Wikipedia talk:Film project

MoS questions

I think the editors responsible for this will be well aware of my views on this from various AfDs :) but if consensus on WP:NFF is changed, a few questions. Firstly, why "film project" and not, say, "future film"? And again, if these "future film projects" are allowed, why not allow the infobox? Why shouldn't we treat the article the same as any other film article? Just because there is less information, doesn't mean it can't follow the same rules --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL and their relation to WP:NFF

A precis on some of my thoughts that I have stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project)‎:

What's the point of the specific notabilty guidelines such as WP:NFF, if they can be superseded by the general notability guidelines? The guideline at WP:NFF deals specifically with articles like this, and the creation of these pages is in direct contravention of this. Unless there is an exceptional amount of well-sourced material that cannot be housed on subject articles, where common sense dictates that it needs a breakout article, then WP:NFF should be followed.

I would suggest that the reasoning behind WP:NFF is to avoid opening the floodgates for speculative articles on future films that may or may not be made. Unfortunately the recent introduction of this "film project" concept has done just that. Editors seem to think that if they bung "(film project)" on the end of a future film, it is no longer subject to the guidelines lay down in WP:NFF.

Many editors keep waving WP:GNG about, but it also states: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." I would suspect that when WP:NFF was written, editors looked at this carefully, and discussed that films which had not entered production were not suitable for a stand-alone article.

WP:CRYSTAL states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As WP:NFF points out, "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." WP:CRYSTAL also goes on to give an example of tropical storms: ""Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not [encyclopedic], even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." I think the same logic can be applied to future films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your concern. I myself kind of see this coming. Mainly with the superhero films. And this is getting to be a controversial debate I assure you. The point is of this essay to prove that they are other ways to do it and since there has been a numerous bit of film projects since The Avengers (film project) it seems appropriate to create one. Is there something that you want changed on this essay or what? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just worried that some editors are misunderstanding it to be policy, and I am trying to open a debate to reach a final consensus on this. My point of view is that there would need to be exceptional reason to ignore WP:NFF on this matter. Maybe this could be made clearer in the essay? I've posted something similar at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Future "film projects" too to try to get policy / guideline clarified there too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you should probably link this talk page as the main discussion for it on that page. As for the mistake that this is a policy, this page makes it clear it's a essay. It's just makes it's points out of other guidelines. It references WP:Split, WP:Move, WP:GNG, WP:Crystal, WP:NFF and WP:V etc. I agree we can make it more clearer on this essay. Have any ideas? I just placed that there has to be a consensus on it first so there wouldn't be too much freedom of creating a film project article right away. I hope that helps. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to wait for the outcome of the Superman (film project) deletion. If it is kept, then there will be a need to debate guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandal?

Would someone please check into this IP's edits? I am not a film person, but I have noticed a number of unreferenced edits, and there are many vandalism warnings on the talk page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lauri Arajuuri AFD

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Lauri Arajuuri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Finnish film actor. Any links to Finnish newspapers or magazines archives for the late 1970s? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)