How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead of the article?
"The Matrix is a [...] film written and directed by..."
A - "the Wachowski Brothers"
B - "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)"
C - "the Wachowskis"
D - "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)"
For context, the Wachowski Brothers have both come out as transgender women in the time since The Matrix was released. They are now credited as the Wachowskis, not the Wachowski Brothers.
This is a matter that has been argued over extensively. A 2012 discussion at WikiProject Film ended with the determination that the infobox should reflect names as they appear in the credits, but I have not been able to find any such consensus for anything outside of the infobox. After many threads and many edits back and forth, a more formal RfC seems useful. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The lists of countries that use YouTube and of media encoding options are now collapsed. MOS:COLLAPSE normally discourages collapsing the tables. The question is not to either keep the tables collapsed or expand them. Actually, someone said that these tables are too long for an average reader. Shall we retain those tables or remove them? --Relisted.George Ho (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Is the author of his memoir, Full Service, notable? Why or why not? If not, shall the biography be merged into the other article? George Ho (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Shall the titles of the all the Stanley Cup series articles keep "FinalS", with an "S" at the end, or should they be moved to "Final", removing the "s". It has been almost eight years since the last major discussion, now archived at Talk:2008 Stanley Cup Finals#Page title. At the time, the WP:COMMONNAME still had the "s" even though the NHL started to officially use it without the "s". Has reliable sources changed since then to warrant such a massive page move? Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to reach consensus over which table should be used in the main article. The first, smaller table, includes only the finalists of the merged version. The second includes finalists from the merged version as well as the national finalists of each branch during the cycle. It would be very appreciated if other users would put their imput into this discussion. For the record, I choose Table B. My logic is that while I agree that tables should be kept consistent to each other, the format of this show itself was vastly different from most other versions. That in itself demands that information be presented differently for a better understanding of the show. It's a bit more information yes, but the presentation of the table (airtade, cycle, winner, runner-up, contestants, number of contestants, destination) is exactly the same. The addition of all the contestants in no way takes away from the validity or accuracy of the information.
2601:241:0:EA46:78D4:88EE:F3A6:47A1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
n the discussion space below please leave a comment or !vote Support for inclusion or Oppose. Per WP:RFC discussions usually remain open for about a month. -- GreenC 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There have been disputes on several articles changing the grosses in charts to the all-time grosses (thus incorporating reissue grosses). For example, on its original 1982 release E.T grossed $359 million, but that rose to $435 million thanks to two re-releases in 1988 and 2002. The question here is which figure should ideally go in this chart? Option 1: $359 million from the 1982 release; or option 2: $435 million collated from the 1982, 1988 and 2002 releases? This question doesn't just relate to this article but the whole family of year articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at FFD, there is a policy-based consensus that the two non-free images at Frank Auerbach should be reduced to one. As discussed in the close, I'm organizing an RFC on the matter. I've organized a single discussion section at the bottom to discuss these works. Otherwise, I'm pinging @Cactus.man, Stefan2, Modernist, Finnusertop, Ceoil, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and Explicit: -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Dispute about whether the album should be considered a long-form narrative. See this revision and further discussion on talk page. OpenFuture has placed several "failed verification" and "unreliable source" templates, rationalizing that the journalist can't possibly know the songwriter's intentions, implying that the album's lyrics are too oblique for anyone to assess an accurate plot summary. I contest that the journalist is not interpreting the material, but rather summarizing it, also that the author has virtually admitted that the album does follow a semi-coherent narrative structure.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Singer Axl Rose briefly dated model Stephanie Seymour in the 1990s. Opinions are needed on whether or not the article should include any variation of the following regarding their breakup:
In response to recent edit warring over the addition of conscious hip hop to the infobox, I am opening this RfC to determine a consensus. Can "conscious hip hop" be included/kept in the infobox as it is right now? Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the list name be changed to something more proper, encyclopedic-sounding? See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (2nd nomination). What was brought up was "List of most highly-rated films" or something akin to that (not by me, I couldn't come up with anything). I recommend giving your own suggestions. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Dispute about how a writer should be categorized: if he published writing in multiple genres of literature, then does he belong in the specific subcategories for each genre of literature that he wrote, or should he be excluded from the subcategories and left only in the overarching category for general non-specific writers? Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the title for a soundtrack article be "<name of release> (soundtrack)" even if a more accurate, albeit longer title in the form of "<name of release>: Original <whatever> Soundtrack" exists? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack don't mention anything specific. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Infobox film}} states "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters) ... If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."
Film budgets are not usually released by film studios, but generally entertainment magazines and trade journals can obtain an approximate figure from industry insiders. The "budget" is usually taken to be the "negative cost" which is is generally defined as the costs incurred up to producing a negative, but will omit the distribution costs and profit participation for the stars. Sources will usually distinguish between the negative cost and the subsequent costs, such as Variety observing "the budget, which Disney quotes at around $250 million, with an additional $100 million to market the film worldwide". If different sources provide different figures then these figures are represented as a range.
What is not so clear is how to represent figures that incorporate a tax credit and it is this quandary that is the subject of several ongoing film related discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Film_budget_representation_in_infobox. For example, in the case of John CarterForbes obtained financial documents from the UK treasury which revealed "Total costs came to $306.6 million ... The financial statements reveal that the British tax authority handed Disney $42.9 million (£27.1 million) to make John Carter ... The tax payment to John Carter gave the picture a net budget of $263.7 million which is far more than estimates predicted." Disney is on record as stating the budget is "around $250 million".
The question being posed by this RFC is what should go in the infobox? These seem like the viable options to me:
$250 million (EDIT: the cost as stated by Disney and widely reported at the time)
$306.6 million (the total costs filed at HMRC)
$263.7 million (the net budget, which is derived by subtracting the tax credit)
$306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit) (the bit in brackets could actually go in brackets or as a footnote to avoid clutter)
$263.7 million ($306.6 million before tax credit)
$250–306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit)
$250–306.6 million (the highest and lowest figure available)
Even though the discussions are spread over quite few articles they seem to be going in circles and would benefit from community input, which is the reason for the RFC. I think this article is the best "test case" for the RFC since it has some fairly concrete numbers and uses explicit terminology in how those numbers are delivered, such as an official statement on the finance by Disney, and exact details of the tax filings at HMRC. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an edit request to change Conference Quarterfinals and Semifinals to First and Second Round for the following articles: 2014 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs, and the current project; this includes the brackets associated with their respective articles. This change was done by the NHL in 2014, but some editors say we should not change, but do not put a clear argument. So should we keep the status quo or adhere to the NHL's round names? Does Wikipedia allow secondary sources to trump the primary source? For more info please visit the talk pages for articles mentioned above, as well as the discussion currently in progress. Conyo14 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.