Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Table adoption for Academy Award pages

Hello, a table has been created to display Academy Awards' winners and nominees more optimally, and feedback is requested here about adopting the table across all pages to establish consistency. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for September 2009 elections

Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Amg movie

Template:Amg movie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the responses so far, the template will not be deleted. At the template talk page, I started discussion for deprecation, outlining the purpose of external links and using a case study to judge AllMovie's supplementary benefits. Thoughts are welcome there. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

I've submitted the project for Popular pages project, we can find what articles are being visited the most, and perhaps tackle them on that ground. Sound good everyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I thought I saw somewhere off-Wikipedia an article listing the most popular Wikipedia articles for 2008-2009. I remember seeing The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and other highly popular mainstream films on the list. However, I'm more of the opinion that we should look at our core articles and also support active contributors in their endeavors, such as in the five existing PRs: The Last Song, My Own Private Idaho, Big Trouble in Little China, Blue Velvet, and An Inconvenient Truth. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this may be a useful tool. In addition to a main list for the project, it may be an idea to set it up for each individual task force as well as the core articles. PC78 (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be as worried about the popular pages, really. Why? Because they're popular - ergo, they get a lot of eyes and subsequently a larger editorial base than the average article. Recent popular films tend to already have excellent coverage, consequently. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In theory perhaps, but I doubt that it's always the case. The Military History list highlights a number of Start-Class articles, for example. PC78 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also think there's a strong correlation between the number of views and article quality in general, but of course there will be a lot of exceptions. Anyway, while the usefulness of the tool may be debated, it is, at the very least, interesting. decltype (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the correlation holds as well in Military history for a couple of reasons. One, it's much easier to write an article on a subject of relatively small scope such as a film, versus a larger topic such as a war. Two, MilHist readership tends away from recentism - only two of the top 25 items are from the last 10 years. This all being said, I don't have a problem with having a bot generate the lists. I only bring this all up because I don't feel that it requires its own task force on our part, and it seems that such a group would only serve to diffuse energy away from the Core list, as well as have a constantly shifting focus remaining almost solely on the latest blockbusters - one area I see no lack of effort in building already. That's my point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, I hear what you're saying, and recentism will certainly play its part. I don't think anyone suggested having a task force to deal with these articles; rather, I suggested above that it might be useful to have seperate lists generated for each of our existing task forces, because I feel they may be more useful at that level (certainly if we had one for the core articles). There's alredy a list for the military task force [1] (interesting, a few of the top ranked articles appear to be TV series rather than films). PC78 (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will detract from the core list too much, as there actually isn't that much focus on core articles to begin with. We've seen some improvements to a portion of the articles in the list, but if we want to see further progress then more attention needs to be given to it or a drive organized. I predict that more people will work on this hit count list as editors are more likely to know/have seen these films or be more interested in them than in the core list. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Curly Top

Does anyone agree with me that the sections entitled "Cult of cuteness" and "Context" both sound like a thesis written for a film course and don't belong in this article? It also included a section that basically was nothing more than a Shirley Temple bio, so I removed it. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They definitely don't belong in this article for two reasons:

1) the topics covered are not directly related to the film

2) the topics are a violation of WP:SYNTH and contain a large degree of original research in trying to create a perceived connection to the film

I would suggest that the user who added this material remove it from the film article and keep it on their own user sub-page in order to find a more appropriate venue, such as a social science article or similar. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove the two sections. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dive Bomber (film)

Just as an exercise in preliminary research and editing, I have tackled an old article relating to a classic 1941 film. Here is the original version before editing: then and now. If anyone would like to review it, as it has gone beyond the stub form that it was in, I would appreciate you taking a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

A few thoughts:

• I previously have gone on record as being opposed to the use of tables for cast lists.
• I question the use of images not actually from the film. I understand they depict aircraft seen in the film, but should they be included simply because they're free images? Does the reader get a better understanding of the film Dive Bomber by knowing what Vought SB2U Vindicators and Northrop BT-1 dive bombers look like? I feel they're more decorative than anything else here.
• I thought quoting taglines was a thing of the past, and referencing cast lists was unnecessary. Am I mistaken?
• The Production section is excellent. I'm one of those people who like to read a lot of background about a film. Good work! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of tables for cast lists, as far as I can determine is not recommended for major, or significant films but can be applied to a lesser example such as this film. It is also a graphic device used to move graphic images about such as the photographs used here. The first image is actually a screen shot which was the first aerial sequence of the film. The second one was from another Wiki article and will be replaced. The fact that the production was so dominated by the US Navy was one of the reasons for its inclusion. One wacky incident came about when the formations of aircraft flew over the film set and Michael Curtiz stood up and waved them off when he realized that the camera crews were not in position. The pilots who were setting out on a daily exercise, simply ignored the gesticulating and screaming Curtiz below. The film crews were mightily amused by Curtiz's declarations of "No, no. Go back!" as if the flight crews could actually hear him. The incident was symptomatic of the many outbursts and exchanges on the set when the autocratic Curtiz helmed a film. I will make sure that the captions actually reflect why the images that will ultimately be used, should appear in the article. I agree that "purty pictures" is not constructive. The cast list and its source was included because there is some dispute over character names and I wanted to standardize on one source rather than having individual references for every entry that was misidentified in other sources. As to the tagline, didn't know about whether to use it or not as I checked back through some other articles to see that there was no consistency in whether to use them or not. It certainly is a reflection of the promotion or reception of the film and can be tucked in there. Thank you for your comments, but with some alacrity, I would like to move this section as a copy to the article talk page where it may engender further discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Category:Directorial debut films at CfD

Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

James Bond film series GAR notification

James Bond film series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarantino has spoken...

...and has listed 20 films that he's liked since 1992. Not much earth-shattering about that expect that User:Bardego is now copy and pasting a boilerplate paragraph about Tarantino's liking into the reception section of all 20 films mentioned. It runs along the lines of "In a 2009 interview with Sky Movies, American director and Academy Award-winning screenwriter Quentin Tarantino regarded insert film here as one of the top twenty movies released since he became a filmmaker.". Not only is "movies" the wrong word, but the source is from youtube and the user is peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning". I have reverted all of the additions but I would like someone else to take a look (I may be wrong but as much as I like Tarantino I don't think his opinion is that important, plus Anything Else is one of the worst Woody Allen films since 1992). Darrenhusted (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Anything Else is one of the worst Woody Allen films ever. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the user who has posted those claims. We discussed this on your talk page and now I understand what the problem was. I will go and delete whatever you missed. One more question, though: what is wrong with 'peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning'"?

P.S. I agree with you about Anything Else. Bardego (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Academy Award-winning" reference is okay but not in the lede paragraphs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Hi. I just stumbled across this. I want to chime in here about so-called "peacocking." I don't have any special feelings about Tarantino's favorite films or whether he gets credited for an Academy Award or not. I find it interesting though and I don't see why it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

It is a fact when someone has been awarded an Academy Award or been nominated for one. That is not peacocking. Some of the same people on here who protest about peacocking (not you necessarily, Darrenhusted, but others) have user pages that are filled with Wikipedia barn stars, "cookies" and awards and lists of things that they have contributed on Wikipedia. In other words, egregious peacocking, but peacocking about something that should be irrelevant and not an actual contribution to a film or a real award, like an Academy Award itself.

I think this peacocking issue has gone way too far in the sense of scrutiny of articles. If a film is critically well-received, that becomes an encyclopedic fact. If someone has won significant awards, ditto. Me thinks... they are "award-winning." Whoever started this war against those words must be a really, sad and angry person who never wins anything and is jealous of those who do. Inurhead (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Inurhead; please try to assume good faith on the part of editors who raise the issue instead of slinging around unfounded accusations of jealousy and calling people "sad and angry". The issue over "peacocking" concerns the minor—though quite legitimate—concern that prefacing Tarantino's name with the phrase "award-winning" in an article not about the man or his works attempts to give added importance to his opinion without any real context, dressing it up with an editorial remark. This does not mean we should underplay the legitimacy of his opinion, just that it's usually better to tell the reader how important and why. In Tarantino's case, "award-winning" doesn't give enough context. If the information is to be included (and I make no comment for now on that wider issue), there are a couple of options: either give enough context to tell the reader why they should be interested in seeing his opinion, or leave it unsaid, with a simple wikilink to his article. Given his notability (not notability), it's likely that the latter option will suffice, as the former will bloat the section and may therefore unwittingly give his opinion more prominence than some editors will likely be comfortable with. Steve ^T • C 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve. The "sad and angry" comment was not directed at any one person specifically, as you can see if you re-read what I wrote. It was a comment about the general "sad and angry" demeanor of those obsessed with the "peacocking" issue. I don't think it is unfair to suggest that creeping rules have come in and tried to be used as "policy" by many contributors, when really they are being used to knock people or projects down a peg, i.e. "gaming the system". Again, it's nothing personal against anyone specifically here. It's just a general note.

Re: Tarantino "Academy Award-winning": Also, having an Academy Award does give a filmmaker more clout than one who doesn't, at least as far as this argument about whether to include his list of "favorite films" or not. One could successfully argue that no one would care about another filmmaker who isn't well known or who hasn't won an Academy Award if they tried to list their favorite films on Wikipedia. Tarantino, however, has had a production company that released some of his favorite films and he also regularly "borrows" material from other films and uses them in his films. He is a connoiseur of films, in addition to being a filmmaker. Again, I have no bias for or against Tarantino per se and I'm actually not a fan of his latest film (sorry!). But the fact is that he is an "Academy Award winning" filmmaker who is also a lover of films, which might cause people to be interested in what films he likes. The title of the sub-section here "Tarantino has spoken" betrays the personal feelings of some who may simply find him (and I'm guessing here) to be pompous and irritating. As that may or may not be, the content "sounds" encyclopedic to me... (but that's just my opinion)

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that someone doesn't know who Tarantino is. They might need that information. I'm imagining a very old person who has just received their first computer and looks up something on Wikipedia. Why should they click on something if they don't understand what it is? Wouldn't the words "Academy Award winning" help to explain that? Why would they care about some guy named Tarantino, if they don't realize that he is a highly respected filmmaker who has won awards? - Inurhead (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question. What does "Academy Award winning" have to do with his taste in movies and people's respect in his taste for movies? Martin Scorcese didn't win an Oscar until The Departed--which was almost 40 years after he started making movies, and with almost 20 movies under his belt before that--yet I'd personally value his opinion on movies (before he won an Oscar) more than Tarantino's, because he's been doing it for a lot longer.

A person who doesn't know who Quintin Tarantino is, is not going to know who he is if you add "Academy Award winning" in front or behind his name. The fact remains that Tarantino is "Academy Award winning Quintin Tarantino", he is "Quintin Tarantino, a film director who has won an Academy Award (among others)". You're picking one moment in his career and defining him solely based on that one aspect. He's won more than Academy Awards (which is US-centric), and he's done more than just win awards. Identifying a single aspect of his career, and subjectively applying a significance to it is not very neutral on our parts. This is why articles for films and actors/directors/crew/etc. are not supposed to begin with "So-n-so is an Academy Award winning..." or "So-n-so is an award winning", because that isn't who they are...that's what they've accomplished.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinions sought for The Hurt Locker; new layout proposal

What follows is a basic description of what has transpired over the last month or so with the article for The Hurt Locker. For more (a lot) of details, please refer to the article's discussion page and edit history.

User:Inurhead has made several contributions to the article. Some were helpful, a lot were against consensus agreed upon by a handful of other frequent contributors to the article (myself included). Inurhead resorted to what most other parties considered as being uncivil, and accusing us all of being meat/sock puppets who were intent on deliberately constructing the article in a way which would dissuade readers from wanting to watch the movie. For doing so, Inurhead was blocked 2 or 3 times for edit warring.

Among his initial arguments was that the plot summary should consist solely of two sentences with secondary sources. After discussing several times as to why this did not have to be the case, Inurhead suddenly did a 180 and decided that the plot section needed to be MORE detailed and expanded it from about 600 words to 1100 words. Inurhead reasons that the plot summary should explore the "chracters and theme" of the movie and include every scene. From my interpretation, this is in violation of WP:FILMPLOT, which states that the summary should be a brief overview of the main events that happen "as is" on the screen, and should not exceed 700 words (unless agreed upon in a thorough discussion).

Inurhead states that the article should now contain a brief two-sentence overview of the film in a "premise" section, and that a detailed (1000+ word) scene-by-scene description of the film should be included in a "detailed plot" section, and, while disregarding what has been agreed upon in MOS:FILM, insists that this is the only acceptable way. By Inurhead's reasoning, this will give the reader the option of having a very brief synosis available to them if they don't want to read a plot summary. As far as I can tell, it suggests a new way of including plot summaries in film articles, so I'm presenting this proposal (on his/her behalf) on this talk page, rather than having such a discussion be restricted to one film article's talk page. Plus, any other feedback that would be helpful in preventing more potential edit warring on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The version as of now is 649 words, and that is plenty. I don't know why the "premise" section is there, those two sources could be put to better use in the production section, and lose the premise section all together. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, why hasn't that guy been blocked already? He's been at this for weeks and it looks like he is one again just trying to revert back to his preferred version. Revert and report. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

SoSaysChappy claims he has been a frequent contributor to The Hurt Locker but he only started contributing to the page a couple weeks ago (August 12th, if I remember?). Maybe he feels he has been a part of it for longer... (?) (Talk amongst yourselves) He came in the middle of a disagreement and immediately took ownership of the "Plot" section of the page. He wrote a boring, clunky plot, replacing the short synopsis that was already there and which had been in place for the better part of a year. While doing so, he did something to the page that blanked most of the material after one of his edits messed up the article and he left it there like that.

He replaced the original short plot with a winded, unsourced plot filled with intentional spoilers (though not against rules, they were not informative but inteded to SPOIL alone). Furthermore, his plot also condensed major aspects of the film while neglecting other parts. I saw that Inglorious Basterds had one of these long breakdowns, but also had a more concise "premise" section. So I attempted to move the synopsis back into a section with that title "PREMISE." At every point, SoSaysCappy reverted it. Suspiciously the "premise" section of Inglorious Basterds was also deleted around the same time.

He repeatedly also reverted all changes I made to his tedious "plot". I first tried trimming it. Then I tried expanding it (with a note inviting other contributors to thin it out from there). I then again, tried adding a few small details today, while trimming some of the unncessary parts and he again took ownership and reverted it.

While film plots are allowed to be somewhat unsourced, the more complicated ones should have references according to Wiki policy on plot. Wikipedia is "not about plot." It is not about "unsourced, original" material. This film has also been discussed at length by hundreds of critics who have broken down elements of the plot. It would not be difficult to write a plot summary that is sourced, instead of adding original material that is frankly, poorly conceived and poorly worded. Even though I believe it needs sources, I have backed off of that and tried to work with SoSaysCrabby's version. That didn't work either!

User:Collectonian (above) joined in the conversation at the same point (or slightly earlier), more or less joining to gang up and isolate this editor. You see by the suggestion that I should be blocked, that Collectonian is biased. I have no issues with this person, other than that they were obviously canvassed and came to an edit war with claws out. Go back and look for yourselves. These people are making Wikipedia into a really unpleasant place. By the way, they were all called into the edit war by User:Erik and User:Ckatz, two long time collaborators with a history of hounding other editors and demanding that everything be "their way" or not at all. Ckatz even admitted that he had been wikistalking me from page to page and reverting my contributions for a year. A year! If anybody has any guts around here, they should come and stand up for the right for people to contribute to Wikipedia's pages without being ganged up on or hounded or repeatedly deleted for no reason. I have tried repeatedly to reason with these people and have left detailed explanations on the discussion page as well as on their own talk pages. Nothing seems to work. So yes! Please come and contribute, but not if this is yet another canvassing attempt by Ckatz in disguise. Inurhead (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A completely disinterested and uninvolved observer checking in: this appears to be entirely a content dispute. The best place to resolve issues that concern article development would be on the appropriate talk page associated with the article. I can see why this contretemps was brought to this forum, but one of the other means of going forward is to ask for a consensus on the talk page that validates the direction in which the editing is progressing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

Well, it was my intention to generate discussion about the editor's proposal of including both a "premise" and "detailed plot", which I would think wouldn't apply to one article alone (unless there is a policy out there that merits such a layout, of which I'm not aware). Such a discussion would greatly help this content dispute. Now...my description of "frequent contributors" refers to the span of the last month alone, as I described in the opening sentence of my original post. I'm not going to defend myself any further on what was said about my edits; if anyone is interested in that, simply read Talk:The Hurt Locker. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)From my understanding, consensus is completely against Inurhead's edits, which are very non-NPOV, however he continues to reject all discussions and other views, falsely claiming all were "canvassed" to harass him or that they are sock/meat puppets and that he's being abused. This really isn't a content dispute anymore. All other editors on the article appear to actively working to improving the article, discussing disagreements on the talk page and coming to consensus, etc. Inurhead is a single editor who seems to be continually disruptive, trying to force his point of view, and out-right refusing to act in a cooperative manner. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a lie, Collectonian only shows up for disputes. This person is not even a part of the discussion. Thanks for responding Bzuk though. The problem with that idea of consensus, however, is that the majority of people "now" contributing to the page represent the same "new" contingency that has been deleting everything that I add to it. And as they say, Wikipedia is not a "democracy" and can't really be that, because of these often warp-minding majority-minority groups who are canvassed and come in and do a hostile coup d'etat of an article during disagreements. So consensus is nearly impossible. I had hope a couple days ago, but once I reach some kind of agreement with one person, another magically pops up again and the argument starts all over again. Tag team style. I'm highly suspicious of some of these contributors and just exactly what their goal is with their contributions to the page. I'm trying to make positive contributions. Many of them have just been deleting all new information and trying to slant the article tone-wise, I'm guessing in an attempt to damage the film's prospects at either garnering audiences or possible awards. The film is the highest reviewed film of the year according to the New York Times, yet they continually try to push the minority 2% viewpoint that it is not. It's the facts! They are stubborn. Not me. Thanks again for your suggestions... It's just the nature of Wikipedia lately and its why it is having a hard time hanging on to good contributors. Inurhead (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It is entirely appropriate to come to WP:FILM and request an outside opinion. It is entirely inappropriate to come in and accuse someone of canvassing a particular opinion for having requested those opinions. It's probably much too late to cite WP:AGF, but it's pertinent when everyone is being accused of bad faith. There is a definitive style guideline through this project and for the record, User:Collectonian is a coordinator of this project and has been deeply involved in developing the style guidelines, and Bzuk has been just as deeply involved. If either of those people offer comments regarding the development of an article, I listen, since they are so very active re: film articles. I also see that Erik has been involved in this article for quite some time now and he is the lead coordinator of this project. The style guideline is there for a reason. I would suggest that making specious charges of sock puppetry and tag teaming to slant the tone of an article are not only bad faith claims, they are incendiary and thwarts any possibility of productive discussion. Just saying. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wildhartlivie and Bzuk for your input. Sorry, but others started making personal attacks here first and I was merely defending myself. I agree that this should just be a discussion of whether film articles can include a short synopsis or "premise."

As for premises, I don't see why they shouldn't be a part of a film page. A synopsis has the benefit of being short and sweet and doesn't spoil a movie unnecessarily. Why has wiki film now become "all about plot?" Shouldn't it encourage people to go see the movies themselves, rather than to get a cheat sheet, Clift notes version?

Again, as for premises. I checked another recent film release and saw that they had done it on Inglorious Basterds (prior to recent deletions). Plus, the way WP:PLOT is worded, it seems to lean more towards "premises" in the sense of making plots concise, rather than by adding tedious, unsourced, cherry-picked, scene-by-scene breakdowns of the entire film (such as SoSaysChappy did). Maybe all film articles in general should back away from these "original" unsourced "plots" that are being written by anonymous writers and move back towards simple "premises" that have been brought up in critical film reviews and interviews by real sources and professional writers. I've seen quite a few questionable "Plots" here on Wiki film lately and they seem to have been written by several of the same people. Just saying... Inurhead (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask all editors to direct their comments to Talk:The Hurt Locker because such a specific topic does not need to be discussed in depth on the WikiProject talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is interest in discussing plot summaries for film articles, please start a separate discussion... this particular discussion was about another topic and has gotten off-track. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved to #Writing plot summaries

Sing girls

Article is currently tagged for this project, but does it fall under our scope? PC78 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tag for Actors & Filmmakers instead? PC78 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose that would be the best place. It's an odd sort of article, isn't it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in a similar vein as the Brat Pack, isn't it? Does that fall under WP:Actors, too? decltype (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is basically the same thing as the Brat Pack, although I would have to comment that the article you pointed to is really misnamed. It should be something more like "Brat Pack (film actors)" rather than "Brat Pack (film)", because that implies it is the name of a film. At a loss for where else to classify either of these articles - technically, I tend to think of WP:ACTOR as being for individual biographies, but I suppose they are basically biographical, as well. The Rat Pack is classified under WP:Biography and WP:Musician. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the naming issue, moved to Brat Pack (actors). I recall that when the article was up for GA, the reviewer, possibly confused by the name, complained about the lack of an infobox! Of course, even the most cursory reading of the article should clear up that misunderstanding. decltype (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Top Movie Succession Box

I think this should be on there. On the pages for songs, they have the succession of number one hits, so why not do the same with movies? --Crazy4metallica (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We used to have them, but I think it was decided to remove, and the templates were deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Succession boxes may answer your question. There was succession box abuse where territories were listed indiscriminately, and the preceding "top" films are not relevant to the scope of the individual film, and succeeding "top" films may or may not be relevant (better to establish relevance through prose, such as being a heavyweight tentpole film that cut into the preceding film's revenue). Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New category

At the present time we have Category:American drama films and Category:American comedy films but not Category:American comedy drama films or, alternatively, Category:American dramedy films. Does anyone agree with my feeling there are enough American films in the comedy-drama genre to warrant creating a category for them? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be slightly WP:OC#NARROW, but if you feel the urge to create go ahead. I'd personally would rather tackle categories based on decade as it makes browsing through the category:Comedy-drama a lot more simple. But that's just my opinion. I'd say make it and I'd think more negative issues of it will be brought up after it's created rather then before. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Category:1960s comedy drama films, Category:1970s comedy drama films, etc. would be preferable to the less specific Category:American comedy drama films? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just a more broad category I think. Because in the long run we'd have Category:French comedy drama films, Category:Canadian comedy drama films, Category:Polish comedy drama films, Category:Soviet comedy drama films and the list would go on. By decade it would be more encompassing and would avoid over categorization. I don't know though. Anyone else want to toss in their two cents on this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just Category:Comedy drama films? Do we know if it would be overpopulated? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Category:Comedy-drama films :). It's a category with over 800 articles in it, not considering sub-categories. Spreading it out with make it a much easier browse through. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There we go! I was wondering where it was. (Can one do redirects for categories?) It seems like most entries are American-made, so basing by decades seems to be a better spread. Just my novice opinion when it comes to categories... Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was adding Category:Comedy-drama films to a film article but it didn't work because I omitted the hyphen! When I posed my question I specified American comedy drama films because there seems to be a trend to create categories that include both the film's nationality and genre. When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, Category:Drama films was sufficient. Then Category:American drama films surfaced. I'm fine with just Category:Comedy-drama films. At least it's a better option than listing both Category:American drama films and Category:American comedy films in articles about dramedy films. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FA review

I have nominated Manos:The Hands of Fate for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

Hello! The actor bio for Ilyass Derfouf has been edited by an anon IP for some weeks now, adding in information about this actor's agency and who he'd like to work with in the future. I see this as spam and non-encyclopedic and have reverted these edits (see the edit history). I then get the changes reverted by the IP with the edit summary of "Do NOT sabotage our work", etc (again, see the edit history). I've left numerous warnings on the talkpages of the IP addresses, but to no avail. I've never had to deal with this sort of thing until now - what do I do? Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is to give proper spam warnings, and if they continue to edit past the 4th warning it'll automatically be brought to the attention of some admins. Regardless of how disruptive their edits might be, it's still best not to call them an "idiot". The article should be an AfD nominee anyways. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I can't find a whole lot of verification beyond the source that is given in the article for this person. Most everything I find online is copied from here or are just questionable sources/sites. Not a single solitary image of this person, who is supposedly a high profile actor. The Venice Film Festival website for the event, which is going on now, doesn't even mention his name, which is quite odd for the "host" of the event (run Ilyass Derfouf in the search. Then add the actual hostess is listed on the site as Maria Grazia Cucinotta [2]) clinches it for me. I think this is a hoax, or at best, a self-promotional article. For instance, there's this page at a self-posting site, although I must say, he went to a lot of trouble to be convincing. I don't believe this article should even exist, and it should be nominated for deletion post haste. For intervention, I'd recommend taking it to WP:AN/I or WP:AN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

At first, I was only about 90% sure you were right. There is a source in the article that was included less than 20 minutes after the article was created that linked to a French magazine article that already contained the information about his hosting the festival. Then I noticed that the article was a re-creation of one that was already speedy deleted. The sole reference is most likely yet another unreliable source that got its false info from a previous version of the article. Plenty more "less-fishy" sites indeed list the actress you mentioned as being the host(ess)[3]. Tagging as CSD. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't recommend taking it to either of the noticeboards; this is low-level stuff, and one I think we can manage here without creating additional drama. I also don't recommend templating the IP with vandalism warnings; this is technically a content dispute, albeit a pretty clear cut one. Instead of the warning, perhaps a personalised message—with links to the relevant guidelines and policies—explaining exactly why the edits are considered inappropriate would work; you'd be surprised at how often it does. If it doesn't in this case, and if the problem continues or gets worse (assuming the article isn't deleted) WP:RPP is probably the next best step. Steve ^T • C 09:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Followup: ah, it appears to be a hoax. Never mind then. :-) Steve ^T • C 09:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alert an admin, this can be dealt with expeditiously. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks folks for the help! Lugnuts (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have blocked the creator indefinitely for continuing to insert her misinformation into the Venice Film Festival articles, also considering a history of edits such as these: [4][5] decltype (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Several different anonymous edits had also been made to perpetuate this, and though the user has been blocked, they continued again today.[6][7][8] The hoax edits seem reserved for 66th Venice International Film Festival, Venice Film Festival, and Isabelle Caro. Just wanted to bring attention to this, and think we should request page protection for these if it keeps up. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing plot summaries

Separated from #Outside opinions sought for The Hurt Locker; new layout proposal

I didn't start this discussion, but now that we are in it, I think it is entirely appropriate to discuss getting rid of the lengthy "Plots" that are burdening the film pages of Wikipedia film articles. It would serve multiple purposes. It would get rid of the "original" unsourced writing per Wikipedia policy, it would streamline the articles making it easier to digest them on small handheld devices, and it would get rid of intentional or unintentional plot "biases" where a writer "flatens" a plot with dull words, selectively omitting key scenes or moments in a film, or intentionally or unintentionally giving a total plot breakdown filled with spoilers. It would be more encylopedic to merely include a synopsis or premise. Inurhead (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on no original research says that primary sources may be used but only to make descriptive claims: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Descriptions are not original research. In addition, the lead section tends to provide an overview of what the film is about as well as other elements like production and reception. Plot summaries do not run afoul of WP:SIZE, though obviously summaries should only be treated as complementary sections for the rest of the article body. I'm not sure why writing in a plain manner to avoid interpretation would be considered biased. Most films' events are easy to describe, and WP:FILMPLOT explains what to do if there is an element of the film that is unclear. (For example, I'd be very inclined to use secondary sources for experimental films.) In addition, we do not judge inclusion of information on if it spoils or not, per WP:SPOILER. Encyclopedic articles aim to be comprehensive and historical, not explicitly to be pages that help someone determine if a film is worth seeing or not. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Plot details are sometimes the only meat in a film article. Cut down on them and you eliminate the bulk of the contents of most film articles. That would eliminate the desirability of Wikipedia as a film reference.Stetsonharry (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that plot summaries are better described as bread in film articles. The meat is the real-world context of the film, such as themes, production, and reception. The bread is meant to complement the meat to present a delicious sandwich. :P In other words, the bread itself is not the core. It can be digested, certainly, but it won't have the taste of an encyclopedic article. </bad analogy> Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I address the first part of your post, I have to ask, what policy states that there should be no "original writing"? Any descriptive writing is original writing. If it isn't, it's plagiarism. Writing a description of what events happen in a movie mandates original writing. Making "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source" would be original research. A character in a movie goes into a basement to investigate a strange noise. Would including "Doofus ventures into the basement to investigate a strange noise" into a plot summary violate policy? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say. Secondly, you've made a case here and in other posts that these plot summaries are "dull" and "boring"; correct me again if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that Wikipedia is obligated to go beyond being informative and "liven up" its plot summaries somehow for increased entertainment value? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and just to respond for a moment to Erik: while you have a valid point, on occasion plot summaries are indeed the crucial section. In movies with complex plots, for instance, such as DOA (1949) and Pulp Fiction (1994). DOA's plot summary is very good, and one of the main things about the DOA article that makes it valuable. Most people seeing the movie can't make heads or tails of what is going on. I've seen it maybe thirty times and that's how it is with me. But a good, accurate plot summary can make the whole thing understandable, really adding value. Plot summaries at IMDB are usually not that good, though TCM.com can be fairly comprehensive. So I would definitely reject any effort to de-emphasize plot summaries or limit them in any way. --Stetsonharry (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If most people who see films with complex plots cannot make sense of it, then is it really acceptable to use the film itself as the primary source for a plot description? Do you mean that people may digest a film better when reading about it? Plot summaries should be what everyone can agree happened, so that means either cutting back on confusing details or writing more broadly of certain events. If the confusing details are critical or if the entire description cannot be agreed upon with a simple viewing, it seems that secondary sources should be used. WP:PLOT says that such sections complement other sections, so for the most part, plot summaries are (or should be) secondary to the rest of the article body. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, if it's just a case of paying close attention. D.O.A. (1950 film) is a good example. One can watch that film over and over again on Internet Archive, and pay close attention to the interlocking plot lines and faithfully describe it. Some editor or editors did that, and produced a very useful article. On the other hand, if a film is totally abstract, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it would be imperative to rely on a secondary source to provide guesses as to the symbolism. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Babe

This article includes a Soundtrack section that simply lists the titles and lengths of the instrumental tracks I assume are included on the soundtrack album. Given the film is not a musical with songs that are a key component of the plot's development, is this considered appropriate? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. At best a prose note about the Soundtrack as a whole, but the track listing is unnecessary and should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not sure if we have any best practices for these sections; I have been meaning to write guidelines for MOS:FILM. In general, I think that track listings like these are indiscriminate, particularly if the titles are pretty typical and one entity performs all or most of the songs. For example, at Fight Club (film)#Musical score, there is prose about the Dust Brothers performing the score, but no such listing. An example of when to include a listing is for the sake of navigation, as seen at Tropic Thunder#Soundtrack, linking to specific song articles and articles of the artists who performed them. For Babe, music is a part of the film, so it is best covered in prose. I would say the "Home media" section looks unnecessarily indiscriminate as well. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I removed the track listing and reduced the section to a simple piece of prose. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

There appears to be edit warring between two editors at The X-Files: I Want to Believe. I'm touch-and-go in the next few hours... can other editors take a look at what's going on and break up the ongoing skirmish? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Both users warned, by Ckatz (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Xpfisher has been blocked for twelve hours... unfortunately, his first edit after being warned (both on the article talk page and his talk page) was to revert yet again. I'm amenable to reducing the block length if he can be convinced to stop reverting, though, as his intentions appear to be good. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And now Trust Is All You Need has been blocked for twelve hours. Same story, came back on line this evening and immediately reverted Xpfisher. (I've blocked them rather than protecting the article, because the dispute is clearly only between the two editors and Erik has been working on cleaning up the article.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with actions taken. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Future film update (The Hobbit)

Would anyone here be able to do the update suggested here? Also left a note at WikiProject Middle-earth. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Now done. The other WikiProject got there first! :-) If anyone here knows of good resources for adding to the article on this upcoming film, please let us know and come and help out on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

CinemaofX templates

Are they necessary? Take Template:CinemaofFrance for instance. It's used in every article about a French film (as far as I can see), and links to every "French films of YEAR" article out there. So a film from 2009 will link to the list of films from 1910 and so on. This seems like link-overkill to me. Also, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5#Template:American films, where the US version of the template was deleted. There is Template:CinemaoftheUS, but that template is used rather differently. I'd prefer if the other templates were looking and used like that, without the links to every single year, and only used in articles directly relevant to the cinema of the corresponding category, instead of being used in every article on every film from that country. --Conti|✉ 14:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think they are appropriate at individual film articles; there are way too many links that are not directly relevant to a single film. We should only use {{Frenchfilmlist}} at the appropriate articles (not those of individual films). If we do this, then {{CinemaofFrance}} should be more like {{CinemaoftheUS}}. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always though that it was overkill to use these templates in individual film articles; I would prefer their useage to be more restricted, though I know others have disagreed in the past. Having links to each year list isn't a problem in itself if the templates were only used in directly relevant articles. PC78 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the problem is largely gone if the templates are used differently, although I'm still ambivalent about the year links. Anyhow, if there's a consensus to do so, a guideline could be added to the relevant templates, reminding users of only adding them to articles that are directly relevant to the cinema of the corresponding category, and that articles about films are not (in 99,9% of the cases, at least). That's what Template:CinemaoftheUS pretty much already says, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 15:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps contact the creators or primary contributors of these templates? I know Blofeld is one. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

I'd appreciate it if some experienced editors could wander over there. "Personal life" is far too long in my view, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.Stetsonharry (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Should notify WT:ACTOR, too. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the length. Another issue is a lack of references for some of the statements, plus flowerly, non-encyclopedic prose like "This was the third trip down the aisle for Sheen . . ." LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 22:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. It's not that the personal life section is too long, it's that the career section is horrifically too short. Three paragraphs for a 30+ year career is shockingly slim. IMO it should never have passed GA. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It looks very substandard for a GA. PC78 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the others, this is really not a GA level article. Its a BLP with too little actual professional/relevant information versus the personal, the lead is too short, it is tagged for a major issue (neutrality), and its a BLP with unsourced claims. Not good at all. Glad to see a GAR has been started. Noting issues there as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Super High Me

Super High Me is the current collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, a wikiproject that focuses on the relationship between cannabis and society. Not sure if WikiProject Films has a collaboration as well, but I thought I would point out the possibility for two wikiprojects to work together to impove the article as much as possible. Any help would be appreciated, especially since the article should meet WP Films' policies and procedures. Feel free to contribute in any way possible! Might be a nice break from working on more serious film articles. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Erik for his contributions to the article. If any other project members would like to contribute, feel free. Would it be possible for someone to re-classify the article? I am thinking C-Class, but I am not too certain about the guidelines. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator elections

How many coordinators does the project have? If it's 5 or more, why bother with voting? There are only 5 editors running so obviously they're all going to be elected no matter how many votes they get, right? LargoLarry (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules of the elections are that any member of WikiProject Films and at least 500 edits can nominate themselves during the !voting process. Care to toss your hat into the ring and boost the numbers? :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) There are seven currently. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Greta Garbo and ALT text

There is a current discussion at Talk:Greta Garbo#Was Garbo beautiful? regarding wording in ALT text that could use some other comments. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This post isn't appropriate, Hesperian. The notice was, in my view, quite neutral and didn't elaborate to a great extent on the topic under discussion. Any issues you have with this RfC belong on the page where the discussion is occurring, not being posted to over 35 project pages where notification was posted and including your comments that argue your position and tend to discredit the poster. I think this falls under canvassing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quoting critics

Whenever I quote a review in the critical reception section, I identify both the reviewer and his or her publication by name. In response to an edit I made to Fela!, User:Ssilvers sent me a message saying in part, "I don't see why you want to include non-notable names in the response section . . . this is an encyclopedia. We present the most notable information about a subject. If a critic is not well-known, mentioning his/her name just clutters up the article . . . The article is not about critics, it's about the show, and this person's name is irrelevant to the show. If his/her notable newspaper reviewed the show, it's necessary to identify the news source, but identifying the non-notable reviewer by name does not add anything."

Although his comments refer to a musical theatre article, I feel they apply to film articles as well. Out of curiosity, how do film project participants feel about what I think is a relatively minor issue? If a critic isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of his own, should his or her name not be mentioned when quoting him or her, or should credit be given where credit is due? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the harm of quoting even little known critics by name. I think the overriding question is whether the publication is notable enough to be quoted. My feeling is that if the publication is sufficiently notable it does no harm to name the critic and it would be a bit strange to take out the name. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In this instance the publications were Variety and the online theatre magazine CurtainUp, certainly a viable source for criticism of musical theatre. Thanks for your comment. I'm glad to know I'm not alone in thinking the way I do. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see a problem with this either. I sometimes do and I sometimes don't, to make the prose a little more varied, if nothing else. If the critic is a bluelink, I will usually always name her. Regards, decltype (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to identify the critics by name because it makes it easier to express the review as an opinion. It feels a little strange for a publication to "talk" about a film, you know? Like "The New York Times thought that so-and-so's cinematography was 'breathtaking'..." Reflecting on previous contributions, I think I tend to keep it to the publication when it reports retrospectively, particularly of a broad consensus. Like if the Times looks back on a controversial film, I'm more inclined to write, "The Times said that at the time, critics were divided over the film and its subject matter." It's a good question, though... I'll have to think about it some more. That's my answer so far. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit middle of the road on this. I think prominent reviewers should be named, but I also find it tedious when repetitive "John Doe of Whatever Press said..." pops up. I will name the prominent reviewer but not always every "John Doe" who wrote a review. I think, too, it depends on how the article is written and the flow of the language. Ambiguous opinion? Maybe. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, crediting the quote to the person who said it hardly "clutters up the article". I agree with what Erik said, The New York Times doesn't speak, its writers speak for it, and not mentioning them by name just to conserve space seems strange. LargoLarry (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My stance is, if you know the individual then quote their name. If they have an article on Wikipedia, then don't bother quoting their name AND the publications name (as their personal article most likely does that). On the other side, if they don't have an article, then I like to say who they are and where they publish their work (since the publication most likely has an article). As for this "don't identify non-notable critics", if you don't, it could be considered plagiarism, because you aren't giving credit where credit is due. The "Chicago Sun-Times" didn't say they liked The Dark Knight, "Roger Ebert" did. Likewise for anyone who isn't as well known as Roger Ebert. It's important to identify who you are getting your information from.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't think anyone has advocated not giving crediting for a review. That is precisely what citations are for. Not including a name in the text when a citation is present to the source is is no way plagiarism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict - LOL, we said almost the same thing, Wild.] Hi. The author's name will be in the footnote, so it will be properly credited. The question is whether or not to also name the critic in the article text above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if it's a single sentence of information, and the in-text citation is 100% clearly going to the information next to it. But when you have more than a sentence, and you start quoting select passages and not the entire thing and you don't give credit (regardless of in-line citation), it can come across as plagiarism. Because you aren't identifying what text goes to what source. This is especially true when you have a source with multiple voices being written, and your doing more "paraphrasing" than quoting directly. You need to be able to attribute specific comments to specific people. It's not your typical plagiarism, in the sense of trying to pass someone else's work off as your own, but failing to accurately identify your text's source can still be considered a form of plagiarism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I always quote name and publication for each review. Publications do not express opinions, their writers do, and in some articles, you may have reviews from two reviewers from the same publication (theatrical and DVD, for example). It also reads better to me and more clearly indicates that "these are the opinions of reviewers from". The only time I do not include author is if there isn't one indicated. Being in the footnote is not, to me, helpful to readers while actually reading the reception section who may want to know who said what - especially for works with mixed reception. On the whole, it just comes out better to me to have something like "X from Y felt" or "Y's X said" etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been away and I'm just catching up with Wikipedia, which is why I'm just now adding my 2¢ to this discussion. If a review is worth quoting, I can't think of a single reason why the critic shouldn't be named. MovieMadness (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tell-Tale Heart film adaptations

Tags have been placed on three adaptations (1941, 1953 and 1960) of Poe's poem to merge them back into the main article. Personally, I'm against the merger and have helped expand the 1941 version (it was Jules Dassin's first film). I admit the 1953 version looks a bit weak - can anyone help in expansion of these articles? Discussion can also be found here. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though it is a stub, the 1953 article deserves to remain on its own, due to the significance of the film, being an academy award nominee. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, good spot - didn't even see that bit. Ref added. Lugnuts (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd say to keep separate, but if little reliably sourcable information is available about any of them to expand them beyond a stub, I can't see any reason they could not be reasonably merged to a "film adaptation" section of the main The Tell-Tale Heart article. Its been done with other older works that have some film adaptations with little information beyond "they were released" and who was in it, directed, etc. While they may meet WP:NF, that doesn't preclude merging even notable stubs into a single better article. That said, if any were released theatrically or otherwise meet the minimums of WP:NF, I think at least some time should be given for development, as older films are frequently neglected on Wikipedia, before they are merged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Having read this discussion, I did some research re: the 1953 animated adaptation and expanded it as best I could. I think I have elevated it from stub to start class and I feel it can stand on its own as a separate article in its present state. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, LM. Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just expanded the 1941 Jules Dassin version with what little information I could gather. I think it possibly can stand on its own in its present state. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great that you always manage to find images for the infobox, even for films that are as obscure as these are! MovieMadness (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably a dumb question, but...

is this image actually Ewan MacGregor? It looks very little like this one. It probably is, but it seems to me like he's changed quite a bit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Going by a news photo I found at http://www. fibre2fashion .com/news/fashion-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=77033 (blacklisted link), it would seem so...and agreed, rather dramatic change in just 3 years. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I kept thinking "this isn't the cute little guy from Moulin Rouge..." And thanks for your comments on Garbo, I think the editor was finally persuaded, if not in agreement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the mole on his right cheek, it's definitely him. The difference between the two images is the lighting and the facial hair. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is McGregor. If this image is going to be used a lot, I wish there was a way to crop the woman on his left shoulder out of it! MovieMadness (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I look at the image and I'm not thinking it can be cropped out. The original photo on Flicker is essentially identical so there's no larger version from which to work and touching her out, in this case, is beyond my ability, there's just too much of her. Anyone else is certainly free to try! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I blurred the fan on right and tightened the cropping. Not really the greatest retouch job, but I think it might be better for the Ewan McGregor article now. If you don't like the new cropped image, I won't mind if you remove it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move for Rambo

There is a requested move at Talk:Rambo#Requested move. Additional opinions are welcome. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer (2000 film)

This needs major expansion, but I don't know where to find more info. Anyone wanna help? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong movie task force

Anyone interested in a HK movie task force and revamping articles / creating new ones? Most related articles, if they actually exist, suffer from a strong lack of editorial quality and are badly structured, with people randomly adding on information as they see fit.

Mprey (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The task force is already included in the Chinese task force. However, any effort to expand/create content is welcomed! Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

T-1000 and List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas

Can I get some comments on merging T-1000 (discussion) and List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas (discussion)? TTN (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Weighed in at both. It may be worth assessing the general nature of film characters' articles to expand MOS:FILM#Film characters with best practices. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move for The Dark Knight

There is a requested move for The Dark Knight (film) at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)#Requested move. Additional opinions are welcome. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21#Category:Actors to portray superheroes regarding this category as well as discussion regarding further categorization. Please take a look and add any comments you might have. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism: A Love Story

Hello, Capitalism: A Love Story is being released to the public soon, and judging from the political climate these days, the article seems like a possible battleground (which Wikipedia should not be). There will probably be off-topic discussions as a result (just had to revert an off-topic comment recently), and I ask various editors to keep an eye on the article and its talk page to make sure that discussions are fully focused on improving the article. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point and thanks for bringing it up! I have it watchlisted now. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lion King Merge Discussion

A discussion is currently underway to determine if Nala (The Lion King) should be merged/redirected to The Lion King. Additional views at Talk:Nala (The Lion King)#Merge/Redirect to The Lion King would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More Lion King fun :) Tried to redirect I Just Can't Wait to Be King to The Lion King (soundtrack) per WP:MUSIC and its being an unnotable song from the film. Another editor is blocking it, say send it back to AfD (previous AfD closed as keep with several keepers saying redirect or merge). So I've started a discussion at Talk:I Just Can't Wait to Be King#Redirect to seek consensus. Additional views appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FILM wording proposal for "Awards and honors"

I proposed some MOS wording for dealing with awards in an article. My proposal can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Proposed wording for "Awards and honors". Please comment and share opinions. Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story#Fact checking

There is a discussion underway at the above mentioned link regarding analysis of factual information and how it relates to the film's critical reception. Additional views and thoughts would be appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

American anti-communist propaganda films

Someone at Talk:Rocky IV asked about the film being categorized as an American anti-communist propaganda film. Category:American anti-communist propaganda films seems to have other dubious entries. This reminded me of discussion about categorizing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as a propaganda film, which I opposed; discussion can be seen here (beware, tl;dr). It seems inappropriate to categorize films like Rocky IV and similar films (particularly from the 1980s as "propaganda" films because I believe that the best application of this label is for wartime films. Outside of such films, such classification is less obvious and not as readily propaganda-driven. Do others have an opinion on how to approach categorizing such films, such as alternate categories? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For documentaries such as Expelled and Capitalism: A Love Story, perhaps Category:Partisan films would be a reasonable, neutrally-worded choice (after all, the makers of those films freely admit they favour one "side" over the other). However for Rocky IV and its ilk, that wouldn't fit; indeed, barring someone's coming up with a good term to use, I don't see a need for their categorisation in this manner at all. If their ... outmoded ... politics are discussed by reliable sources, that can be noted with proper context in the article body instead. Steve ^T • C 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A question

I created Ladies of Leisure by clicking on a red link in the Frank Capra films template. After I saved it, I checked "What links here" and discovered Ladies Of Leisure, which consists of one sentence. Do I need to nominate it for deletion, or is there an easer way to get rid of it? Or should I just leave it? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Add {{db-histmerge|Ladies Of Leisure}} to Ladies of Leisure. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just redirect Ladies Of Leisure to Ladies of Leisure? --Jimbo^[online] 16:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's to preserve the page history. WP:HISTMERGE says, "When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is very undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons." This is a similar situation, so it brings two page histories for the same topic together. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a history merge here, as there was no copying of information; no edits from Ladies Of Leisure need to be included or credited in Ladies of Leisure. A simple redirect is all that's needed. Steve ^T • C 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel versions seems to suggest that if the histories are not parallel, they can be merged together? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but a merge only needs to be done in the first place when there's useful content from one that can be included in the other. Here, LiteraryMaven created the second article without any knowledge of the first, without copying anything from it, so there's no need to credit the contributors of the first (who made literally two edits). Steve ^T • C 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Typically, the moribund article contents can be folded in without much drama. Just do it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

For my own education, did you redirect Ladies Of Leisure by clicking on the "Move" tab and then typing in the new name Ladies of Leisure, or did you accomplish the redirect another way? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I cleared the article contents and replaced it with #REDIRECT [[Ladies of Leisure]]—a template for which appears as one of the the buttons above the edit window (this one). Steve ^T • C 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

List of 3-D films (Index of?)

I was looking at the page List of 3-D films and feel tempted to make this into a sort-able table (see my talk comments on that page), but this is a non-trivial undertaking because of the large numbers of films listed there ... so I am not about to undertake this process unless there is some consensus on this.

I also note that on this and related pages, "3D" "3-D" are used interchangeably. However, as I noted on the related talk pages, there seems to be much more legitimacy to "3-D" and propose that a global edit to find all instances of "3D" and replace with "3-D" ensuring of course that no grammar or other errors are inadvertently introduced.

Finally, on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Index page, I see the admonition to find "hidden" "Index of" pages. So this leads me to suspect that the List of 3-D films should really be renamed Index of 3-D films.

I am sure that there are other issues that arise from members who were previously unaware of the existence of this page.

Finally, with the imminent emergence of next generation 3-D film and television technology, this and related 3-D pages will become increasingly prominent and important in the coming months and years.

Enquire (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I will respond at Talk:List of 3-D films. I wanted to say here, though, titling as an index article as opposed to a list article would not be appropriate if you are considered a sortable table with some details about each film. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wizards (film)

Just to let everyone in this project know that Wizards has a GAR. You can find it here. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Series templates

Just curious about the current viewpoint on the inclusion of various series templates on film articles before I bring up a discussion for WT:ACTOR. Someone has added a new group to the template {{Hannibal}} to include the cast and has added the template to all the articles for actors listed on the template. I guess I'm looking for feedback on how to proceed with something like this. I know there's been discussion about some aspects of template use here. For WP:ACTOR, I really don't think this is a good trend, and a couple of us (actually Rossrs and myself) have tossed around the idea of some project style limitations that might include recommendations for size of article re: spinning off filmographies and now, perhaps the ever-increasing barrage of templates, so some input would be great. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) (Sorry about the wrong template thing, whoever fixed it.)

(edit conflict) My opinion is that such franchise templates should not bother with names of the cast and crew, particularly if that leads to proliferating the templates on the people's articles. In the case of the {{Hannibal}} template, I am fine with "Novels", "Films", and "Characters" rows. The "Cast" and "Crew" rows just do not detail who played who or who did what, and these people's lives are not based solely around the franchise. (You're welcome for the template fix.) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eric. The template should be about the franchise, the films, the novels, and characters, not the cast/crew. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Malayalam-language films by decade categories at Cfd

The discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First season production vs TV series Production

I've been reviewing some Season one lists recently like Desperate Housewives (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1) and it has come to my attention the difficulty of the distinction between a Season production and a TV series production, since a season is part of a TV series. How should this be handled? For example, should Supernatural (season 1) include all the information in Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production since it's mostly about the first season and the conception of the first season of the TV series?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WT:TV be a better place to ask this? I'm sure some editors here could help, but discussion should take place there. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion over to that relevant WikiProject. See WT:TV#First season production vs TV series Production  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Woops, sorry for that. Yes It's a better place...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Batman film series

There is a discussion to split or rename Batman (film series) found here. Since this seems like an unusual case, additional opinions are welcome. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The splitting option appears to be put aside, so there is a newly focused discussion on renaming (choosing the best name to best encompass the topics). Please weigh in here. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Second follow-up: I have requested a move to Batman in film. Discussion for the move can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Western films

Can anyone explain why we have Category:Western (genre) films but List of Western films: 1930s, List of Western films: 1940s, List of Western films: 1950-1954, etc. don't use the term "genre" after "Western"? Why not just Category:Western films? It looks odd with (genre) in the middle of it. LargoLarry (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and it should be renamed to be without "(genre)". Not familiar with category-related processes, though... does anyone think {{Cfr-speedy}} can be used without issue? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I too hate the (genre) part of this category structure, but see this and this for more! Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. There is no contrast that necessitates the insertion of "(genre)", like an "Eastern films" category. It's a disambiguation where none is necessary. We would never have a geographical "Western films" category; it is too vague where we have much better and specific ways to name it. This means that we cannot use the speedy rename template. I strongly urge relisting at WP:CFD, though. If people are concerned about what "Western film" means, we can add a description at all categories. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that nobody associated with the film project participated in the discussions Lugnuts pointed out. I'm guessing they never were posted on this discussion page so people could be aware of it as they should have been. I'm surprised the proposal to rename Category:Western films to Category:Western (genre) films passed with only 3 people voting! I'm with Erik, this is ridiculous. I think no matter where you go in the world, people know what a good old-fashioned Western is and nobody confuses it with a film about Western as opposed to Eastern culture. I hope some of the project coordinators will initiate a proposal to revert back to Category:Western films. LargoLarry (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've listed this at CfD. Please add to the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chapters in plot sections

Recently I have been planning to trim down the plot section for Lars von Trier's Antichrist since it has grown longer than the 400-700 words suggested in WP:MOSFILM. Many of Trier's films are divided into chapters, and in the current version the chapters are incorporated in the plot section as H3 subheadings. Dogville uses the same structure, while Manderlay has the chapters listed first, followed by the plot. Breaking the Waves doesn't mention any structure but that is probably because the plot section is very brief. Pulp Fiction also uses subheadings, but it is a bit different since the film is made up of several stories, while the Trier films have one coherent story each and the plots wouldn't be confusing to read without divisions. I know that book plots aren't divided by chapters on Wikipedia, and from an aesthetic point of view I think it looks better without all the headings. But at the same time it could be proper to still mention the structure somewhere in the articles, and that they should follow a uniform style. Is there any consensus concerning this? Any suggestions? Smetanahue (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the film explicitly show the start and end of each chapter? Maybe you could have an opening paragraph summarizing the narrative saying that it is segmented into the prologue, four chapters, and the epilogue, then proceed with the plot summary sans headings. If we need to discuss this further, we should do so at Talk:Antichrist (film). Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is explicitly shown in all those examples. Your suggestion is what I was leaning towards, but I wanted to discuss it first since this is not a unique structure. But I guess there might be a need to discuss individual films as well since the relevance of the chapter breakdowns varies. Smetanahue (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson merge

Could somebody please take a look at the merge discussion to determine if Samuel L. Jackson's filmography should stay removed from the article or not. The discussion has gone stale, and the article would benefit from having the discussion closed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to recuse myself from closing because I offered my opinion (though I think I'd conclude to merge it) and wouldn't want it to appear biased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Afd

I have nominated the article List of overweight actors in United States cinema for deletion. Discussion may be found here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

I often use wikipedia as a source to get information about movies that I'd like to watch. One of the bits of information that I'd like is to know what the movie is rated and why it received that particular rating. I don't see this on any of the articles. Could someone let me know why? Or am I missing something? Dincher (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFILMS#Ratings, we don't publish them because for most films it's indiscriminate information. Secondly, how a film is rated in the US is often different then how it is rated in say the UK. As such, it because a problem if you have list every single rating for a film, especially when it isn't clear why the film received that rating. I know that R-rated films will say "intense gore" or "intense sexuality", but those are vague terms used to help parents judge whether the film is appropriate for their child. It doesn't explain exactly what in the film caused the MPAA to give it such a rating. If you had that information, then it would be included, but if not we generally don't include basic ratings lists. IMDb does, I believe and that's one of the reasons we put a link to IMDb at the bottom of every film article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me. Dincher (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lion King characters

I'm proposing to create a new article with the characters of lion king. I see no use for having an article about nala, zazu, etc. Also, it would be useful to include other minor characters in it.

I believe only simba and timon and pumba are notable enough to hold their own articles, unlike the others. What do you all think? Ricardoread (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They already had one and it was deleted via redirect per consensus. Most of the character articles should be redirected to the appropriate film article, however I believe the better solution is the creation of a proper franchise article where there can be a character section giving a quick overview of the major characters that appear in all of the franchise items. I just posted a note at User:Erik's talk page, as he brought up the idea in the Nala merge discussion, to discuss getting that going further. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. Which characters would be included and how? Ricardoread (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Three actor filmography templates have been listed for deletion. Please read and comment here, here, and here. A director template containing two films has been listed for deletion here. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates discussion

Hi. After a comment at a template for deletion discussion, it seemed a good time for WP:ACTOR to develop a guideline that can be referenced regarding the use of filmograph templates on actor articles. Because one of the obvious uses for such a template would be to place them at the bottom of the various film articles that would be included, I thought perhaps members of this project might like to comment. The proposal is at WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Short subject page move discussion

The discussion to move short subject to short film can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Executive producers

I know this question really isn't related to Wikipedia, but a lot of the film project people seem to know enough about films that maybe one or more of them will be willing to answer it. The other day I read an interview with Tyler Perry, and he said that after he and Oprah Winfrey saw Precious, they were so moved by it they decided to become executive producers of it because they hoped that by putting their names on it they could attract a bigger audience. What I don't understand is, how can somebody become an executive producer of a film after it's completed? Thanks for your help. LargoLarry (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC mentions, "They could be responsible for anything from handling business and legal issues to attracting investors or guiding the progress of a storyline over a season." It's possible that since the film was already completed, Perry and Winfrey are looking to attract attention to it, for investments that would widen its distribution. Just a theory. :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Request review

I'd like to request a review of Friday the 13th (2009 film), as I'm about to nominate it for FAC in the near future. I've done one pass of copy editing already, but since I've been the primary editor on the article I know I often overlook things that make sense to me. I'd like to request some new eyes look for any other copy editing issues, review the alt text (I'm not very good with it), and any other issues that might be found.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blair Witch budget

There is a disagreement over at Talk: The Blair Witch Project#Budget over what number should be included for the budget of the film in the infobox. Additional opinions are requested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

There's an effort at WT:External links#Professional_reviews_2 to ban any and all links to professional reviews of films other creative works in ==External links==. If you have an opinion, please consider sharing it at that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

List of films never released on DVD

What do people think of this article?! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gut reaction - it should be deleted. It is pure OR unless its been noted in an actual reliable source that it was "not" released (rather than what apppears to be done there, where they are using the lack of an Amazon listing as a source...). It also seems like it would be really indiscriminate, if it could be done properly, considering there are hundreds, if not thousands, of older movies released to VHS that were not released to DVD, and some not released to either. I really can't think of any way to make it a legitimate list, and I don't see how it is that much different from List of lost films, which seems to suffer from its own problems (like lack of an explanation on what makes it a lost film, and claiming its a list of notable films when the bulk are read linked and it is badly sourced). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, I've started a discussion on List of banned films about trying to clean that up. View at Talk:List of banned films#Organization Queries would be helpful :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete and add as a category. And add Cocksucker Blues. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the difference between lost film is that simply they're lost film, there is no comparison. I think it should be kept. Ricardoread (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw this list last night and my instincts are to delete as well. I'm sure many films have not been released on dvd, and for no particular reason other than a general lack of interest or demand. Trivial and non-notable, IMO, and probably unsourceable to boot (those Amazon links really won't do). Not everything needs listing. List of lost films is legitimate enough, though. PC78 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with PC78. And I disagree with Darrenhusted. There are enough useless categories already. LargoLarry (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - I've listed it at AfD here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More universal Award infoboxes

User:Amsaim came up with the idea to exand out the current {{Infobox Academy Awards}} with a "Infobox African Movie Academy Awards" (per Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/African Movie Academy Awards scratchpad area). However given the large size of Category:Film awards a very large number of infoboxes could then ensue.

My suggestion is to have just a single infobox that allows for any award organisation (not just the US-centric of The Academy Awards alone) - see test of Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Movie Awards and test area of its talk page Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Movie Awards. Thoughts anyone David Ruben ^Talk 01:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

the idea of a single infobox for any award organization is very good. yet, the scope should also be considered. the african movie academy awards (amaa) consist of 53 african countries, and is home to thousands of african films annually. imo, a separate infobox should be given to amaa, since it is not a local/national event, but rather a huge international annual event. btw David, I did not come up with the idea of expaning the current academy award infobox. Since I have only little skript programming skills, I simply had to use an existing infobox as a guideline to create the new infobox for the african movie academy awards ceremonies. thanks. Amsaim (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Documentaries as a legitimate sources/references

I"m pretty new at editing, so I'm hoping that somebody can explain when documentaries can be added to a topic. Given that they often contain significant information on a topic, I don't see why they should be seen as any less legitimate a source for further information then published texts.

For instance, Noam Chomsky has a filmography that includes all the documentaries he's been in, but Howard Zinn doesn't (even though according to IMDB he's been in numerous films)

"liberalism" and "conservatism" have a "further reading" section - why not a "further viewing" section"? Or a general "for more information" section?

The only way to attach Kenn Burn's National Parks series to the entry on National Parks would be as an external link, which I have the feeling is frowned upon.

thanks for any insights

Simsimian (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to WikiPedia! I'd be bold (or even not being neutral...) and add the filmography section to Zinn's article, linking to any documentaries that already have entries, in the same way that Chomsky's article is setup. Hope that helps. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

According to his listing at IMDb, Howard Zinn has been interviewed in 32 documentaries. Can these appearances really be considered a "filmography"? LargoLarry (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that appearances such as the ones referred to above should not be counted as "filmography" in the strict sense, much like a reference to a person in a book would not be considered part of his/her "bibliography". In the true sense of the word, a person's filmography should consist of work that has been authored by that person. Otherwise they should be just appearances or references to that person. You gotta do what you gotta do. 09:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reincarnut (talk • contribs)

Scream Awards

Hi, I would appreciate it if someone else would watchlist Scream Awards as well. The awards ceremony has been held, but it hasn't been aired yet. Anonymous editors are consistently changing the winners. decltype (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I put in an RPP for a few days. Seems a more efficient way after seeing how many IPs have hit it lately. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably best. I considered implementing protection myself, but I suppose I could be considered involved there. Thanks! decltype (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema

Hi , I'm going to start a new article about Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema that is a major part of Iranian cinema. I have a problem in finding a proper name for that. Is Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema a good title? Bbadree (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a need for a separate article? Why not just expand the section Pre-revolutionary cinema, 1950s-70s in Iranian cinema? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD to Merge {{Plot}} and {{All plot}}

A discussion has been started about merging these two templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23#Template:All plot. There is also a rename discussion at Template talk:Plot#Requested move that may be of interest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pineapple Express (film) collaboration

Recruiting any and all WikiProject Film participants to assist with improving the Pineapple Express article, which actually receives quite a few hits (no pun intended!) on a daily basis. The article is currently the collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, but I am hoping WikiProject Comedy and WikiProject Films members can assist since they are more familiar with the formatting rules and requirements for film articles to reach 'Good' status. While the article is off to a good start, hopefully we can all work together to improve the article! Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I left some comments on the talk page for ideas on how to improve the article. Let us know if you need help and we'll be happy to assist. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions! Help would be much appreciated to all those who are interested and/or enjoy working on film articles. The article will remain a collabotation for the rest of the month, so I am hoping it can reach Good status by then. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not much improvement has been made to the article. I had family in town this past week, so hopefully I can get around to working on the article soon. Again, I am trying to encourage WikiProject Films, Comedy, and Cannabis members to improve the article, hoping it will eventually reach Good status for the benefit of all three projects. If interested, feel free to contribute! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

This morning I merged Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Stay Puft Marshmallow Man as the article has lacked demonstrable notability and had been tagged for lacking it since February. All sourced content was merged. A sporadic discussion spanning back 4 years had random "I like it" keeps for keeping separate, and valid discussion for merging. Discussion at Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise) shows that it was merged before, then split as a birthday present (WTF?) and then discussed for remerge just not done. No valid content was lost during the merge, just unsourced or fansourced material However some have objected to the merge, so additional eyes on the merge and perhaps continuing the discussion on the franchise talk page may be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any current, or old discussion on this. Regardless, it still fails WP:GNG's criteria for "significant coverage". What I see is miniscule coverage (e.g., he appeared in a game; he had a toy made after him, etc.). That's not significant. Plus, anything and everything about him is attached directly to that first movie. He was a 3 minute character, nothing more. He should be covered on either the franchise page or the first film's page, whichever house's his material better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I am not a rabid supporter of a freestanding Stay Puft Marshmallow Man article.:) My question is; how do we avoid being arbitrary in our application of WP:GNG? If the amount of screen time is a valid measure; what about characters who don't actually appear for very long in a film, but are memorable enough to be commented on in good secondary sources? Underlying that is a broader question. How should we non-arbitrarily apply WP:GNG to articles regarding "fictional characters" in general? I'd really like to hear some opinions on this. Think about how many independent articles there are in Wiki with single characters from films, books and television programs as their subject. If we apply for instance, "significant coverage" from WP:GNG literally; how many of these articles would survive? Some would easily. I'd suggest that many (most?) would not; in particular those related to television characters, the bulk of which appear to me supported by soft publicity and self referential sourcing. Should we exclude all of it from the encyclopedia? I'd pass on "good luck" to that project, but I think there'd be a firestorm (consensus?) against it. Would love to hear other opinions on this topic. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't point to one statement in my comment as justification to ignore GNG. My comment about him only being on screen for a couple of minutes was me extending a personal opinion about the low probability of this character being notable enough for his own article - As, statistically you'll find that most notable fictional characters actually appear in numerous works of fiction, or in the bulk of one select fictional topic. It's rare that you'll actually find someone who is notable and only appeared in one thing for a couple of minutes/seconds There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. Besides, most of those articles that fail the GNG's significant coverage either shouldn't have an article (despite the fact that some rabid fanbase bands together to edit war and mass vote at discussions), or someone just hasn't done enough searching to show that there actually is significant coverage. If that same coverage can be found for the Marshmellow Man, then that's great. As of right now, that isn't the case. I saw the article, and there wasn't a lick of significant coverage for that character. Based on Collectonian's description of the length of time spent debating the notability of this character, the fact that no one could find any significant coverage in that amount of time suggests that it isn't there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The existence of many bad/invalid articles is not a valid reason to keep another one. There are many many many single character articles on Wikipedia that don't belong. It isn't "arbitrary" application, just lack of enough editors who follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies versus the number of articles out here. It has nothing to do with screen time, even. He just is not demonstrably notable by Wikipedia standards meaning there is not significant coverage. Random "oh he's cool" or side notes that he appeared is not significant coverage. Most other individual fictional characters are not either. When they are found, they are generally merged or deleted. And hey, I agree that the bulk of TV characters should be merged to the appropriate list, but there are, again, few editors who do that kind of work, and not enough time. There is consensus for it, when they are found and the issue brought up. Just review the many AfDs on it, the tremendous number of merge discussions in various character and episode lists, the fiction notice board, and the many discussions here, in TV, in anime/manga, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

hahaha!!!!! As my birthday present I want an article about me!!!!!!! What a joke! Ricardoread (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The merge was undone, again, and discussion appears to now be moved to Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise)#Merge discussion, Redux -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidate - Charlie Chaplin filmography

Jimknut has done some outstanding work in rewriting this article and it's currently up for nomination as a featured list. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor note: the references are an amalgam of "I don't know what citation/bibliographical style guide." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to banner and assessment class structure

As we continue to hammer out the details for the Tag & Assess drive, the coordinators have suggested some changes to the talk page film banner as well as to the assessment class structure. For the banner, there is consensus to remove several of the improvement parameters (namely, the "needs cast", "needs plot", and the newly added "needs production" (which has hasn't been fully implemented yet). I suggested keeping the "needs infobox" and "needs image" parameters as some users may be more likely to address these concerns, especially since it is more clear-cut then, say, adding a plot or production section. Is there any opposition to remove the cast/plot/production banners? Should any be kept, or should the image/infobox parameters be removed as well? These parameters can guide editors to improve various areas of the article, but it can also be a hassle in tagging articles as well as removing the parameter when the item has been added/expanded.

For the class structure, we suggested that due to the recent removal of the future/upcoming templates, it may be best to phase out the Future-class. Currently, any articles that have not had their release are tagged with Future, and then are later changed to an appropriate class after the release. Instead of this setup, all articles would be assessed based on the length, grammar, writing, etc. of the article instead of its release date. Erik pointed out that if the class was removed, the article should still not be nominated for GA/FA if it had yet to be released (especially since material changes extensively at the release of a film and as home media is released). In addition, we suggested removing the A class due to lack of participation in reviewing the articles. We currently have three A-class articles, one of which is at FAC. If the class was removed, we would either downgrade the current A-class articles or keep them at their status (with the hopes that they would eventually make their way to FAC). The last class change suggestion was adding the C-class. Since its inception, a variety of projects have chosen whether or not to use the class (which would fit between Start and B-class). In the past, we've had two discussions which resulted in not using the class (the first resulted in the decision not to adopt it, and the second resulted in no consensus). Before we start the drive we need to determine if the class should be used (in which case we'd need to modify the setup and provide better assessment guidelines), or not (there would be no changes and we'd stick to the present five-class Stub/Start/B/GA/FA structure) so that we don't have to reassess our articles again if we decide later to do the opposite.

Before we start the drive, it would be a good idea to hear what others think, so we can make changes if necessary. Please weigh in with any opinions you have, as this will determine how our banner, classes, and drive will be organized for the long-term. It would be best to respond quickly, so any changes can be implemented and the drive can finally start. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on banner changes

I agree with the above proposed banner changes. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the banner changes seem uncontroversial. Steve ^T • C 00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support all (lose needs plot/cast/prod, keep needs infobox/image) since I've proposed it myself before. :) PC78 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on class structure

I think it makes sense to use C-class, and to do away with A-class usage. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unopinionated about A-class, but I do feel that using C-class is very appropriate. There's a huge gap between Start-class and B-class. A lot of articles would fall into this gap. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've long been a critic of 'A'-class (in this project anyway—the MILHIST lot seem to have taken it to heart). The criteria for an article's passing its 'A'-class review is so vague, and can be read as being so close to that at WP:FACR, that it's probably redundant anyway for us. This, coupled with the disinterest of project members in performing these internal reviews, means I'd be happy to see it scrapped. As for 'C'-class: I'm neutral on its adoption. I'm not entirely convinced that anyone other than Wikipedia editors even notice tags other than GA or FA, which leads me to think that article tagging is nothing but make-work sometimes, but I'm sure this has been had out before so I'm not going to argue the toss. :-) All the best, Steve ^T • C 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class. No good reason why future films can't be assessed properly, and A-Class only works if it has the necessary support (which it doesn't at this project). C-Class will fill a big gap in our current assessment scale, IMO. PC78 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class for the reasons mentioned above. I particularly agree that there's a big gap between Start and B class, so that many articles are developed well past Start qualifications but don't meet B classification yet. -Krasnoludek (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Question - I have The Texas Chain Saw Massacre at A-class review, as does another editor with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Since this discussion is about A-class being removed due to clear redundancy, what is going to, or should happen to these two current A-class candidates? Would they be left as they were? If the A-class is removed, then it would go from GA straight onto FA-class, if I'm not mistaken? That may be a big leap, in my opinion, however I do agree that A-Class is virtually non-existant in this project. --The Taerkasten (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that they would remain at GA class. The current A classes may also return to GA class but would probably be good contenders for moving on to FA. If we have greater participation in the future, we can look to readding the A class again. As of now, it appears we don't have enough people that can devote time to helping in reviewing. With this removed class, perhaps we can divert more efforts in tailoring articles for GA or moving them up to FA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree...they would stay GA. If they have already been through PR, then sending to FA would be the next step. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree: I'm for maintaining C-class, as I concur that there's a huge gap between Start and B. I am neutral about A--if there's a B and C, there should be an A--just with more clearly defined criteria.

Disagree: However, I am vehemently against the removal of Future, as the majority of those articles are ones in which you can not properly expand on plot description, and oftentimes details surround the projects are murky and kept under wraps. I would suggest keeping Future, as it's a much more fair way of analyzing and grading those types of articles, until after a release date or sometime near then. That's when it would be most appropriate to give it a proper critique.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion on red links

I am in a dispute with an editor over red links on Donald Duck filmography. He wants to remove them since he thinks red links are bad for the reader, basically because of the colour red (danger and stuff). I don't agree per WP:Red link and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans where it was reported that removing red links is hurting Wikipedia. The red links on this article are, albeit slowly, turning in blue links. See for instance this recent edit. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A few times in an article is no big deal, but this article has historically been mostly redlinks, making it difficult for the reader. As I remarked to Garion96, we are conditioned to stop when we confront the color red. Our articles should serve the reader qua reader before editors qua editors.

Somewhat tangentially, there has been a problem that the redlinks have often been to articles that are not only non-existent, but badly named. —SlamDiego_←T 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea. If you don't like the redlinks, and you've been watching the article for years, why not create the missing articles? What I'm seeing as I look through the history of the article, is that at least for the past year, it is being kept free of redlinks, and thus, reducing the intent of redlinks, which is clearly stated at WP:REDDEAL: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." There is no potential article on the page that could not be plausibly created. Your action on this, I must say, is contrary to the concept of redlinks and their purpose. The sociological use of the color red is irrelevant to this discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have time and energy to creäte every article that I would like to creäte, let alone every article that I would like to see creäted; and the rate of article creätion was low before the redlinks were undone. Please look again at the passage that you quote; it is deliberately hedged with a prefacing “In general”. Again, a few redlinks would be no big deal, but lots of redlinks makes an article very unpleasant for the typical reader. The reader's experience is essential rather than irrelevant to this discussion, and hence the social use of red is quite relevant. —SlamDiego_←T 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of those blue links are only blue because they redirect to another article. I randomly clicked one film and instead of the film it redirected to a character. Secondly, looking at those pages (e.g., Orphan's Benefit, The Wise Little Hen, One Ice, Mickey's Polo Team, Donald and Pluto, and Mickey's Circus, etc.) ALL fail, flat out, the notability criteria for an individual page. Those are just the first six films on the page that I clicked, I'm sure it's like that for most of those film pages. I'm not seeing why it's beneficial to create a page just so it doesn't have a red link anymore. The question shouldn't be, "when will I get the red link blue", but "does the red link deserve to be blue". Most of those pages I saw seem to be nothing more than a short summary of what happens in the film. Not sure why we cannot reformulate the Donald Duck Filmography to incorporate brief summaries and short bylines on who made the film. Especially given that it doesn't appear that most of the films will ever pass WP:GNG. The character is notable, and I'm sure there are a few films that are as well, but everything he's appeared in isn't and apparently those first 6 I clicked on weren't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Wise Little Hen" and "Orphan's Benefit" are absolutely notable, no question. The first was Donald's first appearance, and the second was where his personality was firmly established. Those aspects alone make those two shorts notable individually. Powers ^T 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable why? Because it was his first appearance? That doesn't make something notable. You need to read WP:NOTE a bit more carefully. No where in there does it say "I know this is notable, so that makes it so". Notability is asserted through "significant coverage" (see the guideline for a definition of significant) from reliable sources. Those pages do not have that. Plain and simple. You can claim notability all you want, but the fact remains that it must be proven with sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee there are a large number of reliable sources that cover each of those shorts in detail. My claim was not based simply on my opinion but on my knowledge of extant sources. I apologize that I have not yet had the time to look them up for you, but it has, after all, only been 9 minutes. Powers ^T 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How long have the articles been in existence? A lot longer than 9 minutes. Don't guarantee something you cannot provide. And I point out again, you should look at the definition of "significant coverage". It doesn't equate to "a large number of sources", as some incorrectly believe it to be. It is defined as coverage beyond trivial mentioning. I can google search with the best of them, and a few lines of "he appeared in" doesn't make a film notable. Secondly, if the subject is about Donald, and not the film, again that doesn't make the film notable unless they are talking about the film as a whole and not how Donald appears in it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of all that, thank you. I don't need the detailed instructions. I understand the articles have existed for a while, but you only expressed skepticism at their notability a couple of hours ago. These things take time, as I've never so much as looked at those articles before. At any rate, those articles aren't the subject of this discussion. Powers ^T 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are the subject of this discussion. This discussion is about the over use of red links. The guideline on red links clearly says not to link to something unless it it likely to be created. What I see in the links that I clicked on is articles that did not fit that criteria. When it says "likely to be created", it also said "with regard to the notability guideline". When dozens of articles are being created simple to fill the void of red links, and they clearly fail the notability guideline, then we have a problem. So yes, I would say that those articles are the subject of this discussion. Maybe not directly, but they are certainly part of the discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But they're currently blue links, so I think discussions on their suitability for inclusion belong elsewhere. We can only discuss de-linking them if they get deleted, right? Powers ^T 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an overarching issue. If you look at the page, clearly not everything is linked (as if it were, I would suspect it would look more like how Garion wanted it to look, with dozens of red links intermingling with the blue links. Which goes back to my original argument, the point of a red link is to encourage someone to create an article about a notable subject, not to just turn it blue for the sake of turning it blue. Those first 6 articles I listed clearly were created simply to satisfy the people that were saying the article is full of links to pages that do not exist. I.E. Should the articles on this page have been created in the first place, if the idea of creating a redlink is being abused? Not every film is notable to begin with, and shorts are far fewer than full length. The question that everyone should have been asking from the start should not have been "what's the cutoff for red link numbers", but should we have been linking them in the first place? If you shouldn't link something that will be created an immediately fail our guidelines and policies on what kinds of articles should be created, then why link to it in the first place?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the "The Wise Little Hen" article is three years older than Donald Duck filmography, I guarantee it wasn't created simply to remove a redlink on this page. =) Powers ^T 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are good. Don't delete redlinks. Convention is long-standing and well-established on this issue. Powers ^T 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Forget the redlinks, what about the overlinking on dates? Nine links to 1937? And redlinks are only useful if the article in question will be created soon. Make the articles then link them, don't leave redlinks hoping that someone will make the article one day. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. Red links are how we build the web. They're how Wikipedia:Most wanted articles is populated, and how a new article best gains incoming links. WP:REDLINK is quite clear on this. Powers ^T 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Redlinks should be encouraged if it's likely an article will be created. It doesn't matter if it's likely to be done in 5 minutes or 5 years (there is no deadline...) I worked on this article a while back to remove most of the redlinks, only due to the fact it had so many missing articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The following was originally in the Wikipedia talk:Red link page, which was probably a bad place for it, so after a recommendation, I moved it here, though it might be just as in place in a talk page about bots. (The post doesn't have to be film-specific, that's just the instance that came to mind.):

I've noticed Wikipedia frequently contains lists with some blue links, but other items in the lists don't have links (red or blue), even though they'd be perfectly appropriate. The links were likely not created for a few different reasons: The article may not have existed at the time of the article creation and the author(s) understandably didn't want to clutter the list with red links, the article name may have been tough to guess (such as Film Name (Year of Film) instead of just Film Name) and they didn't bother looking it up, the appropriate link may be buried in another article (Book Name#Film Adaptation), or they simply didn't bother linking even though they could.

As far as I know, the current solution is to do a brute force look-up of each individual item with Wikipedia search and Google searches limited to the wikipedia domain, checking to see if there's an appropriate link that can be created and then making them, but that often doesn't get done. (I've certainly passed up opportunities to do it and procrastinated on the ones I have done.) So, is there some kind of automated way that (higher ranking, technically gifted) Wikipedians could do it? What I'm thinking is a sophisticated bot that would produce recommendations for link creation, that could then be created en mass once approved. The bot would look for lists or accept lists given to it (often filmographies and lists of works and titles), produce a list of links that would need to be manually checked, and then, presto, lotsa links with much less work. ...OK, maybe it wouldn't be so quick, and obviously something like this would still require considerable work (and as for the technical requirements of such a bot, if Rambot could work it's magic, then surely something like I describe is possible.). The current status quo leaves many thousands of articles without appropriate links to approved articles and without some sort of semi-automated process, the work will be slower or neglected altogether. Is something like what I describe viable, been considered and rejected, or just a pipe dream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.145 (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that many of us on each side of the issue of redlinks here could endorse the idea that well-designed 'bots are a possible and desirable part of the answer to the more general problem of providing useful links for the reader. But, almost certainly, most of those who believe in liberal redlinking would say that such redlinking should be joined by use of 'bots, rather than dsiplaced by it. —SlamDiego_←T 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea I have for bot automation of links would best be best implemented only for bluelink creation and not redlinks, and the existence of such a bot could not just partially solve the problem of a failure to link where possible, appropriate, and desirable, but make it so there are fewer (cluttering?) redlinks in the first place. (When such a link was possible, it would be (semi)automatically created and hence would only be blue, not red.) For new articles, the existing "solution" is of course for article writers to check carefully to see if a link is possible or not and create 'em, and (though this is asking a lot) to periodically re-check the article to see if any of the listed items could be linked, even if it was not possible at the time of article creation. (And this also brings up the question of how someone can go to all the effort to create an article but not take the comparatively minor step of popularizing the content by sprinkling links liberally throughout wikipedia.)

I've a few times gone through wikipedia (via google searches restricted to the wikipedia domain) and created links for just about for every instance of mentions in articles. For instance, after seeing the movie G-Force, I figured "What the heck!" and spent (wasted?) some time creating links to hamster ball just about everywhere on wikipedia I could. (Though not all, a number of links to that article were created by me.) For articles related to film and TV, I put placeholders in the talk pages of the Tom Selleck and Empire International Pictures articles noting the lack of links where possible, and later followed up by creating the links. (For the Empire International article, see the before and after here [9].), and another list I noticed is filled with potential but non-existent links is all the B-movies listed under USA Up All Night with another one of my placeholders in the talk page. I'll probably fill that one in in time, but it will take quite awhile, and a bot could do the work much faster and with far less work.

Though here I'm not logged in (preferring a bit of anonymity due to dynamic IP addressing - Thanks SineBot!), I do have an account and have created a few articles with many more planned. Every time I link everywhere possible with the aforementioned method of wikipedia restricted google searches. But not everyone does and since wikipedia doesn't appear to have an automated process for this, the potential for thousands if not millions of appropriate links is lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.230 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely feel that red links for notable names and almost ALL films/TV series and such should be linked in advance, in preparation for the day and time that someone takes the initiative to create said articles. On film infoboxes, sometimes this is taken to an extreme, linking cinematographers, editors, and producers that most likely will never meet notability guidelines per Wikistandards. But directors, writers, actresses/actors, and titles should always be linked.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong disagree to having articles linked in advance. IMO bots/automation of article creation should strongly be discouraged. I know it's unlikely, but it could be one step away from bot/automation of EVERYTHING! Part of the reason I and many other editors contribute is that articles don't exist in the first place. Hopefully more and more editors will get involved as WP gets bigger and bigger, and many of these missing articles get created in time. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Who said anything about bot creation of articles? I brought up bots only as a a more efficient method of creating links, and even then maybe as a way of just making work faster & easier, and not necessarily letting bots go about doing it independently. I brought up Rambot only as an example of a bot being able to do some fairly complex work, not suggesting there should be a bot that would, say, convert virtually every IMDB entry into a wikipedia article. (A prospect I would find horrifying.)

Here's another example. Say the article List of movies and tv shows with titles spelled using letters of the alphabet contained a list of lotsa movies and tv shows. (duh.) A nice, smart bot could suggest that Citizen Kane go under Citizen Kane, and if smart enough, recognize that Gone with the Wind links to the book, not movie, and The Wizard of Oz to a disambiguation page and suggest the appropriate destinations. I'm not an expert on bots, but it seems that something like this should be possible.

Anyway, I'm starting to sound as repetitive as Mojo Jojo, so that's it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.217 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with improving Hack Movies article

I took painstaking measures (over 3 hours of measures) to make sure all my information was very concise, notable, and relevant in making an article for offensive horror comedy production company Hack Movies. It was up on the site for over two months and was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven. Thanks to a helpful admin, the article was put back in the sandbox at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies and I need help garnering links as to what Wiki considers "notable." Any help you can provide is appreciated. —Erkman27 (talk - 19:03, 27 October 2009 (CTC)

Foreign film titles

Should article names of foreign/non-English films be in English or their native language? Wikipedia's general naming policy seems to be that English should be used except when the literal translation wouldn't mean the same thing. Does this apply to films, or is there a more specific policy in regards to films or other media that I've missed? Thanks!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the article name should be in English if it was released in English or it has a common English name per WP:ENGLISH. If an English title just isn't available, then it should use the transliteration/romanization of the foreign title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be more specific... so an article such as Entre la mer et l'eau douce (which has an English translation), should be titled in English?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be at Between Salt and Sweet Water, with a redirect for the foreign title to the English. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's no English title, isn't transliteration/romanization of the foreign title original research? If there is an offical English title, then use it per Use English and Naming Conventions (Films). Lugnuts (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are certain instances when one should maintain the foreign title--La Dolce Vita, Volver, and La Vie en Rose being a few primarily examples.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lugnuts is correct. We shouldn't be making up English titles where none exist. PC78 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Lugnuts. Several foreign titles have specific play on words and were not translated on english-language release. Then again, I'm confused about some titles. For example Quai des Orfèvres was translated to Quay of the Goldsmiths. But both metacritic and all the DVDs I've seen of the film released in the UK and the US still use the French title. Is it more appropriate then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What everyone is saying makes sense to me. I would never think to move La Dolce Vita to an English name, as it's known worldwide by its Italian name. I've already moved a few foreign film titles, but in those cases either IMDb or the provided Film Reference Library offered the English title, so hopefully no one can tag that as OR.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. When creating articles for non-English films, please try to create a redirect for the non-English title (if you're not doing so already). This often gets rid of lots of redlinks! Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it's not me creating articles for non-English films. I ran cross an editor creating them in rather large quantities and I wanted to be clear on policies/consensus regarding moving the titles, as the editor bristled at the idea of the article titles being translated to English.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are here:

WP:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films

Rob Sinden (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Radio (US Film)

This article has twice been redirected to The Boat That Rocked, but the author has reverted insisting that it needs to be a seperate article. It should be sufficient to cover any details about the US recut in the main article. It would be good if someone else could take a look at this. PC78 (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as an unambiguous copyright violation (just do a search on any term from the plot section—the only section with any content—it's © Focus Features from about 2007) and reinstated the redirect. Steve ^T • C 11:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

High School Musical 4: East Meets West

Another undone redirect. According to the article, the film is currently at the casting stages so it clearly doesn't meet WP:NFF. Worth taking to AfD? PC78 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just restore the redirect. Its just too obvious a failure of WP:NFF. If new editors keep reverting, maybe have it protected a few months. An unfortunately common event with maybe rumored or maybe real sequels of these kinds of franchises :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong action cinema

Hello crew! The Hong Kong action cinema article related to this project has been nominated for Feartured Article removal. If you have comments regarding the FA review, discuss it on the review page. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club plot issue

I have tried to change a sentence in the plot description for Fight Club (film) because I believe it to be false and I don't want to see false information stay on a featured article. I failed to gain any consensus for a change on the talk page and I have basically given up on trying as the editors that are watching the page won't even dicuss the issue (See Talk:Fight Club (film)#Plot inaccuracy. I have decided to leave the issue alone and move on to other more productive editing, but I thought I would post my concern on this talk page since someone here may also be interested in this issue and may have more time to create a better consensus than myself. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Human disguise

Input on this article at its AfD would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Make compiled template for multiple movie links

I think it would be a good idea to have a template for use in the External links section of articles with multiple different commonly-used movie links.

For example, here are some common templates we use:

• {{Amg movie}}
• {{mojo title}}
• {{imdb title}}
• {{rotten-tomatoes}}

There are many more at Category:Film external link templates - but those 4 are some of the ones that almost all movies have pages for.

I propose we create a combined template, modeled after {{CongLinks}}.

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a template was deleted recently, though I don't have a link handy. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There was one. It was created against consensus and deleted by overwelming consensus in TfD. One of the main reasons is that it encouraged link glut - putting in all the links when they are not always all appropriate, rather than individual selection. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but if it is modeled after {{CongLinks}}, one does not have to include all links by default. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One didn't have to include all the links on the previous one either, it just inappropriately encouraged it by its very nature. Template:Movie title external links was the template, and the TfD was at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 25#Template:Movie title external links (striking overwelming above because I was thinking of the merge discussion referenced in the same TfD rather than the TfD itself). I personally don't like that CongLinks either...it has the same problems the Movie title EL did and does not seem like a productive way to get selective links per WP:EL other than just automatically putting in all links without doing proper evaluation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent idea and does not "encourage" anything - it is merely a technical device. But I won't push it. :P Cirt (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal for three NYFA articles

I've proposed that New York Film Academy - Film School and New York Film Academy - Acting School be merged into New York Film Academy--oddly, the two sets of articles aren't linked together already. Would it make more sense to have one article for the whole set? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think this requires announcement and discussion. The articles duplicate one another and repeat, to a much lesser degree, the New York Film Academy article. Personally, I suggest simply redirecting the other two articles to the main page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wildhartlivie. Be bold!. Lugnuts (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done--a little messy in the section on the school's programs, but otherwise everything is copied. Do I need to remove the Project tag from the inactive pages? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't bother as I believe a bot deletes talk pages of redirected articles. Thanks for doing the merging though. Lugnuts (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzies

I want to notify the project that a new editor has added Template:Razzie Award for Worst Picture to a number of film articles. At the same time, Template:Razzie Award for Worst Actor was added to actor bios, but I am removing those based on the consensus from WP:ACTOR that removed unilaterally the parameter for Razzies from Template:Infobox actor and filmographies. Although there was a small amount of disagreement regarding awards parameters in general from the infobox, no one agreed that the Razzies were appropriate, even if the awards had remained. Thus, if Razzies weren't appropriate for infoboxes and filmographies, I believe the consensus would extend to navboxes for the same. I'm not aware of a consensus in WP:FILM, so I thought notifying the project to consider was proper. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Films to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Pal (dog actor) Merge to Lassie

A discussion is underway about possible merging the Pal (dog actor) article to Lassie. Three editors feel the merge would be appropriate (though I tend to discount one as they have made no useful edits, and semi-vandalized a few articles), and two feel it should not. Additional views to break this stalemate would be useful. Discussion at Talk:Pal (dog actor)#Merge with Lassie. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about Razzie Awards templates

Please weigh in with your thoughts about having Razzie Awards templates at the bottom of film-related articles. Check in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Gaining_consensus:_Razzie_award_templates_at_the_bottom_of_articles. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More Lassie Fun...

Additional views needed at Talk:Lassie Come Home#Picture regarding the addition of a second non-free image[10] of a scene from the film. I removed it per WP:NONFREE as it does not illustrate anything not already seen in the cover, and the article is barely above a stub, so having two non-free images is doubly excessive. Also having problems with people making pointy additions of project tags after I rejected the removal of the Yorkshire tag (as the film is set in Yorkshire and about its peoples). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming The Hobbit films

I brought this up over at Talk:The Hobbit films#Renaming the article and just wanted to get everyone's opinion.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Razzies discussion reminder

Since WP:ACTOR is a related project to this one, this is relevant to a degree here. There is a consensus discussion occurring at WT:ACTOR#Gaining consensus: Razzie award templates at the bottom of articles. The discussion outline has included the use of "Razzie Worst Picture" templates that would relate to this project. Please look over the discussion and weigh in. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Do soundtracks to films fall under the scope of WP:Films? I've been looking through the un-assessed articles and I've found quite a few soundtracks and film theme songs. Should the banner be included? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been told in the past that they don't. I think we generally leave soundtracks to WP:ALBUM and songs to WP:SONGS. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music, though it seems to have been inactive for quite a while. PC78 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been way too many soundtracks that were split off from the main article when the article is short enough to support the section. I think we should have the majority of soundtracks merged with their respective film articles unless there is reason for them to be separate. It makes sense for albums to have their own articles as they tend to have more information for expansion and extra details such as detailed production history and music video information. However, soundtracks rarely have additional information beyond the track list and limited sales/production information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So for articles that are split as they will have more information such as Super Fly and Shaft should be separate as they would have enough and are not part of the project. Fair enough. One other quick question is i'm finding several articles for theaters as well. Should articles for places such as my own local Mayfair Theatre be included in the project? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the soundtracks still fall under our project. Perhaps a task force may be created if enough people are interested in maintaining them. It appears the articles should be shared between WP:FILM/ALBUM and maybe further guidelines should be established. If the theater is mainly for showing films (or if it did in the past), then I believe that if falls under our scope. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to know! I'll rate and label them accordingly. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Broadway Video

Hey all. Just spent a good week or two taking the Broadway Video from a stub to a full-fledged article. Now I just need people to give it a once-over, mainly for grammar and punctuation. Thanks! Mainly.generic (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Harriet Frank, Jr.

Anyone know how to fix the hanging third column thingy in the filmography table at the article Harriet Frank, Jr.? Cirt (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That usually happen when there are too many column numbers vs. columns, too many spaces in an entry line or more entries per year than the rowspan indicates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, it seems that a discussion on spoilers is an infinite loop! I vote for complete information, with reader discretion assumed. Wikipedia is, after all, meant to be as much information as possible.  REINCARNUT  (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 06:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I for one am against the inclusion of spoiler tags, as I feel like it cheapens the article. I know I'm being dramatic, but what next, a spoiler tag for WWII? ("YOU WON'T GUESS WHAT THE GERMANS WILL DO NEXT!") Mainly.generic (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As an update, this discussion now has several editors calling for the removal of plot summaries from all articles, except for what plot can be sourced to secondary sources (and therefore the bulk of spoilers all in one go). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous though, since history is part of a school's curriculum. I do think, however, that spoiler warnings should be a natural assumption; this is an encyclopedia, after all, since you could get the same info without a plot summary at IMDb.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I was being sarcastic, but I was pretty much just trying to say what you were saying, that once you enter Wikipedia, you get full access to all information on a particular topic. Sure, the importance may differ, but in my mind, there shouldn't be any distinction made on the entirety of article content based due to its subject area. Mainly.generic (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Verbal is Keyser Söze. Lugnuts (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rosebud is a sled. Garion96 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He's already dead. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Theaters and theater chains

I've been trying to work on the assessment drive and have come across a number of articles pertaining to actual theaters or theater chains for films. Are these actually under this project? I'm thinking... why? This seems more a business organization than anything specifically related to films and film production. Or... WP:WikiProject Theatre? Or... WP:WikiProject Companies? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They're related to film distribution. PC78 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If they are movie theaters and theater chains (like Cinemark), then yes, though they should also have the Companies template (and I'd usually place it above Films). If its theater as in a theatrical type theatre, I'd generally say it should go to Theatre instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure (obviously). Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at WP:THEATRE, it looks like they only cover buildings that do plays or other live performances. Our project should cover all theater buildings if they are used for showing films (even if its used for multiple purposes). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lists of film characters

I'm seeing quite a few "Lists of characters in..." articles (e.g. List of characters in the X-Men film series, List of characters in the Superman film series, List of characters in the Spider-Man film series), most of which appear to have been created by the same user. These articles seem to be made up of an unnecessary amount of plot summary, with some real world context mixed in that should already be covered in the respective film articles. Are these sorts of articles something to be concerned about? PC78 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes...particularly since I suspect most are likely some kind of POV split from the main character lists for those particular franchises. They should be redirected/merged back to the real lists, I'd think. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hobbit films

See Talk:The Hobbit films, there is a discussion on the proper naming of films, NCF, and how two films is a single film or not a single film. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See above where that discussion was already noted.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

A possible conflict of interest problem on this article, an indy film due for theatrical release in December. Four of the named accounts which have heavily contributed to the page are, by an examination of their contributions, single purpose accounts used primarily to edit this and related articles. In addition, numerous IPs from 69.xx.xxx.xx have contributed, none of whom have edited any other article. This strongly points to a COI problem, so I have tagged the article and extensively re-worked it to remove promotional lanuage and formatting, as per my post on the article's talk page. Another IP appears to want to undo my edits in toto, on what seem rather flimsy grounds. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Sach (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also note talk page discussions here and here Sach (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Now the IP I mentioned, having ignored my suggestion that we both back away, has re-edited, in the process breaking the infobox. Would someone be good enough to do some cleanup -- I can't, since I'll be in violation of 3RR if I do. Thanks. Sach (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre problems....

some of the genres on wikipedia have rather large problems. There's Western (genre), which is good, as it looks at the genre in all forms. But then there's Musical film, which only looks at musicals in the film arena, and while there is a separate article for musical theater, there is nothing on musical as a television genre on wikipedia. Glee, Flight of the Conchords, etc. I would mention it over at the television wiki, but i strongly suggest it should just go into the musical film one, or you have a main page for Musical (Genre), and then link off to musical film, musical theatre, and musical television. But yeah... IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BC

WP:FILMA/I talks about the criteria for upgrading a start class article to B, but when I tried to do that for a film (class=B), the preview showed it as class C. Wazzup? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to fill in the B-Class checklist. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a class C, and if so, what are the criteria? Never mind. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured list

Hi, I've just created List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Picture following the structure of featured list List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. My goal is improving the former to featured content but the latter was promoted for a while so I'm afraid that quality of a featured list now must be much more higher. Can anyone help me to review the list and point out its errors so that I can correct and improve it. Many thanks! Grenouille vert (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended to your work and goal, but I've a concern about this, mostly that it spun off the entire list from the main article, Academy Award for Best Picture, which is the main link on 1393 pages. I doubt those links are for the ancillary content and superlatives, but for the list itself. At present, I've reverted the removal of the listings because of that usage on so many articles. I also note an objection on Talk:List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film regarding the difference in formatting for that page vs. the rest of the Academy Awards pages, an objection with which I agree. That list was promoted to FL nearly 2 years ago and presently, it really does not come close to FL criteria either, with some major issues with citation and use of color. The film awards task force is presently beginning a movement to consistency in presentation of Academy Awards and I'm concerned that this is moving away from that, not toward it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well of course information about "which pictures won in which year" is the most important in this article but as you see it now, structure of the article is somewhat in confusion because it's too long and diverse, and I don't think it'll be an inconvenience for reader if you bring the list to an entirely new article. It's too bad to see such an important article without a good presentation, and that is the same case for almost every articles in the Oscars series! That's why I want to make a move but maybe it's too radical and need more discussion? About quality of the list now, I have at least some experience about this matter in other wikis and I don't think either that it falls too far from, for example, this featured list which has just been promoted. Anyway, thank you for your precious comment! Grenouille vert (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Presentation is the reason the film awards task force has moved to standardize the presentation. I think some of the content on that page could be spun off into another article covering milestones and some of the trivialities so the article can more specifically cover the awards. My primary concern, however, is the loss of the list to some nearly 1400 articles and to maintain consistency. I, too, have experience on this WP in featured lists and I know that it is important for the pertinent content remain accessible where it is most relevant. However, this is my concern. Perhaps others have other comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Picture even necessary if Academy Award for Best Picture already exists? It's just an unnecessary duplication of data. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:A-class film article nominations/A instructions

Hi. I've found this orphan page (also Wikipedia:A-class film article nominations/skip). Do you want to use it, or should it be deleted/redirected as maintenance ? Cenarium (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can probably be deleted; they were never used, AFAIK. PC78 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also those: Wikipedia:A-class film article nominations, Wikipedia:A-class film nominations and Wikipedia:A-class film candidates, all redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Review; they don't seem to have been used. Cenarium (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the more the merrier. :) PC78 (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound film's FAR

I have nominated Sound film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 22:06, November 15, 2009

Tarzan merges

A few character articles have been proposed for merging to Tarzan (1999 film). Discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Merge of Terk. Views appreciated (as would help in cleaning up the article itself). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tender Mercies

Hey all. I've nominated Tender Mercies for a featured article status. If you don't mind taking a look, any comments, criticisms or feedback would be welcome! Thanks... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Film poster at Haeundae (film)

I've recently been involved in a bit of a dispute over the film poster image in this article. The current image was uploaded by myself back in May, but was somewhat arbitrarily replaced with this image by another user. Argument for the new image is that it apparently better illustrates the film, while my argument for retaining the original (and current) image is that it will be more recognisable to a greater part of our readers, having been used for the UK DVD cover (AFAIK, the only release in an English-language country). Ultimatetly it's not that big a deal, but some fresh input might help to establish a concensus one way or another. PC78 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on infobox credits

I have a quick question: how does the Film project deal with the concept of credits in the infobox, particularly if there are uncredited directors or authors? Are there any guidelines on this subject? I ask because we're having a similar discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, and as I've noticed film infoboxes on occasion list authors who are not officially credited, any information you could apply would be insightful. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the infobox should have only verifiable credits in it. If a director or author is uncredited, they should only be added to the infobox if the prose has reliably sourced discussion showing that they were actually involved and that they had a significant role. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think cast lists should include uncredited appearances either, unless it's a notable cameo and is mentioned as such somewhere in the article. Listing "John Smith" as "Man in Green Coat" (uncredited) seems silly. LargoLarry (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Twilight

I suggest that Twilight (series) gets split into the book series and the film series. like Harry Potter (film series)(the films) and Harry Potter (the books)IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The best course of action would probably be to start a discussion at Talk:Twilight (series). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling all cars! Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars in dire shape, only thing worse off are the quality of the project's articles.

The project is largely dead, and as such, the articles, especially on the characters, are in desperate need of attention. If anyone would be willing to participate in general cleanup and merging discussion, we need any help available. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

San Diego Comic Con

Would San Diego Comic Con fall within the scope of the project due to large number of movies which premier or hold a panel at the event? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reception section - reviews box with stars?

• {{VG reviews}}

Would it make sense to have a box like this for Reception section of films? Then, we could have X out of 5 stars for the noteworthy reviews. Cirt (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how feasible this is, because of the number of film critics, even well-known critics. How would we decide who to include/not to include? Also, several prominent critics, such as those of the New York Times, do not use any sort of grading for their reviews, so translating them to X out of 5 stars would be highly subjective. Instead, those reviewers are better served by taking excerpts from their reviews, which tends to happen in the body of a Critical Reception section anyway. And would the reviews come primarily from US and UK sources? That seems misrepresentative for, say, Bollywood films. It seems to me like this sort of information is too plentiful to process and is better left to commercial sites like RottenTomatoes or Metacritic (admittedly the last objection I raised isn't addressed by either of those sites). -Krasnoludek (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It was just an idea. Cirt (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First thought is "god no!", that box is hideous and I remove it from any video game article I work on. It really is not helpful, IMHO, to just have "stars" without the appropriate context of prose. That's what Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic are for, which are the experts for doing the subjective translation as Krasnoludek notes. I think Films (and VGs) are best served with a well crafted prose reception section, led off with the basic two aggregate site summaries (though I'll admit, I still don't full like those). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I already said above, it was just an idea, a suggestion. I am sorry for bringing it up. End of thread. Consider the matter withdrawn. Again, sorry. :( Cirt (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

*hugs* Sorry, that came off harsher than I intended :) I think its good to discuss things like this now and then, since it does sometimes come up, especially with our newer editors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. My reply wasn't supposed to be a smackdown or anything :o). Sorry if it came off that way. The rating box is a natural suggestion and the fact that such a template already exists elsewhere was good support to bring it up here. -Krasnoludek (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So which one of those boxes are allowed for VG? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)