Talk:2025 in film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bro

Why do we need all movies here, we can’t have all of this here 108.46.71.246 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like a bit out of scope for an introduction, indeed. I do not think it is a good idea. In fact, the circumstance that the only pictures (beyond Michael and Highest 2 Lowest) currently mentioned in an article called "2025 in film" (in the lead, no less) are films that are not from 2025 already suggests that something is broken.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I was talking about the others that are celebrating their anniversaries on the description but yeah I get it. 108.46.71.246 (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the random mention to non-2025 films in the introduction. It's bizarre and out of scope. Not to say it does an awful job at outlining the topic of the page. I propose to remove all anniversaries from the lead altogether. Those found notable by third-party sources, they may be re-added and dealt with in a standalone subsection, not the introduction.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I went ahead and removed them as I can't think of a good reason to have them. Yeoutie (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]