Redirect to:
wording. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC) See also WP:FILMRELEASE for the infobox dates and the MOS about the article for release dates...
Click to read more »Category:Pages using infobox film with nonstandard dates is based on Wikipedia:FILMRELEASE. --Gonnym (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Approved for trial (50 edits)...
Click to read more »follows WP:FILMRELEASE. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC) @Filmguyregister: As I suspected, the listed date followed WP:FILMRELEASE. I see...
Click to read more »filming has commenced. This is the threshold for having an article per WP:FILMRELEASE as long as there has been reliable secondary coverage of the film, which...
Click to read more »should be like this. The infobox includes Japan release, per Wikipedia:FILMRELEASE: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest...
Click to read more »since the US had nothing to do with the production of this film (see WP:FILMRELEASE) "The Whistleblower received several awards and nominations, including...
Click to read more »merged into a single subsection titled "Release". I disagree. Look at MOS:FILMRELEASE, which says the release needs to be a key part of the article. In contrast...
Click to read more »in the production or reception sections. Shortcut MOS:FILMRELEASEMOS:FILMRELEASE A key part of the article should be about the film's release and how...
Click to read more »Points of improvement I can see are: Theatrical Release Dates. See MOS:FILMRELEASE - I don't think listing each release date in every country is necessary...
Click to read more »further points: Infobox Re-release dates and runtime not needed (see WP:FILMRELEASE) as these can be adequately covered in the body. Lead "a superior dancer"...
Click to read more »(UTC) Well, you're supposed to use {{film date}}, and, according to WP:FILMRELEASE and WP:FILMDIST, not include release dates or distributors outside of...
Click to read more »however, still found in the article body. For info on why it was removed from the Infobox see WP:FILMRELEASE. Samwalton9 (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »faith. I've moved it back, per WP:FILMRELEASE (the Toronto premiere makes it a 2013 film). Please read the FILMRELEASE guide I've linked to, and if in doubt...
Click to read more »faith. I've moved it back, per WP:FILMRELEASE (the Toronto premiere makes it a 2013 film). Please read the FILMRELEASE guide I've linked to, and if in doubt...
Click to read more »reason why the US release date is in the infobox? No need for it per WP:FILMRELEASE. Removed US release date from infobox. Title Unless you have a reason...
Click to read more »strongly resembles it. In the infobox, the flags should be gone as WP:FilmRelease suggests against it. I'll change them myself! Try to put ciations that...
Click to read more »above - the release date. From what I could tell from looking at WP:FilmRelease, the correct release date for the film is 2008. I've opened a section...
Click to read more »confirmed public premiere-release at the festival is just fine under WP:FilmRelease and WP:NF. An esoteric "official" release is not a mandate. Schmidt,...
Click to read more »Brother Bulldog (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC) @Brother Bulldog: At WP:FILMRELEASE, it says to use the earliest date specifically including film festivals...
Click to read more »filming has commenced. This is the threshold for having an article per WP:FILMRELEASE as long as there has been reliable secondary coverage of the film, which...
Click to read more »confirmed public premiere-release at the festival is just fine under WP:FilmRelease and WP:NF. An esoteric "official" release is not a mandate. Schmidt,...
Click to read more »cast section. Infobox doesn't comply with FILMRELEASE? Who cares? GAs are not required to comply with FILMRELEASE. While I'm glad that the article has been...
Click to read more »Resolved – Gary King (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I was reading WP:FilmRelease and it is rather confusing. Say a movie premiered in a non-English speaking...
Click to read more »dates in parentheses. It's part of the make-up of the citation. Per WP:FilmRelease, we actually should not do that. Okay, I've commented it out. I don't...
Click to read more »since the US had nothing to do with the production of this film (see WP:FILMRELEASE) "The Whistleblower received several awards and nominations, including...
Click to read more »reason why the US release date is in the infobox? No need for it per WP:FILMRELEASE. Removed US release date from infobox. Title Unless you have a reason...
Click to read more »dates in parentheses. It's part of the make-up of the citation. Per WP:FilmRelease, we actually should not do that. Okay, I've commented it out. I don't...
Click to read more »strongly resembles it. In the infobox, the flags should be gone as WP:FilmRelease suggests against it. I'll change them myself! Try to put ciations that...
Click to read more »strongly resembles it. In the infobox, the flags should be gone as WP:FilmRelease suggests against it. I'll change them myself! Try to put ciations that...
Click to read more »bomb Done The infobox should also include the premiere date; see WP:FILMRELEASE Done Generally I would avoid meta language like "Following an opening...
Click to read more »further points: Infobox Re-release dates and runtime not needed (see WP:FILMRELEASE) as these can be adequately covered in the body. Lead "a superior dancer"...
Click to read more »merged into a single subsection titled "Release". I disagree. Look at MOS:FILMRELEASE, which says the release needs to be a key part of the article. In contrast...
Click to read more »bomb Done The infobox should also include the premiere date; see WP:FILMRELEASE Done Generally I would avoid meta language like "Following an opening...
Click to read more »