such a case? DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, said user has never made a talk page post. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm really confused. Is this talk page section the full extent of the discussion that is being used to justify substantial changes and removal of the film timeline? Seddon ^talk 15:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Seddon: As Betty Logan clarified above, it was already established in a prior discussion and in the Manual of Style (WP:YEARSINFILM) that such list articles ought to list all films released in a given year, but no one seems to have followed this. Merging all the 2019 film articles together here would put the size way over 100kb, and as mandated at WP:SIZERULE, the article will have to be split. That's exactly the case here. Listing only American films is not an option (WP:WORLDWIDE, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and what not). Do you have a better proposal? DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE mandate's nothing. It's a general guideline that also specifically says "that these limits should apply only to readable prose and not to total wiki markup size" and "They also apply less strongly to list articles". Seddon ^talk 16:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Seddon: I did some digging, and it turns out this was extensively discussed at WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 11#When should a film be included?, where the general sentiment seems to echo the above. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The somewhat-full list of films released in 2019 is given here at The Numbers. I did a rough count and the films released from January 1 to January 10 alone cross 50! (For comparison, this article's January-March lists only 46 films, so you can imagine what a huge addition this would be). If we are not splitting by country (which I feel would be a bad idea as per size concerns clarified above), all these films would have to be added to this list. DeluxeVegan (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm with DeluxeVegan and the others agreeing with him.

• "harder to make sure I see all of the movies released. I never found an issue with the length of the page or it being confusing"
• Yes it may be so, but the movies that you're interested in can't be the norm for everyone. Everyone using Wikipedia is equal to all, so if everyones interests are to be met then all movies in the entire world must be entered in one really huge list (which doesn't mean that national lists can't also exist). How are you going to tell the movies that you're interested in apart from all the others?

zwaa 11:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2019

Ne Zha, Huaxia Film Distribution Co.,Ltd has earned 425M, so have surpassed Alita Battle Angel and Detective Pokemon as 8th best film of 2019 95.236.164.93 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources that support this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019

Could you add onto the year records that 2019 had the most number of films cross the 1 billion dollar mark (beating 2015 and 2018). Its pretty important 96.244.146.56 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. No, it's an arbitrary boundary, thus not very important. And in any case, you'd need reliable source(s) before adding this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to list only the country-wise sublists for films. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the '2019 films' section of the article:

• (i) List only American films, as in the current version?
• (ii) List all films released/planned to be released in 2019, from all countries?
• (iii) List all country-wise sublists for films in 2019, as in this version?

07:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support (iii): Per WP:YEARSINFILM, all films released in a particular year are supposed to be covered in such articles as 2019 in film#2019 films. This outright rules out (i). Listing only American films would also amount to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. But listing the films from all countries at a single page would also be a bad idea, because the article size will be way over the 100kb of readable prose suggested at WP:SIZERULE. We would also have to duplicate all the films already listed in the country-wise sublists (see Template:2019 films for a sample of those lists), so it would make those lists somewhat redundant too. The supposedly-full list of films released in 2019 is given here at The Numbers. The films released from January 1 to January 10 alone cross 50! For comparison, 2019 in film's January-March lists only 46 films, so you can imagine what a huge addition this would be. The third option resolves both the size issue and the American POV. The solution is similar to the one proposed at WT:MOSFILM back in 2014 (WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 11#When should a film be included?). DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 or 3 It is not consistent with WP:WORLDVIEW to limit the Category:Film by year class of articles to just including American films. At the moment this article is essentially a list of American films with a worldwide chart at the top. This class of articles is not specific to any one particular country so it should not be excluding non-American films, or non-English-language films. To do so is an example of SYSTEMICBIAS. MOS:FILM#Years in film articles states that "List films by their earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film". This implies that the articles should cover all films from all countries, and not just those that had an American release. Given the practical realities of listing all films in a year then creating a sub-articles along the lines of List of American films of 2019 would appear to be a sensible idea. Option 1 is not consistent with MOS:FILM and it is not consistent with Wikipedia's goal to present a neutral global perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3 Makes the most sense to me to have the article as a contents page for each country. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3 – I'm shocked that option 1 is even being considered: The US is not and should not be the default on Wikipedia. Option 2 is less flagrantly wrong but seems like it could lead to a disorganized and extremely long article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3 While this is the English language Wikipedia it is not the American only Wikipedia. AFAIK none of the other year in film articles have a US only restriction and if any of them do it needs to be removed ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 05:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3 as per MarnetteD - Last I checked this this was the English Wikipedia.... not the American Wikipedia. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3 - simple, fair and straightforward. While 2 might be nice as a centralised page, it would quickly become unwieldy. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Revert

@MarnetteD: Re: this revert and the closing summary, unless I am missing something, the third proposal, which had almost unanimous support, was to list all country-wise sublists in the article, as in this revision. Proposal two was to list all films released in a particular year, but that was discounted owing to size concerns. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at all previous Year in film articles DeluxeVegan. They look like the version I reverted to. I am not saying you misread things - in fact I think those of us that commented may have missed the fact that proposal three changed things so radically. At least it did in my case. I only meant for this 2019 article to include any films released in this year. I guess that means I should have supported option 2. IMO it is better for the readers to be able to find everything here rather than having to click on the various links and then return to this page A complete change of the way these Year in film articles are presented probably needs a RFC at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Apologies for the confusion. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I've misread things so badly let me ping Betty Logan, Lugnuts, Rosguill, Davey2010 and Killer Moff to double check on what they want the article to look like. None of them are required to respond of course - especially if they are okay with the changes. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is that inclusion should not discriminate on the basis of nationality. The consequence of that is that we would need to either add many other films from other countries around the world, or relegate the American films to a sub-list. I believe that if that were done the article would almost certainly violate the WP:SIZERULE (readable prose is already at 80k), so I think DeluxeVegan's interpretation of the consensus is correct. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I had completely misunderstood what was proposed ... I was under the assumption we were !voting on having the article as a world wide sort of article as opposed to just American films only,

As we now have List of American films of 2019, List of British films of 2019, List of Japanese films of 2019 etc etc I really don't see the point to keeping the table at this article,

Also IMHO all other articles (2018 in film etc etc etc) should all now follow this format - Whilst a good few in this article are British a good 98% of them are all American, I would also have this exact same problem if they consisted of British films or Japaense ones - These articles ought to reflect the world not just one country IMHO. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 14:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think the aim of this was to have this article as a list/table of contents page for all the other countries. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for straightening me out. DeluxeVegan please change this page (and the 2020 Year in film article) per your previous edit. DV for future reference it is not a good idea for you to close the RFC that you started. If the RFC is contentious (which this one isn't) that will cause problems. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 20:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: - @DeluxeVegan: I feel it really poor form that you ran an RfC and didn't notify previous participants. You've had multiple notes of opposition that number at least the number of participants who took park in the RfC. Consensus is not as clear cut as is being made out and you've made it a worse experience for our users. It also run out of place in comparison with previous years. The fact that you closed your own RfC is really out of process. Seddon ^talk 20:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Seddon: Actually, I did not notify anyone personally. Zedonathin2020 had not responded to any ping at that time. DeluxeVegan (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Strike that, I could not properly articulate my response or read your comment earlier due to time concerns and RL-commitments.

The previous (and only discussion pertaining to this subject when I began the RfC) had six participants, including myself. Two supported the proposal (three with myself), one questioned if the new format would follow American release dates or national release dates and left it at that, an IP opposed, and you felt there wasn't enough consensus for a change. The total number of participants there were less than the number of participants in the RfC, let alone opposes, so I am not sure what you are hinting at here, and I don't see how notifying all of them would have any major impact on the final outcome.

Since I have not indulged in selectively canvassing users or the like, it's perfectly reasonable for me to just start an RfC and leave it at that and wait for others to express their views. While closing my own RfC might be problematic elsewhere, all 7 participants supported the proposal in this case, and it had been 20 days since discussion began. Such a display of unanimous consensus enables the questioner to end their own RfC per WP:RFCEND. DeluxeVegan (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you "advertise" the Rfc anywhere, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I left a neutral notice at WT:WikiProject Film and WT:MOSFILM. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That was poorly advertise and voted. I want this reverted back the way it was. It was fine like it is and this is not helping improve WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing out of the ordinary with the RFC. Notices were placed as they always are for RFC's. You can start a new one but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not as reason to change the recently concluded one. MarnetteD|Talk 01:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it was out of the ordinary with that ruling and it only made things far more complicated and it not help in anyway with WP:WORLDVIEW. I set up a meeting with WP:FILM so we can discuss this issue and can make some necessary compromises while maintaining the previous format in 2019 in film, like it did with 2018 in film and 2017 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Even the self-close was reasonable. You can start new discussions, but the rfc was quite ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Major Change

Obviously there's been talks going on regarding this large change (though not as much as I think there could've been), but I think this change is really, really bad from a users perspective. Why not just have all English-language films on this page (as was always the case), and keep the separate pages for the non-English language films from their respective countries? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That would violate WP:WORLDVIEW. The English Wikipedia is written in English, but not restricted to the English-speaking world. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it didn't help solve WP:WORLDVIEW by any means. We should bring that original format back and put in labels of countries where the film came from and allow the release dates from those particular countries. It would help not violate WP:WORLDVIEW while maintaining the previous format for years in film BattleshipMan (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This was proposal two of the RfC, and was decided against. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Zedonathin2020

@Zedonathin2020: Do not WP:EDITWAR. Discuss what you want here, and demonstrate consensus. DeluxeVegan (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The New Format

People of Wikipedia, this new format that has been brought up by DeluxeVegan is without a doubt, the worse change I’ve ever seen in all my years on this site. I’m pretty sure no one wants to take extra time looking up separate pages to find certain movies. I think it’s makes a lot more sense to keep going on with the original format. Also, who actually cares enough about movies being released in Japan? (Asides from the Japanese people of course) Zedonathin2020 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"Extra time"? List of American films of 2019 is the first article in the 2019 films section, so the time you refer would amount to a little over a second. As to who cares about what happens in Japan, see WP:WORLDWIDE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the world, not just the United States. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not going to get involved in an edit war, I'd like to observe that there are a lot of logical inconsistencies with the trans-national Wikipedia argument when it pertains to this page. Just to touch on a few things, all monetary figures are denominated in USD, but not all nations use USD. Why aren't they denominated in, say, yen or pounds or pesos? Wikipedia is, after all, for the world, not just the United States. List of American films of 2019 is still insufficiently precise, since 'American' is a term that can encompass North, Central, and South America. If you wanted to be truly accurate you'd subdivide those films into 'United States', 'Canadian', 'Mexican', 'Brazilian', and so on. Overall this is a dramatic reorganization of the page that appears to originate from the personal predilections of a very small group of editors, rather than from a community-wide recognition of required change. Arkanor (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENCY; American is an adjective referring to the United States, and the article title is consistent with other America-related lists. Again, Wikipedia is for the world, not for just a country. What is your justification to include only English-language films on this article, while films made in other languages are relegated to a sublist? DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Justification? How about the fact that it‘s been that way for years....YEARS, and no one ever had a problem with it. Why change it now?? “2019 in [blank]“ articles site-wide have always been American releases, with other countries as separate pages. I don‘t see the point in changing it now. 2601:3C2:8200:472:5D19:7CFC:E5D4:1C1E (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As an editor who has never looked at these pages, comparing to the 2018 page, I think it's a good change. Per WP:UNCHALLENGED, "old stuff" can be improved too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, but only a user. But I've been using this (year) in film for over a decade, the old format was great. Very easy to find what you were for. Now with everything spread out, takes forever (and multiple tabs). Even if the movies of other languages were added to the main list, it would be a better change. The user above said that "old stuff could be improved", but in this case, in my humble opinion, wasn't. It was a major step back. Eisarson (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The new format is unnecessary and unhelpful. What DeluxeVegan did was absolutely uncalled for. We should bring the old format back while trying to figure out the way to maintain the WP:WORLDVIEW thing. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

For consistency, please add to the list all the other countries that had a movie released in 2019. You still show systematic bias by having only the selected countries in the list. Per WP:WORLDWIDE, this is not inclusive. Also, it doesn't make sense to have both a page for American films and for Argentinian and Canadian films. Dakunaa (Talk) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't currently have lists for all countries, but go ahead and add the missing ones you can think of. You can also create lists for the countries that are missing, if you can find decent refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And "American" makes sense in the "U.S.-ian" meaning, which is fairly common. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the new format is piss-poor and totally unnecessary and I'm not gonna accept that format. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

Naruto no Kitsune (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Just revert the page back to it's original look and add the others as sub genres.

 Not done Per RfC above. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Change in appearance not helping browsing through movies

The grouping per county that has been applied for 2019 is not at all helping browsing through the movies. Also a movie that has been released for example in USA and in UK appears on both lists... (for example: killers anonymous) I believe that the format used on previous years like lets say 2018 is much more easy to browse through. Why not keep this format and give release country or countries in a column?

Regards George N.

One reason is that the 2018 page is very incomplete, there's only English films on it. "Year in film" should reasonably have more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why don't just add the other languages movies to the main article? This new format makes it painfully slow and unintuitive to browse and search for new movies. With everything condensed in a single article would be so much easier to find what you want. Eisarson (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Above under Talk:2019_in_film#Revert, you can see the comment "The consequence of that is that we would need to either add many other films from other countries around the world, or relegate the American films to a sub-list. I believe that if that were done the article would almost certainly violate the WP:SIZERULE (readable prose is already at 80k),", I think that is good thinking. One possibility could be to create "2019 in English-language film", but that could be very big too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Size does not matter. It's about correct, clean format that is easy to browse through. The changes done by this ruling has only made things far too complicated for readers and it does not help with WP:WORLDVIEW. We should find a way to bring the previous format back while trying to find a way to make it towards WP:WORLDVIEW. I will not accept the changes done by that Rfc of that proposal brought by DeluxeVegan. Not I. It only made things worse for the readers and it should be bought back the way it was to easy browsing while maintaining the way that it would make it more towards WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Size issues can be ignored up to an extent for lists, but not here: the current article is already large, and we are talking about an addition of around 50 films for every 10 days (see discussion above). A lagging page is not what we would want readers to be presented with. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Size and how many films is irrelevant. It's about consistency and presenting films on pages that should in the years of films, not on list of certain country films. That is not the answer. The answer to it is that we should add table column with country on it so we can place where the films were made from. That way we will maintain WP:WORLDVIEW and the previous format on that page. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is very much relevant. This article is a lot more than a list of films released. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What you should have done for the Rfc is to add "Country" on the table of the list of films and added films from those countries instead of adding that so-called list of certain country films. What is it that is it nothing more than the list you have to click on, which is clearly annoying, it's very inconsistent with the meaning of the year in film articles and it did improve anything for WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Your compromise was already put forward as the second proposal in the Rfc, and decided against owing to size concerns. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to remove the list of English language movies from the English language version of Wikipedia's "2019 in Film" because of a perceived American bias due to the fact that the majority of English language films are produced in the United States. The RFC for such a massive page change was not put forth or advertised in a way such that the average user would even know about it, let alone comment on it. Also, the page averages over 30k views a day (more like 40k+ a day before the format change). So 7 votes out of 150k+ views in a week's period can hardly be counted as a consensus. ~Random Internet Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.137.73 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If that is what you think, start a new WP:Request for comment and advertise it better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear from the tremendous amount of opposition over the past few months that the change is not merely unpopular but actively detrimental to the reader's experience. It was rammed through using the cudgel of WORLDVIEW, which is an essay describing a problem in Wikipedia but not a solution. The "solution" adopted here appears to be worse than the problem it was trying to solve: you have now segregated every country into its own silo. This leaves countries without a developed film industry without a home. With less viewer traffic, non-English language films will get less attention and therefore less polish and wiki magic. Separate but equal? Gimme a break. We need a reset back to what it was before as an interim fix as we discuss a more substantive solution that doesn't ruin the experience for everyone. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The above discussions also appear to grossly misread WP:SIZERULE. As it clearly states, "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)". The actual readable prose size on this page was only about 7 kb at most; the rest of the "size" was due to citation templates which are crucial to maintain. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

List of American films of 2019 is at 140 kb size, of which about 40 kb is readable text, albeit in the table (The amount of kilobytes a reader has to load onto their device remains reserved). Putting that together with a couple of the other film pages gives a huge number (the Chinese film market is huge, the Indian industry produces more films than Hollywood, and that's not counting Japanese, Pakistani, Korean etcetera). The only real changes a reader should experience from the previous revision of this article is the click of the button, and having to go through two country lists (American and British). It isn't like films from countries without developed industries or non-English-language films used to be covered here, all films in the previous revision were primarily English-language. I don't see how the new format is a huge hindrance to and difference in reader experience aside from the aforementioned. Where does the previous revision leave the other films you mentioned, or the viewer traffic? DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The new format is a huge hindrance and it takes away the meaning the year in film articles. That's what the old format was meant for, not the list of countries films. Maybe if you hadn't come up with a better proposal that would keep the old format, disregard WP:SIZERULE and find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW, this opposition would never happened. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

SIZERULE refers to "readable prose". There are actually only two sentences of readable prose on List of American films of 2019. The rest is a table of data, which does not count as readable prose. The results of this entire discussion are hinged on a misunderstanding of the guideline. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CHOKING should have been the correct shortcut, then, to the same page as SIZERULE. The basis of that discussion still remains; the size of the article is going to get to unhealthy levels. It would easily be the largest on Wikipedia. DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

CHOKING specifically makes allowances for long lists. The article size was fine. In making this change, the spirit of WORLDVIEW is being violated in the other direction---by making content forks that will result in non-English film lists languishing. On procedural grounds, you closed your own RFC after just 3 weeks without inviting comments from editors who had taken part in the discussion in the past, all of which is highly unusual. You've spent the past few months unilaterally enforcing your preferred version based on this tenuous RFC, even in the face of multiple rounds of opposition on this very talk page. It seems to me that consensus actually isn't on your side. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all this and because of you, DeluxeVegan, you have taken the format of year in film articles in the wrong direction with that so-called new format you are defending for the wrong reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Making this change does not have a negative bearing on WORLDVIEW. To my knowledge, DeluxeVegan did not remove obscure Estonian films from the list; the article was essentially a list of American films which he relegated to its own sub-list. All he did was make the treatment of American films consistent with the treatment of films from other countries. Whether you think this page should be a comprehensive list of films from all countries is besides the point: that was not the form the list previously took. An RFC ran for three weeks (a reasonable length of time and openly advertised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_73#Rfc_at_2019_in_film) and every single one of the respondents rejected the status quo on the basis of WP:WORLDVIEW (i.e. that this page should be a US-only list), and the enacted solution was acceptable to all of the respondents. If you think the RFC was conducted on a misunderstanding or you would like to put forward an alternative solution then you are also free to file an RFC in the same way DeluxeVegan did. Betty Logan (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the new format is consistent with the meaning of the year in film articles and I don't think SIZERULES should be all that relevant for the old format of it. There should be at least a compromise that would allow to keep the old format while finding a way to have it met with WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel I’ve told you already to allow an appropriate amount of time to pass before seeking to make a new change to the status quo. The three week long RFC concluded that this is the way it should be. Right now all you can express here is that you don’t like it, because hounding for a new consensus or a compromise isn’t going to work. Besides it seems those in the discussion presently are on the side of maintaining it as is. Rusted AutoParts 06:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Size is a problem. According to WP:CHOKING, the largest article on Wikipedia (including wikimarkup size) is 470 kb. Compare that to the size of all the sublists linked from this article: a giganormous 1213 kb approx! That is over half of the maximum memory a Wikimedia page could possibly hold, and is certainly going to crash the devices of a large number of readers. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@DeluxeVegan:I got news for you. I don't care about size and such. I care about what the articles stands for and that new format takes away that meaning. That new format is not what years in articles stands for. The old format actually represents the list of films that are release the certain year, not by list of certain country films. It's not a rule. It's a requirement. Also, seven votes for the new consensus is too low to make it officially consensus. Therefore, it's improper. This type of proposal you did is required to have a lot more votes and there should have been a Wikipedia meeting page to discuss drastic proposals like you did. This is not a formality. This is expressly why we should we should a lot more votes than seven in one page for these kind of proposals to official make these drastic change of consensus. You can't reach a consensus with only seven votes at will, which is totally improper. It requires to hear both sides of the argument and with votes in both SUPPORT, OPPOSE and NEUTRAL. I don't agree with the RfC votes on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There’s no cap on how many votes are needed for a consensus when a fair amount of time has passed, these things can’t be kept open indefinitely. Seven votes after three weeks all for the change? That’s consensus. Again, you may not like it, but this incessant complaining I don’t think will help your case. Rusted AutoParts 04:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the new format just destroyed how useful this page 'used' to be. Previously most big budget, significant and noticed films from multiple countries (Not just America or just in English) was on a single list. The editor who came up with this whole idea to change the format presented a fallacy of it being a list of purely American films. If you follow the whole idea of the 'WORLDVIEW' excuse, you'd be forced to have an individual wiki page for 100+ countries each individual films, this ramming through with the excuse of 'WORLDVIEW' no has the potential to kill the inclusion of films on the list from smaller countries. The new format also makes it harder to find films especially if you don't know the country of origin. I would suggest a return to the old format 'with' links to individual countries' pages. 82.4.33.122 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Improper closure of RfC on country lists??

This is not anything personal about DeluxeVegan (I'm sure that editor acted in good faith) but I think an RfC with so little discussion (comments from 7 editors, one of whom stated that two of the three options were acceptable) should not have been closed by the same person who opened it, especially considering that all previous yearly film articles do not follow the pattern recently created in this article. Was this RfC announced WT:WikiProject Film? If not it should have been to get a wider group of interested editors to comment. I would like to reopen the RfC to get more opinions, but I don't want to overstep my bounds since the RfC was opened and closed only recently. I would appreciate other opinions, and again this is nothing personal directed toward any editor. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, the discussion was advertised at WT:WikiProject Film and WT:MOSFILM. DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Seven editors is about average and, in fact, exceeds many that I've seen. I did mention that DV shouldn't have closed it but it has also been mentioned that anyone is free to start a new one. MarnetteD|Talk 21:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening the RFC is a waste of time. I don't think it was improperly closed but even if it was you will get the same response if you simply re-run it: having a US-only list of films that excludes other countries is not acceptable. I think your time would be better spent devising a realistic proposal and starting a new RFC instead if you feel so strongly about this issue. If you think the benefits of having a huge list outweigh the disadvantages outlined at WP:CHOKING then you need to advance a solid argument. There may also be a compromise available whereby the list can be reduced in size in some way (which is why I didn't rule out option 2 in my response). Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Goodleave closed - stayed open the 7+ days even though it could have been snow closed. — Ched (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC) (edit) .. just noticed that DeluxeVegan contributed/!voted - they should not have closed in that case. However, given the almost unanimous results, it would be silly to re-open on a technicality. — Ched (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Reopening the RFC isn’t appropriate imo. DV probably shouldn’t have been the one to close, however the consensus was unanimous. It exceeded the minimum length so it’s a sound consensus. Rusted AutoParts 03:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ched. DeuxeVegan should not have been the one to close it. That's a clear conflict of interest to me. The RFC should be reopened honestly. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched also said “However, given the almost unanimous results, it would be silly to re-open on a technicality”. Rusted AutoParts 05:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

7 editors is not few participants, it's a pretty good turnout. The self-close was acceptable in context, but it would have been even better to use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Which would have given the same result. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request re: Joker

It may be relevant for the article that Joker has by now become the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time (so far), according to Forbes, Variety[2], and Hollywood Reporter[3]. And it's not even out of theaters yet. Forbes gives a gross of $800 million so far, while other sources say it's only $788.1 million, but in any case, the $711 million listed here are clearly out of date. --2003:EF:13DB:3B91:4540:AD6:1DBD:8F71 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Even shorter

I wouldn't mind putting "Deaths" in a separate article as well. As-is, it fills a lot (WP:PROPORTION) of vertical article space. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I oppose this. This year in films is about list of films, when actors who did film were born and died. You do that, it will also take away that meaning. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason there's no Tag/Tags for film rating (MPAA or otherwise) and TV Parental Guidelines?

Shouldn't these be listed (even more than genre, which I see was added back) for every film as they're created (and back-added). At a minimum it'd make it easier for parents to check quickly to decide if a TV show or movie might be okay for their kids to watch, and it seems only logical that this should be listed SOMEWHERE in the Wikipedia article for EVERY movie that's had a rating. Was this discussed already? If so, why wasn't it added? I can't find anywhere else to post this that'd be more appropriate so I'll put it here (since new movies get listed here anyway first). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.254.152.32 (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Some guidance at WP:FILMRATING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

New proposal discussion ideas to bring the old format back

I'm planning to set up a new proposal for 2019 in film to bring back the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. What DeluxeVegan proposed for it was totally unnecessary and really messed up the meaning of year in film articles. What year in films articles are about which films were released in that certain year, the births and deaths of notable film stars, directors, producers and such, the ‎accolades that involved those films in these years and the highest box office results of that particular years. Readers have a right to know which films that were released in those years in that old format. How long the pages deemed irrelevant because readers have a right to scroll down to know which films came out in those years. When DeluxeVegan made that proposal, it took away the meaning of the year in film articles and replaced with the list of certain country films, which doesn't meet the criteria of what year in film articles for door. How long the pages are is deemed irrelevant and is not be considered because the old format has the meaning of year in film articles.

We need to find a way to restore the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. We need ideas to bring the old format back while maintaining to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, for reasons already explained above, in particular WP:WORLDWIDE, size concerns, and that "the meaning of years in film" is an artificial construct on Wikipedia subject to change with consensus. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@DeluxeVegan: Size is irrelevant when it comes to to the meaning of year in film articles. The meaning of the content of the articles does. You don't want to hear about it because you have been one-sided about it. There should be a compromise to bring the old format back while trying to find a way to make it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No, but since this is going in circles, I wouldn't repeat myself. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you hadn't started that proposal of yours in the first place and thought of a compromise, we wouldn't have this argument. I say we should find a compromise to bring the old format back while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. That is what we should discuss because the the new format means nothing and it's not what the year in films articles stand for. If you have a problem with that, I strongly suggest you think what years in film articles really stood for, what the old format meant to met with the criteria of what those type of articles stood for and that how size is irrelevant. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The RfC proposal was neutrally worded, and presented the so-called "compromise" you now refer to as an option, which was ultimately decided against by a majority of the respondents. I have already addressed the rest of your comment in previous replies. Regards, DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You state in an above thread "I think the new format is piss-poor and totally unnecessary and I'm not gonna accept that format." It's not a helpful attitude, and you will probably not get your way per WP:CONSENSUS, many editors dislike an I'm not gonna accept stance. But if you start a new WP:RFC I'll probably comment in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of that, there should be RFC about my own proposal and we need a better way for consensus to have the old format back while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW and disregard size matters because I see it as nonsense. I'd rather scroll down to look at the films that were released in those years than click on the links in certain country films which takes away what year in film articles stand for. It's not about links to lists of country films, it's about films that were released in those years. I'm gonna find a proposal so we can have an old format back while trying to have with WP:WORLDVIEW and Size matters should be disregard because that only cramps the style of what year in film articles is supposed to what it stood for. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

how about changing it to the pre-2018 look and include only films with budget above $10M? so other Bollywood or Chinese films appears and it meets the WORLDVIEW criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.102.146 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a thought. Not that I know if there are any similar examples in 2019, but it would exlude films like The Full Monty, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Saw. Money (or in this case budget) isn't always everything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I would say that is very limiting. For instance, there is no definite financial data for some film industries like that of India's (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ), and even going by the estimates, this would exclude 6 of the 10 highest-grossing Bollywood films of 2019 and many more in smaller industries worldwide. That again undercuts the spirit of WP:WORLDWIDE. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I doubt A Man Called Ove was anywhere near $10M, but then it hasn't been included at 2015 in film either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, according to Category:2019 films the number of 2019 films with articles is approximately 1,894. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Toy story 4

Toy story 4 won Producer of Animated Theatrical Motion Pictures, why not include it on SAG, PGA, etc. column.

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/pga-awards-winners-2020-1203471639/ Ashokkumar47 (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Lion King (2019 film)

remove the Lion King 2019 of the animated list, is not considerally a Animated film, with all favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.161.191.23 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast (New Year's Day 2019 IMAX re-release)

After the success of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Meet the Robinsons, Walt Disney Animation Studios produced the 1991 traditional cel animated film Beauty and the Beast and it was not re-released in IMAX and other giant screen theatres on New Year's Day 2019.

The musical sequence "Human Again" was written by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.18.244 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation of The Year quote clarification

I don't really have anything to add - its most of a doubt clarification regarding this quote in the "Evaluation of the Year" section

"It's the year of apocalyptic cinema of the highest order, the year in which three of our best filmmakers have responded with vast ambition, invention, and inspiration to the crises at hand, including the threats to American democracy, the catastrophic menaces arising from global warming, the corrosive cruelty of ethnic hatreds and nationalist prejudices, and the poisonous overconcentration of money and power.

Who are the directors referred to here? And what films?