Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week/collaborated

< Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week

Collaborated items

edit

These pages were voted on and then collaborated on.


Cinema of Canada(20 June)

edit

18 July – ...

Support

  1. Falphin 22:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Pharos 02:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 29 June 2005 07:04 (UTC)
  4. •Zhatt• 18:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC) - Hope I'm not too late

Comments:

  • A list of films and nothing more. Falphin 22:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I remember coming across this before; it's surprising we have so little on the cinema of a such a large English-speaking country. (Not to forget Québécois film of course!)--Pharos 02:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems worth having, though I confess I'm not terribly interested in contributing to it at the moment, so I'll abstain for now. Jun-Dai 05:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Giallo (21 June 2005)

edit

3 July – 17 July

Support

  1. Niz 00:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Pharos 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jun-Dai 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fenice 05:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jahsonic 14:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article is important because it is a key Italian film genre, the word is used a lot but very few people understand what it really means, its historical context, its relations to italian culture etc. much more info is needed here. Niz 00:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I had been thinking of nominating this myself; an interesting and influential genre.--Pharos 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This certainly seems worth working on. Would it be worthwhile to separate the film genre from the literary genre? That seems like the best approach for these sorts of topics. My vote is to change this to Giallo (film) Jun-Dai 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be seperated from 'literature'. I agree to create a seperate entry for Giallo (film) (or and maybe add "Giallo" as a section to B-Movie?).--Fenice 05:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It should definitely not be a section of B-movie; I think the genre deserves rather broader coverage than that. I would support, if the topic is selected and expanded, having the article at Giallo film; I think the parentheses are probably unnecessary.--Pharos 05:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That was just a mistake. I meant: add a summary section to B-Movie. The name is supposed to be in the form of ... (film) according to naming convention in the Wikipedia style manual.--Fenice 05:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm glad I just misunderstood the B-movie thing. The naming is mostly an aesthetic issue, but I don't think the parens are necessary unless the meaning is totally different or the combined term is incongruous (which here it clearly is not). Anyway, compare comedy film, science fiction film, horror film, slasher film etc.--Pharos 06:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer it's not separated from the literature section... its impossible to explain without reference to the yellow books, and i feel giallo (literature) would just remain a stub forever. so keep them together. Niz 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope that giallo (literature) wouldn't depend so much on giallo (film) that it wouldn't see its own development. What I fear is that it will be so dominated by the film portion of the article that it won't ever see any development. If it's in its own entry, at least the potential for real development would be encouraged, especially once its due was given in giallo (film), which I assume couldn't be fully flushed out without mentioning the literature upon which it was based several times. But this is not an especially important point, and we can argue about it more once we've decided to collaborate on the article. Jun-Dai 22:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer it's not separated from the literature section... for reasons explained by Niz. Jahsonic 14:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't have a particularly strong feeling on this; I suppose we can keep them together for a while at least until both aspects are majorly developed. I do think that in an ideal world there would probably be two separate articles (of course both at least 32k and featured).--Pharos 18:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cinema of Sweden (20 June)

edit

26 June – 2 July

Support

  1. Pharos 09:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 09:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jun-Dai 19:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Falphin 22:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Magicmonster 05:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment Certainly we could have more than this tiny stub on the cinema of the country of Ingmar Bergman.--Pharos 09:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mikio Naruse (1 June, 2005)

edit

7 June – 25 June

Support

  1. Jun-Dai 19:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article is important because Mikio Naruse is one of the major figures of Japanese cinema. His role in the development of a national Japanese cinema is on par with the likes of Yasujiro Ozu and Kenji Mizoguchi, as is his role in the development of filmmaking as an investigation of family. Information on him can be found in the usual places (imdb, google), as well as Senses of Cinema. Any reference book on film history in general, or on Japanese film in general, is bound to have helpful information (particularly in contextualizing his body of work). If your curiosity has been piqued, you might be able to hunt down a copy of Audie Bock's Naruse: A Master of the Japanese Cinema (it's out of print). I confess I have not seen any of his films, but I want to badly. Criterion is rumored to be putting out a film or more of his in the near future, which will probably generate searches on this (currently non-existent) article. Jun-Dai 19:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cinema_Collaboration_of_the_Week/collaborated&oldid=1141927023"