Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Variety and Dragon Ball Z

I'd like to bring up an issue regarding the live-action film adaptation of Dragon Ball Z. Dragon Ball Z (film) was created after the unconfirmed announcement not too long ago, and it was nominated for AfD. After getting involved with the AfD process, I mainly cleaned up the article so it was a succinct paragraph using reliable sources, including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Montreal Gazette, and IGN. However, in the AfD process, the nominator disputed the article from Variety as being unreliable for the reason that the studio never "confirmed" the information about 20th Century Fox hiring screenwriter Ben Ramsey for $500,000 to adapt a screenplay for Dragon Ball Z. (The article also mentions the smaller item of the project being developed by production executive Peter Kang, all with no hint of rumor or doubt.) I've tried to explain to the editor that this is not how verifiability works -- you don't use primary sources to "confirm" secondary sources. If this was the case, it would be akin to a scandal was reported by a reliable source on the set of a film's production, and the studio officially denied it, then obviously the primary source cannot triumph over the secondary source in this case. The editor thinks that since the studio has not responded to the Variety coverage, the information should be doubted. (Ignoring the likelihood of this reliable source getting the information from the studio itself.) Basically, there is no reference saying that Variety is wrong, so it should not be disputed. The AfD process went through to merge and redirect, and the editor has attempted to modify the wording at the source material's article so that Variety could be questioned, and I've reverted him. He and I have reached a stalemate in terms of discussion about verifiability and reliable sources in regard to items like Variety, so I would like other editors to take a look at this situation and judge the merits of the Variety citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As WP:V itself states, verifiability is not about "The Truth". It's just about what can be cited by reliable secondary sources. The Variety cite should stand unless another reliable source contradicts it. Lack of studio comment is not grounds for anything; you cannot prove the negative. Girolamo Savonarola 12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear a few things: I've not "modified the wording at the source material's article so that Variety could be questioned", that would be assuming bad faith on me...Considering the heated battle between Erik and me that this topic created previously, I don't think he should jump on conclusions, instead he should actually try to calm down and talk with me.

As I've explained, I'm merely considering the info in a npov way. You've said it yourself, "verifiability, not truth": reports from 3rd party source shouldn't be regarded as set in stone, or absolute truths. Such things are for when we'll see Ramsey's name in the credits of the movie. But right now, Variety's article is still "claims", and not "undisputable truth". I'm not saying Variety isn't a reliable source, I'm saying nothing is set in stone. For example, Erik should realize that Variety's article is 3 years old, we've heard no word about it since then, and as he stated many times about other movies in development hell, things can change pretty quickly in the movie industry, what reliable source says now that, after 3 years of development hell, Ben Ramsey is still writer ?

The fact is, the previous version of the article just said that Variety was an absolute truth, completely ignoring that things are constantly evolving in the movie industry (about that, I'm astonished that Erik, who knows much about movies in development hell, wasn't aware of that when he edited the article) and that nothing is sure. It's not because something is from a reliable source that it cannot be challenged (the Montreal gazette article is a reliable source, yet it was challenged by Fox), and it's certainly not up to individual users like Erik to decide that a source, however reliable it may be, won't be challenged ever. Or else, it's a serious breach in the NEUTRAL point of view policy. It's always the same: statements are identified, proved to be existing, proved to originate from a reliable source, but never presented as undeniable truths ("verifiability, not truth").

Or else, maybe Erik is suggesting that we should also remove Fox comment about the Montreal G. ?

Finally, I've only changed "the writer is" from "Variety claims the writer is" in the article, and honestly, anyone who's actually reading my edit, and not merely listening to Erik's claims, can only agree that I've merely followed the neutrality policy.Folken de Fanel 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not at all implying that Ben Ramsey is still the screenwriter. The verifiable fact is that he was hired in June 2004 to write a screenplay for $500,000. Is he still writing the screenplay? Who knows? We can't assume whether he is or he isn't. You are assuming that this information can be disputed, meaning that the source needs to be indicated as if it could be wrong. Based on the conflicting information about the Montreal Gazette and the IGN follow-up, reporting specific sources is appropriate. However, there is no reason to doubt the coverage by Variety. It has not been challenged like the Montreal Gazette has been challenged. You think that the studio needs to officially confirm the Variety information -- how do you know that they didn't release that information to this reliable source, thus no need for a follow-up, considering the reputation of Variety for fact-checking and editorial oversight?

If we followed your mindset with verifiable sources, we'd have to say, "The New York Times said that filming concluded last December," or, "The Chicago Tribune said that there were 500 visual effects in this film." If a reliable source's content is contested by another reliable source, then both should be mentioned to reflect the conflicting perspectives. In the case of Variety, like I've said, there's no reason to believe that Variety has bad information in the fact that the studio hired Ben Ramsey in June 2004 to write the script. Things may or may not have changed, but that information is not disputable, thus words like "claims" should not be thrown around except for an editor's POV belief that they are wrong merely based on the lack of other headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering nobody has ever disputed that claim of Variety, and I even heard Ramsay discuss the film once, I think there is nothing wrong here at all. Indeed, he may have finished the script which Fox let to rot. Alientraveller 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What any of us has heard is irrelevant per se. In any case, I don't see what the big fuss is; if the Variety article is properly referenced, then any interested party should clearly be able to see that the source is 3 years old. It's not our job to issue judgments in the article on the sources. Again, unless new info can be found, the movie could be in d-hell for a large number of reasons, none of which necessarily predicates the writer walking. Girolamo Savonarola 16:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Erik, who are you to say which info is disputable and which is not ? I've written everything above, Variety makes claims, whether you're a believer or not, and you have no right to impose your opinion that Ben Ramsey is the writer. On Wikipedia, we report, we don't assert. It's a fact that Variety wrote an article about the DB movie. What the article contains, whether reliable source or not, is claims ("claim" is a neutral way to express what third-party sources write). The actual credits at the end of the movie will be facts. But as long as there is no movie, there can be no "truth" (remember, "verifiability, not truth"). Folken de Fanel 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not imposing my opinion that Ben Ramsey is the screenwriter. He was hired by the studio in June 2004 to write a script for $500,000. Like I said, I don't know if he is still the screenwriter, but we can't make any assumptions on the contrary of this verifiable coverage. We can't just add our perspective saying, "Nothing has been found to follow up on the hiring of Ramsey, thus his involvement with the project is unknown." In addition, I am not subjectively determining that a reliable source's information should be disputed -- you are. Show me citations that say Variety should not be relied upon for the information in its DBZ article. Like Girolamo said, you cannot prove the negative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Erik - the article shouldn't discuss Variety or be commentary on the source (which is original research). All it needs to say is so-and-so is the screenwriter, with a reference that essentially means "here's who says so". That's the whole point of verifiability, not truth. We're not claiming that we're right - we're just saying that based on the reliable sources that the article has at hand, this is what is verifiable fact - not necessarily actual fact. Girolamo Savonarola 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If the official website for the series says it is "unconfirmed" [1], we should take it into account and show it in the article. Besides, that there's not been official (ie from Fox) comments about the movie since 2002 is true, and the Montreal Gazette claims have been challenged by Fox, it's true. Folken de Fanel 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This source works for me, though I've re-formatted the references' location and used "reported" instead. Hope that works. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I would suggest not reporting the absence of something, like "no news since so-and-so" -- such conclusions are based on the personal research of an editor. It can't be said with absolute certainty that something wasn't missed. That's my take on it, anyway -- while the chronology of the events may not seem smooth without these transitions, it just seems assumptive to report that nothing has been reported since. It's a big world of media out there, after all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Task force: Documentary film

Anybody interested in forming a documentary film task-force, as this genre is now in the second plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdjerich (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand "now in the second plan", but yes, if there is support for a documentary task force, then it certainly is a possibility. I for one think it's a good idea. Girolamo Savonarola 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this project.

Well, I'm useless to this project if nobody knows what I do and why I like movies.

My name is The Blaziken Master, I'm a DVD collector, my whole DVD collection can be found here. My favorite movie is Bad Boys II while my favorite actor is Will Smith.

What I will be doing here you might ask, before you ask, I will tell you. I'll be updating pages of course on movies I own and am interested in. When I discover the movies I like don't have a link to the page on Yahoo! Movies I'm also here to add it to the list, after all Yahoo! is a well known service.

Yeah, that's all I have to say. I hope I get very warm welcome to this project, and I really will help out as much as I can. TheBlazikenMaster 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Films! Here's a couple of links to get you started -- style guidelines for film articles, and the best film articles this WikiProject has to offer. Please feel free to ask for any help in writing a film article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of film and director - ?

The articles Anna Wilding and Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut have been nominated for deletion. Can anybody weigh in on the notability of either the film or the director? Thanks! -Pete 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The only mentions of it in the Google News archive are press releases; however, it did merit a short review at marginal local website LA Weekly. It may be telling that the reviewer called it "not quite a home movie, but not exactly a professional production either." However, its director has some minor notability (even if a public spat with the press a few years back appears to be missing from her entry), so perhaps the article could be merged with hers? Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it's probably not enough - there need to be multiple non-trivial articles by reliable sources covering the film. I'm not saying they don't exist, but at the current state, it would be a weak delete, IMHO. If you're for keeping it, I'd starting digging around for more, so as to leave the issue less ambiguous. Good luck, Girolamo Savonarola 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not fussed one way or the other to be honest. Maybe there's a slim case for merging Wilding and her film, but I'd not even heard of the thing until Pete brought it up here. I was curious, so went hunting for references for an hour or so. Despite lots of hits, there is very little that isn't a mere duplication of something from a press release. I have since forwarded my rather slim findings onto her article talk page, but that's all I'm having to do with it. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image adding question

User:156.34.60.230 is adding pictures (like this edit here [2]) of actors, in tiny versions, to film articles cast lists (muchlike IMDb has been doing for awhile). I am bringing this here so that admins and members who are part of the project can decide whether this is okay or not. If it is okay then no problem, but, if it isn't then I know that it is easier for admins to rollback multiple edits then it is for me. Also, I am not sure what warning or message one would give in this situation. I have also posted this at WP:ANI but there has bee no response there as yet. Thanks ahead of time for your attention to this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the images are non-free, definitely no. If they are free, it's really unnecessary. All of the images would have to be like size 60px just to fit on the page. I removed them from the Halloween (2007 film) page, where that IP user added them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also heads up for 156.34.35.201 (talk · contribs). Girolamo Savonarola 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The brave one

Anyone with a moment and an interest in the film want to take a look at The Brave One (2007 film), my attempt to cut the plot down to a synopsis was resisted, so I'd like a few other people to take a stab. --Fredrick day 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a doozy of a synopsis - they might as well just post the entire script up there! However, condensing it to a mere paragraph summary would I think be going a little too far. Everything to make it a good plot summary is there, but there's too much that's merely decoration. I haven't yet seen the film, so I'd feel uncomfortable about missing something out, but if you want to go through it and remove everything that doesn't drive the plot along (character beats, etc. are largely, though not wholly, unnecessary), I'll pop in later and give you some backup if it's resisted. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help / exchange of experiences

Hello everyone! I have just one question about minimal requirements for the films and music albums articles... The story is: in Russian Wikipedia (200.000+ articles) we are working on minimal requirements for the articles about films (here) and music albums (here), basically it's all about the main information which must be covered in each article on film or music release. Background is the following: lots of films and music albums articles end up in ru-wiki on the "Articles for Deletion" page, because: first - there is a plenty of such stubs, second - some users find them too short and do not think that such articles can ever be developed to overgrow the size of a short stub. I was looking for such minimal requirements or criteria for articles about films and music releases in other Wikipedias - a kind of experience exchange. Is there something like that in English Wikipedia? You know anything similar in other Wikipedias? Thanks in advance! (also asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums) Alex Ex 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles usually are deleted if they do not demonstrate notability and cannot be found to have any. If the article topic is notable enough to stay, then it's better to spend the time you waste AfD'ing it instead expanding the article, and giving it time to grow. (Making certain it's not orphaned always helps.) Girolamo Savonarola 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. In ru-wiki it's not about notability, but about a huge number of articles that are short stubs. The question is, if the subject is notable - then how short the articles are allowed to be for existence as a separate wikipedia article, and what essential issues must be covered. Alex Ex 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the articles topics are justifiable to have articles, then they should have articles. Stubs sometimes need time to grow. Girolamo Savonarola 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some stub-related musings by by one of the founders of Wikipedia at meta:The Perfect Stub Article. Basically what it's saying is stubs are a good thing. There's always a chance someone will get to it eventually, even small amounts of information can be helpful and we're really not in any hurry here. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Films by topic cats at WP:CFD

Just thought I'd bring this to people's attention: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20. Lugnuts 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorised films

25+ films listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple issues

First of all I'd like participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/September. I've proposed new stub categories for adventure films and mystery films of which there ar emany stubs which haven't got this yet please join in. Secondly I'd like to bring up the subject of splitting the primary genre categories like comedy, drama, SciFi , action, musical and western into decades like Category:Horror films. Whilst there isn't a reason why all films of the genre can't go in one category when people are browising by genre often they associate a certain genre by period. For instance the Good the Bad and the Ugly you think Category:1960s western films , Stars wars 1977 - Category:1970s science fiction films, Goldeneye - 1990s action films or for Hot Fuzz you would think Category:2000s comedy films and so on. I strongly believe these categories are large enough to have clear definition on there own by decade particularly as the stub categories have been split like this. Often many users are also keen on a certain genre of a certain decade -it makes browsing far easier.

Thirdly I'd like to suggest several new parameters to the film info box. Whilst I am against cluttering it too much in general as I have been creating many film I've noticed that many prominent figures who participated in the film production are often left out and are not acknowledged. As part of WP actors also I would like to see some expansion in this area. For me additional options of art director, casting, second unit (director only), costume design (this mostly for Indian films where there are famous designers who are prominent in the industry) and perhaps a genre parameter should be allowed into the equation. For me these people play a key role in the films production -the actual product of the film which for me is important. Now I'm not saying that all of these people may require a notable biography of their own or mentioning and I certainly wouldn't want to see all sorts of special effects aeroplane monitor coordinator etc etc into it and lis everyone as that would be ridiclous. but for many periods in film history there are some really key figures in these areas which played a major part in the film making but are left out and I'd like to see more coverage and the option to include the more notable figures. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the infobox goes, I agree with expanding certain parameters. Production designer (this outranks the art director) and costume designer, most particularly. However, as for casting and second unit, I think that it starts to wander outside of the traditional HOD (head of department) roles with more creative leverage. Casting is mostly subject to director and producer preferences (and sometimes even agents trying to create "package" deals), and their greatest autonomy usually comes at the lower-importance roles. Second unit directors are strange fish, but once you open that door, then should we have second unit cinematographers? Second unit costume designers? And so on. Second unit is also subject to the whims of the main HOD controls, and they generally are given "assignments" to capture insert footage without the main actors, as often as not with strict instructions as to how to obtain the material. Additionally, how likely is it that these roles will be filled with names who have their own articles? Girolamo Savonarola 01:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I meant when I said I did not want to see second unit special effect tea guy in there. I did say it should be kept to the most notable -th line would be drawn above these. and I did say that even then often some of these people may not qualify for an article. What I am suggesting is that the parameters are made available so can be used where applicable for the people who are prominent in these fields. Both production, costumer designer and art director are indeed very important in the making of the film and there are many people often who have worked on several hundred films where an article for them is often more appropriate than for some small time film directors. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

One such example for a prominent art director would be Robert Haas (director). If you check him out you'll see what I mean ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that production designer is a relatively recent term (infrequent until the 1960's, IIRC) - listing the art director would be appropriate where no production designer credit exists, such as Haas's films. Girolamo Savonarola 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I could see adding the production designer/art designer/costume designer field, but second unit director is a bit too much inside baseball, I think. If the second unit director and the work of the second unit was notable enough on a particular film, details about it could be noted in the production section of the article. — WiseKwai 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps yes -but I strongly think we need production /art designer and costume designer ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, the infobox is not supposed to be a replacement for article content. I really can't recall seeing many articles that discuss any of the proposed additional positions at any length, which would mean that just tossing them into the infobox would be an extremely bad idea. If you feel (or rather, a reliable source feels) that a person who isn't listed in an infobox had some crucial influence on a certain film, please mention him/her in the article instead. Alternatively, you could just take screenshots of a film's closing credits and pasting them where the article is supposed to be. - Bobet 08:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you put it this I know lets take director, screenwriter, cast, music, cinematographer and editor and even distributor out of the info box as "these are discussed in the article". Your argument Bobet with all due respect indicates you think infoboxes are a waste of time when the people in them are "mentioned in the article" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What about flipping that around - a person shouldn't be listed in the infobox if they aren't discussed in the text. After all, the infoboxes are supposed to supplement the information already in the article. Girolamo Savonarola 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hey everyone, there's a request for comment going on at the page for Slither (2006 film). If anyone is able, please weigh in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hippie Hippie Shake

I just started my first film page: Hippie Hippie Shake (currently shooting). It's barebones right now, though I will continue to work on it -- if anyone wants to pitch in, that would be lovely. --Melty girl 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Road movies is being renamed.

Leave this section with only MY comment, you are invited to go here. If you have any questions, ask there, not here. All comments should be there. Please vote oppose or support, or whatever you feel like. But please make sure you read completely my reasonbefore you oppose. TheBlazikenMaster 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Taglines

I've noticed certain film articles listing taglines, and others not, and was curious if there is some sort of standard for listing taglines. Can they have their own section? Are they important at all? What about non-English titles, is there a place for these? Murderbike 10:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm comparatively new here, so I don't know what the consensus is, but it seems to me that a tagline would be largely unimportant and not worth mentioning unless it has some inherent notability in of itself, due to impact upon the popular conciousness or some such (e.g. "In space, no-one can hear you scream") - as long as there is cited evidence to prove this impact, of course. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 10:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Ah ha, found it. Read the Manual of Style for films, here for more guidance. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 10:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an article titled List of taglines in films (or something similar) that got AFD'd a while back. Lugnuts 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the majority of cases, taglines should be removed. There is coverage like this, though, that may warrant their mentions somewhere in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alien, Jurassic Park and Jaws 2 have very famous taglines that are discussed, but most taglines are cliched and non-notable. Alientraveller 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

List of characters from Epic Movie is being nominated for deletion.

I highly encourage you to post your opinion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Superhero! help!

The article Superhero! was recently restored. However, the director of the film had prior complaints about the Wikipeidia article. This article needs some TLC and a review to ensure that it contains the latest information regarding the film. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Although it should be noted that, according to the article, it hasn't been filmed yet and thus shouldn't (per WP:NF) actually have an article yet. Girolamo Savonarola 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I checked about that, and Variety says production started on Monday last week. It's good to go, though a clean-up and a mention of production starting would be warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(Also, IMDb marks the film's status as unknown, so I think this reflects that they're not necessarily at the forefront for such information.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that you're at the forefront of the production research as always, Erik. :) Girolamo Savonarola 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My Super Ex-Girlfriend needs some serious work.

Hello, I know that movie isn't that famous, and probably a lot of people don't have it, or have seen it. But I'm bringing this here nevertheless, the plot is like holy madness. It's so damn huge. So someone needs to help with trimming it into five paragraphs at max, of course less would be great idea.

Tell you what, you don't have to own that video. Next time you rent a DVD you should rent that movie, and watch it more than once (before you give it back) to know for sure what's important and what isn't.

That of course is only a suggestion.

This page needs some serious cleanup, that tag isn't doing anything. But you on the other hand can. If you help me, I'd be very happy. Thanks for your time. TheBlazikenMaster 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some clean-up. This included removing the taglines, removing the in-universe information about what superpowers a fictional character had (not notable), exported the trivia section to the talk page for later re-integration, moved the interview link to EL, removed the unnecessary "See also" section, and removed the unnecessary list under DVD release. I haven't seen the film, so I can't address the plot summary. I would suggest better clean-up of the "Reaction and box office" section, though. If you'd like to improve it, I'd suggest modeling it after 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)#Release (ignoring the first paragraph, of course). Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, but I bet a lot of people are in neighborhood of a place where they can rent DVDs (what are those places called?) so I suggest that everyone that hasn't seen the movie should see it and think about what's important and what's not. Well, since I own the movie, I will do it myself next Friday if nobody else will. TheBlazikenMaster 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not interested in seeing the film itself -- I've got 400+ films on my Netflix queue. :) If you want, though, I can dig up some references that you could use to write about the film's production. Be bold and tighten up the plot summary, and I'll be happy to research some interviews and such for the film's background. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I will do it on Friday, I have more time then. You probably think trimming the plot section is a piece of cake, but it's not really that easy. Not for me at least. It's hard to tell difference between notable and unnotable scenes. I will do my best next Friday. TheBlazikenMaster 13:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a crack at condensing the plot summary, but it could use a pass from someone who's actually seen the film. :) Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I will do it next Friday, but I hope you understand that I'm still in high school, and I don't have really much free time on week days. I have good time on weekends though. TheBlazikenMaster 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. My comment was a jokey dig at myself for attempting a plot summary for a film I haven't even seen, and have no intention of seeing. Truth be told, I'm rather pleased with it, considering that fact, and that I rushed it off during a ten minute break. The only thing it needs now is a glance from someone who's seen the film in order to make sure I haven't made any glaring plot-related errors, but there's no rush. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the movie plot, and it's perfect. Couldn't have done it better myself. TheBlazikenMaster 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ELECTIONS - Coordinator voting now open (and more noms wanted)

Elections for Project Coordinators are currently on-going using approval voting. Project members are highly encouraged to participate by voting, asking questions of the candidates, and leaving comments! Please take a few minutes to take part. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

Also of note, there has been talk about possibly allowing self-nominations to continue throughout the voting period. If you believe that we should continue to leave the nomination window open, please discuss either here or on the election talk page. (At the moment, we have three nominees standing for three positions.) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 02:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

After agreement amongst all currently standing nominees, we've re-opened the nomination signup. Anyone wishing to self-nominate may continue to do so up until the closing of the election. Please do feel free to do so if you are interested! :) Girolamo Savonarola 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Jason White (character)

This minor character from the film Superman Returns has its own article. I don't think it's necessary - the vast majority of the article is a reiteration of the plot of the film. The character plays a very small role in the film and clearly doesn't deserve a separate article. I redirected the article after suggesting a redirection on the talk page and a week of no objections being voiced. However, SonPraises undid the redirect claiming no consensus was formed. Please weigh in your opinions at Talk:Jason White (character) so we can settle this. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was redirected to the film, but that change was reverted. I think we should leave this up for discussion for a week - SonPraises complained that the one day discussion didn't constitute consensus. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the six votes to support redirecting, I don't see a need to wait. The consensus is clear; we should go ahead and restore the redirect. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Film festival task force

Per an earlier discussion, I have listed the proposed Film festival task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Film festival (WikiProject Films). If anyone is interested, please show your support and sign up. I had also earlier proposed a Thai film task force, but will hold off on that for now. — WiseKwai 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Two task forces: Thai cinema and Film festivals

I am interested in seeing the creation of two task forces:

• Thai cinema - This would basically be me, but I think it deserves recognition as a task force, since quite a bit of work has been done and continues to be done.
• Film festivals - I think it would help to recognize film festivals and perhaps create some interest in maintaining, expanding and improving the articles about them. — WiseKwai 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They both sound like potentially feasible ideas. It's good that someone's proposed the festival one as well, since WP Filmmaking doesn't actually cover them, which left a gray area. My only concern as always about task forces is participation. Are there at least several editors who are ready to sign on? If so, let's do it. Girolamo Savonarola 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for film festivals. Disambiguating festival lists is a bitch but it'd be a lot less painful in a group environment. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think both proposals are a case of "if you build it, they will come", and once created and active, will generate interest, which is why I'm interested in creating them and getting active tagging the talk pages and continuing to edit the articles. — WiseKwai 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an entirely trivial matter, which is why it needs to be at least discussed first. Also, you have to consider that if we accumulate large numbers of inactive or moribund task forces, it reflects poorly on the project, adds unnecessary project admin overhead, and potentially can be demoralizing or unattractive for would-be members. Several of our task forces which were grandfathered in already appear to be in such a state.

That being said, I don't think it's placing the bar too high to ask if there are, say, at least three members interested in joining a task force before creating it. And of course if you'd like to begin working on it as a subpage of your userspace in the meantime, it would allow you to start the groundwork now. Sound good? :) Girolamo Savonarola 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sounds great. Interested folks can feel free to sign up for the proposed projects at the proposed-project pages:

• Film festival task force
• Thai cinema task force — WiseKwai 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to add a listing at proposed task forces on WP:COUNCIL. Girolamo Savonarola 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. I don't think of the national pages as wikirpojects anyway -they were intially pages to organize articles on individual cinemas more effectively ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - now has a home at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Film festivals task force. Congratulations and look forward to seeing what develops. Girolamo Savonarola 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No poster image

Template:Infobox_Album/No_cover

Is anyone interested in making a Image:Noposter-upload.png image for films missing a poster, similar to the one on the right? --Steinninn 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I created a sandbox template and added an example for how The Matrix would look like without a cover image. Example for The Matrix. What do you think? Could this be added to Template:Infobox film? --Steinninn 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it looks 'orrible! Really huge and ugly. Why can't we just leave things blank if there's no picture? Cop 663 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an empty DVD cover. What's wrong with that? TheBlazikenMaster 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, why have an image saying we don't have an image when we can just not have an image? It's not like we need a spacer there for a standardized page template. I'm not really convinced in either direction, but I would also argue towards simplicity. Girolamo Savonarola 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It encourages people to upload a cover. --Steinninn 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If we must have an image, please don't make the "no image" image a default in the infobox if the image field is left blank, like WP:ALBUM does. Leave it as a manual option for editors to choose whether they want to use it or not. Personally, I dislike it. Aside from being too self-referential for my taste, the main problem I have is with the language: "No cover available." That's a lie. The cover is available - somewhere in the world, it's just not available on Wikipedia, yet. — WiseKwai 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a small change, so that when Image:NoDVDcover-upload.png is added to an article, it will automatically work as a link to the upload form (Example for The Matrix). No nasty <imagemap>. Feel free to upload a better image and don't forget to spread it around the articles. --Steinninn 03:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm against this too. It provides no valuable content. If there's no artwork there people don't need a huge placeholder to tell them so. Adding these would take time that could be used to find actual artwork. Preferably we want original posters over DVD covers. And it makes the articles look less professional. Not to mention, the fair use police–types don't much care for advertisements for non free content. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can ya'll please tag, cleanup, and do your film thing at The Tic Code? There are some things there that are Greek to me. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

{{current fiction}}

What on earth is the point of adding this tag to the top of a film when in 99% of cases, the first sentence states "released in 2007" - do we expect that most of our readers are unable to work out that a film released in 2007 is recent and that by reading the article they may spoil their enjoyment of the film? I have seen it added to a couple of articles and it adds nothing - so I have removed it as redundant. --Fredrick day 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree. Spoiler warnings have little place in Wikipedia articles; if people didn't want to know about the film, they wouldn't be reading the thing. I suppose some people might want to know about the production, or a particular controversy, without wanting to spoil themselves, so I wouldn't be unwilling, as a matter of courtesy, to keep any major plot points within the confines of the Plot section of the article where possible (if they read that... well, then it's their own silly fault), but only if it's not required to elucidate upon any relevant OOU information (e.g. the Production section may give details of studio-ordered reshoots, in which case it might be relevant to mention what exactly they've ordered changed). Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I find Template:Current fiction extremely redundant. For the vast majority of the visits to the article of a released film, people are going to it because it's been recently released. I mean, God forbid that there be a comprehensive article about the subject itself! I find it to be a pseudo-spoiler tag -- while Plot section headings indicate plot details and Characters section headings indicate character details, we don't tag them because of that. Considering that such information is the staple of a film article, informing the reader of such availability just seems condescending. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

the other issue is that those types of tags (in my view) should be used to inform the editor rather than the reader, that why we have clean-up tags, tone tags etc - A "this is recent" tag makes a lot of sense with breaking news stories but it makes no sense at all with films or other media. If we follow the MOS for films, then the year of release will be in the opening paragraph, so it good practice with prose that is required not slapping an pointless tag at the top. --Fredrick day 11:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Australian film split

Crisis ahhhh!! Somebody has ruined Category:Australian films by splitting into the worst possible by genre ahhhh .What should we do. This definately MUST NOT be done. Category:Austrlaian films should be an A-Z ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... it's far too hard to judge genre to make it effective--plus, they should all be in the one category. Now... I'm not really sure how you/anyone will go about reversing this but I definitely agree with you. gren グレン 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. For info, Category:Australian cult films is going through CFD and I think a similar process should be agreed here first, then sent to CFD, before we have every country with a genre split. Lugnuts 08:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar

On Firefox 2.0.0.7, on Windows XP, your sidebar doesn't show up quite right. The statistics just show up as a bunch of table code. I couldn't find out what was wrong with it, but someone with more experience with the sidebar might look into fixing it. Thanks, Psychless 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What sidebar are you referring to exactly? TheBlazikenMaster 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The project sidebar that shows on most WP Films pages. (See this project's main page, on the right.) I've noticed this as well, but I don't know what can be done. I'll try asking the technical Help Desk. Girolamo Savonarola 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.7 and it looks perfectly OK to me, so it may be a local setting in the application rather than Firefox itself. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I notice this problem too, it has bunch of random codes. I'm using Home Edition, so it should have high quality, (it does since I can play GTA: San Andreas which does require high quality) I really don't know what the problem is. But I hope some template expert will fix it. Maybe we should bring this to the talk page of the template, like the sound of that? TheBlazikenMaster 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm getting -

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"|- ! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | Film articles !! colspan="6" | Importance |- !style="background: #ff00ff; text-align: center;" | Top !! style="background: #ff88ff; text-align: center;" | High !! style="background: #ffccff; text-align: center;" | Mid !! style="background: #ffeeff; text-align: center;" | Low !! style="background: #ffffff; text-align: center;" | None !! Total |- ! rowspan="10" | Quality |- ! style="background: #6699ff; text-align: center;" | Featured article FA | 12 || 19 || 18 || 7 || || 56 |- ! style="background: #66ffff; text-align: center;" | A | 2 || 6 || 4 || || || 12 |- ! style="background: #66ff66; text-align: center;" | Good article GA | 6 || 20 || 35 || 20 || 5 || 86 |- ! style="background: #ffff66; text-align: center;" | B | 74 || 160 || 180 || 201 || 391 || 1006 |- ! style="background: #ffaa66; text-align: center;" | Start | 29 || 211 || 357 || 1399 || 4174 || 6170 |- ! style="background: #ff6666; text-align: center;" | Stub | 3 || 94 || 385 || 11503 || 10287 || 22272 |- ! style="background: transparent; text-align: center" | Assessed | 126 || 510 || 979 || 13130 || 14857 || 29602 |- ! style="background: transparent; text-align: center" | Unassessed | 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 1708 || 1715 |- ! Total | 126 || 510 || 979 || 13137 || 16565 || 31317 |- |}

I haven't done anything to the settings of the program, so I'm dubious that it is that (and if it is, then it's a large problem, since many users don't touch theirs). Essentially, it's dumping the code without processing it. Girolamo Savonarola 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for me on the same setup. Have you tried clearing your cache? Doctor Sunshine talk 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to second that, I'm using XP with Firefox 2.0.0.7 and it's fine. Cop 663 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it on multiple computers, some of which had not been to WP in any recent length of time. Also, it's appearing on this current computer on both IE and Firefox...very strange. Girolamo Savonarola 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I linked the problem. TheBlazikenMaster 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I get that too. IE 7 on windows vista. RWardy 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is working perfectly for me in IE 6 on XP Pro with all current updates and what not. I never noticed any problem with it and I've been hitting the page almost every day recently. AnmaFinotera 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'd never unhidden the statistics there before. I see what you mean now. When did the problem start? Doctor Sunshine talk 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the earliest diff that I can demonstrate it for, which suggests that it probably is connected with the show/hide function. Girolamo Savonarola 05:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out. It seems that when the hidden template trancludes a page that begins with standard table code, i.e., {|, it won't render the table. So I've added some filler code to the beginning of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics. It's a quick fix but there you go. Doctor Sunshine talk 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. If the bot doesn't recreate the stats from scratch each time, it should be good. We'll obviously need a few days to make certain. Girolamo Savonarola 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You were right, the bot nixed it. I just added it to the template instead and left a message at the hidden template talk so it should be fine now. Doctor Sunshine talk 16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Differences between book and film

I've recently posted an AfD discussion for the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A similar preceding AfD discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination), and I was wondering if the WikiProject Films community, under whom these "difference" topics would fall, could find some kind of consensus. I think it can be agreed that if it can be explained why a filmmaker pursued a specific change from the source material, it would generally be encyclopedic to warrant inclusion. (A personal example would be Road to Perdition#Writing.) However, there are a few "Differences" articles and sections that boil down to, "Just read the book and see the film, and you can see the difference yourself!" You can find my argument at the Chocolate Factory AfD, but I was wondering what other community members thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal feelings, there's no need for you to unilaterally remove internal cross-references to pages just because *you* think the linked page should be deleted. 68.100.242.114 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Personal feelings" has nothing to do with the matter. I've cited numerous policies and guidelines to show why the article does not belong on Wikipedia. If anything, such changes would spur the attention of editors who monitor the related articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Owen Davian is being concidered for deletion.

He is a character from Mission: Impossible III please cast your vote here. TheBlazikenMaster 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons

I noticed that Fight Club (film) has a little stars and stripes to denote that the film was made in the United States. Further to some discussion over quite a long period at WP:FLAG, I believe the flag icons on this and similar articles are redundant and can be removed on sight. I'd be interested if anyone can point me to a consensus at this project that using flags this way adds information to the article. Failing that, this would be a good place to bring up any advantages to the general reader of having the flag as well as the country name. --John 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we recently had this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Use_of_flags_makes_information_harder_to_read recently, and consensus was that although flags are useful 'space-savers' in small infoboxes, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The style guidelines on release dates were changed accordingly, and there is no guideline saying they should appear in the 'country' section, so feel free to nuke 'em if you want to! Cop 663 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I developed a lot of the content on Fight Club (film), but I wouldn't mind its removal. I guess I've just followed the trend to add {{USA}} or {{UK}} to the country attribute of Infobox Film templates. If there is a motion to get rid of flag icons, I'd be happy to fix this at the film article in question and other film articles on which I've worked. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess sooner or later we'll need to actually trawl through the articles and change them accordingly. In the meantime, it's a fair assumption that most editors are not aware of this change, and thus most articles retain the old style. Girolamo Savonarola 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, the documentation at Template:Infobox Film still says to use a flag icon for the release date. RWardy 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Flags for release dates and distributors are more of a problem than flags for countries of origin. 86.148.209.162 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the flag icons are a good idea and make the page look better. -Sox207 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What information do you think they add? --John 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A-class film articles

Why are all A-class film articles in Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles? – Ilse@ 12:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I might need to comment out another bit of the template - it's a bit of code for the future possibility of the project itself assessing if articles are A-Class. Therefore, if the article doesn't have the appropriate A-Class review subpage for itself, it auto-cats to "Incorrectly tagged..." It's inherited from the WPMILHIST template. But thank you for pointing this out - I'll request the appropriate template edits immediately. Girolamo Savonarola 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Ilse@ 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Academy Awards WikiProject

I believe that the above project would benefit from a merger with this project, if that is agreeable to the memberships of both projects. One particular advantage would be the greater access to information on the non-"Academy awards", like the various other national film awards. This project, with its greater size and multiple groups, would probably be best able to work on developing such content. Any responses below, positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You used the template {{merge}}, I think you should have used {{mergefrom}} so I thought "Hell no, this project is for movies in general, not academy awards.", so I changed it. Anyway, yeah I agree, it's very hard to discuss academy awards without discussing the movie that received it in general. TheBlazikenMaster 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It could easily work as a task force, which would keep the vast majority of the project's work and structure intact. Having originally raised the matter on your talk page, of course I support it. :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again Academy Awards should clearly become part of WP films. Organized as a task force. When do you think we should merge Indian cinema Giro? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to give each of the projects sufficient time (at least a week) to provide a reasonable amount of notice. Girolamo Savonarola 03:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Academy Awards WP should be merged into WP:FILMS. Its not really a large enough scope to warrant a whole Wikiproject - • The Giant Puffin • 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

formatting, with TOC & infobox

Another editor recently edited the page But I'm a Cheerleader to change the format so that a) the first paragraph after the lead looks better and you can see the edit button properly, but b) there is now a huge gap between the table of contents and the 1st paragraph, which is still there when you "hide" the TOC. The problem originates, I think, from the length of the infobox. Anyway, I haven't seen this anywhere else, I personally think it looks worse now and am having a minor disagreement with the other editor. I would really like other opinions on which is best, or if there are any other solutions? this is how it looked before. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was going through the project's GAs to reduce poster sizes and thought it was a weird occurrence, maybe some problem with Wikipedia/my computer. But since it was intentionally done, I don't think that it should be like it is. No other film articles I have stumbled on have used this practice, and for our articles to remain uniform, the large gap should be removed. I don't see any reason why such a large gap is necessary based on the above reasons. --Nehrams2020 19:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Box office data sites

In the past I have used Box Office Mojo for financial data for films. I have recently come across "The Numbers" [3] and have found discrepancies in the figures for gross box office revenue for several films so far. Looking at google, I see that there are other similar sites. Is there any evidence for which is the most accurate or should we cite all of the figures that we can find in the film articles? --BelovedFreak 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What kind of discrepancies have you come across? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've pointed out the issues with their budget discrepancies before, but I've seen that more contradictions with the older films than the newer films, probably because it's harder to come by more exact figures the older the film is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense... I would imagine for the most recent films, the gross box office revenue would be accurate. As we recede into the past, though, it may be better to use non-web resources -- hunting around in the film news archives and whatnot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well come to think of it, the Internet wasn't always as much used as it is today. Movies that are made before 1950, I bet they are hard to get box office gross from. How about silent movies? Isn't it hard to get info about that? TheBlazikenMaster 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, a few I noticed:

• All Over Me: Box office Mojo Vs. The Numbers
• But I'm a Cheerleader: Box Office Mojo Vs. The Numbers
• The Crow: Box Office Mojo Vs. The Numbers
• Do The Right Thing: Box Office Mojo Vs. The Numbers
• Happiness: Box Office Mojo Vs. The Numbers

If it's not a stupid question, what non-web resources are there? Also, are there any resources for non-US figures? --BelovedFreak 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

← UK Box office statistics archive is a resource for non-US figures, though I don't think it's very wieldy. Also, I meant non-web resources as in a book about a famous silent film that approximates its box office gross revenue, which would be more reliable than BOM or TN, which would most likely be tertiary sources in regard to older figures. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. So, I guess finding sources for individual films is the answer. I was hoping there might be some kind of secret holy-grail repository of info somewhere!--BelovedFreak 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

With no disrespect to each of the websites, probably the most relevant question is where are they getting their info from? Surely there are print sources to be found, which would be both more stable and more reliable. (I'm presuming.) Girolamo Savonarola 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What I've noticed is that you can correct The-Numbers. By correct, I mean I've had multiple correspondence with them with the Superman Returns budget (where The-Numbers provides a link to the source) and with the budget and box office take of all of the Friday the 13th movies. BOM.com has ignored me every time I provide them with contradictory information, and they don't generally list any sources for their info. On the other hand, BOM has been around for a lot longer than The-Numbers, and it more widely used by news organizations. I know that Forbes uses BOM.com when they do their "most expensive movies ever made" list. I personally prefer to find outside sources where there is direct conversation over the budget (i.e. primary sourcing), whether that's an online interview or a making-of book.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Advent Film Group AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advent Film Group

Though it should be mentioned here.Horrorshowj 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actor-politicians categories up for CFD

They can be found Here for those of you who might want to comment. Lugnuts 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin's brusque conduct

I don't have time to deal with this today, but the admin Alkivar has deleted non-free images that had fair use rationales attached without discussion from film articles like Children of Men and Fight Club (film). This unilateral behavior is completely unwarranted considering that there were explanations for the usage of the non-free images in these articles. I am considering filing an incident report, but I left a message on his talk page to see what he has to say for himself. If he feels that he is warranted in making unilateral decisions, I would suggest going ahead with a report of his abuse of admin privileges.

Unilateral deletions:

• Image:Fight Club main characters.jpg
• Image:Marla Singer and Jack.jpg.jpg
• Image:Fightclubdvdscan.jpg
• Image:86339005,8DEF2C503DF6D3B5961.jpg (Children of Men)

—Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the critical commentary? For instance, exactly how is an image of a DVD's cover meant to enhance understanding of that section? If there were a discussion of the design of the artwork... or a discussion of composition/design/costume/lighting relating to the specific screenshots. As it is, I see the use of images merely for images sake: they, thus, fail the non-free criteria. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's hope that whoever removed them will join this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 18:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone had told me this discussion was ongoing I likely would have commented, if I had the time... today I wasn't rediculously busy, so I was able to respond to erik's concerns on my talk page when questioned.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's why discussion needs to take place to tie in the images better. This is less about whether the images were truly appropriate for where they were located and more about the lack of discussion in addressing these images. For instance, for Fight Club, its DVD packaging was considered unique as it was just not a film poster on a DVD case. Specific marketing approaches went into putting the whole presentation of the DVD together. WP:FU#Acceptable images says, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." No admin has the right to speedily delete images like the ones above of their own accord because they cannot profess to know that it doesn't have the appropriate fair use rationale. A better approach would have been to take it to WP:IFD, but the admin chose to exercise his powers unilaterally in addressing these images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your comments about the DVD, but lots of DVDs don't use the poster. If this is the extent of what is interesting about it, then any text would do (the article currently doesn't contain your above assertion). The 'rationales' seem rather generic too. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

When I mentioned "a film poster on a DVD case", I was referring to the typical packaging. I know that it is not always the same, but sometimes DVD packaging lacks a "common" cover -- (like the special edition for Memento in which it looks like a psychiatry report package or the skin-cover of one of the Evil Dead films). I try to be conservative about non-free image usage and try my best to tie it into the content. I've also made suggestions to do so of others because traditionally, even this WikiProject's Featured Articles don't have the most solid rationales. Discussion is important here on Wikipedia, and considering the quality of articles like Children of Men and Fight Club (film) rather than some B-grade film with 2,000 words of plot summary and a big fat trivia section that contains a few non-free images, there should have been discussion about better application of the images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... sometimes 'better' is none in terms with our goal to create a free encyclopedia. With this pillar in mind, discussion, really, should be before adding them. All the admin's done is delete a few images that don't comply fully with out non-free media policy: no need to call for his head! The JPS^{talk to me} 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What the admin has done is determine that his judgment call was more important than consensus. He used his tools unilaterally without any consulting whatsoever of anyone involved with these articles. That's what bothers me the most. Non-free images are difficult enough to implement in articles about subjects that are intrinsically copyrighted (very, very few free images available about anything film-related). The articles from which he removed the images were Good Articles, not blatantly image-decorative articles. I really believe that an incident report needs to be filed because of the gross misconduct and needs to be on record at the very least. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the issue is some administrator felt need to crap over someone else's work, who had clearly given it a source and rationale, in violation of WP:OWN. This is not new: someone who thinks it is plain wrong to put copyrighted work on this site. So do call for his head on a platter. Alientraveller 18:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Uploading a non-free image (created by considerable expense) with a basic, generic rationale (rationales need to be specific to each image, not have the blanket claim of 'encyclopedic use') is hardly 'work'. The time spent downloading those images from another site and uploading them here is minimal, and the brainpower (with respect -- I've done this myself) almost non-existent. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin, is it possible for you to retrieve or at least look at the descriptions of the non-free images? I don't believe that all were as generic as you say. Additionally, can I ask you, would the image at Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast be appropriate? It's one of the "lighter" forms of the rationale in which it involves discussion about the film rather than specifically commenting on that shot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked the summaries before beginning to comment here. The summaries were individual, but the rationales were generic. They had the standard stuff about 'low rresolution', etc., but they made no attempt to assert why those specific images are necessary. The Sunshine image is probably OK because it is illustrating the multiple ethnicities of the cast: it is harmonious with adjoining text. I guess one of the reasons producers chose the cast was how they looked together...? The JPS^{talk to me} 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please review the images at Fight Club (film)? I've added screenshots that correspond most directly to the context. I am looking for citations that describe the packaging of the DVD, as there is one somewhere -- just need to locate it. Please inform if the images are appropriate or not. I shall be informing the admin of the same, and if he still brusquely deletes the images despite my best efforts to provide relevant fair use rationales, the incident report will almost definitely be filed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is a larger systemic problem with the image deletion review that's been happening. I can't comment on these specific instances, but oftentimes the only warning of potential deletion is placed on the uploader's user talk page. That often means that the messages are unread, misunderstood, disregarded, or forgotten. Whether or not that happened in these instances, I believe that the image deletion warning guidelines need to be rewritten so that those warnings come to central groupings of editors, such as WikiProjects. Girolamo Savonarola 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What I find somewhat more disconcerting is not the removal of the images pre se, but the speedy delete without announcement that accompanied their removal. Perhaps Girolamo is correct, and that a warning of the sppedy delete was coming. We have no way of knowing about that now, as the image has been deleted, with no method by which to see its history or to contest its deletion. This practice, which I imagine neatly contstrains any substantive attampt by a contributor to revert the admin and engage in what may be time-consuming discussion regarding the value of the image or the adaptation of the image to meet a standard - a standard that likely is being applied inappropriately. As there is no image to examine, there is no argument about the merits of its use in the article.

Most of the regular contributors spend a good deal of time educating the newbies about discussing their edits before making changes to the article which is likely to drastically change the article. Be Bold is in fact one of our rules, but when we consider the larger set of tools that admins have at their disposal, it is perhaps a bit more advisable that they self-restrict that rule, as their use of it raely allows for discussion.

Honestly, it simply appears that the editor in this case didn't want/have time/seed the need for discussion regarding his unilateral action, which is not the sort of mindset the community needs in Wikipedia. If an admin doesn't have the time, they might be a bit too busy to be an admin. If they have a significant problem with discussing their edits, then perhaps Wikipedia is the wrong place for them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my argument was that oftentimes the warnings (placed ahead of time) are only put on the uploader's talk page. However, looking for links to these missing images, I don't see any record even of those. Whatever the specific issues in this case, what is clear (to me) is that open and prior discussion should be granted in all but the most uncontroversial cases (eg patent nonsense). Even copyvio articles are given ample time to sort out and discuss the situation. Girolamo Savonarola 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles

I know that several months ago the notable roles section of actor infoboxes was removed by sensible consensus. In editing today I noted that it still exists in the infobox for voice actors like Maurice LaMarche. Now it is is labeled as credits when you edit the infobox but it shows up as notable roles when viewing the page. Is this something that we should remove as we did with the actor infoboxes or will this be considered a new alteration that will have to go through the discussion process? If the latter please let me know where I have to go to get this process started and I will be happy to do so and thanks in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be fine to remove it. I've gone ahead and done so. If it's a problem we'll soon find out. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian cinema

Almost as soon as we've formally integrated the Indian cinema task force with much consensus from their editors, the sole dissenter (from WP India) has lodged a complaint in WikiProject Council. I find this quite distressing, since it seems to be an attempt to subvert both consensus and existing task force location conventions. In any case, if anyone would like to comment there, it would be much appreciated. Girolamo Savonarola 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Imdb name proposed edit

Please visit Template talk:Imdb name to discuss new capabiliy provided by {{Imdb name/sandbox}} with a demonstration at {{Imdb name/testcases}}. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Love & Suicide

[4]

This topic is about the history making film Love & Suicide, the movie. In the last three years this site has been tagged for deletion, has been deleted, has had numerous attempts to remove it.

We believe we are being targeted as filmmakers from either haters or political retaliation in regards to the topic of the embargo in which filmmaker Luis Moro is outspoken.

The page has followed all guidelines considering how many times we have been flagged. The format that was followed was from Andy Garcia's page. So there would be no mistakes. Here are the list of movies Garcia has posted and has been left alone, with no threats, no deletions, no issues.

I removed the list - yes andy garica has a load of films on wikipedia - --Fredrick day 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

His films have not been labled 'advertisement', or requested 'speedy deletion', his writing style on the page is similar to ours. I am a request for Love & Suicide's page to be locked, like the Cuba page. So no more 'editors' from any level, and country, any opinion, or any position can tag or try to remove.

We have proved (with many supporters) why our film should be listed here in Wikipedia, we have shown press, and proof over the last three years. We did remove Luis Moro as a filmmaker because to keep up with the deletions was too time consuming. Never mind he is an award winning filmmaker, that did not seem to be applicable enough for the 'haters'. Not only am I requesting a lock on the page, but also if this page continues to be harrased, we will go more public (wide). We have every right to be here.

http://www.MoroFilms.com

Yes it did read like an advert - I've made a start at cleaning it up, other please jump in, the press section needs work. --Fredrick day 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't do administrative actions from here; this is merely an editing group on a common subject. However, we can advise you on some weak points of the article, and how to correct them. First of all, it appears that the filmmakers themselves have written the article. While this isn't specifically prohibited, it is generally considered a faux pas. I would highly recommend reading through WP:COI not only so that you will understand the guidelines and issues, but also so that you will be able to anticipate common objections and make changes so as to avoid future AfDs.

The second issue is the text of the article itself. I don't quite understand what you're talking about with regard to Andy Garcia, but you have to compare apples with apples - copying the style of an article on an actor is not advisable when writing about a film. We have a handful of featured articles which would likely be better models to take note and inspiration from. The current body of the text is poorly worded and I have to agree that the text does read as an advertisement. It needs to be objective and at a remove from opinions - which is to the say that the article shouldn't appear to be promoting any point of view, although it may common on other opinions from relevant reliable sources.

Most importantly, all articles without exception need citations. Without it there is no firm way to establish relevance and context, which means that any portion of the article - as well as the entirety of the article - may be deleted if challenged. So that probably needs the most immediate attention.

Last is the question of notability. We have specific notability guidelines for films; if the film meets these criteria, it is important that the article makes some mention of them, however slight, so that any editor who might have doubts as to notability will be able to compare the article's content against the criteria and see that they are clearly met. (Avoid self-reference within the article, however.)

I look forward to seeing your improvements to the article. Please feel free to ask for more questions or comments should the need arise. Good luck and happy editing! Girolamo Savonarola 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Very, very good. This is the first time I have ever had this type of reponse. It takes the mystery out of the whole thing. So, I will have a professional editor correct everything you mentioned. Thank you, and I assume it will stay up until I can get this done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.247.151 (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems some of the lines are coppied directly from other articles on the internet(eg "What may be the first American feature film made in Cuba since Fidel Castro's revolution will screen at the American Black Film Festival on Miami Beach today"). This is a violations of copyright (WP:COPY) and so the article will need rewording or may face quick deletion. You can use other websites and articles etc, but content cannot usually be coppied verbatim. RWardy 12:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I got some suggestion for Bad Boys II.

More info here. Please comment there if you would like. TheBlazikenMaster 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This is a message directing people to another discussion, no further edits should be made to this section.

Future film mergers

There are a few future film articles that are undergoing requests to merge to their source materials' articles:

• Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins
• Friday the 13th (2009 film)
• Untitled X-Files Sequel

Input from the community is welcome. If there are any other future films that may not meet the notability guidelines for films, feel free to mention them here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled across Mortal Kombat: Devastation today. Girolamo Savonarola 03:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've put up a {{db-repost}} as it was deleted before and there is no apparent addition to the existing content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done merge/redirects on all three above. Girolamo Savonarola 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments (2007 film)

Can someone please watch this movie and start the article stub? I noticed it while looking at a movie list. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you unable to create the article yourself? Lugnuts 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am because the movie isn't in movie theaters where I come from. TheBlazikenMaster 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub is created. There was enough information in a Google search to start it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! Movies

I think it should be listed in all movie articles, after all Yahoo! is a very well known internet service. Tomorrow I'll be going through my DVDs and add external links to Y!M, any objections? TheBlazikenMaster 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Yahoo! Movies needs to exist as its own article. As the page history shows, there is a conflict of interest by the major contributor of that article. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage by reliable sources about Yahoo! Movies specifically, so it seems better off as a section at Yahoo!. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding my question. I wasn't asking if or if not it needs its own article, I was asking if nobody would mind if I added external link to Yahoo! Movies. TheBlazikenMaster 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right... total brain fart. What do you feel that Yahoo! Movies provides that IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, etc. don't? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're asking if Yahoo Movies should be a regularly acceptable external links for individual film titles? I'd have to say that's exactly why WP:EL was written - there are scores of sites with databases of titles for which they have small modicums of information. We did have a straw poll maybe a year ago about which sites were acceptable for regular linkage, and only IMDb and AMG made it through; IMDb largely on the basis of its reputation, and AMG on the basis of its exceptionally large collection of reviews. (Which, IIRC, Y!M uses.) So what would Y!M be offering that would be exceptional? Girolamo Savonarola 02:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No other site has Greg's Preview, and I must say it is pretty useful. TheBlazikenMaster 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but if that's our only standard, then consider where that will lead. Girolamo Savonarola 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Misc. Section

Meh. I'll reply here. You ask: "I think this article needs history about the making of the movie. I find that pretty encyclopedic. Should we make a section about how the movie was made? We already have history on that on some other movies, so why not this one?"

I agree. So... what's stopping you?

Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page I mentioned. I added that note for a reason, I added it so this section wouldn't get to big. TheBlazikenMaster 00:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy that somebody did reply to the section on the proper place. Liquidfinale is also failing to understand this is the discussion page of movies in general, not that particular one, that's why I made the note. TheBlazikenMaster 12:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I replied here because I was making a wider point that you appear not to have grasped. See also: Lugnuts' reply to you earlier. There's nothing stopping your doing it yourself. Even if you haven't seen the film; the plot is a very small part of what a good film article is. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is NOT the right place to discuss this. Please discuss it on the right talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be argumentative or anything; I was merely offering up some genuine advice, which was better-suited here as it didn't just relate specifically to the Bad Boys II article. This is Wikipedia; if you think of something which will improve an article, then you should just do it. e.g. the Ten Commandments question you posed earlier - just create the stub; it doesn't matter that you haven't seen the film, as the plot section is a very small part of things. Everything else is easily-sourced (directors, writers, cast, basic premise). Other contributors will flesh it out if they think it's worth adding to. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

it didn't just relate specifically to the Bad Boys II article

Oh, is that the case? Why didn't you say so in the first place?

And I can't just do it, making a section about how the movie was made is not easy. First off, you have to let it appear in correct order from the beginning of production, and it isn't easy. TheBlazikenMaster 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And can you please re-post your "as you stated earlier" into the other section? It's a lot easier for me to reply if you post it in that discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean it, having all your statements in one discussion and leave the rest of the discussions unreplied can get very messy, believe me. It also makes it hard to find the specific discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you explained on the talk page, but I still think this needs to be on separate section, as it isn't specifically about the movie. TheBlazikenMaster 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What Liquidfinale was trying to accomplish was to inquire to you why you need to bring specific issues here so other editors can address them. I created a stub for The Ten Commandments (2007 film) using information from reviews and the official site, which I had found in a Google search. There's a lot of film articles on Wikipedia, and I think it may be more productive if we could help you learn techniques to improve film articles. For instance, I keep a link to Template:Infobox Film on my user page so if there is a film article without a template or with a badly-formatted template, I can copy/paste the most recent template into the article and transfer the attributes into it. As for Bad Boys II, do you want some tips on how to research for information about the film's production? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'd love to get some. But the tips would be more suitable on Talk:Bad Boys II. Well, because you see, in the future maybe, I wanna search the achieves on Talk:Bad Boys II that so far isn't a big discussion page, and it would be easier to find the tips on that talk page than here, since new discussion is added almost daily here. TheBlazikenMaster 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox movie certificates

I would like to bring to the attention of the community the effectiveness of Template:Infobox movie certificates, which is used in around 300 film articles. It has been up for deletion back in August 2006, though the consensus was to keep. There has been some discussion going on between me, Pixelface, and Bignole, as well as a broader discussion at the style guidelines talk page. In brief, the template provides a collective list of movie certificates (ratings) for a film. WP:IINFO states, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." To fill the template, editors usually draw upon the "Certifications" attribute under "Additional details" at a film's web page at the Internet Movie Database. IMDb is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for editorial oversight (information being user-submitted) or fact-checking (as it has been incorrect numerous times). My approach about movie certificates for films has been to include information about a certificate beyond just its classification, such as the specific reason for it or disputes surrounding it. Some instances are Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 instead of R like its predecessors, the BBFC's rating treatment at Fight Club (film)#Release, or something like Disney's first PG-13 film being Pirates of the Caribbean (can't remember if this is true or not).

The issue is, what does a list of movie certificates contribute to a film article in the encyclopedic sense? For a family film, certificates would permit younger audiences. If there was an outlier certificate that restricted audiences more than others, then the list provides zero understanding of why this may be the case. I do not at all oppose verifiable coverage of movie certificates if it can be reflected beyond mere classification how the certificate affected the film or the film's impact upon release. There has been a suggestion to reduce the template's attributes to solely English-speaking territories, but this setup still does not try to provide encyclopedic context behind each certificate. I would like to present this template for deletion, but I would like to hear any opposing arguments from the community. A few reminders:

• Because an item survived a discussion for deletion does not mean it should be kept indefinitely; many items undergo multiple discussions.
• The template's widespread usage is not an argument to keep; trivia sections are rampant, but they are still frowned upon.
• The discussion is for movie certificates on their own merit -- comparing this attribute to a film's runtime or release date is akin to citing Wikipedia to support Wikipedia.

I welcome any arguments about how a list of movie certificates contributes to the encyclopedic nature of a film article on Wikipedia despite no detail or real-world context beyond their classifications. Other comments are also welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database is not the only source for film certifications. Film certifications are available from multiple sources: film critics[5], Rotten Tomatoes[6], Yahoo! Movies[7], etc. There are also available direct from ratings boards: US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada (Alberta), Canada (British Columbia), Canada (Manitoba), Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island), Canada (Ontario), etc. A list of movie certificates shows readers the age limit that a country or territory's ratings board has placed on a film. Seeing how a film has been rated in various countries helps readers research social norms worldwide, particularly if a country/territory has banned a film. Movie certificates can affect box office grosses, so they do provide real-world context. Film producers know that a film's rating can affect it's profitability so they will often cut content out of a film to get a more commercially viable rating or even add content to appeal to a certain rating demographic. --Pixelface 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this conversation is already ongoing in the talk page mentioned above. Let's keep it centralized there. Girolamo Savonarola 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Italian films by director category for deletion (and others)

Post comments for keeping/deleting/merging at the CFD here Lugnuts 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Films by writer category for deletion

Another film category is up for debate at CFD here. Lugnuts 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Animation project proposal

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are about as many animated cartoons as movies (if not more), so I honestly think it deserves its own WikiProject page. We can't add all problems in one field. TheBlazikenMaster 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to see an organized project for all animation topics. That being said, there's no reason why we couldn't operate a joint task-force with them specific focus on animated films, too. Either way, we need to maintain close(r) relations with many of the animation projects and descendants which do include some films in their scopes. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Branded to Kill FAC

Branded to Kill is currently listed at FAC. It's experiencing a bit of a dry spell and hasn't received any comments for more than two weeks. I'm fairly certain a couple more reviews would push it over the finish line. If anyone's interested in critiquing the article, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 05:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Southeast Asian cinema task force

Awhile back I proposed creating a Thai film task force, which didn't really get very far because the scope is too limited. Recently, the suggestion was made to broaden things a bit and propose that Southeast Asian cinema task force be created. The proposed task force is now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeast Asian cinema. If you contribute to articles about films from Southeast Asian countries, then please list your name among the Interested Wikipedians.

A proposed task force page has also been started here.

In terms of its name and regional focus, the task force would also fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, though I would expect that for article assessment purposes and talk-page banner coding it would fall strictly under WP:FILM, because some countries already have their own projects, are handling their own assessments and don't desire to fall under the broader banner of WP:Southeast Asia. — WiseKwai 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Batman (1989 film)

Can you all keep an eye on this? Someone made a wreck of the talk page articlehistory and WikiProject links. I reverted it all, but I think there's a WikiProject peer review in there that's not correctly added in somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New cat warning: Category:Films with Original Screenplays

A cat which could become huge has been created: Category:Films with Original Screenplays. You might like to consider it before it's added to too many articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider what, consider deleting it? Yes I agree. It's overcategorasation if it can be called that. --Steinninn 12:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider it's worth, yup. Didn't want to send it to CFD before mentioning here (XFD involves pointless hassle if it's just going to be a keep). The JPS^{talk to me} —Preceding comment was added at 12:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have it up for deletion already, it's original research. There are many movies that could be based on something, and it isn't the same character as of the previous work. One of the stuff currently in the category for example is The Incredibles. Who says they aren't based on anything? The article does mention that they are based on the Fantastic Four. And the description is also questionable. Previously existing? What do you mean previously? They still exist. Yeah, I can think of many more stuff wrong with that category. Maybe changing the description to "not directly based...", but that would be original research too, since we don't let movies be literally everything from a book, just get rid of it. TheBlazikenMaster 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For one, it should be titled Category:Films with original screenplays... Lugnuts 13:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I will nominate The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film) for featured candidate soon.

But first someone needs to get the article out of the unsourced category. Once that's finished I will go right ahead and make it a featured candidate. It looks nice, and doesn't have any tags, (except a hidden one, that's why I need help, since I can't find that small unsourced rumor.) TheBlazikenMaster 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I found it alright, but I don't know if it should be removed or if it can be backed up, that's why I need help. TheBlazikenMaster 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you need help with, exactly? A few Google searches may be able to help you source. If not, bring it to the talk page where you'll be likely to get into contact with those who have worked on bringing the article to GA status. You wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes. María (críticame) 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is I don't actually trust Google, as it can find every page, including pages full of bullshit. But I'll try. TheBlazikenMaster 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Google has just as much potential to find reliable sources, such as mainstream press, as it does to find unreliable ones. (And let's keep the conversation civil - there's no need for profanity.) Girolamo Savonarola 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

People articles that were part of the Academy Award project

Hi. Just thought i'd ask what people think should be done with people articles that were part of the Academy Award project (eg Gloria Swanson). We recently changed to not having people articlces invloved with the project, but there is mention in our project scope as follows:
"(Future tagging of bio articles relevant to specific task forces may be a future extension, however.)"
Is this an instance where we should tag them? If not what should be done now that the Academy Awards project has been included in the awards task force. Cheers. RWardy 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question that I was going to bring up shortly. The awards task force scope has been confined to the awards themselves for the meantime. The reason for this is that we expanded the scope from WP Academy Awards to a task force covering all notable awards. Doing so makes almost every prominent actor or actress potentially tagged by the task force, which makes the distinction somewhat pointless. So it was thought that restricting the scope back to the awards will avoid that problem.

Now to get to the biographies question itself - yes, since we've expanded the total project scope to all film topics, it puts the question of biographies into the limelight. My opinion on this is (as ever) guided by WP MilHist - if someone's film career is a significant part of their notability, they should be added. (eg, people who have been extras in films or had minor cameo appearances should not be tagged.) However, this is as of yet unimplemented because it requires some liaising with the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup of WP Bio, which is on my Coordination to-do list, albeit somewhat lower than some other tasks. Basically, I'd like to clean up shop around here a little more before we go on tagging/assessment frenzy. Girolamo Savonarola 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So just to clarify, the only articles that should be tagged as part of the awards task force are articles for awards themselves (each award year, award and nomination lists etc). Articles that are films or people should not be tagged as part of the task force as it currently stands.

Also does this mean that we can just remove the old academy award banner from the other (films and people) articles? Cheers. RWardy 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is all correct. Girolamo Savonarola 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Forrest Gump

Looking at the Forrest Gump article, and I'm trying to figure out why four characters from the movie have separate articles (Forrest Gump (character) Jenny Curran Lieutenant Dan Taylor Benjamin Buford "Bubba" Blue). Is there something super important that I'm missing that gets them a separate article? None of the four articles seem to impart any different info from the main article other than to just retell the plot, again, and repeat stuff from the novel differences section, with a lack of citations on anything. Are those four pages really necessary, notable, etc? Should they be AfDed?

I'm also wondering if the Film and Novel should separate articles (also posed on Talk:Forrest_Gump page. There seems to be a lot of differences between the two, the book has a sequel, and with the film dominating the article, it seems like the book has no real chance at fair treatment or getting well documented info. AnmaFinotera 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the book and the film should have separate articles to allow both articles to develop independently. There are enough differences, and will be more as the articles develop (eg. critical reception). --BelovedFreak 12:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The film and book most definitely should be split. As for the character pages, there may be argument for keeping the Gump one, since he appears across two novels and one film, but I'm guessing that the other ones are good merge candidates if they have little real-world context of enough substance to warrant an article split. Girolamo Savonarola 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to do the split, but anyone have any suggestions for the best way to go about it? Leave the film with the exiting article and make a new Forrest Gump (book), let the current be the book and make a new for the film, make two new and make the current a disambig, etc. *scratching head over how to try to follow the naming guides without making a huge mess* AnmaFinotera 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just make Forrest Gump a disambiguation page, and let the reader decide if they want to go to Forrest Gump (character), Forrest Gump (novel), Forrest Gump (film), or the sequel book's page (I apologize for being too lazy to look its real title up). Girolamo Savonarola 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely that by far the majority would be looking for the film, so this should have the Forrest Gump article name, with a couple of simple disambiguation links at the top? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: OK, the relevant section of the naming conventions reads "When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, [my emphasis] title the film article like this: Film Title (film)." As I say, my feeling is that the film is the primary article in this case, though I have little idea how popular the novel was, and will be happy to be proven wrong. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Empty cats and old pages

Now that the Academy Awards banner is no longer on any pages there are several categories and pages that are no longer used. Not sure the best way to go about removing them. The actual banner itself is not used as well as the quality and importance categories. Banner is here: {{AcademyAwardsproj}} and top level categories are Category:Academy Awards articles by quality and Category:Academy Awards articles by importance. Let me know what I need to do and i'll sort it. Cheers. RWardy 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD Girolamo Savonarola 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the categories until 4 days/banner is deleted so they can be speedy deleted. RWardy 20:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AcademyAwardsproj

Template:AcademyAwardsproj 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. — RWardy 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Saw III

I'm watching this page, and was wondering if I could get help in keeping an eye on it? Since the sequel and director's cut is recent, I'm not surprised to see vandals, and the situation could get worse. I have feeling that it can even be one of the most vandalized movie articles until the actual Halloween day, TheBlazikenMaster 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Saw, but really the best thing is just to watch the page and, if it gets too crazy, request semi-protection. Girolamo Savonarola 02:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been semi-protected. Greg Jones II 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

New article

I created Durian Durian today. Please improve it? Totnesmartin 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. Take a look at the WikiProject's style guidelines for films -- also, I'd suggest looking at articles that have appeared in our spotlight to see their high-quality nature. My first suggestion, though, is to insert an Infobox Film template in the article. You can copy the template from Template:Infobox Film and paste it at the very top of that film article, then fill out the attributes. Let me know if you need help with this! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Canceled Films

We need some sort of case on this. For questions: Wildroot November 1 23: 22 (UTC)

From what I've read about the film industry, it is not noteworthy for a project to fail to enter production. It's commonplace for projects to fizzle for a wide variety of reasons -- budget issues, casting issues, scripting issues, even executive preference issues. If a project enters production and collapses midway, though, that would be more significant due to the massive investment of resources that did not succeed in making a film. Liquidfinale cited a fine example of this with The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Otherwise, it is all too frequent for a project to be in development and putter around -- without entering production, there are zero concrete factors in terms of what is written in the script, who is cast into the specific roles, and how production is intended to be carried out. Prior to entering production, all these factors are up in the air. The notability guidelines for films suits this -- once a film enters production, all these resources are invested, and a film is highly likely to result save for a stroke of bad luck to shut down production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually prior to production there are only a few individuals involved, so any particularly notable info is easily integrated into their bios as appropriate, assuming that there is no prior source material. As far as cancelled films, it becomes a slippery slope. Hollywood options hundreds, if not thousands, of properties a year; from these, a high percentage receive a treatment, a smaller subset get a first draft, an even smaller subset discuss budgeting and attaching names, a yet-smaller subset go into official pre-production, another subset of those may start casting, costume design, or production design, and then a subset of that actually enters production (from which something usually emerges...) I have to agree with Erik, we can't prognosticate how far along a project will go, and prior to production, it's a slippery slope and rife with hearsay, misinformation, or none at all - and oftentimes it is economically or politically necessary for the producers to keep things in the dark during those stages of development. Girolamo Savonarola 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response guys. I recently created the Batman vs Superman article. Don't worry I supplied it with various links to back up my report. But since I can't submit it for GA status (only accepts released films), should I nominate it for "feature" film status? I'm not sure what to do at the moment. Wildroot 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused - you're grateful for our responses which you apparently paid no attention to? Girolamo Savonarola 05:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He made the film article before coming here. He seems to have been in an edit war since from breaking it out of the main article. Other editors keep trying to redirect it back to the main article, but he keeps reverting and refuses to listen to the valid arguments against the article's existence. From the history, its been back and forth for the last three days or so. I suspect he came here hoping the idea would get justified by the project so he could then use that to justify this article's existence. From his contribs, he has 5 or 6 more planned for canceled Superman films.

As for the topic as a whole, in general I see no reason to have articles for canceled films. They aren't notable and little reliable information would be available. About the only exceptions I could think of would be movies that were completed, but then not actually released for some reason (like a movie being delayed because of concerns about the content or the like). For ones like this article, I agree with the discussion on the article page, if it needs mention at all, it should just be mentioned in the Superman film series page, like the rest. It is not notable enough for a separate article. AnmaFinotera 10:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If it can't become a good article, what the hell makes you think it can become a featured?

As far as I know, articles have to be good FIRST before they can become featured, am I right? TheBlazikenMaster 09:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Blaziken... there's no need for that tone. It's usually the proper step for an article to become a Good Article before it goes for Featured Article status, but I don't believe it's imperative for that to happen. For Wildroot's case, the extra information that has been added has basically been an excess amount of details about the failed project, such as writing Plot and Cast sections as if the film was actually made. Additionally, rumors are cited repeatedly from sources such as Ain't It Cool News, which is not a reliable source unless information comes from primary sources (interviews, basically). There was succinct coverage of the failed project at Batman film series -- it can be expanded some more, but it needs to be void of rumors and plot detail. The former is just not verifiable, and the latter is only necessary to complement real-world context about the film. Without production and reception and only minor verifiable coverage about writing, such excess information about the possible plot is not important. Like Girolamo stated before, Hollywood goes through many, many scripts that never actually go into production -- an example like this one just has a fan base that provides more rumors about its development than other projects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought all articles needed to be good articles first. I guess there are some exceptions.

Yes, I am calm. I only used a little bit of a cuss word, sorry if I offended you by that. I only wanted to use that word in a good way.

Back on topic. In my opinion, canceled movies should only have their own article if they have been announced for so long, and got canceled like few days before they were supposed to be in movie theaters. In other words if there is enough info. Movies that get canceled before there is an official confirmation that the movie is going to be made, can be in its related articles (article about the movie series, or something like that)

Yes, that's my opinion about this. I hope my opinions are useful. TheBlazikenMaster 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy Awards - duplicate articles

Isn't this article just a poor-man's version of thie one? I fail to see what the first article achieves, as it's all covered in the main one. Merge and redirect them all as there's only a few (judging by the nav box at the foot of the page)? Lugnuts 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the recent 79th Academy Awards, it appears that for some reason, there is a sub-article containing all the nominees and winners. I suppose 2nd Academy Awards was trying to follow this precedent, but it does not appear back then, there were as many categories for the Academy Awards, making the sub-article useless. I'd support a merge, and it may be necessary to specify some criteria for articles about annual film awards like this, the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a legacy remnant of style guidelines from WP Academy Awards. I happen to agree; there's no good reason why the entire nominee list can't appear in the ceremony article, with the winners appropriately differentiated from the rest. The only possible exception I could envision would be all of the country submissions for Best Foreign Film, but again, since most of these articles are considered List-Class, those could just as easily be integrated into the ceremony article too. Other thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines while I was looking through to assess some of them. I thought it might be part of past style guidelines. Might be an idea to ask the awards task force for their opinion (Have added a link to the awards talk page). RWardy 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary problem would probably be standardization. If including all the nominees and winners in the main article for the current awards isn't a problem, then there's no reason to keep the awards page proper separated from the winners and nominees article. If it is a problem of length for the more recent articles, then the two should probably be kept separate throughout the history of the awards. John Carter 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about sourcing in plots of film articles

• Please see Talk:The Living Daylights. I put the GA nom on hold mostly due to a complete lack of sourcing in the plot section. Is this necessary in Wikipedia articles on films? Please give a second opinion at the article's talk page. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

I've responded there, but I'll reiterate my sentiments here that the style guidelines should be clarified so as to avoid this question, which seems to crop up again every few months. Girolamo Savonarola 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What about non-English, non-subtitled plot points in English-language films?

As you said on the film's talk page, as long as the film is available, it is the source material. But what about when the dialogue in question is not in English and it's not subtitled? For example, at the end of 28 Days Later, a jet flies over the heads of the protagonists and the pilot's radio is played as a voiceover, and it's not in English. The majority of English speakers are not going to understand the language spoken, and few will be able to identify which country's military the jet belongs to. Yet someone added to the Plot section that the jet is Finnish and that the pilot requests a helicopter, but didn't mention that this is not sub-titled. This makes the ending of the film seem less ambiguous than it would have seemed to most, because it tilts the ending more towards the definite prospect of rescue for the protagonists. Still, I don't know if the translation is good. Because this is not easily verifiable to most English-speaking editors, does this translation require a citation? If it is explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or is no citation required? OR, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all -- should it go in another section? There is a similar situation with unsubtitled Czech spoken in Once. Thanks, Melty girl 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The company that released the film translated the film, and although they probably screw up a few words--watch a film in dubbed mode, and in subtitle mode, and you'll find differences in words--the events of the plot are still the same. A plot section shouldn't be quoting characters all that often to begin with. If a subtitle says Finish, or French, or Australian, you can probably assume that isn't incorrect. The things that are generally incorrect in subtitles are usually words that have many meanings in different cultures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this speaks to what I'm asking, because the films in question do NOT have subtitles. These are two English-language films where one, very quick, non-English sentence occurs and it's not translated for the audience (one film's sentence is supposedly in Finnish, the other definitely in Czech). There were no subtitles for either of these snippets of dialogue -- Wiki editors have done the translations themselves. I think that the presence of the translations in Wiki could be seen as altering the meaning the plot for most English-speakers, but at the very least, I'm not sure the translations are verifiable. Therefore, I've asked if each translation requires a citation. And if it was explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or in that case, is no citation required? Alternately, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all, since there was no subtitle in the first place? --Melty girl 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, tricky. I think it is worth mentioning in the synopsis, as long as you stress that it is not subtitled, and hence the non-Finnish viewer (i.e. 99% of the film's audience) will interpret the film differently (perhaps it belongs in a subsection of the synopsis at the end?). My two cents. As to citations, if it is mentioned in the DVD extras, cite them, because the reader is not psychic. If not, the simplest thing would be to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finland and ask someone there to verify that it is Finnish and to suggest a translation. Trouble is, any translation would be original research. Still, the pilot is probably saying something quite simple, so perhaps the best thing is to provide a transcript of the pilot's words in Finnish, followed by an English translation, so that other users can evaluate the translation to ensure its accuracy. Cop 663 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Did the radio dialogue impact the overall plot itself? Do we know what was actually spoken? If not on both accounts, then it probably isn't important enough to recount in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the last word spoken by the characters as the jet flies over is "Do you think he saw us?" Then the pilot says over his radio (in Finnish) "Send a helicopter". So the ending is a happy one if you speak Finnish but for everyone else it's ambiguous whether they will be rescued or not. I think this is interesting enough to be mentioned, although perhaps in a separate section, not in the synopsis itself. Cop 663 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Much agreement with your observations, Cop 663. I don't really think it should go in the Plot section, but then the question is, where to put it? And if it's not explained on the DVD, can it really translated at all without being original research? Second, about Once -- the translation there also alters the ambiguity of the plot, and perhaps more radically. One character supposedly tells the other that she loves him, but since she's speaking in Czech, neither he nor 99% of the English-speaking audience knows what she says (she refuses to translate and there are no subtitles). So the all same questions apply -- and in that case, the DVD isn't out yet. --Melty girl 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If something's not translated by the filmmakers then the audience isn't expected or supposed to know what's said. Either it's supposed to be ambiguous or it's trivial or obvious. Knife in the Water's director, Roman Polanski, did the subtitles himself for the Criterion DVD and skipped over some of the dialog but only obvious things, such as one character would tell the other to do something and the other would turn off the car radio. Easy and also not worth mentioning in the plot. In other cases, ambiguity may be the intention. A good example of ambiguity is the end of Lost in Translation, not because of the language but because the last line was whispered inaudibly. In the case of 28 Weeks Later, that the pilots aren't American and the word "helikopterin" seem to indicate that the survivors will get picked up but one definitely should not be including what might happen. I'd maybe include the translation in a footnote with <ref></ref> but it's not necessary, per se. Once I haven't seen yet but it's usually not that difficult to tell when someone's saying "I love you" regardless of the language. Again, maybe a footnote. So, I'd really say each case should be looked at individually but English-language movies are patently designed for English-speakers so you've got all the tools necessary to summarize a plot. I'm not sure translation qualifies as original research but if something is translated the original language should be made available as well. Also, I don't think you need to source that a specific language is used as it can be confirmed by millions of people and the region, at least, could be guessed by many times more than that. But there's no harm in citing it if you wish to. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, I think I'm basically agreeing with the good Dr but anyway...] Regarding 28 Days Later: if the Finnish phrase was a whole paragraph, I'd be wary of original research, but it's only two words, "Lähetättekö helikopterin?", and I'm pretty sure I know what the latter word means! In this case, I think an English-Finnish dictionary would be an acceptable source for what "Lähetättekö" means. Again, the Finland WikiProject people would probably be glad to help. As to where to put it, perhaps in the section on alternative endings, under a subheader 'ambiguity of the original ending'?:

Regarding Once, I'm hesitant to comment on a film I haven't seen, but it seems like the audience is meant to leave asking the question "what did she say?", and since there's nothing to stop them hunting down a Czech person to reveal the answer, there's also no reason for Wikipedia to censor the information, as long as it's stressed that the line is untranslated. Again, it's just two words, "Miluju tebe", so you'd think a Czech-English dictionary would be a good enough verification. Cop 663 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Sunshine, I think in both cases, it's intended to be ambiguous, and therefore, I think it should be probably be deleted or moved to the Production section. Once is not a typical intimate "I-love-you" moment -- it isn't obvious like you suggest it might be, because the character's intention is that the other character not know what she's said. He asks her if she's still in love with her husband; she smiles enigmatically and answers in Czech. He keeps asking her to translate her answer, and she won't say and changes the subject. A Czech-speaking editor dropped by the Once page and wrote that what she says is, "It is you who I love." But an audience could not guess that that was how she answered the question about her husband. The reason I think translation qualifies as original research is because it's not verifiable -- after all, how do we know if that Czech translation is accurate? On what basis do we trust one editor's original translation?

Cop663, I think I disagree with you this time. In both cases, the non-Finnish-speaking and non-Czech-speaking audience could probably not reliably take in what the words in question were and walk away to ask. The Finnish and Czech speaking-editors say what they think the sentences were, but that's not really verifiable for the English-speaking audience or the English-speaking Wikipedia. Perhaps after the Once DVD comes out we could try to figure out what she says (or perhaps they will reveal it on the extras), but for now, how can we be absolutely sure that she does say "Miluju tebe"? Doesn't seem verifiable. And it seems like it was primarily intended to be ambiguous. So I think it shouldn't really be presented in the Plot section, since 99% of the audience wouldn't have any idea what she said. --Melty girl 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a fair point. And I can't find "Lähetättekö" in any online Finnish dictionaries, so things may be more complex than they seem. Cop 663 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lähetättekö helikopterin? = Will you send a helicopter? Lähettää is the basic form, -tkö adds the question here and -te tells that the question is addressed to multiple people. It's hard to find Finnish words in dictionaries since there are so many possible inflections for everything. Just FYI since I'm not really a reliable source for an article. - Bobet 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Would you be able to find a reliable online dictionary to footnote a translation? I would need to get the 28 Days Later DVD back from a friend and see how clearly it comes across in the film (to my non-Finnish-speaking ears) -- or do you have access to a copy? --Melty girl 07:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the film so I've no idea if there's any reason to include the line. Citing a dictionary is generally pointless, someone with some knowledge of the language would know what the base word was and could verify it by himself, someone who doesn't wouldn't be helped by linking to words that don't match the inflected form. The German and Finnish Wikipedia articles do mention the line, so you could just follow their lead and pretend that the interwikilinks in the article are sources. And the actual sentence in the film seems to be "lähetätkö helikopterin" (instead of lähetättekö), which still translates to "will you send a helicopter", it's just addressed to the singular "you". - Bobet 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Those crazy Finns, always complicating matters... ;)

I think the matter comes down to one of Original research. If the director had intended us to know what the pilot was saying, then there would have been subtitling, either in the actual film or in the closed captioning. there isn't. that one editor knows Finnish means that he is applying his primary knowledge to the film, and that's not what we are supposed to do. If that's all we are going on here, it doesn't matter if it changes the ending of the film (which, imo it doesn't ; the characters though they were alonein not being zombified, and then a jet passes overhead, letting them know they aren't), any application of your knowledge is primary knowledge, and it cannot be used.

That being said, I am not sure how we jump if the Finnish wiki (didn't even know there was one) says, 'yarg, it be troo dat deh pilot, he be saying such a theeng about the helio-copter' (wait, don't all Finns sound like pirates?), as it is plot observance to them and the rest of the film is subtitled or dubbed for them. I suspect it would be akin to an Echelon-like sharing program. However, that would have tobe something that was built, as it is not something already in place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the change in the 28DL ending is not a question of whether they know they're lone surivivors or not. By the ending, they already know they're not, because they've already seen multiple jets. The issue is that supposedly the Finnish pilot's radio communication lets the audience know that he's calling for a helicopter, meaning that the protagonists will be rescued. Without that information, it is unclear whether the characters will be rescued or left where they are, since they've signaled for help previously. --Melty girl 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that if it isn't within the film's translated content itself, then it is no different than any other form of interpretive analysis, which alone would be original research. However, if a translation can be reliably sourced, it would be just as acceptable as any other NPOV-described sourced analysis. I wouldn't, however, put it in the plot section. Girolamo Savonarola 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think thats the crux of the problem here. there doesn't appear to be one, except for one contributor who input what the pilot was saying. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting the quotes. The obvious final word would be critical (or scholarly) consensus. Which would go in the reception (or interpretation, for out loftier film articles) section. Production if the filmmakers talk about it, and it's notable. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight on where to put it if sourcing turns up. For now, I've deleted both. --Melty girl 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiously, isn't most unsubtitled speech not important at all, and just for the background? TheBlazikenMaster 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the example from Once, described above. Cop 663 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Another curious question, why is this being discussed here, instead of there? TheBlazikenMaster 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have copied most of this discussion to Talk:28_Days_Later. I hope that's OK. --Melty girl 04:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anaconda 3

While looking up the name of an actor from Anaconda: Blood Orchid, I noticed that a section talking about a sequel Anaconda 3: The Offspring. Looking at the article, though, all three sources fail the reliability standards and I can't find a single reliable source that mentions these two movies in the work, not even IMDB or David Hasslehoff's own site (and considering his site, I would think it would be all over it). I'm not sure what, if anything, though should be done about the article. If all of the sources are suspect, should it even have an article or are we only offering unintentional validation to what seems to be a vague rumor? Thoughts? AnmaFinotera 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic film topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can some help be given?

I have to start by saying that I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to all the legal ins and outs about pictures here at wikipedia so that is why I am posting this here. Today my watchlist revealed this edit [8]. I have been under the impression that film posters weren't being deleted at the same rate as pictures, though I could be wrong. Since the editor that downloaded this may be long gone, or unaware of the need to update the page for this picture and since I have no clue what needs to be posted on the page to keep it from being deleted I am wondering if there is anyway to save the picture of this poster? One picture has already been deleted from this page and losing the poster from the infobox will leave the page looking rather forlorn. I realize that there may not be a way to keep this but if there is any help that can be given will be much appreciated so thanks, in advance, for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a more detailed rationale which will hopefully stop it being deleted. --BelovedFreak 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the above image issue has been resolved, this is continually happening for hundreds of images within the project each month due to editors not adding FURs/sources/properly stating which article the images is being used for. Although the initial editor who uploaded the image may receive the message, and as MarnetteD pointed out, they could no longer be with the project/don't care/don't know how to fix it, which will result in the deletion of the image unless someone happens to catch it if a message is left on the article's talk page (which happened in the above case). I'm not sure if it is possible or not, but we would probably be able to save more of the images from being deleted if the bot could specifically list all of the images for a certain WikiProject that it is currently going to delete in a week's time on some subpage. Then members of the project could determine what needs to be fixed for the listed images, address the issues, and save the images from deletion. This would allow other projects, not just ours, to also catch all images that are up for deletion. I don't know if this is feasible or not for the bot to do, but it would save time from having to reupload the image again later and possibly face the same issues. --Nehrams2020 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that SkierRMH set up a system to track this sort of thing. It almost looks like he's got it covered singled-handed but perhaps we could integrate it into the project. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe moving it to the project will get more watchful eyes on it and decrease the burden of addressing the images for SkierRMH. Thanks for pointing out the link. If SkierRMH doesn't mind and if other members are interested, I think we should move it to a subpage for the project. --Nehrams2020 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, we had an issue regarding this with a hasty admin, and I voiced similar concerns. Surely it can't be difficult to assign a topic category to the proposed image deletion, a la AfD? That way we can just have a regular page to keep tabs on. Girolamo Savonarola 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't mind if this is added in! If you look here User:SkierRMH/My Sandbox/Film toolbox I have a handy little work box on all of the "watch areas" for the project. It can be adapted as need be - a couple of other projects use something akin to this as a shortcut for their watch lists. SkierRMH 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

American film and TV actors up for deletion at CFD (!)

Bad faith nom. in my book, but for those interested, take a look here and here! Lugnuts 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlton Heston and/or cultural impact of American film: anyone interested?

The article Bills is fascinating though brief. It details how real-life gangs in Kinshasa based much of their image and outlook on the cowboys of American Western movies, esp. one that is a redlink, Pony Express (1953) starring Charlton Heston. This is interesting stuff that could use reapiars from a dedicated editor... --Ling.Nut 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question has again come up about sourcing in plot sections

• Jossi (talk · contribs) has raised a concern about sourcing in the Plot section of The Simpsons article, The Joy of Sect. Last time I asked this question, Bignole (talk · contribs) DIFF, Erik (talk · contribs) DIFF, and Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs) DIFF answered me quite quickly. Perhaps someone could provide some clarification at Talk:The_Joy_of_Sect#Plot_synopsis ? Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Since this question keeps coming up, I have added a section to the style guidelines, so that people can quote it more easily. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot. Please discuss on the relevant talk page if my wording is disagreed with. Cop 663 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Cast and crew of Sivaji needed?

I stumbled on this page when assessing articles. Should this page exist as surely the content should be on the page for the film (Sivaji (film)). The cast and crew pages lists more people, but i'm sure it could be incorporated with the film article. Let me know what you think and i'll tag the pages with {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}. Cheers. RWardy 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's considered encyclopedic to have such an extensive list available for a film -- it's doubtful that there would be much real-world context behind all these names. Sivaji (film)#Crew should be removed as well, unless there can be some information behind the names of the crew members. Such lists are indiscriminate information, basically. Other sources, including the film itself, will have the full credits available. Film articles on Wikipedia should strive for more than just a list of names and roles. A merge would be a good idea. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Erik's comments. Kill off the crew list, merge in anything salvagable from the Cast and Crew article and merge. AnmaFinotera 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of it most of the decent stuff is already there (The main characters section is identical on both). Might just need to go through AfD?. Cheers. RWardy 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

• http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/independence_day.htm
• http://www.film.com/movies/review/independenceday/13302022
• http://www.film.u-net.com/Movies/Reviews/Independence_Day.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/12/18/independence_day_1996_review.shtml

Currently these links are used as refs in Independence Day, but I'm unsure they could be considered "fit" to use as references. What do you think? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think only the last review from BBC would be acceptable. You can find mainstream reviews at a film's Rotten Tomatoes page under the "Cream of the Crop" section, which collects reviews from mainstream media outlets. Here it is for Independence Day. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Headlines for films

I've used Google Alerts to collect headlines on films, and I've just unloaded a batch on a few film articles' talk pages so they can be implemented in the article now or sometime in the future. This is the list of film articles which will have a batch of headlines in their talk pages from yours truly:

• 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)
• Across the Universe (film)
• American Gangster (film) (halfway implemented)
• The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
• Beowulf (2007 film)
• The Darjeeling Limited
• Eastern Promises
• Gone Baby Gone
• Into the Wild (film)
• Lions for Lambs
• Michael Clayton (film)‎
• Rendition (film)
• Stardust (2007 film)
• We Own the Night

Some of these films may be Oscar contenders or have players who will be Oscar contenders, so I figure it may be a good impression on the readership to have decent articles about the films come Oscar season. No Country For Old Men (film) should be on the list, but I've only added it to my Google Alerts, as I did not expect it to be as big of a deal as it apparently is on Rotten Tomatoes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Character actors categories up for deletion

Post you arguements for/against deletion here. Lugnuts 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bring your criticism

Friday the 13th (franchise) is up for GA review, and it's been sitting there for awhile now. Just thought I'd spread the word, in case there's some bored GA reviewers out there who have a spare minute...or 10.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC List of films that received the Golden Film

I would like to notify the users of this project of the featured list candidacy of List of films that received the Golden Film. The list article was nominated two weeks ago, but received only two comments and one support vote since. You can help by replying to the candidacy. Thank you, Ilse@ 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for renaming - trilogy to (film series)

About a week ago I put a request for renaming on all of the talk pages below for the film series listed below. I have gotten very little in the way of a response for any of them. Some have had no activity at all since the request was added. Before moving them I would like to get some more input from this project.

These articles should be renamed to bring them inline with the naming convention pertaining to film series. There are no other articles so named for series of films with other lengths (duologies, tetralogies, pentalogies, hexologies, etc.). Also, a lot of them could possibly grow. From what I understand LOTR is going to have The Hobbit made, so the LOTR article name would be inaccurate once The Hobbit is out. Also, with nothing ever being sacred for film makers, it is possible for the series that appear finished to be revived or added to later. Clint Eastwood could get really nostalgic and do another Dollar film for all we know. Lucas could be dead and buried and his estate nearly bankrupt years from now, and the Star Wars property could be sold to the highest bidder who then continues the original and prequel series independently. We may not ever know. So, those are the possible reasons why the word trilogy should not be used in these article titles. Please discuss each separately on their talk pages.

Thank you. - LA @ 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Apocalypse Trilogy
• Apu trilogy
• Black Triad trilogy
• Blade Trilogy
• Bourne Trilogy
• BRD Trilogy
• Calcutta trilogy
• Dollars Trilogy
• Europa trilogy
• The Grudge Trilogy
• The Human Condition (film trilogy)
• Koker trilogy
• The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
• Mediocre American Man Trilogy
• Mexico Trilogy
• Pusher trilogy
• Qatsi trilogy
• Road Movie Trilogy
• Samurai Trilogy
• Spy Kids trilogy
• Star Wars original trilogy
• Star Wars prequel trilogy
• The Sabata Trilogy

One issue I have with some of these moves is that some of these films were explicitly intended to be trilogies, like The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Other items like Blade or Spy Kids would make sense as a film series. Is there not a way to make a distinction between films that were planned as trilogies from the get-go as opposed to films that either kept going because the first, then second, made enough money or as opposed to films that could've made more but ran dry? Seems like this distinction needs to be made -- even if rights are usurped in the future for whatever reason, trilogies like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars would remain quintessential trilogies, no matter what. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be some distinction made. "Dollars Trilogy" is listed here, and as I said on the merge, you cannot say "Dollars (film series)", because "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" didn't have "Dollars" in its name, and they weren't called "Dollars, Dollars 2, and Dollars 3". The name "Dollars Trilogy" is something given to the three films as a whole, not a title they share. It's about the plot of the films. The same thing could be said about "Apocolypse Trilogy"--not title sharing, but plot sharing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTR can't be renamed: I've already made this clear on the talk page. If The Hobbit is made, it's still it's own unique adaptation, not LOTR, even if it could be the same cast and crew. Alientraveller 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bignole, the whole point is to remove the constricting use of the word trilogy. There are no other instances where the amount of films is used in the naming of the article about the film series. I do not think that anyone would call the article on the Freddy/Jason film series The Freddy/Jason octodecology (or nonodecologies if Chasing Jason is allowed to be considered part of the series). - LA @ 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Erik, LOTR will not be a trilogy when The Hobbit is made as the prequel, it will be a tetralogy. If the other book is made, the Sim(somethingorother), it will be a pentalogy. - LA @ 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it's an adaptation of The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings trilogy adaptation. Consensus has been reached there. Alientraveller 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to Apocalypse Trilogy, I think that the article should be disseminated altogether. Even if he personally considers it his own trilogy, there does not seem to be enough real-world context (that isn't original research, anyway) about all three films to warrant a trilogy article. It could easily be a sentence or two at the article for John Carpenter: "John Carpenter considers The Thing (1982), Prince of Darkness (1987), and In the Mouth of Madness (1995) a collective body of work, which he calls his Apocalypse Trilogy." It's purely nominal here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As for LOTR and The Hobbit, wouldn't it be better for information about the prequel to be placed in the book's article, if consensus was reached to establish LOTR as a trilogy? I realize that the content was moved from the book's article, but perhaps this needs to be undone to keep topics consistent. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is interested in pigeonholing, Lady Aleena. I'm saying that if a collection of films has been popularly recognized as a duology and a trilogy, and if such a collection warrants an article, it should be identified as such. Wikipedia is dynamic; if there is a change from this duology or trilogy, of which the likelihood is reduced as time goes on, we can easily update it accordingly. At the present, though, topics like Star Wars is explicitly recognized as having the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To LA, I understand the generalizing thing you are trying to do, but the problem is that you are doing it in a manner that suggests "Trilogy" is never used when describing a set of films. I agree that people use that word all the time whenever a third film comes out, but certain films are specifically that. The Dollars Trilogy is specifically marketed as such, it's known as such by probably any film scholar that you can find. It is not, I repeat, not known as "Dollars" with three films attached to it. "Dollars Trilogy" is specifically geared to the idea that surrounds those films, not their titles. Hence why I oppose the name change for "Dollars Trilogy", but support it for "Grudge Trilogy", because there is a difference between the use of "Trilogy" in those two titles. As for your example of Freddy and Jason, well they don't have joint films. We have a Friday the 13th (franchise) page, which is named for the purpose that it encompasses far more than just the film series. I'm sure there is A Nightmare on Elm Street film series page somewhere as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguations should only be used when necessary to disambiguate between identically named articles. Overall, the consensus of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia should be used to determine the article titles. When I was going through these they were all called Trilogies. It's a popular word. And if a 4th film is added it's not at all difficult to move the article to whatever the collection of films might be called afterwards. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A question about spoiler warnings at MOS:FILM

The {{spoiler}} template was recently deleted and the spoiler guideline was rewritten. I have a question regarding spoiler warnings in relation to MOS:FILM and I have a started a new section on the talk page for MOS:FILM discussing it. I would appreciate some input from editors involved with WikiProject Films about this. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Category Consolidation

Just an FYI... I've been working on consolidating the film templates' categories down to one - Category:WikiProject Films templates, which is now linked on the project page. I know there's lots of other templates out there, if anyone finds them, please add them to this category. The now redundant Category:Film templates will be nominated for deletion as redundant as soon as it's 100% de-populated. SkierRMH (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alert: film actor fair use images are in potential jeopardy

A discussion of fair use images in film actor articles is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and editors have begun removing images from actor articles. In my opinion, the fair use hawks demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the difference between a photo of an actor as her/himself versus an image of a fictional role in a way which may seriously impact articles related to our project. I think the input of editors who are educated about film would be very valuable. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the situation seems to be one regarding one single editor who has determined that his own, personal, opinion should determine wikipedia content. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor who removed images is far from the only one there who thinks that screenshots and the like are "replaceable" for living actor bios. The discussion is ongoing, complete with a list of actor articles that use fair use images of actors in character, so I wanted to notify this project so that concerned editors have the chance to participate. --Melty girl (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, without consensus or official review, deleting of images has begun. The fair use hawks do not understand visual art/film. It's the actor articles now, but don't say I didn't warn you... --Melty girl (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tic Code

How do we resolve the question here, when reliable sources differ? What role does "I watched it and the New York Times was wrong" play? (as an example. I haven't re-watched it, so I'm not sure, and I don't want to have to re-watch it if ya'll have a better answer for how to resolve this). The question is at ATC's talk page instead of the article talk page because she is still learning her way around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How relevant is the boy's age to the film? He could easily be called preteen, since both 10 and 12 are under 13. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly relevant, but ATC seems to care. I'm wondering more on general principle what we do when reliable sources differ on a film. And, 10 is a key age for Tourette syndrome, as tics tend to statistically peak at 10, and decline thereafter, so the 12 surprises me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When I come across conflicting information, I try to sidestep the issue by adding ambiguity to it. If the information needs to be included, though, perhaps ATC can retrieve the direct quote from the film that mentions the age. I've seen on top-rated articles about fictional characters that take quotes to shape the background of the character. Perhaps the same can be done here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I watched the film and it did not mention his age in it, I did not re-watch the whole thing, I skipped through chapters and fast-fowarding it a little bit and could not find anything about his age. Once or twice they were talking about his birthday in the film so I also tried fast-fowarding to it and couldn't find anything. But for all the info I know about this I think 10 would work since some reliabile recources say it and Original Reasearch does to, even though we do not use original research, it connects to the reliable recources and seem to agree with SandyGeorgia's reasearch on Tourettes. --AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you rewatched it, so I don't have to, but since reliable sources disagree, it's probably best to simply leave out the age and not guess. It's fine just to say a "young boy" or a pre-teen. We really don't need to introduce the age, and if we do, I'll have to put together a fancy footnote explaining the sources that differ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ratings?

I'm just wondering why there are no movie ratings on Wikipedia. I think it would be very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.123.56 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To which kind of ratings do you refer? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He probably means movie certificates. While I feel we could change WP:MOSFILMS to allow an English-language bias, uncontroversial cases (eg a violent assasin film getting an 18) violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Alientraveller (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We could put all the different countries ratings into the info boxes. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking. Video game pages have ratings from many different countries on their pages. Why not the same thing with movies? Flamingtorch372 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There was just a fairly long discussion regarding this here; it would be more productive to continue the conversation there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. But it's not a simple thing either. The law of the country gives the movie the age limit, and there are plenty of countries out there. So it would be hard to get all the ratings out there. In my opinion, those on English-speaking countries (or country of origin) should be listed. If people wanted to know ratings in other countries they could go to that language's Wikipedia, or look it up somewhere. Ever wondered why we have link to the Internet Movie Database in the infobox? It's because it has all the info you need which doesn't fit to this website. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 in movies

I have tagged that article a lot, I invite you to join the article talk page and tell me what you think. Believe me, this is something you can discuss here as well, as this isn't only about the article, also the future of movies. Just read the talk page of that article, and tell me what you think. And tell if you can help, again it doesn't matter which talk page you choose, as both this one and the article's talk page I'm pointing at is relevant. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations on the page so far - it looks like a lot of time and care has gone into the content and design, and it is very informative. However, I'd like to just broach one concern, which really is less about that particular page and more about the entire series of [year] in film articles: they are tremendously biased towards American mainstream films. What do you think could be done to remedy this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blade Runner

Blade Runner has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs) 05:49, November 23, 2007

I've made some comments at the discussion page, and I've provided a pretty exhaustive list of resources at User:Erik/Blade Runner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films of the 21st century

FightTheDarkness (talk · contribs) is apparently blind in why this category should be deleted, and is unable to follow the rules of contesting the speedy deletion of this redundant category. Alientraveller (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a category redirect? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hairspray (2007 film) peer review

I just thought I would say that Hairspray (2007 film) is currently undergoing a peer review in hopes of further improving the article. Seeing as the film falls under the scope of this WikiProject, I thought I would post here to let any members of this WikiProject who might be able to help know that any contributions they could make would be more than welcome. Thanks! —Mears man (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article review request for Jar Jar Binks

Hi. Please see Talk:Jar Jar Binks#WikiProject_Films. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

Could someone take a look at Talk:Manon of the Spring (film). As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), the most common title should be used. In this case Manon des Sources is around three times more common than Manon of the Spring. IMDb uses Manon des Sources. It also makes sense to use the original French title as the first film, Jean de Florette, has a French title and no English equivalent. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AICN as a source?

What is the project's policy on using Ain't it Cool News as a source? Is it classed as reliable for works that have already been produced (i.e. AICN reports a rumour which turns out to be true)? Brad (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely not use Ain't It Cool News as a reliable source for rumors since it doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. While I personally think that the website should not be cited in articles whenever possible due to the obviously questionable appearance, the website does occasionally have interviews with filmmakers and cast members containing information not found elsewhere. So basically, AICN should be OK for primary sources where people involved with the film are upfront in articles such as interviews. However, for rumors, it shouldn't be used. If it becomes true later, then just use whatever reliable source redeemed it true, like the director in an interview or The New York Times. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Brad (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Category: Films by director

Hi everybody. I know that for albums, as per this, they are all categorized by artist, even if they've only released one album. What are the rules for the films by director category? Obviously the cat should only exist if the director has an article to begin with, but how many films does a director need before the category is created? Should all directors who have at least 1 film on WP have a category in Category:Films by director? Looking forward to hearing your views. Lugnuts (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. The problem with the matter is that usually all albums are created more or less in whole through the artist, while with films, the collaborative nature makes the question: who is the artist? We've been conditioned to generally perceive the director as the auteur of the form, but this is not necessarily so and is generally a more recent perception. I would say that this is an issue, though, which sorts itself out - if there is enough interest for someone to start grouping a director's films together, then it is valid. On the other hand, it perhaps isn't unreasonable to suggest that at least two or three articles should exist before creating a category. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and input. Any more comments from anyone? I was hoping to get some sort of consenus on this and adopt it as policy, along the lines of the albums guidelines. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitchcock films

I am slowly making my way through the articles on the various films Alfred Hitchcock directed and am finding them either completely unreferenced or incredibly under-referenced. These films are quite famous and most, if not all, are considered classics. It cannot possibly be difficult to find references. I am adding them as I work my way through two biographies in addition to using my good friend Google :) If anyone else would like to pitch in it would be much appreciated. IrishGuy ^talk 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Older films tend to have more underdeveloped articles unless they're highly billed. Hitchcock films are known because of Hitchcock (and unsurprisingly, there's a substantial article about him). If you need any references for a specific film, I'd be happy to provide some. Any specific requests, though? Obviously, there are quite a few films by him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been combing through the 1940's and 1950's films. I am up to To Catch a Thief. I haven't had a chance to get to anything after Thief nor have I delved into the films of the '20's and '30's. IrishGuy ^talk 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started to work through all the films, updating them with cast lists and adding in articles for actors, etc. Alot of good work in those earlier film articles though, compared to other films of that era. Lugnuts (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for identification

Ed g2s (talk · contribs) is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of film posters/DVD covers for standard identification of a film in an infobox, as well as our filmrationale template. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding this

On "Genres (top-level genres only; no subgenres)", what if the movie is a mix of two genres, and the funny/scary scenes are equal (Horror comedy in this case)?

Oh and before you ask, yes I am inactive. I just come here once a day, and make VERY minor edits. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your activity level is up to you and has no bearing either way - we don't require people to be on the member list and it confers no special privileges. As for the question - task forces generally are allowed to be liberal in their scope - the idea of a task force is to single out a particular group of articles for particular attention, so a film under several task forces has a better likelihood of receiving editorial attention. We have many articles which are part of several of the national task forces, due to international co-production, nationality of the filmmakers, and where they were filmed. There's no reason why a film couldn't belong to several genre task forces. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And WP:MILHIST certainly makes it clear that they think articles can fit within the scope of several task forces, so there is certainly precedent for doing so. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Category for Elvis films?

There is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley, which relates to all articles about Elvis. Would the members of this project have any reservations about creating a separate category for Elvis films for the various films in which Elvis appeared and/or which have been made about him? I would think that in the cases of most of the films he was himself in, the primary reason for their being notable is Elvis, and the same might be said about many of the "tribute" films later. Any response, positive or negative, would be appreciated. Thank you. Thank you verra much. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have reservations about the matter, only because it sets the precedent that it is okay for actors to have their own category for their films. One can imagine where it will lead. A template that could be placed on the bottom of the articles might be more appropriate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The category for John Wayne films was deleted a while back. It was considered to be over-categorization by actor. I'm pretty certain it would go straight to WP:CFD if it did get created. As Giro said, probably best to make a template and interlink all the films. Lugnuts (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked one film, and it's already included in the main Elvis template (with all the other films). Lugnuts (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to bring up a concern. I recently noticed Template:Arnold Schwarzenegger implemented at every film article in which Arnold has made an appearance. For example, this one. An actor template does not seem appropriate considering the degree of an actor's role in a film, not to mention that films have multiple actors. I just took out another example with Leonardo DiCaprio here. (Same for Shutter Island (film), which needs to be addressed per WP:NF. I swear, Scorsese keeps announcing a dozen projects.) I'd discourage actor templates... for film articles, I think that only director templates should be used since it's a consistently important role and usually in the hands of one (sometimes two). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think actor templates should be discouraged and would probably TfD any I came across. I'm kind of back and forth on director templates as well, though. I prefer a director category, myself, or just having a List of films by director X (if the list is too long for the director's article) rather than cluttering up the bottom of the article with a huge template (especially for those pyscho directors who don't seem to eat, sleep, or anything else from the amount of movies they have under thier belt :P). One could also argue that Director templates are NPOV and somewhat OR unless pains are made to include every last film the director has ever done (otherwise, its selective, and that wouldn't be good).

For the original question, I lean with Girolamo. Better not to set a precedent of actor's having their own categories. That's why their articles have (or should have) filmography sections. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationality of films

To reduce systemic bias, I've taken to adding "American" in the first sentence of the lead section for American films. For example, "The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero film based on the fictional DC Comics character Batman." I've used [[United States|American]], while I noticed Alientraveller use [[Cinema of the United States|American]] at Cloverfield. In addition, there's been some edits at The Lovely Bones (film) (page history) about how to identify the nationality of this film, which is produced in the United States and New Zealand. The issue was temporarily disambiguated to say "of the 2002 American novel". I've looked at WP:MOSFILM#Lead section, which unfortunately seems American-biased on the matter: "The very first paragraph should cover the ... country (if not the US)..." I am wondering what is the best way to determine the nationality of the film. It seems that The Lovely Bones is an American production -- while it is produced in New Zealand, it is not a "New Zealand film". Another example is Valkyrie (film), which is an American film produced in Germany. Thoughts on the matter, especially how to wiki-link "American" in the lead section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not define a film by its nationality unless it was made entirely in one nation. Films by Peter Jackson or Tim Burton are NZ/US or UK/US co-productions, respectively, but a film like Transformers was made entirely in the USA. I don't mean just shooting locations: where it was written, edited, scored, had its effects and sound completed and so on. Alientraveller (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the likes of LOTR or Harry Potter are UK or NZ-based productions, despite American funding. Although this does complicate the likes of Bond or Narnia, which shoot up and down the planet... Alientraveller (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should look at studios and their distribution as factors. Some films will be produced in other countries because it's cheaper, but there is still a certain national studio backing it. Some American films will be mostly/entirely produced in Canada or Eastern Europe because it's cheaper, but they're still for the American film market. Perhaps we should outline the distinctions to find, though we'll need to inject some ambiguity due to complicated factors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, shooting films in other countries has always been an economic or artistic practise, but there is a difference between a film's shooting locations and it being produced between different countries. Again, I cite Peter Jackson, who has the support of American money for films he writes, shoots, edits and supervises visual and sound effects in New Zealand. If we got too specific, it'd be indiscriminate, because likewise the Bond films base production in Britain but shoot in exotic locales. Alientraveller (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So how would one address a film that's equally shot all over the world on American coin? We need to determine some kind of threshold. For Lord of the Rings, the films strike me as American-produced, no matter where actual production took place. The talk about filming The Hobbit is taking place in the United States -- there's no New Zealand ownership in determining its making. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We're actually flogging a dead horse: [9] Alientraveller (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Web-Only Series

Are Web series, Webisodes, and the like considered to be a part of this project? --Is this fact...? 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's internet television, then it would be part of the Television Project.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR and movie plots

You may be interested to share your views at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Fiction_in_Wikipedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

A note to the members of the project. Today The Tramp moved Fantasia (film) to Fantasia (film) without giving any reason or with any discussion on the films talk page or here at the project page. While I don't know this for sure I think that this editor does not realize the full implications of this move and they, more than likely, did not fix any double redirects - or single ones for that matter. I am alerting the project in case those of you who know how want to move it back. However, if you are okay with this move than so am I but you may want to keep an eye on this editor in case they start moving things in a wholesale fashion. MarnetteD | Talk 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I left him a note as well, for what it's worth. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes this does seem to be a rather problematic editor. MarnetteD | Talk 00

46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award records

An editor has requested that this receive attention from the community with an eye towards fixing rather than deleting. At the moment, it's a collection of unsourced trivia that could easily be construed as original research. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Hey, I'm trying to improve Behold a Pale Horse (film), but have kinda hit a wall on sources. Does anyone know a way to find stuff from the mid-60s (critique, analysis, etc.) that would be helpful? I'd love to get this article up above Start status, but can't really do much more without finding some more sources. Murderbike 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you'll struggle for online sources, but sometimes the Google News archive throws up a few good articles from the period. Though many require payment (I've excluded the non-free ones from that search; the option to include all articles is under Advanced archive search beside the searchbox). For anything else, it might be necessary to do some unfortunate leg work and check a main library. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kind of thinking of print sources I could find at the library. Maybe collections of Variety or something? Murderbike (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of possible resources that you could check out. If you go to the library, you can try to see about searching news headlines via their databases and write down information (and the citation) from them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's great. Thanks a lot! Murderbike (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)