1990:
and it provides no context, it could mean on home video for all we know, it could mean exclusively in the UK, it doesn't provide enough information and it doesn't mention the US distributor at all. The lack of context or clarity is a fundamental flaw in the source, it is unlikely it distributed to every single location outside of the USA as some countries have their own major distributors so it makes sense why
Touchstone is given credit in the reliable references I'll discuss next. We have two sources, including the well respected New York Times, providing a contemporary context that states "The deal calls for TriStar, a unit of Sony Pictures Entertainment, to release the film domestically while Touchstone, a Walt Disney Co. banner, will distribute the film in foreign markets." Maybe, as a Walt Disney Co. Banner, Touchstone used Buena Vista International's resources to distribute but that's not what the source says and it wouldn't matter since we can clearly trace Touchstone as the top level distributor, it doesn't matter who or what resources they used to accomplish that. Touchstone is not in the infobox per this very discussion because it was determined it's an AMerican film, list the American distributor as people kept adding countries in parentheses or deleting one or the other and it made it easier to avoid dispute.
1951:
note you keep deleting also says the content is sourced in the article. We don't dig down to individual distributors, it doesn't matter if Warner Bros used McDonalds to distribute a film, we have a source saying "Touchstone receiving all distribution rights to the film outside of the United States and Canada". If they used Bob from down the road, it wouldn't matter, just like we can't say that Buena Vista was used in every international company either. I wouldn't mind so much if not for the fact that discussion exists, the hidden note exists, and the content is sourced right there in the article. And yet you STILL redid the edit. It's also completely unnecessary and inappropriate to add countries in brackets next to the distributor, it makes the infobox look messy and crowded, especially when you add brackets and then add a second distributor working for the first distributor, that is what the body text is for.
1085:.) If you want to say the $ 100 million budget was big for the time then say that openly as prose. Maybe it would be relevant to include the figures and explain that $ 100 million then inflation adjusted to approximately $ 170 million now, makes the very big budget of this film comparable to the $ 200+ million big tentpole summer films of today (2022) then go ahead and say it as prose in the article body. But I think it will probably stick out awkwardly because it is not actually all that relevant. There could be reasons for showing the inflation adjusted figures in the article body (I dont yet think there are) but hiding them in the Infobox goes against the guidelines
1847:. Based on the info, I think that TriStar is the only one that should be in the infobox. Sony might get mentioned but it owns TriStar so by default it gets mentioned alongside it, it's like saying Coca Cola released Ghostbusters. Alongside the links above, the film also opens with the Tri-Star logo, before leading into Tristar/Touchstone presents during the credits, but only Tri-Star gets the logo, and the very end of the film is the Tri-Star logo saying "A Tri-Star release", both Tri-Star start and end images have "A Sony Pictures company" at the bottom. It's undoubtedly Tri-Star.
1481:
co-financed the film so it seems notable. If Disney, via Buena Vista, released the film in some locations, that wouldn't replace
Touchstone or mean Touchstone didn't distribute or didn't use Buena Vista's services to do so, but Buena Vista wouldn't be listed in the infobox as an International distributor because they didn't co-finance the film and it's not a British, French, or other regions film beyond the U.S. I think I'm just going to remove it entirely at this point because I'm sick of dealing with it.
722:
560:
619:
588:
928:
907:
1007:"purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". (Footnotes are not an a good reason to keep irrelevant information either.) If editors disagree and believe the inflation adjusted figures are actually relevant then they should be included as normal text somewhere in the article body, such as the Production or Box office sections, but I do not see a good reason to include these figures at all. --
629:
823:
802:
758:
21:
309:
770:
1681:, though it says "generally recognizes the film's distributor". It's possible that the Touchstone/TriStar "release" here has a different context. Since we already have a person-name "production" for this film, I don't know if "release" for TriStar and Touchstone was intended as something between "presents" and "production". If that is the case, it may simply reflect them as production companies.
490:
466:
279:
833:
409:
734:
500:
379:
435:
1061:(like for example a character being offered a month's pay for one day's work) then spell it in clear prose instead of hinting at it and leaving readers to infer some vague point from the numbers. That the numbers were hidden away in a footnote in the Infobox only reinforced my view that it was of low relevance, otherwise it would not have been hidden.
1536:
Culver City. There is no indication that stands for distributor whatsoever, but there are multiple sources that say Tri-Star. The film literally ends with "A Tri-Star release". So I won't go to your talk page to tell you that you don't know what you're doing, because I can tell you here that you don't know what you're doing.
2058:
Recently, the film has become a hot topic in online discourses on Media
Literacy, due to attempts made by actual fascists to claim the film and misrepresent it's themes. The topic is part of much larger discourse on misrepresentation of various media by right wing and far right pundits. Are there any
1036:
I would definitely agree that between the rising production costs and inflation, that it helps to see and old budget figure in today's dollars. That quickly pay gives an idea of price of production in a easy to compare figure. Ten million as a budget without inflation adjustment could be an epic film
1022:
It's a strange objection to have that they can't exist at all in the article. They provide useful context for people who want it. It's a film that was released before a bunch of people alive today were born, and a 100 million budget today might not see much but with inflation it provides contemporary
1002:
Inflation adjusted figures for box office gross and budget should not be included in this article. Such figures might be relevant in a list or if making a particular comparison (like the budget of this film versus Star Wars twenty years earlier). They were boldly added in a recent edit that made many
1517:
put Marvel
Studios instead of Marvel Enterprises before deleting it all entirely now for some reason). In BFI, which I've personally seen is more reliable, they put TriStar and Touchstone as "production companies" and Sony Studios (aka Sony Pictures Releasing) as the "studio" which is their term for
1549:
That was only the tip of what AFI has done wrong. Also, I've told you already why it just says A TriStar
Release, weren't you listening? If it was done your way, EVERY Sony film would have the production company on the distributor, but it isn't like that because, despite the lack of sources for any
1535:
If you've done your research, why don't you have any sources, and are just claiming all the legit sources we have are wrong? "Oh, AFI says that? Well this one time it put an executive producer with the rest of the producers." BFI literally just says "studio", and the film was filmed at Sony
Studios
1146:
Just because Disney produced a film like
Starship Troopers under the Touchstone Pictures label, it doesn't mean it is a distribution label. That distinction belongs to Buena Vista Pictures. I already had a bellyful from an IP user who tried to do the same thing with every Touchstone movie a back in
1989:
it doesn't matter if other articles do stuff. Per my previous comment it's unnecessary to know who distributed what and where in the confines of the infobox and so parentheses are not needed not recommended or mentioned at all in FILMDIST. The source you used has been used in this exact discussion
1379:
calls it "A Sony
Pictures Entertainment release of a TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures presentation". (I don't really know the difference between "release" and "presentation" here, honestly.) It also mentions, "Buena Vista Intl. is distributing in overseas territories." I really don't blame
1950:
you've been asked to use the talk page 3 times and the edits you're making are specifically covered by this existing discussion of which you were a part. It was determined not to use the foreign distributor at all because people keep adding country qualifiers to it and it led to fighting, but the
1562:
credits to Sony
Pictures Entertainment, and do you want me to show more that say SPE, Sony Pictures, etc. like with BFI? Not to mention anybody who even looked up SPR's Wiki article should know by now that they are THE distributor. I tried compromising by putting (under TriStar Pictures), but you
1332:
is the only one that explicitly says it distributed the movie, so that would be the most useful of the three to implement. That Sammon piece mentions parent company Disney distributing it in non-US markets, but gets cut off mid-sentence. AFI doesn't help the case here by only listing TriStar for
1096:
The rest of
Darkwarriorblake's work on this article has been excellent. It might seem harsh to focus on this small detail but when I see editors including inflation adjusted figures I fear it might be starting a trend and I would not like to see good articles setting that example. The article on
1970:
states if there is more than one distributor, include the domestic and foreign. Hidden notes remain irrelevant in this case. Which said source I used (D23) clearly states, "distributed abroad by Buena Vista International." Furthermore, several film articles that have multiple distributors have
1287:
because I know they have a background of solid fact checking and are impartial. If you guys get a chance are you able to give an opinion on this because various people keep editing the article infobox adding in whatever they think is right, without a source and in contradiction of the sources
1480:
The book says Disney retained foreign distribution rights, this is presumably via Touchstone since they own Touchstone and Touchstone co-financed the film equally. The LA Times also says Touchstone. The only reason the international distributor is listed in this article is because they also
1890:
With all due respect, the infobox guidelines clearly state for film distribution that if there are two distributors (regardless of what country the film originated), include the domestic distributor (which is Sony/TriStar in the US) and the foreign (which is Disney/BVI). See
1504:
is the distributor for ALL Sony Pictures films. I have no idea why every film to this day says "A Columbia Pictures/TriStar Pictures/etc. Release" but it's true. Also AFI has proven to sometimes misinform, especially outside their "first 100 years" that they cover (ex.
1251:) on the official D23 website stating: "Occasionally, BVI will handle the foreign distribution of non-Disney films, including such titles as Die Hard with a Vengeance, Face/Off, Starship Troopers, and Air Force One." Additionally, a page regarding Starship Troopers (
1496:
Okay, enough. Touchstone is an INTERNATIONAL distributor; films outside the US. The film is only from the US, and that's only what's allowed on the infobox. It doesn't matter if they were a production company too, doesn't make them applicable to be mentioned in the
1965:
With all due respect, I am trying to help improve this article. I only deleted the note twice, and added another one to further back up the source that I added. The note clearly states, "do not change without a source". And I did use a source, and as I've said
1255:) on the same website states, "A co-production of Tristar and Touchstone Pictures, distributed abroad by Buena Vista International." I suggest both Touchstone and BVI be added as international distributors with appropriate sources to back them as proof.
1741:
is calling the film a Sony release of two companies "presenting" a film, does that mean that "presents" here does not mean distributor? I am not seeing any box-office coverage that recognizes Touchstone in collaboration with TriStar as a distributor.
1476:
The US distributor is unequivocally Tri-Star. The book says it is, AFI says it is, the last thing you see in the film is "A Tri-Star release", and the LA Times article says so. It's not Sony (via Tri-Star) or any crap like that, it's Tri-Star. End
1229:
Just because it says Touchstone handled distribution internationally, it doesn't mean we assumed Touchstone is a distribution label. It doesn't work either way. As of this moment, I no longer have interest in this article or the film itself. —
358:
225:
1641:
Looking at that Sammon excerpt it says that Disney handled foreign distribution while "Sony/TriStar" handled US distribution, so by the looks of that Touchstone would not be listed as a distribution company. –
322:
1699:
Ugh, I've confused myself about who presented or released what. So the billing block says, "TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures present a Jon Davison production". In my initial comment, I mentioned that
1058:
before and I have been very skeptical. It just seemed irrelevant to point out that after several years a big number is now a slightly bigger big amount of money. If there is some larger point being implied
1081:
then please do go ahead and clearly make that comparison somewhere relevant in the article body. (The article already does a great job of comparing the budget of this film to the notoriously expensive
1180:
and says " The deal calls for TriStar, a unit of Sony Pictures Entertainment, to release the film domestically while Touchstone, a Walt Disney Co. banner, will distribute the film in foreign markets."
1801:
as "A Buena Vista release of a Touchstone Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures presentation of a Newmarket Films and Syncopy Production." To work with that example that involves two different studios,
56:
1003:
substantial improvements to the article but just because you can add this information does not mean you should. The figures should definitely not be included as a hidden footnote in the Infobox.
2122:
1333:
distribution. As for D23, both mentions very clearly state BVI (also a Disney entity) by name. Perhaps the best compromise is to list Disney as a distributor without naming any divisions?
659:
747:
598:
569:
476:
1623:
mentions more US release info with just Sony and TriStar with no mention of Touchstone. At this time, not finding a strong case for Touchstone as a distributor for the US release.
676:
219:
52:
2127:
978:
889:
392:
270:
78:
64:
2082:
712:
2172:
2157:
968:
879:
116:
2087:
1786:
2177:
2117:
702:
944:
666:
2162:
855:
151:
1761:
2137:
2102:
2033:
If you have any feedback/questions/remarks/etc., I would kindly ask you to put them here as long as the CE is in progress, in stead of starting an edit war.
1794:
1678:
1375:
mentions that the parent company is Sony Pictures and that the film was "released by Tri-Star Pictures and Touchstone Pictures". No mention of Buena Vista.
2147:
671:
2167:
2152:
2097:
1521:
Lastly, don't come to my talk page and act like I don't know what I'm doing. I've done my research and can admit when I'm wrong. I'm here to fix it.
935:
912:
415:
846:
807:
318:
157:
29:
2112:
266:
262:
420:
2005:
642:
593:
33:
2142:
1073:
if you want to include it, to show that the specific numbers matter. Big numbers are still big numbers. If you want to make a comparison to
102:
1449:
it was distributed by Buena Vista in the UK. IIRC All Disney (+subsidiary) films were distributed by Buena Vista in the UK, ranging from
2060:
1008:
2107:
1595:"...Sony Pictures Releasing, managing theatrical distribution chores for the motion picture group of Columbia, TriStar and Triumph..."
1247:
While Darkwarriorblake isn't wrong about Touchstone distributing internationally, I found a description of Buena Vista International (
1108:
654:
321:. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the
518:
240:
171:
2132:
1615:
mentions Sony as the studio behind the US release with no mention of TriStar, Touchstone, or Buena Vista (in direct connection with
207:
176:
92:
650:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
783:
602:
146:
1709:"A Sony Pictures Entertainment release of a TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures presentation of a Jon Davison production."
1932:
Turns out you're actually involved in this discussion, which makes it worse that you're ignoring both it and the hidden notes
446:
2092:
1895:. I have seen the talk page, and I have read it, and I am in favor of including Buena Vista as an international distributor.
1586:
1346:
137:
1821:
saying "A Sony Pictures Entertainment release" recognizes Sony/TriStar (no idea which label to use) as the US distributor.
1551:
1372:
530:
522:
1090:
526:
513:
471:
1121:
Yes I agree that mentioning it directly in prose would be awkward, that's why it's in a footnote for those who want it.
201:
1654:
1023:
context for its cost. It's something I've done on other articles without issue and I don't see the issue here either.
1086:
1004:
2001:
1956:
1937:
1881:
1852:
1830:
1802:
1777:
1751:
1720:
1690:
1632:
1541:
1486:
1419:
1389:
1316:
1306:
lists Tristar as a distributor, I assume it doesn't mention international distributor because it's American centric
1217:
1188:
1126:
1028:
838:
278:
257:
197:
1089:"purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" ... so if there are
385:
308:
181:
1380:
anyone for this confusion about what company or companies to use. Just try not to have strong feelings about it.
1813:
in the US, even though it is a "Touchstone Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures presentation". So I feel like the
1597:
1183:
At any point after the first reversion, you should have checked the info or provided a source saying otherwise.
289:
1446:
1428:
1256:
1235:
1202:
1152:
96:
71:
1730:
1361:
1167:
452:
247:
2064:
1288:
currently in the article. We could use a definitive opinion on it. The two sources I have at the moment are:
1501:
1112:
1012:
1993:
1986:
1805:
mentions that "Disney would handle domestic distribution and Warner Bros. would handle foreign". Since the
1297:
2044:
1677:
says that the presentation credit comes first and that it belongs to the distributor. That is reinforced
1604:
127:
2025:
1997:
1952:
1933:
1848:
1568:
1537:
1526:
1482:
1462:
1415:
1376:
1312:
1213:
1184:
1122:
1101:
1024:
943:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
854:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1967:
1892:
1612:
1555:
142:
1620:
1458:
1268:
1976:
1972:
1947:
1900:
1896:
1590:
1436:
1432:
1431:. The source that the user provided backs up the claim that BVI provided international distribution.
1405:
1401:
634:
1872:, we have "TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures Production; TriStar". So "TriStar" seems right.
434:
213:
1674:
1231:
1198:
1148:
721:
559:
233:
1589:
talks about TriStar Pictures being a studio under the parent company Sony Pictures Entertainment.
1668:
1340:
294:
32:. A featured article should exemplify Knowledge (XXG)'s best work, and is therefore expected to
1414:
You agree with what? There are several sources saying Touchstone and Tristar immediately above.
618:
587:
1602:"Buena Vista also had a split-rights deal on Par's 'Face/Off' and Sony's 'Starship Troopers.'"
1177:
123:
1511:
puts the wrong cast and has an executive producer listed with the rest of the producers, and
408:
1564:
1522:
1276:
291:
1163:
1650:
1045:
940:
851:
2059:
reliable sources that cover this subject, and if there are, is it worth mentioning it?
2038:
1877:
1826:
1809:
review is US-based, that connects Buena Vista being the arm of Disney that distributed
1773:
1747:
1716:
1686:
1628:
1385:
1055:
775:
1864:(since I saw some search results mention distributors as part of listing awards). For
1559:
927:
906:
2076:
1334:
1303:
1284:
1176:
C) There are two sources in the article that say its Touchstone, one of which is the
647:
2068:
2048:
1980:
1960:
1941:
1904:
1885:
1860:
I would agree with that. I had another idea, to look at the Academy Awards database
1855:
1834:
1781:
1755:
1724:
1694:
1659:
1636:
1572:
1544:
1530:
1489:
1466:
1440:
1422:
1409:
1393:
1352:
1319:
1259:
1248:
1239:
1220:
1206:
1191:
1156:
1129:
1116:
1049:
1031:
1016:
822:
801:
293:
1868:, we have "Touchstone Pictures/Warner Bros. Pictures Production; Buena Vista". For
1861:
757:
1971:
countries with parentheses to indicate the country that the film was distributed.
1252:
517:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
1513:
739:
505:
60:
1644:
1507:
1280:
1162:
A) You should have started this discussion after my last edit which mentioned
1082:
1038:
828:
765:
729:
624:
495:
489:
465:
1063:
It's a strange objection to have that they can't exist at all in the article.
1873:
1844:
1822:
1793:
to be the only film that has these three companies named together. However,
1769:
1743:
1712:
1682:
1624:
1381:
1272:
1078:
1074:
384:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
20:
832:
646:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
1563:
really couldn't let it go. We really need another guy's opinion on this.
534:
939:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to
1581:, but I have no idea if that helps. First, I'd recommend looking at
1292:
This excerpt from The Making of Starship Troopers by Paul M. Sammon
1611:
being distributed outside of the US by Buena Vista International.
1585:
as an industry trade paper that can help sort out details. First,
1550:
Aony movie saying SPR, we should know better. Since you asked,
428:
403:
373:
295:
87:
15:
1173:
B) If what you say is true, you'd be adding a source with it
756:
720:
558:
19:
1298:
This LA Times article released at the same time as the film
1065:
I didn't say "can't" I am saying if it is not relevant it
1328:
Among the sources Darkwarriorblake gives for Touchstone,
1291:
1471:
So I think we need to clarify some stuff for posterity:
1578:
1059:
351:
42:
1457:. Not too sure what the case was for other countries.
232:
1037:
of the 1960s, or a art house picture in the 2019s. --
850:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
246:
1768:writes releases of presentations of productions.
1249:https://d23.com/a-to-z/buena-vista-international/
2123:B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
1367:mentions the studio Sony Pictures Releasing and
105:for general discussion of the article's subject.
65:update the nomination page and article talk page
1711:I don't know how to fit these pieces together.
1054:I've seen a few cases where editors have added
533:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1253:https://d23.com/a-to-z/starship-troopers-film/
748:WikiProject Film - American cinema task force
8:
2030:, I just started copy editing this article.
953:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Media franchises
2128:Unknown-importance American cinema articles
2083:Knowledge (XXG) featured article candidates
864:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science Fiction
2088:Pages in the Knowledge (XXG) Top 25 Report
1991:
1069:be included. I am challenging you to show
901:
796:
582:
529:. To use this banner, please refer to the
460:
421:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film/Resources
330:
303:
687:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
1843:Thanks for your input/thorough research
1197:I only reverted two times. Not three. —
2173:Mid-importance media franchise articles
2158:Mid-importance science fiction articles
1733:calls Sony a distributor and says that
1142:Touchstone is not a distribution label.
903:
798:
584:
462:
432:
1062:
2178:WikiProject Media franchises articles
2118:Low-importance United States articles
1577:I tried to share my findings earlier
956:Template:WikiProject Media franchises
7:
2163:WikiProject Science Fiction articles
933:This article is within the scope of
867:Template:WikiProject Science Fiction
844:This article is within the scope of
640:This article is within the scope of
511:This article is within the scope of
2138:Unknown-importance Wyoming articles
2103:American cinema task force articles
1294:which was written during production
998:Inflation adjust figures in Infobox
451:It is of interest to the following
388:. The week in which this happened:
95:for discussing improvements to the
2148:WikiProject United States articles
1558:credit their photos to SPR, while
690:Template:WikiProject United States
51:After one of the FAC coordinators
14:
1737:is on its 1997 release slate. If
1212:Ok, what about the other points?
567:This article is supported by the
122:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2168:B-Class media franchise articles
2153:B-Class science fiction articles
2098:B-Class American cinema articles
1075:a film from twenty years earlier
926:
905:
831:
821:
800:
768:
732:
627:
617:
586:
543:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film
527:regional and topical task forces
498:
488:
464:
433:
407:
377:
307:
277:
117:Click here to start a new topic.
1853:Vote for something that matters
1542:Vote for something that matters
1487:Vote for something that matters
1420:Vote for something that matters
1317:Vote for something that matters
1218:Vote for something that matters
1189:Vote for something that matters
1166:and before your edit where you
973:This article has been rated as
884:This article has been rated as
707:This article has been rated as
2113:B-Class United States articles
1260:09:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
1240:21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
1221:22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1207:22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1192:22:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1157:22:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1079:a film from twenty years later
1:
2049:15:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
1091:other articles doing this too
947:and see a list of open tasks.
858:and see a list of open tasks.
781:This article is supported by
745:This article is supported by
114:Put new text under old text.
67:. Do not manually update the
2143:WikiProject Wyoming articles
1886:13:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
1856:17:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1835:02:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1782:01:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1756:01:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1725:01:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1707:s review of the film wrote,
1695:01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1660:01:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1637:01:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1573:00:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1545:23:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
1531:22:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
1490:22:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
1467:21:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
1441:20:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
1423:20:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
1410:20:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
1302:It's not in the article but
936:WikiProject Media franchises
419:in this article. (see also:
1394:16:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
1353:13:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
1320:09:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
1130:10:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
1117:03:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
1050:17:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
1032:16:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
1017:14:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
847:WikiProject Science Fiction
2194:
1056:inflation adjusted figures
979:project's importance scale
890:project's importance scale
839:Speculative fiction portal
713:project's importance scale
570:American cinema task force
359:Featured article candidate
319:featured article candidate
30:featured article candidate
28:This article is a current
2108:WikiProject Film articles
2069:15:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
1981:21:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
1961:20:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
1942:17:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
1905:21:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
972:
921:
883:
816:
764:
728:
706:
643:WikiProject United States
612:
566:
546:Template:WikiProject Film
483:
459:
333:
329:
152:Be welcoming to newcomers
2133:B-Class Wyoming articles
2054:Media literacy discourse
2022:Based on the request of
1729:Fine, one more thing...
959:media franchise articles
870:science fiction articles
648:United States of America
393:September 13 to 19, 2015
315:Starship Troopers (film)
97:Starship Troopers (film)
1502:Sony Pictures Releasing
1127:SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
1029:SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
761:
725:
693:United States articles
563:
441:This article is rated
147:avoid personal attacks
24:
2093:B-Class film articles
2018:Copy-Edit in Progress
760:
724:
562:
445:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
271:Auto-archiving period
172:Neutral point of view
23:
1427:I was agreeing with
1170:the content back in.
635:United States portal
177:No original research
38:Please feel free to
1429:FloorMadeOuttaFloor
1257:FloorMadeOuttaFloor
784:WikiProject Wyoming
661:Articles Requested!
519:join the discussion
79:when the FAC closes
1373:The New York Times
1097:track to become a
762:
726:
564:
447:content assessment
334:Article milestones
158:dispute resolution
119:
25:
2047:
2009:
1998:Darkwarriorblake
1996:comment added by
1870:Starship Troopers
1819:Starship Troopers
1791:Starship Troopers
1735:Starship Troopers
1672:
1617:Starship Troopers
1609:Starship Troopers
1445:According to the
1369:Starship Troopers
1330:Los Angeles Times
1178:Los Angeles Times
1087:WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE
1005:WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE
993:
992:
989:
988:
985:
984:
900:
899:
896:
895:
795:
794:
791:
790:
581:
580:
577:
576:
521:and see lists of
427:
426:
416:References to use
402:
401:
372:
371:
368:
367:
302:
301:
138:Assume good faith
115:
86:
85:
82:
34:meet the criteria
2185:
2042:
2029:
2026:Darkwarriorblake
1953:Darkwarriorblake
1934:Darkwarriorblake
1849:Darkwarriorblake
1706:
1666:
1538:Darkwarriorblake
1483:Darkwarriorblake
1416:Darkwarriorblake
1313:Darkwarriorblake
1214:Darkwarriorblake
1185:Darkwarriorblake
1123:Darkwarriorblake
1107:any day now. --
1106:
1100:
1042:
1025:Darkwarriorblake
961:
960:
957:
954:
951:
950:Media franchises
941:media franchises
930:
923:
922:
917:
913:Media franchises
909:
902:
872:
871:
868:
865:
862:
841:
836:
835:
825:
818:
817:
812:
804:
797:
778:
773:
772:
771:
742:
737:
736:
735:
695:
694:
691:
688:
685:
637:
632:
631:
630:
621:
614:
613:
608:
605:
590:
583:
551:
550:
547:
544:
541:
514:WikiProject Film
508:
503:
502:
501:
492:
485:
484:
479:
468:
461:
444:
438:
437:
429:
411:
404:
381:
380:
374:
354:
331:
311:
304:
296:
282:
281:
272:
251:
250:
236:
167:Article policies
88:
76:
70:
59:the nomination,
50:
48:
16:
2193:
2192:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2073:
2072:
2056:
2045:Bling Collector
2023:
2020:
1704:
1658:
1560:Box Office Mojo
1144:
1104:
1098:
1040:
1000:
958:
955:
952:
949:
948:
915:
869:
866:
863:
861:Science Fiction
860:
859:
852:science fiction
837:
830:
810:
808:Science Fiction
774:
769:
767:
738:
733:
731:
692:
689:
686:
683:
682:
681:
667:Become a Member
633:
628:
626:
606:
596:
548:
545:
542:
539:
538:
504:
499:
497:
474:
442:
398:
378:
352:August 11, 2024
350:
298:
297:
292:
269:
193:
188:
187:
186:
163:
133:
74:
72:Article history
68:
55:the article or
39:
12:
11:
5:
2191:
2189:
2181:
2180:
2175:
2170:
2165:
2160:
2155:
2150:
2145:
2140:
2135:
2130:
2125:
2120:
2115:
2110:
2105:
2100:
2095:
2090:
2085:
2075:
2074:
2055:
2052:
2036:Kind regards,
2019:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1987:WP: OTHERSTUFF
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1888:
1784:
1758:
1727:
1697:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1648:
1519:
1498:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1478:
1469:
1400:I agree here.
1398:
1397:
1396:
1377:Variety review
1356:
1355:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1300:
1295:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1232:FilmandTVFan28
1224:
1223:
1199:FilmandTVFan28
1195:
1194:
1181:
1174:
1171:
1149:FilmandTVFan28
1143:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1094:
999:
996:
991:
990:
987:
986:
983:
982:
975:Mid-importance
971:
965:
964:
962:
945:the discussion
931:
919:
918:
916:Mid‑importance
910:
898:
897:
894:
893:
886:Mid-importance
882:
876:
875:
873:
856:the discussion
843:
842:
826:
814:
813:
811:Mid‑importance
805:
793:
792:
789:
788:
780:
779:
776:Wyoming portal
763:
753:
752:
744:
743:
727:
717:
716:
709:Low-importance
705:
699:
698:
696:
680:
679:
674:
669:
664:
657:
655:Template Usage
651:
639:
638:
622:
610:
609:
607:Low‑importance
591:
579:
578:
575:
574:
565:
555:
554:
552:
510:
509:
493:
481:
480:
469:
457:
456:
450:
439:
425:
424:
412:
400:
399:
397:
396:
389:
382:
370:
369:
366:
365:
362:
355:
347:
346:
343:
340:
336:
335:
327:
326:
312:
300:
299:
290:
288:
287:
284:
283:
253:
252:
190:
189:
185:
184:
179:
174:
165:
164:
162:
161:
154:
149:
140:
134:
132:
131:
120:
111:
110:
107:
106:
100:
84:
83:
49:
43:leave comments
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2190:
2179:
2176:
2174:
2171:
2169:
2166:
2164:
2161:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2151:
2149:
2146:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2124:
2121:
2119:
2116:
2114:
2111:
2109:
2106:
2104:
2101:
2099:
2096:
2094:
2091:
2089:
2086:
2084:
2081:
2080:
2078:
2071:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2061:46.97.170.120
2053:
2051:
2050:
2046:
2041:
2040:
2034:
2031:
2027:
2017:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1988:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1969:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1785:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1762:these results
1759:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1703:
1698:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1670:
1669:edit conflict
1665:
1661:
1656:
1652:
1647:
1646:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1470:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1344:
1343:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1304:this AFI page
1301:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1193:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1141:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1103:
1095:
1093:please don't.
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:109.78.195.60
1006:
997:
995:
980:
976:
970:
967:
966:
963:
946:
942:
938:
937:
932:
929:
925:
924:
920:
914:
911:
908:
904:
891:
887:
881:
878:
877:
874:
857:
853:
849:
848:
840:
834:
829:
827:
824:
820:
819:
815:
809:
806:
803:
799:
786:
785:
777:
766:
759:
755:
754:
750:
749:
741:
730:
723:
719:
718:
714:
710:
704:
701:
700:
697:
684:United States
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
665:
663:
662:
658:
656:
653:
652:
649:
645:
644:
636:
625:
623:
620:
616:
615:
611:
604:
600:
595:
594:United States
592:
589:
585:
572:
571:
561:
557:
556:
553:
549:film articles
536:
532:
531:documentation
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
507:
496:
494:
491:
487:
486:
482:
478:
473:
470:
467:
463:
458:
454:
448:
440:
436:
431:
430:
422:
418:
417:
413:
410:
406:
405:
394:
391:
390:
387:
386:Top 25 Report
383:
376:
375:
363:
361:
360:
356:
353:
349:
348:
344:
341:
338:
337:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
310:
306:
305:
286:
285:
280:
276:
268:
264:
261:
259:
255:
254:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
199:
196:
195:Find sources:
192:
191:
183:
182:Verifiability
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
169:
168:
159:
155:
153:
150:
148:
144:
141:
139:
136:
135:
129:
125:
124:Learn to edit
121:
118:
113:
112:
109:
108:
104:
98:
94:
90:
89:
80:
73:
66:
62:
58:
54:
46:
45:
44:
35:
31:
27:
22:
18:
17:
2057:
2039:Call me Matt
2037:
2035:
2032:
2021:
1992:— Preceding
1931:
1869:
1866:The Prestige
1865:
1818:
1814:
1811:The Prestige
1810:
1806:
1799:The Prestige
1798:
1790:
1765:
1738:
1734:
1708:
1701:
1643:
1616:
1608:
1601:
1594:
1582:
1518:distributor.
1512:
1506:
1455:Pulp Fiction
1454:
1450:
1368:
1362:
1347:
1341:
1335:
1329:
1246:
1196:
1145:
1109:109.77.202.9
1102:Good article
1070:
1066:
1001:
994:
974:
934:
885:
845:
782:
746:
708:
672:Project Talk
660:
641:
568:
512:
453:WikiProjects
414:
364:Not promoted
357:
317:is a former
314:
274:
256:
243:
237:
229:
222:
216:
210:
204:
194:
166:
91:This is the
41:
40:
1968:WP:FILMDIST
1893:WP:FILMDIST
1817:review for
1673:To add on,
1565:IAmNMFlores
1523:IAmNMFlores
1459:Betty Logan
1277:TheJoebro64
1269:Betty Logan
1168:edit warred
740:Film portal
506:Film portal
220:free images
103:not a forum
2077:Categories
1973:TPalkovitz
1948:TPalkovitz
1897:TPalkovitz
1508:Sinister 2
1433:TPalkovitz
1402:TPalkovitz
1311:Thank you
1083:Waterworld
1067:should not
535:guidelines
523:open tasks
1797:mentions
1607:mentions
1453:to, erm,
1071:relevance
160:if needed
143:Be polite
93:talk page
77:template
2006:contribs
1994:unsigned
1764:for how
1500:Second,
1497:infobox.
1336:SNUGGUMS
1285:SNUGGUMS
1267:Tagging
477:American
275:180Â days
258:Archives
128:get help
101:This is
99:article.
57:archives
53:promotes
1882:contrib
1831:contrib
1815:Variety
1807:Variety
1778:contrib
1766:Variety
1752:contrib
1739:Variety
1721:contrib
1702:Variety
1691:contrib
1633:contrib
1583:Variety
1451:Aladdin
1390:contrib
1365:in 1997
1363:Variety
1164:WP: BRD
977:on the
888:on the
711:on the
603:Wyoming
443:B-class
342:Process
323:archive
226:WPÂ refs
214:scholar
1789:shows
1600:says,
1593:says,
1147:2015.
677:Alerts
599:Cinema
449:scale.
395:(14th)
345:Result
198:Google
1645:zmbro
1348:edits
1281:zmbro
241:JSTOR
202:books
156:Seek
63:will
61:a bot
2065:talk
2002:talk
1985:Per
1977:talk
1957:talk
1938:talk
1901:talk
1878:talk
1874:Erik
1862:here
1845:Erik
1827:talk
1823:Erik
1803:this
1795:this
1787:This
1774:talk
1770:Erik
1760:See
1748:talk
1744:Erik
1731:This
1717:talk
1713:Erik
1687:talk
1683:Erik
1679:here
1675:this
1655:cont
1651:talk
1629:talk
1625:Erik
1621:This
1613:This
1605:This
1598:This
1591:This
1587:this
1579:here
1569:talk
1554:and
1527:talk
1514:Hulk
1463:talk
1447:BBFC
1437:talk
1406:talk
1386:talk
1382:Erik
1342:talk
1273:Erik
1236:talk
1203:talk
1153:talk
1113:talk
1041:asem
1013:talk
540:Film
525:and
472:Film
339:Date
234:FENS
208:news
145:and
1884:)
1833:)
1780:)
1754:)
1723:)
1693:)
1653:) (
1635:)
1619:).
1477:of.
1392:)
1077:or
969:Mid
880:Mid
703:Low
248:TWL
2079::
2067:)
2043:-
2008:)
2004:•
1979:)
1959:)
1940:)
1903:)
1880:|
1851:/
1829:|
1776:|
1750:|
1719:|
1689:|
1631:|
1571:)
1540:/
1529:)
1485:/
1465:)
1439:)
1418:/
1408:)
1388:|
1371:.
1351:)
1345:/
1315:/
1283:,
1279:,
1275:,
1271:,
1238:)
1216:/
1205:)
1187:/
1155:)
1125:/
1115:)
1105:}}
1099:{{
1048:)
1027:/
1015:)
601:/
597::
475::
273::
265:,
228:)
126:;
75:}}
69:{{
2063:(
2028::
2024:@
2000:(
1975:(
1955:(
1936:(
1899:(
1876:(
1825:(
1772:(
1746:(
1715:(
1705:'
1685:(
1671:)
1667:(
1657:)
1649:(
1627:(
1567:(
1556:2
1552:1
1525:(
1461:(
1435:(
1404:(
1384:(
1339:(
1234:(
1201:(
1151:(
1111:(
1046:t
1044:(
1039:M
1011:(
981:.
892:.
787:.
751:.
715:.
573:.
537:.
455::
423:)
325:.
267:2
263:1
260::
244:·
238:·
230:·
223:·
217:·
211:·
205:·
200:(
130:.
81:.
47:.
36:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
